A week or so ago David Allen Green posted a story about a “leaked” Confidentiality Agreement from Wikileaks. Much to our surprise, many people made a big deal about it. Since it was becoming a big deal, Daniel Dumshite-Berg decided to get on board in an attempt to extend his 15 minutes of fame…
It’s probably not a coincidence that Aftonbladet, the tabloid newspaper that is working with Wikileaks on the Guantanamo files in Sweden, prints that “Assange is a creep” article just a day before the Guantanamo files are released.
Meanwhile, other newsoutlets are, you know, giving us the news. In the BBC Canada article ” Wikileaks: Many at Guantanamo ‘not dangerous’” you’ll find a quick rundown on the files, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange in a bite-sized article.
THE EGOIST Julian Assange puts a lot of money to free himself from allegations of rape – but he doesn’t lift a finger when Bradley Manning, Wikileaks claimed source, is tortured in arrest and is risking lifetime in jail, writes Jan Guillou.
Julian Assange - a little creep without principles
It’s embarrassing clear that Julian Assange, the frontman of Wikileaks, is not a male role model. To say it modestly. If he also is guilty to some kind of rape and sexual molestation, I can not comment. But his ardent supporters, who claim to know he is innocent, don’t know either. The reason we don’t know, depends on Julian Assange himself, who refuses to come to Sweden for an interrogation. If he was so innocent as he and his followers claims, it would be an easy way to get the suspicions out of the way (and come to Sweden, my notation). Most people suspected of sexual crime in Sweden is actually free, depending on rather high standard of proof. (*)
Assange has launched a campaign against the Swedish legal system. He likens Sweden to Saudi Arabia and he means that innocent men are treated as if they were in an assembly line, and get convicted, because of the iron hard feminists who rule in this country. In addition, he speaks of a conspiracy that involves passing through Sweden on false rape allegations to have him extradited to U.S. There of course he would be tried very hard in retaliation for the disclosures Wikileaks has published. Also for those who like myself for decades has devoted to criticize shortcomings in the Swedish judicial system seems legal reasoning from Assange and his circle, so absurd that they are not even worth taking seriously. Even more embarrassing is that well-known radical social critics such as John Pilger, Michael Moore and Tariq Ali seems to back up this campaign.
It is true that Wikileaks has published some very shocking revelations. Best known is the video footage showing American soldiers, under cheerful conversation, murdering a dozen civilians in Baghdad in 2007. It’s something so unusual as war crimes recorded by the war criminals themselves. You can understand the fact that the U.S. armed forces will find such a publication highly inappropriate. Or even treasonous.
And now we are really approaching a legal scandal far from Julian Assanges self-absorbed idiot campaign. The U.S. authorities have, since a year, alleged source captured, and expose him to harassment that goes over the limit towards torture. Bradley Manning, 23 years, kept naked in solitary confinement, prevented from sleeping and “inspected” (naked at attention) many times a day. He has not yet been tried, not clear why, but prosecutors have announced that they will be pressing for life imprisonment for some form of treason.
Bradley Manning ought to defend himself by saying that he helped to expose U.S. war crimes and that the high principles of democracy, therefore, excuse his leak of information. The U.S. armed forces shall not be able to conceal their crime to the principals, the American people. Something like that, the defense ought to be posted. Large legal principles against each other, and Bradley Manning is in need of the best lawyers to be found. In the American legal system you are in dire need of money to defend yourself. This support Wikileaks has, despite promises, not given (given money to Mannings defense, my notation) Instead, Julian Assange stays with three english lawyers who is helping him not to come to Sweden for interrogation.
The story of Julian Assange is a legal scandal of large dimensions. Not because Julian Assange is suspected of sex crimes but that his source of those huge revelations risks life imprisonment and also is tortured during an incomprehensible pending for trial.
The story also contains a political martyr at the same level as Daniel Ellsberg, who in the 1970s, leaked information about the Vietnam War, was tried, got money collected to the first classical legal assistance - and was acquitted. But the political martyr is certainly not Julian Assange, although he seriously puts it so. The victim is Bradley Manning. Julian Assange risk is at most a financial penalty, according to the allegations. His source, Bradley Manning, author of Assanges hero status, risks life imprisonment.
But that doesn’t seem to worry Assange himself or his cheerleading squad. For them, lawyers for Assange is more important than for Bradley Manning. Quite apart from his conviction in the rape story, one can safely say that Julian Assange is a small disgust without principles. Once again, putting it modestly.
* This is in my opinion, a remarkable statement from Guillou. He himself, wrote an article in the same paper (Aftonbladet) just a few months ago ( 2010-10-10) about how innocent men gets judged by the Swedish courts. See “Billy butt utsatt för ett justitiemord”
“Hung in silence are most of the men, who are innocent, and sentenced for sexual crime. And they are many. The Chancellor of Justice pointed out in a report from 2006 (“wrong judgements”) a dozen judgements like that. And that was only about men who, against long odds, successfully managed to appeal the sentence and got acquittal.”
It was discovered only a year or so ago that Jan Guillou had also been a spy for the Soviet Union. Unbelievably enough. He was simultaneously a spy for the Swedish security police and the social democratic party.
