Julian Assange faces judge as WikiLeaks supporters flock to court

[Catherina]

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot moderator Democratic Underground)

Julian Assange faces judge as WikiLeaks supporters flock to court

Elizabeth Renzetti
London— The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, Dec. 07, 2010 5:25AM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Dec. 07, 2010 1:23PM EST


As he listened to words alternately humiliating and heartening – talk of his “naked, erect penis” followed by rousing testimonials from famous supporters – the expression on Julian Assange’s face remained impassive. Even as he was led away by two guards after being refused bail and discovering he’d have to remain in custody until his next court appearance on Dec. 14, there was barely a flicker of emotion on his now-famous face.

The founder of WikiLeaks appeared in Courtroom 1 of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London for a hearing related to four sex offences lodged against him in Sweden. Mr. Assange turned himself in to police in London this morning after Sweden had issued an international warrant for his arrest. Mr. Assange surrendered his passport to police, but refused to give a photograph, fingerprints or a DNA sample.

...

Among those offering guarantees of £20,000 each were filmmaker Ken Loach; Jemima Khan, British socialite and ex-girlfriend of Hugh Grant; and crusading journalist John Pilger, who outside the courtroom decried the “outrageous” decision to deny Mr. Assange bail. Each of the supporters (a sixth was not named in court) stood up to say they were supporting Mr. Assange because his work was an important defence of human rights.

Not heard in the courtroom – except through the allegations they made about sexual encounters in Stockholm in mid-August – were the two women whose complaints led to the charges against Mr. Assange.

....
(snip)
...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/julian-assange-faces-judge-as-wikileaks-supporters-flock-to-court/article1827668/

[Desertrose]

1. The whole world is a circus and this is the latest main event.

It's all gonna blow....and it needs to.


Too many lies. Thank goodness some people still have the courage to expose them.

[arikara]

5. I keep waiting for it to happen

Interesting times indeed.

Are you keeping well DR?

:loveya:

[Desertrose]

16. I am hanging in for the most part....

and you dear arikara? :hug:

Yes indeed...very "interesting".

[arikara]

18. Hanging in as well

far too busy though. I cant get over how time is flying past.

[TygrBright]

2. Interesting. I think we will see flash mobs on Dec. 14th

I can only hope that no one is stupid enough to engage in provocateurship.

prognosticatorially,
Bright

[snagglepuss]

3. What a travesty . Just exactly when will he get to see the evidence against him?

I cannot comprend anyone who isn't outraged by this.

[TorchTheWitch]

22. that's for a trial

When does the public ever get to see the evidence in ANY case? And in a case like this where it's the word of the two women against his word what evidence IS there? It's a classic he said/she said case. That's what makes most rape cases so damn difficult - lack of evidence as to consent. It's no wonder so many women who have been sexually abused by some guy that thinks anything goes even when they're told to stop don't even bother going to the police. And no wonder there are so many guys that think they can do anything they want with a women who agrees to have sex with them ignoring any stipulations and continuing when told to stop or even inflicts themselves on some women that never agreed to have sex with him because she's passed out or asleep or otherwise rendered unable to give consent... nothing ever happens to them.

What is so outrageous is anyone completely disbelieving even the possibility that this is what happened and that he may actually be guilty. Nobody here even KNOWS the guy at all yet are dead certain that there is not even the slightest possibility that he may actually be guilty and for no other reason than they like what he does with Wikileaks. THAT is what is so outrageous.

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. Are you forgetting the fact that these charges had already been dropped once as unfounded?

:shrug:

[louis-t]

4. Can't wait for Boner, et al, to start screaming for

extradition to U.S. Wait for it.....

[Matariki]

9. I rather expect he'll be visited in his jail cell. Now that they have him.

It's a damn sad world sometimes.

[msanthrope]

6. He had sex with a sleeping woman? Held the other one down?

Dude.

That's rape.

[BonnieJW]

7. Allegedly, Dude.

[msanthrope]

8. Yes. Allegedly. But those are fairly serious allegations. He does have to answer

them, as anyone else would.

