Skip to main content

So, the Brits are threatening to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange and extradite him to Sweden for a supposed sex crime.

The entire world knows that Assange would be extradited to Sweden by way of a US federal prison.  He could even become a bunkmate of Bradley Manning’s.  We must not forget that Manning is getting still getting the treatment that the US wants to inflict on Assange.

Who does Great Britain think it is—Margaret Thatcher invading the Falkland Islands? Ronald Reagan storming Grenada? George H.W. Bush storming Panama? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney invading Iraq?  Does the term “sovereign nation” only apply to the nations who feel they’re more sovereign than the smaller, weaker sovereign nations? Are the Brits pissed at Ecuador because they don’t have dictator friendly to powerful global interests in power to do their bidding?

Julian Assange’s only crime is that he released top secret documents that embarrassed the US and Great Britain. Don’t know why Sweden is doing the bidding of the US in this sordid affair, maybe it owns the US money, which the Obama administration is willing to write off in return for the capture and extradition.  Sometimes sovereign nations are the servant nations of larger sovereign nations.

So for those who keep insisting that Barack Obama is a decent man and a socialist liberal, how do you square this with the continued imprisonment of Bradley Manning—who was held in solitary confinement from July 2010 to February 2012 when he finally got to see the inside of a courtroom to be formally arraigned? His trial is scheduled to begin next month. Does this treatment sound like one that was authorized by a president who is a Constitutional scholar and told Constitutional law who should know a thing or two about the Bill of Rights, especially the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Assange, not being an American citizen, would not be covered by the Bill of Rights, especially if he’s designated an enemy combatant or a spy by a military tribunal or the DOJ.

If the Brits are allowed to go after Assange, then next they go after Greg Palast, or just your average whistleblower, and then the US follows suit and then the teabaggers would be correct in portraying the current administration as a dictatorship—but with George W. Bush not being the dictator.

If the major sovereign governments of the world insist on lying to their citizens about policies that have destroyed lesser sovereign governments and resulted in the deaths of millions of civilians and hundreds of thousands of those in the military and are caught doing it by the release of papers proving their deadly deception, then those in the governments responsible for the cover-ups should be removed from power and put on trial, but only after serving at least two years in a small cell in solitary confinement.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  what's the diff between UK and Russia? (5+ / 0-)

    I'm trying to put Assange and Pussy Riot into perspective.

    And the sad thing is, it's pretty apparent that Britain is threatening Assange, Ecuador and the concept of diplomacy this way at the bidding of the United States.

  •  World Govt. (4+ / 0-)

    Now we have definitive proof that we are ruled by one World Govt. who all act in concert with one another.  Is the threat truly independent nations such as Equador, or is it all smoke and mirrors for us masses?

  •  Is the UK a "servant sovereign nation?" (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    voroki, Rich in PA, FG, erush1345, MGross, TFinSF, VClib

    Because they have absolutely no obligation to grant a fugitive safe passage over their sovereign territory to go to another country.  To get to Ecuador, he's got to go over British sovereign territory to get there.

    Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

    by leevank on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:02:52 PM PDT

  •  Seems to be dearth of Assange diaries. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, northsylvania, atana

    They also seem to attract some pretty hostile commentary. Fascinating!

    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. G.B. Shaw

    by baghavadgita on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:03:23 PM PDT

  •  The facts of the matter is that the UK, (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    voroki, FG, cfm, erush1345, leevank

    one way or another, will gain custody of Assange, even if it simply revoked Embassy status for Ecuador. So this doesn't necessarily involve storming of anything. Assange will be seized by the authorities and will be extradited to Sweden and will face the charges against him. Whether or not Sweden will respond to efforts to extradite him to the USA is another issue. I have not followed the Assange case in detail, so I am not in a position to talk about the merits of his case. But I simply point out that Ecuador has damaged its relations with Britain for no benefit to either Ecuador or Assange. Staving off the inevitable is simply just that and nothing more. So I am still at a bit of a loss as to why Ecuador did what it did. It cannot hope to prevail.

    The universe may have a meaning and a purpose, but it may just specifically not include you.

    by Anne Elk on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:20:04 PM PDT

    •  This is the one thing people seem to be missing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG, cfm, erush1345

      Why hasn't the u.s. asked for him to be extradited from the u.k. if they want him so bad. The U.K. has a recent history of basically extraditing anyone the u.s. asks them to, much to the chagrin of the brits.