Jan Guillou writes occasionally even today, despite his ripe age. He comes out of retirement to answer questions about his recruitment by the KGB or to make a guest appearance in a smear documentary about Julian Assange where he can laugh at those charges against Assange (and the reaction of Assange and his legal team to them). Or where he can say nasty things about People Who Aren’t As Great As Jan Guillou™ such as John Pilger, Michael Moore, and Tariq Ali.
Here’s an interesting detail in it all: The author of the smear article (Jan Guillou), has a daughter (Ann-Linn Guillou), who is a Facebookfriend to the Police inspector Irmeli Krans, (the police who interrogated Sofia W., one of the two women accusing Assange for rape). The other woman, accusing Assange, Anna A. is also a friend of Irmeli Krans.
Meanwhile, Peter Bratt, the not-as-famous as Guillou reporter who did all the hard work revealing the IB-affair without receiving any of the credit has posted this article on Newsmill.
The new hobby in Sweden is for all journalists to propagate the flat out lie that Assange and Wikileaks doesn’t support Bradley Manning, the alleged WIkileaks leaker.
The Bradley Manning Support Network, which expressed frustration last month that it had not received the promised pledge, praised WikiLeaks’ contribution Thursday. ”This donation from WikiLeaks is vital to our efforts to ensure Bradley receives a fair, open trial,” wrote Mike Gogulski, the network’s founder, in a press release. — Wired - WikiLeaks Contributes $15,000 to Bradley Manning’s Defense
Wikileaks twitter account wears a “Free Bradley” twibbon, and contiously tweets information and resources about how to help Bradley Manning.
And so on. If you follow the Wikileaks twitter account you’ll see that Bradley Manning shows up almost daily.
Assange often brings up Bradley Manning’s plight when speaking at the frontline club, as well as when he is speaking to journalists who insist on asking him sordid details about the sexual crime allegations instead. The spotlight turned away from Bradley Manning is these journalists doing, and not anyone elses!
Here Assange explains how he and Wikileaks have to perform a delicate balancing act when supporting Bradley Manning - remember that if Wikileaks ever says “Yes, Bradley was our source” Manning hangs.
For another point of view, please read Bradley Manning.org and in particular “Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and Revolution Truth” written by Micaela Ward, from revolutiontruth.org
As I searched for more information, I became aware of the case of Pfc Bradley Manning, the accused, alleged, WikiLeaks whistleblower. He was initially charged with military violations and crimes related to the leaking of the Collateral Murder video, then accused of leaking the US Embassy cables, without charges being brought until a mere few weeks ago (Mar 2011), and has been held in solitary confinement for these past ten months, in violation of his Constitutional right to due process. The conditions under which he is being held constitute torture, under international law and precedential common and US law, and my govt is perpetrating this crime against one of its own citizens, to our shame, and against a miltary service member, no less, more to its own shame. Apparently, our Whistleblower Protection Act is not worth the paper it is written upon. We are all Bradley Manning.
Are the witnesses lying? Petra Ornstein says, the 20th of August 12:10 on her facebook page:
”men asså våldtog du henne? Really? Men det gjorde nog inget, hon ville ju tidigare, och du gör ju så mkt viktigare grejer. säkert. #mansförakt”
translated: “But uh, did you rape her? Really? It probably doesn’t matter, she wanted to earlier, and you’re doing so much more important stuff. I’m sure. #male contempt
What little bit of news could she be facebooking sarcastic comments about, the 20th of August, at noon?
Had she spoken to anyone involved in the case? You can find the entire police protocol translated over at Rixstep. Petra Ornstein’s statement is called Witness ‘A’, here. Lets see what she says in her police interrogation as a witness:
Anna rang A on Friday 20 August right after the other girl contacted Anna. Anna told her the other girl had told her she’d been raped by Julian. According to Anna, there were a number of similarities between their stories. What A primarily meant and what Anna told her was that Julian also had sex without a condom with the other girl. The other girl wanted sex (but with a condom) but Julian had seen to it they had sex without a condom against her wishes. Anna rang A and updated her because she herself hadn’t planned on filing a complaint against Julian but she wanted to support the other girl.
What does this mean? Lets translate it into actions. Sofia calls Anna. Anna calls Petra. Petra posts an ironic message on her facebook, which to the initiated labels Julian Assange a rapist… Four hours before either of the women have entered the police station.
In short, the story spun in several papers that “the women just wanted Julian to get an HIV test” is bullshit. They, and women close to them, called Julian Assange a rapist before they walked into Klara Police Station. They reported a man for rape.
“Rape of the less serious kind” is what the lawyer calls it. (Male)jerk!
is Irmeli Krans status update. She’s likely read the news where Mark Stephens has stated things like:
We don’t even know what ‘sex by surprise’ even means, and they haven’t told us,” Stephens said, just hours after Sweden’s Supreme Court rejected Assange’s bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.
As the case was all over the papers that day. Her facebok friends agree with her, all but one.
Imreli given your job though, I think that you should integrity enough to refrain from the status bar. I’m serious. Citizens must have confidence that the police are neutral, objective, without bias.
