The BBC repeatedly named Nafissatou Diallo, the alleged rape victim of Dominique Strauss Kahn, while the criminal investigation into the alleged rape was still in progress. Yet they have a policy that Anna Ardin, the accuser of Julian Assange, must not be named – or investigated.
Why the contradiction?
Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin had both gone public and given statements to the media in support of their allegations.
From the New York Times, 25 August 2010:
Anna Ardin, 31, has told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that the complaints were “not orchestrated by the Pentagon” but prompted by “a man who has a twisted attitude toward women and a problem taking no for an answer.”
There was no legal barrier to my mentioniong Anna Ardin last night; the case is no longer sub judice in the UK and there is no expectation of any legal proceedings here. Those are precisely the grounds on which the BBC mentioned Diallo very often. I did not see Oliver Kamm, Charles Crawford, Harry Cole, Charles Murray or any of the other far right commenters trolling about my “disgrace” last night, make a single protest at the naming of Diallo on scores of occasions by the BBC. Why their sudden new-found concern in the case of Assange?
Why the difference? Why is Ardin protected from scrutiny in the entire British mainstream media when Diallo was not, in precisely the same legal circumstances? Has Ardin been D-noticed in the UK when she is reported widely everywhere else in the world?
Anybody who still believes that the Assange allegations are a genuine criminal proceeding following due process, should think very hard indeed.
Do not be confused into thinking there are proper “jury trials” in Sweden. People are not selected from your peers to be your jury. Jurors are elected politicians who wish to do their chosen party’s bidding and much of this type of thing is kept secret. What price a fair trial under those circumstances? And the Committee for the Prevention of Torture has made clear that the system in Sweden is unsatisfactory in barring communication of those held. What better a place to have him banged up and bundled off in secret. And yet supposed supporters of freedom think this is a good idea dn that Sweden has a fair justice system. Someone needs to do a tv programme about that, not attacking Craig Murray for telling the truth and highlighting the pompous absurdity of the BBC.
CE,
“So the entire Swedish Justice System is proven as unreliable and untrustworthy, purely for having the cheek to investigate claims of rape against JA?
You’re tying yourself in knots here, merely to defend to the indefensible.
“I have always stood for justice and freedom.” (Except in Sweden)
No CE,nobody’s tying themselves in knots.It’s your points that are generalised around a singular selective axis.Nobody is arguing the whole Swedish system is unreliable at all.It’s simply because of the unusual dimensions of this specific case that there are genuine fears that all is not as it seems in this ONE case.When you look at all the curious aspects there are certainly valid reasons for questioning the efficacy of matters at the Swedish end of this.
What part of this do you not understand?
Wow you guys are blinkered.
1. Assange is more likely to be extradited from the UK than from Sweden. In Sweden the US would need to prove the merits of an extradition warrant through both the UK and Swedish system.
2. Jives to suggest that the Sweden is subject to US pressure is a grose insult to the Swedish justice system.
The incident should be viewed in isolation. Justice is blind and it should be irrelevant whether a person is a hero of the left or the right or has a past as a mass murderer or a member of the beatles. It’s all totally irrelevant.
If your mother or sister made an allegation of rape to a western police service, I think you’d be pretty outraged if a tinpot South American country intervened to pervert the course of justice.
CE, have you actually read any of the timelines that describe the very odd progression of the Swedish case against Assange? When you have done so, tell me this: would you trust a legal system that regularly proceeded like that?
Jives, the Swedish system has repeatedly been criticised by human rights bodies for its failures and for denying rights to those it holds, sometimes indefinitely. If you look at Swedish commentaries and those in the country who know they system, you will see that they are saying that Sweden will simply hold him without trial indefinitely and deny him access to the outside world. Great eh? Or is that what those who defend freedom want? Or do you disagree with the Council of Europe’s repeated attacks on the Swedish “justice system”? Sweden is an ideal country to try and bury an inconvenient person in the system.
JW, the issue isn’t which country is more likely to extradite to the US, it is that Assange couldn’t have protected himself via political asylum had he been incarcerated.
lol…
I hope you remembered to delete your blog’s handy guide to revenge against people who screw your girlfriend, Nick.
This one, put up on the 30th Sept, but since deleted (and cache deleted) from both of Ardin’s blogs.
Step 1
Think long and hard about over whether you really need revenge. It is almost always better to forgive than to repay.
Step 2
You should know not only who you want revenge against, but exactly why you want revenge against him. Revenge should not just be taken against a person, it should be taken against an action.
Step 3
The principle of proportionality. Revenge should match the crime not only in magnitude but in type. Good revenge is connected to what was done to you. If you for example want to avenge someone who’s been unfaithful or dumped you, the punishment [sic] should have something to do with dating / sex / fidelity.
Step 4
Brainstorm punishments that fit the category of your required revenge. To continue the example, you could break up your victim’s current relationship, or make sure his new girlfriend cheats on him, or put a damper on his sex life, or set him up with a bad partner.
Step 5
Figure out how you can revenge systematically. Maybe a series of letters and photos leading his new girlfriend to believe you’re still together is better than a big lie once in a while?
