JULIAN ASSANGE/WIKILEAKS

32. Julian Assange

2011-07-28T23:06:00.000-07:00

32. Julian Assange

The WikiLeaks founder has been at the centre of a media storm this year, attracting both support and controversy

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 July 2011 21.12 BST
Article history

Julian Assange

Job: founder, WikiLeaks Age: 40 Industry: digital media Budget: unknown 2010 ranking: 58

Hi-tech terrorist or beacon of information freedom, this year it has been impossible to ignore Julian Assange, the public face of WikiLeaks. In December his organisation, the self-styled "intelligence service of the people", released hundreds of classified US embassy cables, rattling nerves at the very top of the US government.

Assange was forced into hiding following the data release, the media storm whipping up even more when he was revealed to have been wanted for questioning over an alleged rape in Sweden, the country WikiLeaks chose as its home, ironically because of its powerful whistleblower protection laws.

The extradition case saw celebrity backers rush to his banner, from Jemima Khan to John Pilger (and the deputy foreign minister of Ecuador, no less). But the controversy did not end there. Having fallen out with the Guardian and New York Times, he has also attracted criticism over the gagging orders that WikiLeaks staff have to sign. This is probably why Assange was deemed to have "gone up but with downward tendencies", in the words of one panellist.

WikiLeaks was launched in 2007 with a mission to change the world by abolishing official secrecy.

The site claims a range of founders but Assange remains its colourful, charismatic, impossible driving force. Even so, only so much is known about the silvery haired, quietly spoken man himself. His background – he was raised in Melbourne and convicted of computer hacking when he was a teenager is as much as we know – is information he thinks it wise not to share with the world at large.

Source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/24/julian-assange-mediaguardian-100-2011?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fmedia%2Frss+%28Media%29

Natália Viana: Como conheci Julian Assange

2011-07-15T04:07:00.000-07:00

Natália Viana: Como conheci Julian Assange

12 de julho de 2011 às 9:29 1 Comentário

Matéria produzida para A PÚBLICA

Tudo começou com um telefonema mais do que inesperado e misterioso, em novembro do ano passado; menos de duas semanas depois, o Brasil seria o primeiro país a ter acesso aos documentos diplomáticos da embaixada americana, além dos cinco jornais da Europa e dos EUA.

Por Natalia Viana, da Pública (livre reprodução desde que citada a fonte)

Só às vezes o meu celular pegava. Eu estava em um bangalô à beira do Rio Tapajós, no Pará, onde ia morar por um mês para fazer uma reportagem. O telefone, portanto, não tocou. Ouvi o recado horas depois. Em inglês britânico: “Alô Natalia, aqui é a Hale, trabalhamos juntas em Londres. Agora estou com uma organização muito influente, queria te passar um trabalho…”

Era 14 de novembro de 2010, quinze dias antes do estrondoso lançamento dos 250 mil telegramas das embaixadas americanas pelo WikiLeaks, e no silêncio da floresta o convite soou longínquo, mal explicado. Decidi entrar em contato com meu ex-chefe, Gavin MacFadyen, diretor do Cento de Jornalismo Investigativo de Londres, onde trabalhara com a tal inglesa, para pedir mais detalhes.

Gavin é um dos mais incríveis jornalistas que eu conheço. Adora as reportagens arriscadas, saboreia os resultados, ri sem parar quando lembra que algum ricaço corrupto foi pego com a boca na botija. E sempre me dá as melhores dicas. Pouco depois do contato, ela volta a me escrever, por email.

“Estamos trabalhando em um grande projeto, extremamente empolgante, que vai ter enorme repercussão no mundo todo. Não é seguro escrever os detalhes, mas tenho certeza que qualquer jornalista gostaria de estar envolvido”, explicava a inglesa. “Todos os meus telefones estão grampeados, mas posso te ligar”.

Ao telefone, a proposta, afinal: que eu estivesse em Londres nos próximos dias, num local indicado. Não saberia o que nem para quem. Numa rápida ligação, Gavin deu uma só dica, preciosa: o trabalho envolveria uma pessoa “recentemente famosa”. Como grande parte dos jornalistas investigativos, eu já conhecia a trajetória de Julian Assange e me entusiasmava pela sua cruzada por documentos secretos. Achei que era ele: “Estou dentro”.

Ora, de Santarém para Belém e de lá para o aeroporto de Cumbica, em São Paulo. Mil pequenos receios tomam conta quando tomei o táxi para o aeroporto, afinal. Medos prosaicos: de ser tudo mentira; de perder os parcos 4 mil reais que gastara com as passagens; de ser barrada no aeroporto de Londres como tantos brasileiros da minha idade, sem trabalho fixo nem uma boa explicação para dar. Caprichei no ar blasé quando falei com o oficial da imigração: “estou apenas de férias, vou aproveitar para fazer compras”. Deu certo.

Em Londres, devia ir a um endereço – era toda a indicação que eu tinha. Mas quando cheguei ao Frontline Club, em Paddington, um clube aconchegante que promove o jornalismo independente com debates, exibição de filmes e quartos mais em conta para repórteres e documentaristas que vivem de orçamento apertado – ninguém.

Hora e meia depois ela chega, esbaforida. Loira, rabo de cavalo e roupa mal ajambrada que pouco disfarçava a beleza de olhos azuis, boca carnuda e jeito de menina. Hale desabafou: “Sinto muitíssimo, querida, mas você viu o que aconteceu hoje né?”. Eu, não. “Emitiram um mandado de prisão contra ele”.

Ele, como eu imaginara, era Julian Assange, uma das figuras mais controversas do jornalismo mundial – acusado, inclusive, de não ser jornalista. Àquela altura, o WikiLeaks já era conhecido no mundo todo, e já incomodava muita gente. Em julho, havia publicado 75 mil diários sobre a guerra do Afeganistão que provaram assassinatos indiscriminados de civis; em outubro, mais 400 mil relatos secretos sobre o Iraque, provando tortura contra prisioneiros.

Hale parecia mais aborrecida com o atraso nos planos que com a acusação em si. Trava-se de uma queixa na Suécia, feita por duas mulheres, de crimes sexuais. “É uma armação, isso vai embora com o tempo. Mas precisamos ter cuidado”. Muito cuidado, explicou. Meses antes, o Pentágono havia emitido uma ameaça clara: o WikiLeaks deveria devolver todos os documentos secretos e apagá-los do seu site, ou então os EUA “buscariam alternativas de obrigá-los a fazer a coisa certa”. Não tínhamos nem ideia do que podia acontecer.

***

A poucas quadras dali, no andar superior de uma casinha insuspeita em uma alameda de paralelepípedos, estavam meus companheiros de viagem. Agora, era só guardarmos as malas e partirmos, disse Hale, sem explicar aonde. Foi assim que vi pela primeira vez o Julian Assange, com seu rosto fino e nariz marcante, pálido, loiríssimo. Falou pouco, mas sua voz forte chamou a atenção, talvez um pouco menos que a vodka que ele ofereceu assim que sentei à mesa. Islandesa, supreendentemente boa.

Do outro lado, o islandês Kristin Hraffnson sorria. Bonitão, grisalho (teria uns 50 anos?) e com seu ar sério, elogiou o produto de sua terra, enquanto ao meu lado outro rapaz, de óculos, também bebia sem culpa. “Não vou dirigir”. Era um rapaz jovem, magricelo, com um aprumado topete e um ar irônico que só os melhores ingleses conseguem ter (embora seja, na verdade, de uma ex-colônia africana). Seguiu-se então uma discussão, que me pareceu infinita, sobre quem afinal seria o motorista – a escolha era entre um islandês meio bêbado, um africano meio cego e uma inglesa que não dirigia há anos. “Como você pode ver, somos uma organização muito eficiente”, brincou Hale, ao se dar por vencida e assumir a direção.

Pouco antes de sair, Julian me chamou para perto. Me entregou um pedaço de papel rabiscado: “Não fale nada”. Lia-se, na sua letra miúda, 250.000 telegramas de embaixadas americanas de 1966 a 2010. 1/10 não valem nada, 1/50 importantes, 1/250 muito importantes.

Na saída, aproveitei para fumar um cigarro. Kristinn se aproximou: “Você está bem?”. “Estou. Queria poder fazer perguntas”. “Quando estivermos na estrada”, respondeu.

Hale pediu meu casaco, uma espalhafatosa peça de lã azul marinho salpicada de bolinhas verdes. Subiu correndo e desceu rindo uma gargalhada gostosa, que tentava abafar com as mãos. “Eu juro que não vou conseguir dirigir se ele vier vestido assim”. Quando Julian finalmente desceu, todos caímos na risada. Vestia um lenço estampado de cetim sobre a cabeça, meu casaco acinturado, óculos e enchimento nos peitos e nas costas, simulando uma bizarra corcova. Fizemos uma breve sessão de fotos, até ser interrompidos por ele: “vamos, vamos!”

***

Enfim pudemos conversar quando chegamos a um posto de beira de estrada. Enquanto os demais foram comprar comida, Julian ficou no carro por segurança.

Por que queriam uma brasileira?

- Porque o Brasil é um grande país, independente, assim como a Austrália. Não pode ser visto como América Latina, e também tem uma língua própria…

Ele abriu seu pequeno laptop, onde reluzia um gigantesco arquivo de texto, verde e preto. Digitou “Brazil”: 3 mil documentos. “Você vai ter muito trabalho”, disse.

A principal tarefa seria escrever matérias em português (“temos muitos apoiadores no Brasil”) e conseguir parceiros confiáveis na mídia brasileira. “Ah, uma coisa”, ele acrescentou. “Vamos lançar os documentos no dia 28”.

Trabalhar com o WikiLeaks, percebi, é quase sempre tentar realizar o impossível. Ler e processar milhares de documentos era humanamente impossível.

Mas ser do WikiLeaks é isso: idealistas, apaixonados, todos desdobram-se em cinco para concretizar as empreitadas inventadas por Julian ou pelo grupo que o rodeia a toda hora, todo instante. “Em tempos de mentira universal, dizer a verdade é um ato revolucionário”, diz o site da organização.

Uma organização que usa essa frase no seu site é ingênua, ou revolucionária. Ou os dois.

***

Voltando para a estrada, recebemos ordens de desligar computadores e celulares. Ordens mesmo. Entendi rápido que o WikiLeak não é Julian Assange: qualquer decisão será contestada, discutida e rediscutida por todos à sua volta, num exercício de possibilidades e impossibilidades que só vai terminar com o melhor argumento – ou a estratégia mais ousada. Mas, quando se trata de segurança digital, Julian manda, ponto final. No dia seguinte, iria pessoalmente “blindar” todo o equipamento.

Já larga madrugada, a rodovia deu lugar a estradinhas tortuosas, rodeadas por plantações rasteiras e grandes casarões, antigas casas de duques e duquesas. Do lado de fora o campado acolhia as plantações e criações: faisão, patos, pombos brancos. Estávamos em Norfolk, na fazenda de Vaughan Smith, o mesmo dono do Frontline Club.

A mansão dos Smith tem nome próprio, Ellingham Hall. E merece. O estilo é georgiano; e tudo parecia mesmo datar da época de um rei longínquo. Até o odor, e o ranger do piso de madeira, de madrugada.
O casarão guarda histórias de gerações e gerações, que Vaughan e a sua esposa Pramvera, uma inteligentíssima mulher do Kosovo, iam nos contando ao redor da enorme mesa de jantar diante da lareira.

Nas paredes, retratos a óleo dos antepassados nos seus melhores trajes –para não ser esquecidos no tempo. Vaughan apontava: “essa era minha tia avó”, “esse meu tataravô era capitão de infantaria”, “meu pai era mensageiro real”. Todos haviam morado naquela casa.

Ellingham Hall tem 10 quartos, quatro andares ligados por uma escada em caracol. Eu dormia com uma advogada mexicana que chegaria dias depois para dividir comigo uma impressão, digamos, mais latina sobre aquilo tudo. No quarto, confidenciávamos estar com medo de chegar a polícia, o serviço secreto britânico, ou a CIA. “Qualquer coisa, somos apenas empregadas!”, brincava ela.

***

No dia seguinte, Julian já se debruçava sobre os nossos laptops. A coisa se mostrou um tanto complicada; a internet funcionava mal e lentamente. Somente à noite conseguimos fazer uma reunião para, finalmente, programar o trabalho.

Para nossa segurança, ficaríamos fechados em Ellingham Hall, evitando chamar a atenção. O local era seguro, isolado de qualquer estrada, e cravado no meio de um enorme terreno de 650 acres – muito difícil, portanto, de ter escutas. Teríamos jornalistas indo e vindo, de muitos países, para escrever sobre os telegramas. As viagens à cidade deveriam ser raras, feitas em pequenos grupos. E só quando muito necessário.

A conversa chegou enfim ao processo sueco, que despertava minha curiosidade e a ansiedade de todos. Tudo indicava que a Interpol iria emitir um mandado de prisão internacional, e Julian não iria mais poder viajar. Ele jamais pensara em se tornar um fugitivo. Mas fato é que se a ordem fosse dada, se tornaria do dia para a noite um homem procurado.

“Me arrependo muito de não ter feito o WikiLeaks como uma empresa” disse, abatido. “Se fôssemos uma empresa que desse lucro, podíamos vender conteúdo sobre os documentos, pronto, todo mundo nos respeitaria”. Raciocínio típico de Julian Assange, perspicaz, original e inesperado; e típico do WikiLeaks, contestado com vigor de manhã cedo até o jantar. Ora essa, uma empresa.

No dia seguinte, recebi enfim os documentos. Quem colocou tudo em tabelas de Excell foi um inglesinho de cerca de 25 anos, de olhos azuis e pouco queixo. James Ball, formado em Oxford, é um jovem jornalista excelente com tabelas, números, documentos, com um tremendo raciocínio lógico – e conservador. Sensato, talvez um pouco demais para o WikiLeaks, sempre batia de frente com Julian ao defender a imprensa britânica. Mas sim, era delicioso assistir ao eterno embate entre o jovem britânico e o hacker (quase) quarentão com tendências a esgarçar limites.

Meses depois, James integrou-se ao time investigativo do Guardian. Deu, em troca, horas de depoimentos sobre o WikiLeaks, recheando o livro sobre Julian que o jornal publicou a toque de caixa e que, meses depois, seria comprado por Steven Spielberg para um filme de Hollywood. Com seu estilo careta, o jovenzinho reclamaria do estilo “errático” da organização, das mudanças de ideia de Julian, e das poucas horas de sono. “Era um grupo de jovens ativistas sem qualquer treinamento profissional”, diria. E são assim contadas as histórias que ficam.

***

Trabalhávamos na sala contígua à de jantar, diante da lareira; nos três sofás, cinco, seis pessoas mergulhadas nos seus laptops enquanto a arrumadeira trazia lenha para manter o fogo aceso de hora em hora, com um café bem aguado. Dormíamos mal, pouco, trocávamos o dia pela noite.

Assim que recebi as duas tabelas de Excell – uma, com os 1947 telegramas de Brasília, outra com 909 dos consulados – fiquei cinco dias sem pregar os olhos. Estava ali um relato inédito da nossa história recente, preciso, datado, delicioso. Afinal, era a conta de todos os anos do governo Lula aos olhos do governo americano, primeiro com Bush e depois Obama. A história de um império em decadência, e de uma nação que desponta. Com seus meandros e suas sacanagens, e seus deliciosos flagrantes.

Eram documentos com valor histórico, e não só noticioso. Através deles, aprenderíamos como se dá na prática a política externa: nomes, datas, detalhes. Organizá-los bem e elaborar uma boa estratégia de divulgação era, portanto, essencial. Queríamos que fossem lidos, repercutidos, abraçados pela mídia e pelos sem-mídia.
Nos telegramas desfilavam Serras, Lulas, FHCs, Amorins, Jobins. Aos poucos os furos iam se revelando e eu, pacientemente, os ia classificando, elencando segundo a urgência e importância. Assombrei-me com a colaboração entre a inteligência brasileira e os americanos nas operações anti-terror; com a ajuda do governo para liberar na justiça os pilotos acusados do acidente da Gol; com a transferência dos agentes da DEA expulsos da Bolívia por espionagem para o Brasil, em silêncio, na surdina – e com o apoio do Minsitério da Justiça e do govenro boliviano. Me surpreendi ao ver que o ministro da defesa, Nelson Jobim, era o “homem mais confiável” para o embaixador, enquanto falava mal do Itamaraty.
- Meu Deus! – lembro de ter gritado. Jobim fofocou que Evo tinha um tumor! Que traição!

