I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.
The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.
There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:
Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?
On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.
13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.
14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”
15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.
16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.
20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.
Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.
No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:
Either
Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.
Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.
Or
Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.
She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.
At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”
At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.
The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.
Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.
Conclusion
I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.
Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.
Jemand,
Therefore, questioning the accused AFTER charging makes no sense unless the accused wishes to either confess or do a deal
Are you talking about England or Sweden?
Arbed/anyone:
Jemand says: “For example, he has written of the Swedish practice of charging and then further questioning of the accused. Anyone who is familiar with even basic jurisprudence knows that charging, or indicting, is a transition from investigation to a commitment to prosecute. There is no vague middle ground in which the police investigate further to ascertain whether an offence has been committed. Any further investigation is purely to improve the prospects of a successful prosecution. Therefore, questioning the accused AFTER charging makes no sense unless the accused wishes to either confess or do a deal.”
Is this true? Are charging and indictment perfectly synonymous? Or is an indictment a “formal” charge?
Goran, i read your last post and tried to leave a reply. Couldn’t! Something to do with your captcha?
Am still catching up with above conversation.
But there’s something strange about the term ‘preliminary’ investigation, when there is no ‘final’ investigation. So it doesn’t sound preliminary at all, just one continuum of an investigation. Am i right?
@Goran – “Are you talking about England or Sweden?”
I’m talking about jurisprudence and your translation of concepts. What you claim to be Swedish charges make no sense when one considers normal and proper judicial processes, at least for those of us living in Commonwealth jurisdictions. Let me ask you this simple question – Has the Swedish prosecutor FORMALLY COMMITTED to prosecution? Don’t give me any bullshit mumbo jumbo or Swedish humour. Kindly answer the fucking question with YES or NO… Pretty please, with sugar on top.
Göran, various powerful people in the US have declared Assange to be a “terrorist” or accused him of “aiding (or even being) the enemy”. His assassination has been called for, even drone attacks. I think it is important to consider all the possibilities; legal, illegal, borderline-legal (politically coerced distortion of legal definitions) direct attacks and/or abduction. I can quite understand why Assange would not submit to custody.
Obviously you would wish to restrict what information you would reveal, but some indication of how far you do know, or whether you have heard anything good, would be much appreciated. Absence of news could be bad news.
Göran, you have heard something bad regarding Sofia Wilen; that she “has taken a hell of a lot of flak”. That is bad. Please clarify if you can.
Lastbluebell
“Nothing of this of course disqualifies Goran or should make people dismiss his opinions out of hand, but I think it is wise to bear in mind, that he might have strong ulterior motives, that guides and maybe influences his actions.”
I had to re-visit the meaning of the word ulterior. You may be technically right that Goran is planning to write a book. But so what?
By your definition above we are all guilty of allowing our motivations to influence our actions. Isn’t that normal?
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/
” If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange, his personal presence is required in Sweden so that a trial can be held and any sentence enforced.”
IF the perliminary investigation LEADS…” Present Tense: means preliminary investigation still ongoing to find if there is sufficient evidence.
If in Sweden someone is charged before they know IF there is sufficient evidence, your legal system is really frightening.
also here
http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09/UC-ARKIV-120903171025.pdf
to get the EAW:
on page three “”Åtgärden att häkta Assange har till syfte att möjliggöra genomförande av förundersökningen och en eventuell lagföring”
“”The operation to arrest Assange has been designed to enable the implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution”
In the document sent to the British courts it said the decision to prosecute has already been taken.
Shisei, you have to take into account that the preliminary investigation is at an ‘advanced’ stage. That is, based on what they know they are charging Assange who is not cooperating and can be seen to have fled Sweden. Admittedly the charge at this stage is one-sided because Assange has yet to give his full account but for that he has to cooperate. Charges can be dropped. Point is the police investigation completion requires Assange’s presence.
At this late stage, i wonder if Assange can reasonably expect, even as an outcome of the diplomatic negotiations, a ‘room-service’ interview with the understandable to-and-fro required to cross check new representations with other multiple-witnesses. The only way to call it now is an impasse.
