Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Analysis: Assange’s lawyer’s error shouldn’t determine the case

As we know, Assange’s lawyer in Sweden Björn Hurtig admitted yesterday at the London Court proceedings that he had involuntarily missed a message from Prosecutor Ny in regard to a possible date for Assange´s interrogation while still in Sweden. The information was never passed over to Assange because of several reasons explained by Hurtig.

Unsurprisingly, the manipulated/manipulative anti-Assange media (see for instance The Independent today's article on Assange in section "Crimes") wishes to exploit this event by arguing that Hurtig’s admission in the Court would negate one of Assange’s defence key-arguments, namely, the assertion that Marianne Ny could have very well - if she really wanted – interrogated Julian Assange in  Sweden without the necessity of issuing an international extradition warrant.

This Sweden-issued warrant in reality wished, and obtained, the arresting of Assange without the need of even charging him – as Swedish prosecutors ostensibly had no substantial evidence against Assange.

In fact, Sweden expected that Assange would remain in the high security cell where he was held practically incommunicado in London ensuing the arresting demanded by Sweden. That was the design. As it can be recalled, an especial request in that regard was put forward by the prosecutor on behalf of Sweden during the proceedings of January 11, 2011.  Sweden opposed bail and favoured continuation of incommunicado-like circumstances for Assange. But things turn different and Assange was granted bail.

These are instead the determinant facts in the context  (and about that one miss amid numerous skilful assertions from the part of Björn Hurtig at the London Court).

  1. The paramount fact is that the Swedish prosecutors DID ALLOW ASSANGE TO LEAVE SWEDEN without making the interrogation a compulsory or conditional item for his leave!  This fact in the strongest meaning confirm the artificial - also called “malicious” -  manoeuvre of try the arresting of Assange abroad, a sine-qua-non condition for having him extradited to Sweden and therefore held him incommunicado in waiting for – in a worst, yet highly credible scenario – the extradition, alternative illegal rendition to the USA. Sweden does have a proven experience and routine as to how implement such illegal rendition. In fact, is the disclosure by Wikileaks of such “operative -intelligence” cooperation between the Swedish government and the USA one of the most potent explanations of Swedish official vendetta against Assange and Wikileaks.
  2. Hurtig did also declare in the London proceedings of Feb 8 – fact which was not rebutted by the Crown prosecutor acting in Sweden’s behalf – in good time prior to Assange’s departure from Sweden (to Germany, and then the UK) he had contacted prosecutor Marianne Ny suggesting a new date for the prosecutor’s questioning of Assange but she adduced unavailability from her part.
  3. That a new questioning of Assange never took place  (The Independent journalists seem to forget that Assange had indeed been interrogated extensively by the police on the issue. See the  leaked police report) is  then hardly solely accountable to a sms-message missed by Hurtig. 

Ergo, the argument of Assange’s defence in disclosing the truly nature of the extradition warrant do remain in its full power. The vicissitudes around one sms message – received surely amid hundred others by that time by Hurtig -  have no bearing at all in the  solidity of Assange’s position with regard to the  “peculiar” position of de Swedish Judiciary and its outmost artificially constructed proceeding in the Assange case.

These proceedings fit instead one hundred percent in the perspective-analysis of an active involvement of some Swedish officials, or institutions, as instruments in the geopolitical design of the foreign power they apparently obey.

I am aware how horrible and highly conspiratorial the above might sound, but I could myself hardly believe it was true – when I read an article Expressen yesterday – that the very Prime Minister of Sweden Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt, whom this column have elsewhere referred as a politician with honourable marks - made public statements involving officially and openly the Swedish government in the London Court deliberations referring exclussively to protecting the rights of the accusers  (the two women) involved in the Assange extradition process.

Let me first to recall that in my article published in Newsmill Jan 11  I clearly advanced the hypothesis on whether behind the Sweden case against Assange it truly exists the intention of making a pilot case of the event. Meaning, to use Assange's celebrity to reassure or move forwards positions in the Swedish legislative process towards a radicalization in the penalty of sex-offences, or the enhancing of criminal conceptualization in that regard.

In declarations published in Aftonbladet  "i samband med domstolsförhandlingarna om utlämningen av Julian Assange i London", PM Reinfeldt reveals what is in fact the issue at stake. Reinfelt said concretely:

"Let us not forget what is here at risk. It is the right for women to have their case tested in court as to whether what they have been subjected of is a criminal abuse (offence)" 

– Låt oss inte glömma bort vad som riskeras här. Det är ju rätten för kvinnor att få prövat huruvida det har varit ett övergrepp som de har varit utsatta för."

