2,008 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar”

• 

  Arbed July 19, 2013 at 22:18

  On Elisabeth Massi Fritz’ website – http://www.advokatfritz.com/?page_id=684 – there are now three links concerning the Assange case:

  The undoctored version of her press release (dated here 22 May but we know it has been backdated). It states that Sofia Wilen “reported a rape” on 20 August, intentionally and not simply as an unfortunate consequence of seeking advice about HIV – which completely contradicts the witness statements of Sofia’s friends and family, and the press statements of Anna Ardin: http://www.advokatfritz.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Pressmeddelande-Assange.pdf (use Google translate)

  A link to an Australian article dated 23 May reporting the press release – missing the above howler and altogether more in line with the approved Swedish “language rules” talking points:
  http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/assange-accuser-calls-for-swedish-pressure/story-e6frfkui-1226648801549

  And an article from the Daily Beast written by Guardian journalist and ex-Wikileaks intern James Ball. This contains every smear you can think of ever produced against Julian Assange. It was written in response to the release by Wikileaks of an annotated transcript of Alex Gibney’s docu-smear “We Steal Secrets” in which Wikileaks provided proof that James Ball had told many lies in his interviews for the film:
  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-former-wikileaks-employee-james-ball-describes-working-with-julian-assange.html

  Several points:

  1. What kind of lawyer places an article like this on their official website? I believe it is actually a criminal offence in Sweden for a lawyer to make statements that are prejudicial to the “other side” before a trial verdict is handed down. Can anyone confirm?

  2. The Daily Beast article contains this very ambiguous statement:

  “Two women accused Assange of sexual assaults, relating to either tearing a condom or initiating unprotected sex while his partner was sleeping.”

  It’s that “either” which is ambiguous. How many women accuse Assange of tearing a condom here? Does Massi Fritz use this article on her website because her client has accused Assange of BOTH tearing a condom AND initiating unprotected sex with a half-asleep partner? See also: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

  3. These are the accusations that the Daily Beast article is intended to discredit. They are clearly substantial and shred James Ball’s professional reputation: http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html#4004

  These accusations make me think that something that should be looked into much more is Nick Davies’ source for the leaked 68-page police protocol on which he based his extremely skewed 17 December 2010 article “10 Days in Sweden”. This was the article that really started the smear campaign against Assange about the Swedish allegations in the English-speaking world. Wikileaks’ transcript notes make it clear that James Ball was at Wikileaks from 23 November 2010 to 15 December 2010 and imply that he stole “documents” from a Wikileaks email account while Assange was held in prison between 7 December to 16 December. Nick Davies is a Guardian journalist and, after a theft from Wikileaks by James Ball – hey presto – James Ball becomes a Guardian journalist too. (It probably doesn’t need stressing how coveted a job at the Guardian newspaper would be to any UK journalism student.) Look at the dates in this paragraph, and factor in a couple of days for Nick Davies to get his leak translated. What does it look like to you?

• 

  Arbed July 19, 2013 at 22:20

  And this wasn’t the only smear run by the Guardian on that day, 17 December. Their Sweden-based religious correspondent Andrew Brown also produced an article that looks designed to discredit the strongest witness in Assange’s favour, Johannes Wahlstrom. Looks to be a “rush job” too and Brown even apologises for not having time to translate all his links from the Swedish language:

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia

  Johannes Wahlstrom is also the only witness to have been alone together with Julian Assange and Sofia Wilen after the lunch following the seminar on 14 August 2010 she inviegled her way into. Expressen newspaper mysteriously knew – and published the following day – details of Assange and Wilen’s itinerary after they left Wahlstrom that not even he knew about.

  The Guardian newspaper also commissioned Expressen’s Karin Olsson to write “Julian Assange: From Hero to Zero” to be published on the day the High Court refused his extradition appeal. Their reach into Sweden obviously goes quite deep.

