A number of mainstream media attacks on me today. Astonishingly, not a single one admits that Anna Ardin gave media interviews accusing Assange and put her own name in the public domain. Despite the fact I spent most of yesterday being interviewed by journalists and repeating that point over and over again.
Anna Ardin herself went to the media, under her own name, as long as two years ago to publicise her allegations against Assange. 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.”
So Ardin went very very public herself. 190,000 internet articles – a great many from major mainstream media – and 10 million mentions on twitter and two years later, I use her name on Newsnight and am attacked for “revealing it”.
Fortunately the public recognise a fake campaign of indignation when they see one. Where the mainstream media have online comment threads, they are overwhelmingly supportive of me. Even in the Daily Mail! They have a voting system on their comments and the results are very interesting.
The Headline of that piece is “Former Ambassador Sparks Anger”. It would better have been “Former Ambassador Sparks Overwhelming Agreement from our Readers”.
The Telegraph makes a claim that I was censured by the Swedish Prosecutor’s office, out of a statement in which they did not mention me at all. They rather make the perfectly reasonable point that they would prefer people, in general, not to name victims of crime. The Telegraph failed to ask the Swedish prosecutor what they thought of Anna Ardin having already named herself all over the Swedish media. They also failed to ask them why the Swedish Prosecutor’s office themselves two years ago leaked the allegations against Julian Assange to the Swedish media, and thus the world.
You may be surprised to know that I regard the Telegraph in general as one of the few places real journalism can still be found. I am therefore genuinely disappointed and surprised that they do not mention the key fact that Anna Ardin revealed herself in statements to the Swedish media, a point which I explained to their journalist repeatedly yesterday afternoon. They also say that I “alleged” that the BBC repeatedly named Ms Diallo, the accuser in the DSK rape case, while the case was still ongoing, as though there could be any doubt about the truth of the matter.
A couple of pieces from the blogosphere. My favourite piece is this very considered one from James Kelly, which makes some very valuable points.
But the all-time prize goes to Carl Gardner, former junior government lawyer and now the go to right wing “legal expert” brought out by the BBC and the Guardian. In his blog “Head of Legal” (Gardner has never been head of anything), Gardner argues that what I said was not illegal, but that we need a new law to stop me saying it!
Yes! Absolutely! What this country lacks is enough laws to stop people bloody well saying things! I feel Mr Gardner is going with the zeitgeist here.
Three points:
.
1. The women have made serious allegations. They deserve their case to be tried properly in court, not on fora like this.
.
2. I thought Craig spoke very well in the Newsnight interview, and made some great measured points up to and NOT including the naming of one of the women.
.
Whether she has been named elsewhere or not is irrelevant, it should have not happened at all, and imo it immediately detracted from the valuable points Craig brought to Newsnight and slaughtered his own efforts to raise awareness to the wider possibilities.
.
Craig, you had a fantastic opportunity to disseminate some very important ideas to a wide audience. Why on earth did you derail yourself? It was an act of self-sabotage that is a matter for regret. Blaming the BBC, leftist feminists, Gavid Esler etc etc is simply ridiculous. Blame yourself, Craig, for a moment’s lack of judgement, get over it and move on, returning to the main and much more important points that you should be making, imho.
.
3. Assange acted boldly and imaginatively in creating Wikileaks. This does not place him above the law.
.
I await the usual flak for daring to express an opinion here. Let me anticipate a few points:
No, I am not a Zionist, I am not a troll, I am not a particularly lefty feminist, I post in my own name, I am interested in Craig because I followed his campaign in my own area of Norwich and saw him speak at Norwich City Hall with interest and respect.
From today’s version:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html
In May, Senator Carr told a Senate estimates committee hearing: “We have no advice that the US has an intention to extradite Mr Assange … nothing we have been told suggests that the US has such an intention.”
However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”.
The embassy noted media reports that a US federal grand jury had been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to pursue the WikiLeaks case and that US government officials “cannot lawfully confirm to us the existence of the grand jury”.
Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.
Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.
The cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high-level US advice on “the direction and likely outcome of the investigation” and “reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange”.
The question of advance warning of any prosecution or extradition moves was previously raised by Australian diplomats in December 2010.
American responses to the embassy’s representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could “cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth”.
Large sections of the cables have been redacted on national security grounds, including parts of reports on the open, pre-court martial proceedings of US Army Private Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked a vast quantity of classified information to WikiLeaks. Australian embassy representatives have attended all of Private Manning’s pre-trial hearings.
Australian diplomats have highlighted the prosecution’s reference to “several connections between Manning and WikiLeaks which would form the basis of a conspiracy charge” and evidence that the investigation has targeted the “founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks” for espionage.
Let’s hear it again for nostalgia’s sake: on three…one..two..three:
“Julian Assange is being paranoid when he claims he will be extradited to the US. He should surrender immediately and face the music in Sweden, where he will be in no danger at all.”