[Matariki]

10. Yeah and one of the women has been shown to have CIA ties.

So, what are you going to believe.

[msanthrope]

12. CIA ties? Jeebus, Kate Harding hardly broke a sweat debunking that one....

"1) She's published "anti-Castro diatribes" in a Swedish-language publication that, according to an Oslo professor, Michael Seltzer (who?), is "connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner," who reportedly has CIA ties. Let me repeat that: She has been published in a journal that is connected with a group that is led by a guy with CIA ties. Says this one guy.

2) "In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter." That link goes to an English translation of a Spanish article noting that at a march last spring, Posada "wander unleashed and un-vaccinated along Calle Ocho in Miami, marching alongside" -- wait for it -- "Gloria Estefan in support of the so-called Ladies in White." Apparently, it's "an established fact" that Posada and The Ladies also share a shady benefactor, which means he should clearly be called a "friend" of the organization, and this is totally relevant to the rape charges against Julian Assange, because the accuser once interacted with them in some manner."

http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared

Watching the left smear an alleged rape victim isn't going to be pretty.....


Oh--and in post 15,I detail how the accusations of her supposed CIA ties came from a writer known in Sweden for conspiracy theories--among them, that Jews in the WTC all got text messages, telling them to leave....

[EFerrari]

20. Harding would have done better to break a sweat and get it right.

Anna Ardin was deported by Cuba for her association with the Ladies in White.

And anyone who reads her blog for more than 30 seconds can see she is clearly no feminist. And no feminist would leak the story of her rape to a right wing tabloid.

Good effing grief.

[msanthrope]

25. She gets it perfectly, your goalpost moving aside--

Deportation from Cuba--and the only source you have on that is Shamir--is hardly a sign of being a right-winger. I mean, you have heard of the Black Spring? Were THOSE 75 journalists and their wives all CIA-rightwing plants?

Do you really think that support of Castro marks you as a progressive? You should be supporting the dissidents imprisoned for nothing more than critique of their government. You should be supporting their wives and mothers.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/cuba-urged-revoke-repressive-laws-and-release-prisoners-conscience-2010-03-17

Not everyone on the left is foolish enough support Castro, and a regime where the freedoms of speech and press are denied to citizens. As for the Ladies in White, if they ARE getting CIA money, (and you don't have a single credible source for that claim)then good for them--their journalist husbands were/are unjustly imprisoned and the European Union rightfully gave them the Sakharov award. The Committee to Protect Journalists recently published an article on journalists released from jail and deported by Castro--these journalists, and their wives--the Ladies in White--are HARDLY rightwingers.

http://cpj.org/reports/2008/03/cuba-press-crackdown.php

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/cubas-ladies-white-risk-beatings-and-intimidation-2010-03-18

As for Ardin being a feminist or not--what does that have to do with her being raped? Does this mean she is free to be raped by men of the 'appropriate' political stripe?

The source of all of your accusations is Israel Shamir (who also goes by the name Joren Jermas)--a 'truther' who has stated that Jews in the WTC all got texts warning them to leave on the morning of 9/11. You should read up on Mr. Shamir--for all of your accusations regarding Ms. Ardin, I find it supremely ironic you take the word of well-known fascist and anti-Semite--a defender of Stalin fer chrissakes--and run with it, breathlessly.

Again, you might want to spend a few seconds reading up on Mr. Shamir's other conspiracy theories before fronting this one.

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=6

http://www.marxist.com/defence-marxism-israel-shamir1.htm

[EFerrari]

26. What a terrible hash you have going there.

Ardin's deportation wasn't mentioned by Harding because she can't dispute it. Your material on Mr. Shamir is very nice but he isn't named as the source by Guy Rundle in his "The Man Who Played with Fire" article and Rundle is no hack.

As far as those women who cynically stole the image and name of Las madres de la plaza de mayo, they are a State Department front group and they have been disowned by the actual, original Ladies in White.

It's always fun to see what you string together, misanthrope.

