Julian Assange’s lawyers conspire to hide the truth about extraditions

Glenn Greenwald, Michael Ratner, Jennifer Robinson, Mark Stephens, Geoffrey Robertson and Per E. Samuelsson are all lawyers that have claimed that there is a great risk that Julian Assange will be extradited to the US from Sweden if he is extradited from the UK. I have asked Glenn Greenwald, Michael Ratner and Jennifer Robinson for any facts that support their claims. So far I have not received any. And that is not surprising. There aren’t any. The so called “risk of extradition” is nothing more than a fabrication. A lawyers conspiracy in an effort to gain public support. But in plain English it is nothing more than a series of silly lies.

In order to make a proper evaluation of what is true and real about the risk for an extradition there are some concepts that have to be understood.

  • “Utlämning“, Extradition – A person that is wanted by another state can be extradited after the case has been tried in court. If the Supreme Court (Högsta Domstolen) approves an extradition the government can stop an extradition. If the Supreme Court does not approve an extradition the government cannot extradite the person.
  • “Utvisning, deportering”, Expulsion, deportation – A person that is not wanted in the country can be expelled. For example unwanted diplomats or foreigners that have committed serious crimes can be expelled, deported.
  • “Avvisning”, Rejection – A person that lacks permission to enter the country will be denied access and sent back to his home country. Don’t know the proper term. In Swedish “avvisning”. The same applies for a person that has applied for political asylum or a residence permit and the application is denied. The person will be sent back to his home country.

Extraditions over the last 50 years

In the 60′s and 70′s more than 400 US soldiers fled to Sweden to avoid serving in the Vietnam war. All were granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds. It was regarded as an easier solution than to grant them political asylum because of the political situation. The US was at the time very interested in finding out what was going on in Sweden and attempts were made to infiltrate deserter associations. During this period some “deserters”, I’ve heard the number of six, were expelled since it was believed they were US agents. I do not know of any of the deserters that were extradited. I do not think that the US tried to have any deserters extradited since it is very clear that the treaty between Sweden and the US prevents extradition for political and military crimes.

In September of 1980 the war between Iraq and Iran started. During this period thousands from both countries fled to Sweden to avoid to serve in the war. I do not know of any extraditions from this group.

In August of 1992 the Swedish government refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, a CIA agent that had defected. Edward Lee Howard was suspected of having supplied the Soviet Unionen with information that had led to the murder of at least one person. What is most interesting with the refusal to extradite Edward Lee Howard is that the Prime Minister at the time was Carl Bildt. The same Carl Bildt that Julian Assange in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine labels a US Embassy informant:

The conventional wisdom – both in Sweden and the U.S. – is that you won’t be extradited. Why are you convinced you will?
Extradition is a political matter. The extradition treaties – those from the U.K. to the U.S. and from Sweden to the U.S. – are both very dangerous for me. Every day that I remain in England, it is dangerous, and if I am in Sweden, it will be at least as dangerous as it is here, and very probably more so. The Swedish foreign minister responsible for extradition, Carl Bildt, became a U.S. Embassy informant in 1973 when he was 24 years old. He lead a conservative leadership program, where he met Karl Rove. They became old friends and would go to conferences together and so on.

It is apparent that Julian Assange is extremely afraid of an extradition to the US. Phobic fear. But his fears does not make it more likely that he will be extradited. That Julian Assange has no knowledge of the rules for extradition is obvious from these clips:

“But in the end, the Swedish Government let him go. One reason: The treaty between the United States and Sweden does not recognize espionage as an extraditable offense.” New York Times 30 August 1992.

“He could not be extradited from Sweden to the United States because Swedish law regards espionage as a political crime.” Los Angeles Times 27 August 1992.

“Tuesday, some members of the administration expressed irritation at Sweden’s approach to the case, but others said their efforts to gain his custody were hobbled from the start by the bilateral treaty between the two countries that excludes espionage as an extraditable offense.”  Houston Chronicle Archives 26 August 1992.

