Professors blogg

The extradition process initiated in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder is to the uppermost extent POLITICAL

2012-02-01T15:44:00.020+01:00

All across this process, the facts have indicated that the case against the WikiLeaks founder has been politically motivated, politically orchestrated, and politically profited. I have even concretely signalled the main beneficiaries.

Statement with reference to the equivocal, fact-against notion "the process in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is not political"

by Marcello Ferrada-Noli

Main beneficiaries of the phony process against the WikiLeaks founder:

a) The political sectors in the Swedish government seeking even a more favourable status in NATO, mainly on behalf of Sweden’s corporative interests. Sweden, which recently achieved an export record of$1.95B in military sales, is also quoted being "the third largest exporter of military materials to the US".

b) A sector among fundamentalist Swedish feminists, politically lobbying towards obtain in the Parliament a broaden enhancement of the rape legislations, including further positions of privilege in the courts of justice not from an equality standpoint but from a supremacist-feminist perspective. This, mainly a right-wing radical-feminist cohort, includes notorious former gender-ombudsman Claes Borgström and several other politicians from the Social democratic party such as one of the Assange accusers, at the time the Political Secretary of the social democratic “Brotherhood” – as well as from State-feminists.

This so called "radical" feminist campaign - which hardly represents the progressive, pro Human-Rights Swedish feminism - has declared openly and publicly that the case Assange is a symbol in such struggle.

c) Some political opportunists, bureaucrat officials, and journalists pursuing career advances in the premises of political correctness, and – despicably – by using spurious methods to position a chauvinist, pseudo-nationalist psychosocial campaign. That has been the case, for instance, of the smear-campaigns devised to blame WikiLeaks Julian Assange for the drop down of Sweden’s international prestige.

d) The political character of these endeavours were further placed in evidence by the interferences in the "legal" process by Sweden's Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfelt 2011 and 2012.

e) Exactly as it was in the case of dictator Augusto Pinochet during the extradition process in London (Pinochet’s lawyer being the very same Ms Montgomery, chosen by the Swedish government to defend their interests upon the very same courts): Finally the decision is taken at the political, executive level. Is ultimately the Swedish government, –which in a highly political decision – shall rule the extradition fate, and life, of Julian Assange.

The neglecting or denial of the facts above indicates either simply naivety, or a despicably opportunism.

Excerpts of the video above, quoted from the full transcription by RT in “Sweden unbiased? Assange appeals extradition”:

"[[Others have gone beyond legal arguments, saying that the storm raised by Julian Assange through WikiLeaks has made him a target for political interference. It is a charge which has met with anger from senior figures in Sweden's legal establishment.

“Political reasons are ridiculous,” said Sven-Erik Alhem, a former Swedish prosecutor. “I am very, very tired of hearing anything about that, because so many statements have been made in London and elsewhere about political reasons and that is ridiculous, nothing less than ridiculous.”

However others point to wider trends, trends as wide as those washed over by the WikiLeaks flood itself. Across the Atlantic, US authorities enraged at having their secret documents exposed, might seek to have Assange extradited there to stand trial.

Surely Sweden's famed neutrality would prevent such a thing?

“I would disagree as to whether Sweden is a neutral country,” Stockholm University professor Marcello Vittorio Ferrada de Noli told RT. “Sweden has a very clear-cut proximity and collaboration, even in military operations such as campaigns initiated by NATO. You have, for instance, the Swedish presence in Afghanistan.

“You have a clear-cut pro-NATO policy on the part of Sweden and that is not neutrality,” Professor Noli added.]]"

Media links 1, 2, 3, 4

Wikileaks, J Assange, Assange, media, yttrande he frihet, transperans, wikileaks, intressant?

Summary of recent analyses covering Human-Rights issues in the J Assange and B Manning cases. By Andrew Kreig

2012-01-29T19:58:00.015+01:00

A new enticing and informative column by the notable American attorney, author and journalist Andrew Kreig, Head of the Washington-based Justice Integrity Project.

Andrew Kreig is a regular guest columnist in the Professors blogg. He publishes also a column in the Huffington Post and a sample of his important work is listed in the Resource section of the Justice For Assange site.

Summary by

Andrew Kreig

Below is a sampling of coverage, including updates

Salon, How Bradley Manning’s fate will be decided, Justin Elliott, Jan. 21, 2012. The soldier accused of giving files to WikiLeaks will likely face a court-martial -- we explain how it works. This week, Bradley Manning came one step closer to being tried for allegedly leaking a trove of secret American cables to WikiLeaks when a military officer made the formal recommendation that Manning should face a court-martial on 22 criminal charges.

Newsmill (Sweden), Professor: Historical meaning of WikiLeaks, and Swedish myths on Julian Assange, Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Dec, 26, 2011. In discussing “Julian Assange”, the main stream media - particularly in Sweden - have seemingly neglected informing the public concerning a most relevant fact: Wikileaks – the organization founded and led by editor and journalist Julian Assange has inspired an international movement probed effective in questioning power or even managed changing governments. Radicals in the history of mankind have acted upon progress in numerous societal spheres. The first being Prometheus, the one who stole the secret of Gods’ domination upon men, the fire, and exposed such revelation to humans on earth. Reflecting on such determinant impact of Prometheus's action for the progress in history (he made possible dēmokratía on earth, says the legend), I would say his symbolic deed set the path for what progressive radicalism is, and that is the kind of relevant role which in this very epoch has assumed the WikiLeaks organization founded by Julian Assange, an by extension whistle-blower hero Bradley Manning and all those that actively pursue the rescue of democracy by means of making governing transparent.

Professors blogg (Sweden/Italy), Human Rights concerns regarding the case against Julian Assange, Jennifer Robinson, Dec. 30, 2011. Brief submitted by to the meeting of MPs of the Federal Parliament, at Parliament House, Canberra, discussing extradition aspects in the Swedish case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Editors Note by Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli: Professors blogg proudly presents to the Swedish and international audience the new and much valuable guest column of distinguished human-rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson, right. She will now join celebrated American feminist writer Naomi Wolf and the notable Washington attorney and journalist Andrew Kreig – also columnists in the Huffington Post -- with her scholarly and expert opinions on the legal, medical and human rights aspects on important world events, such as now about the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Associated Press / Huffington Post, Bradley Manning's Defense Lawyers Employing Three-Pronged Strategy For Alleged WikiLeaks Suspect, David Disneau and Pauline Jelinek, Dec. 20, 2011. The government neared completion of its case against the Army intelligence analyst blamed for the biggest leak of U.S. secrets in American history as the prosecution and defense wrangled over which parts of the proceedings should be public and private.

Washington Post, Bradley Manning’s attorney in WikiLeaks case seeks presiding officer’s recusal, Ellen Nakashima, Dec. 16, 2011. The military pretrial hearing for Pfc. Bradley Manning opened contentiously Friday, with his defense attorney arguing that the presiding officer lacked the impartiality to render fair judgment in a case growing out of the release of a trove of government secrets to WikiLeaks last year. His attorney said Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, a reservist who also works for the Justice Department, could not be unbiased, citing that department’s ongoing investigation of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange. “That simple fact alone, without anything else, would cause a reasonable person to say, ‘I question your impartiality,’ ” the attorney, David E. Coombs, told Almanza, who works in the child exploitation unit of the Justice Department. Almanza rejected a request for recusal after considering it during a recess. He said his unit has no involvement in the case or in national security issues.

FireDogLake, Manning Defense Files Motion Requesting Article 32 Officer Recuse Himself, Kevin Gosztola, Dec. 16, 2011. Manning’s defense lawyer, David E. Coombs, has filed a motion requesting Lt. Col. Paul Almanza recuse himself from his position as the presiding investigative officer over Pfc. Bradley Manning’s Article 32 hearing. Coombs listed four reasons that he says independently support but collectively mandate Almanza recuse himself.

First, he has served as a career prosecutor with the Justice Department since 2002 and has prosecuted over 20 cases. The DoJ also has an ongoing investigation into the case of Bradley Manning. He alleged the DoJ would like to flip Manning and have him testify against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The Justice Department has also not ruled out taking over the prosecution from the military.
Second, the government requested twenty witnesses and had all of them granted. They only listed names and no basis for why they would be relevant to the hearing. The defense, on the other hand, submitted a 19-page list of forty-eight witnesses. Ten happened to be on the government’s list and were approved. Only two of the thirty-eight other witnesses, Coombs stated, were approved “to the detriment” of Bradley Manning who is accused of “aiding the enemy,” a charge that carries the death penalty....

BBC, Bradley Manning military hearingbegins, Mark Mardell, Dec. 16, 2011. Defence lawyers representing the US Army analyst accused of leaking government secrets have asked the investigating officer to step aside. The hearing offers the first opportunity for his defence team to present their case since he was arrested in Iraq in May 2010 and placed in military custody. It is taking place under tight security at an army base at Fort Meade, Maryland. As the hearing opened, Pte Manning's defence team asked for the investigating officer -- equivalent to a judge in a civilian court -- to withdraw from the case, the BBC's North America editor Mark Mardell reports from the base. Pte Manning was reported to be sitting in the courtroom dressed in military khaki and wearing black-rimmed glasses. During the Article 32 hearing, which is similar to a pre-trial hearing, both prosecuting and defence lawyers will make their initial cases and are permitted to cross-examine witnesses.

BBC, At the Scene, Paul Adams, Dec. 16, 2011. For almost everyone present, this is our first glimpse of the man accused of the biggest leak of confidential material in American history. Private Manning (at right in Wikipedia photo in his native Oklahoma) sat in uniform, wearing thick-rimmed glasses, hands clasped before him. In his only remarks so far, he said he understood his rights and confirmed the identities of the one civilian and two military officers representing him. But the focus of attention was the investigating officer. Manning's civilian lawyer demanded he recuse himself, arguing that as prosecutor for the Department of Justice, Lt Col Paul Almanza works for an organisation actively pursuing a separate case against Wikileaks. Mr Coombs said Lt Col Almanza's decision to reject defence witnesses, as well as the government's alleged reluctance to put forward witnesses to explain the damage done by the leaks suggested Almanza was biased. "Where's the damage? Where's the harm?" Mr Coombs demanded, in an early indication of part of his defence strategy. Lt Col Almanza announced a recess to consider the defence plea. It could last some time.XX

XXX

Fox News, Manning Judge on Trial at WikiLeaks Case Hearing, Justin Fishel, Dec. 16, 2011. Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old soldier accused of providing hundreds of thousands of secret government documents to the website WikiLeaks, appeared publicly Friday at a military courthouse for the first time since being arrested in Iraq 19 months ago. Defense attorney David Coombs touched off an unusual courtroom debate by asking investigating officer Lt.Col. Paul Almanza to recuse himself due to bias. Almanza later refused and the hearing adjourned for the day, but Coombs is trying to put the trial on hold in response. The defense attorney has filed a motion to request a stay before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, though Almanza plans on proceeding with the hearing Saturday unless he is told otherwise. Coombs claimed Almanza was biased due to his role as a Justice Department prosecutor, and the department's alleged desire to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The government prosecutor, Capt. Ashden Fein, asked Almanza if he had ever dealt with any issues related to WikiLeaks or Manning in his prior role as a Justice Department attorney, a job he left on Dec. 12. Almanza told the court he had no dealings with this case prior to his appointment and that he believed he could be impartial.xx

Politico, Barack Obama on Bradley Manning: 'He broke the law,' MJ Lee and Abby Philli, April 22, 2011. President Barack Obama’s assertion at a recent California fundraiser that Bradley Manning “broke the law” may have run afoul of presidential protocol, according to legal analysts who have been tracking the case of the Army private charged in the WikiLeaks case. “I have to abide by certain classified information,” Obama said on a video that quickly began to circulate among media outlets Friday. “If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law. … We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate. … He broke the law.”Andrew KreigWikileaks, J Assange, Assange, yttrande he frihet, tryckfrihet, transperans, wikileaks, intressant, pressetik

Swedish government using media to interfere in the legal process against Julian Assange

2012-01-27T21:10:00.022+01:00

Dear readers and colleagues. Altough not yet completely in form, I re-assume these writings in honour of a noble struggle that need us all NOW.