[msanthrope]

29. Dude--get your sources right--

When Rundle wrote--

"The milieu of hackerdom is not without its conspiracy enthusiasts, who pointed to her stint in the Washington DC branch of the Swedish foreign service, that she had been deported from Cuba for working with the US-backed dissident group The Women in White, and that her close cousin Mattias Ardin is a lieutenant-colonel in Afghanistan."

he was referring to the Shamir/Bennett article from earlier that month that detailed those allegations. Note he mentions Shamir later in his article, as a source....

"Expressen is right-wing, and has long been opposed to Sweden's policy of armed neutrality, advocating closer ties with the US. According to journalist Israel Shamir, the US threatened to cease sharing intelligence with SEPO, the Swedish secret service, should Assange get residency and be protected under its media shield laws - laws that would specifically frustrate any attempt to extradite Assange to the US."
http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-man-who-played-with-fire-20100925-15rof.html

You do realize that all of this CIA nonsense is based on the Shamir/Bennett article from September, do you not? The OP links to it.

Again, I find it supremely ironic that DUers-

1) repeat a rumor started by an anti-Semite who claimed that Jews in the WTC were given warning texts to get out--
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=6

2) defend the actions of the Cuban government in the Black Spring, adopting the meme that the wives and mothers of jailed dissidents are CIA fronts....

I hope Assange is worth it. I eagerly await the supposed Illuminati-Bilderberger links of the second rape victim....or are we conveniently forgetting the woman who accused Assange of pinning her down?

[Catherina]

11. Sigh. You believe this CIA nonsense?

neither of the women's police statements "complain of rape."

"But then neither complained to the police but rather 'sought advice,' a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid just punishment for making false complaints," Catlin alleges.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/sweden-assange-sex-without-condom/

Note: The Brotherhood Movement (“Socialdemokrat-Brödraskapet”) is a right wing political Christian organization. Anna Ardin is its political secretary and press officer. This rightwinger passing herself off as a Leftist is also a CIA asset

One of the women who filed charges against Julian Assange is Anna Ardin. She stood in the elections to the community council for the social democrats and she is a public person who should be examined. So I'll publish her name.

Anna Ardin is christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion on the left political scene. She's previously been in charge of equality issues for the student union of Uppsala University - a job she won an award for. Today she works for the Brotherhood Movement and 'burns for peace and justice... for a just, open society of solidarity'. On her own blog she describes herself:

'A political scientist, communicator, entrepreneur, and freelance writer with special knowledge within faith and politics, gender equality issues, feminism, and Latin America.'

On Saturday 14 August at 14:00 she wrote the following on her Twitter account.

'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'

Early on the morning of Sunday 15 August (02:00) she writes again at Twitter.

'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb'

When Anna Ardin files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets are removed. Why? As far as I can tell, it's not common for victims of crime to delete blogs, clean up their cellphones, and try to get witnesses to attest to things that aren't true. Why is it so important to remove these particular tweets?

If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night towards 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that Anna really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can't divine in the tweets that Anna Ardin thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by Ardin to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match Anna's story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them.

Proof That Anna Ardin Is Hiding the Truth

In the beginning of September, I note that Anna Ardin has two identical 'miniblogs' - one at Twitter and the other at Bloggy.se. It looks as if Anna Ardin's tweets are posted to both blogs at the same time. The tweets that are deleted from Twitter are still visible at annaardin.bloggy.se. Anna missed the fact that she has to delete on each and every blog. Bad luck.

To see if Anna Ardin is really trying to hide her Twitter tweets, I post a comment to Sara Gunnerud's article WikiLeaks Heroes Can Also Do Stupid Things. The article is published at the Rebella blog, a social democratic feminist blog where Anna Ardin contributes and runs the website. In my comment I mention the deleted Twitter tweets. After five days, on 13 September, my comment is reviewed and removed directly. I then post a new comment where I mention that one can read the deleted Tweets at annaardin.bloggy.se. My comment is removed directly. A few hours later the entire Bloggy.se site is taken offline. When Bloggy.se reopens at 04:00 in the morning of 14 September, the tweets deleted from Twitter are also deleted from annaardin.bloggy.se.