Silêncio na sala. A verdade é que ninguém entendia os vaivéns da nossa política regional e cabia a mim, avaliar o que era bombástico, o que não. Percebi logo que muitos documentos teriam mais impacto se lançados ainda em dezembro: que o governo de Lula ia acabar. Mas, para isso, o Julian teria que comprar uma enorme briga.

Todos concordávamos que deixar apenas cinco jornais – de países centrais, ocidentais – decidir o que é e o que não é notícia era injusto. Mas o acordo rezava que Guardian, New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais e Der Spiegel teriam exclusividade sobre todos os documentos até janeiro. O problema então era expandir a parceria sem irritá-los.

A solução foi uma verdadeira gambiarra. Eu enviaria à imprensa brasileira, todo dia, as matérias que iria publicar no dia seguinte no site do WikiLeaks. Faltava só achar um parceiro, um grande jornal. E, mais importante, um jornalista confiável.

Fernando Rodrigues, da Folha de São Paulo, tinha uma enorme vantagem: ele conhecia o Gavin, sabia que eu trabalhava com ele, e portanto iria levar a sério o único breve telefonema que eu podia dar com segurança, do isolamento do nosso casarão. Consegui contato afinal através do Facebook. “Fernando, preciso falar com vc urgente. Vc pode me dar seu celular?”, digitei.

Ao telefone, podia falar muito pouco. O WikiLeaks queria um parceiro brasileiro, pois tinha em mãos muitos documentos, inclusive do Brasil. A repercussão seria enorme, a Folha com certeza podia dar destaque. Mas eu só poderia abrir o conteúdo no domingo, dia 28 de novembro, pela manhã. Sem mais detalhes.

Claro que não seria fácil segurar um jornal do porte da Folha com a promessa de um enorme furo que não se sabe direito o que é. Fernando seguiu o faro, e fez muito bem; mas é claro que enviava dezenas de emails checando e rechecando a data, perguntando mais sobre o conteúdo. Consegui acalmá-lo, afinal.

***

Na Inglaterra, em pleno novembro, é quase sempre noite. Em volta do casarão, tudo cobriu-se de neve. A rotina seguia intensa. Alívio eram os jantares, com bom papo e bom vinho do porto, tradição que seguíamos todas as noites. Chegaram colaboradores de toda parte – franceses, suecos, israelenses, americanos, ingleses.

Na mesa, evitávamos os temas mais pesados. Ali não estávamos fazendo nada diferente do que as equipes do Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, faziam nas suas redações. E, no entanto, sob forte ameaça do Pentágono, éramos somente nós que tínhamos o que temer. “Mas esses documentos valem muito mais do que a minha vida. Ou a vida de qualquer um nesta mesa”, disse Julian uma noite. Seguiu-se, claro, um silêncio sepulcral.

A seriedade da situação não impediu que ele, a poucos dias do lançamento, teimasse em ir a Londres para o casamento do Gavin. Isso mesmo: Gavin, beirando os 70, iria se casar com a namorada, e fizera questão de escolhê-lo como padrinho. Mas, àquela altura, com um mandato de prisão iminente, seu paradeiro já gerava especulações em toda a imprensa. Hale o apoiava: “É muito mais romântico!”. Eu argumentava: seria o primeiro lugar onde o procurariam se houvesse um mandado de prisão repentino, ou um processo secreto nos EUA.

Além disso, discutíamos no jantar o meu tópico principal: o nome do lançamento. Julian rejeitava a ideia de algo burocrático como “telegramas das embaixadas”. Também não cabia – e nisso todos concordávamos – nada como “despachos do império”, que cheirasse a sligan de esquerda. Uma manhã mal dormida, Julian apareceu na sala radiante. “Achei um nome: Cablegate”. A maioria não gostou.
Mas ninguém achou nada melhor.

***

Dias depois a notícia do próximo vazamento do WikiLeaks se espalhou na imprensa, embora ninguém soubesse o que íamos publicar. O New York Times procurara o governo americano, e nos dias seguintes Hillary Clinton passou a ligar para governos do mundo todo, pedindo desculpas por antecipação. O Departamento de Estado nos chamava de irresponsáveis: “o material colocará vidas em risco”, anunciou o porta-voz. De nada adiantou a carta, enviada por um emissário em Londres, pedindo que Washington indicasse quais nomes deveriam ser retirados. Não houve resposta.

A internet trazia notícias em quase todas as línguas sobre o que estávamos fazendo ali, naquela sala fria. Julian e Hale já não falavam com ninguém: tudo era terminar os detalhes. Elaboraram um engenhoso esquema que obrigava cada veículo a efetivamente ler os documentos antes de publicá-los. Garantiam, assim, que todos os nomes sensíveis seriam retirados, sob responsabilidade concorrente de todos os parceiros. Ela passava horas conversando com os programadores geeks, rapazes da minha idade, ingleses, franceses. Dava gritinhos de alegria: “eu te amo, você é fabuloso, você é uma lenda”.

No sábado, 27, o casamento do Gavin transcorreu sem maiores percalços. Dois jornalistas do grupo foram até Londres; o padrinho, embora ausente, foi assunto principal e ganhou um brinde dos noivos, com direito a longo discurso do entusiasmado jornalista setentão. A noiva, uma alegre senhora americana, não se importou.
Quanto a nós, em Ellinghan Hall, tínhamos que conter a tensão dos cinco jornais, que começavam a desconfiar um do outro. Quem levaria o “furo do século” ? Será que dava para confiar que segurariam suas reportagens para publicarem todos juntos?

Segurar o embargo para a publicação – domingo, às 21 horas, já parecia impossível. Hale, Julian e Kristinn falavam no chat com um, dois, três jornais ao mesmo tempo. Ninguém deveria furar, e todos torcíamos ferozmente para isso, porque, afinal, o site do WikiLeaks estava longe de ficar pronto.

Mas, no sábado à tarde, o Der Spiegel furou. Publicou, por alguns minutos, uma reportagem que mostrava em detalhes no que consistia o vazamento: 251,287 documentos das embaixadas dos EUA no mundo todo: 15, 652 secretos, 101,748 confidenciais. A redação alegou “erro” e retirou a matéria do ar pouco depois, mas a historia já havia sido reproduzida, pra desespero dos demais jornais.

Para nós, a verdade é que a tensão era boa. Pouco importava quem furaria quem – essa é uma lógica própria das empresas jornalísticas. Para o WikiLeaks, o que importa é espalhar. Que os documentos sejam mais lidos, mais visitados, mais reproduzidos, mais discutidos, que alimentem jornais, TVs, revistas, acadêmicos, ativistas, políticos, cidadãos, sejam de direita, esquerda, de centro, de onde for.

Assim que, quando finalmente liguei para o Fernando na manhã do dia 28, ele mal escondeu a decepção: “Mas é só isso? Não tem nada mais forte?”. Eu abriria a série com uma matéria sobre operações de contra terrorismo no Brasil, dentro da estratégia de priorizar temas internacionais. A Folha receberia esta matéria, e trechos de telegramas.

Para o jornal, a história – que já havia ventilado pela imprensa – não era um “furo”. Fui firme. “É isso por hoje”. E assim as histórias que eu havia colhido nas noites diante da lareira foram criando vida, repercutindo, pautando a mídia nacional: jornais, rádio, TVs. E enquanto comentaristas apostavam o que mais haveria no balaio do WikiLeaks, era só eu, jornalista independente – sem veículo, sem patrão – quem tinha a resposta. Sinal do tempo em que vivemos, definitivo e sem volta.

Às 6 horas do domingo, três horas antes do previsto, não deu mais pra segurar. Hale digitava furiosamente no seu laptop: “O Guardian vai furar”, “O El País quer publicar”. Finalmente o El País soltou a notícia, seguida pelos demais como uma verdadeira enxurrada. Enfim: o maior vazamento da história do jornalismo.

Na cozinha, Pramvera acompanhava pelo twitter a frenesi mundial. As linhas subiam histericamente, centenas de entradas por segundo, impossível de ler. Quanto a mim, olhei para o campo lá fora: não tinha a menor idéia do que seria da minha vida. Em algumas horas, meu nome estaria no site do WikiLeaks, duas palavrinhas que iam mudar tudo.

Já comia a madrugada quando conseguimos estourar a gigantesca champagne, dessas de cinco litros. Brindamos alto: “Ao WikiLeaks!”

***

Depois do lançamento fiquei apenas três dias na mansão.

Os documentos, claro, trouxe comigo para o Brasil. Improvisei, com apoio da diligente Maria Luisa: enfiei o pendrive dentro de uma meia usada, na mochila de roupas sujas. A despedida foi rápida e intensa. “Vamos ficar com saudade”, disse Hale.

Parti, de trem, agarrada à mochila. Foram horas longas, contornadas pela neve que me seguiu até a capital. Em Londres, causou um caos enorme: os trens não saíam das estações, os ônibus fugiam da rota usual. Consegui um ônibus até o bairro periférico onde passaria a noite, mas ele me deixou a meia hora do meu destino final. Fui andando, arrastando a mala sobre os bocados de gelo que se formavam na calçada. A rua estava deserta. Então voltou a nevar, e o caminho me pareceu infinito. E belo.

Source:

http://www.revistaforum.com.br/blog/2011/07/12/natalia-viana-como-conheci-julian-assange/

http://apublica.org/2011/07/como-conheci-julian-assange-e-como-o-wikileaks-veio-parar-o-brasil/

Julian Assange extradition appeal hearing – day two live coverage

2011-07-14T07:19:00.000-07:00

Julian Assange extradition appeal hearing – day two live coverage

Robert Booth at the high court and Paul Owen at the Guardian office bring you full coverage of the second day of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's battle to avoid being sent to Sweden to face rape and sexual assault allegations

• Click here for today's key point

Julian Assange arrives at the high court in London this morning. Photograph: Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters

5.16pm: The high court has reserved judgment on whether Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face sex crime allegations. A judgment is not expected for at least three weeks.

Here are the key points from today's hearing:

• Clare Montgomery QC, acting for the Swedish authorities, said that public prosecutors have long issued arrest warrants that were processed by UK courts as grounds for extradition. She said it did not matter that Assange was wanted for questioning, rather than facing charges. The wording of the warrant was deliberately vague on this point, she said. She dismissed the Assange team's claims that there were crucial differences between the complaints in the witness statements and those in the warrant, saying there was nothing to suggest the prosecutor was going to use the witness statements as the basis of the case rather than the warrant.

She said that Assange's alleged victims "did not consent without coercion", spelling out the accusations in detail. In the case of AA, "nobody suggests" the alleged victim "was positively consenting", with "Assange lying on top of her trying to force his unprotected penis into her, which she did not want". In the case of SW, there is "evidence that she [SW] was penetrated while asleep ... in a way she made clear she did not consent to" if unprotected. Montgomery said the fact that the woman may later have agreed to let Assange continue did not change the "initial" act. "She may later have acquiesced," said Montgomery. "That didn't make the initial penetration anything other than an act of rape."

• Assange's team argued that there were "more proportionate" ways to proceed than using the European arrest warrant. Mark Summers, for Assange, questioned whether the Swedish prosecutor could be considered a "judicial authority [which] is independent of both the executive and the parties" and was therefore able to issue the warrant. But Lord Justice Thomas said many prosecuting authorities in Europe issued European arrest warrants.

Ben Emmerson QC, acting for Assange, said the idea of isolating a moment of lack of consent in an encounter that was consenting both before and after "is crazy". Yesterday he argued at length that Assange's behaviour may have been "disreputable, discourteous, disturbing, or even pushing towards the boundaries of what [the alleged victims] were comfortable with" but was not a crime in the UK.

• Thomas appeared to support Montgomery's position that the definition of an extradition offence "means the conduct complained of. It has nothing to do with the evidence." The judge said: "We are not concerned with whether this is a good case or a bad case but whether what is charged amounts to a crime."

Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is wanted to answer questions on three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape involving AA and SW, in Stockholm last August. He denies wrongdoing.

Robert Booth will be filing his full story from the hearing soon – you will be able to read it here. Thanks for all your comments.

4.51pm: Lord Justice Thomas said there would be another hearing to hand down the judgment. He thanked both sides and said: "We will take time to consider the numerous arguments and authorities."

It is estimated that it could be at least three weeks before the judgment is handed down.

4.45pm: Mark Summers is speaking now for Assange: "The prosecutor has never sought to explain why she has not engaged all other mechanisms [ie other than extradition] to progress this investigation ... The reason there is a stand-off is entirely of Sweden's making. What a waste of time."

And that's it. The judgment will be reserved so we will not be getting it today.

4.25pm: AA, who slept with Assange, "did not even say she had been exposed to abuse; she didn't even want to go to the police," says Emmerson.

4.24pm: The Italian journalist taking a photo in court earlier provoked a warning from the judge that members of the media and the public attending court can "tweet – but not snap", the Press Association reports.

Alessandro Carlini, a freelance writer, had his mobile phone confiscated and was told that he had committed contempt of court and under normal circumstances would be taken down to the cells until legal representation could be provided and the matter dealt with.

Alessandro apologised in court and said later he had mistakenly pressed "the wrong button" on his mobile.

Lord Justice Thomas ordered him to stand up in the crowded court after the midday break and warned him he was committing contempt of court.

Thomas said the media were now allowed to use mobiles and other technology to keep the public informed of court proceedings, but "it has always been made very clear photographs are not to be taken".

The judge said he understood Alessandro may not have been entirely to blame, but the case should serve as a warning to everyone that in future such conduct would lead to contempt proceedings.

4.19pm: Emmerson, Assange's barrister, says one complainant felt "railroaded" by police and colleagues and only wanted Assange to get a blood test, not to press charges.

4.13pm: Ben Emmerson QC, for Assange, says: "The clearest possible facts have been concealed through the terminology of the warrant. That is wrong."

4.05pm: Emmerson (left) is now restating Assange's case that the charges on the European arrest warrant are not a proper version of the claimants' allegations.

4.01pm: Emmerson, for Assange, says of his client:

He's lying beside her in a single bed, my lord. Men will get erections involuntarily during a night's sleep. In a single bed with a man there's a strong possibility she will come into contact with an erect penis.

The judge replies: "I agree."

3.58pm: The question is did she consent to his getting an erection, says Emmerson, Assange's barrister.

"The question is what he does with it," says Mr Justice Ouseley.

3.50pm: Emmerson goes into detail about Assange's sharing a single bed with a woman – to laughter in the court.

3.42pm: From the high court, Robert Booth says Ben Emmerson is talking in a deliberately emphatic manner in an attempt to change the atmosphere of the court in Assange's favour.

3.36pm: Ben Emmerson, Assange's barrister, says the idea of isolating a moment of lack of consent in an encounter that was consenting both before and after "is crazy".

He says: "A lot of what has been said to your lordships is simply a waste of time."

He says, a little facetiously, that Clare Montgomery, for Sweden, posited "some very progressive and some may say desirable definitions of consent".

3.24pm: Lord Justice Thomas is vexed about the unwillingness of Sweden to allow Julian Assange to be interviewed without extradition in the spirit of "EU co-operation".

He asks: "Why are we precluded from acting with sense in this European Union when the commission talks about [judicial] co-operation?"

3.14pm: The Press Association notes details told to the court about how Assange met the two women.

The first woman, AA, worked for a political group that had invited Assange to Sweden to give a lecture, the court heard. She said that Assange could stay in her apartment in Stockholm, lawyers said.

She had "thrown a crayfish party" in Assange's honour and had sent a tweet saying "... with the world's coolest people, it's amazing ... "

Lawyers said the second woman, SW, became captivated with Assange when she saw a television interview with him. She had found out where he was speaking then attended the talk.

She had "helped" by buying a computer cable for Assange, attended an "intimate lunch" with him and Assange had flirted with her.

The first woman told police that Assange's physical advances were "initially welcomed" but "then it felt awkward" since he was "rough and impatient", Assange's lawyers told judges.

She described one encounter by saying that Assange "continued to have sex" and "she just wanted to get it over". Talking about another encounter, she described Assange's behaviour as "very strange".

The woman told police that "Assange tried to make sexual advances towards her every day after that evening when they had sex"'. She had rejected Assange, which he "had accepted".

"Her words may indicate she was not particularly enjoying what was going on, but they certainly do not go anywhere near what we would regard in this country as lack of consent," said Ben Emmerson QC, for Assange, yesterday.

3.09pm: This is getting baroque: "Assange is accused in a popular sense if not in a technical sense," says Montgomery.