      "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

      by voroki on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:23:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  B/c US probably doesn't have a case against him. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        voroki, ballerina X, TFinSF

        But no one here will believe that, of course. It's all US conspiracy all the time.

      •  It may be an issue of precedence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        voroki

        If Sweden has issued a warrant, then I assume that the UK would honor that before any others.

        The universe may have a meaning and a purpose, but it may just specifically not include you.

        by Anne Elk on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:27:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But he had been in the u.k. on numerous occasions (0+ / 0-)

          prior to the swedish request for extradition. Why didn't they ask then?

          "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

          by voroki on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:30:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think charges have to be filed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, taraka das

            in order for a warrant to be issued, and that would be followed by an extradition request. Someone with more detailed knowledge of this affair might be able to say whether charges have been filed in a US court, but I suspect not. In that case, it would be difficult to argue that the US has a strong interest in extraditing him even from Sweden. My hunch is that he wil never be extradited to the US. But it's only a hunch. If the US wanted to go through the embarrassment of wading through all those leaked memos again, it probably would have taken action by now.

            The universe may have a meaning and a purpose, but it may just specifically not include you.

            by Anne Elk on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:57:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Facts?!?! What's this? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, voroki, FG, erush1345, leevank

        You know logic isn't allowed in these diaries!

        Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

        by Mindful Nature on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:31:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not always. (0+ / 0-)

        The UK often has a very different attitude toward the severity of a crime than the Americans, and in cases where the difference is extreme, court cases can go on forever (Think Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce in Dickens' Bleak House).
        The caveat is that they will go along with the Americans if: a. their goals are similar, and the embassy leaks embarrassed both governments enough that this could apply, or b. the Americans are so overbearing that it would be suicidal to object, and from what the current administration has said, this might be the case.

        "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in". Leonard Cohen

        by northsylvania on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 02:27:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tell that to Richard O'Dwyer and gary McKinnon (0+ / 0-)

          The 2003 treaty actually says americans only have to have a "reasonable suspicion" for extradition to be approved.

          "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

          by voroki on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 02:34:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why are they so desperate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi

      to get their greasy little clutches on him?  Surely it's not worth all the expense and international incidents to nab a guy who hasn't even been charged with anything.

      You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

      by Johnny Q on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 04:07:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They want to make him an example. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nicolemm

        If you have information that is damaging to U.S. "official" policy (or reputation), do not release it or you're toast.

        This is censorship and violation of U.S. First Amendment and international right to freedom of speech in spades.

        Allowing publication of secret government documents would set an obvious adverse example... and the government could be embarrassed -- as it should be by its current behavior.

        If enough people clamor, the governement's position might change.  Nixon's claim to "national security" as a reason for not releasing tapes injurious to him was ultimately thrown out judicially... but Nixon was already seriously unpopular.

        Kick apart the structures - Seth

        by ceebee7 on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 06:00:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Exhibit A for distotion (9+ / 0-)

    First, no,

    The entire world knows that Assange would be extradited to Sweden by way of a US federal prison
    There's no reason to think this more likely from Sweden than from the UK.  However in the absence of any charges or any extradition request, this statement is pretty absurd.  Especially before the Swedish and EU courts have ruled on it.  So, no, clearly not true.

    and

    the Brits are threatening to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange and extradite him to Sweden for a supposed sex crime
    Also not true.  IN fact, they've mostly disavowed doing so, but have pointed out that legally it is an option.  Legally it is an option to do a lot of things, but that's utterly different from a statemetn about "preparing" to do anything.

    I wish people would stick to reality more.

    Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

    by Mindful Nature on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:29:56 PM PDT

    •  Additionally... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG, TFinSF, erush1345, leevank

      This assertion:

      Julian Assange’s only crime is that he released top secret documents that embarrassed the US and Great Britain.
      ...is simply inaccurate.  In fact, Assange has violated the terms of his bail agreement -- this is a crime, and it is for this crime that UK authorities seek to arrest him.