Personally, i think Assange could’ve nipped this in the bud by first walking with SW on that fateful Friday or even the Thursday to an HIV test. f that didn’t work he should’ve finished off the interview process as early in September 2010 as feasible.
He shouldn’t have believed his English lawyers if they told him they could get him off the hook of surrendering to Sweden.
@Shisei
Your posts suggest that the Swedish prosecutor misled the courts. Can we find more evidence of this possibility?
“The amount of shit the then government took from the Egyptians makes it extremely unlikely that another asylum seeker will ever be treated that way again.” Goran
I sincerely hope not.
Perhaps the then government fully deserved “the shit” they received “from the Egyptians”, given “the shit” which the then government had delivered to “the Egyptians”.
The USA and UK illegally invaded Iraq on false pretences and they lied to their people on a massive scale. Since then, they have continued to deploy measures which have destroyed any faith or trust in their likely adherence to judicial process without systemic and instrumentalised perversion of that process and , in the case of the USA, of its own constitution. Witness, black sites, rendition, infiltration of progressive groups, lying, corruption, the removal and/or fabrication of evidence, torture, prolonged detention without trial and so on. This is the backdrop of the past decade and to ignore it is to ignore reality.
Now, it may be that Sweden is completely impregnable to such forces and from pressure from the hyperpower. Let us hope so. I would argue that recent history suggests that it would be wise to be wary. Whether or not Assange’s lawyers have been incompetant and/or have advised him badly is another matter. It boils down to whether or not one believes it likely that political leverage is active in relation to this case. Goran and many others do not believe it is and it would seem that they feel that it is Assange who has politicised it in order simply to escape justice; many others disagree. If there is political leverage, then it becomes a political trial. And that demands a whole different analysis.
@Jemand
In my opinion the British courts should have ruled the EAW is invalid because originally it was for questioning and for a “possible” prosecution.
Shisei, i think Ny said that there existed ‘probable cause’ for her to prosecute based on what she had seen. She obviously could not speculate what impact Assange’s interview testimony would have. Sounds ok. But why are we going over the ground of the English courts again–thats well and truly over with.
Villager
For Assange it is not at an advanced stage: he hasn’t been heard yet after the case has been closed.
Ny didn’t care for a interrogation for at least 20 days where Assange was in Sweden. Everyone would think interrogating the suspect is one of the first things. This looks like a biased investigation that was meant to collect evidence against him from day one and it didn’t matter what he had to say anway.
In my completely unlawerly opinion the prosecution could go to London (it is legal in contradiction to what Ny stated in December 2010) and clear the mess they are responsible for.
@Shisei
Yes, a possible prosecution also implies a possible non-prosecution which makes any discussion of it in the extradition case, moot. All that remained, therefore, was the certainty that Assange was to be questioned. Now that’s a lot of effort to drag someone in for questioning over an offence that pales when compared to heinous cases of sexual assault. If they were not certain that a prosecution were to proceed, why did the prosecutor not take the most convenient and economic course to determine whether there was a case to answer? That last question is asked so often and no one can answer it with any credibility.
Suhayl Saadi, 20 Sep, 4:23 pm: Your last two paragraphs are excellent and I am strongly in agreement. But please clarify the first part, which I do not understand; I think there may be a typo in it.
To me, it seems clear that this case is highly politicised. The involvement of highly political people in Sweden and the nearly-a-raid of the Ecuadorian embassy (probably inhibited only by activist witnesses) by the UK police indicate this. But even those who do not accept this as evidence of politicisation must surely accept the potential; this isn’t just anyone, it’s Julian Assange, the person most associated with Wikileaks.
I’ve asked a couple of times earlier in the thread, no answers: What leverage does the Ecuador/Assange team have in their negotiations with the Brits/Sweden even USA (if any)? I can only see:
1 Go to the ICJ.
2 Delayed justice to ‘victims’ in Sweden. Anyone care to add…
Perhaps Craig can get his ear to the ground in London. Any diplomats around who would care to speculate?
