Julian Assange: Hunted by America's Violent Empire

[sabrina 1]

140. He is an editor and publisher of an International News Organization.

I don't recall either he or anyone else claiming he was engaged in Civil Disobedience. He is engaged in Journalism. Now I understand that being a real Journalist who actually publishes inconvenient truths is a dangerous enough profession these days. See the Al Jazeera Journalists targeted and killed in Iraq by the Bush gang eg, and their headquarters in both Iraq and Afghanistan also bombed.

See Ashley Banfield when she made a few comments at a relatively obscure event about what she actually saw in Afghanistan 'after the bombs fell' and what she was allowed to say on the Air as an 'embedded journalist'. They destroyed her career.

And see what was done to Dan Rather when he exposed the fact that Bush far from being a hero, went AWOL even from his safe position in the NG during the Vietnam War.

So, being targeted as a Journalist is entirely different from engaging in Civil Disobedience. Journalists publishing the truth are not supposed to be viewed as breaking any laws for the purpose of drawing attention to some injustice. They are doing a perfectly legal job.

That aside, and it does become exhausting having to constantly provide the facts regarding this case, Assange DID 'face the music' as it were, while in Sweden. He went voluntarily to the police where he was interviewed and spent more than three weeks attempting to speak to the prosecutor who consistently refused to meet with him, and then told he was free to leave.

Even after leaving he remained available to her and she continued to refuse to speak to him. She made some false claims regarding her reasons for these refusals, all of them debunked at this point. He is still available to speak to her. There is no legal impediment preventing her over the past two, going on three years, from speaking to him in London.

If she has a case, FILE IT. But as even the women's own patriarchal, politically connected attorney has admitted, 'we have a very weak case' And that was before they altered the original testimony which did not involve sexual assault charges, and in fact was dismissed by a Sr. Prosecutor.

After stalling and prevaricating for this long, unprecedented in a case like this, people are of the opinion she does not want to file to charges because there is no case.

This is not just based on the Prosecutor's constant refusals to move this case along, but on the evidence, especially the mountain of exculpatory evidence, itself.

I don't know what you mean by 'he needs to face his accusers' therefore, it appears to be the other way around, they do not want to face him. Or at least those who intervened in this case.

A CIA memo was obtained by Wikileaks shortly before these allegations occurred. They posted it on their website at the time. It was a discussion between agents on 'how to get Assange'. They settled on 'getting him involved in a Sex Scandal'.

I read that when it appeared on their site and was not surprised frankly. As the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan said after he resigned his position because of the crimes being committed by the dictator there and being ignored by his Country, 'they did the same thing to me, they tried to smear my name'.

IF they have a case, going on three years without filing it, raises obvious questions. There is NO ONE to blame for the lack of charges in this situation, BUT the Swedish Prosecutors. Assange has always been available to them.