  One of the things people say to poo-pooh the idea that Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin’s allegations might be a “CIA honeytrap” is that an intelligence-led operation would not have been carried out with such incompetence; there would have been a much stronger case and Assange banged up immediately. But unexpected things do happen; things do fall apart, requiring “corrective” actions to put things back on course. Four examples from this case: a senior prosecutor closing down the case almost immediately; a forensics lab doing a DNA test that they hadn’t been asked to do; Assange being granted bail from Wandsworth prison; Assange decamps to the Ecuadorian embassy (Karin Rosinder to the UK CPS 20 June 2012: “Mon Dieu!” ;))

  25 August 2010 – Eva Finne closes case/DDB sabotages Wikileaks mail server
  16 December 2010 – Assange released from Wandsworth/17 December 2010 – Guardian smears against both Assange and Johannes Wahlstrom.

  The two things there really was no “recovery” from: the Lab Results – http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/07/01/the-lab-results/ – and the political asylum. Or can anyone think of “corrective actions” taken shortly after 20-25 October 2010, 19 June and 16 August 2012?

• 

  Arbed July 19, 2013 at 23:06

  Sorry, I think perhaps I didn’t make this clear enough:

  Wikileaks’ transcript notes make it clear that James Ball was at Wikileaks from 23 November 2010 to 15 December 2010 and imply that he stole “documents” from a Wikileaks email account while Assange was held in prison between 7 December to 16 December.

  The Wikileaks transcript notes specifically state that the “documents” they allege James Ball stole from their email server “subsequently appeared in the Guardian”.

• 

  Rastafari - Sweden July 20, 2013 at 09:46

  Excellent work Arbed. The swedish political establishment is involved in this dirt the whole way through. Recent developments in the Manning / Snowden / Evo Morales incidents show clearly why Julian Assange is correct in demanding water tight guarantees to ever set foot in Sweden. The entire international community can see through this farce.

  Agree with John Goss that Elisabeth Massi Fritz must be reported to the swedish bar association.

• 

  Rastafari - Sweden July 20, 2013 at 10:12

  Sweden based American journalist Al Burke´s excellent summary of the current media status quo with focus on the swedish media. It goes to show what vile vermin we have to deal with. Thank god, nobody internationally is buying the Sweden – Alexander Hague shit: House niggers like Obama and Eric Holder should spend time in Sweden to see what a paradise liberal democracy this is. These house niggers would thank the day they were born in the new world and on the other side of the Atlantic.

  http://nnn.se/nordic/assange/productive.pdf

• 

  Arbed July 20, 2013 at 11:49

  Hi Rastafari,

  “Agree with John Goss that Elisabeth Massi Fritz must be reported to the swedish bar association”

  I believe you are a publisher, or have access to getting things published. Are you able to kick this process off – reporting Massi Fritz to the Bar Association, I mean?

• 

  Rastafari - Sweden July 20, 2013 at 16:42

  Hi Arbed, will most definitely look into it as priority, will counsel with experts in the field.

• 

  John Goss July 22, 2013 at 17:55

  Rastafari, please keep me informed of any developments regarding reporting Elisabeth Massi Fritz to the Swedish Bar Counsel. Thanks.

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History July 23, 2013 at 07:41

  Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs is so disinterested in Julian Assange that they send diplomats to Bradley Manning’s trial to report back to the department at length on references to Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

  Huh??

  http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-diplomats-reporting-at-length-on-manning-trial-20130722-2qeaw.html

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History July 24, 2013 at 15:39

  Snowden given pass to leave Moscow airport.

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23437059

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History July 28, 2013 at 07:40

  Catching Big Fish

  It becomes a whole lot clearer now that the US military prosecution of Bradley Manning was drawn out not to ensure that his anticipated conviction was secure but to more firmly establish, and more clearly define, the relationship between him, Assange and Wikileaks in the formal legal narrative. The purpose of which is to provide the foundations for subsequent charges to be contrived against Assange and Co. Time is a precious resource and Sweden’s disingenuous case against Assange helps the US DoJ buy time to carefully construct their false charges.

  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/assange-a-bigger-fish-for-manning-prosecutors-20130726-2qq1h.html

• 

  brenda leonard July 29, 2013 at 02:19

  Can we all agree that a condom law is utterly ridiculous? How many men in Sweden could be accused of rape at this very minute because of that law? Then you have these women falling in bed with someone they didn’t know except as a celebrity. How stupid is that even? I guess not too stupid when it turned out to be the perfect set up. It is too bad an investigation could not have followed the money and the connections to see the true background of these women.