I put in serious doubt that Reinfeldt  would really consider the content of his statement above as THE reason for the Swedish offensive aganist Assange and Wikileaks. For there is evidence that the "pilot-case factor" is only a part in the constellation of causes behind the Swedish political crusade against Assange and Wikileaks.

Nevertheless, Reinfeldt did try also to defend the integrity of the kingdom’s judiciary – which would be totally understandable for his position as surrogate head of state (Sweden is still a monarchy and Prime Ministers receive formally the assignment from the king). However,  he just made things worst. What Reinfeldt in the main ended in pointing out - in the name of the Swedish government - was  the publicly taking side on behalf of the two accusers-ladies, for which he demanded respect very much exclusively. This is what he stated in Expressen:

"that in this way attempt to circumvent it and make it appear that their rights are worth very little, I think that's regrettable."

["att på det här sättet försöka kringgå det och få det att framstå som att deras  rätt är mycket litet värd, det tycker jag är beklagligt."]

On the other hand Fredrik Reinfeldt has tried a few times to give the notion that his government is “neutral” in the matter.  He had to lie to assert such statement. Everybody in Sweden knows however that Sweden is not only not-neutral any longer but also a proven and active subservient collaborator of the USA judiciary, their international political police (CIA), the USA military (including USA/Sweden joint-occupation forces in Afghanistan), not to mention the USA-controlled multinational corporations whose commercial and financial ventures in and by Sweden – for Sweden's own detrimental as independent trade mark -  are the everyday's national disgrace. 

And what about shameful collaboration in the illegal rendition of political prisoners in Sweden to CIA? Was that the monopoly of Person/Bodström social democratic government? The same rigth-win liberal newspaper Expressen ran recently a main article headed "Reinfeldt felicited by Bush for secret collaboration on terror", inserting this picture

How then, how could ever the same Reinfeldt, in the very same Expressen (article  of Feb 8, 2011, headed "Reinfeldt disappointed with the picture that spread on the Swedish Judiciary") pretend being so surprised about the world-wide spread characterization of Sweden  as having nowadays its official authorities and  institutions at the service of  the USA? 

Sweden killed Palme to sell her soul. Some opportunits wish now to sell her body. We will stop that with the help of Wikileaks, and this is a primary reason why we have to help in FREE ASSANGE NOW in a fair proceeding!

Let us retain Sweden dignified, neutral, democratic, republican, and sovereign!

Marcello Ferrada de Noli,

Media 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


Anonymous said...

Det var hårresande att höra statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt göra sitt uttalande om Assange och de två kvinnornas anmälan om våldtäckt där Reinfeldt bidrar till förvrängningen av fallet. Enligt hans uttalande bör kvinnornas sak få prövas då den verkar trovärdig, men varför inte lägga till att om detta är en okynnesanmälan bör kvinnorna få kännbara böter och åklagar Ny skiljas från sin tjänst. Så mycket har sipprat från de första förhören med dessa kvinnor att det finns starka skäl att tro att detta är en okynnesanmälan. Reinfeldt kan be sin sekreterare att söka på Internet efter Margareta Ny och kan där läsa om hennes bidrag i en statlig utredning att falskeligen anklaga män för våldtäkt utan att skämmas eller ens be om ursäkt.
Läs ”Gästinlägg: Marianne Ny:s konstiga syn på rättssäkerhet – Daddys” i Googles.Vad sedan gäller den svenska rättsskippningens höga status förmodar jag att Reinfeldt är barnsligt ovetande om de två läkarna som anklagades för styckmord i mitten på 80-talet i ett av de mest rättsstridiga fall som behandlats av en svensk domstol och där feministiska intriger nog bidrog stort till denna skandal. För att inte nämna flygfrakten av två Egyptier till tortyrceller i Kairo för amerikansk räkning. Reinfeldt bör känna sin nutidshistoria innan han kommer med sina plattityder. Vi får hoppas att Reinfeldt, Borgström eller Kadhammar för att inte tala om herr Ny aldrig blir anmälda för sexuellt tvång eller våldtäkt.

marie said...

Gav upp när du kallade måsägande "accusors", men sedan kom FREE ASSANGE upp. Det är verkligen inte konstigt att man inte släpper in kvinnor till professorsposter när det här är människosynen som de representerar!