Step 6
Rank your schemes low to high in terms of probability of success, effort on your part, and satisfaction if achieved. The ideal scheme should rate highly in all three rankings but a greater effort and more capital can secure output for the other two actually more important parameters.
Step 7
Put your plan into action. And remember to keep your goal as you operate, and make sure your victim suffers in the same way he made you suffer.
JW,
“2. Jives to suggest that the Sweden is subject to US pressure is a grose insult to the Swedish justice system.”
Really JW? They’ve certainly got previous…
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
Will K,
This statement, “with the usual tedious moral supremacist guff about the crimes of USA” broadcasts to me the limited range and emotional vacuum of your mental sphere.
I have written three times to President Omama suggesting an apology to Iraqis for decimating their lives with butchery, extermination and genocide considering the war was illegal based on lies. To some people, I agree, this catastrophe is a mere afterglow along the vein of time. So be it.
Yet the crimes of the USA remain unsolved murders, cold cases in cardboard boxes deep below the Pentagon. Atonement is in obeyance, lessons are still to be learned. That is why the atrocities continue even today as we read and struggle to comprehend how the US adopts Al-Qaeda’s tactic of secondary attacks for drone strikes, follow-up up physical assaults specifically targeting people coming to the aid of the wounded:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan
Buy hey! al-Qaeda is America is it not?
This is for CE, addressing most of his comments, from this column in NYT, by Michael Moore and Oliver Stone (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/wikileaks-and-the-global-future-of-free-speech.html?_r=2)
“All such allegations must be thoroughly investigated before Mr. Assange moves to a country that might put him beyond the reach of the Swedish justice system. But it is the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of an investigation, not Mr. Assange.
Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear his willingness to be questioned in London. Moreover, the Ecuadorean government made a direct offer to Sweden to allow Mr. Assange to be interviewed within Ecuador’s embassy. In both instances, Sweden refused.
Mr. Assange has also committed to traveling to Sweden immediately if the Swedish government pledges that it will not extradite him to the United States. Swedish officials have shown no interest in exploring this proposal, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt recently told a legal adviser to Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks unequivocally that Sweden would not make such a pledge.
The British government would also have the right under the relevant treaty to prevent Mr. Assange’s extradition to the United States from Sweden, and has also refused to pledge that it would use this power. Ecuador’s attempts to facilitate that arrangement with both governments were rejected.
Taken together, the British and Swedish governments’ actions suggest to us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden. Because of treaty and other considerations, he probably could be more easily extradited from there to the United States to face charges.”
Is that clear enough?
Well that didn’t take long.
We might be losing an arguement! IRAQ, IRAQ, IRAQ!
Congratulations a finer example of whatabouttery you are unlikely to find.
*checks preceding posts*
Nope, nothing about Iraq. Quite a lot about CE’s “points”, though. Am I reading the wrong blog?
Sweden cannot and will not pledge to reject an imaginary extradition application.
I imagine JA knows this full well, but it provides another opportunity for empty vacuous grandstanding.
CE: “Sweden: If Assange faces death row in US we won’t extradite him”
http://rt.com/news/sweden-us-assange-extradition-209/
Will K
21 Aug, 2012 – 1:53 pm
Komodo –
An “argument” which applies with absolutely equal force to Assange, of course. But no-one’s attacking him at all, are they? Pardon?
No it doesn’t apply with equal force at all.
A)Assange promoted his own name and was a public figure prior to publishing thousands of classified US documents.
B)He published thousands of stolen and classified US government documents, with no guiding motivation other than disclosure for the sake of it. This is CLEARLY NOT EQUIVALENT to making a claim to being a victim of rape.
You haven’t been listening Will K, NOBODY HAS CLAIMED TO BE A VICTIM OF RAPE, duly ignored by the BBC, Guardian and yourself. Three friends,. one of them the investigating officer, talked and two of them decided that they did not like his personal hygiene and alleged sexual molestation.
Anna Ardin’s behaviour was outright criminal as she distorted her own case by deleting tweets and emails.
Have you, will K, got a record of the telephone conversations between the two women and the prosecutor?
To your point B, you make it sound as if these papers were intrinsically important notes not many were privy to, once again spreading a fallacy, some 2 million had access to the same information, including some very unsavoury characters who were implemented in the Fallujah massacre and more.
To remind you, this was the straw that broke the US torturers back, imho enough reason for Bradley Manning to act as he allegedly has, a moral duty to humanity, a word you obviously attach no value to.
Baiting us here with misinformation and deluded claims that Assange would be safe to go to Sweden, in face of the facts, Rove’s mission, Obama’s personal obsession with ‘being found out’ given the facts and past record of the Swedish Government, is entertaining, but futile.
A very good comparison Craig and the BBC should answer it. But stating their lack of co-hones does not come easy, it is almost impossible, so I will try to answer your why?
Because some within the BBC are inherently RACIST,
and their close relationship with the MI’s makes for poor decision making. I say it again. The BBC should be broken up! they are not fit for purpose, just as this Government, especially the Lib Dems.
