Assange reveals GCHQ messages discussing Swedish extradition

[99th_Monkey]

Apparently, Assange is correct in saying that the Swedish & US governments are conspiring to
entrap him in Sweden "for questioning" about a bogus "crime" and then extradite him to the USA
to be detained indefinitely under lock and key, for the "crime" of exposing war crimes.


Julian Assange reveals GCHQ messages discussing Swedish extradition
WikiLeaks founder uses subject access request to access British agency chatter, which allegedly calls extradition 'a fit-up'
Giles Tremlett in Madrid and Ben Quinn
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 19 May 2013 20.05 EDT

Authorities at GCHQ, the government eavesdropping agency, are facing embarrassing revelations about internal correspondence in which Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is discussed, apparently including speculation that he is being framed by Swedish authorities seeking his extradition on rape allegations.

The records were revealed by Assange himself in a Sunday night interview with Spanish television programme Salvados in which he explained that an official request for information gave him access to instant messages that remained unclassified by GCHQ.

A message from September 2012, read out by Assange, apparently says: "They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ … It is definitely a fit-up… Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate."

The messages appear to contain speculation and chatter between GCHQ employees, but Assange gave little further explanation about exactly who they came from.

The WikiLeaks founder, who has spent the past 11 months in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid arrest and extradition to Sweden, claimed GCHQ had been unaware that it might have anything on him that was not classified.

"It won't hand over any of the classified information," he said. "But, much to its surprise, it has some unclassified information on us."

"We have just received this. It is not public yet," he added.


MORE HERE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-gchq-messages-extradition?CMP=twt_fd

[Gravitycollapse]

1. Diving into the deep end with this...but what if he actually raped that woman?

And we're all on here talking about how he's being unfairly targeted.

[LittleBlue]

2. If he did rape her

Then the Swedish authorities should have no trouble interviewing him in the embassy, or guaranteeing him that he won't be extradited.

Keep in mind he isn't charged with rape. He's wanted for questioning. The Swedish authorities refused all offers of a compromise, they refuse any alternative other than him coming to Sweden without a guarantee of non-extradition. That's why there is the suggestion of a conspiracy: because there is no reasonable explanation for why they reject all compromise.

[jeff47]

5. Swedish law is not US law.

The US/UK legal system and the Swedish legal system do things differently.

Then the Swedish authorities should have no trouble interviewing him in the embassy, or guaranteeing him that he won't be extradited.

The "interview" you speak of is not an "interview" in the US/UK legal sense. It's the equivalent of getting a statement from a suspect immediately after his arrest. Or so says the courts in the UK.

So it's not "let's sit down and see what he has to say". It's "we're ready to arrest, but we talk to the suspect before putting the cuffs on."

As for a blanket no extradition, that's not exactly reasonable. The Swedish authorities have no idea if Assange is going to commit a crime while in Sweden that would normally cause extradition. I don't think Assange will, but the Swedish authorities can't assume he's a nice guy....after all, they are putting him on trial.

That's why there is the suggestion of a conspiracy: because there is no reasonable explanation for why they reject all compromise.

Only because those demanding compromise really don't understand much of the legal system beyond TV. There's the above-mentioned misunderstanding about what stage the case is in Sweden.

Then there's the problem that Assange hasn't broken any US laws, and is in fact protected by the first amendment. Manning can only be charged with a crime because he waived his first amendment rights regarding classified information in order to get his security clearance. Assange has not waived his rights.

Think of it this way: If the reporters for the New York Times couldn't be put in prison for the Pentagon Papers, neither can Assange.

And we'll now move on to the "US will come up with something to get him!!" stage of the discussion.....

[Phillip McCleod]

12. two words: bradley manning.

q.e.d.

[LittleBlue]

16. Yep

Jeff, like many, is a statist. He thinks that compromise cannot be had (not true, Swedish law does allow for interviews at embassies), he thinks that governments keep their word and obey the laws. He's just cited various laws after we've broken torture laws, imprisonment without trial laws, extrajudicial killing of American citizens, the IRS illegally targeting people for political leanings, etc.