On December 18 2001 two Egyptian citizens were denied political asylum in Sweden. They were sent back to Egypt, “avvisning”, on a flight operated by the CIA. The reason they were denied political asylum was because the were suspected of belonging to a terrorist organization according to the Swedish Secret Police, SÄPO. For more information about the case please check the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s investigation, UNCHRs investigation and Amnesty’s investigation.

During the last 50 years I do not know of anybody that is extradited from Sweden to the US for political or military crimes. (If you know of any case please tell me, I do not like to be in the wrong.) Spying is a political crime even though Julian Assange does not understand it:

Some people have said, “Look, both the United Kingdom and Sweden and many countries say that there is not to be extradition for political offenses.” But the United States government is not trying to indict me for a “political” offense – it is trying to indict me for espionage, or conspiracy to commit espionage, and computer hacking.

The Swedish rules for extradition are simple and straightforward. Sweden will not extradite a person that is suspected of a political or military crime. Spying is a political crime. There is no extradition to a country where the person is risking a death penalty or torture. The European Court of Human Rights will never approve of an extradition to a country where the suspects risks a death penalty. The US authorities are no clowns. They know it is futile to apply for an extradition in cases where there is no chance that extradition will be granted.

The rules for granting political asylum/residence permit are much more complicated. It is a lot easier to send somebody back to his home country (“avvisning”) than to grant an extradition. It is two completely separate processes even though Julian and his lawyers don’t seem to understand it. The case with the two Egyptians that were sent back to Egypt in December of 2001 on suspicions they were terrorists proves this point. Since it was an asylum case with suspicions of terrorism the Supreme Court was not involved. It was just a matter for the government.

Why does Julian Assange and his lawyers lie about the risk for extradition?

It is very easy to find out the rules for extradition to the US. To get a better understanding please read Karin Påle-Bartes comments from June 14 2012. Or read Mark Klamberg’s article from March 2012:

I wrote a post in December 2010 on the question whether Sweden could extradite or deport Assange to the USA for illegal espionage or similar crimes after the UK has extradited him to Sweden for a criminal investigation on rape. My answer at that time was that unless the UK issues a new decision specifically on espionage he cannot be extradited/deported to the USA pursuant to the principle of speciality (section 12(1) of the Extradition for Criminal Cases Act).

It is also very easy to find out Sweden’s history regarding extraditions to the US. If you want to find information on the CIA defector that was not extradited the the US you only have to enter three words at Google, “cia defector sweden”.

Why do I accuse Julian Assange and his lawyers to lie about extradition? Because of the simple reason I cannot possibly imagine that they are not aware of the rules governing extraditions or that they are not aware of Sweden’s track-record of extraditions. If Julian Assange and his lawyers are unaware of the case with the CIA defector (I know they lack expertise) they would, after they get this information immediately correct themselves and recommend Julian to crawl out of his closet at the Ecuadorian Embassy and immediately go to Sweden to be interviewed. Something that is most likely never going to happen.

How come so many “experts” are so way off on extradition?

I must say that I am very surprised that so many lawyers, diplomats, politicians … that have an opinion about this case are so very wrong. But I do think there is a simple explanation. It is very likely that one person with a reputation for being an expert commented on the case without having studied it properly. And then other “experts” just assume that the first expert had made a proper evaluation prior to making comments and just repeat what the first expert said. And the more experts that have commented the more people think it is the truth. “A conspiracy of ignorance”.

The reason for this happening is that experts are just like common people. Just lazy. And I have to add. Some are much more stupid than others.

Extra reading for those of you that are interested

Glenn Greenwald GGreenwald@salon.com is a former Constitutional and civil rights litigator and is the author of three New York Times Bestselling books. He has in made some ridiculous statements claimed that Julian Assange is in danger of being extradited from Sweden to the US.