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History July 29, 2013 at 06:56

  I can agree with that, Brenda. The issues of rape and sexual harrassment is now so mangled with power politics that it’s hard to have a rational conversation over all the shouting. So a broken condom is called rape because, as I have read elsewhere, “rape is rape is rape”. ?

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History July 29, 2013 at 08:02

  Manning trial in deliberation –

  http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2013/07/28/news/nation_and_world/doc51f4d44fbc5a2871544225.txt

  The most serious charge is one of “aiding the enemy”. I’d like to see that charge (as a popular accusation) levelled at the US government as it funds and arms militant groups around the globe. Let’s turn the charge around on Obama.

• 

  Arbed July 29, 2013 at 21:37

  Some of you may know that I have been waging a one-woman campaign against Alex Gibney’s excretable We Steal Secrets documentary, by commenting under every review of the film I saw published that I thought it was disgraceful to show a photo of Anna Ardin’s “torn” condom from the police forensics file and then NOT tell his viewers that forensics found it had no DNA at all on it.

  And now, look! – Jonathan Cook, no less, has joined in.

  The Assassination of Julian Assange:
  http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/29/the-assassination-of-julian-assange/

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History July 30, 2013 at 10:46

  Thanks for that link Arbed.

  I’d like to post a very long comment here that I have been intending to post for some time now in the hope of countering some of the hysteria of public comments in response to rape allegations in general and those against in Assange in particular. Hopefully it contains something/s of value to explore further. Open to criticism.
  . . . . . .

  Rape is not rape. Rape is not special.

  All types of crime are unique in as much as they are different from other types of crime, and each instance of one type of crime is unique from other instances of the same type of crime. Being unique does not make a crime ‘special’, otherwise all crimes are ‘special’.

  All instances of actual crimes consist of all of the following elements :

  * Actual harm or actual loss, either material, bodily, psychological, abstract;
  * At least one victim (real person or corporate);
  * An unwillingness of a victim to suffer an actual harm or actual loss;
  * At least one perpetrator (real person or corporate);
  * An intention of a perpetrator to cause or fail to prevent harm or loss to occur.

  A victim is not required to be concious of the existence of a crime or aware of the actual harm or actual loss, but does need to *experience* an actual harm or actual loss. For example, someone whose life is cut short through the unwitting ingestion of a deliberately administered poison that accelerates his death from a natural known cause, is unaware of the intentional shortening of his life but still experiences the harm or loss from what is certainly a crime of murder.

  Without any one of the above elements, an actual crime has not taken place. Actual crimes need to be distinguished from associated or supportive criminal offences such as conspiracy, threats, possession of prohibited materials or equipment, incitement to commit an offence and post facto support in concealing an offence or evading justice. Associated crimes do not exist without relation to the existence of a more serious actual crime.

  In the case of rape, with its contentious definition, there must be an unwilling victim who suffers some harm caused by a perpetrator who had an intention to cause or disregard probable harm to the victim. In the traditional, popular conception of the crime of rape, we consider a concious person who is threatened with physical force or violence to unwillingly yield to having sexual intercourse with another person.

  But this concept of rape has been obfuscated by manifold variations, ommissions and additions of details, to the point where one instance of alleged rape bears striking differences with other instances to the extent that both culpability and harm are respectively not equivalent. Similarly, some instances of coercive sexual intercourse bear the markings of an actual crime with lesser or no legal recourse or popular sympathy.

  For example, if a woman were to submit to having sexual intercourse with a man who threatens her with termination of employment unless she accedes to his demands, this would not be considered rape by any common legal defintion. Certainly she may be equally as unwilling as another woman who is threatened with violence, and in every other respect might be equally a sexual victim suffering the same psychological ill-effects. But it is not rape by any popular conception or legal definition.

  On the other hand, a woman who is paralytically drunk and unwittingly experiences sexual intercourse with a male, might awake the next day having no memory of the event and suffering no ill-effects for the act that is certainly both popularly considered and legally treated as a sexual assault and, for many, as rape.