I feel that the comments by the anti-Assange/Murray crowd are actually trivialising that extremely nasty offense against a person known as rape.
.
Rape is an extremely frightening, humiliating and traumatising experience which can mark a victim for the rest of their lives. It is in effect being implied that a rape victim might:-
.
A) Afterwards tweet about how ‘cool’ the rapist is.
‘
B) Arrange a party in honour of the rapist.
.
C) Willingly spend another night alone under the same roof as the rapist.
.
A genuine rape victim would surely not even contemplate any of the above actions. In my view the comments previously alluded to are deeply offensive and insulting to people of either sex who have been rape victims, and those responsible for such thoughtless comments should apologise immediately.
When you face extradition, you do not get to negotiate the terms that you will go to the country which has been through the British court system to extradite you.
Furthermore, Assange is in breach of his bail conditions and therefore should be arrested in the UK.
Jives, you’ve quoted HRW, have you read what HRW states about your new hero Ecuador? “Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years.”
The rub of the nub, just to remind us. Two Reuters Journalist and two children gunned down in cold blood, intentionally.
This is how the US conducts itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
You did well Craig.
Gavin Esler looked like he was about to have kittens.
JW,
“Jives, you’ve quoted HRW, have you read what HRW states about your new hero Ecuador? “Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years.”
Where did i mention Ecuador at all JW? Or that i found the place heroic?
JW, yes, Assange is now in breach of his bail conditions, but he didn’t breach his bail until he was faced with losing his physical freedom, and with it, the chance for political asylum (from the US) by presenting himself at a country or an embassy.
Padraig, thanks for the link that’s what they would say, their profuse explanations do not exclude him being put in jail for life, for speaking the truth, for showing up two faced politicians, generals and warmongering murderers.
Clark, Jives, Galloway, Murray, Assange you are all intellectually and morally bankrupt.
This is not about the US this is about rape.
For anyone to say taht due process should not be followed in a rape case in a western, democratic and free nation is beyond contempt.
In a minute you’ll start arguing that it couldn’t possibly be rape unless there were four male witnesses present.
The inconsistency and hypocracy of the left knows no bounds.
CE, our arguments here are based on factual past behaviour of this allegedly law abiding country, please do let us know what wishful base underlies your assumptions.
Err, Will K… The fact that Assange is a self-publicist doesn’t alter the argument at all. Any possibility of a fair trial has been prejudiced by the publication of his name in the context of the allegations. Just as it has for the complainants. Ardin is and was quite well known in her own circle, and is not shy of promoting herself either.
In any case the genie has been out of the bottle for two years; do we take it that you are in favour of the rest of the world knowing the accusers’ identities while in the UK alone (and notionally in Sweden) it is suppressed? Whatever happened to press freedom?
Who is saying that due process should not be followed? I’m not – with the reservation that it probably can’t be followed with any prospect of justice being done, having been irrevocably prejudiced by subsequent events.
One more time. It is within Hague’s remit to block Assange’s re-export from Sweden. It is within Ny’s remit to question Assange outside Sweden. Neither option has been adopted. If due process were a priority, at least one of them should have been.
Well done Craig- this ‘compare & contrast’ post re Ardin/Diallo has certainly rattled a few cages.
Never seen ‘WillK’ ‘JW’ or ‘CE’ here before, having a pop.
As for ’empty vacuous grandstanding’ well the cap certainly fits re the ‘twitterstorm’ induced in the last 16 hours by Craig’s appearance on Newsnight.
Is there anything more satisfying to behold than the collective hyperventilating of the Decent Left/NeoCon alliance ?
JW,
“Clark, Jives, Galloway, Murray, Assange you are all intellectually and morally bankrupt.
This is not about the US this is about rape.”
Well those are rather childishly generalised claims aren’t they JW?But they do have a idiosyncratic shrill tenor that’s strangely familiar to me and probably others on this board.
No matter though.
The sense remains,JW,you are unable to see the deeply connected nuances and complexities of this case and are employing blinkers to,i sense,avoid engaging in the broader issues at stake here.
@JW:
We’re a broad bunch here, as it happens. Craig insists on being called liberal, rather than left, and we have some moderate right-wingers here, who are alienated by the neoconservative consensus amongst the British political elite.
I agree, but you’ve not done that. You’ve taken your dislike of Wikileaks and used it to reverse-engineer a view on extradition that should have been made separately.
I agree again. Which is why opponents of Wikileaks should be rallying around Assange. I mean, if it were Blair, or Aaronovitch, or some other right-wing figure, then surely you’d be insisting on due process and justice? You need to do that here too.
Oliver Kamm is a complete scum and a vicious one to boot. I have personal experience of his nastiness. He is your classic pro-Israeli hack/arm-chair warrior. God how I wish I could get that man (plus all his neo-can pals) into uniform and send him to the front-line in Afghanistan to taste some of his own cooking. It’s to the eternal disgrace of that once proud newspaper The Times that this twerp has any input into its editorials.
Please Craig, don’t give that smug little loser any publicity. Let him rot in his dank, putrid coffin.