“For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying. For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US.”

I’ve asked Glenn Greewald if he could name just one case where a person have been extradited from Sweden to the US in similar circumstances as Julian Assange. Glenn’s quickly pointed out the case with the two Egyptians from December 2001. I think it is remarkable that a person that has some legal education cannot discriminate between applications for political asylum and extradition. It shows Glenn Greenwald’s level of ignorance. Jeremy Duns has in a great article, “The perils of Googledemia”, shown Glenn Greenwald’s lack of knowledge.

Michael Ratner is President Emeritus for Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and president for European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) based in Berlin. In an interview at Democracy Now he talked at lenght about a likely  extradition about Julian Assange and that it was likely that Julian “Never to see the light of day again in my view as he’s going to Sweden”. As if an extradition was automatic upon Julian’s arrival to Sweden. It was evident that Michael Ratner does not have a clue about the procedures and Sweden’s track record of extraditions. And this is supposed to be the President of European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. It is time for Michael Ratner to resign. And if he doesn’t do that immediately he should be expelled.

Jennifer Robinson has also made a number of comments on the “risk of extradition”. But her comments are not as stupid as her male colleagues. Is this depending on the fact that her colleagues are men and that they believe if you talk convincingly people will trust you?

But Jennifer has made some other stupid remarks. She is saying that the verdict in the Supreme Court puts anybody in Europe at risk of being extradited if a prosecutor just says so. I don’t know what planet Jennifer is living on. She’s  not connected to earth. The real situation is this. In England a prosecutor has to ask a judge to issue an EAW. In Sweden a prosecutor has to ask a court to issue a detention order. And when a detention order is issued then the prosecutor can issue an EAW. As anybody except Jennifer (and probably the rest of Julian Assange’s lawyers) can understand under both English and Swedish procedures a true judicial authority have a say in the creation of an EAW.  I don’t know why Jennifer makes so silly comments. Maybe she is trying to prove that she is just as good as the men defending Julian.

Geoffrey Robertson, QC:
“Sweden has a deplorable record and this is quite – it’s been condemned by a number of European judicial authorities for what is called “rendition” to the CIA without going through a proper legal process.” 

From this quite one understand that  Geoffrey Robertson does not have a clue of what he is talking about. He does not understand the difference between political asylum procedures and extradition.

Mark Stephens, CBE:
“It is submitted that there is a real risk that, if extradited to Sweden, the US will seek his extradition and/or illegal rendition to the USA, where there will be a real risk of him being detained at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, in conditions which would breach Article 3 of the ECHR. Indeed, if Mr. Assange were rendered to the USA, without assurances that the death penalty would not be carried out, there is a real risk that he could be made subject to the death penalty.”

I don’t know what information that Mark Stephens has that makes him seriously believe that Julian would be extradited and and end up in Guantamo. Mark must have a vivid fantasy on par with Julian’s. Why doesn’t Mark believe that there is great risk that Julian, if he is extradited to Sweden, will risk being strangled by a one legged green sumo wrestler with a leopard skin pillbox hat. That is just as likely.

Per E Samuelsson is of the opinion that Julian Assange is in greater danger of being extradited to the US from Sweden than he is form the UK. How he has come to this conclusion is not revealed. Maybe Per E. hears voices too.

– According to information I have received. I cannot talk about this, I prefer not to debate this in the public light.

It would be most interesting to examine the “information” Per E. has. I understand why he prefers not to talk about it in broad daylight. The “informationen” will probably disappear in daylight. Just like other trolls.

The film maker Michael Moore is one of Julian Assange supporters and is one that raised money for his bail. He’s also been involved in writing a letter to President Correa where he and some 4 000 more or less known people have expressed their religious beliefs:

“We believe Mr. Assange has good reason to fear extradition to Sweden, as there is a strong likelihood that once in Sweden, he would be imprisoned, and then likely extradited to the United States.”