  So it can be seen that two starkly different but surely common scenarios do not sit comfortably with the thought-terminating, feminist slogan “rape is rape is rape”.

  An important point in all crimes is the moment that intent to cause harm and actual harm coincide. When related to an alleged instance of rape in a situation where two people are engaging or have engaged in otherwise consensual sexual intercourse, the often rapidly changing states of mind of the two people are relevant to ascertaining if and when a crime took place, and by whom.

  This is probably best exemplified by an infamous case in Australia known as the “30 Second Rapist” case. In short, a man was convicted of rape for having failed to withdraw his penis, within a reasonable period of time, from the vagina of a woman with whom he was engaged in consensual sex but who withdrew her consent during intercourse. It was agreed by all sides that the sex started as consensual, the woman withdrew consent and the man ceased sexual penetration after about thirty seconds. He was convicted, went to prison but was later acquitted.

  It can be seen in the above real example, that (ostensibly for all points) the woman became unwilling and communicated this state of mind to the man, that he formed an intent to cause or wilfully disregard any actual harm or actual loss that would probably be caused to the woman, and that she did suffer actual harm or an actual loss – in this case, mental distress, psychological ill-effects and so on.

  The fact that both the victim (an acquaintence) and perpetrator’s wife later admitted to having set the man up for this outcome is not relevant to the point that is being made here. The point is that the states of mind of both victim and perpetrator, as expressed by fleeting verbal communication and bodily action in a complex, emotionally intense and physically intimate interaction determined who suffered harm and who caused that suffering.

  It is conceivable that, if the woman was on top of the man, each facing each other with her moving her pelvis to effect sexual intercourse, and he communicated a withdrawal of consent by saying “This is wrong, please stop”, and she continued for thirty seconds before complying with his wish, then we would have had a complete reversal of the victim and perpetrator roles.

  It is equally conceivable that a similar scenario, involving two consenting adults commencing sexual intercourse in good faith, could have one or the other spontaneously experience a change of mind as a result of an anxiety attack or intense conflict of emotions, withdraw consent with no expression of alarm or urgency and experience a lag in response as the message is received, understood and translated into a compliant action by the other person. In such circumstances, who could predict that it would eventuate in a man, or woman, being imprisoned for rape?

  Can such a scenario really share the same description, public outrage and legal penalty as the traditional concept of rape as we once thought we understood the term to mean?

  The now internationally reported Swedish case of two women alleging sexual offences against Julian Assange has, in English language translations within the mainstream media and on private blogs, been depicted as incidents of “rape”. The particulars of the case have been more accurately reported by individuals who are interested in justice than those participating in the eclectic mix of political harrassment, radical feminism and personal assassination.

  When certain particulars of the Swedish case are examined alongside those elements of crime that I described above and the nature of rape as we know it, it is quite clear that the complaints against Assange are without the essential foundations required for a crime of rape to have been considered as having taken place. The intercourse between Assange and the two women was overtly consensual, there was no withdrawal of consent in any of their relations, there was no communication of unwillingness, no threats of violence or physical force to effect intercourse, there was no actual harm or actual loss suffered by the alleged victims and the incidents bear absolutely no other resemblance to the crime of rape as we have known it for hundreds of years up to this day.

  Whatever problems Assange and each of the two Swedish women respectively experienced in their dealings with one another do not amount to any incident of rape. For an accusation of rape to be true, you would need to redefine the word to mean something that it does not. But changing the meaning of a word is not really the issue. The issue is crime and crime is based on the intentional cause or allowance of harm to an unwilling victim. The only harm being done in this case is to Assange. He is the victim and the two Swedish women are wilful perpetrators in his suffering.

  Like in the case of the “30 Second Rapist”, the roles of victim and perpetrator have been inverted just as the crime of rape was inverted to that of rape-fixing.

  . . . .

  “30 Second Rapist” acquitted of rape –
  http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s265381.htm

• 

  Arbed July 30, 2013 at 14:07

  Thanks Jemand, for that extremely powerful and thought-provoking contribution. There is so much to consider in it, I find it quite difficult to get my head around it all.