@ N_….So it could be Canada, eh? Unless it’s Antarctica after all. Or maybe Liberia – I forgot Africa.
Renewed LOL.
Barbara,
Perfectly valid points, but have you seen the new revelations about Arden’s relationship with the police interrogator?
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/expressen-avslojar/interrogator-in-the-assange-case-friend-with-woman-accusing-wikileaks-founder/
A little late in the day I know, but the Guardian’s Seumas Milne, has a rather rational piece today:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/why-us-is-out-to-get-assange
Could the tide may actually be ebbing?
Arch feminist and ex lefty DAME Jenny Murray today admitted that the law in England is that a rape victim (I expect she means alleged rape victim too) cannot be named unless she wants to be named.
By indulging in self publicity albeit in another state within the union, Ardin has surely given permission for her name to be public.
In the days of internet, what is public information in one country is public information across the world.
It’s a sign that they lost the argument that they are using this crap against you.
Craig, I have long admired you and the stance you took that cost you your job. I had also, until the other night, admired much of the work of Joan Smith. Speaking personally I dislike intensely (although I know neither of them personally) both Julian Assange and George Galloway. But I think the way Esler and Smith ganged up on you on Newsnight the other night was quite wrong (even if you could have made your excellent point without naming names).
In particular Esler was wrong to interrupt you as you were giving examples of what had happened to four whistleblowers in the past — you do, after all, speak with vast authority on this particular subject.
I’m a supporter of Bradley Manning, whose maltreatment in America has been not only wicked but stupid, and I supported Wikileaks and approved of the work done by the Guardian and other papers in bringing much of the stuff into the public domain. (Yes, the Guardian in a panic over its future has gone rightwards and rather downhill, but that’s another subject).
But I still think Assange should face the charges. From what I hear, the Swedish legal system can be trusted. But more than that, is the USA’s legal system so corrupt that he and his lawyers could not, no matter how castiron their case, argue for Assange’s (and the NYT’s) freedom to publish information in the public interest?
Assange could be a real hero and make a stand for freedom of expression, for honesty in international relations, for a real change in the way things are done on this sorely threatened planet. The Americans have not asked for his extradition (come to think of it, why not?) but suppose Assange voluntarily went to America. Then the world could see if there really is, as alleged, a secret and sealed indictment waiting for him.
It’s a huge thing to ask of him, but isn’t that what heroic self-sacrifice is about? Regardless of the outcome of any trial, he will not have lost in terms of the higher meaning of his cause (which is the cause of truth, justice, freedom).
@Barbara – just because someone has made serious allegations, you think that means the person they’re accusing must necessarily stand trial in court?
If that were true, then major war criminals such as George Bush and Tony Blair had better watch out.
What if a whistleblower is the target of state dirty tricks? Do you think those tricks should be exposed or not? Or should we all play along as though the accusations are genuine?
Anna Ardin is CIA.
http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php?topic=12105.0
The law firm representing Anna Ardin (who also represent Sofia Wilen, the other fake complainant, who tried to leave the police station when she realised what Ardin had got her into, but still hasn’t withdrawn her fake allegation) is spooked up to the nines. One of its two leading lights, Thomas Bodström, a former ‘justice’ minister, helped the CIA kidnap two Egyptians in Sweden and take them to Egypt to be tortured.
Whether Anna Ardin has been named elsewhere is not irrelevant. She has spoken at length to Swedish media under her real name, for goodness sake. Even if she was a genuine complainant, she would not have the right to have her name kept out of the British newspapers after that. The BBC’s outrage against Craig for mentioning her globally-known name is therefore utterly fictitious. I don’t see how you can believe otherwise.
The BBC and the mainstream media are full of indignation that Craig has named one of the alleged victims, yet they had no ethical problem in naming Assange as the accused despite the fact that Swedish law guarantees anonymity to the accused as well.
By their own standards after Expressen leaked Assanges name they should have avoided repeating the leak.
Barbara
Let your readers decide for themselves how they are going to respond to your remarks, otherwise they will feel that they are being manipulated.
A disturbing but little remarked-upon aspect of this affair is the large role prospectively played by the sinister extradition arrangements in the EU that permit someone to be sent to stand trial in another country for something which is not an offence in their own.
Barbara,
Apologies in advance if you do get a barrage of angry posts here; there are a couple of contributors whose approach is abrasive to say the least. I don’t think that’s helpful, but we try to let everyone say what they want here.
Here’s a thought that’s been bugging me, and it’s asked genuinely. In your second point, you say that even if the woman has been named elsewhere, she should not be named again. On the basis that we’re all agreed that she has been named, literally, hundreds of thousands of times, an extra mention in itself won’t make a difference to the case itself. But let us say the person in this case wanted anonymity, that she had not gone to the media publicly, and that her claim of sexual impropriety is genuine.