I thank you all with my soul, for your warm & kind support /Professors blogg

[A new version of this article was published in Second-Opinion 30/1] Media links 1, 2, 3, 4

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt at the National Swedish Radio studios 25 January 2012. Foto: Maria Aros / Sveriges Radio

The international organization Reporters Without Borders published in these days the Press Freedom Index 2011-2012. Sweden's position down dropped severely from previous years, from the top position to a currently 12th place. This article explores possible reasons for this deterioration. The analysis focuses on the Swedish government allegedly interference through the media in the judicial process against Assange and issues of a prospective US extradition, and the most recent comments in the National Swedish Radio (25 of January 2012) by Sweden’s Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.
x

Analysis

by Marcello Ferrada-Noli

The specific rationale for the ranking given to Sweden by the organization Reporters Without Borders is not stated in the Index-table itself [ Press Freedom Index ] [1]. Nevertheless, for those researching into the psycho-social “duck pond” phenomenon in the spheres of Swedish journalism and Press freedom in the past year, some aggravating issues emerge distinctly:

a) the Swedish mainstrea media’s treatment of the Assange case [2], among other characterized by uncritical pro-authority repetition of official versions; b) the interference of the Swedish government – through national media - with regard to the judicial case against the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange; and, c) to a lesser extent in comparison with the serious issues above, a selective censorship or filtering exercised towards analyses published in the blogosphere (see “Opinions on Assange case and censorship in Swedish media”, Second-Opinion 24/2 2011) [3].

One notable ensuing paradox is that Wikileaks – whose very founder and frontrunner journalist/publisher is targeted by Sweden - has been recognized as one among main factor in the liberationist struggles [4], moving societies towards increasing press freedom during 2011. As Reporters Without Borders noticed in their report, the situation of some Arabic countries, such as Tunisia, has improved markedly in the Press Freedom Index.

While the Swedish “duck pond” phenomena in the context of media climate is analysed elsewhere [5], in this article I will focus in the interfering of the Swedish government in the so-called independent legal procedures around the case against Julian Assange.

The Swedish Prime Minister apparently taking publicly the side of the accusers, before the trial even starts

In February 2011, referring to the Swedish case against Assange, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt declared publicly: [6]

“It is regrettably. We have an independent legal system, which in this case it has furthermore acted according Swedish legislation. One has – under public prosecution – taken to court Julian Assange on accusations of rape”

[NOTE: the original Swedish expression used by PM Reindfeldt was “instämt”, whose synonyms are “åtalat” (charged), or “kallat inför rätta” (summoned into court). This is the full quote, in Swedish: ”– Det är beklagligt. Vi har ett självständigt rättsväsende som i det här fallet dessutom agerat på svensk lagstiftning. Man har till allmänt åtal instämt Julian Assange för anklagelser om våldtäkt”.]

And Sweden’s PM Reinfeldt added in the context of the accusations against Assange, what the international media characterized as he was taking side on behalf of the two women-accusers:

“I can only regret that women’s rights and status weighs that light regarding these types of issues, in comparison with other type of theories put forward.”

[”– Jag kan bara beklaga att kvinnors rätt och ställning väger så lätt när det gäller den här typen av frågor jämfört med andra typer av teorier som förs fram”].

The Prime Minister’s declarations above were widely distributed by the Swedish News Agency TT. The quotes above correspond to the article “ Reinfeldt regretted negative picture of the (Swedish) legal system” [“Reinfeldt beklagade negative bild av rattsvasendet”], [7] published by the leading Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter the 11 of February 2011.

In a further jeopardy of former traditions of Press Freedom in Sweden, some evening newspapers took away the original formulations [8] uttered by PM Reindfeldt to the News Agency TT. Dean paper Dagens Nyheter however did not, and PM Reinfeldt’s original expressions are still found on-line in DN.se; as well in Aftonbladet archives, according to Resume.se. [9]

New interferences

Those believing in February 2011 that the expressions of the Head of the Swedish government were solely a spur of the moment reflection, misquoting, or accidental misunderstanding, were much surprised to hear the exact statement again, a year later, now the 25 of January 2012.

In this occasion, the prestigious program Studio Ett of the public National Radio Broadcasting network (SR) aired an interview with Prime Minister Reinfeldt including a selection of questions converging from listeners to a flow gate (“slussen”) set up by SR.

Among the subjects selected it was the extradition-issue of Julian Assange to the US in the context – as manifested in the program - of the international criticism raised against the Swedish judicial system, and also the allegedly “too friendly, pro-US” extradition agreements. The Swedish Radio heads the subject as “ Comments about the purportedly pro USA extra-generous extradition agreements ”. [10]

The listener “slussed” by the program on this issue is in fact herself a journalist - Carina Rydberg – a known supporter of the two Assange accusers and also notable for a persistent ad hominem anti-Assange campaign as demonstrated in a variety of her publications, for instance “ Julian Assange’s defender from Hell”, in which she portrayed Assange’s defenders not only as enemies of feminism but of all “mankind” (Newsmill, 23/11 2010). [11]

For the sake of clarity, I would like to stress that for the average Swede, “anklagelser”, in the context of criminal offences – would mean also “charges”; For instance, the Swedish version of Microsoft Word Thesaurus synonyms “anklagelser” also with “åtal” (prosecution in court) or “stämningar” (lawsuits). In other contexts would mean “accusations”. On the other hand – also in the context of criminal offences or juridical issues – “suspected of” is translated as “minstänkt av”.

Ergo, if a Swedish journalist, or a Swedish politician, or a Swedish member of the judiciary choses to use “den anklagade Julian Assange” instead of “Assange mistänkt av” when addressing the public, even if not deliberately, is misleading it. The facts: Julian Assange has NOT been charged in Sweden or any other country for any crime whatsoever.

Rydberg opens by warning on the current international media panorama about an allegedly direct deportation of Assange to US in case he would be sent to Sweden from the UK “on the ground of anklagelser of sex crimes”. Later, in her introductorily statement for her question, she also apperas lead-questioning (her remarks appeared in remarkably correspondence with what PM Reindfeldt said thereafter) on that the international concern about "Assange would be given in Sweden the same procedure as in the Egyptians case” (the extraordinary renditions of political detainees in Swedish territory to CIA, by Swedish officials), such concern would be countered by "the independence of the Swedish judiciary from the government".

Carina Rydberg:

- “What comments has Prime Minister about these reports”

Prime Minister Reinfeldt:

- “Hi Carina. Those that have followed the case know that it is for me highly sensitive to comment around this issue. It is about a single case, and besides it has been used in the international media – as you also pointed out - to give a view that the Swedish legal/judicial system is kind of mixed up (sammanblandad) with the political decision-makers. And that way is not – as I earlier affirmed. Instead, extradition issues are based in a legal system that “talk with each other” according to special rules, and in that case it would also applies in this case (Assange) [“och det skulle i så fall vara tillämpbart också i det här fallet”].

PM Reinfeldt’s statement about a prospective extradition of Julian Assange to USA is far from conclusive. The named legal praxis “would” eventually be applicable to Assange, says the Prime Minister. Reinfeldt does not say, “shall” or “should” apply.

The reader may observe in the above introductorily declaration of PM Reinfeldt that, for the reasons he himself has given, he is carefully pondering each word about these issues. That makes Prime Minister Reinfeldt himself – and not the author of this comment –the one marking such own words he has sensitively chosen.

Beyond the accuracy issue about the words choosen by PM Reinfeldt, he rather fails the public for what he choses not to say. For it is highly relevant in this context to inform the public, and particularly the international forum and journalists, that in Sweden the government has indeed several instances by which to intervene in such extraditions processes, including eventually stop it.

Exactly as it was in the UK in the case of dictator Augusto Pinochet, whose extradition for trial elsewhere - in spite of the “judicial procedures” - was at the end stopped with the direct intervention of the government.

I know the case well, as I have myself presented in 1998 an extradition petition upon Scandinavian courts for Pinochet to be taken into justice because of the assassination of my dear friends and comrade-in-arms during the Chilean resistance. [12] Further details on the legal possibilities by the Swedish government of intervening in the extradition process can be seen in the site Justice For Assange . [13]

And a most important fact, as I have already put forward in my rebuttal [14] to the Svenska Dagbladet’s piece on Assange-extradition facts: [15]

“Regarding the open extradition requests from the USA since 2000, Sweden has granted such extradition in the TOTAL OF CASES in which the prisoner was in Swedish territory. This is based in statistics according to Sweden's Justice Ministry”.

I also developed the following argument in my analysis “ Sweden will grant extradition of Assange to US if not stopped by international political pressure ” [16]

Would the Swedish authorities - because of a Swedish law that ultimately inhibits any deportation or extradition to a country that exercises death penalty (such as in USA)- stop Assange's extradition?

Sweden had in fact deported individuals (even refugees applying for asylum in Sweden) to countries with full active death penalty. We have also the case of the extraordinary renditions to USA [17] of individuals under arrest in Sweden (see below). Let us not forget that Sweden has in fact been sanctioned by International Human Rights organizations due to this praxis. Just one illustration on those events: The United Nations Committee Against Torture ruled 19 of May 2005 that Sweden had violated the International Ban of Torture. In concrete, for Sweden's direct collaboration in the CIA rendition flights, rendering to the Americans asylum seekers while those were under the "custody" of Sweden.

The extraordinary rendition issue in the context of the case against Assange

Journalist Carina Rydberg – in her role of selected listener in the Reinfeldt talk-with the-public program of the Swedish National Radio – goes ahead in the program trying tackle the international critic about Sweden’s rendition of the Egyptian political refugees to US Intelligence services. She expresses that she finds choking [“upprörande”] that Sweden is portrayed as Scandinavian North Korea.

The Prime Minister:

- “I think that this case around the Egyptians is in any case rather special in its character, and I have also discussed this in many occasions, the role of Sweden around [omkring] this and also it has been critic on this.” [18]

Ensuing, Reinfeldt makes a point by telling “this case (Assange)” is different and the legal procedures that exist should apply, and insisted that the government should not intervene.