But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet as Anna Ardin thinks. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches. If you search for the cached page for annaardin.bloggy.se you can see what it looked like on 19 August. (If the cache disappears, click here.) Then you can compare the page with how annaardin.bloggy.se and twitter.com/annaardin look.

As we can see, Anna Ardin is doing all she can to hide her tweets. Tweets that indicate Julian Assange is actually innocent of at least the charge of 'molestation' that he's been accused of. It looks like Anna Ardin is doing all she can to get Julian Assange convicted. By deleting and denying acquitting circumstances, she's perhaps making herself guilty of false accusation.

...

http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml

[msanthrope]

15. Um, the CIA accusations came from the same guy who said all Jews in the WTC got texts telling them

to leave before the planes hit....

Your first link referenced the Counterpunch article on these supposed CIA ties....

Now, this article was written by Israel SHamir and Paul Bennett.

Are you actually going to believe a single thing Israel Shamir writes about anyone???? Google the name Joren Jermas (that's the name Israel likes to go by, sometimes...)


"Jermas/Shamir himself is no stranger to conspiracy theories. When he visited Norway in 2001, he made the laughable claim in the mainstream newspaper Adresseavisa that many Jews received text messages warning them to get out of the World Trade Centre in New York before the terror attacks of 11 September."

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=6

[krabigirl]

24. allegedly, and these women chased him down. one tweeted about him after.

freaks.

[NashVegas]

44. Shhhhh, Don't Go Confusing Her With Facts

[NashVegas]

43. Not In the US Court System

[glinda]

13. K & R

[TexasObserver]

14. The lesson from the Powers That Be: This is what we can do.

That's what this charade is all about. On the flimiest of excuses, they get a pawn state to advance charges, then treat those charges as if they're world shaking charges. No other such charge would even get a passing glance by authorities in other countries.

This is about showing the world that they can create criminal charges out of nothing, can make those charges be pursued ridiculously throughout the world, and seize anyone who dares to violate their hegemony in this world.

This is the most dramatic stand of one man against the evil forces of the world in my lifetime. I feel for him and his family. He's in the control of evil, evil people.

[Heywood J]

17. Wait a minute.

I've read so far that he's been accused of three things:
1) Having sex without a condom
2) Having sex where the condom broke and not telling his partner
3) Having sex where the condom broke and continuing over the objections of his partner after it was found to be broken.

By definition, no more than one of these can be true. Either he was wearing a condom (2 and 3), or he wasn't (1). If he was, either his partner didn't know it broke (2), or she knew about it to ask him to stop (3). The story seems to change every time it sees the light of day.

The phrase "violating her sexual integrity" seems quite meaningless. Using those words, any male who's ever had sex with a virgin would have a problem. "Improperly exploited the fact she was asleep" implies there is a proper and legal way to exploit a sleeping person. Calling a lack of condom use "sexual molestation" trivializes real molestation and makes it sound like all parents should be facing criminal charges.

This seems quite the poorly written legal proceeding and his lawyer should have a field day. If they have evidence of rape, then swear out a warrant that isn't for questioning. The obvious issues of political censorship aside, this case should be a lesson to all future prosecutors about preparing warrants, ensuring I's and T's are taken care of, and dealing with the press.

[sabrina 1]

19. Those women are lying. And unfortunately for them,

even though they tried to delete their tweets which were made AFTER the alleged 'rape', they could not. Those tweets clearly show that Ann Ardin was very happy after the night she is now claiming to have been abused.

These are made-up charges, there is no doubt about it. The lawyer who stepped into this case, even AFTER the woman, Ann Ardin, stated that there was no rape, has a record in Sweden of wanting to pass laws that state that 'the victim doesn't get to say whether or not she was raped, the government does'.

He has not been successful in getting those laws passed, but he is attempting to try Assange under laws that do not exist.

Reading the comments on blogs from all over the world, no one, except the fringes from the right, believe a word of this, especially since so many people have followed it from the beginning, and people in Sweden who know those now involved had already provided evidence, tweets, blog posts etc. proving that Ann Ardin was a very happy woman right after the night in question. Only after the story made the news, did she or someone else try to delete the evidence.