I know this is probably speculative, but in the general case of a very public alleged rape victim, would it matter to him/her personally if people were still using their name? I can imagine there would be a sense of intrusion attached to it, since it is a very personal and sensitive subject, and that it would be a kindness for the media and pundits to say “Ms A”, or “Mr B” etc.
Now, let’s bring back into my theoretical example the well-established fact that Ms A did go to the media under her own name. On that basis, in her particular case, do you think she should still be treated as semi-anonymous? Can we assume she still wants anonymity?
Perhaps the BBC indignation is real? Chomsky always says that the most indoctrinated – the ones with most personal stake in the status-quo – tend to be the same ones who shriek the loudest when challenged. Perhaps this is somehow an issue that they genuinely think is important? It isn’t, and frankly the abuse Craig has received has been laughable, but we don’t need to doubt their sincerity. Well, not all of them: Oliver Kamm, well, I leave it to the reader to judge …
Personally, I no longer watch the BBC, and very rarely venture onto the website. It’s just the Islington Times, with a few Northern types allowed in to spice up the product. It just doesn’t interest me, and given the long, and documented, history of spook infiltration at all management levels of the BBC – Spycatcher is interesting on this subject – nor should it. Assange made some comment that we’d almost be better off without the MSM; I’m not sure I’d quite agree, but I see where he comes from, certainly.
Anyhow, there are positives. I hope more people will see exactly how biased these delightful media types are. They’ve rather outed themselves, I think.
@ Ironical. Seumas Milne is usually rational and unideological, very much his own man. Delighted to see him addressing the real issues realistically today. Journalism is not quite dead.
@ Brendan – I don’t dispute that there is big-time indoctrination in these people’s careers, which I think will have reached the point that they are psychologically incapable of giving much weight to the notion of ‘truth’. People’s personalities are the result of the choices they make throughout their lives. But editorially a show like that, about an active and very political legal case, will have been well lawyered-up beforehand, and I don’t believe for one moment that the “Hey Craig, you’ve just mentioned her name! Don’t do that!!” line was just something that came into the interviewer’s head on the spur of the moment. Also whichever way you look at it, MI6 will have been directly involved. Craig criticised MI6 outside the embassy a few hours before. Trust me – they’ll have noticed.
Brian,
I have said before that, were I Julian Assange, even conscious I were being fitted up, I would still go to Sweden and face down the charges and possible consequences. I would publish the full court proceedings myself to get round the complete secrecy of Swedish courts. I would also face up to extradition and the US system as it comes, fighting all the way.
BUT I AM NOT Julian Assange and, I being satisfied that he is being set up, it is his decision to make and I respect it. I will do what I can to help him.
Whether I like him or not is irrelevant. He seems a nice enough bloke, but I have spent not that much time with him. Liking him or not has nothing to do with my judgement.
Brendan, good points.
Milne’s article in The Guardian is spot on. And, in particular, this point: The danger, of course, is that the murk around this case plays into a misogynist culture in which rape victims aren’t believed.
It is a tragedy (but one of deliberate construction) of this entire episode that the same reactionary powers that are attempting to crush free speech and accountability of government to the citizenry are also giving succour to those trying desperately to re-establish male privilege and undo what advances women have made in the past decades. One sees this confluence in the article from Sweden’s Expressen, linking the interrogator to one of the plaintiffs; all the points that need be made could have been made without the accompanying misogyny and homophobia, but weren’t, because Expressen, a right-wing rag run by Sweden’s equivalent of Rupert Murdoch, is using the Assange case only to push its anti-feminist agenda.
It’s absolutely critical to separate the issue of Assange’s whistle-blowing and the operation (for that is what it is) against him from the opportunistic baying of the ‘men’s rights’ troglodytes.
Dr Robinson, I’m not sure that the Swedish legal system is a particularly good one if one considers Helena Kennedy’s offering on the matter as long ago as 14.4.12 in the New Statesman. I appreciate she’s one of Assange’s legal team (it seems)(and as a lawyer can always be trusted to tell the truth) but she says that this ‘trial’ will be held in camera, as all sex crime trials in Sweden are. I wonder if Mr Assange will be able to report on what went on in the trial if a) he gets there and b)is allowed free speech afterwards.
Interesting comment on Milne’s piece (which at the end calls for Sweden and the UK to guarantee that Assange will not be extradited to the US):
“You haven’t placed a link to “Women Against Rape” letter:
Letters, Guardian 9 December 2010
Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape allegations………………
There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women’s safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don’t take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst.