Yes, this case is different of the “Egyptians” as long Assange extradition is not asked by the US under the accusation of being a “terrorist”. For in this case the Swedish government has a totally different praxis and “Intelligence” agreements with USA. This is exactly what it was disclosed by the WikiLeaks cables (see This is Why ). [19]

The problem is that Julian Assange has indeed been accused - by prominent US politicians – of being precisely that, a “terrorist”. He has been called “Cyber terrorist”, and by no less than the Pentagon, according to this report . [20] And Vice PresidentBiden, had likened Julian Assange to a “high-tech terrorist” [21] according to the Guardian.

The program leader, journalist Andres Holmberg, asked finally Sweden’s Prime Minister:

- “Is it a problem for you Fredrik Reinfeldt, or for Sweden, that this type of descriptions emerges about Sweden, in the international press: A judicial banana republic?”

The Prime Minister of Sweden:

- “It is very often a method one uses, to try discrediting a country or a judicial system when one stands prosecuted (anklagad, again!) of a crime in other country.”

- “We have naturally to stand up for we have a functioning legal state and also we take very seriously prosecutions that have to do with rape because there are also ingredients aiming to diminish how we have developed, and stand for, a good legislation in this case.” [22]

“We” is the all-Swedish public PM Reinfeldt is addressing to. “We” includes all the listeners, the judges, the prosecutors, the policemen, the journalists, the feminists, the non-feminists, the children, the trade unionists, the Parliament, etc., etc.

If the above is not a direct interfering from the part of the government in the legal process in preparation or in course in the country of its domain, then all dictionaries of the democratic world have to revise the meaning of political manipulation, power, and authority.

And let Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu – whose classical formulation of the separation of the “state powers” executive, legislative, and judicial system (De l'esprit des lois, 1748) [23] was later fundamental for democratic rule - be the new “defender from hell”.

For one thing is to have sympathy for that “We” should make this a national issue according to the Prime Minister because what is at stake internationally is a “good Swedish legislation”. And “We” and our “development” are obviously and increasingly questioned, which is not prosperous either for prestige or business. And all that I can understand.

But what about justice?

Finally, in such "legal" cases, regarding "enskilda fall", the one and only decent statement every decent people would expect from their highest government authority is:

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat; Being this one of the holiest principles in democratic justice, and meaning that every individual shall be considered innocent until proven otherwise. (In strict sense it means that the onus probandis is solely responsibility of the accuser).

REFERENCES, Notes:

1. http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043

2. http://www.newsmill.se/node/33265

3. http://www.second-opinion.se/so/view/1762

4. http://newsmill.se/artikel/2011/12/22/professor-historical-meaning-of-wikileaks-and-swedish-myths-on-julian-assange

5. http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Media-climate-in-Sweden.html

6. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/reinfeldt-beklagade-negativ-bild-av-rattsvasendet

7. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/reinfeldt-beklagade-negativ-bild-av-rattsvasendet

8. http://www.resume.se/nyheter/media/2011/02/11/brak-om-vad-reinfeldt-sagt/

9. Id

10. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=1637&artikel=4928323

11. http://www.newsmill.se/node/30490

12. http://ferradanoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/ferrada-noli-bring-pinochet-to-justice2.pdf

13. http://www.swedenversusassange.com/

14. http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-swedish-deceptive-information-about.html

15. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/assange-sverige-har-inte-motsatt-sig-usa_6715051.svd

16. http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2011/11/likely-swedish-extradition-of-assange.html

17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States

18. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=1637&artikel=4928323

19. http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2011/11/this-is-why.html

20. http://truthalliance.net/Archive/News/tabid/67/ID/6606/Pentagon-Labels-Journalist-Julian-Assange-a-Cyber-Terrorist-Forces-Interpol-Warrant.aspx

21. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden

22. Studio Ett: "Är det problem för dig Fredrik Reinfeldt, eller för Sverige, att det förekommer denna typ av beskrivningar av Sverige som en juridisk banan republik i internationell press"

- (Fredrik Reinfeldt: "Det är ju väldigt ofta en metod man använder, att försöka misstänkliggöra ett land eller ett rättsystem när man står anklagad för ett brott I ett annat land. Det finn likheter vid andra tillfällen då denna teknik har använts. Vi måste naturligtvis stå upp för att vi har en fungerande rättsstat och också vi tar mycket allvarligt på anklagelser som handlar om våldtäck för det finns också inslag att försöka förminska hur vi har utvecklats och står för en bra lagstiftning I det här fallet."

23. de Secondat, Charles, Baron de Montesquieu. The Spirit of the Laws. Crowder, Wark, and Payne, 1777.

Wikileaks, J Assange, Assange, yttrande he frihet, tryckfrihet, transperans, wikileaks, intressant, pressetik

Professors blogg is now closed

2012-01-07T16:33:00.017+01:00

Dear colleagues,

As some of you knew already, I had a vascular episode about two weeks ago, December 2011. During examinations while at the Stroke ward, a CT scanner showed a partial stenosis of a vertebralis arteria, which would indicate possible influence in a cerebellum region. On January the 1st 2012, after only a couple of days back at home from the hospital, I suffered a new episode, and thus transported anew to the emergency ward. I have not communicated this before in the hope everything would soon comeback to normal.

It will not be that soon, seemingly. After a conference today I am obliged to reach the conclusion that I have unfortunately to interrupt my writing activities, even in the low pace as I have lately maintained. This means that I will now “close down” the Professors blogg, as well as my participation in other publications elsewhere.

The blog has survived the lasts weeks solely thanks the valuable contributions of guest columnists Andrew Kreig, Naomi Wolf, and latest Jennifer Robinson. Other materials authored by me corresponded in fact to submissions before the said episode. I thank to these colleagues, warm and genuinely.

There are four drafts I had prepared previously in December 2011 around the case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. I hope that in some way or another this material will be published elsewhere not so long in the future. My main purpose in these articles is trying to persuade serious Swedish Assange allies of the necessity of enlarging the supportive social force for this cause, instead of further isolating in Sweden the cause of Assange through alienating important societal groups or individuals that may feel wrongly identified as hostile. My conviction is still that the campaign in Sweden against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been initiated/implemented by a limited number of political officials, a limited number of journalists, or a limited number of opportunist feminist activists. Altogether they do not represent Sweden as a whole, their political parties as a whole, all Swedish feminists, or the total ranks in the journalist collegium. The main part have not yet express their opinion and as the happenings approach they will most certain feel ethically obliged to declare their stand, about what is truth, what is justice, and what is history.

Above all, the singular instigators of the nasty campaign against Assange do not represent the noble Swedish people at large; a Nation that - as I have repeatedly characterized in the Professors blogg - is for the most part amiable and sincere, hard working and honest.

I wish you all a wonderful life, and much triumphs in your honourable cause of Human Rights for all.

Wikileaks , Assange

The streets of 2012. By Naomi Wolf

2012-01-05T15:44:00.008+01:00

Professors blog presents a new masterly column by acclaimed writer, leading feminist, and political activist Naomi Wolf. She presents us now an insightful analysis on the Occupy movement and other political issues highly relevant to the Human Rights struggle. Naomi has participated actively in the Occupy movement, as we reported in Barricade philosophers. Naomi Wolf arrested in demonstration. The Assange road. Two other great articles about the Occupy movement by Naomi Wolf in the Professors Blogg: a) The Shocking Truth About the Crackdown on Occupy; b) How I was arrested at the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstration.

The streets of 2012

By Naomi Wolf

What does the New Year hold for the global wave of protest that erupted in 2011? Did the surge of anger that began in Tunisia crest in lower Manhattan, or is 2012 likely to see an escalation of the politics of dissent?

The answers are alarming, but quite predictable: We are likely to see much greater centralization of top-down suppression -- and a rash of laws around the developed and developing world that restrict human rights. But we are also likely to see significant grassroots reaction.

What we are witnessing in the drama of increasingly globalized protest and repression is the subplot that many cheerleaders for neoliberal globalization never addressed: the power of globalized capital to wreak havoc with the authority of democratically elected governments. From the perspective of global corporate interests, closed societies like China are more business-friendly than troublesome democracies, where trade unions, high standards of human-rights protection, and a vigorous press increase costs.

All over the world, the push-back against protest looks similar, suggesting that state and corporate actors are learning "best practices" for repressing dissent while maintaining democratic facades.

In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron routinely impugns human-rights laws; the Metropolitan Police have sought authority to use baton rounds -- foot-long projectiles that have caused roughly a dozen deaths, including that of children, in Northern Ireland -- on peaceful protesters; and a police report on the threat of terrorism, distributed to "trusted partners" among London businesses, included updates about Occupy protests and referred to "suspected activists."

The UK has stringent internal-security legislation, but it never had a law like the United States Patriot Act. After anti-austerity protests in early 2011, followed by riots in major cities in August, the Metropolitan Police claimed powers to monitor private social-media accounts and smartphones. And, under the guise of protecting this summer's Olympics against terrorism, the British military is establishing a massive base in London from which SAS (special forces) teams will operate -- a radical departure from Britain's traditional civil policing.

In Israel, Ha'aretz reports that Occupy-type protests have been met with police violence, including a beating of a 15-year-old girl, and threats of random arrest.

Israel, like Britain, has seen a push, seemingly out of nowhere, to enact new laws crippling news gathering and criminalizing dissent: A new law makes it potentially a crime to donate to left-wing organizations, human-rights laws have been weakened, and even investigative reporting has become more dangerous, owing to stricter libel penalties. Ha'aretz calls the push "the new feudalism."

Finally, in the US, the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress in December, allows the president to suspend due process for US citizens, detain them indefinitely and render them for torture. One should not be surprised to see similar legislation adopted in democracies worldwide.

Not only are laws criminalizing previously legal dissent, organizing, and reporting being replicated in advanced democracies; so are violent tactics against protesters, backed by the increasing push in countries with long traditions of civil policing to militarize law enforcement.

Indeed, increasingly sophisticated weapons systems and protective equipment are being disseminated to civilian police officers. In the US, the federal government has spent an estimated $34bn since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to arm state and local police forces with battlefield-grade hardware. Investigative reporting has also revealed cross-pollination of anti-protest training: Local police from cities like Austin, Texas, have been sent to Israel for training in crowd control and other tactics.

The globalization of mercenaries to crack down on dissent is also proceeding apace. Mercenaries are important in a time of global grassroots protest, because it is easier to turn a foreigner's guns or batons against strangers than it is to turn the military or police against fellow citizens.

Erik Prince, the head of the most infamous outfit, Academi (formerly Xe Services, formerly Blackwater), has relocated to the UAE, while Pakistani mercenaries have been recruited in large numbers to Bahrain, where protesters have been met with increasingly violent repression.