He is being rail-roaded, nothing could be more clear.

[EFerrari]

21. Here's a link to a discussion of her tweets for people who haven't seen it.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1281027/pg1

[TorchTheWitch]

27. or Assange is lying

You and no one else is in any position to know what happened between these two women and Assange unless you were there witnessing it when it happened. PERIOD. No one here has any idea what may or may not have happened nor any right to claim who is lying. You don't know ANY of the people involved and you don't know what happened. PERIOD. END of story.

The very idea that anyone is making claims that these women are lying that none of their allegations could possibly have occurred is REVOLTING. And it's all being done for no other reason than they like what Assange does with Wikileaks. That is even MORE revolting.

For fucks sake people, we're talking about a very real and very logical possibility of RAPE here.

[sabrina 1]

28. Oh please stop with the notion that women are always victims

of men and would never, ever lie. I despise this kind of infantalization of women. They are as capable as any man of lying to achieve their goals or for profit, or for political reasons. I have personally known at least one woman who confided in friends that she was going to accuse a man, a prominent politician in W. Virginia, of rape because he dumped her. One of her friends went to the police to report that conversation and charges were dropped after others then came forward.

But until then, she was the 'victim' and how dare anyone doubt her. I am so sick of this notion that if it's a woman, no one should doubt her word. Women are always the victims! No we are not! And some of us are pretty nasty people. Just like men.

FFS we are NOT talking about a 'real possibility of rape here'. THE WOMAN HERSELF SAID THERE WAS NO RAPE. Do you get that? This is a political smear job. Just as the CIA said they would do to Assange in the memo leaked to him and which was published on Wikileaks.

What's revolting is that this case was thrown out and then revived as a ploy to get a journalist into the hands of the U.S.

And what else is revolting is a woman who teaches orther women how to 'get revenge on a man who cheats on you'. I'm talking about Ann Ardin, whose solution for women who are cheated on is to smear the man by falsely accusing him of crimes he did not commit.

And it's further revolting that anyone knowing anything about this woman and this case would even contemplate the notion that she is a victim of any kind. She is a radical idealogue and you can be as revolted as you please, that is not only my opinion, but the opinion of most people who have any knowledge of her and the 'revenge' case she fantasized about then made a reality. She is a revolting woman, the kind of woman that gets all women a bad name. I'm not really interested in defending such people, male or female.

[msanthrope]

30. Then what about the second woman, then? Is she less revolting?

You know, the one he allegedly held down and raped?

Or are you waiting for proof of her Illuminati-Bilderberger connections before you decide whether or not she can be raped with impunity?

[sabrina 1]

33. The second woman, Sofia Wilén, stated back in

August AFTER having been to the police, that there was no rape, no violence, and no fear of violence. Not only that, but she was pretty ecstatic after the 'rape' at having met Assange when she was messaging her friends and made no mention of any 'rape'. Following the case back then, there was plenty of information on what they both had to say and there was zero talk of what is now being alleged.

They did try to erase their messages and tweets after the lawyer entered the case. He entered it after it had been thrown out by the lead prosecutor. This is where the case took the turn it did, when this lawyer suddenly appeared. His story is another very interesting part of this 'case'. But I'll leave that for now, other than to say that it is since his emergence that the attempts to delete exculpatory evidence took place, that pressure was put on the prosecutors to reinstate it AFTER it was thrown out. So, clearly these 'new' allegations had not been made until this lawyer took over.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

Catlin observed that both Ardin and Sofia Wilén, the second accuser, sent SMS messages and tweets boasting of their conquests following the alleged "rapes."

"In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange's honour at her flat after the 'crime' and tweeted to her followers that she is with the 'the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!'" he wrote.

"The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape," Catlin said.

So, rape denied by both women, case thrown out by lead prosecutor, both women show no signs of anger AFTER the alleged 'rapes' but, on the contrary, boast of their association with Assange, a fact confirmed by prosecutors.