      As it happens, I was in the process of typing up a comment much like yours when this posted -- and yours is much better-written than mine was turning out.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:39:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, thats the ticket (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nicolemm, pvmuse

        to ensure that the Swedish prosecutor can question him in Sweden on a misdemeanor, Britain is willing to violate the sanctity of a foreign embassy, knowing....and this is important....that the rest of the world is watching.
         Britain, with embassies and consulates far and wide,  is willing to endanger their own operations over a man wanted for questioning in a misdemeanor.  It makes perfect sense.

        These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

        by Nailbanger on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 05:53:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The UK, Ecuador and Sweden (10+ / 0-)

    are supposedly working out a "deal" wherein "promises are made" that guarantee Mr Assange will not be extradited to the US should the UK make that guarantee and Sweden follows up with similar sweet promises.

    There are currently 50 British police officers at every fire escape and window of the Ecuadorian embassy. Nice pressure applied there.

    But, shit happens. Assange will no doubt be absconded and renditioned to the US once he leaves the safety of political asylum.

    The case in Sweden has been fumbled from the beginning... and the politicization of it when Ny got involved only worsened that.

    Not only that, the policewoman who took the...

    ...initial statements is a friend of Ardins and should have stepped aside. She also failed to tape them, in violation of police procedures, so the initial statements cannot be examined for contradictions.

    And yet, despite multiple lies from police and prosecutors, multiple violations of Swedish legal procedures and multiple witnesses who cast doubt on the women's stories (detailed in the link in my sig), some people insist that anyone who points these things out is "smearing" Ardin and Wilén

    The case against Assange debunked: http://www.nnn.se/...

    by expatjourno on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 03:00:36 PM EDT


    In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

    by bronte17 on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:38:51 PM PDT

  •  Assange's alleged crimes to date include: (6+ / 0-)

    Bail jumping in the UK (he was on bail when he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy), I believe there is a current warrant on that charge.

    Rape in Sweden, that is the EU warrant that he was contesting when he jumped bail.

    That's it. No one else has charged him with any crime in any court (I'm aware of).

    Are there people in the US that MAY want to try and charge him with something? Sure. There are also people who think that the President of the United States is a Kenyan Socialist.

    Assange is fleeing a serious charge in Sweden, and he has abused the goodwill of the UK courts.  The US has nothing to do with Mr. Assange's current problems.

    •  Try to convince anyone here of that. He could have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, erush1345

      murdered 10 people on the street of London in the broad daylight and most people here would be defending him.

    •  He did not "jump bail." He applied for and (8+ / 0-)

      was accepted for political asylum.

      There was no bail jumping there.

      Why don't you read up on Pinochet and Maggie Thatcher and his crumpets and tea sessions with Miss Maggie while Spain sought his extradiction for his murderous reign. AND there was an actual indictment against Pinochet. But the Brits couldn't be bothered with such things.

      Then come back here and tell us how awful Julian Assange is for applying for political asylum.

      Furthermore, there were TWO Swedish prosecutors on his case. One of whom... the CHIEF PROSECUTOR... dismissed the charges.

      The police interrogated Assange for an hour and all this testimony was examined, an arrest warrant against Mr Assange was denied. Contrary to the lies of the second prosecutor, Marianne Ny, who has slandered Assange's name across the world as a fugitive from justice.

      Furthermore, the police woman who interrogated the two women did NOT tape the interrogation in violation of police procedure and that original testimony of accusations cannot now be checked for any discrepancies or contradictions.


      In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

      by bronte17 on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 02:00:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He violated terms of his bail (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        and requested (and was granted) political asylum, these are not mutually exclusive. If Mr. Assange can get himself to Ecuador then the Ecuadorian's can treat him however they wish.  The Brits, however have this little problem with a guy they let loose in their country under the agreement that he would present himself to the court when called, who has chosen to renege on that agreement.

        The specific issues of Swedish law are for the Swedes to work out when they get the subject of their warrant in their custody.

        Mr. Assange may be able to prove himself innocent of all charges against him, but he's got to actually follow through with the process, at this point every time someone gave him some slack (the Swedes could have prevented him from leaving, but didn't, the Brits could have let him moulder in jail, but didn't) he rewards that trust with a slap in the face when things don't go his way.