But this apparently coordinated push-back against global protest movements is not yet triumphant -- not even in China, as the people of Wukan have shown. While the outcome of the villagers' protest against the local government's confiscation of their land remains uncertain, the standoff reveals new power at the grassroots level: Social media allows sharper, coordinated gatherings and the rapid dissemination of news unfiltered by official media. The internet is also disseminating templates of what real democracy looks like -- instantly and worldwide.

Not surprisingly, people use this technology in ways that indicate that they have little interest in being cordoned off into conflicting and competing ethnicities, nationalities, or religious identities. Overwhelmingly, they want simple democracy and economic self-determination.

That agenda is in direct conflict with the interests of global capital and governments that have grown accustomed to operating without citizen oversight. It is a conflict that can be expected to heighten dramatically in 2012, as protesters' agendas -- from Occupy Wall Street to Occupy Moscow -- gain further coherence.

Much is at stake. Depending on the outcome, the world will come to look either more like China -- open for business, but closed for dissent -- or more like Denmark.

Naomi Wolf

A recent picture of Writer Naomi Wolf

Cross-posted from opednews.com

Wikileaks, J Assange, Assange, yttrande he frihet, tryckfrihet, transperans, wikileaks, intressant, pressetik

Human Rights concerns regarding the case against Julian Assange. By Jennifer Robinson

2011-12-30T16:32:00.046+01:00

Brief submitted by to the meeting of MPs of the Federal Parliament, at Parliament House, Canberra, discussing extradition aspects in the Swedish case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Editors Note

Professors blogg proudly presents to the Swedish and international audience the new and much valuable guest column of distinguished human-rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson. She will now join celebrated American feminist writer Naomi Wolf and the notable Washington attorney and journalist Andrew Kreig – also columnists in the Huffington Post - with her scholarly and expert opinions on the legal, medial and human rights aspects on important world events, such as now about the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. / Prof. Marcello Ferrada-Noli

Human Rights Lawyer Jennifer Robinson

Human-Rights concerns regarding the case against Julian Assange

Brief submitted by to the meeting of MPs of the Federal Parliament, at Parliament House, Canberra (March 2011), discussing extradition aspects in the Swedish case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

by Jennifer Robinson

1. I am writing to you to provide a briefing for the meeting of members of Federal Parliament on Wednesday 2 March 2011 regarding the case against Julian Assange. This briefing note sets out the timeline of events and the human rights concerns that we have raised in relation to Julian’s case in Sweden.

2. Julian is facing extradition to Sweden pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). He is currently electronically tagged and held under virtual house arrest, having spent nine days in solitary confinement in a London prison for a crime that he has not been charged with and in relation to allegations that he emphatically denies.

3. It is mutually concerning that an Australian citizen like Julian has been treated in ways which would not accord with the standards of Australian law or indeed international law. As I set out in this note, if he is extradited to Sweden, he will be held incommunicado, in solitary confinement, and without bail for several months and then tried in secret on allegations which are weak and which would not constitute a crime in Australia or in the UK. In such event, it can be predicted that Australians will be outraged and that considerable damage will eventuate in respect of relations between Australia and Sweden.

4. It is hoped that this briefing note will act as a resource for concerned Australian MPs to raise questions and to take action on Julian’s behalf.

Timeline of Events and Overview of Concerns

5. Julian had travelled to Sweden in August last year for the purposes of giving public lectures about his work on Afghanistan and in order to seek protection for WikiLeaks from the strong free speech and publication protections under Swedish law in advance of the Iraq War Logs, the publication of Iraq war military reports, and “Cablegate”, the publication of US diplomatic cables. The allegations against Julian were made to police on 20 August 2010.

6. That same day, the initial Prosecutor, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, unlawfully told the press that Julian was wanted for rape (reported in the tabloid Expressen) before he himself had been informed. Julian first learned of the allegations when he read it in the papers. In providing this information to the press the Prosecutor contravened Swedish privacy and secrecy law, which protects the confidentiality of preliminary criminal investigations and is supposed to protect those being investigated from adverse and prejudicial media coverage. A complaint was made about the Prosecutor’s illegal act to the Judicial Ombudsman but no action is being taken. As a result of this illegal act, Julian discovered in the press that he was ‘wanted for double rape’. Within hours there were millions of website hits for “Assange” and “rape”, causing irreparable and incalculable damage to his reputation. The illegality of the Prosecutor’s actions was confirmed by our expert evidence in the extradition proceedings here in London, as was the fact that no remedy exists in Swedish law for the breach.

7. The next day, Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finne, threw out the rape charge after reviewing the police file and the statements of the two women. The investigation continued on lesser allegations of harassment only. Julian volunteered himself for interview on 30 August 2010 in relation to this ongoing investigation. Julian sought an undertaking from the police that his testimony would not be provided to the press. This undertaking was violated: his police interview turned up in the tabloid Expressen the very next day. Again, Julian has no remedy against this breach of privacy and the continued disclosures by police have continued to fuel prejudicial media coverage.

8. An appeal was brought against Ms Finne’s decision to drop the rape charges by a lawyer acting for the complainants, Mr Claes Borgstrom. Mr Borgstrom is a Social Democrat politician who was, at that time, campaigning for election in the election to be held the following month (September 2010) and whose political platform and reputation is closely associated with sexual offence law reform. The Prosecutor, Ms Ny, granted the appeal on 1 September 2010 and the rape investigation was reinstituted. Julian was not informed of this appeal or provided the opportunity to make any submissions.

9. The Prosecution continued to provide information about the preliminary investigation to the press. Expressen applied for access to the police file on 1 September and this was granted: redacted versions of Julian’s statement and emails between the police and prosecutor were provided to the press shortly thereafter. We were only alerted to this on 21 January 2010, some four months later, when this same material was disclosed by the Prosecutor to Mr Hurtig and passed to us. It is noteworthy that Mr Hurtig had applied for disclosure of the police file in September and November 2010. Both requests for disclosure were denied by the Prosecutor, Ms Ny, despite the fact that some of this material had already been provided to the press.

10. Julian remained in Sweden for approximately 5 weeks to answer the allegations against him. Through his lawyer Mr Hurtig, proactive attempts were made to arrange interview and to seek permission to leave the country. For example, Julian offered himself for interview on 15 September but this was rejected by the prosecutor because the relevant police officer was sick.

11. An interview was finally proposed on 22 September (more than three weeks after Ms Ny had begun the investigation) for 28 September. Mr Hurtig was unable to contact Julian to communicate this request. It is important to note here that Julian was, at that time, difficult to contact. He was maintaining a low profile because of threats to his security and increasing pressure from the US in advance of the two largest disclosures of US classified documents in history: the Pentagon had just announced a team of 120 people dedicated to “taking action” against WikiLeaks. Before Mr Hurtig was able to contact Julian he had already left Sweden for Berlin for WikiLeaks meetings associated, having been told on 15 September that Ms Ny had no objection to him leaving the country. He did not flee the country to avoid interrogation, as has been suggested by the Prosecution, but instead had left for a pre-arranged business meeting with Der Spiegel - one of his media partners in Cablegate, on the understanding that there was no impediment to him leaving the country.

12. Julian telephoned Mr Hurtig from Berlin on 29 September to inform him that his luggage had gone missing on his Stockholm-Berlin flight and that it was now presumed to have been stolen since the airline had not been able to locate and return it. He called to instruct Mr Hurtig to take legal action. It was then he was informed of Ms Ny’s intention to interrogate him. Julian offered to return to Sweden on 9-10 October for interrogation. This date was rejected as being ‘too far away’.

13. During October and November, Julian was in London working on the Iraq War Log release and preparing for Cablegate with media partners, including The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais and The New York Times. He also travelled to Switzerland to present at a United Nations Human Rights Council meeting. During this period, we offered that Julian be interviewed via telephone or video-link from London on the condition that the Prosecutor provide him further information about the allegations and potential charges. We offered his voluntary cooperation, through his Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig, and suggested the use of the Mutual Legal Assistance scheme between Sweden and the United Kingdom. These offers were rejected.

Human Rights for All

14. In the meantime, I wrote to the UK police on 2 November 2010 and informed them that we acted for Julian and that he could be contacted through us for the purposes of any legal proceedings. This is significant: throughout this period Julian had continually indicated his willingness to cooperate with the authorities by offering alternative means of interview to the Swedish and by reporting his presence in the UK to the local police. The widely reported suggestion he was in hiding from justice is simply false.

15. After our voluntary offers of cooperation were rejected, the arrest warrant in Sweden was granted on 18 November 2010. Ms Ny, the Prosecutor, sought an arrest order to have Julian held incommunicado pending potential trial. These pre-trial detention conditions in Sweden have been heavily criticised by the European Council and by the United Nations, in particular, for the treatment of foreigners:

16. Just before the hearing on 18 November Mr Hurtig was, for the first time, provided a description of the allegations against Julian and provided copies of parts of the police file. At that time he was also shown more than 100 text messages between the two complainants and their friends, which contained important evidence about the allegations and the women’s motives. For example, the second complainant had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters with Julian over the course of the evening in question and states that she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”: a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case. Further, the women speak of getting “revenge”, making money from the allegations and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to the press. However, the prosecutor refused to allow Mr Hurtig to take copies or to even take notes from this important evidence.

17. Mr Hurtig has made numerous requests for further disclosure under Swedish Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 23.18), but these have been denied. In correspondence with the Australian Embassy in Stockholm, Ms Ny justifies her position in refusing to disclose this important material on the grounds that Julian has not yet been charged. This highlights the injustice of the EAW system: Julian has been held in solitary confinement and is now under effective house arrest without the Swedish Prosecutor having to show a reasonable case against him - or, indeed, any of the evidence against him to the British court.

18. Despite Mr Hurtig’s requests, Ms Ny had consistently refused to inform Julian regarding the specific charges to be brought against him before he was interviewed: interview by ambush is the preferred Swedish method. We had requested a specific description of the charges and the evidence in English as a condition precedent to Julian returning to Sweden to be interviewed. This, again, was refused. The first time document Julian received from the Prosecutor in English was the translation of the EAW provided by the English police at Kentish Town Police station in London when Julian voluntarily met with police to answer the warrant on 7 December 2010. This was the first time he had been informed in writing of the specific allegations and potential charges against him in English. I was with Julian at the police station and witnessed his shock and surprise at reading the allegations as described in the warrant.

19. It is noteworthy that the both the EAW and the Interpol red notice were issued for Julian by Sweden just before WikiLeaks began to publish Cablegate with their media partners and were executed just days after publication began. Had Julian returned to Sweden in October or November, we know (confirmed by the findings of the judge in London on 24 February 2011) that he would have been held incommunicado in prison pending trial and we may not have seen the release of Cablegate. Furthermore, his Swedish counsel, Mr Hurtig noted at the time that it was highly irregular for an international arrest warrant to be sought in relation to allegations of this kind.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, lawyer Jennifer Robinson, and Kristin Hrafnsson, approaching the Royal Courts in London at the extradition hearing

20. The Swedish prosecutor has failed to disclose any materials to Julian in English (the language he understands), which is her obligation under the European Convention of Human Rights. We have since been provided certain excerpts of the police file in Swedish and translation costs now exceed £20,000 (AUD$32,000) as a result of the Prosecutor’s failure to meet her human rights obligations in this regard. Furthermore, she has failed to disclose relevant exculpatory evidence that tends to demonstrate Julian’s innocence.