  First though, your conclusion with regard to the Swedish case is spot on. The only person who has been raped in this situation is Julian Assange – he has been utterly betrayed and victimised. And, as you say, it amounts to the same perp/victim role reversal you outline in the “30 Second Rapist” case.

  I had only vaguely heard about this particular case before and didn’t know the details. In fact, when I read this line:

  The fact that both the victim (an acquaintence) and perpetrator’s wife later admitted to having set the man up for this outcome is not relevant to the point that is being made here.

  I physically gasped. Of course I understand your logic in separating out associated crimes – conspiracy, threats, etc – from actual crimes, but the irony is that, in this “30-second” case and in Assange’s case, that is where the true crime, the true violence and victimisation, resides.

  Rape is an extraordinary nomansland of a crime. It’s incredibly difficult in some instances to fit it into the sort of neat legal tick-boxes which work perfectly well (ok, reasonably well) for other crimes of violence. And, IMHO, rape does always contain violence, albeit physical violence may be absent.

  I don’t think any of the legal definitions of rape work particularly well, but I like your intent/harm-based model as I think this would be something that could offer protection in situations such as S&M sex that are quite often wrongly prosecuted as rape.

  My own personal, this-is-how-I-judge-it definition/benchmark for rape is: the knowing [complete and utter] sexual violation of someone else’s will, with the bit in square brackets serving as a sort of culpability gradient. I use the word ‘will’ to help me focus on the fact that in all human interactions every person must take at least some responsibility for their own choices and responses. Unfortunately, that approach often gets screamed down as victim-blaming in today’s climate. (I’m female by the way, if you didn’t know already, and was myself a victim of rape.)

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History July 30, 2013 at 17:28

  Thanks so much for the reply, Arbed.

  Yes, you are right, an important similarity exists between the 30SR and Assange cases that I didn’t expound on because my comment was getting pretty long. It’s important for people to understand that criminal legislation needs to be constructed with safeguards against misuse as is guaranteed to happen, like in both of these cases, apparently.

  I am also aware (didn’t forget from previous mentions) about your own experiences and have been unsure of advising you on whether to make those experiences known to other people as I was concerned about you protecting your identity (to avoid possible harrassment).

  With regard to deconstructing and analysing sexual assault, I think we can compare it to stealing – where the thing stolen is sex with various physical, emotional and psychological effects. In the same way as robbery is stealing with a threat of violence, I consider rape to be stealing sex with a threat of violence.

  I’m sure it’s not a perfect analogy but different instances of sexual assault can be graded according to an equivalent crime of stealing. A person owns their body and can keep it under lock and key, hire it out or lend use of it, for sex, labour, entertainment etc. Stealing use of their body, or deceiving them into handing over its use, is a crime. Rape is an especially intimate violation, attacking a person’s sense of power over their own wellbeing. So false charges of rape, attacks a persons reputation and standing in the community.
  . . . .

  Anyway, we are now awaiting the verdict in the Manning trial and it should come as no surprise to you or me that the Judge doesn’t need or want to deliberate for a couple of weeks on the verdict but hand down the one that the Pentagon has preordained. The US media might be holding back on expressing its misgivings about the case, and I’m sure they will have more to say well after the verdict and sentence is handed down.

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History July 30, 2013 at 18:39

  And on that subject ..

  http://www.news.com.au/technology/bradley-manning-not-guilty-of-aiding-the-enemy-over-wikileaks-leaks-guilty-of-at-least-15-lesser-charges/story-e6frfro0-1226688441205

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History August 1, 2013 at 07:17

  Manning’s conviction seen as making prosecution of WikiLeaks’ Assange likely –

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/07/30/79746700-f94f-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_story.html

• 

  Arbed August 7, 2013 at 16:34

  In a major case of hissy fit, Obama cancels his upcoming visit to Russia because of Snowden’s asylum. Decides to pop in on Sweden in early September instead.

  http://uk.news.yahoo.com/obama-cancels-putin-meeting-over-snowden-row-131324295.html#OP3SsWL

  Hmm. Anyone know when was the last time a US Prez visited Sweden? I know that when Hillary Clinton anticipated the verdict of the UK Supreme Court by announcing a visit to Sweden the day after the Court said they’d hand down the verdict in 5 days’ time (just don’t mention the words “NSA snooping”, ya hear?), that was the first visit for 37 years of a US Secretary of State. I’m guessing a visit from the US Prez is an even rarer event.