What the foundation is for Michael Moore’s beliefs would be interesting to know. And what about walking on water. And eating bananas with a group of ……..

There is not room enough to mention everything that Julian Assange has said about extradition. That he is scared stiff is well known. And it does not help that he surrounds himself with a flock of banana-eating lawyers that are just as scared as he is.

For almost two years I have been following the case. What surprises me the most is how Julian over time is changing his story. What was true yesterday is not true today. Julian’s explanations for his actions change over time. It really makes me wonder. Can he tell reality from fantasy? Why does he change his story all the time? And what is it that makes him believe that he can go on like this and think that people will continue to believe him?

Courage is not the lack of fear but the ability to face it.

 

 

21 thoughts on “Julian Assange’s lawyers conspire to hide the truth about extraditions

  1. “True” WikiLeaks supporters do not believe anything that contradicts the twitter feed, much less Rixstep or Sweden versus Assange or “the Professor” — regardless of the law, rules will be broken, legal precedents tossed aside and official policies ignored in the case of Assange. 

    The victimization (and likely martyrdom) of Julian Assange seems near-totally accepted by many Wikileak supporters.  Forget radical transparency, forget the submission platform, forget the lost “leaks”, forget Israel Shamir and/or the kind folks who have or may lose real money for having posted his bond.  Actually, minus a submission platform, you can pretty much forget WikiLeaks. AFAICT, from what Julian said, a new internet submission platform may no longer be technically feasible given the advanced surveillance enacted in the last few years.  So, truly, it’s pretty much all about Julian.

    You can ignore that the Wikileaks we all considered our “great hope” has been virtually dead in the water since September 2010 — since DDB decamped, stole the files and the submission platform. It’s not difficult to overlook that WikiLeaks’ publishing has been largely confined to releasing materials that were already in in the pipeline (the Embassy Cables) or materials gained by hackers (Strafor/Syrian emails).  One must not suggest that there might be difference between “whistleblowing” and hacking e-mail accounts and/or other data dumps.

    Any question of where Wikileaks is currently or where it might be going (much less where it has been) is met with admonitions not to provide fodder for critics or foster doubts and, of course,  accusations of disloyalty. One might have thought (I did) that Julian Assange, champion of internet freedom and transparency and whistleblowers, would be eager to face his accusers … not unlike the defendents in other political trials. Today’s heroes have no need to act heroically. Assange’s past “sacrifices” in the cause of Wikileaks suffice to justify some dispensation in this.  While ridiculing the misplaced loyalty of Obama’s supporters, somehow, many self-identified Wikileak’s supporters ascribe an an oddly similar unquestioning infallibility to Assange — if he is doing it, it must be good, righteous, because he is a good and righteous man.

    To be clear, having holed up in the Equadorian embassy and requested asylum, I would like nothing better than that Assange’s asylum and safe passage be granted/arranged.  That “cooperating with authorities” bridge has been burnt. That was then, this is now.  If successful, however, he will have to passively watch history be made at some point in the future when the Espionage Act is invoked in American courts to charge publishers with treason, much as he has had to passively watch Bradley Manning these last 2 years.  Not so much much, “there but for fortune”, rather “better you than me,” apparently.

    At the Zizek/Assange confab June 2011, I was profoundly struck by how little Assange had to say on the subject of transparency or internet freedom, despite having a full house of people willing and able to pay 50 pounds for their seats. My impression was that he was “over” Wikileaks, except for such financially necessary “command performances.”

    Finally, I am disturbed by the fatalism that greets this presumed “conspiracy” against which — apparently — we are helpless to act.  Are we hopeless a well?  If only a leader would appear … oh wait….  too bad.  Transparency and whistleblowing are taking a back seat, seemingly, to the inexorable “unfairness” of all this. 