3.07pm: Robert Booth writes from the high court that the way the case is developing in Clare Montgomery's submission on behalf of the Swedish prosecution authority suggests that Julian Assange's future - freedom from house arrest or extradition for questioning - will rest on the application of the controversial and complex European arrest warrant system.

The details of the allegations in the case are vividly clear and have been rehearsed here in court four but they are not the issue the two judges are wrestling with in what often sounds like an academic comparative law exercise.

Among other things, the judges are being taken on a tour of variation in criminal procedure in the EU and in particular when a charge is firm enough for a warrant to apply; how different states use different authorities to press charges; and language, for example whether suspicion, accused and other terms mean the same thing in different languages in different systems.

The complexity of all this is a feature of EU law, it seems: the clash and confusion with member states' different systems when the intent of a single EU system was to simplify.

Even the judges seem to be feeling overwhelmed by the range of variation between say Belgium, France and Germany. So it is no surprise that Assange's destiny is becoming no more clear as the case winds on. Does the supreme court loom or is this case not sufficiently in the public interest?

2.54pm: Regarding the most serious allegation, that Julian Assange had sex with SW while she was asleep, the Associated Press reports that Clare Montgomery, for the Swedish authorities, attacked Ben Emmerson, Assange's barrister, for quoting testimony stating that "she let him continue". Montgomery accused Emmerson

.0of "effectively winding the law on consent back to the 19th century", adding:

At best, the words "I let him" amount to submission, not free consent.

2.45pm: Montgomery says the allegations against Assange are valid for the European arrest warrant. It lists "concrete offences with reasonable specifics" in "unmistakable language"0

2.37pm: Montgomery says the EU directive "deliberately does not identify any point in the process" when the warrant can be issued. "It is deliberately vague," she says.

2.34pm: Montgomery is now detailing the EU framework decision on the European arrest warrant as a rebuff to the Assange team's contention that a charge is needed first before a suspect can be extradited.

2.33pm: More from the Press Association news agency.

Clare Montgomery QC, speaking for the Swedish authorities, said the evidence was "absolutely clear" in relation to the fourth charge – the allegation that Assange raped SW. Montgomery said:

The evidence is absolutely clear that this complainant may be legitimately described as given evidence that she had been penetrated whilst asleep. Furthermore, being penetrated in a way which [it] is absolutely clear ... she had not consented to, namely unprotected. It is doubly clear there is no consent.

Montgomery said the fact that the woman may later have agreed to let Assange continue did not change the "initial" act. "She may later have acquiesced," said Montgomery. "That didn't make the initial penetration anything other than an act of rape."

Montgomery said SW had later told a friend that Assange "had unprotected sex with her when she slept". SW had also told the friend Assange "wanted to impregnate women" and "preferred virgins because he would be the first to impregnate them", as mentioned earlier.

She told the friend she had been "shocked and paralysed" and had "not really understood at first what was happening", said Montgomery. SW's boyfriend had told police that "this is a woman who never had unprotected sex", judges heard.

2.17pm: The case has started again for the afternoon. Alexi Mostrous tweets:

A foreign reporter just got a VERY scary shock after taking photo in court. Judge made him stand, told if u do it again you go to prison.

2.15pm: Robert Booth has sent his summing up of this morning's exchanges.

The case laid out by Clare Montgomery QC, appearing for the Swedish authorities, is that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden to face the accusations of rape and sexual assault, because the prosecutors' case against him clearly alleges that there was no consent during a string of sexual encounters in Stockholm last August.

Montgomery said the charges set out on the European arrest warrant and supported by witness statements amount to valid allegations for which the cross-border warrant is appropriate.

Assange's side had yesterday argued there was a discrepancy between the allegations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion set out in the warrant and the witness statements of the two women who complained and so the warrant should not be supported.

Before rehearsing in graphic detail the allegations against the 40-year old Australian, Montgomery told the court the definition of an extradition offence "means the conduct complained of. It has nothing to do with the evidence."

Lord Judge Thomas appeared to support that position saying: "We are not concerned with whether this is a good case or a bad case but whether what is charged amounts to a crime."

Montgomery said the witness statements of the two women, known as AA and SW, who complained about Assange "describe circumstances in which they did not freely consent without coercion. They were coerced either by physical force or they were trapped into a situation where they had no choice."

She described how Assange "roughed up" one woman, broke her necklace and pressed his penis against her. In this case, she said, her consent "may not have been a free choice". Montgomery said:

AA says in her case the prelude to the offence was Mr Assange ripping her clothes of, breaking her necklace, her trying to get dressed again and then letting him undress her.

He then had sex with her after pinning her arms and trying to force her legs apart to insert his unprotected penis, which she did not want, Montgomery said.

In another incident four days later with the same woman Assange undressed and pressed his penis against her. "The fact she voluntarily shared a bed with him did not mean she consented," said Montgomery.

Montgomery said SW had told a friend Assange "said he preferred virgins as he felt he could be the first to impregnate them".

Earlier, Assange's legal team had advanced more arguments as to why the European arrest warrant was not valid. Mark Summers questioned whether the Swedish prosecutor could be considered a "judicial authority [which] is independent of both the executive and the parties" and therefore able to issue the warrant.

Lord Justice Thomas said that many prosecuting authorities in Europe issue European arrest warrants, and that if Assange's argument was right "it drives a substantial wedge into the application of the European arrest warrant".

By contrast, when Montgomery argued that prosecutors can issue such warrants and have done so for many years, the judge warned of "undermining public confidence" in the warrant system if the definition of judicial authority was drawn too wide.

Summers also said Assange was "suspected with probable cause" in Sweden, but because this stage in an investigation comes before a charge and therefore before him becoming "accused", the arrest warrant was not valid.

The case continues this afternoon.

1.39pm: More from the Press Association's report.

Clare Montgomery QC, acting for Sweden, argued that AA had been a victim of "coercive violent sex". She said:

They [the statements] are clearly describing coercive, violent sex of the sort where the court would be entitled to infer there was no consent and Mr Assange didn't believe there was any. The [first] charge relates to actions [to] which nobody suggested she was positively consenting.

Montgomery said the woman had later made her feelings "crystal clear" to a friend, saying "what had happened had gone beyond the limit of what she consented to".

She said that AA also complained that Assange had "broken a condom" and added: "The complaint is unprotected sexually intercourse where consent had only been given to protected intercourse."

On one night the first woman had agreed to share a single bed with Assange but not to be sexually "touched", Montgomery added.

Prosecutors alleged that the woman's "sexual integrity" had been "violated", judges were told.

1.15pm: Montgomery said earlier that the fact AA voluntarily shared a bed with Assange four days after their first encounter "did not mean she consented" to his pressing his penis against her in that first encounter.

She tells the court that one of the alleged victims said that Assange "preferred virgins since he was the first to impregnate them".

1.09pm: The Press Association news agency has filed its first report on this morning's session.

According to Clare Montgomery QC, acting for the Swedish authorities, Julian Assange faces genuine accusations of "non-consensual, coerced sex".

Statements made by the two women who have accused Assange of sexual misconduct – one of whom said she was "roughed up" – plainly showed they did not freely consent, Montgomery said.

Montgomery said it was "perfectly plain" that the women had made allegations of non-consensual, coerced sex. That was "clearly the only legitimate inference one can draw from the plaintiff's statements".

She told Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley that the women described circumstances "in which they did not freely consent without coercion" but agreed to sex because of physical force, or consented "already having been trapped into a position where they had no choice, and they submitted to Mr Assange's attentions".

They had "let him continue", said Montgomery. "This is non-consensual. It is coerced, and the words used - 'I let him' - means non-consent," said the QC.

She referred to a statement made by AA in which she said: "I didn't make a free choice. He had already roughed me up by tearing off my clothes and breaking my necklace."

12.57pm: Montgomery says there is "evidence that she [SW] was penetrated while asleep ... in a way she made clear she did not consent to" if unprotected.

12.46pm: Montgomery says Assange agrees that he knew that AA had rejected sexual invitations from him.

12.27pm: Judge Thomas says: "We are not concerned with whether this is a good case or a bad case but whether what is charged amounts to a crime."

Helena Kennedy QC has entered court and is sitting on the same bench as Assange.

12.26pm: Montgomery, acting for Sweden, says: "Assange lying on top of her [tried] to force his unprotected penis into her, which she did not want, and held her arms."

12.17pm: The first allegation against Assange "relates to actions to which nobody suggests she [one of the alleged victims] was positively consenting", says Montgomery.

0

12.08pm: The Associated Press news agency sums up some of the earlier exchanges:

Ben Emmerson QC [Julian Assange's barrister] today attacked the way in which the extradition request was made, arguing that public prosecutors are not allowed to issue European arrest warrants.

The prosecution rejected the accusation and it was greeted with scepticism from one of the judges.

11.58am: On to the testimonies about Assange – Montgomery, acting for Sweden, says she sees them very differently. "They are describing circumstances in which they [the alleged victims] did not consent without coercion. They were coerced by physical force or were trapped."

Assange's alleged rough conduct, breaking one alleged victim's necklace and lying on top of her, do not add up to consent, she says.

11.51am: Montgomery, acting for Sweden, says there is "nothing to suggest the prosecutor has intent to bring the case as described in some of the witness statements rather than as put in charges".

One of the Assange team's key contentions is that the differences between what is outlined in the witness statements and what is in the European arrest warrant means the warrant is not valid.

11.47am: Clare Montgomery attempts to undermine the Assange team's arguments, saying: "Extradition offence means the conduct complained of. It has nothing to do with the evidence."

11.34am: The court is now debating whether the Assange case is sufficiently developed towards prosecution as to be suitable for a warrant. Sweden's legal team say: "The fact it is in the investigative phase doesn't matter. What matters is the underlying motive of the request."

11.19am: The judge is implying that there is a question over how much the Assange arrest warrant was issued by an arm of the Swedish state, and how much by an independent judicial authority. He is only hinting at that, but it might interest conspiracy theorists who believe US pressure on Sweden precipitated the extradition request.

11.15am: The judge is worried about "undermining public confidence" in the European arrest warrant regime if the definition of judicial authority becomes too wide.

10.59am: Clare Montgomery is sniping at the length of the Assange side's skeleton argument, saying: "I lost the will to live." Ben Emmerson QC, Assange's barrister, is not impressed.

10.56am: Clare Montgomery, for Sweden, starts by saying public prosecutors have long issued arrest warrants that were processed by UK courts as grounds for extradition.

10.54am: Clare Montgomery QC is opening for Sweden now.

10.45am: Judicial authority is independent of both the executive and the parties, Assange's side is arguing – so is the Swedish prosecutor allowed to issue a European arrest warrant?

If this argument is right, the judge replies, "it drives a substantial wedge into the application of the European arrest warrant".

10.37am: Lord Justice Thomas says "looking at this case ... a huge amount of time and publicity has been given that is in no one's interest".

10.34am: Europe requires a proportionality check on warrants, Summers says. Is there "an approach less onerous for the person sought and the prosecuting authority"?

10.29am: Mark Summers, acting for Assange, says this about the European arrest warrant: "There was from the outset of this case an easier way to proceed. A more proportionate way."

10.25am: The argument is currenlty revolving around whether the Swedes are going to prosecute Assange or only want to question him.

10.12am: Mark Summers, who is acting for Julian Assange, says the WikiLeaks founder is suspected "with probable cause" in Sweden but this comes before any charges – so he is not "accused", so the European arrest warrant is not valid

10.00am: Assange is in good spirits in court four: kisses on both cheeks for his lawyer Gareth Peirce. But the QC for Sweden, Clare Montgomery, is limbering up.

9.55am: Julian Assange has arrived at the high court. As yesterday, he said nothing but smiled and nodded to his applauding supporters. Robert Booth took a picture.

9.31am: John Pilger, the campaigning leftwing journalist and Assange ally, got a round of applause as he arrived at the court this morning. He did not look amused at his role as warm-up act.

9.28am: Robert Booth is at the Royal Courts of Justice, where the usual posse of news cameramen have gathered to record Assange's court entrance. A few more protesters against the legal proceedings have also turned up. One placard reads: "Julian Assange dacks the rich and powerful", Australian slang for pulling down their trousers.

9.23am: Julian Assange appeared at the high court in London yesterday for the first day of the latest stage of his fight against extradition to Sweden over sex allegations. The WikiLeaks founder will be back in court this morning for what is expected to be the final day of the hearing.

Clare Montgomery QC, speaking for the Swedish authorities, is expected to argue that the decision to allow Assange to be extradited at the last stage of this legal process was correct. They will contend that the European arrest warrant under which Assange was arrested is nothing less than fair, accurate and proper and there is no justification for an inquiry into the validity or accuracy of the statements it contains, as Assange's legal team suggested yesterday.

Judgment is expected to be reserved, so a ruling might not be made public for days or weeks. If he loses, Assange could take his case to the supreme court, although permission to appeal to the supreme court would only be granted on a point of law considered to be of general public interest.

Here are the key points from yesterday's hearing:

• Assange is claiming that the European arrest warrant that led to this hearing contained "fundamental misstatements" of what occurred in Stockholm last August. It falsely claims he used violence and "acted in a manner to violate sexual integrity", Assange's legal team said.

• The WikiLeaks founder's team claimed that his encounters with two women who made complaints against him involved consensual sex and would not be considered crimes in England. Ben Emmerson QC, his barrister, admitted that the women involved may have found Assange's behaviour "disreputable, discourteous, disturbing, or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" – discussing, for example, Assange's initiating sex with one woman while she was asleep – but maintained that no crime had been committed under UK law.

• Emmerson also claimed that the use of the European warrant was "disproportionate", as there were other means available to obtain Assange's assistance in the Swedish investigation.

You can read all our coverage of yesterday's hearing as it happened here, while, in the Guardian today, Robert Booth sums up the day's events.

Assange's barrister set out the accusations against Assange in graphic detail yesterday, but as Robert points out Assange's case against extradition does not hinge on whether he accepts these versions of events and testimonies relating to other incidents because there are no charges against him, Emmerson said. Rather, the barrister said, it was a question of whether the arrest warrant in connection with the allegations is valid on "strict and narrow" legal grounds.

Assange – who is appearing before Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley – is wanted to answer questions on three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape involving the women, referred to as AA and SW, in Stockholm last August. He denies wrongdoing.

Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/13/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-hearing-day-two-live-coverage

Julian Assange extradition appeal: QCs clash over 'conceptions of consent'

2011-07-14T06:59:00.000-07:00

Julian Assange extradition appeal: QCs clash over 'conceptions of consent'

High court judges adjourn case to consider Swedish prosecution authority's case against WikiLeaks founder

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 July 2011 20.34 BST
Article history

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange leaves the high court in London after his appeal against extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, must be extradited to Sweden to face accusations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion, the high court in London heard.

Clare Montgomery QC, appearing for the Swedish prosecution authority on the last day of Assange's appeal against extradition, said complaints against him showed a lack of consent during a string of sexual encounters in Stockholm last August. She said the charges set out on the European arrest warrant and supported by witness statements amount to valid allegations.

Speaking to a packed court four at the Royal Courts of Justice before Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley adjourned to consider their verdict, she spelled out in graphic detail Assange's alleged behaviour and said the two female complainants known as AA and SW described "circumstances in which they did not freely consent without coercion".

"They were coerced, either by physical force or they were trapped into a situation where they had no choice," Montgomery said. "AA says in her case the prelude to the offence was Mr Assange ripping her clothes off, breaking her necklace, her trying to get dressed again and then letting him undress her." He then had sex with her after pinning her arms and trying to force her legs apart to insert his unprotected penis, which she did not want, she said.

In an increasingly hard fought legal battle, Assange's counsel, Ben Emmerson QC, hit back at what he said were attempts by Montgomery to characterise him as having "19th-century conceptions of consent". It was "crazy" of Montgomery to isolate a moment of lack of consent within sexual encounters that were otherwise consenting. He said police reports in Sweden showed SW had told a friend, Marie Thorn, that she felt police and others around her "railroaded her" into pressing charges. She had only wanted the police to force Assange to take a blood test after she became worried about HIV after unprotected sex with him, he said.

Emmerson said a friend of AA, Donald Bostrom, said "she didn't say at all she had been exposed to abuse and didn't even want to go to the police", and a charge of sexual molestation arising from Assange sharing a single bed with AA was also unfounded.

The European arrest warrant said Assange "deliberately molested the injured party on 18 August 2010 by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity".