  I wonder if US gummint has a fixation about asylum-seekers at the moment…?

  And when is the sentencing part of Bradley Manning’s trial due to finish…? Oh! Early September, you say? My, my – isn’t that when Assange’s lawyers guess the Grand Jury indictment gets unsealed?

  (If anyone thinks I’m exaggerating, thinking everything revolves around Julian Assange, yadda, yadda, I’m not. Just look at how they behaved over Snowden! Never mind their two-month “get Snowden at all costs” campaign, the US govt’s “get Assange” campaign has been going for more than three years now, and it’s HUGE. Even the Australian DFAT FOI releases have called it “unprecedented in both scale and nature”.)

• 

  duqu August 7, 2013 at 23:37

  Last visit was George Bush in Gothenburgh, when Sweden was hosting a EU-summit, it resulted in severe riots from european protesters that made the town look like a war-zone, so we can expect some similar in Stockholm. Link enclosed:
  http://www.daysofdissent.org.uk/gothenburg.htm

• 

  Jemand - Censorship Improves History August 8, 2013 at 02:35

  Ask Assange a question –

  http://oursay.org/ask-assange

  Not much time left, I think. There are several hostile questions that have been contrived to embarrass Assange so I hope commentators here will visit and help correct the imbalance.

• 

  Arbed August 9, 2013 at 15:48

  Here’s the official FCO statement confirming Hague’s visit to Sweden on 28-29 August.

  “The invitation for the visit was formally offered by Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt in a Twitter conversation with Mr Hague today.”

  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-william-hague-announces-visit-to-sweden

  Well, as Carl Bildt’s “Twitter invitation” is timestamped 6 hours ago as at the time of writing this, and Hague’s Twitter “acceptance” is timestamped 3 hours ago, what busy, busy bees they are at the FCO to set all this up in record time. Wonder what prompted this blue-arse fly level of activity…?

  Carl Bildt Verified account
  @carlbildt

  We will welcome President Obama to Sweden September 4th. Remarkable, but it will be first truly bilateral visit by a US President to Sweden

  announced Wednesday 7 August… Kempe couldn’t see what I saw in this tweet when I first posted it here and pooh-poohed it a bit as wild speculation, but it all seems so blatant, so obvious, to me.

  Hope this works:

  Swedish MD Files Police Complaint Against Barack Obama for War Crimes http://rixstep.com/1/20130809,00.shtml
  http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=95&artikel=5612748

• 

  duqu August 11, 2013 at 21:28

  Warning !
  Some of these companies writing here like “Ion Discover Dj Software Download” are affected with viruses, this latest is infected by Stuxnet, I´m amazed that a computer software company doesn´t keep track of their own systems…

  Otherwise – Lon Snowden is heading for Moscow- he and his laywer got a visa, departure date is secret to avoid frenzy press, and Obama may be in trouble now since CIA in someway revealed that they are not sure at all who gets killed in a dron strike, story below:
  http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781930-exclusive-cia-didnt-always-know-who-it-was-killing-in-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show?lite

  As Obama will visit Sweden sept 4-5, a doctor has already made a policereport against Obama, and this makes me think what would happened if ALBA makes an enquiry to Eurocontrol to shut down airspace for Air force 1 in the same matter as when Morales was grounded in Europe for much less as having a possible “snowden” onboard…..

• 

  Arbed August 18, 2013 at 15:20

  EU warrant opt-out ‘could free Julian Assange’: Campaigners warn of four-month loophole before UK rejoins treaty:
  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-warrant-optout-could-free-julian-assange-campaigners-warn-of-fourmonth-loophole-before-uk-rejoins-treaty-8744948.html

  I’m wondering something… If this 4-month gap means that the present EAW from Sweden will no longer be valid, how does it get revalidated once the opt-back-in has happened? I’m wondering this because, as far as I can see, the Swedish EAW will be invalid under at least one of the two specific conditions Theresa May has announced in parliament for the opt-in: EAWs can no longer be used for trivial offences and that A DECISION TO CHARGE must have already been taken. Under Swedish law it is forbidden for a prosecutor to TAKE THE DECISION on whether to prosecute until the preliminary investigation, including all questioning, has been completed. As the Swedish prosecutor has clarified on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s own website that the preliminary investigation is still in the early stages and, she thinks, several rounds of questioning may be necessary before any decision can even be reached, I’d assume any new EAW she submits to the UK will have to be honest (this time) that he is only wanted for questioning.