Still wonder if some kind of public assurance by the Swedish Govt re extradition to the US could be forthcoming? Position’s are very hardened. Sort of thing that requires an elder statesman to come in and arbitrate. Who could that be? Are there any of that breed left. What about Kofi Anna? His wife’s a Swedish lawyer…that could be an advantage.
Clark, and others, do you not think it will be fruitful to turn the discussion more forward-looking than debating with Goran the risks of Assange’s presence in Sweden, where his view-point is emphatically clear, despite the fact that he might be right and that many think he’s being dismissive.
Oh, and of course, the systematic pursuit and persecution of whistleblowers and other prominent oppositional in the UK, Canada and the USA. Sooner or later, it seems that too many such public figures end up dead, discredited or in gaol. The intelligence services seem to view this as one of their major roles. It also serves to help justify their seemingly bottomless, ‘black’ budgets. There is nothing new about this, of course – think of the pursuit, attempts at fabrication/demonisation and persecution of miners’ leader, Arthur Scargill. It’s a very well-trodden course. Indeed, it would be very surprising if it were not occurring in relation to Assange/Wikileaks et al. One should expect it, treat it as normative. Their resources are so great, they can mobilise an army of journalists and bloggers as numinous reinforcement in the sphere of the public consciousness. This has occurred for decades – think of the number of labour correspondents on the MI5 payroll during the 1960s and 1970s in the UK.
Clark, thanks. I was quoting from Goran’s post and saying that I hoped the Swedish Govt never again do what they did to those two guys who were rendered and tortured, etc., that whatever the then Swedish might have got in terms of opprobrium, etc. was fully deserved because what they were complicit in doing was far worse than anything they might have got in return.
Shisei:
“For Assange it is not at an advanced stage: he hasn’t been heard yet after the case has been closed.”
For Assange its not advanced, because he fled Sweden and hasn’t advanced it. The latter part of the sentence makes no sense.
” Ny didn’t care for a interrogation for at least 20 days where Assange was in Sweden. Everyone would think interrogating the suspect is one of the first things. This looks like a biased investigation that was meant to collect evidence against him from day one and it didn’t matter what he had to say anway.”
I have already said, read the thred, the investigators need to be investigated. I found that bit about the police officer being sick laughable. There’s an old joke that reportedly did the rounds in Tel Aviv in one of the Arab-Israeli wars that Syria didn’t join the War because their pilot was sick.
” In my completely unlawerly opinion the prosecution could go to London (it is legal in contradiction to what Ny stated in December 2010) and clear the mess they are responsible for.”
IMO its too late for that. Unless Ecuador provides guarantees to return him to Sweden if the it is decided that Assange is indicted. who knows that may be under discussion.
Villager 4.13pm
“Personally, i think Assange could’ve nipped this in the bud by first walking with SW on that fateful Friday or even the Thursday to an HIV test. f that didn’t work he should’ve finished off the interview process as early in September 2010 as feasible.”
First of all, as has already been pointed out by Shisei but no harm in saying it again, it wasn’t Assange’s fault that he wasn’t interviewed in early September. It was the prosecutor who insisted to wait.
Second, let’s not forget Ardin’s role. Had she not interfered, who knows, maybe Wilén and Assange would have worked it out on their own. But to Ardin it was more than just a private matter. She was, and is still, politically active, and had to consider her public image as well.
It’s a pity people don’t know, or are warned, what will happen once they contact the police and mention they’ve been raped or sexually assaulted. As I understand it, it’s the police’s duty to investigate, and a prosecutor may then find it his or her duty to prosecute, no matter what the vicitm wants. If you don’t want that to happen you shouldn’t go to the police, because you lose all control over the situation. Add a world famous person and leaks to the press to the mess, and you’ll soon find yourself in a very undesirable situation. I’m surprised the so supportive press secretary Ardin didn’t see this coming and warned Wilén about how things might evolve.