In an interview, AA said Assange undressed below the waist and rubbed his erect penis against her. She found it "strange" and "awkward" and moved to sleep on a mattress on the floor. But Assange's erection was normal, Emmerson told the court.

"He's lying beside her in a single bed my lord," he said. "Men will get erections involuntarily and at different times during a night's sleep. If she chooses to spend a night in a single bed with a man there is a strong possibility she will come into contact with an erect penis. I don't mean that as a joke."

"I agree with you," said Thomas.

However, Montgomery told the court the definition of an extradition offence "means the conduct complained of. It has nothing to do with the evidence."

Thomas appeared to concur: "We are not concerned with whether this is a good case or a bad case but whether what is charged amounts to a crime."

In one of several criticisms of the Swedish authorities, Emmerson said: "The clearest possible facts have been concealed through the terminology of the warrant. That is wrong and it is the responsibility of this court to put it right."

Assange left court without comment and returned to Norfolk to continue his house arrest. A verdict is expected in around a month.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/13/julian-assange-appeal-sexual-complaints

PORTUGUÊS - Decisão de extraditar Julian Assange está adiada por semanas

2011-07-14T06:41:00.000-07:00

Ministério Público quer questionar responsável da WikiLeaks

Decisão de extraditar Julian Assange está adiada por semanas

13.07.2011 - 20:05 Por Joana Gorjão Henriques, Londres

Mais de 200 dias depois de estar em prisão domiciliária, Julian Assange vai ter que esperar provavelmente semanas pela decisão sobre a sua extradição para a Suécia. O caso pede reflexão, disse nesta quarta-feira o juiz do Tribunal Superior de Londres, no segundo e último dia de audiência. Não há data para o desfecho. O “Guardian” falava em não menos de três semanas.

Julian Assange à saída do tribunal (Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters)

O Ministério Público sueco quer questionar Assange pela sua suposta ligação a três agressões sexuais, incluindo uma violação, em Agosto. Em Fevereiro, um tribunal britânico autorizou a extradição do jornalista australiano, apesar de ele não ter sido formalmente acusado. Assange recorreu. Nesta quarta-feira de manhã, numa sala forrada a madeira e a livros, em que qualquer pessoa do público pode entrar, Assange, de cabelo cortado, mantinha-se impávido enquanto a advogada da acusação Clare Montgomery falava. Mas à tarde, quando os seus advogados argumentavam, estava mais agitado, trocando bilhetes com pessoas da sua entourage.

Na terça-feira, o seu advogado Ben Emerson defendeu que, apesar de Assange não ter agido correctamente e até ter “puxado os limites" do ponto a que as alegadas vítimas se sentiam "confortáveis”, os seus actos não podem ser considerados violação no Reino Unido. Disse ainda que não há provas de que tivesse havido falta de consentimento nos encontros sexuais com as duas mulheres, cujas identidades são protegidas sendo referidas como AA e SW.

A advogada que representa a Suécia disse que não seria a primeira vez que os tribunais britânicos se serviam de mandados de captura como base de extradição. E defendeu que as duas mulheres “não consentiram” em ter relações sexuais com Assange, tendo havido “coacção”. Já os advogados do fundador da Wikileaks consideram que há outros meios mais “proporcionais” do que um mandado de captura europeu - e negam não ter existido consentimento.

Assange saiu sem prestar declarações. Lá fora, uma multidão de jornalistas esperava. Uma enorme faixa vermelha dizia: “O primeiro dano da guerra é a verdade.” Mais perto da entrada, cartazes gritavam: “apoiem os resistentes de guerra”, “liberdade para Julian Assange, liberdade para Bradley Manning, liberdade de expressão”. Não se pode dizer que fosse um apoio maior do que os habituais activistas que se juntam á porta do tribunal, por outras causas.

Mas Assange tem fãs fervorosos, como Val Brown, 62 anos, uma mulher que viajou de propósito de Bredford para apoiar um “homem corajoso” - “sem ele as pessoas não saberiam a verdade sobre a guerra no Iraque e no Afeganistão”. Ciaron O’Relly, que pregou alguns dos cartazes e mobilizou apoios, diz que como activista já passou dois anos na prisão e sabe “a importância da solidariedade”. No seu crachá lê-se: “Não matem o mensageiro, libertem Assange”. Ainda não foi ontem que soube se esta continuará a ser uma causa por que lutar. A Wikileaks tem divulgado centenas de documentos secretos, incluindo informação confidencial do Governo americano, que provocou uma crise diplomática no final do ano passado.

Source:

http://www.publico.pt/Mundo/decisao-de-extraditar-julian-assange-esta-adiada-por-semanas_1502751

Up to Date News on Julian Assanges Court Hearing – part 2

2011-07-13T12:01:00.000-07:00

Up to Date News on Julian Assanges Court Hearing – part 2

July 12, 2011 | Author Soul Assassin

3.40pm: The Assange team is raising issue of “whether the requested person is an accused” and if a prosecution has “commenced”. If not, then the warrant is not valid, they say.

3.22pm: At the high court, Robert Booth points out how dry the Assange team are “with all this legalese about EU law” – a new tack. No more shrill claims about Assange ending up in Guantanamo.

3.10pm: The Assange team says the use of an EU arrest warrant for pre-prosecution questioning is not allowed under UK law.

3.09pm: On the question of whether the offences a suspect is wanted for extradition for would be a crime in England, my colleague Afua Hirsch wrote this interesting piece in December:

The European arrest warrant “has been controversial since it was introduced in 2003, creating everyday injustices”, Afua wrote. It was agreed a week after 9/11 and sold to voters as a way of ensuring cross-border cohesion in prosecuting suspects wanted across Europe for terrorism and serious crime.

It’s been downhill from there. Around three people per day are now extradited from the UK, and there is little to suggest that the majority are terrorists or serious criminals. In fact those involved in the process agree that many of the cases are “trivial”.

She goes on to say that last year Poland accounted for 40% of British extradition requests, giving the example of a case against a man who went over his overdraft limit, which would be a civil, not criminal matter in the UK.

3.02pm: The Assange team thinks it is “profoundly unjust” if allegations are made to satisfy “dual criminality” test for extradition when they actually do not satisfy this test.

2.58pm: The warrant must be a “fair and accurate” version of the claims, Emmerson says, and the court must ask if what is detailed there would be a crime in England, authorities say, according to Emmerson.

2.52pm: Robert Booth at the high court says the debate over the European arrest warrant has “gone into hyperspace”, with Assange’s barrister Ben Emmerson talking at double speed. The application could be significant though, Robert says.

2.36pm: If Assange is extradited to Sweden, and the US were then to request his extradition, what would happen to the Swedish case?

It is worth remembering that there are no extradition proceedings currently pending against Assange from the US.

I have just been speaking to Joshua Rozenberg, who writes for the Guardian’s law site. Rozenberg told me that under the terms of the European arrest warrant, the Swedes would not be able to set aside their own case and pass Assange on to the US. “They are not allowed under the deal to send him to the US on other charges,” Rozenberg said.

If, on the other hand, the US requested Assange’s extradition while the Swedish extradition request was still being decided, the British home secretary would have to decide which request to give precedence to. Rozenberg said he thought the home secretary would be likely to favour the US, on the assumption that the charges from the US would be likely to be more serious.

In addition, Julian Knowles, a barrister at Matrix Chambers, has said that Assange’s contention that he should not be extradited to Sweden because he might be extradited to the US, where he might face the death penalty or detention in Guantanamo Bay, is “frankly, a hopeless argument”.

Amy Jeffress, the US justice department’s attache to the American embassy in London, told the BBC’s Law in Action: “The president, of course, has decided to close Guantánamo Bay, and so no one is going to Guantánamo Bay and that claim is baseless.” She said the US always gave assurances in any case for which it had requested extradition that prosecutors would not seek the death penalty.

2.36pm: I am going to try to answer some of the most frequent questions posed below the line as we go:

Why is Assange facing extradition to Sweden when there are as yet no charges against him there?

Under the Swedish legal system, charges are laid after extradition and a second round of questioning.

Maya Wolfe-Robinson of guardian.co.uk’s law site adds:

In terms of the charges in Sweden, if you read the judgment when the judge ruled that he should be extradited, the judge found that “the proceedings in Sweden are at the preliminary investigation stage. The preliminary investigation does not come to an end until evidence is served on Mr Assange or his lawyer and there is an interrogation of Mr Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. Thereafter there is a decision as to charge. If charged the trial is likely to take place shortly thereafter.

2.23pm: Lord Justice Thomas and Ben Emmerson are having an argument about the European arrest warrant regime. Should Assange see all the evidence now?

2.17pm: Reuters points out that permission to appeal to the supreme court if Assange loses this appeal will only be granted on a point of law considered to be of general public interest.

2.14pm: The Press Association has put up a bit more from this morning’s session. Ben Emmerson, Assange’s QC, said that one of Assange’s alleged victims described his behaviour at one point as “very strange” and talked of “just wanting” sex to be “over with”. Emmerson said:

Her words may indicate she was not particularly enjoying what was going on. But they certainly do not go anywhere near what we would regard in this country as lack of consent.

He said the high court had to decide whether the “acts” would have been offences had they happened in England.

What [Swedish prosecutors] must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that if these circumstances as alleged had happened in London, would they have constituted offences? [There are] very serious questions on dual criminality in [three charges]. [There are] very serious questions on whether what happened in charge four could have recognisable as a charge in this [country].

Emmerson said there was evidence that Assange’s lawyers had not seen because under Swedish law prosecutors were not obliged to reveal it until proceedings were at a later stage.

2.10pm: Assange has arrived late to the afternoon session.

2.02pm: Robert Booth has sent more from the high court, where proceedings are about to start again.

• Julian Assange’s legal team is arguing that the European arrest warrant issued against the WikiLeaks founder is invalid, because of significant discrepancies between its allegations of sexual assault and rape and the testimonies of the two women he allegedly had sex with.
• Ben Emmerson QC told the court that the warrant – which details four allegations of unlawful coercion, sexual molestation, and rape relating to encounters between Assange and two Swedish women, known as SW and AA, on a trip to Stockholm last year – was a misinterpretation of the evidence and it was “surprising and disturbing” that Swedish district judges who requested Assange’s extradition had been misled.

• Emmerson told Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ousely that there was no evidence that there was a lack of consent in the encounters, as appeared to be suggested in the wording of the arrest warrant, and that three of the allegations would not amount to criminal offences
under English law. Referring to the allegations in the European arrest warrant, Emmerson said:

The senior district judge found that those factual allegations would establish dual criminality on the basis that lack of consent, and lack of reasonable belief in consent, may properly be inferred from the conduct described, particularly the references to “violence” and a “design” to “violate sexual integrity”. However, that description of conduct is not accurate. The arrest warrant misstates the conduct and is, by that reason alone and invalid warrant.

• Of the encounter on 13 August between Assange and AA, Emmerson said:

The appellant [Assange]‘s physical advances were initially welcomed but then it felt awkward since he was “rough and impatient” … They lay down in bed. AA was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … AA felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … She did not articulate this. Instead she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … AA tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.

But crucially, Emmerson said, there was no lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation, because “after a while Assange asked what AA was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. AA told him that she wanted him to put a condom on before he entered her. Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom which AA found her.”

• The case does not hinge on whether Assange accepts this version of events and others relating to other incidents because there are no charges against him, but whether the arrest warrant in connection with them is valid on “strict and narrow” legal grounds, Emmerson said.

As if to illustrate the change of strategy of Assange’s new legal team, Emmerson said:

Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange’s conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with.

Spread the Word!:

Up to Date News on Julian Assanges Court Hearing

2011-07-13T11:42:00.000-07:00

Up to Date News on Julian Assanges Court Hearing

July 12, 2011 | Author Soul Assassin

1.09pm: The court has now broken for lunch. We will be summing up some of this morning’s proceedings shortly.

1.03pm: The four allegations against Assange are misdescribed in the arrest warrant, Emmerson says, and in all but one case would not be crimes in England.

The alleged rape by Assange when he had sex with SW when she was asleep or half asleep was not a crime, Emmerson says, because SW then consented.

The judges are wondering if they can investigate the difference between the strong wording in the arrest warrant and that of the witness statements.

12.27pm: Emmerson is arguing today that the arrest warrant against Assange inaccurately described what happened.

12.22pm: Emmerson has told the judges that the allegations against Assange cannot amount to crimes in England and therefore extradition must be blocked. The extradition order is also flawed, he says, because it seeks Assange’s return to Sweden “not for prosecution but for the purposes of an investigation” (Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence and according to the Swedish legal system charges will only be laid after extradition and a second round of questioning).

Emmerson argues that using extradition for the purpose only of an investigation amounts to “a disproportionate utilisation” of the European arrest warrant system.

He says the court is not inquiring into the credibility of the women, SW and AA, or determining guilt or innocence. Nothing he says should be taken as condemnation of the women, he says; this is not intended to challenge “the genuineness of their feelings of regret about having had consensual sex with Mr Assange or trivialise their experiences”.

Emmerson said earlier that he was not challenging the fact that they “found Mr Assange’s sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with”. But the sexual activities that occurred had taken place with consent, he argued, and, unlike in Sweden, could not be criminalised in the English jurisdiction.

12.20pm: The thrust of the Assange team’s case is that there was no lack of consent in the incidents and that the Swedish district courts were misled by the wording of the arrest warrant. Emmerson says it is “surprising and disturbing” that the warrant misled the district judges by misinterpreting witness statements.

12.07pm: Emmerson is now explaining the alleged victim SW’s witness statement. Emmerson says:

They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: “You.” She said: “You better not have HIV.” He said: “Of course not.” She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its [the sexual encounter's] continuation and that is a central consideration.

11.50am: Emmerson stresses there was “no violence or threats”, so the arrest warrant was misleading, he says.

11.46am: “He ripped her clothes and at one point ripped her necklace,” Emmerson tells the court about Assange and the other alleged victim, known as AA. This alleged victim is “convinced Assange broke the condom by the glans and then continued to ejaculation”, Emmerson says of AA’s statement.

11.35am: The so-called “minor rape” allegation – when Assange was alleged to have had sex with one of the alleged victims, known as SW, when she was asleep or half asleep – was an “entirely consensual sexual encounter”, Emmerson says.

11.31am: The Press Association has filed a first take from the court this morning. As mentioned earlier, Ben Emmerson QC told Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ousely that the European arrest warrant under which Assange is being held was flawed because it failed to provide a “fair, accurate and proper” description of the alleged sexual misconduct.

Emmerson argued that Assange was a victim of a “philosophical and judicial mismatch” between English and Swedish law over what constituted sex crimes.

Assange’s legal team is asking the judges to rule that Assange’s sexual encounters with the women were “consensual” and that the alleged offences are not extraditable.

11.27am: In one case Assange is accused of having sex with a woman without a condom – but Emmerson says deceiving someone on this issue is not illegal under English law.

11.22am: The Swedish judges were misled by the wording of the arrest warrant, Ben Emmerson says.

11.13am: Assange’s team says the Swedish district judge got it wrong over the charges.

11.04am: The Assange team is making a big play of the fact that the warrant fails to describe the complete complaint, and that the whole file has not been seen by them.

10.58am: Assange’s team is taking a conciliatory line. They will not challenge whether the alleged victims felt he was “disrespectful, discourteous, or disturbing”.

10.53am: The description of the circumstances of the alleged offences in the warrant is not fair and accurate, Assange’s team says, and the offences cannot be fairly characterised as rape.

10.50am: The Assange team is promising not to attack his accusers and not to doubt their discomfort about his sexual conduct.

10.46am: Ben Emmerson, Assange’s barrister, says the case against his client rests on four sex charges, and goes on to describe them in graphic detail.

10.35am: Gareth Peirce, Assange’s solicitor, has handed out the “skeleton case”. On page three it reads: “Reports were filed as: i ‘rape’ ii ‘molestation’.”

10.34am: The Press Association news agency says that Assange’s lawyers are expected to argue that the alleged offences are not extraditable and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process and incompatible with his rights under the European convention on human rights.

They are also expected to challenge the validity of the arrest warrant and complain that it did not contain a proper, fair and accurate description of the alleged sexual misconduct.

10.24am: There have been hints online from a high-profile member of Anonymous, the loosely organised group of hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks, that confidential US data might be leaked online to coincide with this hearing.

Early this morning the Associated Press news agency reported that hackers affiliated with Anonymous claimed to have stolen tens of thousands of encrypted military passwords from US contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and posted them on the internet.