  It is my belief that this peculiar opt-out /opt-back-in business with the EAW was in fact CAUSED by the Assange case, because the rulings in his case introduced two very dangerous new precedents which put all UK citizens at risk. Anyone can now be extradited to Europe merely for questioning, whereas before EAWs could not be used if there were no charges. And secondly, extradition can be demanded by a prosecutor in charge of investigating a case (therefore not impartial at all) rather than by a judge, which was the previous rule. By trying so hard to get Assange off its shores before the US tried to extradite him from here for conspiracy to commit journalism – which would be political dynamite – the UK has got itself into a huge human rights mess – hence the opt-out and opt-back-in to the EAW when the safeguards his case stripped out of UK law are put back in.

• 

  Axel August 20, 2013 at 08:40

  @arbed

  I hope an opportunity to unlock the deadlock will occur during that period.

  But I worry when I read this text below on the Government’s webpage:

  “Addressing lengthy and avoidable pre-trial detention by amending the UK Extradition Act so that a person in the UK can only be extradited under the EAW when the requesting State has made a decision to charge – and also to try – that individual, unless that person’s presence is required in that jurisdiction for those decisions to be made.

  But perhaps this new text has no importance during the opt out/opt in transition?
  /
  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-opt-out-of-eu-crime-and-justice-measures
  http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm86/8671/8671.pdf

• 

  Arbed121 August 20, 2013 at 11:57

  Hi Axel,

  I think you are right to be worried by that wording, but demanding that someone be extradited purely for the purpose of questioning purely for the express purpose of being able to decide whether to charge them (particularly when that person has a dual investigator/prosecutor role, ie. dual executive/judicial role!) is going to conflict directly with the MLA protocols. So, unless they are saying the MLA protocols are better scraped as they will no longer be needed…

  I’m trying to think under what circumstances someone’s presence in a country is (legitimately) required in order to decide whether to charge them. Can you think of any?

• 

  Axel August 20, 2013 at 16:15

  Arbed wrote:
  “I’m trying to think under what circumstances someone’s presence in a country is (legitimately) required in order to decide whether to charge them. Can you think of any?”

  Response:
  Hardly any. Maybe you can construct a case with some imagination: If the accused need to be confronted with some evidence that cannot be moved out of the country? Whatever that might be.

  In the case of Assange I cannot imagine any such circumstances. This is of course why Marianne Ny has always been very vague in her motivations for refusing to question Assange in London, whether by MLA or by invitation from the Ecuadorian Embassy. He is needed in Stockholm. Full stop. No reason given.

• 

  John Goss August 24, 2013 at 09:43

  “It is my belief that this peculiar opt-out /opt-back-in business with the EAW was in fact CAUSED by the Assange case, because the rulings in his case introduced two very dangerous new precedents which put all UK citizens at risk. Anyone can now be extradited to Europe merely for questioning, whereas before EAWs could not be used if there were no charges. And secondly, extradition can be demanded by a prosecutor in charge of investigating a case (therefore not impartial at all) rather than by a judge, which was the previous rule. By trying so hard to get Assange off its shores before the US tried to extradite him from here for conspiracy to commit journalism – which would be political dynamite – the UK has got itself into a huge human rights mess – hence the opt-out and opt-back-in to the EAW when the safeguards his case stripped out of UK law are put back in.”

  Arbed if you are sure that before EAWs could not be issued without a charge doesn’t the fact that the EAW issued for Assange’s arrest was illegal under European law and thus has no standing?

  Meanwhile Julian Assange talks to Eddie McGuire.

  http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/breaking-news/blog/2013/8/julian-assange-interview-eddie-mcguire-on-election-wikileaks-and-secretive-governments/

Comments are closed.