        •  The political asylum elides into the bail issue (0+ / 0-)

          though. Or the bail elides into the asylum. Whatever.

          I'm not versed in the legalities of it.

          There really was no "bail jumping" per se to be accurate.

          The political asylum supposedly could not be offered to a "criminal", but let's get real here... it has happened quite often in the past and been fully supported by the governments.

          Furthermore, Assange is not a criminal. He has not officially been charged with any crime. He is simply wanted for questioning and the extradition was set in place to accomplish that supposed objective.


          In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

          by bronte17 on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 03:34:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, asylum does not "elide" bail. (0+ / 0-)

            Ecuador's political decision has no bearing on the legal standing of Assange with regard to the British courts.

            Much like Pinochet's protection by the British government, had no legal bearing on the Spanish government's war crimes charges. (However, it obviously had the practical effect of his not standing trial.)

            I haven't called him a criminal, just pointed out the only crimes for which charges or warrants exist.

            There is no "rule" that states that political asylum can't be granted to criminals.  As its name states it is a political decision. Many criminals (individuals convicted of crimes in their home countries) have been granted political asylum in both the US and UK.

            (and elide doesn't mean what you think it may)

  •  Who knows what the real game is? (0+ / 0-)

    The "dirty secrets keepers" can "win" this one without putting Assange in jail.  He's already been put through sufficient hell to discourage anyone from openly publishing US secrets.  That just means that the next big airing of various countries dirty laundry will be done in a more secretive fashion in much the same way that suppressing peaceful protest can lead to more violent guerilla action.


    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    Give 'em hell, Barry—Me

    by KingBolete on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 02:44:54 PM PDT

  •  We know why the US government is doing this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    renzo capetti, ceebee7

    Pour encourager les autres.

    Manning and Assange are being made examples for anyone else who might consider revealing the truth about US power to the unwashed masses.

    •  We "know" no such thing! (0+ / 0-)

      In fact, we don't even know that the U.S. government has anything to do with this.  What you are doing is ASSUMING that the Swedish government is some kind of a puppet of the U.S., and would be subservient to U.S. wishes to a greater degree than the U.K.  I would submit that there is nothing in Swedish history, from when it granted asylum to those fleeing the U.S. draft or deserting from the U.S. military during Vietnam, up to today, that would justify that assumption.

      Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

      by leevank on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 11:41:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  fiddlesticks. in fact, double fiddlesticks n/n (0+ / 0-)

    You can hold an opinion, or a grudge, or a stock, or a picket sign. But the time really to be at your best Is when you hold the hand of a trusting child.

    by renzo capetti on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 05:24:05 PM PDT

  •  Sweden needs to stand up to the U.S. (0+ / 0-)

    the way Ecuador has stood up to the U.S.... more than once.  U.S. hates it when small countries fail to genuflect at the mention of U.S. power.

    Sovereignty is sovereignty and is absolute.

    The U.S. is a bully and a hypocrite.

    Kick apart the structures - Seth

    by ceebee7 on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 06:06:34 PM PDT

    •  ceebee - it's my view that Assange is a dead (0+ / 0-)

      man walking. It may take a month, a year, or five years but he has made a lot of enemies who don't play by the rules. I wish he would receive all the benefits of western jurisprudence, but I fear his time is limited. Even if he is a free man in Ecuador he will be hunted and live a life on the run.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 06:31:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can't believe this Creep still lionized... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, cfm, leevank

    All the defenses I have read of Assange rest upon acceptance of multiple conspiracy theories.  According to Julian's fan club, the US is a global puppetmaster that is able to get Sweden's government and several willing Swedish females to completely fabricate a case against him.  The conspiracy extends to the UK.

    Any good conspiracy requires the ignoring of inconvenient facts.  A glaring one is why the Evil USA would want to wait until Assange was extradited to Sweden before launching its own extradition when it could easily do so in the UK if it wanted to.  Surely the UK is more malleable to the Evil USA than the socialistic Swedes?

    Another fact to ignore is that Swedish law would not permit Assange to be extradited if he faced the death penalty or was being sought for some improper reason.  Any argument that Assange wants to make can be made in Swedish proceedings.  The illogic of the Swedish death trap argument is so glaring that you are left only with a reasonable assumption that Assange simply doesn't want to face the charges of these women accusers.