    I certainly hope the WikiLeaks crowd will rally when that court date comes, but perhaps they will have washed their hands (and all hope) wrt to the United States, even as American policies, unfortunately tend to lead to global  policies … wrt press freedoms, encryption, etc.  I hope they show up, even if Julian is safe and sound in Quito. I wish Julian all the best, wish him a long and happy life in freedom, but for the rest of us, there’s work to do. 

  2. *The rules for granting political asylum/residence permit are much more
    complicated. It is a easier to send somebody back to his home country
    (“avvisning”) than to grant an extradition.

    -Tror det fattas ett “lot” eller är ett “a” för mycket, It is a lot easier to… bra skrivet annars, gillar kanske inte att du övergår från formell ton till att prata bananer då blir du likadan som de på “andra” sidan, men bra f ö.

    • Tack för din rättelse. Ibland blir det helt enkelt fel.

      Håller med dig om bananresonemanget. Men jag är innerligt trött på samma felaktigheter som upprepas om och om igen. Och igen och igen. Det är den enkla förklaringen. Säger inte att det håller.

  3. Why JA decided to seek asylum: 

     

    Speaking from the embassy by phone, Mr Assange said he became suspicious when the Swedish government publicly announced it would detain him “without charge in prison under severe conditions”.

    What happened next made him believe he may soon be taken into custody.

    “On the same evening, the UK government security contractors that maintained the electronic manacle around my leg turned up unannounced at 10.30pm and insisted on fitting another manacle to my leg, saying that this was part of routine maintenance, which did not sound to be credible,” he said.

    Mr Assange said the following day the security contractor “filed a section nine bail breach against me” in that “my bail would be revoked and they did so under the basis that we refused to let them in at 10.30pm unannounced”.

    Later that day Mr Assange said he feared his last avenue of appeal was about to be terminated by the British crown prosecution service.

    “Acting, we believe, on behalf of the Swedish government, (they) requested that the 14 days that I had to apply to the European court of human rights be reduced to zero.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/julian-assange-four-corners/4148700?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    I  wish I knew what the fine print in the bail/monitoring agreement said about making himself available to the monitoring company. Unfortunately, again, there is a “leaping to conclusion” that might or might not seem “paranoid” or “overblown.” There is, however, no mention of having sought the advice of counsel.

     

    • You have some interesting points. Firstly the Swedish prosecution issued a statement on June 14 regarding the case. The planned detention would be the “softest” possible. The reason was Julian would only be detained because there was a fear that he would flee (a well-founded fear). Very far from what Julian and his lawyers argued in the first extradition hearing February 7-8 2011 when they talked about being detained “in communicado”. Julian’s interpretation of the statement on June 14 is proof of bad knowledge in Swedish and Swedish legal procedures.

      The Supreme Court, in their decision on June 14, gave Julian an extra 14 (fourteen) days to prepare an appeal to the ECHR. Julian had until June 28 to prepare an appeal. It was decided that Julian could be extradited on July 7. That is 10 (ten) days after June 28. The CPS/Swedish prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to treat Julian’s extradition as a normal extradition. That is having just 10 (ten) days to make an appeal to the ECHR.

      Julian’s “interpretation” of what was happening came out of his own imagination. “You know something is happening, but You don’t know what it is, Do You Mr Jones? And his imagined fears were so strong that he thought it was a good idea to step into the Ecuadorian Embassy. Unfortunately this is not the only mistake Julian has made. There is a very long series of mistakes starting from August 21 2010. And I don’t think this was Julian’s last bad judgment.

  4. JA`s lawyers argued against the “incommunicado” detention because thats what the Swedish prosecutor initially promised him in 2010. Please stick to ALL relevant facts. U make it look like his lawyers made that prospect up when they were simply quoting the opposition.

  5. What u left out is the claim that the crown prosecution service allegedly attempted to reduce his appeal time to the ECHR to zero after he refused to let the security guys in at 10:30 pm. Do u have any evidence that these claims are false? If so please present them.