The Pentagon said it was aware of the incident and coordinating with other federal partners on the matter.

10.21am: Other supporters of Julian Assange in court this morning include WikiLeaks’s Kristinn Hrafnsson, the Icelandic investigative journalist, Vaughan Smith, at whose house Assange has been staying under strict conditions since December, and Gavin MacFadyen of the Bureau for Investigative Journalism.

10.13am: Campaigning leftwing journalist John Pilger is set behind Assange, Robert Booth reports. The press benches are packed in the grand, wood-panelled court.

10.08am: Here are a couple of pictures from outside the court – one of Assange from Robert Booth, and one of the banner mentioned earlier from Joseba Elola.

10.03am: Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, has been having his say outside court. Tatchell said:

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have provided a great public service in exposing US war crimes. The sex allegations must be taken seriously but he is innocent until proven guilty. So far he has not been charged with any offence. Swedish prosecutors and police need to interview him. There is no reason why they can’t come to London. If he goes there I am sure the US will seek his extradition.

9.56am: The changes to his legal team – Gareth Peirce replaces media lawyer Mark Stephens and Ben Emmerson replaces Geoffrey Robertson QC – are thought to be part of a more conciliatory approach by Assange.

Peirce’s office would not comment on their strategy yesterday, but she has previously been quoted indicating the need for sensitivity and respect in the case. She reportedly wrote to former US senator Tom Hayden for an article in US magazine the Nation:

Each of the human beings involved deserves respect and consideration. It is hoped that whatever steps as are required to be taken in the future will be taken thoughtfully, with sensitivity and with such respect.

9.55am: Assange has claimed that if he was extradited to Sweden in this case it would make it easier for the US authorities to seek to extradite him to face possible charges relating to his release last year of hundreds of thousands of classified documents, including US diplomatic cables and war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq. Assange’s legal team argued before their last appeal that there was a “real risk” he could face the death penalty in the US or detention at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

9.53am: The accusations against Assange relate to alleged incidents with two women in Stockholm in August 2010. One accusation, that he had sex with a woman while she was asleep, amounts to rape under Swedish law. Assange denies any wrongdoing.

9.49am: Robert Booth sends his first update from the royal courts of justice on the Strand in central London.

Assange arrived around 9.15am, giving no answer to questions as he moved at a snail’s pace through a tight scrum of photographers. He was asked if he was looking forward to his latest day in court and whether he would take the case to the supreme court if he loses over the next couple of days. He said nothing and if anything looked mildly anxious though that may well have been the effect of the media scrum.

He looked slim and smart in a navy suit and black shoes and was wearing dark-rimmed spectacles. He was carrying a heavily stuffed laptop bag. Around a dozen camera crews awaited him and more photographers. Also by the court railings are small groups of protesters. One is carrying the banner: “Free Assange! Free Manning! End the wars.”

Bradley Manning is the US soldier arrested on suspicion of having passed classified material to WikiLeaks.

9.35am: Julian Assange is due back in court this morning to appeal against his extradition to Sweden to face accusations of rape and sexual assault.

The WikiLeaks founder will be at the high court from 10.30am for the latest stage of his battle to avoid being sent to Sweden.

Robert Booth is in court four of the Royal Courts of Justice and Paul Owen in the Guardian office; together we will cover the hearing throughout the day.

Assange will appear in front of two high court judges today: Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley.

The accusations against him relate to a trip the 40-year-old Australian made to Stockholm in August last year. The Swedish authorities secured a European arrest warrant in December 2010, after which Assange was arrested and bailed.

His first appeal was in February this year. His defence team claimed that he would not get a fair trial and that his extradition was politically motivated. Assange’s team said his arrest warrant amounted to an abuse of process because the allegations were originally dismissed and then reopened.

But City of Westminster magistrates court, sitting at Belmarsh magistrates court, found against him and ordered his extradition, leading to today’s appeal.

Assange has hired a new legal team for the hearing today: Gareth Peirce, who represented the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and former Guantanamo Bay inmate Moazzam Begg, and Ben Emmerson QC, who specialises in European human rights law.

The WikiLeaks founder has been under house arrest for seven months in Ellingham Hall, Norfolk.

If he loses this week, he could appeal to the supreme court. The case is expected to last until tomorrow. But judgment is expected to be reserved, so a ruling might not be made public for days or weeks.

Spread the Word!:

Australian in London to fight extradition to Sweden on sex assault charges

2011-07-13T11:28:00.000-07:00

Australian in London to fight extradition to Sweden on sex assault charges

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was due back in court Tuesday in London for the latest instalment in his fight against extradition to Sweden, where the 40-year-old Australian is accused of rape and molestation.

Assange’s disclosures on WikiLeaks of classified U.S. documents has infuriated the Pentagon, embarrassed State Department diplomats and energized critics of American foreign policy, but allegations of sexual misconduct during a trip to Scandinavia last year have tarnished his reputation.

Assange denies any wrongdoing, and he and his supporters have suggested that the Swedish prosecution is being manipulated to political ends, possibly with an eye toward sending him to the United States, where a federal grand jury is investigating WikiLeaks’ activities.

Swedish authorities reject the charge, and on Feb. 24 a British judge found in their favour, saying there was no reason to believe he wouldn’t receive a fair trial in Sweden.

Assange vowed to fight the decision, and meanwhile has continued to work from a wealthy supporter’s mansion in eastern England, where he lives under virtual house arrest.

Hints confidential U.S. data might be leaked

In an interview last month, Assange complained that the strict bail conditions — he’s under an overnight curfew, must wear an electronic tag and report to police daily — had hampered his activities.

His website has not accepted any new material in months, although WikiLeaks’ latest release in April — hundreds of detainee assessment forms covering the inmates at Guantanamo Bay — offered never-before-published information on those being held at the U.S. military prison.

Assange’s appeal hearing was due to last until Wednesday.

Judgment is expected to be reserved, which means that a ruling might not be made public for days or weeks. Assange has vowed to take his case to Britain’s Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights if his appeal is rejected.

Protests are planned in front of the neogothic Royal Courts of Justice, where Assange’s case was due to be heard.

Online, there were hints from a high-profile member of Anonymous —an amorphous, loosely organized group of hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks — that confidential U.S. data might be leaked online to coincide with the hearing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/12/wikileaks-assange-court.html?ref=rss

Source:

http://www.support-julian-assange.com/

WikiLeaks’ Assange appeals British extradition ruling

2011-07-13T11:17:00.000-07:00

WikiLeaks’ Assange appeals British extradition ruling

July 11, 2011 | Author Takaros

LONDON (United Kingdom) – WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange will on Tuesday start his appeal against a British court ruling that he be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape.

The 40-year-old Australian will take his legal battle to the High Court in London for a two-day hearing, in the hope of reversing the February ruling.

A judge rejected arguments by Assange’s defence team that he would face an unfair trial in Sweden that would breach his human rights. He was arrested in December after two Swedish women accused him of sexual assault, allegations that Assange denies, as his whistleblowing website was in the process of releasing a huge cache of leaked US diplomatic cables.

It was the site’s latest dump of American government documents and infuriated Washington. Swedish authorities want to quiz him over the sex assault claims, although he has not been formally charged.

Scores of journalists attended his previous court hearings as well as celebrity supporters including socialite Jemima Khan and human rights campaigner Bianca Jagger. After judge Howard Riddle rejected his lawyers’ arguments during the extradition hearing at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court in London, Assange lashed out at the decision and blamed the European warrant system under which he was arrested.

‘It is a result of the European Arrest Warrant system run amok. There was no consideration during this entire process as to the merits of the allegations against me,’ he told reporters after the ruling.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_689441.html

source:

http://www.support-julian-assange.com/

Anonymous threatens police over phone hacking and Julian Assange

2011-07-13T11:13:00.000-07:00

Anonymous threatens police over phone hacking and Julian Assange

Senior source inside hacker collective seeks to embarrass Metropolitan police and judges with 'explosive' revelations

Comments (105)

James Ball and Charles Arthur
guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 July 2011 16.30 BST
Article history

Anonymous threatens attack on police and court computer systems in protest at phone hacking and proposed extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assagne (pictured). Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA

Figures at the top of hackers' collective Anonymous are threatening to attack the Metropolitan police's computer systems and those controlled by the UK judicial system, warning that Tuesday will be "the biggest day in Anonymous's history".

The collective is understood to be seeking to express anger over News International's phone hacking WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. and at the threatened extradition of

A Twitter feed purporting to belong to Sabu, a senior figure within the group and the founder of the spin-off group LulzSec, which hacked a site linked to the CIA and the UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency, promised two releases of information would be launched within a day.

"Everyone brace," he tweeted. "This will be literally explosive."

A follow-up message read: "ATTN Intelligence community: Your contractors have failed you. Tomorrow is the beginning."

The account, @anonymouSabu, has not been verified as belonging to Sabu – but it has over 7,700 followers and has been referenced by the "official" Anonymous @anon_central account on Twitter.

Sources close to the collective were unusually close-lipped about the targets of tomorrow's hack, but talk within chat channels has suggested several top-level members of Anonymous are eager to launch attacks based around Julian Assange's appeal hearing against extradition, which begins on Tuesday.

Others are also believed to have proposed targeting the Met in retaliation for alleged payments to police officers by News of the World reporters, and the general response to the phone hacking scandal.

Other speculation centres around material claimed to have been obtained last week from contractors relating to security and secrecy of "former world leaders", or plans to target a senior leaders' retreat at Bohemian Grove, California.

As is typical in the chaotic and occasionally paranoid Anonymous community, other sources close to the collective are warning some prominent members are probably engaging in "disinformation campaigns" ahead of any action.

Communication problems around the planned releases were compounded as the main chat channel used by Anonymous was offline for much of Monday, leaving even those close to senior members of the collective unable to verify rumours ahead of the release.

Rumours on Friday suggested that one Anonymous member had broken into the News International servers and taken copies of some internal emails which were being offered for sale or even ransom. However this could not be confirmed, and the Guardian has not seen any evidence that the claimed email stash is legitimate, although News International's site is understood to have been "probed" by members of Anonymous at the end of last week.

Last Wednesday, two days after the Dowler revelations, a listing of emails of NoW staff appeared on Pastebin, a favourite site for posting the results – or beginnings – of attacks against all sorts of sites by Anonymous and other hacker groups.

One source told the Guardian that News International's server had been probed for up to 30 minutes at a time last week by hackers using "proxy chaining" – a method of logging in via a number of remote computers – to disguise their identity. "Everyone thinks Interpol will get involved at some point," the source said.

The hackers' anger at the company was ignited by the revelation last week that a private detective acting for NoW had listened into voicemails on the phone of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler, which may have interfered with the police investigation to find her.

Anonymous has previously attacked PayPal and Visa over their refusal, following orders from the US government, to process donations for WikiLeaks. It has also carried out online attacks against the Church of Scientology over what is seen as suppression of information.Source: Guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/11/anonymous-police-phone-hacking-julian-assange

ITALIANO - Mancano sei giorni all'estradizione di Julian Assange in Svezia

2011-07-13T10:59:00.000-07:00

Mancano sei giorni all'estradizione di Julian Assange in Svezia

5 Luglio 2011

di Steve Beckow

Fra 6 giorni Julian Assange verrà estradato in Svezia per affrontare quattro incriminazioni per reati sessuali. Tuttavia fino ad oggi non sono state presentate accuse formali contro di lui .Julian è stato tenuto agli arresti domiciliari in Gran Bretagna dal Dicembre 2010, quando la Svezia emise due mandati internazionali di arresto.

Secondo la legge svedese, che non prevede il rilascio su cauzione, all'arrivo in Svezia, Julian verrà incarcerato per un periodo indefinito. Anche se giudicato innocente, sarà tolto dalla circolazione, e questo è probabilmente lo scopo di queste mosse.

E' stato chiesto se la Svezia agisce su comando del governo americano. E' probabile che la prigionia di Julian metta il sistema giudiziario svedese sotto il microscopio e che si dimostri imbarazzante per il governo svedese, i funzionari responsabili delle leggi, dei tribunali e delle carceri svedesi. Per quanto riguarda Julian, gli impedisce di dirigere Wikileaks per un periodo di tempo indefinito. Qui sotto trovate una valutazione delle prospettive di Julian in Svezia, secondo i sostenitori di Julian.

Processo imparziale per Julian Assange?

Critica al sistema giuridico svedese

Tra tutti i firmatari della Convenzione, la Svezia ha il tasso pro capite più alto di casi portati alla Corte Europea per i Diritti Umani, relativi all'articolo 6.1 (diritto ad un processo giusto). Ha anche il tasso più alto di sentenze sfavorevoli, relative a un processo equo.

Argomentazione della difesa

Nel February Hearing, gli avvocati di Assange hanno sostenuto che il Regno Unito non dovrebbe estradarlo perché in Svezia non affronterebbe processo giusto. Se verrà estradato, Assange non avrà un processo giusto.

Verrà tenuto in prigione, in isolamento, una volta consegnato, nonostante non sia stato accusato. (può anche passare un anno in detenzione). Non c'è limite di tempo alla detenzione in Svezia.

Non c'è possibilità di uscire su cauzione, perciò rimarrebbe in prigione per un tempo indefinito.

Dovessero esserci un'accusa ed un processo, verrebbero tenuti segreti.

Non sarà giudicato da un “tribunale indipendente ed imparziale”, una richiesta fondamentale secondo la Convenzione Europea dei Diritti Umani (articolo 6.1). Tre giudici su quattro sono giudici profani, designati da partiti politici e senza formazione legale formale (vedasi Lay Judges)

L'accusatrice svedese, Marianne Ny, non ha dato a Julian Assange od ai suoi avvocati alcuna informazione scritta sulle incriminazioni contro di lui, e ciò viola il Codice Svedese di Procedura (RB 23:18) e la Convenzione Europea sui Diritti Umani (articolo 5), e la Carta Fondamentale Europea per i Diritti Umani.

C'è stata ingerenza politica nelle dichiarazioni del Primo Ministro al Parlamento svedese durante il processo (si veda Political Interference) ed il legale delle querelanti ha ricevuto attenzione continua da parte della stampa (si veda Media climate in Sweden)

L'accordo bilaterale fra gli Stati Uniti e la Svezia permette che Julian Assange venga estradato negli Stati Uniti non appena arriva in Svezia (si veda la sezione sulla estradizioni degli USA). Sotto la custodia degli USA, Julian Assange rischia il rapimento, la tortura e l'uccisione.

Reazioni in Svezia alla critica del sistema giudiziario svedese

Il Primo Ministro Frederik Reinfeldt disse in un discorso al parlamento che le critiche al sistema giudiziario svedese erano infondate e che gli avvocati di Assange avevano tentato di trattare la Svezia con superiorità (7 Febbraio 2011). Le dichiarazioni originali sono disponibili qui (here)

In un'indagine anonima un giurista su tre era d'accordo sul fatto che la critica di Assange al sistema giudiziario svedese era ben fondata ( (English here, and here). I commenti degli avvocati svedesi rivelano una mancanza profonda di fiducia nel sistema legale.

““ il sistema legale svedese è prossimo a cadere a pezzi per quanto concerne crimini sessuali. Bizzarre teorie sul sesso hanno avuto troppa influenza sui professionisti della giurisprudenza”

“Considerando la pressione mondiale su Assange, è realistico sospettare che qualcosa si stia svolgendo dietro le quinte e che possa influenzare la maniera in cui questo caso viene trattato”

Gli avvocati svedesi Jens Lapidus e Johan Akermark scrissero “la critica di Assange è giusta in molti punti” in uno dei più importanti quotidiani svedesi DN (05 May 2011):

“Condividiamo la critica di Assange sulle regole di detenzione, sui giudici profani Lay Judges e la maniera ordinaria di fare i processi a porte chiuse.

Anche Claes Borgstrom, l'avvocato delle due querelanti nell'indagine Assange ha sostenuto che i periodi di detenzione in Svezia sono troppo lunghi.

Anne Ramberg, il presidente dell'Associazione Avvocati ha affermato:

“Sia il Comitato Europeo per la Prevenzione della Tortura e di altri Trattamenti Inumani e Degradanti ed il Comitato delle Nazioni Unite contro la Tortura hanno criticato la Svezia per i lunghi periodi di detenzione ed ammettiamo che possono essere incredibilmente lunghi. Abbiamo anche contestato, ripetutamente negli anni, i processi a porte chiuse. Come pure abbiamo contestato i giudici profani, ma a causa del fatto che vengono reclutati entro un gruppo limitato di persone, piuttosto che a causa della politicizzazione dei tribunali.”