When Ardin contacted the press the following day (the 21st), before the arrest warrant was withdrawn and the fake condom collected from her flat, she’s reported to have said that the other woman wanted to file a rape complaint, and that they both stand by their stories. She was speaking for both of them, with Wilén’s consent or not. Either way Ardin seemed quite eager to spread the information that Wilén wanted to file a complaint for rape and that Ardin herself just wanted to support her. She said similar things to some of her friends who were later interviewed by the police. Today three of the four allegations are alleged crimes against Ardin.
The article (in Swedish) can be found at http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/kvinnan-anklagelserna-forstas-inte-iscensatta-av-pentagon-eller-nagon-annan/ and it doesn’t say a word about HIV tests. I haven’t seen an English version, but perhaps I’ll try to make my own amateur translation later tonight.
Btw, I fully agree that the investigators need to be investigated. That should be done first, before any further insistence that he be extradited to Sweden. No reason to continue an already flawed process.
Has he gone yet? Is it safe to come out?
Ahhh, good.
Villager 5.16pm
Here are the UK Supreme Court’s official Agreeds Facts of the Case. That is, these are the facts and chronology which are undisputed – agreed by both the prosecution and the defence. They show that Assange did not flee Sweden and has not tried to avoid questioning at any point:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case
Having waited in Sweden and asked the prosecutor to question him several times he received confirmation that he was free to leave on 15 September 2010. In fact, he waited even longer. On 27 September Assange flew (at 5.20pm from Arlanda airport) to Berlin for a pre-arranged meeting with Der Spiegel journalists and an Italian journalist to discuss the forthcoming publication of the Iraq War Logs. One of these journalists has gone public – her name is Stephani Maurizi and she writes for L’Espresso – about being with him the following day when he received news from his lawyer that an arrest warrant had been issued by Marianne Ny for his arrest (she had issued it at 2.45pm on 27 September so the Supreme Court accepts that he could not have known about it. What is odd is that he was not stopped from boarding his flight by Swedish border security). This journalist says she witnessed his shock and surprise and heard him say: “But why didn’t they question me while I was in Sweden? I was there for five weeks.”
If you want to know exactly why he didn’t return to Sweden, despite the dates he’d offered in October as times when he could, there’s quite a story behind paragraph 18… If you’re intrigued, let me know and I’ll tell it.
And, as regards Goran’s assertion that the UK High Court found that Assange had been charged, paragraphs 22 and 35 of the Agreed Facts make it quite clear that no, Assange has not been charged.
For crystal clarity on the matter, I recommend paragraph 5 of this 14 June 2012 Supreme Court press release:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/julian-assange-v-swedish-prosecution-authority.html
Shisei 3.57pm – “In the document sent to the British courts it said the decision to prosecute has already been taken.”
and Jemand 4.13 – “@Shisei – Your posts suggest that the Swedish prosecutor misled the courts. Can we find more evidence of this possibility?”
Shisei’s got it exactly right. Marianne Ny lied to the British courts in that document. It’s included in my post 19 September 11.47am – all you have to do is a close reading between that document and the recent 24 August statement posted on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s English-language site. My earlier post has some examples of ‘then vs now’ double-speak.
“It’s a pity people don’t know, or are warned, what will happen once they contact the police and mention they’ve been raped or sexually assaulted. As I understand it, it’s the police’s duty to investigate, and a prosecutor may then find it his or her duty to prosecute, no matter what the vicitm wants. If you don’t want that to happen you shouldn’t go to the police, because you lose all control over the situation. Add a world famous person and leaks to the press to the mess, and you’ll soon find yourself in a very undesirable situation. I’m surprised the so supportive press secretary Ardin didn’t see this coming and warned Wilén about how things might evolve.” Orb
I do take your point and of course as you know from my various posts, I am suspicious of various parties motives in all this. You are correct to state that of course the police must pursue such allegations, otherwise domestic abuse and rape victims, plus many victims of (other) violent crimes, would simply be intimated into silence by the perpetrators (as often they have been for years). In general – and I’m not talking here about malicious allegations – it takes a hell of a lot for such victims to muster up the courage to go to police in the first place. They often subsequently try to withdraw because of shame/fear or reprisals, etc. It is drummed into police officers and prosecutors to pursue such matters, and quite rightly so. You’re not suggesting that Ardin (let us hypothesise for a moment that there are no ulterior motives) ought to have told Wilen to keep quiet if Ardin actually thought a sexual crime had been committed?