21. The Prosecutor has apparently failed to consider and disclose exculpatory evidence in her investigation, as is her duty as prosecutor.

(1) First, it is clear that the text messages (approximately 100 of them) between the two complainants and their friends cast doubt on the allegations and contradict the specific factual allegations in the EAW that form the basis of his arrest - though we are unable to properly assess these because the Prosecutor refuses to disclose them to Julian.
(2) Second, it has subsequently come to light that the first complainant, Ms A, has been deleting important evidence (i.e. tweets which demonstrated that she had been enjoying Julian’s company after the alleged assault). It is not clear whether this evidence has been considered because, despite the fact it was provided to the Prosecution by Mr Rudling, it does not form part of the police file disclosed to us.
(3) Third, the Prosecutor has not contacted several potential witnesses who spent time with Mr Assange and the first complainant, Ms A, who know them both and can attest to their friendly relations in the days after the alleged assault.

22. The parts of the police file disclosed to the defence on 18 November 2010 (translated at significant cost to Julian) demonstrate that police have acted improperly and in breach of proper procedures in investigating sexual offence allegations.

(1) First, it is clear that the women met together before making the allegations and had discussed the evidence at length, thereby contaminating their evidence.
(2) Second, it has since come to light that the policewoman who had interviewed both women and initially reported the alleged rape to the Prosecutor was a friend of the first complainant, Ms A, and had also run for election for the Social Democrats (the same party for which Ms A and her lawyer, Mr Borgstrom, have stood for election) .
(3) Third, both women were interviewed only briefly over the telephone and their interrogation is in summary form only. Indeed, the second complainant’s interview summary is not even signed or approved by her (she was upset at hearing Julian had was wanted for rape and her friend’s later interview to the police states that she felt “railroaded” into making the complaint). This breaches police procedure: interviews with witnesses in sexual offence cases must be recorded in full (video or tape recorded) because the initial interview is important evidence at trial. It is notable that all of the Prosecution witnesses interviews are recorded in summary format so it is impossible to know what the police asked and what their precise answers were in response. Only the interviews with Mr Assange and his friendly witnesses were recorded in full. These irregularities in police procedure will cause evidential problems in any trial, particularly if the reliability of the complainants’ testimony is in question.

23. As to the strength of the evidence that founds the basis for the warrant, a number of observations can be made. First, evidence at the extradition hearing in London brought to light that not one, but two well-regarded prosecutors in Stockholm do not believe there to be sufficient evidence to found a prosecution. Eva Finne dropped the rape investigation in August but was overruled on appeal. Ms Ny’s own deputy, Prosecutor Erika Lejnefors, had told Mr Hurtig in November that the case would likely be dropped because it was so weak. Nevertheless, an international arrest warrant was sought for Julian’s arrest. Second, expert evidence from the most respected criminal lawyer in England, Professor Andrew Ashworth of Oxford University, concludes that the facts as alleged in the EAW and the police statements of the two women would not constitute rape or any other crime in England.

24. Further, Julian has suffered immense adverse prejudicial media coverage in Sweden, fuelled both by the disclosure of police material to the press by the Prosecution and by the highly prejudicial media statements of the lawyer of the two complainants and funded by the Swedish government, Mr Borgstrom. Mr Borgstrom has called Julian a “coward” for not returning to Sweden and has alleged that his refusal to return is indicative of his guilt.

25. The Prime Minister of Sweden intervened in the case by making highly prejudicial and pejorative remarks in the Swedish press following the extradition proceedings in London on 7 and 8 February 2011. The Prime Minister told the press that Julian has been indicted and is being prosecuted for rape. This is not correct - Julian has not yet been charged, the preliminary investigation has not yet been concluded and no decision has been made to prosecute. The Prime Minister’s comments are inappropriate given his political position (he had, just weeks earlier, refused to comment on Julian’s case on the grounds it was a matter for the courts and not for politicians) and given that a key question being determined by the British court is whether the warrant is for questioning or for prosecution. The Prime Minister made pejorative remarks regarding Julian’s legal defence, including the incorrect suggestion that Julian’s defence is to deem women’s rights “of little value”. This was subsequently reported as Julian and his defence team “trying to limit the right for women to take a claimed sexual abuse to court”. This clearly and unfairly mischaracterises Julian’s defence case and has led to him being portrayed as an enemy of Sweden and of women’s rights in the Swedish press.

26. Other politicians have followed the Prime Minister in attacking Julian and his defence. For example, the Chancellor of Justice, Anna Skarhed, has described the defence as “shocking”. The Chancellor of Justice then states that the defence has accused the Swedish legal system of being “corrupt”: but anyone who has read our submissions or followed court proceedings will know this is simply not true. Our skeleton arguments and all of the case evidence filed with the court is available on our website: http://www.fsilaw.com/news-media/news/28-julian-assange-case-papers/.

27. Given the nature of the press coverage in Sweden, we have grave concerns as to whether Julian will receive a fair trial: he will be tried in secret, behind closed doors, by a judge and three lay judges (jurors) who are appointed by political parties. The Swedish press does not seem at all concerned with the need for suspects to be presumed innocent and it is difficult to see how jurors could remain unaffected by this media coverage.

Putting in order the legal puzzle of the case at the Royal Court in London

28. In summary, our concerns regarding the case in Sweden to date include:

• the unlawful and prejudicial disclosures by police and the prosecution regarding ongoing criminal investigations;

• the failure to disclose details of the allegations and the evidence in English;

• the breaches of police procedures in the investigation of the allegations;

• the apparent failure of the Prosecutor to consider exculpatory evidence;

• the disproportionate behaviour of the Prosecutor in refusing voluntary offers for cooperation and refusing to make use of alternative methods for interviewing Julian - insisting instead on an international warrant which unduly restricts his liberty;

• the pre-trial detention conditions sought by the Prosecutor;

• the prospect of a secret trial; and

• the adverse and prejudicial media coverage, fuelled by the state-funded lawyer for the complainants and the country’s most senior politicians, including the Prime Minister.

Decision to grant extradition - 24 February 2011

29. On 24 February 2011, District Judge Riddle ordered that Julian be extradited to Sweden. It must be noted that this is simply the initial ruling on the validity of a EAW and did not deal with the substance of the allegations against Julian, which he has always firmly denied. The judgment concerns whether it is technically valid for a EAW to be used in this manner. The strength or weakness of the allegations, and even their detail, cannot be heard in a EAW case. This is one of the central complaints made by law reformers about the EAW process - a civil liberties disaster and the subject of investigation and campaigns by human rights groups such as Fair Trials International.[1]

30. It must be remembered that under the EAW system, the British courts are bound to regard the prosecutors of no less than 26 countries, including Poland and Romania – as perfect. The Extradition Act 2003 allows European countries to deem prosecutors and even policemen "as judicial authorities" (a contradiction in terms, because they are neither independent nor impartial) and to demand return of their suspects from the UK so long as they tick the right box on the EAW form. In Julian's case, for example, they ticked "rape" and the court cannot dispute that the allegation is of rape, even though the leading authority on sexual offences, the Oxford Professor Andrew Ashworth, disputes this characterisation. There can be no questioning on the merits of the charges – in 2003 parliament abolished the traditional right of a suspect to require foreign governments to show a prima facie case before dragging them off to unfair trials. It also took away the historic right of individuals facing extradition to show that the case against them was unfounded.

31. Judge Riddle - a hostile judge - made a number of important factual findings. Judge Riddle ordered Julian’s extradition to Sweden despite the fact that he agreed that:

• upon return to Sweden Julian will be held incommunicado pending trial because Sweden has no system of bail; and

• Julian will be subjected to a secret trial, which is anathema to Australian and British traditions of open justice and an outrage given the widespread dissemination of the allegations against him by the Swedish authorities.

32. The decision to extradite Julian is not final, nor (as has been misreported) does it "determine his fate". Julian is permitted an appeal as of right by the 2003 Extradition Act. Thereafter, points of law may, with permission, be appealed to the Supreme Court.

33. The appeal to the High Court was filed today in London. The dates for this appeal are not yet available but we anticipate it will be heard sometime between April and June

34. It is our position that the EAW system should not simply be used as a rubber stamp, but instead ought to be used to improve the quality of justice throughout Europe. Extradition ought to be refused when the trial in prospect is likely to be unfair judged according to fundamental fair trial principles because only then can things improve and human rights blind spots be eradicated. If the British courts declare that open justice is the only possible justice by refusing to extradite Julian to Sweden, this would very likely have the result that Sweden would change its unacceptable policy.[2]

Action points for Australian MPs

35. Julian remains willing to cooperate with the Swedish investigations, provided that certain guarantees are provided in respect of the human rights concerns raised above. We would encourage Australian MPs who are concerned at Julian’s treatment to raise the following concerns.

36. First, to ask our government to seek guarantees from both the Swedish and British governments that Julian will not be extradited to the United States to face prosecution in relation to WikiLeaks publications. Any such prosecution would violate the right to free speech and the protections of the First Amendment. His concern about being extradited to the US is justified in light of:

• US Attorney-General Eric Holder’s ongoing criminal investigation;

• recent subpoenas of Twitter accounts of WikiLeaks, their associates and supporters, which proves an ongoing federal criminal investigation in Virginia and demonstrates intent to prosecute; and

• the recent statement by US Ambassador to the UK to the BBC that the US is waiting to see how things work out in the British courts.

37. Second, demands must be made of the Swedish authorities to ensure that, if Julian returns to Sweden, that his human rights will be protected. These include:

• The evidence in the case be disclosed to him in English, as is Sweden’s obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights. Full disclosure of the police file, including the exculpatory evidence such as the text messages, must be provided.

This request - made in November when an international arrest warrant was being threatened and extended by us to Mr Hurtig as condition precedent to Julian returning/being interviewed - has still not been complied with. Translation costs have exceeded £20,000 because of Sweden’s failure to meet their human rights obligations in this regard. It has also delayed our work and made our legal defence more difficult.

• A guarantee be provided that he will not be held incommunicado or in custody pending any trial.

Again, this was one of our concerns in October and November when Ms Ny requested that he return to Sweden - a concern that was validated on 18 November when Ms Ny sought an order for arrest that would have seen Julian held incommunicado pending trial. These pre-trial conditions have been criticised by international human rights bodies. Aside from human rights concerns, as noted above, Julian was at that time preparing for the release of the Iraq War Logs (23 October 2010) and Cablegate (28 November 2010). Had he returned to Sweden and been held incommunicado in pre-trial detention, these important and internationally significant WikiLeaks releases would have been jeopardised.

• A guarantee be provided that his trial be heard in public: the press and public should be permitted entry to the Court. Other measures, similar to those deployed in Australian courts, can be taken to protect the women in giving their testimony.