He's going on about Swedish law and I can guarantee you he can't even read Swedish law, he's just parroting something he read.

Anyone who trusts this government is a fool. If Jeff were in Assange's situation, he wouldn't set a foot in Sweden.

[pnwmom]

26. Except their law requires that he be questioned in Sweden. nt

[mpgalloway]

3. His Crime is "Sex By Suprise" not rape..Get that straight!

Both women had consensual sex. His crime is for a torn condom.

The only time in Swedish history the law has been brought up.
Punishment is less than $4,000.00 and a few months in jail.

One girl admittedly works for the CIA and the other wants the charges dropped now.

Security surveillance posted on Assange is costing almost five million a year to the British taxpayers.

Manning & Assange are both Hero's.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. No, the claim is that he held the victim down after she wanted him to put on a condom.

And that he had sex with a sleeping woman.

And sexually assaulted another.

All of those constitute some form of rape.

[nlomb269]

6. Difficult call

It's all hearsay, that's the problem. They were the ones there and only they know the truth.
It used to be, that if the women consented in the first place, there's no case.

[jeff47]

8. Swedish law and US law are not the same on this subject.

Swedish law has a kind of rape that is essentially getting sex by lying.

My understanding is he said he'd use a condom, but did not. So he lied in order to get sex and thus ran afoul of this particular Swedish statute. Our legal system doesn't really have an equivalent charge.

[struggle4progress]

33. ... in November a Swedish court approved a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning relating to

one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape ...

9 October 2012 Last updated at 11:44 ET
Q&A: Julian Assange and the law

[struggle4progress]

36. "The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story"

– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne.
30-åriga kvinnan: Jag utsattes för övergrepp
Berättar om anklagelserna mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

[99th_Monkey]

7. Fair question, but as I understand it, the women involved never intended to file a complaint

and do not want charges brought against Assange for rape or for any other reason.
This certainly appears to be a classic "sexual smear" campaign, driven by Obama's
obsession with secrecy and determination to criminalize whistle-blowing.

I might be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

It's fascinating googling around about this, you find the darndist things:
like this: http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#CHRONOLOGY

Green carefully leaves out that neither of the complainants made allegations of rape against Julian Assange.

The language is phrased to omit mitigating details. Omitted are:
>The fact that the complainants did not visit the police to report a crime, but to get advice.
>The fact that the police "treated their visit as the filing of complaints."
>Green's language sanitizes the record of the involuntary nature in which the complaints were made. Interviews of witnesses confirm that neither complainant intended to report crimes. SW's police statement records how she terminated the interview when she discovered that the police were treating it as the filing of a formal report for rape. AA's police statement clearly states that the sex described was consensual. The investigation continues today in part because of the politician Claes Borgström, who intervened in the case to have himself assigned as state attorney to the complainants. He claims that whether AA and SW believe they were wronged is irrelevant, because neither of them is a lawyer. These and numerous other mitigating details abound. Green expunges them, in favour of slogans calling for "justice for the two women."

[jeff47]

9. If your quote were true, Assange would have already gone to Sweden

If the women did not wish to file a complaint, they would not testify against Assange, and the charges would be dismissed - can't make a case without the testimony of the women.

If the claim is evil Obama wants to extradite, then why on earth would he wait for Assange to get to Sweden? The UK would send Assange over with a gift bow stuck to his head if the US sought extradition from the UK. There is no logical reason to wait for Assange to get to Sweden.

But it makes for a lovely conspiracy theory to try and deflect the charges against him.

[99th_Monkey]

10. It all comes down to one thing at the end of the day

Who do you trust more? Do you trust Assange and what the 2 women actually involved
are on record as saying OR the US, UK and Swedish governments "official" statements.

Given what all is at stake, and Obama's atrocious record punishing whistleblowers,
I'm more inclined to trust the former, and you apparently trust the latter.

Is it time to agree to disagree yet?