Un processo porterebbe alla condanna di Assange?

Le deposizioni delle due querelanti (AA e SW), di Julian Assange e di nove testimoni sono trapelate in Internet in Gennaio 2011.

Gli avvocati svedesi sono divisi, non tutti ritengono che Assange verrà condannato per le accuse contro di lui.

Discutendo se Assange verrà riconosciuto innocente, se accusato:

Il professore di giustizia penale Per Ole Traskman (Università di Lund Svezia) ed il ricercatore dottorato Sakari Melander (Università di Helsinki) hanno discusso sulle accuse di stupro contro Assange nel quotidiano finlandese Helsingin Sanomat. Hanno sostenuto che una condanna era improbabile:

Traskman: Basandosi sulle prove disponibili, è improbabile che Assange sarà condannato per i reati sospettati. Inoltre, l'accusatore non ha ancora presentato le accuse. Ciò significa che l'accusatore pensa che non ci siano ragioni sufficienti per impostare un' accusa a questo punto. Ecco perché ella vuole che Assange venga sentito in Svezia, sulla base di un mandato d'arresto europeo.

Melander: “il successo di una possibile accusa in tribunale non è probabile perché ci sono dei ragionevoli dubbi sulla colpevolezza di Assange. Se la colpevolezza non è chiara, oppure con c'è totale certezza, il caso deve essere risolto a favore dell'accusato.”

La trascrizione completa in inglese è disponibile qui (available here)

Bjorn Hurtig, consigliere difensivo di Assange in Svezia, ha stimato che ci sarebbe una probabilità al 50% di condanna. Tuttavia discusse quanto segue in una lettera al consigliere difensivo inglese di Assange, Mark Stephens:

“Dopo aver studiato il fascicolo come pure altro materiale che mi è stato permesso consultare, ma non fotocopiare od annotare, (messaggi sms dei cellulari delle querelanti) il caso è uno dei più deboli che abbia mai visto nella mia carriera professionale....”

“E' altamente incerto se il Sig Assange verrà perseguito, se estradato. Se perseguito, considero altamente improbabile che venga condannato. Se condannato sarà molto probabile che, considerando la natura ed i dettagli delle accuse stesse (la mancanza di minacce e di violenza fisica, le relazioni sessuali consensuali tra le querelanti ed il Sig. Assange prima dell'avvenimento e, nel caso di (AA) (la sua prova su questo punto è contraddittoria) dopo gli incidenti e le circostanze personali, abbia la condanna sospesa.”

Discutendo se Assange verrà riconosciuto colpevole, se accusato:

Per E. Samuelson, un avvocato penalista svedese di primo piano, specializzato nei casi di stupro, ha spiegato il contesto delle accuse di stupro contro Assange e la dura battaglia che deve affrontare per dimostrare la sua innocenza. Samuelsson è stato anche citato in un articolo dell'AOL

“La gente di altri paesi con culture legali differenti non riesce a capire quanto ampio e vasto sia il sistema legale svedese in riguardo a crimini sessuali. Le accuse fatte a Julian Assange in Svezia devono sembrargli delle assurdità, quasi uno scherzo. Ma deve capire che per queste cose gli uomini in Svezia vanno in prigione.”

“C'è stata una discussione (della legge relativa a reati sessuali nel 2007) ma non è stata cambiata. La pressione politica che ha come punto d'inizio l'uguaglianza delle donne nella società – che è encomiabile, come principio – ha portato ad una grandissima ed inaccettabile insicurezza degli imputati in Svezia.

E' quello che sta vivendo Assange proprio ora. Il movimento femminista in Svezia è particolarmente forte. Le attiviste dei diritti femminili hanno a lungo accusato i giudici di credere di più agli uomini. E' stato detto che era impossibile per una donna ottenere giustizia. Ora in Svezia è vero il contrario.

“Oggi si richiedono condanne in base ad un tenore politico (un tasso più alto di condanne ero lo scopo dichiarato di Thomas Bodstrom (il socio dello studio legale che rappresenta le due querelanti di Assange) mentre era Ministro della Giustizia e promuoveva le riforme alla legge contro i reati sessuali.)

Il tenore: in casi di stupro, gli uomini devono essere condannati; altrimenti non è giusto per le donne. Questo è indegno di uno stato costituzionale.”

“In Svezia l'opinione generale è: tu stai dicendo la verità perché sei una donna. Questo è il colmo, secondo me. Io sono per l'uguaglianza delle donne, nella società. Naturalmente. Ma non ci si deve spingere in là così tanto da condannare degli innocenti. In Svezia, la cosiddetta prospettiva della vittima è così sviluppata che ci sono persino delle persone che credono in tutta serietà che sia inaccettabile che le donne in generale vengano esposte ai rigori di un interrogatorio in tribunale. La gente dice che noi, quali avvocati che discutono il caso, offenderemmo queste donne perché le interroghiamo per conto dei nostri clienti. Penso che una tale cultura sia senza precedenti nell'Europa Occidentale.”

THANK YOU Tangerine Bolen & Michael Moore

2011-07-11T08:08:00.000-07:00

Mike & Friends Blog

Tangerine Bolen

Tangerine Bolen, MPH-HMP is founder and director of RevolutionTruth, a global community and organization dedicated to defending WikiLeaks, whistleblowers, and legitimate democracies.

16 Comments Print

July 9th, 2011 8:39 PM

WikiLeaks is the New Red Scare

By Tangerine Bolen

I founded and lead RevolutionTruth, a growing, global community and organization dedicated to defending WikiLeaks, whistleblowers, and legitimate democracies. RevolutionTruth defends WikiLeaks (WL) - not because WikiLeaks is perfect or uncomplicated. The WikiLeaks phenomenon is indeed, very complex. We defend them for two primary reasons: First, the way the U.S. government has responded to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is both alarming and dangerous. The federal government has signaled a willingness to change U.S. laws on espionage, in order to ensnare Julian Assange.

What does this mean? It is the threat of a severe curtailing of the "free" press. A press that is already highly compromised, in its corporatized, sanitized state. If the U.S. government has its way, journalists could be forced to reveal their sources, and anonymous leaks of classified information (i.e. instances of whistleblowing) could be considered "espionage." The U.S. government's actions and behavior around WikiLeaks is an irresponsible assault on our democratic freedoms. Freedoms that have already been profoundly weakened since the year 2000.

Under the Bush administration, the U.S. government began to engage in unprecedented spying on U.S. citizens - both legally and extra-legally. Innocent people are being wire-tapped without cause. Journalist's emails are monitored in an attempt to discover sources of classified information. Innocent citizens, regular people who are exercising their democratic rights of free speech or protest, are monitored. Why? Because the law now allows for this. The Patriot Act has encouraged an unprecedented over-reach into our lives as private citizens. In lockstep with the Patriot Act's over-reach, the Department of Homeland Security has classified hundreds of different types of citizen groups, including environmentalists, as "threats". A cursory examination of the policies and behaviors of the federal government over the last ten years illuminates an odd and chilling trend: the U.S. government is treating its own citizens as enemies.

This is madness. It is democracy's death by a thousand cuts, and this death is one that largely goes unnoticed while a nation sleeps.

When considering WikiLeaks, one must ponder several fundamental questions. Foremost is this: Is it ok for any one organization to have the power to expose state secrets, at random? The answer to this is: "No, but..." No, on the surface, it is not ok that a stateless organization have the power to release critical state secrets at will. Every democracy has need of some measure of secrecy. In a world of political realism, with countries that behave far, far worse than the U.S., this is a simple fact.

But a democracy (or a democratic republic) has to balance secrecy and transparency. A democracy is the will of the people, it IS the people; in the U.S., it is the people, allegedly governing themselves, through representation. A democracy EARNS its secrecy, by abiding by and upholding laws that serve true democratic governance. A democracy earns its secrecy by serving the best interests of its citizens. In order to survive, democracy must have functioning checks and balances against abuses of power - across all systems of government. Those checks and balances must be especially robust when it comes to our national security agencies - or we find ourselves in the unenviable position of trading our civil liberties for an illusion of safety.

We have moved so far away from healthy and functioning democratic governance in the last ten years, that it is mind-bending. We stand poised on a metaphorical cliff in the U.S.: Fundamental rights and freedoms remain basically intact at present, but they are either being chipped away, or outright assaulted. As a people, we are too tired, too busy, too entertained, too distracted, to pay attention to what is dying in our midst.

Is it ok for any one organization to expose state secrets, at will? No, but....WikiLeaks functions as a profound course correction - a clarion call in profoundly dark times. WikiLeaks' revelations momentarily give us, the people, the keys to the kingdom. And these revelations prove, without a doubt, a systemic lack of accountability, abuses of power, lack of integrity, and unethical behavior, much of it in the name of a twisted sense of "national security". Since 9/11, our national security body is so dysfunctional, it too often produces the antithesis of what it is allegedly working toward. National security is not this rampant destruction of rights, nor is it starting wars based on lies. In the midst of this madness, WikiLeaks' revelations paint a clear picture of a nation that has abandoned its democratic moorings.

Does WikiLeaks itself need a course correction? Perhaps. EVERY organization needs checks and balances, EVERY organization needs to be accountable. And an organization that wields such power as WikiLeaks absolutely has to adopt impeccable and relentless journalistic standards. Even beyond this, WikiLeaks needs to be examined for the game-changing phenomenon it is - and rational, sensible, people of the world - people who do not have a stake in denying freedoms, but who understand the dangers of political realism, need to think on best uses of, and evolution of WikiLeaks. And the outcome of these deliberations needs to be taken seriously by this organization.

But we, the people, have much to think on, and much to do. We stand at a critical juncture - not just in our own nation's history, but in the history of humanity. WikiLeaks has redefined the nature of that juncture. This organization has momentarily made it possible for common people to regain power through access to truths we need. These truths help us to put our governments back in place; subsequently, WikiLeaks helps us ensure legitimate democracies.

Yet the U.S. government's assaults on freedom are so effective that many people are afraid to express support for WikiLeaks. When loss of freedoms occurs by slow creep, or at a time of collective struggle, such as ours, people are inured against any visceral sense of this loss. Under the mantle of byzantine laws and trillion dollar bureaucracies, and under the menace of a government that is both openly and subtly threatening punishment for supporting WikiLeaks, self-censorship becomes reflexive. It becomes normal to be quiet, to not make waves. WikiLeaks is the new "red scare".

Each week I encounter at least one instance of hushed tones and hesitation, fear, reluctance and comments such as "I have a business to run" or, "I have a mortgage to pay". These are legitimate daily concerns, however, what do these things have to do with WikiLeaks? Is the message we are getting from this rabid attack on everything WikiLeaks, that if we support them openly, we could lose everything? This message, unfathomable as it seems, has permeated the consciousness of too many Americans. And this fact alone should be enough to fuel the fight for our rights - this fact should send alarm bells clanging inside each of us. We are on a very slippery slope in the U.S., backed by ten years of undeniable evidence of a federal assault on democracy, and we falling.

RevolutionTruth supports WikiLeaks, because, if we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of building our own mental prisons, if we fail to stand up and together, and choose the course of our nations, we fail ALL of our futures. We fail to take this breath of freedom, this moment of possibility, and we slink back to allow a profoundly wayward government (and other, even more insidious powers) to define our world. If we fail to stand up, now, we sell ourselves, and our children, into modern-day, corporate, national security state slavery. At this particular juncture in history, where you may be afraid of the U.S government's response to WikiLeaks, silence is our enemy.

The choice is yours. Will you wait on the sidelines as the U.S. government sinks deeper into its own lies and pathology? Which side do you stand on? The truth - painful, ugly, dangerous as it may seem, or the way the truth is being taken from you, ever more lawfully?

It is up to us to shape our futures. The members of RevolutionTruth know where we stand. And it is on the right side of history.

This content is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Source:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/wikileaks-is-the-new-red-scare

Sweden vs. Assange

2011-07-08T15:57:00.000-07:00

Timing of EAW and INTERPOL Red Notice

Timing of EAW, Cablegate, and US reactions

20 November: Sweden authorises Interpol to make a public Red Notice for Julian Assange
26 November 2010: Sweden issues an invalid EAW
28 November 2010: WikiLeaks publishes ’Cablegate’

29 November - Sarah Palin: WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are terrorists

"Assange is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands... Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

29 November 2010 - War on WikiLeaks

Tony Shaffer, former Defense Intelligence Agency officer, on Fox News:

"I would look at this very much as a military issue. With potentially military action against him and his organization."

29 and 30 November 2010 - Execute the source

Mike Huckabee, who was planning to be a 2012 Republican presidential candidate: for anyone who provided information to WikiLeaks:

"anything less than execution is too kind a penalty"

30 November: Interpol issues Red Notice to 188 countries for Julian Assange

30 November 2010 - assassinate Julian Assange
Tom Flanagan, ex senior adviser to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, currently Political Science lecturer at University of Calgary, Canada:
"Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. ... I would not feel unhappy if Assange ’disappeared’."

30 November 2010 - War on WikiLeaks
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham: referring to WikiLeaks:
"We’re at war. I hope Eric Holder, who’s a good man, will start showing some leadership here and get our laws in line with being at war."

30 November 2010 - WikiLeaks is a terrorist organisation
Rep. Peter King requests that the State Department put WikiLeaks on the ’terror’ list.

30 November 2010 - Julian Assange is a terrorist
Former Senator Rick Santorum, another possible presidential candidate for 2012, said at a speech in New Hampshire that Julian Assange should be
"prosecuted as a terrorist"

1 December 2010 - Assassinate Julian Assange
Bill O’Reilly, Fox News:
"I’d like to see a little drone hit Julian Assange. I think he is a bad man. If he lived in Britain 007 would take care of him."

2 December 2010: A second EAW is issued

5 December 2010 - Julian Assange is a terrorist
Mitch McConell, US Republican senator for Kentucky:
"I think the man is a [...] terrorist and [...] needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and if this becomes a problem you need to change the law."
5 December 2010: Julian Assange is a terrorist, enemy combatant
Newt Gingrich:
"Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant [Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, torture]. WikiLeaks should be closed down permanently and decisively."

6 December 2010: Assassinate Julian Assange
Bob Beckel, Fox News:
"A dead man can’t leak stuff," Beckel said. "This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I’m not for the death penalty, so...there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

7 December 2010: PayPal, MasterCard and Visa shut down donations to WikiLeaks.
8 December 2010: The Independent confirms there have been informal talks about Assange’s extradition between Sweden and the United States.

Does this amount to persecution?

The US administration’s attempts to stifle Assange personally and WikiLeaks as an organisation are not peripheral to his extradition. If the conduct of the United States amounts to persecution, the EU is bound by law to prevent his extradition to the United States:
Defined as a systematic threat by one group on the life and liberty of a person or group of people on the grounds of their political beliefs - the calls for extrajudicial actions of inflicting harm, assassinating and/or kidnapping Julian Assange and WikiLeaks collaborators amounts to persecution.

If these statements are understood to amount to persecution, the onward extradition of Assange to the United States will test the EU’s political maturity in protecting the principles of freedom, human rights, free speech, and the robustness of the ’area of freedom, security and justice’ (AFSJ).

Interpol authorises Red Notice for Julian Assange

213 days under house arrest.

Countdown to appeal: 2 days.

cc-by-sa SwedenVersusAssange.com

FRANÇAIS - Il ne reste que 6 jours avant qu’Assange ne soit déporté vers la Suède.

2011-07-07T09:16:00.000-07:00

Il ne reste que 6 jours avant qu’Assange ne soit déporté vers la Suède.

5 juillet, par Steve Beckow

aujourd'hui il est le7 juillet

Dans 6 jours, Julian Assange sera déporté en Suède pour faire face à des accusations d’agression sexuelle. Cependant, jusqu’à maintenant, aucune accusation formelle n’a été retenue contre lui. Depuis décembre 2010, Julian est maintenu en résidence surveillée, suite à deux mandats internationaux ordonnés par la Suède.

Selon la loi suédoise, où il n’est pas possible d’être libéré sous caution, Julian sera emprisonné, dès son arrivée, pour une période indéfinie. Même si son innocence est prouvée, il aura été mis hors circuit pour continuer d’agir, ce qui est probablement le but de tous ces exercices.