The man who protests is Harald Ullman, Vice Chairman of the City Police Board and owner of Ullman PR. Back in 1972 he was appointed ombudsman organization and personnel of the Social Democrats, and is still very active in the party.
Irmeli Krans would like Bodström to “come home and shut down Flashback”. We’re flattered. Really we are. And thrilled to see a police officer wish for a lawyer/politician to shut down the last place in Sweden where one can actually engage in free speech.
Flashback isn’t hosted in Sweden, and for very good reason, they’ve tried shutting it down before. Who told Assange Sweden was a safe haven?
It’s interesting to note here, that she hasn’t finished writing the interrogation with miss Wilén yet. She was meant to finish that the 23rd of August but had taken a sickday. She returned to the station the 26th to complete the statement from Sofia Wilén.
From the news report:
Kvinnans advokat Claes Borgström är kritisk till åklagarens beslut och har begärt en prövning av beslutet. Den ska göras i morgon.
“The womans lawyer (note: singular) is critical to the prosecutors decision and has demanded a second look. That will be done tomorrow.”
at the bottom of this facebook conversation, Irmeli Krans says at 22.44 that she’s hopeful that Borgström will sort things out.
Irmeli Krans is a friend of Anna Ardin and at the time, the investigator of the case, also the person who interrogated Sofia Wilén. The statement from Wilén, Sofia was completed 2010-08-26 14:43 diarienr: 0201-K246314-10. A Day after Eva Finné had closed the case. The statement ends with these words:
Fredagen den 20 augusti 2010 höll jag förhör med målsägande Sofia Wilén i ärende 0201-K246314-10 på Klara närpolisstation. Förhöret påbörjades kl.16.21 och avslutades kl.18.40. Därefter skrevs förhöret in i wordprogrammet i Durtvå. Förhöret skulle renskrivas nästkommande tjänstgöringsdag, måndagen den 23 augusti 2010. Detta var inte möjligt då jag nekades tillgång till förhöret jag hållit. Efter diverse brevväxling fick jag direktivet av handläggare Mats Gehlin att istället skapa och signera ett nytt förhör i DurTvå vilket gjordes torsdagen den 26 augusti med behövliga ändringar. Tyvärr daterades och tidsangavs det dokumentet med rättelsens tidpunkt eftersom detta sker med automatik i DurTvås system.
Translation: Friday, August 20, 2010 I held hearings with victims Sofia Wilén Case 0201-K246314-10 on Clara neighborhood police station. The interrogation began and ended kl.16.21 kl.18.40. After the hearing provided in MS Word program in “Durtvå”. The interrogation would be transcripted the next workday, Monday 23 August 2010. This was not possible when I was denied access to the sattement. After some correspondence I received the directive by the administrators Mats Gehlin instead to create and sign a new hearing in DurTvå which was made on Thursday 26 August with the necessary modifications. I was dated and timestamped the document with the right time as this is done automatically in DurTvås systems.
It’s most likely that she was denied access because the case was actually closed (by the prosecutor) when she tried to “complete” it. Note the phrase “the necessary modifications”. What modifications? Also note that this statement in the 100 page “HäPM” is not signed or verbally approved by Sofia Wilén herself. Everyone elses statements are approved by the people who were questioned.
The interrogations reveal that the women were blackmailing Assange.
Men då ringde jag honom och frågade, vad fan är det frågan om. Och då säger han att ja, vad heter det, hon vill att jag ska göra ett, ett blodprov. Så men fan gör det då liksom. Vad, vad är grejen. Så, nej men jag, jag kan göra ett blodprov men jag vill inte utpressas till att göra ett blodprov. Ehm… För de säger att de antingen går till polisen, eller, Sofia, att hon antingen går till polisen eller så gör jag ett blodprov” page 46 Johann Wahlström
Above translated from Johann Wahlströms statement:
“ButwhenI calledhimandasked,whatthe hellisgoing on?Andwhenhe saysthatyes,what is it called,shewants metodoa,ablood test.So? What the hell do it then.What,whatis the big deal?So, he says no,butI,Icandoablood testbut Iwouldnot beblackmailedintomakingablood test.Ehm…Forthey’re saythat theyeithergoto thepolice,or,Sofia,sheeithergoesto thepoliceorI doablood test“
“Och så går hon dit och följer med Sofia. Och vi ringer några gånger fram och tillbaka, vi SMS:ar varandra lite om det här. Och jag ringer också och tar kontakt med Julian några gånger, Eh, de vill att Julian ska ta ett HIV-prov, eh, annars så ska de anmäla honom. Det är så de uttrycker det.” page 55 Donald Boström
Translated fromDonald Boströms interrogation:
“Andsoshe goesthere (to the police) and accompanies Sofia.Andweare callinga fewtimesback and forth,wetexteach othera bitaboutithere.AndIalso callandmake contactwithJuliana fewtimes,uh,theywantJuliantotakean HIVtest,uh,otherwisethey will report him to the police.That’s how theyexpressit.”
Two witnesses are clearly stating that the women were threatening Assange with the police if they didn’t get what they want. Textbook blackmail.