    The cherry on the cake is that Assange is using Ecuador's President Correa as his human rights shield.  Correa has been criticized for cracking down on journalistic freedom at home.  The Wikinauts never bring this up, probably because like anything else they find inconvenient it must be part of a global conspiracy.

    Just like Assange taking money from Russia Today (RT), the pro-Putin network, where he gave his first interview to Bashar Assad's favorite Lebanese, Hezbollah terrorist Nasrallah.  Those US puppetmasters must be working overtime to have arranged all this.

    Assange is a megalo-maniacal hypocrite.  Anyone should have realized this when he started doing things like demanding Hillary Clinton resign.

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 06:37:53 PM PDT

  •  Ready for the backstory? (0+ / 0-)
    Don’t know why Sweden is doing the bidding of the US in this sordid affair, maybe it owns the US money, which the Obama administration is willing to write off in return for the capture and extradition.
    Oh no! Not at all. The real story is really, really much more interesting than that.

    I'm not gonna do links here, but I will point you in the right direction. There is so much material to read that it's better if you read it all and evaluate it all yourself.

    First stop: justice4assange

    Google that. Read the official documents about the Swedish "case" if it can be called that. Also, read the fascinating articles about gender politics and the "duckpond."

    With this background, the rest starts to fall in place. You really can't even imagine how this whole extradition scenario got anywhere unless you understands the players and the politics.

    Google these next:
    1) Social Democratic Party in Sweden
    2) Pirate Party
    3) The Brotherhood in Sweden (The Christian Organization)
    4) The Ladies in White, an anti-Castro group tied to CIA contractors.

    What do all of the above have in common? ANNA ARDIN, Assange's accuser.

    Google Anna Ardin and read everything you can find about her. I recommend reading:
    Rawstory
    Counterpunch
    Firedoglake
    Rixstep
    allvoices

    You won't find much about Sofia Wilen, allegedly Assange's other accuser. She is curiously absent when you look for her on the internet. She was recruited by Ardin, manipulated by Ardin, tricked by Ardin, and ultimately, refused to sign a complaint against Assange.

    If you've gotten this far, you might have learned some other names.
    Irmeli Krans, police investigator, and Ardin's friend waiting at the police station after hours to open an investigation once Ardin tricked Wilen to go therewith her to "get some information."

    Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand, the on-duty prosecutor, another of Anna Ardin's friends, standing by that same night to immediately put out an APB arrest warrant for Assange. Kjellstrand's husband works for Beatrice Ask, The Minister of  Justice in Sweden, and that becomes important later.

    Mats Gehlin, the police investigator who, on his own initiative, collaborated with Claes Bergstrom, Anna Ardin's lawyer, to alter and falsify Wilen's partial "testimony." Once Wilen realized what was going on, she refused to sign a complaint, left the police station and never came back. Mats Gehlin also leaked alll the info to Expressen, a Swedish tabloid and Mats Gehlin is reported to have some recent unexplained wealth.

    All of  these things occured within days. It was all set up beforehand by Ardin.

    Some press reports say that the conference attended by Assange was sponsored by The Brotherhood. That is an error, but easy to make, since, during the months that Ardin courted Assange by phone and email and organized the conference, she was the Press Secretary for the Brotherhood. During this same time, Ardin was a candidate for political office for the Social Democrats. Her friend, Irmeli Krans, the police investigator, was also on the ticket and runninng for office for the Social Democrats.

    The conference Assange attended in 2010 in Sweden was attended by the Pirate Party, and by HOPE (Hackers On Planet Earth). ANNA ARDIN set up this conference, and introduced Assange to the Pirate Party. The Pirate Party has a bomb shelter that can withstand a nuclear blast, and they offered wikileaks this facilitiy to house servers.

    Are you beginning to understand why Swedish intelligence and the NSA and the CIA might have an interest in this transaction?

    Anna Ardin RECRUITED Sofia Wilen and she made sure she had an upfront seat at the conference, even though the conference was already sold out and Wilen showed up without a reservation. Ardin also made sure Wilen had opportunities to meet assange and help out setting up the conference. She fixed Wilen up with Assange.

    Anna Ardin offered Assange her home, saying she would be away. Then she showed up  there and seduced him.