Katrin Axelsson
Women Against Rape
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/inthemedia/women-question-unusual-zeal-pursuing-julian-assang
There are a couple of points in this affair that are consistently misrepresented/misunderstood:
1. Anna Ardin has NOT alleged rape, so there is no question of naming a potential rape victim here. It is the other woman whose complaint was interpreted by the police interrogator – you know, Anna’s friend – as the least serious of Sweden’s 3 categories of rape. There are serious questions surrounding whether or not the other woman would be prepared to proceed with a rape allegation in that she has said she felt she had been railroaded into it when she was simply enquiring (or Anna’s police friend) whether Assange could be made to submit to an HIV test.
2. Swedish extradition law contains a provision for ‘administrative extradition’ which can be applied to a person already in custody in Sweden and whom another country wishes to prosecute for unrelated offenses. The provision by-passes the Swedish courts. The intention is that the extraditee be returned to Sweden when the other country has exhausted its own legal proceedings. It is that provision that disuaded Assange from returning to Sweden. IOW, in the pre-asylum phase of the affair, it would have been a purly administrative matter for Sweden to send Assange to the US whereas the process in the UK could have taken 10 years (witness Babar Amad and others).
Stick with it Craig. You’re doing sterling work.
The hypocritical British judiciary is happy to extradite Julian Assange on trumped-up sexual charges. Where were they when Margaret Thatcher was offering sanctuary to the nasty General Pinochet when Spain wanted her to extradite him? The right-wing dictator had helped the old dragon with her unnecessary war in the Falklands and she would protect him at all cost. Pinochet’s government had a shocking record of torture and abuse and even trained dogs to rape women in custody. But where was the judiciary then?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/2/7/torture-under-pinochet-we-were-peeling/
“UK media lines up behind campaign to extradite Assange and silence WikiLeaks”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/assa-a22.shtml
“Gardner argues that what I said was not illegal, but that we need a new law to stop me saying it!
If the thought of a man’s innocence does not please them, then they are misandrists; and if the discovery of a man’s innocence offends them, then they are enemies of all innocent men, and so divorced from the human race.
Three hundred and seventy years ago, the English had a similar fundamental schism.
I have said before that, were I Julian Assange, even conscious I were being fitted up, I would still go to Sweden and face down the charges and possible consequences. I would publish the full court proceedings myself to get round the complete secrecy of Swedish courts. I would also face up to extradition and the US system as it comes, fighting all the way.
The court hearing (in camera) would not last five minutes. It’s not even intended to succeed. It was intended to get you into custody and destroy your reputation. By the time you left it, unconvicted, the extradition process, unvetoed by Hague, would have culminated in two or more men in sharp suits and shades waiting for you on the doorstep. Next stop, the US. Fighting all the way? Better practise your martial arts with a morphine suppository up you, then…and get used to orange menswear too.
Sorry, but is that so unrealistic?
Hypothesis: Sweden is preferable to the UK for a sting resulting in the destruction of a man’s reputation because in Sweden you can damn near get arrested for sexual molestation for failing to zip up after taking a leak.
Hypothesis: If you can firmly attach the word “rape” to the word “Assange” in the public consciousness, no-one’s going to give a damn what happens to Assange subsequently.
Hypothesis: Sweden was preferable on the basis of opportunity: Assange could be played like a violin by the Social Democrats and their cute ex-Embassy (Swedish, Buenos Aires) chick whom the septics had had on a long lead for some time (since Cuba) pending possible utilisation.
Komodo
No, it’s not unrealistic. But it’s not the worst thing that can happen to your cause. A great deal of the establishment public opinion which has so succesfully been turned on Assange, would have gone the other way if he had been cleared of sex crime but bundled off in an orange jumpsuit. There are different ways of fighting. Julian’s tactics are not the way I would have gone. But it his his life (literally) in play, so I respect his right to go the way he has gone, and I will help him.
After two days of reading comments defending a man such as Assange over sex allegations I have had quite enough. If he has nothing to fear as he is innocent he should answer the charges laid before him in a Swedish courtroom. Cowering in the Ecudorian Embassy is pathetic. To suggest otherwise and to conjure an image of brave lion who has been cornered is simply ludicrous. Furthermore, if Assange is such a champion for free speech ( which he is not – Wikileaks was a dangerous can of worms to open, he has cost lives and damaged reputations to a far greater degree than any good he did)should he not be willing to go to the US and stand trial? In the full view of the global media he would have a platform to reach out and speak his version of the truth. Before the inevitable cry of ‘poor Julian will be thrown in a hole and will never see daylight again’ let me say that will not happen. The US will only seek to extradite him if they have a case which will stand up to legal scrutiny, proper scrutiny not what passes for such on this blog, as the US will want to embarass him and show that he is a dangerous self-serving cretin.
IKS
Please detail a life which Wikileaks has cost.
A Marxist-Feminist wrote:
“After two days of reading comments defending a man such as Assange over sex allegations I have had quite enough.”
And I have had enough of your evil… let’s have a war.