• A guarantee be provided that he will not be extradited to the United States, but instead will be allowed to travel back to Australia.

In considering the risk of extradition to the US from Sweden, it must be recalled that Sweden has a history of complying with US requests to hand over persons of interest notwithstanding potential human rights concerns - international bodies have recently found Sweden liable for handing asylum seekers over to the CIA for torture [see Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden (Communication No. 1416/2005, UN Human Rights Committee) and Agiza v. Sweden (Communication No. 233/2003, UN Committee Against Torture, Decision of 24 May 2005 (CAT/C/34/D/233/2003)].

Further, WikiLeaks cables released last December demonstrate that intelligence sharing and cooperation between Sweden and the US is far deeper than anyone had realised, calling into question Sweden’s perceived neutrality, and the extent of this cooperation had been hidden from the Swedish Parliament and the Swedish people.

Jennifer Robinson

Wikileaks, J Assange, Assange, yttrande he frihet, tryckfrihet, transperans, wikileaks, intressant, pressetik

media links:
1, 2, 3, 4,

Historical meaning of WikiLeaks, and Swedish myths on Julian Assange

2011-12-26T17:41:00.023+01:00

Published in Newsmill, 26 December 2011x

Above: Newsmill Front page 26 December 2011

Analysis
by Marcello Ferrada-Noli

In discussing “Julian Assange”, the main stream media - particularly in Sweden - have seemingly neglected informing the public concerning a most relevant fact: Wikileaks – the organization founded and led by editor and journalist Julian Assange has inspired an international movement probed effective in questioning power or even managed changing governments. This new social force, armed with a distinct liberationist political philosophy, has now converted into a political force and thus played a determinant role in the catharsis of the North African revolutions and the various unrest in the Middle East.

Also, this modern equation (Cyber-media and communication in conjunction with a re-emerging questioning for democratic rule, across borders) had a pivotal influence in the Occupy movement in Western Europe or the US, and in the re-emergent student movement in Latin America. This wave will sooner or later reach Sweden, as it finally was with the 68’s world’s movement that hit Sweden in the 70’s. However, instead of taking up this vital discussion, Swedish readers have been depleted with a negative myth building around his personality and often-deceiving information on the “legal” case.

“It is dangerous to be right in matters

on which those in power are mistaken”

– François-Marie Voltaire.
(Voltaire was subject to extradition trial
in the Free City of Frankfurt, as requested
by the Prussian authority instigated by
two “offended” militant Christian women,
Madame de Pompadour and Empress Marie Therese). [1]

Liberationist meaning of WikiLeaks

To be radical (from radix = root) is to understand and solve problems in the roots of society. For humanists, the root of society is man himself [3]. Radicals in the history of mankind have acted upon progress in numerous societal spheres. Classically considered, these have been mainly science and philosophy, religions issues, and politics.

I would say that the first great radical I was aware of in my upbringing is Prometheus, the one who stole the secret of Gods’ domination upon men, the fire, and exposed such revelation to all humans in earth. When the liberation fighters appealed to Prometheus during the Greek War of Independence 1821-1832 they did so thinking in his great political action, not in his personal attributes such as his white or long hair, as depicted by the artist.
x
At left, Prometheus bound, by Scott Eaton

Reflecting on such determinant impact of Prometheus's action for the progress in history (he made possible dēmokratía on earth, says the legend), I would say his symbolic deed set the path for what progressive radicalism is, and that is the kind of relevant role which in this very epoch has assumed the WikiLeaks organization founded by Julian Assange, an by extension whistle-blower hero Bradley Manning and all those that actively pursue the rescue of democracy by means of making governing transparent.

In both cases - the mythological hero depicted by Hesiod’s poem Theogony [4] and the ones of the real, vivid drama of our days - their mission has been to reveal to the individuals of the demos the secrets of a deceiving rule (kratos). And this empowerment was brought about concretely for the purposes of combating cruel wars, political oppression, and social injustice. In other words, it is their actions, the societal consequences of such political behaviours what makes the historical stature, beyond the personalities per se.

These accomplishments have however been in Sweden ostracized to the forgotten realm. Or they have hardly been mentioned. At the contrary, the main theme in the Swedish mainstream media has been to treat the personality of Julian Assange and indulge interpretations – more than facts – around the legal case for which Sweden has nominally asked the WikiLeaks founder extradition.

In other words, what the political establishment and their media have neglected to inform the public is the most relevant fact: The progressive political movement it has inspired, internationally. How come that neither the Swedish press nor political analysts have cared to elaborate on the significance of such international movement represented by WikiLeaks? Or attempt to describe its worldwide dynamic?

Social force and political force in nowadays radicalism

Any organization (political party, lobby, altruistic, etc.) acting upon the political phenomena would have the potential– by design or without – for eventually develop a movement. This embryonic movement is not necessarily equated with the inspiring organization’s primary goals neither with the ideology of its leaders or members. This “political mutation” – the transition of an organization towards an ample political movement - is phenomena actively sought by such organizations (such as our old revolutionary organizations that pursued the formations of fronts) or simply are brought about spontaneously thanks to “objective premises”; meaning, when a new “social force” has grown in the political arena. These are often social groups or individuals disengaged from traditional political parties insofar those parties are not any longer considered to represent their interests. Eventually, they would identify the strategic goals of a given emergent (inspiring) organization with the tactical goals corresponding to their crucial every-day needs and experiences.

For instance, inquiring into the Swedish panorama, we find vast number of individuals that experience grievances against their private and civil rights from the part of the government and state institutions. These measures may have a base in legislation. However, it is highly discussible whether the citizens’ opinions in some concrete issues (for example, respect of privacy in cyber communication) are taken into account during the legislation processes.

After the malicious Pandora-box, The Gods sent an eagle to ultimate him.

Painting by Elsie Russell

x
In fact, the Swedish praxis may consist rather in the searching of consensus by all political parties. However – as I have expressed elsewhere – “consensus” in Sweden is not the searching for homogeneity of opinions, but a bargaining of interests. And when economic or geopolitical interests are – as they are often – entangled in such political trading, the “positions” of the political parties appear further alienated from both their ideological principles (for which they got their votes) and the interests of the individuals or consumers. All this was exemplary demonstrated by all the political actors in the Swedish Parliament during the discussion and promulgation of the surveillance legislation (FRA-lagen), the IPRED discussions, etc. See "Debating Sweden’s surveillance legislation. FRA-lagen against civil liberties". [4]

This modern equation (Cyber-media and communication in conjunction with a re-emerging questioning for democratic rule, across borders) had a pivotal influence in the Occupy movement in Western Europe or the US, and in the re-emergent student movement in Latin America. And it will come sooner or later to Sweden, as it was with the 68’s world’s movement (arriving in Sweden in the 70's). The question is also what organization, or what type of movement will be the channel. Internationally considered, the protesters have sought inspiration in the organization WikiLeaks and its main demand for transparency in governing. In Sweden, in those regards there is a political vacuum and the political scenario looks more like an open question. Perhaps the Green parties could have taken such leading role, but they missed it. Yet more incomprehensible is that the Swedish Pirate Party also missed that historical momentum. [6]

Some myths in Sweden on Julian Assange

The absolutely main question in this context is this “What Julian Assange represents”. The answer of this query will be often the ideological self-portrait of a given medial culture, of the powers behind, or of the own article’s author.

In Sweden, in most of the cases, instead of this vital discussion on the impact of Julian Assange’s organization WikiLeaks, the readers have been depleted with a negative myth building around his personality and often-deceiving information on the “legal” case. Here follows a sample:

Radical feminists or feminist opportunists?

One of the main myths spread refer to Julian Assange as “enemy of feminism”. The statement cannot be more far from truth. His liberationist platform clearly comprises the struggle for equal rights as identified by the international feminist movement. Conspicuous feminists, such as Naomi Wolf or in Sweden Helene Bergman have expressly given their support to Julian Assange’s struggle for justice in the context of the Swedish case against him. Recently, a letter sent by distinguished intellectuals, professors and culture personalities in Australia to the Foreign Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, included notable feminists of that country.

In strict ideological sense, left radical-feminists would find in true an identification of their societal purposes for justice and equality for all genders in the liberationist message of WikiLeaks as well as the actual statements of Julian Assange. Radical-feminists should not permit their spirit been kidnapped by right-wing opportunists, which in the base defend a political system opposing equality of all kinds.

What has happened in Sweden is that a limited number of self-proclaimed “radical feminists”, for the most part right-wingers, have initiated or participated in campaigns ad-hominem against the WikiLeaks founder, for instance the “Prataomdet” campaign and a series of articles in the mainstream media. And that in my opinion is NOT left radical feminism; it is simply opportunism. In my article "So called Swedish 'radical feminists' declared Julian Assange a symbolic issue" I show among other the public participation of lawyer and politician Claes Borgström - the instigator of the prosecution in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder - in paying homage to the anti-Assange "Prataomdet" campaign.

The myth on “Paranoia”

Another myth is centred in supposedly negative features of the personality of Julian Assange, as they have been invented by his detractors and repeated in the tabloid press and even by the Swedish National Television, as it was the case recently in the program Agenda of 23 October 2011 which repeated without further qualification Assange is “much paranoid in his behaviour” and authoritarian towards his collaborators. [6]

Previously, a notable columnist of Aftonbladet, Johanne Hildebrant, had written on Assange, he is “a paranoid idiot who refuses to come to Sweden to stand trial”. [8]. Parallel, the tabloid Expressen described in detail Julian Assange supposedly “severe compulsive needs. . .” [9]. And the list is long. My research shown among other (See Newsmill article "Medierapporteringen om Assange är osaklig och likriktad") that the articles with hostile content published in the study period by the Swedish press exceeded significantly the articles with positive or objective/neutral content. And that among the articles referring to his personality features 72 per cent did so by using hostile, aggressive or detrimental terms.

Needles to say that no professionals have ever been quoted of having such assessments, that, astonishingly, are freely reproduced in the Swedish mainstream media.

When I submitted my Witness statement to the London Courts, based in the above investigation, I had not met Julian Assange personally. My first personal encounter with the WikiLeaks founder occurred only recently, in London December 2011. The meeting centered around a book project on contemporary political philosophers, but it prolonged long in the day.

And I can say that I would be happy to extent my witness statement in order to strongly contradict the nonsense published about his allegedly behaviour. For I guess - it is only my belief – that my opinion would be the closest to what scientific-research psychiatry have been in some position to assess. And my opinion is that Julian Assange, apart of demonstrating being intellectually brilliant, is psychologically speaking among the most normal among the normal political leaders or cultural personalities, or journalists, I have ever met (and I have met some deal of weird ones too). Besides, I was also in position of witnessing for hours the gentle fashion in which Julian Assange addressed his colleagues and staff, and also the reciprocally respect and care.