If anyone here is interested in knowing a bit more about the threat of onward extradition from Sweden to the US, here’s some of what I know.
[Warning: Long post]
I am very certain that the US will request extradition from Sweden if Assange gets there and Sweden will drop its sex investigation and comply. That’s just based on what I know about the Grand Jury investigation and debates in Congress about “off-shoring” Assange (yes, literally named in a detailed discussion on how to move the case via a FISA court ruling that he’s an “enemy of the US” and therefore out of the federal court system down to military jurisdiction in Guantanamo. It’s on C-Span and in the Congressional record) and suchlike (formal attempt to get Wikileaks designated as an FTO – Foreign Terrorist Organisation; formal request by Rep Peter King to the Secretary of State that she liaise with Sweden to get Assange extradited to the US; a letter from Dept of Justice General Counsel Harold Koh setting the grounds for indictment, etc – all in the public record; confirmation in June 2012 that there’s still about 16 federal and military law enforcement agencies currently working on the Wikileaks Grand Jury (from testimony at Manning’s hearings, etc)), and the geo-politics of Sweden’s position.
Here’s those documents, plus a couple more:
The “off-shoring to Gitmo” Congressional discussion – specifically about Assange
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2010-11-30/pdf/CREC-2010-11-30-pt1-PgH7743-8.pdf#page=1
Rep Peter King (Chair of the Homeland Security Committee in Congress) letters to Attorney-General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (scroll down):
http://observer.com/2010/11/peter-king-on-why-wikileaks-should-be-declar…
Letter by US Dept of Justice General Counsel Harold Koh to Wikileaks – lays the groundwork for formal indictment:
http://www.cfr.org/media-and-foreign-policy/legal-case-against-wikileaks/p23618
Confirmation that the Grand Jury’s still active (2 July 2012) by Dean Boyd, DoJ spokesman:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/fresh-call-on-assange-espionage-20120701-21b59.html
Dianne Feinstein’s (Chair of Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee) 2 July 2012 call for Assange to be prosecuted for espionage:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-senator-calls-to-prosecute-assange-20120701-21b3n.html
The 4 or 5 subpoenas to the Grand Jury already issued to Wikileaks-related people (remember the statute numbers mentioned in the subpoena here – I’ll come back to those):
http://www.salon.com/2011/06/09/wikileaks_27/singleton/
And there are all sorts of subpoenas still under seal that have been identified. Read what Birgitta Jonsdottir, the Icelandic MP who was involved in producing the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video, has to say about her own State Dept’s advice not to travel to the US, despite US assurances that all was fine, she had nothing to fear:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/evidence-us-judicial…
Then there’s the Grand Jury case number – 10GJ3793 (guess what that 793 stands for…) And the FBI Wikileaks investigation file of 42,135 pages mentioned at Bradley Manning’s hearings, only 8,741 pages of which relate to Manning – per the US government prosecutor’s at his pre-trial hearings.
And this is the list of US law enforcement agencies that it’s been confirmed are STILL working on the Wikileaks Grand Jury case:
Department of Defense (DOD): including CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA); the US Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) for US Army Cyber Command and the 2nd Army and US Forces Iraq (USFI), as well as US Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit (CCIU). Within that or in addition to that three military intelligence investigations.
Department of Justice (DOJ) Grand Jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigations
Department of State (DOS) and Diplomatic Security Service (DSS)
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Office of the National CounterIntelligence Executive (ONCIX), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Investigations into WikiLeaks have also been conducted by the House Oversight Committee, National Security Staff Interagency Committee and the PIAB (President’s Intelligence Advisory Board).