    After Ardin and Krans and Kjellstrand got the ball rolling, the Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, threw the case out. That's when Krans, Kjellstrand and Ardin shopped the case to another prosecutor, Marianne Ny.
    These three, and Ardin's lawyer, and Mats Gehlin, played games for a whole month while Assange was in Sweden trying to clear his name. Finally, Assange was cleared and allowed to leave Sweden. Assange applied for a residency permit and was denied, so he left Sweden.
    Then Marianne Ny began the shenanigans that led to the bogus extradition request (no charges or court order) and finally the Interpol Red Notice.

    It's actually even more complex than I've said here. I've given enough for anyone else to follow.

     

  •  A bit more, if you are interested (0+ / 0-)

    The Moderate Party and the more conservative coalition of parties in Sweden are in control of  the government, not the Social Democrats.

    Beatice Ask, the Minister of Justice and carl Bildt, the Foreign Minister, are from the Moderate Party, as is Marianne Ny.

    Three things really explain how this bogus, unsubstantiated and (as you'll see if you read Rixstep) easily debunked case morphed into an extradition request and an Interpol Red Notice:

    First, Gender Politics TRUMPS ALL in Sweden. People in the United States or the UK or really anywhere else cannot imagine the influence of gender politics in Sweden. They have a Minister of Gender Equality. Look up  the Swedish government. Women outnumber men in government offices.

    Second, 2010 was an election year. Whomever Anna Ardin couldn't enlist for her vendetta against Assange, should could manipulate into secoming a supporter. Remember, she was the Press secretary for The Brotherhood and had conections in the media as well as the government. All she had to do is threaten a campaign with the headline: "They let the rapist Go!" Get it?

    Third, US interest. For the mechanics of the extradition and European arrest warrant , I credit Anna Ardin. You cannot help but admire her as a fierce and relentless opponent, a fearless activist, and savvy and cunning politician.  She is a shrewd and skilful opportunist, and I don't find it hard to believe at all that she might be a Swedish intelligence agent. And her past ties to CIA contractors certainly recommends the idea that she was working with American intelligence to sideline Assange.

    Now, why in the world has the UK played along with this farce? Well, do you really wonder why the British High Court ruled that a prosecutor is a "judicial authority" and made a mockery of the entire legal system to deny Assange his appeal and put him on a plane to Sweden?

    Now Britain is claiming they can storm embassies, bully other nations and refuse to recognize asylum as defined in the UN Charter.

    Is it about a sex allegation?

    Anna Ardin threw a party fro Assange the day after the alleged rape. Is that what a rape victim would do?

  •  OK last one (0+ / 0-)

    There is, in fact, a Grand Jury investigation of wikileaks and Assange, and the file number reveals it as a case under the Espionage Act. My source is Michael Ratner, CCR lawyer and also one of Assange's lawyers.

    The Australian government, frustrated by their inability to do anything to stop this ridiculous railroad of Assange in Britain, has, in the past two days, begun to badger the US government about this Grand Jury investigation.

    The Australian Press has gotten wind of it and they asked Obama Admin. officials about it this morning.

    The Obama Admin. is pretending there is no investigation, saying "this is a matter between the UK, Sweden and Ecuador."

    How long will that work, I wonder? I've read message boards all over the world and most people are not buying this "sex scandal" story. Those that do change their minds when given some info.

  •  Assange is a criminal who should be behind bars (0+ / 0-)

    This is nonsense:

    Julian Assange’s only crime is that he released top secret documents that embarrassed the US and Great Britain.
    Assange released hundreds of thousands of classified documents, including hundreds of thousands of private emails (with zero vetting whatsoever, thanks to an idiotic screwup on Wikileak's end). Imagine how you'd feel, if your emails were relased to the public. Now, multiply that crime by 1,000 for releasing classified documents, hampering US policy, endangering the lives of our brave intelligence agents and the people they work with, etc. This wholesale mass-release of private, classified documents is despicable. Anyone who wants to leak classified documents out of some self-proclaimed noble vision should be prepared to face the consequences for their actions: hard jail time.

    If you want to make all your emails public you can do so -- just publish your password here. But that's not how any organization (public, private, governmental, international, domestic, or non-profit) functions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site