And regarding the “paranoia” issue, I say, that is definitely purely smearing. An invented thing attributed to the personality of the WikiLeaks founder by his political enemies, and repeated by people who have never met him personally. It is just one among other lies they have sold about WikiLeaks. Further, I personally think that the so much told (by the tabloid media) security arrangements around the WikiLeaks leader is another exaggerated description. As and old Resistant combatant I would say that it is unfortunately the opposite, that their security arrangements seems rather precarious for a person whose execution has been suggested by some prominent US politicians (and that is not a myth). In fact, I personally could not see or experience any difference in those regards between Assange’s meeting-arrangements and those of any other cultural personality living in the open. In other words, the notion of Assange as a “scare” or "paranoid" personality seeing “enemies” all around is absolutely a falsehood. I put entirely my Swedish academic-doctoral qualifications in the field (Psychiatry, from the Karolinska Institutet) at the stake, as base for my asseveration.

The myth of “fearing to stand interrogation”

In conclusion, the smearing based on the “paranoia” issue fits too well with the next myth, on Julian Assange’s “fear” of coming to Sweden “to stand trial”. I have strong reasons to believe that this might have been created as a deceiving “smoke curtain” with the purpose of play down the real risk of an eventually extradition from Sweden to the US. By repeating over again in the media the mantra of his supposedly “exaggerated” and “unfounded” fear of merely being interrogated by some prosecutor just “because” he would be “paranoid”, the real peril of an extradition to US it makes sounding as unreal. In fact it is very real: according to figures by the Swedish Ministry of Justice, regarding the open extradition requests from the USA since 2000, Sweden has granted such extradition in the total of cases in which the prisoner was in Swedish territory.

III

Epilogue. Pandora, the first ever known honey trap

Pandora and her vile box, full of malicious surprises, for the purpose of punish the hero

who exposed the secrets of the Gods i front to all men on earth

When the Olympus gods faced the fact that Prometheus had stolen the secret fire, Zeus ordered Hephaestus to create a woman empowered with a box containing plagues, and that she should be sent to Prometheus as punishment. She was given the name Pandora. She was deliberately conceived as a resourceful nasty woman and with mission that in the appropriate moment opening the famous Pandora box - which so many plagues caused to the radical Prometheus. All this as told by Hesiod in Theogony about ten centuries ago. Pandora’s programmed action against Prometheus was the first ever honey trap known to humankind.

After I met Julian Assange in London, recently in December 2011, I twittered that, meeting him personally reminded me vividly my encounter with Commander Che Guevara in February 1964. This comparison was instantaneously, and highly, shared by numerous re-tweets, which indicates the widespread notion outside Sweden of the historical impact of the activities deployed by the organization founded by Assange.

For it, I will finish with these remarks of Che Guevara, which I first reproduced in my inaugural lecture “El Sepulcro de Don Quijote” [10] when I became professor for the first time back in 1970. Guevara’s words bear a remarkably reference to the role of the new Cyber technique used by both WikiLeaks and the Cyber-connected democratic fighters all along the world:

“Y Ustedes, estudiantes del mundo, recuerden que detrás de cada técnica hay una sociedad que la empuña, y que respecto a esa sociedad, o se está con ella, o se está en contra de ella”

"...You, remember that behind every technique there is a society that hold it with their hands, and either you fight for that society, or you fight against it"

Marcello Ferrada-Noli, 21 December 2011

Notes and References

[1] Christopher L. Blaskesley, The Practice of Extradition from Antiquity to Modern France and the United States: A Brief History. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol 4, Issue I, Article 3. ("Conclusions I" in page 56)

[2] Disclaim: Analyses on media campaigns or psychological-war exercise are highly the domain of social psychiatry, my original research subject at the Karolinska Institute. Secondly, scientific (empirical) epidemiology is also fundamental for the study of the distribution of given myths in a population, such as attending to risk factors, issues of vulnerability, culture and others. “Qualitative” studies - in which media and so-called gender (pseudo radical feminist) research is based - are not scientific and their conclusions not reliable. The popularity of these bogus academic procedures in official Sweden is grounded in yet another myth.

[3] A Sanchez Vázquez. "Filosofía y Cirscunstancias". ANTROPHOS, México, 1997. Quoting early Marx's writings in context of Alienation Theory.

[4] http://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanPrometheus.html

[5] M ferrada-Noli,“"Debating Sweden’s surveillance legislation. FRA-lagen against civil liberties". The Professors blogg, 22 September 2008

[6] To give an illustration, the Swedish Pirate Party (PP), in spite of being the first and at a time the most influent in Europe, refused to integrate the International PP organization based in that their economic contribution to such organization, as stipulated it should be “proportional” to the number of party-members, would have “impoverished” the Swedish PP’s resources (explanation was given to me by the Swedish PP office (kansliet) in January 2011. It was an answer to a direct consultation on why the Swedish PP does not participate in the international coordinated activities in solidarity with Assange and WL organized elsewhere in the world by the Pirate parties.

[7] Swedish National Television, Program "Agenda" 23 October 2011. The quote-exerpct in Swedish was “väldigt paranoid I sitt uppträdande”

[8] Johanne Hildebrant, “Assange has become one of those he wanted to fight against”. Aftonbladet, Stockholm, 13 February 2011

[9] “Mister Assange’s defense” Expressen, Culture. Stockholm, 13 February 2011

[10] M Ferrada-Noli. "El sepulcro de Don Qujote. Clase Magistral". Documentos Universitarios, Universidad de Chile - Arica, No 1, 1970

Media links 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Wikileaks, J Assange, Assange, yttrande he frihet, tryckfrihet, transperans, wikileaks, intressant, pressetik

media

Manning Hearing Began With Challenge on Fairness. By Andrew Kreig

2011-12-25T08:48:00.009+01:00

A new enticing and informative column by the notable American attorney and journalist Andrew Kreig, Head of the Washington-based Justice Integrity Project. Andrew Kreig is a regular guest columnist in the Professors blogg. He publishes also a column in the Huffington Post and a sample of his important work is listed in the Resource section of the Justice For Assange site.

The Washington-based Justice Integrity Project is a research and education initiative established in 2010 by concerned citizens to improve oversight of abusive prosecutorial and judicial decisions in the federal justice system. Its primary focus is political and other arbitrary prosecutions, and official corruption cases. The Justice Integrity Project promotes effective oversight of federal prosecution and judicial misconduct, educate the public and its opinion-leaders and work with legal officials, organizations, and voters to increase awareness of how federal injustice harms the country.

Analysis by Andrew Kreig

The Article 32 hearing for Army Private Bradley E. Manning began Dec. 16 at Fort Meade in Maryland with a challenge by the defense team to the fairness of the military proceedings. Manning, right, was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq for suspicion of passing restricted material to WikiLeaks. Counsel for the defense argued that the hearing officer, Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, lacks sufficient independence. Part of the defense argument is because Almanza works for the Department of Justice, which honored him last year and is holding a grand jury investigation directed at the WikiLeaks organization and its leaders. Almanza declined to recuse after answering questions from attorneys. The defense is appealing that ruling.

In March 2011, Manning was accused of "aiding the enemy," among other charges. Manning, who turned 24 on Dec. 17, is appearing for the first time to face 22 charges of distributing government secrets. The hearing will determine whether he must stand trial on charges that could imprison him for life, and potentially bring a death penalty. About a hundred news organizations have requested credentials to cover the proceedings, expected to last about a week. A compilation of on-the-scene coverage is excerpted below.

Authorities have said they will not seek the death penalty. Among the reasons defense attorneys sought the hearing officer's recusal were his pre-hearing rulings granting the prosecution all of its requested witnesses and granting the defense only two of 38 witnesses not approved also for prosecution purposes. The defense argued that some of those rejected could have testified that the leaked documents would have caused minimal damage to national security.

“I do not believe a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would be led to the conclusion that my impartiality would be reasonably questioned,” Almanza responded. “I thus deny the defense request to recuse myself.”

The hearing is Manning’s first public appearance since authorities removed him from his post in Baghdad in May 2010 and jailed him under what critics worldwide described as punitive conditions that constituted human rights violations. Manning supporters are protesting his prosecution for a variety of reasons. Among them are that Manning was acting as a whistle-blower on unethical conduct that included potential war crimes, not as a spy. Others are that his pre-trial detention conditions were so inhumane as to be scandalous.

Department of State spokesman P.J. Crowley was forced to resign last summer after he shared at a seminar his opinion that authorities were misguided in treating Manning so badly in his pre-trial conditions when the worldwide human rights community is paying close attention. Authorities prompted replaced Crowley with former Cheney aide and U.S. NATO ambassador Victoria Nuland, left. As a key member of the bipartisan, pro-war neo-con consensus that dominates foreign policy in Washington, she is the Choate-reared wife of longtime invade-Iraq enthusiast Robert Kagan. He is a former Skull-and-Bones inductee at Yale who is an author, think tank fellow and Washington Post columnist who had sought such an invasion as early as 1996 along with other leading neo-cons in their Project for a New American Century. The elite consensus behind using those of humble origins such as Manning to implement these wars is one dimension of the Manning prosecution that deserves the attention of voters next fall. It's animating campaigns as different as Republican Ron Paul's and that of emerging Democratic challengers to President Obama.

For another thing, federal authorities last week celebrated the end of the Iraq War, or at least the withdrawal of the vast majority of U.S. trops. But the loss of more than 4,000 American lives and estimates of hundreds of thousands of foreshortened Iraqi lives undermine the latest version of the Bush administration's "Mission Accomplished" shipboard celebration in 2003. Additionally, the Justice Department this week announced a ramped up effort to prosecute war criminals -- specifically those suspected of persecuting Jews and other Holocaust victims nearly 70 years ago in Europe. The original prosecutions at Nuremberg led by famed American prosecutor and jurist Robert Jackson made famous our nation's principle that "just following orders" cannot be a defense to war crimes.

Manning, however, is probably well on his way to serving a term comparable to the world's most notorious German and Japanese war criminals who escaped the hangman -- even though his private remarks so far made public suggest that he sought to halt abuses as best he could by facilitating news reports of U.S. embarrassments or wrongdoing.

But there's probably scant reason for anyone to ponder the facts or fairness at this late stage of the Manning case. As the first pretrial hearing resumed for its second day on Dec. 17, remember that President Obama issued his verdict last April. The president -- the erstwhile liberal law professor who now commands the hearing officer Almanza both as commander-in-chief and as head of the Executive Branch's Justice Department -- has already pronounced Manning as guilty: "He broke the law."

While Manning's fate may already be sealed, the more curious coincidence is that this is also the week where the House and Senate overwhelming passed for the presidents signature and what Ralph Nader calls "surrender" -- an unprecedented attack on the Bill of Rights whereby the president can designate any U.S. citizen, whether in the military or not, to be held forever by military authorities without a hearing if suspect of supporting what an authority believes is "terror" initiative. Yes, worry about what's about to happen to Manning. But he won't be the last by any means.

And as we proceed to next November, let's remember to ask the candidates, "What did you do with my country's Constitution?"