[jeff47]

11. Nope. First it comes down to which story makes any sense

And the vast conspiracy to extradite Assange from Sweden, but not the UK, makes no sense.

If there were two stories that made sense, then we could debate who was more trustworthy. But we aren't in that situation.

Is it time to agree to disagree yet?

I'd think we're capable of discussing the issue without demanding we convince each other of anything.

[Phillip McCleod]

13. sweden is where the charges are.

once he's in custody then a grand jury indictment would be enough to extradite.

it's not a vast conspiracy.. just a regular-sized one. and old news.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228

[ucrdem]

17. No evidence whatsoever of an indictment.

Rumors of rumors in "leaked" Stratfor emails are somewhere between Alex Jones and David Icke on the credibility scale. Maybe lower.

"Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously"
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-them-seriously/253681/

[dreamnightwind]

18. Thanks for this link!

Veewwy intewesting...

[99th_Monkey]

24. +1000 n/t

[ucrdem]

15. "Obama's atrocious record punishing whistleblowers"?

What whistleblowers?

[GoneFishin]

19. Your kidding.

Right?

[Rise Rebel Resist]

22. the UK can't just hand him over

[struggle4progress]

35. "The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story"

– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne.
30-åriga kvinnan: Jag utsattes för övergrepp
Berättar om anklagelserna mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

[ucrdem]

14. "GCHQ is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act."

per the Guardian. So let's see: Assange is hiding in an embassy in the middle of London, practically next to the palace, and sends a polite note to the signals division of MI5, who, though not bound by any FOIA, obligingly send a packet of "instant messages that remained unclassified by GCHQ" to Julian, who then reads them over the air in one of his many broadcast interviews.

Are we really supposed to take this nonsense seriously?

[randome]

20. Instant messages that sound like idle gossip by low-level employees.

Not at all evidence of a cover-up.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ucrdem]

21. Well...

I was thinking more along the lines of total farce. UK intel has had a lot of practice pulling the wool over the eyes of gullible colonials and they are very good at it. Usually better than this.

[struggle4progress]

34. "It's more proof of a cover-up!"

[ucrdem]

37. Definitely a fit-up.

[Octafish]

23. Exposing war crimes is a crime.

That makes telling the truth a crime.

So, today there are no good cops. Only crooks.

[CJCRANE]

25. Leaking classified info is a crime. Sometimes leaking is done for good reasons

sometimes it's for bad reasons. It depends on the information, the motives and the repercussions.

I admire Julian Assange but I can understand why he might be in trouble with various governments.

[99th_Monkey]

28. Is it still a "crime" when the "leaking" is an inside job

i.e. "leaked" on purpose for some shadowy nefarious reasons.

It would seem that not all "leakers" are being treated equally.

[CJCRANE]

29. Of course it is.

That was one of the points I was trying to make.

[99th_Monkey]

30. Excellent!

Sorry if my question seemed obtuse. Just checking to be sure.

[CJCRANE]

31. Plus I think the media relies on too many "anonymous sources"...

They can change the whole newscycle just based on some unverified gossip that some unknown person said!

But they ignore mass movements like Occupy and mass demonstrations and all the other information that's out there in plain sight!

[Octafish]

32. Not if you're a journalist.

Check out the First Amendment, the press is the only business mentioned by name in the Constitution.

Everything else is sideshow.

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. So the whole AP thing has been a figment of our collective imagination?

And the guy from faux being named a co-conspirator as well?

[Octafish]

39. We must be talking about two different things, because I didn't say that.

I am writing about the press and democracy. The Obama administration is accelerating the erosion of civil liberties. Why that is, I don't know. I'd like to know, but there are few good reporters these days appeaing on Corporate McPravda willing to ask them.

Rememner Bush? Not one reporter was brave enough to ask him what he meant when he said, "Money trumps peace" at a press confetence.

[pnwmom]

27. It is "speculation and chatter"

much as people speculate and chatter here.

That doesn't carry any legal weight.