     

    PS: I am not defending his decision to refuse to let them change the tag at this late hour as I have no knowledge about the arrangement with this security firm who is responsible for checking on it.

    • It is a lot better if you stick to facts. Your statement is false. The SC on May 30 gave Julian 14 days to appeal the May 30 decision. On the 14th June SC rejected the appeal and gave Julian 14 (fourteen) extra days to appeal to the ECHR plus the 10 mandatory days. That meant that Julian had 24 days to appeal. More than double what normal people get.

      Most of us, including the CPS, thought it strange that Julian should get extra favorable treatment. So CPS asked for removal of the 14 extra days. This made Julian panic. Now he is lying about the proposition to remove the 14 extra days. And you,as so many times before, believe him.

  6. While ur entitled to your opinion Göran I find it strange how a lay person like u ridicules lawyers who are experts in this field. That is more than a bit rude.

    U make it sound like it was totally impossible that Sweden would extradite JA to the US. Ur words in God`s ear-since many people wished u were right-reality is that the US has expressed great interest in bringing every1 involved in the WL leak exposure “to justice”…whatever that means. I also haven`t seen u admitting the existence of a Grand Jury that investigates this case in connection to violations of the espionage act (conspiracy+computer crime laws). Why is that? It appears u sellectively pick and choose the facts that support ur pov while u ignore those that don`t…

    PS: U say there haven`t been any comparable cases and ur right. Fact is this is the biggest US leaks scandal there was-at least when it comes to quantity. Sweden`s excellent relations to the US and the fact that several senior politcal figures incl. the SW FM have spoken out against JA -suggests that he will most likely not have a supporter in the Swedish government once the US issues an extr.request….

  7. At last but not least JA entered the Ecuadorian embassy on June 19 several days BEFORE his appeal time had ended. He claimed that the crown prosecution service intended to scrap his possibilty to appeal to the ECHR after an alleged bail violation BEFORE he entered the building and therefore BEFORE June 28 or his possible extr. date on July 7 in case he didn`t appeal..

  8. Since when do u work for the crown prosecution service? I find it curious that u claim to know why they tried to have the 14 extra appeal days removed. Please provide links that back up ur story+proves that the claim that the security company noted a bail violation is false.

    PS: Ur assumption that u alone as a lay person are the only one who was graced with enlightening while everyone else is a fool who gets it wrong makes u appear more then a bit arrogant. Actually its a MASSIVE turnaround from the beginning when u NAMED the accusers-which ur friend @braingarbage sees as a r.ape shield violation (at least if other people do that) and when u claimed that AA made up her story. Haven`t heard u repeat that lately. I guess that wdn`t sit to well with @braingarbage….

    • I work for CPS, CIA, SÄPO, FBI and endless two, three and four-letter abbreviations. We are in a conspiracy to get Julian Assange like so many other except for you and Rafael Correa.

      Julian got special treatment from the SC. Anybody can see that. I am not 100% sure that CPS argued just that but that is the most likely argument.

      There are many fools in this case. And do you know what is even worse? The last fool is not born yet. And there is no turnaround. If you want me to I can prove it to you. It is just that you don’t know about it. I still claim that AA made up her story. That you haven’t heard it or read has to do with your ears and eyes. Has nothing to with me not saying so.

  9. Being rude again? Why am I not surprised. PS: I said I haven`t seen u REPEATING it lately NOT that u never said it in the first place. Too bad that ur reading comprehension is below zero.

    PS: and yes ur current massive and constant attacks on WL ARE a turnaround from ur former support.

    • Sometimes I make mistakes. Left out one word in my last comment, LATELY. The last comment should read:
      “I still claim that AA made up her story. That you haven’t heard it or read LATELY has to do with your ears and eyes. Has nothing to with me not saying so.” As late as on June 26 2012 I wrote it.