Below is a sampling of coverage, including updates

Salon, The intellectual cowardice of Bradley Manning’s critics, Glenn Greenwald, Dec. 24, 2011. Ever since Bradley Manning was accused of being the source for the WikiLeaks disclosures, those condemning these leaks have sought to distinguish them from Daniel Ellsberg’s leak of the Pentagon Papers. With virtual unanimity, Manning’s harshest critics have contended that while Ellsberg’s leak was justifiable and noble, Manning’s alleged leaks were not. One problem for those wishing to make this claim is that Ellsberg himself has been one of Manning’s most vocal defenders, repeatedly insisting that the two leaks are largely indistinguishable. But the bigger problem for this claim is how blatantly irrational it is. As Ellsberg clearly details in this Al Jazeera debate (VIDEO), he — Ellsberg — dumped 7,000 pages of Top Secret documents: the highest known level of classification; by contrast, not a single page of what Manning is alleged to have leaked was Top Secret, but rather all bore a much lower-level secrecy designation. In that sense, President Obama was right: “Ellsberg’s material wasn’t classified in the same way” — the secrets Ellsberg leaked were classified as being far more sensitive.

Associated Press / Huffington Post, Bradley Manning's Defense Lawyers Employing Three-Pronged Strategy For Alleged WikiLeaks Suspect, David Disneau and Pauline Jelinek, Dec. 20, 2011. The government neared completion of its case against the Army intelligence analyst blamed for the biggest leak of U.S. secrets in American history as the prosecution and defense wrangled over which parts of the proceedings should be public and private.

Washington Post, Bradley Manning’s attorney in WikiLeaks case seeks presiding officer’s recusal, Ellen Nakashima, Dec. 16, 2011. The military pretrial hearing for Pfc. Bradley Manning opened contentiously Friday, with his defense attorney arguing that the presiding officer lacked the impartiality to render fair judgment in a case growing out of the release of a trove of government secrets to WikiLeaks last year. His attorney said Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, a reservist who also works for the Justice Department, could not be unbiased, citing that department’s ongoing investigation of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange. “That simple fact alone, without anything else, would cause a reasonable person to say, ‘I question your impartiality,’ ” the attorney, David E. Coombs, told Almanza, who works in the child exploitation unit of the Justice Department. Almanza rejected a request for recusal after considering it during a recess. He said his unit has no involvement in the case or in national security issues.

FireDogLake, Manning Defense Files Motion Requesting Article 32 Officer Recuse Himself, Kevin Gosztola, Dec. 16, 2011. Manning’s defense lawyer, David E. Coombs, has filed a motion requesting Lt. Col. Paul Almanza recuse himself from his position as the presiding investigative officer over Pfc. Bradley Manning’s Article 32 hearing. Coombs listed four reasons that he says independently support but collectively mandate Almanza recuse himself.
x

First, he has served as a career prosecutor with the Justice Department since 2002 and has prosecuted over 20 cases. The DoJ also has an ongoing investigation into the case of Bradley Manning. He alleged the DoJ would like to flip Manning and have him testify against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The Justice Department has also not ruled out taking over the prosecution from the military.
Second, the government requested twenty witnesses and had all of them granted. They only listed names and no basis for why they would be relevant to the hearing. The defense, on the other hand, submitted a 19-page list of forty-eight witnesses. Ten happened to be on the government’s list and were approved. Only two of the thirty-eight other witnesses, Coombs stated, were approved “to the detriment” of Bradley Manning who is accused of “aiding the enemy,” a charge that carries the death penalty....
BBC, Bradley Manning military hearing begins, Mark Mardell, Dec. 16, 2011. Defence lawyers representing the US Army analyst accused of leaking government secrets have asked the investigating officer to step aside. The hearing offers the first opportunity for his defence team to present their case since he was arrested in Iraq in May 2010 and placed in military custody. It is taking place under tight security at an army base at Fort Meade, Maryland. As the hearing opened, Pte Manning's defence team asked for the investigating officer -- equivalent to a judge in a civilian court -- to withdraw from the case, the BBC's North America editor Mark Mardell reports from the base. Pte Manning was reported to be sitting in the courtroom dressed in military khaki and wearing black-rimmed glasses. During the Article 32 hearing, which is similar to a pre-trial hearing, both prosecuting and defence lawyers will make their initial cases and are permitted to cross-examine witnesses.

x
BBC, At the Scene, Paul Adams, Dec. 16, 2011. For almost everyone present, this is our first glimpse of the man accused of the biggest leak of confidential material in American history. Private Manning sat in uniform, wearing thick-rimmed glasses, hands clasped before him. In his only remarks so far, he said he understood his rights and confirmed the identities of the one civilian and two military officers representing him. But the focus of attention was the investigating officer. Manning's civilian lawyer demanded he recuse himself, arguing that as prosecutor for the Department of Justice, Lt Col Paul Almanza works for an organisation actively pursuing a separate case against Wikileaks. Mr Coombs said Lt Col Almanza's decision to reject defence witnesses, as well as the government's alleged reluctance to put forward witnesses to explain the damage done by the leaks suggested Almanza was biased. "Where's the damage? Where's the harm?" Mr Coombs demanded, in an early indication of part of his defence strategy. Lt Col Almanza announced a recess to consider the defence plea. It could last some time.

Fox News, Manning Judge on Trial at WikiLeaks Case Hearing, Justin Fishel, Dec. 16, 2011. Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old soldier accused of providing hundreds of thousands of secret government documents to the website WikiLeaks, appeared publicly Friday at a military courthouse for the first time since being arrested in Iraq 19 months ago. Defense attorney David Coombs touched off an unusual courtroom debate by asking investigating officer Lt.Col. Paul Almanza to recuse himself due to bias. Almanza later refused and the hearing adjourned for the day, but Coombs is trying to put the trial on hold in response. The defense attorney has filed a motion to request a stay before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, though Almanza plans on proceeding with the hearing Saturday unless he is told otherwise. Coombs claimed Almanza was biased due to his role as a Justice Department prosecutor, and the department's alleged desire to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The government prosecutor, Capt. Ashden Fein, asked Almanza if he had ever dealt with any issues related to WikiLeaks or Manning in his prior role as a Justice Department attorney, a job he left on Dec. 12. Almanza told the court he had no dealings with this case prior to his appointment and that he believed he could be impartial.

Politico, Barack Obama on Bradley Manning: 'He broke the law,' MJ Lee and Abby Philli, April 22, 2011. President Barack Obama’s assertion at a recent California fundraiser that Bradley Manning “broke the law” may have run afoul of presidential protocol, according to legal analysts who have been tracking the case of the Army private charged in the WikiLeaks case. “I have to abide by certain classified information,” Obama said on a video that quickly began to circulate among media outlets Friday. “If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law. … We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate. … He broke the law.”

Contact the author Andrew Kreig or comment

Wikileaks, J Assange, Assange, yttrande he frihet, tryckfrihet, transperans, wikileaks, intressant,

Professors blogg to silence by unintentional cause

2011-12-24T23:04:00.104+01:00

Did you know that Prometheus (Hesiod’s poem Theogony) was the first known political radical and whistleblower? Do you remember that he stole the secrets of the Gods domination and exposed to mankind? Did you know that the infuriated gods in punishment to Prometheus’ deed for dēmokratía among men, and pursuing to stop him of further disclosures, they send to him a woman called Pandora with the mission to entrapping Prometheus with her malicious arts (the Pandora box)? What does this first and determinant honey trap in history says to you?

La lotta continua at the Emergency Ward 24 Dec 2011. Still typing

away some twitters, comments, articles and messages entangled between scanner-cables

Sadly announce from my part

by Marcello Ferrada-Noli

I have been the last days at the Emergency ward in a Swedish hospital. Today, Christmas Eve, I have been transferred to the Stroke Unit. I have tried, whenever possibly away of the nurses’ watch, and using all I could stubbornly rescue from my capability, to continue my contribution for Justice to WikiLeaks and for its founder Julian Assange. Sadly for me, these possibilities are getting now in the decrease, and it is uncertain as to how/when they would be re-established..

In the meantime, I will try to provide material from Professors blogg's notable guest columnists, American feminist writer Naomi Wolf and Washington-based attorney and journalist Andrew Kreig (Justice Integrity Project), to whom it will soon unite Human-Rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson.

I have in any case managed to write from here my LottaContinua comments in the Flashback forum, to publish my rebuttal to a SvD fallacious assault on Julian Assange’s credibility, and to submit for publication a main analysis entitled “Historical meaning of WikiLeaks, and Swedish myths on Julian Assange”, which I wrote in these days including reflections on my encounter with Julian Assange in London, now in December. The article has been accepted for publication in Newsmill.se, an important Swedish opinion site (drawing higher number of visits than the opinion section of the main Swedish paper Dagens Nyheter). In the columns under their WikiLeaks debate, Newsmill have published, among others notable Hillary Clinton's article on the subject. It is uncertain, however, when my said accepted article in Newswmill is scheduled for publication.

Update 27 December: The article “Historical meaning of WikiLeaks, and Swedish myths on Julian Assange” is now published in Newsmill, and republished here in Professors blogg with updated links and graphics.

To me it says that we have to do, all what we possibly can do, to stop the new self-appointed "Gods", those in power, in their pursue of taking to ultimate sacrifice WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and all valiant, civil-courage liberationists, fighters for a genuine democracy and transparent governments on earth. For mankind needs them badly.

The above is one main theme I treat in “Historical meaning of WikiLeaks, and Swedish myths on Julian Assange” and in the video referred below.

Lastly. Previously my forced staying at this hospital, we had finally managed with my statement-interview to the series “Do you have any idea”? edited by CATv. Unfortunately, I was at last minute unable to arrange the submission of such material; but it will be take cared of.

I wish you all a great Christmas celebration, a delightful New Year and a wonderful life.

LA LOTTA CONTINUA (The struggles goes on)

Marcello Ferrada-Noli

Christmas Eve dinner at the hospital. Main course: Three meatballs and two "prinze" sausages accompained by light beer and a one slice cheese smårgås. Not much for a man who follows Playboy's gourmet column since 1959. But I find the care at the hospital excellent, and the personnel amiable.

Articles in the Professors blogg on the Swedish case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

 22 December 2011. New Swedish deceptive information about Assange and the prospective of extradition to US

 18 December 2011. Distinguished Intellectuals, Professors, Officers and Politicians in Letter to Australian Foreign Minister: Highly Concerned Over Prospective Sweden's Rendition of Assange to US

 1 December 2011. The “Duck Pond” Theses. Explaining Swedish journalism and the anti-Assange smear campaign

 1 December 2011. All for Wikileaks sepulchred Swedish official myth

 29 November 2011. Further devious reports on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. Update

 27 November 2011. EC to stop Facebook's harvesting of personal information. But Swedish connection could be worse than ad-targeting operations

 25 November 2011. The Shocking Truth About the Crackdown on Occupy. By Naomi Wolf

 17 November 2011. The Wikileaks Flag

 15 November 2011. Blind Trust, Blind Justice. Article by Bella Magnani

 7 November 2011. NATO medals to Sweden. Can Sweden US-aligned stand guarantee fair extradition process?

 4 November 2011. Sweden will grant extradition of Assange to the US. If not stopped by international political pressure