Certains se posent la question à savoir si la Suède n’agit pas ainsi suite à une injonction du gouvernement américain. La détention de Julian placera probablement le système judiciaire suédois sous un microscope et pourrait placer le gouvernement suédois et ses officiels - responsables des lois, de la Cour et de la détention - dans une situation embarrassante. Pour Julian, cela signifie qu’il ne pourra pas diriger Wikileaks pour une période indéterminée. Voici l’estimation de ce qui attend Julian en Suède selon, il faut l’admettre, des sympathisants de Julian.

Procès honnête pour Julian Assange ?

Critique du système judiciaire suédois.

De tous les signataires de la Convention, c’est la Suède qui a le plus haut taux, per capita, de causes ayant comparu devant la Cour Européenne des Droits Humains ayant trait à l’article 6 (le droit à un procès honnête ). C’est aussi le pays où il y a le plus haut taux de décision renversée dans les causes de procès injustes.

Les arguments de la défense.

Durant l’audience de février, les avocats d’Assange ont soutenu que le Royaume-Uni ne pouvait pas le déporter car il n’aurait pas droit à un procès honnête. S’il est déporté, Assange sera emprisonné en isolement cellulaire, malgré le fait qu’il n’a pas été accusé (probablement jusqu’à un an de détention ). Il n’y a pas de limite de temps de détention en Suède. Il n’y a pas de système de caution, alors il pourrait rester en détention indéfiniment. S’il y a accusation et procès, cela sera fait en secret. Il ne sera pas jugé par un “tribunal indépendant et impartial”, ce qui est une condition fondamentale selon la Convention Européenne des Droits Humains (article 6.1 ). Trois des quatre juges sont des non professionnels qui ont été nommés par des partis politiques et n’ont pas d’apprentissage légal formel.

Le procureur suédois Marianne Ny n’a pas donné d’informations écrites sur les allégations contre lui, ni à Assange lui-même ni à ses avocats, ce qui va à l’encontre du Code de Procédure Suédois (RB 23:18 ) ainsi que contre la Convention Européenne des Droits Humains (article 5 ) et contre la Charte Fondamentale de l’Union Européenne des Droits Humains.

Durant le procès, il y a eu une interférence politique, faite par les propos du Premier ministre au parlement suédois et la presse a donné toute son attention aux avocats des plaignants.

L’accord bilatéral entre les États-Unis et la Suède donne le droit à Assange d’être déporté aux États-Unis aussitôt qu’il arrive en Suède. S’il est détenu aux États-Unis, Julian Assange risque d’être kidnappé, torturé et exécuté.

Réactions suédoises à la critique du système judiciaire suédois.

Le Premier ministre Fredrik Reinfeldt a affirmé, lors d’un discours parlementaire, que les critiques sur le système judiciaire ne sont pas fondées et que les avocats de Assange ont traité la Suède avec condescendance.

Lors d’un sondage anonyme, un juriste sur trois est d’accord avec le fait que ces critiques sont bien fondés. Les commentaires des avocats suédois révèlent un manque profond de confiance dans le système légal :

“Le système judiciaire suédois est près de se désagréger, en ce qui concerne les crimes sexuels. Les théories de changement de sexe bizarres ont eu beaucoup trop d’influence sur les praticiens de jurisprudence.”

“Considérant la pression mondiale concernant Assange, il n’est pas irréaliste de suspecter qu’il se passe des choses en coulisses et qui influencent la façon dont cette cause est traitée.”

Les avocats suédois Jens Lapidus et Johan Akermark ont publié un article dans un des journaux principaux de Suède, disant que : “ les critiques ont raison sur plusieurs points”.

“Nous partageons les vues d’Assange sur les règlements de détention, les juges non professionnels et sur la façon routinière dont les procès se déroulent à huis clos”.

Claes Borgstrom, l’avocat des deux plaignants dans l’enquête sur Assange, ont aussi soutenu que les périodes de détention sont extrêmement longues en Suède.

Anne Ramberg, la présidente de l’Association des Avocats a dit : “ Le Comité Européen de la Prévention de la Torture et d’autre Traitement Dégradant et Inhumain ainsi que le Comité Contre la Torture des Nation-Unies ont critiqué la Suède pour les longues périodes de détention et nous sommes d’accord avec le fait que celles-ci peuvent être incroyablement longues. Nous avons aussi et ce, depuis des années, débattu le fait des procès tenus à huis clos. Il en va de même pour les juges non professionnels, mais considérant qu’ils sont recrutés dans un groupe limité de personnes, plutôt que par la politicisation de la Cour.”

Est-ce qu’un procès conduirait à une sentence pour Assange ?

Les témoignages des deux plaignants (A.A et S.W. ), de Julian Assange et de neuf témoins ont été publiés sur Internet en janvier 2011.

Les avis des avocats suédois sont partagés sur le fait qu’Assange serait condamné suite aux allégations portées contre lui.

Les arguments selon lesquels Assange ne serait pas trouvé coupable s’il est accusé :

Le professeur de justice criminelle Per-Ole Traskman (de l’Université Lund en Suède ) et le docteur en recherches Sakari Melander (université d’Helsinki ) ont discuté des allégations de viol contre Assange dans le journal finnois Sanomat. Ils affirment qu’une sentence n’aurait probablement pas lieu :

* Traskman : “En se basant sur les preuves disponibles, Assange ne serait probablement pas condamné pour les crimes suspectés. Le procureur n’a pas encore porté d’accusations. Cela signifie que le procureur ne pense pas qu’il y a une raison suffisante de porter une accusation, à ce moment-ci. C’est pour cette raison qu’elle veut que la cause d’Assange soit entendue en Suède, en se basant sur un Mandat d’Arrêt Européen.”

* Melander : “Le succès d’une accusation possible en Cour est peu probable car il existe un doute raisonnable envers la culpabilité d’Assange. Si la culpabilité n’est pas claire ou entièrement certaine, la cause doit être résolue en faveur de l’accusé.”

Bjorn Hurtig, le défenseur d’Assange en Suède, estime qu’il y a 50% de chances de condamnation. Cependant, il ajoute ce qui suit, dans une lettre adressée au défenseur britannique d’Assange, Mark Stephens : “Après avoir étudié le cas, ainsi que d’autre matériel qu’on m’a permis d’inspecter, mais non d’en faire copie ou de prendre en note, (des messages sms/textes de la part des plaignants à partir de téléphones portables ), il m’apparaît que c’est la cause la plus faible que j’ai vu dans toute ma carrière professionnelle...”

Il est grandement incertain que Monsieur Assange sera poursuivi, s’il est déporté. S’il est poursuivi, je ne pense pas qu’il sera condamné. S’il est condamné, il aura probablement une sentence avec sursis, étant donné la nature et les détails des allégations elles-mêmes (le manque de toute menace ou de violence physique, les relations sexuelles consensuelles entre les plaignants et Monsieur Assange avant les incidents et, dans le cas de A.A, après les incidents - et dans ce cas, ses preuves sont contradictoires - et ses circonstances personnelles.”

Les arguments selon lesquels Assange pourrait être trouvé coupable s’il est accusé :

Per.E.Samuelson, un avocat de la défense suédois renommé, qui se spécialise dans les cas de viol, a expliqué le contexte des allégations de viol portées contre Assange et la bataille qu’Assange devra mener pour prouver son innocence. Samuelson a aussi écrit un article sur AOL.

* “ Les peuples des autres pays ayant différentes cultures légales peuvent difficilement comprendre comment fonctionne le système légal suédois en ce qui a trait aux crimes sexuels. Les allégations faites contre Assange en Suède, doivent lui sembler absurdes, comme une farce. Mais il doit comprendre que ce sont ces sortes de choses qui envoient les hommes en prison, en Suède.”

Des discussions ont eu lieu (à propos de la loi sur les offenses sexuelles en 2007 ), mais cela n’a pas changé. La pression politique, qui a l’égalité des femmes en société comme point de départ, (ce qui est très louable ) a mené à une très grande incertitude inacceptable pour les défenseurs en Suède. C’est ce qu’expérimente Assange présentement Le mouvement féministe en Suède est particulièrement fort. Les activistes des droits des femmes ont longtemps critiqué le fait que les juges croient plus les hommes que les femmes. Il a été dit qu’il était impossible, pour une femme, d’obtenir justice. Maintenant, c’est l’inverse en Suède”.

* “ Les condamnations d’aujourd’hui sont exigées à cause d’une substance politique de base |- un taux de condamnation plus élevé a été le but de la déclaration de Thomas Bodstrom, le partenaire de la firme qui représente les deux plaignants contre Assange, alors qu’il était Ministre de la Justice et qu’il promouvait les réformes sur la loi sur les offenses sexuelles -| . La substance : dans les cas de viol, les hommes doivent être condamnés, sinon c’est injuste envers les femmes. Ceci est indigne d’un état constitutionnel.”

“En Suède, le consensus est que vous dites la vérité, parce que vous êtes une femme. Là, j’atteins ma limite. Je suis pour l’égalité des femmes dans la société. Bien sûr. Mais il ne faut pas se rendre au point où les innocents sont condamnés. En Suède, la perspective des soi-disant victimes va tellement loin, qu’il y a des gens qui croient, très sérieusement, qu’il est inacceptable que les femmes, en général, soient exposées aux rigueurs d’une interrogation en Cour. Les gens disent que nous, en tant qu’avocats durant le procès, pourrions offenser ces femmes parce que nous les interrogeons au nom de nos clients. Je pense qu’une telle culture est sans précédent, en Europe de l’Ouest.”

Related articles:

Lay Judges

Rule of Law

Media climate in Sweden

Gender Politics

Sexual Offences

Prosecution

Investigation

Further Resources:

Mark Stephens: Demand open justice for Julian Assange

Witness statement of Mark Stephens

Evidence by Björn Hurtig regarding the nature of the allegations

Rixstep: No Requirement of Proof in Swedish Sex Trials

Rixstep: 709 Swedish Jurists Agree with Assange

Source:

http://marchofmillions.blogspot.com/2011/07/six-days-remain-before-julian-assange.html

PORTUGUÊS - A Cinco Dias de Julian Assange Poder Ser Extraditado para a Suécia por Steve Beckow

2011-07-06T09:12:00.001-07:00

A Cinco Dias de Julian Assange Poder Ser Extraditado para a Suécia

5 de Julho de 2011

Por Steve Beckow

Daqui a seis dias, Julian Assange será extraditado para a Suécia para enfrentar as acusações de ofensas sexuais. No entanto, até hoje nenhumas acusações formais foram feitas contra ele. Julian tem estado em prisão domiciliária, na Grã-Bretanha, desde Dezembro de 2010, quando a Suécia emitiu dois mandatos internacionais para a sua detenção.

De acordo com a lei sueca, onde não existem opções de aguardar o julgamento em liberdade pelo pagamento de fiança, após a sua chegada à Suécia, Julian será preso por período indefinido. Mesmo que seja reconhecido como inocente das acusações que lhe são imputadas, ficará completamente incapaz de agir, o que provavelmente é o objectivo destas movimentações.

Levanta-se a seguinte questão: Estará a Suécia a agir por ordem do governo Americano? A detenção de Julian está a colocar o sistema judicial sueco debaixo do microscópio e pode tornar-se embaraçoso para o governo da Suécia, por chamar a atenção sobre as autoridades responsáveis pelas leis suecas, sobre os tribunais e sobre detenção. Para Julian, isso impede-o de dirigir o Wikileaks por um período de tempo indeterminado. Abaixo está uma avaliação das perspectivas de Julian na Suécia, feita reconhecidamente pelos apoiantes de Julian.

Julgamento justo para Julian Assange?

Crítica ao Sistema Judicial Sueco.

De todos os signatários da Convenção, a Suécia tem a taxa mais elevada per capita de casos levados ao Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos a respeito do artigo 6.1 (direito a um julgamento justo). Também tem a taxa mais elevada de leis adversas no que diz respeito a um julgamento justo.

Argumento de defesa

Na Audição de Fevereiro February Hearing, os advogados de Julian Assange alegaram que o Reino Unido não o devia extraditar porque ele não iria ter um julgamento justo na Suécia. Se fosse extraditado, Assange seria:

Colocado numa prisão em detenção solitária quando fosse devolvido, mesmo sem ter sido acusado (passando provavelmente um ano em detenção). Na Suécia não há limite de tempo para a detenção.

Não há a possibilidade de pagar uma fiança, por isso ele pode permanecer preso indefinidamente.

Se houver acusação e julgamento, será mantido em segredo.

Não será julgado por um ‘Tribunal imparcial e independente, que é um requisito fundamental da Convenção Europeia dos Direitos Humanos (artigo 6.1). Três de cada quatro juízes são Juízes Leigos, que foram designados pelos partidos políticos e não têm prática judicial formal (ver Lay Judges).

O acusador sueco, Marianne Ny, não entregou a Julian Assange ou aos seus advogados, um documento escrito sobre as alegações contra ele, o que viola o Código de Procedimento Sueco (RB 23:18) e a Convenção Europeia dos Direitos Humanos (artigo 5) e a Carta Fundamental dos Direitos Humanos da Comunidade Europeia.

Houve interferência política de acordo com as afirmações do Primeiro Ministro no Parlamento Sueco durante o Julgamento (veja Political Interference, e a atenção constante da imprensa foi dada às queixas do advogado (veja Media climate in Sweden).

O acordo bilateral entre os Estados Unidos e a Suécia permite que Julian Assange seja extraditado para os Estados Unidos logo que ele chegue à Suécia (veja a secção da extradição para os Estados Unidos). Sob custódia dos Estados Unidos, Julian Assange arrisca-se a ser raptado, torturado e executado.

Reacções na Suécia às criticas do Sistema de justiça Sueco

O Primeiro Ministro Fredrik Reinfeldt respondeu no Parlamento que as críticas ao Sistema Judicial Sueco eram infundadas, e que os advogados de Assange tentaram obter a condescendência da Suécia (7 February 2011). As afirmações originais estão disponíveis aqui here.

Num escrutínio anónimo, um em cada três one out of three juristas concordaram que as críticas de Assange ao sistema de justiça sueca eram bem fundamentadas (em Inglês aqui e aqui English here, and here). Os comentários dos advogados Suecos revelaram uma profunda falta de confiança no sistema legal:

“O sistema judicial sueco pode falhar no que diz respeito a crimes sexuais. Teorias bizarras tiveram muita influência nos legisladores.”

“Considerando a pressão sobre Assange de todos as partes do mundo, não está fora da realidade suspeitar que há coisas a acontecer por trás das cenas que influenciaram a maneira como o caso está a ser tratado.”

Os advogados Suecos Jens Lapidus e Johan Åkermark publicaram “As criticas de Assange estão correctas em muitos citações” num dos principais jornais diários suecos, DN (05 May 2011):

“Estamos de acordo e partilhamos as críticas de Assange sobre as leis da detenção, sobre os Juízes Leigos Lay Judges e sobre a maneira rotineira e antiquada de como os julgamentos são feitos à porta fechada.”

Claes Borgström, o advogado das duas queixosas na investigação contra Assange, também argumentou contra os períodos de detenção demasiado longos argued detention periods are excessively long na Suécia.

Anne Ramberg, a Bastonária da Ordem dos Advogados disse chairperson of the Lawyers’ Association said:

“Quer o Comitê Europeu para a Prevenção da Tortura, o Comitê para a Prevenção do Tratamento Degradante e Desumano e o Comitê das Nações Unidas contra a Tortura criticaram a Suéciahave criticised Sweden devido aos períodos de detenção demasiado longos e nós concordamos que podem ser incrivelmente longos. Igualmente, durante anos e anos evidenciamos, repetidamente, a nossa posição contra os julgamentos à porta fechada. Como também contra os Juízes Leigos Lay Judges, mas baseados em que isso recruta um número mais limitado de pessoas do que a politização dos tribunais.”

Um julgamento iria conduzir à Sentença de Culpa de Assange?

As testemunhas testimonies das duas queixosas (AA e SW). Julian Assange e nove testemunhas foram divulgadas ilegalmente na internet, em Janeiro de 2011.

Os advogados suecos ficaram divididos na sua opinião se Assange seria considerado culpado das alegações que existem contra ele.

Argumentando que Assange poderia ser considerado não culpado se acusado de:

O Professor de Direito Criminal Per-Ole Träskman (Universidade de Lund, na Suécia) e o pesquisador de assuntos jurídicos Sakari Melander (Universidade de Helsinquia) discutiram as alegações de violação contra Assange no jornal diário Helsingin Sanomat. Argumentaram que uma sentença de culpa não era apropriada porque:

Träskman: “Baseado na evidencia disponível, é improvável que Assange possa ser declarado culpado dos crimes em suspeição. Além disso, o promotor ainda não fez acusações. Isto significa que o promotor não pensa haver razão suficiente para fazer uma acusação, neste estádio. É por isso que ela quer que Assange seja ouvido na Suécia baseando-se num Pedido de Detenção europeu.”