Phew! That’s an awful lot of resources to expend if you have absolutely no intention of indicting someone…
But… here’s the kicker. It’s a Congressional Research Service survey of available legislation with which to prosecute WikiLeaks:
http://t.co/knzcVbPW
A few points to bear in mind:
1) who commissions the Congressional Research Service? That’s right, Congress. This survey was published in June 2012, I think. Not sure when it was commissioned exactly, but it does suggest there is still a very high-level push in the US to extradite Assange.
2) Count the number of ostensibly ‘criminal’ rather than ‘political’ charges in there – computer-related crimes, theft of documentation, etc. A US extradition request will clear the Swedish judicial system – with all its checks and balances against extradition for ‘political’/death penalty crimes – with NO problems WHATSOEVER.
Likewise, there is a way for the UK to agree to onward extradition to a third country AND avoid that decision going through judicial review in the UK courts. The Home Secretary (Theresa May, God help us…) simply has to waive the ‘specialty’ clause, Section 58, of the 2003 Extradition Act. It’s all in here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/58
There ya go, all done at the stroke of a pen! How to achieve desired political outcomes by utilising our treasured, impartial and fair, legal and judicial systems.
Oh, I forgot. One more point, about the risk of the death penalty applying. As I’ve said above, there’s plenty of ‘non-political’ offences in that Congressional Research Service survey for the US to choose for its extradition request from Sweden. But also remember how Bradley Manning was original charged with 8 offences and a few months later it was bumped up to 22? There’s nothing to stop exactly the same thing happening with Assange once he’s on US soil. Nothing.
So, here’s the one that worries me – it’s 18 USC 794(a). It’s worth looking at the actual wording of the statute to see why Leigh’s libel that Assange said “they’re informants, they deserve to die” (Leigh’s allegation was that it was at a dinner in London on 21 July 2010 to discuss the redaction of the Afghan War Diaries – now completely refuted by Der Spiegel journalist John Goetz’ witness statement, who was at the dinner) is a potentially life-threatening one. 18 USC 794(a) says the death penalty can apply in conspiracy to commit espionage cases where there is “intent to harm” US informants. It’s on page 15 of the Congressional Research Service survey.
http://t.co/knzcVbPW
Here’s an attempt at an English version of the article I mentioned earlier, http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/kvinnan-anklagelserna-forstas-inte-iscensatta-av-pentagon-eller-nagon-annan/ published on 21 Aug 2010, 17 hours and 22 minutes after Expressen first released an article about Assange being sought for rape, and 8 minutes before Eva Finné withdrew the arrest warrant at 16.48. At 18.12 the fake condom was collected from Anna Ardin’s flat by police assistant Sara Wennerblom. Sara Wennerblom’s telephone interview with Anna Ardin took place between 11.31 and 12.20.
There are two main tabloids, Expressen and Aftonbladet. Expressen seems to be reporting what Ardin has told Aftonbladet. The corresponding article in Aftonbladet can be found at http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article12435432.ab but it doesn’t say what time it was published.
Expressen was first to write about the arrest warrant and rape/moletation allegations, at 23.18 on 20 Aug. There is an English translation at rixstep.com and a link to it in a previous comment (19Sep 11.19pm). The following is the article they published at 16.40 (updated at 16.56) on 21 Aug. I’m not a professional translator, but you’ll get an idea.
@Suhayl Saadi, No, of course I don’t mean to discourage anyone who really needs help from the police, but in less serious, non-violent situations it might be worth to think twice if it’s worth the consequences, because the actions of the police and prosecutor can be so out of proportion to what actually happened. For example, the accused may have to spend weeks in detention with limited means of communication before a trial that may never take place, in effect punished without being convicted of anything. In the Ardin/Wilén/Assange case that seems so out of proportion.
Clark 2.26pm
You’re worried about the welfare of Sophia Wilen. There is some information I can give you but I don’t want to in a public forum. Is there an email I can contact you at?
Certainly. Click my name on my comment. Use the shorter address.
Arbed, thanks for your 20 Sep, 8:55 pm comment. Phew. I’d not seen that much detail before.
Bastards.