      You write “yes ur current massive and constant attacks on WL ARE a turnaround from ur former support.” I do not know what it is that makes you make up facts. Have you always been like that? In my witness statement from February 2011, paragraph two, it reads:
      “I should add that I am by no means a supporter of WikiLeaks or Julian Assange (I am critical of their work) and I have no connection with or liking of Mr Assange.”

      In many posts on my blog I comment on the fact that Julian and his lawyers lie and misrepresent facts. On 18 December 2010 and on 25 January 2011.

      It is evident that you make up facts and misrepresent facts just like Julian and his lawyers. That is disturbing. You write comments based on your made up facts. And you ask of me to be nice to you when it is obvious that you can’t read and think. To say that you behave like a stupid person is not being rude. It is a statement of fact. But you don’t have to behave like a stupid person forever. I do believe you can behave intelligently. Why not start to read my witness statement. And then confess that you made up the fact that I am a WL supporter. Is that too much to ask for?

  10. PS: Whenever somenody challanges and contradicts your view u answer with personal attacks. Is that a bad habit u picked up lately or just a sign of desperation b/c u ran out of arguments?

    PPS: Ur rude answers are quite telling to the few that still read your blog.

  11. Goran, I’m confused, are you saying that the request to remove the additional 14 days in which to file an appeal was unrelated and merely coincidental to the refusal to present himself to the monitoring company (who arrived unannounced at 1030 p.m.)?

    There has been no followup of any kind on the monitoring anklet incident — either why they arrived unannounced so late at night (if that’s what happened) or whether “cooperation” with the monitoring was a bail condition (likely, imho).

    • I’ll try to explain what has happened as I understand it. There is no connection between the two events in the real world. Just in Julian’s mind.

      The Supreme Court in its decision on June 14 gave Julian Assange an additional 14 days to the 10 days he is allowed by law. The SC was very kind to Julian. He was given special treatment.

      The CPS asked the SC to take away the extra 14 days. I assume (my assumption) the CPS thought Julian was given favorable treatment. That is against the idea that we all should be equals to the law. If I was the CPS I could not understand why Julian should be given 14 extra days to appeal to the ECHR. The Supreme Court was not given time to respond to the request.

      Second event. There is a company that is responsible for Julian’s ankle bracelet. As it seems the bracelet had communicated “low battery level”. The company went to the address at a time where Julian according to his bail conditions should be to fit a new bracelet. Nothing more to it. They do not have to announce in advance their arrival.

      If there is some kind of foul play, which there isn’t, there has to be a long chain of events. Firstly someone has to ask for the removal of the 14 days. Then someone has to convince the company that is responsible for Julian’s bracelet to go out to his house and fit a new bracelet. Then the new bracelet has to be of some very special kind that is doing harm to Julian (what that harm could be we have no idea) in such a way that he could not walk and get into the Ecuadorian Embassy. Fantasy stuff from people living in fantasy land.

      If the UK authorities wanted Julian to be arrested they would have gone to the address at a time where Julian should be according to his bail conditions and arrested him. End of story.

      What do we see here? Another example that Julian is paranoid. Julian makes a connection between the two events even though there isn’t one. The the reason we see nothing more of this story is there is nothing to it.

  12. “Julian makes a connection between the two events even though there isn’t one.” Hm I would say thats your friend`s @braingarbage favourite hobby: to draw connections were there are none.

    PS: U base your post on mere ASSUMPTIONS. Again u have no knowledge about why if at all the CPS applied to have the 14 extra days removed. All u can do is speculate. Don`t try to sell that speculation as fact.

    PPS: Not every bail violation leads to immediate arrest.

    BTW u seem to think you are not just an expert on Swedish s.ex laws but also an expert on extradition and bail. Reality is that you are not. End of story.

     

  13. Pingback: Checking Naomi Wolf’s 8 big problems in the Assange case and coming up empty | Samtycke.nu in English

  14. Pingback: Naomi Wolf’s 8 problems with the case against Assange: A rebuttal :: News From Underground

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>