Melander: “ O sucesso de uma possível acusação em tribunal não é provável porque permanece uma dúvida razoável sobre a culpabilidade de Assange, e o caso deve ser resolvido a favor do acusado.”

A transcrição completa em Inglês está disponível aqui. available here.

Björn Hurtig, conselheiro de defesa de Assange, na Suécia, estimou que havia uma possibilidade de 50% de ser reconhecida a culpa dele. No entanto, argumentou o seguinte, numa carta dirigida ao conselheiro de defesa de Assange, no Reino Unido, Mark Stephens:

“Tendo estudado o processo, bem como outro material que me foi permitido inspeccionar, mas não tirar cópias ou notas de (sms/texto de mensagens dos telemóveis das queixosas), o caso é um dos casos mais fracos que vi em toda a minha carreira profissional…”

“É altamente incerto que o Snr. Assange seja perseguido de modo algum, ou seja extraditado. Se for instituída uma acção legal, considero ser altamente improvável que seja declarado culpado. Se for declarado culpado, seria provável que à luz da natureza das alegações (a falta de quaisquer ameaças ou violência física, as relações sexuais entre as queixosas e o Snr. Assange antes dos incidentes e, no caso de [AA] (a sua evidência, neste ponto é contraditória) depois dos incidentes, nas circunstâncias pessoais dele, que recebesse uma sentença suspensa.”

Argumentando que Assange é provável ser considerado culpado se:

Per E. Samuelson, um advogado de defesa muito bem cotado no Direito Criminal Sueco que se especializou em casos de violação, explicou o contexto das alegações de violação contra Assange, e no auge da batalha ele tem de provar a sua inocênciauphill battle he has to prove his innocence. Samuelsson , que foi mencionado num artigo no AOL article on AOL.

“As pessoas de outros países com culturas legais e jurídicas diferentes, não compreendem como o sistema legal sueco é extensivo no que diz respeito a crimes sexuais. As alegações feitas contra Julian Assange, na Suécia, devem parecer a Assange como um verdadeiro disparate, como uma piada. Mas ele tem de compreender que é devido a estas coisas que, na Suécia, os homens vão para a prisão.

“Houve uma discussão [sobre a lei das ofensas sexuais, em 2007], mas ela ainda não mudou. A pressão política que tem a igualdade das mulheres na sociedade como um ponto de partida – conduziu a uma grande incerteza legal inaceitável para os advogados de defesa, na Suécia. É isso que Assange está a experimentar agora. O movimento feminista na Suécia é particularmente forte. Foi alegado, durante muito tempo, pelas activistas dos direitos as mulheres, que os juízes acreditavam mais nos homens. Foi dito que era impossível para uma mulher obter justiça. Agora, na Suécia, o contrário é que é verdade.

“Hoje as condenações são exigidas devido a um conteúdo político [uma taxa de condenações mis elevada foi o propósito afirmado por Thomas Bodström (o advogado associado à firma de advogados que representa as duas queixas contra Assange) enquanto era Ministro da Justiça e promoveu a reforma da lei das Ofensas Sexuais]. O conteúdo da lei é: em casos de violação, os homens devem ser condenados; de outro modo, é injusto para as mulheres. Isso é inapropriado num estado constitucional.”

“Na Suécia, o consenso: você diz a verdade porque é uma mulher. Para mim isso é o limite. Sou pela igualdade das mulheres na sociedade. Claro. Mas não posso ir tão longe, a ponto de pessoas inocentes serem condenadas. Na Suécia, a chamada perspectiva da vítima é tão avançada que há mesmo pessoas que acreditam, com toda a seriedade, que é inaceitável que as mulheres, em geral, sejam expostas aos rigores de um interrogatório, num tribunal. As pessoas dizem que, nós, como advogados, iríamos ofender essas mulheres porque as interrogamos em nome dos nossos clientes. Penso que tal cultura não tem precedentes na Europa Ocidental.”

Artigos relacionados:

Lay Judges

Rule of Law

Media climate in Sweden

Further Resources:

Mark Stephens: Demand open justice for Julian Assange

Witness statement of Mark Stephens

Evidence by Björn Hurtig regarding the nature of the allegations

Rixstep: No Requirement of Proof in Swedish Sex Trials

Rixstep: 709 Swedish Jurists Agree with Assange

Source:

http://stevebeckow.com/2011/07/six-days-remain-before-julian-assange-is-extradited-to-sweden/#more-555

Tradução: Maria Luisa de Vasconcellos

(luisavasconcellos@hotmail.com)

Six Days Remain before Julian Assange is Extradited to Sweden by Steve Beckow

2011-07-05T09:44:00.000-07:00

Six Days Remain before Julian Assange is Extradited to Sweden

2011 July 5 - Today is July 6

by Steve Beckow

In six days time, Julian Assange will be extradited to Sweden to face four allegations of sexual offences. However as of the present day no formal charges have been laid against him. Julian has been held under house arrest in Britain since Dec. 2010 when Sweden issued two international warrants for his arrest.

Under Swedish law, which does not have bail options, upon arrival in Sweden, Julian will be jailed for an indefinite period.Even if found innocent of the charges, he will have been taken out of action, which is probably the aim of these moves anyways.

Questions have arisen as to whether Sweden is acting at the behest of the American government. The detention of Julian is likely to put the Swedish justice system under a microscope and could prove embarrassing to the Swedish government and officials responsible for Swedish laws, courts, and detention. For Julian, it removes him from directing Wikileaks for an indefinite period of time. Below is an assessment of Julian’s prospects in Sweden, admittedly from Julian’s supporters.

Fair Trial for Julian Assange?

Criticism of Swedish justice system

Of all the signatories to the Convention, Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial). It also has the highest rate of adverse rulings when it comes to the fair trial.

Argument of the defence

In the February Hearing, Julian Assange’s lawyers argued that the UK should not extradite him because he would not face a fair trial in Sweden. If extradited, Assange will be:

Held in prison in solitary confinement when he is returned, despite not having been charged (likely to spend up to a year in custody). There is no time limit to detention in Sweden.

There is no bail system, so he would remain in detention indefinitely.

If there is a charge and a trial, it will be held in secret.

He will not be judged by an ’independent and impartial tribunal’, a fundamental requirement under the European Convention of Human Rights (article 6.1). Three out of the four judges are lay judges, who have been appointed by political parties and have no formal legal training (see Lay Judges).

The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has not given Julian Assange or his lawyers information on the allegations against him in writing, which violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5), and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights.

There has been political interference with the Prime Minister’s statements to the Swedish Parliament during the trial (see Political Interference, and constant press attention has been given to the complainants’ lawyer (see Media climate in Sweden).

The bilateral agreement between the United States and Sweden allows Julian Assange to be extradited to the US as soon as he arrives in Sweden (see section on US extradition). Under US custody, Julian Assange risks kidnapping, torture, and execution.

Reactions in Sweden to the criticism of the Swedish Justice System

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated in a parliamentary address that criticisms of the Swedish Justice system are unfounded, and Assange’s lawyers have tried to patronise Sweden (7 February 2011). The original statements are available here.

In an anonymous survey one out of three jurists agreed that Assange’s criticisms of the Swedish Justice system were well-founded (English here, and here). The comments by Swedish lawyers reveal a profound lack of trust in the legal system:

“The Swedish judicial system is close to falling apart as far as sex crimes goes. Bizarre gender theories have had too much influence on practitioners of jurisprudence.”

“Considering the pressure on Assange by the world at large, it’s not unrealistic to suspect there are things going on behind the scenes that have influenced how the case is being handled.”

The Swedish lawyers Jens Lapidus and Johan Åkermark published “Assange’s criticism is right on several counts” in one of the main Swedish dailies, DN (05 May 2011):

“We share Assange’s criticism about the rules of detention, the Lay Judges and the routine fashion in which trials are held behind closed doors.”

Claes Borgström, the lawyer for the two complainants in the Assange investigation, has also argued detention periods are excessively long in Sweden.

Anne Ramberg, the chairperson of the Lawyers’ Association said:

“Both the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and other Inhumane and Degrading Treatment and the UN Committee Against Torture have criticised Sweden for long detention periods and we agree that they can be incredibly long. We have also repeatedly through the years challenged trials behind closed doors. As well as the Lay Judges, but on the grounds that it recruits from a limited pool of people rather than the politicisation of the courts.”

Would a trial lead to Assange’s Conviction?

The testimonies of the two complainants (AA and SW), Julian Assange, and nine witnesses (English here) were leaked onto the internet in January 2011.

Swedish lawyers are divided on whether Assange would be convicted of the allegations against him.

Arguing that Assange would be found not guilty if charged:

Criminal justice professor Per-Ole Träskman (University of Lund Sweden) and doctoral researcher Sakari Melander (University of Helsinki) discussed the rape allegations against Assange in the Finnish daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat. They argued that a conviction was unlikely:

* Träskman: “Based on the evidence available, it is unlikely Assange would be convicted of the suspected crimes. Also, the prosecutor has not yet raised charges. That means the prosecutor doesn’t think there’s sufficient reason to raise a charge at this stage. That’s why she wants Assange to be heard in Sweden relying on a European Arrest Warrant.”

* Melander: “The success of a possible charge in court is not likely because reasonable doubt remains about Assange’s guilt. If there is unclarity about guilt, or there is no full certainty of it, the case must be resolved in favour of the accused.”

The full transcript in English is available here.

Björn Hurtig, Assange’s defence counsel in Sweden, estimated that there was a 50% chance of conviction. However he argued the following in a letter to Assange’s UK defence counsel, Mark Stephens:

“Having studied the case-file, as well as other material which I was permitted to inspect but not take copies or notes of (sms/text messages from the complainants’ mobile phones), the case is one of the weakest cases I have ever seen in my professional career…”

“It is highly uncertain whether Mr. Assange will be prosecuted at all, if extradited. If prosecuted, I consider it highly unlikely that he will be convicted. If convicted, he would be likely, in light of the nature and detail of the allegations themselves (the lack of any threats or physical violence, the consensual sexual relations between the complainants and Mr. Assange before the incidents and, in the case of [AA] (her evidence on this point is contradictory) after the incidents, and his personal circumstances, to receive a suspended sentence.”

Arguing that Assange is likely to be found guilty if charged:

Per E. Samuelson, a high-profile Swedish criminal defense lawyer who specialises in rape cases, has explained the context of the rape allegations against Assange, and the uphill battle he has to prove his innocence. Samuelsson was also quoted in an article on AOL.

* “People from other countries with different legal cultures just do not understand how extensive the Swedish legal system is regarding sexual crimes. The allegations made against Julian Assange in Sweden must seem to Assange as pure nonsense, as a joke. But he must understand that these are the kind of things for which men go to prison in Sweden.”

“There was a discussion [about a law in sexual offences in 2007], but it has not changed. Political pressure which has the equality of women in society as starting point – which is in principle commendable – has led to an unacceptable very high legal uncertainty for defendants in Sweden. This is what Assange is experiencing right now. The feminist movement in Sweden is particularly strong. It has long been criticised by women’s rights activists that the judges would believe men more. It was said that it was impossible to get justice as a woman. Now the reverse is true in Sweden.

* “Today convictions are demanded due to a basic political tenor [a higher conviction rate was the stated purpose of Thomas Bodström (the partner in the law firm representing the two complainants against Assange) while he was Minister of Justice and promoting the reforms for the Sexual offences law]. The tenor: in rape cases, men have to be sentenced; otherwise it is unfair to women. This is unworthy of a constitutional state.”

“In Sweden, the consensus is: you say the truth because you’re a woman. That is the limit for me. I am for the equality of women in society. Of course. But it cannot go so far that people who are innocent are convicted. In Sweden, the so-called victim’s perspective is so advanced that there are even people out there who believe in all seriousness that it is unacceptable that women in general are exposed to the rigours of an interrogation in court. People say we as trial lawyers would offend these women because we interrogate them on behalf of our clients. I think such a culture is unprecedented in Western Europe.”

Related articles:

Lay Judges

Rule of Law

Media climate in Sweden

Gender Politics

Sexual Offences

Prosecution

Investigation

Further Resources:

Mark Stephens: Demand open justice for Julian Assange

Witness statement of Mark Stephens

Evidence by Björn Hurtig regarding the nature of the allegations

Rixstep: No Requirement of Proof in Swedish Sex Trials

Rixstep: 709 Swedish Jurists Agree with Assange

Source:

http://marchofmillions.blogspot.com/2011/07/six-days-remain-before-julian-assange.html

May 23 - Assange subject of ASIO scrutiny

2011-05-27T15:51:00.000-07:00

Assange subject of ASIO scrutiny

BY PHILIP DORLING

23 May, 2011 06:37 AM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard's department has revealed WikiLeaks and its Australian founder Julian Assange were the subject of Australian intelligence reporting last year as the Government anticipated the website would spill ''highly sensitive and politically embarrassing'' Australian secrets.

Australian officials also feared WikiLeaks could publish information from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

However, declassified official briefings do not support Ms Gillard's assertion Mr Assange broke Australian law by publishing leaked US government secrets.

Confirmation of Australian intelligence reporting on WikiLeaks comes as the Government moves to amend security laws to broaden ASIO's ability to spy on Australians engaged in activities outside Australia that are of interest to the government.

Last December, Fairfax published stories based on leaked US embassy cables provided by WikiLeaks that revealed highly critical US assessments of former prime minister Kevin Rudd; senator Mark Arbib's contacts with the US Embassy, secret Australian Government concerns about the war in Afghanistan, Australian assessments the al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah terrorist groups had been effectively broken, and other sensitive issues.

Fairfax has secured under Freedom of Information legislation more than 260 pages of secret AUSTEO (Australian Eyes Only) prime ministerial briefing papers, records of meetings and situation reports relating to WikiLeaks during last November and December as the website began issuing thousands of leaked US diplomatic cables.

The papers show the Labor Government went into crisis mode as soon as the US Government alerted Australian officials in Canberra and Washington on November 24 about WikiLeaks' prospective publication of US cables.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contacted Mr Rudd on November 25 to express her deep regret the material had been leaked.

The first meeting of a high-level interdepartmental committee on WikiLeaks, chaired by Deputy National Security Adviser Margot McCarthy, met on November 25.

Senior officials from the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence, the Attorney-General's Department, the intelligence community and the Australian Federal Police immediately noted the potential for disclosure of ''highly sensitive and politically embarrassing matters''.
Later that day, Ms Gillard's department told the Prime Minister efforts were being made to ''devise an approach to gain first-hand access to the cables to conduct our own analysis''.
However, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department secretary Dennis Richardson later admitted it took ''a frustrating amount of time'' before US officials provided a detailed briefing and Australia was ''spectacularly unsuccessful'' in its attempts to obtain copies of the leaked cables from the State Department.

Ms Gillard was briefed by her department at least three times before the first international publication of leaked cables on November 29, and four more times before the first publication of Australia-related cables on December 8. WikiLeaks was the subject of Cabinet consideration during this period.

The declassified papers show that talking points provided to Ms Gillard as early as November 26 emphasised it was ''a matter for relevant law enforcement agencies to consider whether any offence under Australian law may have been committed'' by Mr Assange through the publication of the leaked cables.

A further talking point referred to offences that could apply if an Australian Government official disclosed official information without authorisation, but made no assertions concerning any offences under Australian law by Wiki Leaks or Mr Assange.

However, in a radio interview on December 2, Ms Gillard said the publication of the US diplomatic cables on the WikiLeaks website was ''a grossly irresponsible thing to do, and an illegal thing to do''.
Media and public criticism of this comment for prejudging the issue appears to have prompted Ms Gillard's department to seek urgent advice from the Australian Federal Police which had commenced a preliminary inquiry two days earlier.

The AFP's response, transmitted to Ms Gillard's office by National Security Adviser Duncan Lewis later on December 2, has been withheld.
The declassified papers issued to Fairfax have been censored to remove information that it is claimed could harm Australia's national security, defence or international relations.

Some information has been withheld on grounds that it would make the US ''feel inhibited in communication with Australia about key issues of importance to Australia.''

National security information has also been withheld that describes ''operational capabilities, current threats ... and potential vulnerabilities''.

Source:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/assange-subject-of-asio-scrutiny/2171153.aspx?storypage=1