But everything changes when a lawyer enters the case. Many close observers believe that initially it was a case of a woman feeling scorned when she learned that Assange had had sex with a second woman. She decides to 'get revenge' in accordance with her own beliefs about revenge. But she cannot make charges without risking being prosecuted for falsely smearing someone. She knows the law, and decides to just 'ask questions' of the police, knowing it will get out especially if she makes sure it does by talking to the rightwing tabloid who first broke the story.

It is more than possible that it was then that the U.S. got involved seeing an opportunity to smear Assange, as they had threatened to do in the CIA memo published by Wikileaks, and from there everything changed.

No one following this from the beginning has any doubt that these are lies. It would be interesting to find out why Sofia Wilén was so happy about her relationship with Assange after she was 'raped' by him, and why she never included this latest information in her talks with the police early on because if she had, the case would not have been thrown out.

Either they were plants from the beginning, or they were just two groupies who became upset and felt 'cheated on' after finding out about each other and decided to get revenge and were then approached by the CIA.

I for one, along with probably millions of others, don't believe a word of it. And if he gets a fair trial, which he won't if the U.S. has anthing to do with it, considering they failed to delete the caches of their delighted comments about Assange after the 'rapes', it would probably be thrown out of court. As many people have said watching this develop 'The Swedes are making it up as they go along'.

The whole thing is a ploy to try to silence Wikileaks and to get Assange to the U.S. where they can trump up some more charges, make an example of him and scare anyone else from daring to tell the truth about their crimes. But I doubt it will work. Wikileaks is not just Julian Assange. They may silence him, but they can't silence everyone.

[msanthrope]

31. Completely revolting that women would defend this--but it has always been so.

Defenders of the patriarchy...

[sabrina 1]

45. Or the matriarchy?

[TexasObserver]

34. Everything about their post event behaviors says they're lying.

This is a trumped up case.

[PeaceNikki]

35. I can't believe anyone would call him either innocent or guilty of anything at this point.

We don't know the facts. It could be a bullshit conspiracy or he could be guilty. It's being investigated and I certainly won't participate in a smear campaign against the women at this juncture nor will I assume his guilt.

The attorneys' accounts coincide with the stories being passed around but they also say that there are things that happened that have not been made public yet. Thankfully, in most places, judges and/or juries get all of the details before declaring guilt or innocence.

A buncha Bill Fristing going on all around the internets. Internet sleuths who think they know every goddamn thing about every goddamn thing.

[sabrina 1]

36. It was investigated and rthrown out by the lead prosecutor.

We know a lot of the facts, including the statements of both women that there was no rape, no violence, and no fear of violence. But that was then, BEFORE the CIA got involved.

We also know that both women tweeted and messaged their friends AFTER these supposed rapes, ecstatic over their relationships with him. This has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors and some of the tweets that Ann Ardin later tried to delete, are still available online as she forgot about the caches. The cell phone messages on the other woman's cell phone are not public, but prosecutors confirmed there is not mention of rape or violence of any kind and that they are 'exculpatory'. I am sure the CIA connected lawyer will try to keep them out of court.

We also know that Ann Ardin threw a party for Assange AFTER the alleged 'rape' or 'broken condom' or 'surprise sex' or whatever it has evolved to at this point.

'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'

Tweeted by Ann Ardin the morning after the alleged, whatever it is now.

I have no doubt that this is exactly what the CIA promised to do to Assange in the memo he published on Wikileaks a few months ago.

As someone said 'they are making it up as they go along'. Yes, if these latest allegations had not been made up long after the incident, but had been part of the original complaint, the lead prosecutor would never have thrown the case out.

It stinks and I do not know anyone who has followed this from the beginning, read the early reports, the tweets, the so-called 'evidence' and the tossing of the case, to the reinstating of it after demands by a certain lawyer whose own background is very, very interesting to say the least, who believes a word of it.

[PeaceNikki]

37. To each his or her own. I am not a fan of "trial by media".

:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

38. When a lead prosecutor throws out a case, it is not trial by

media, the media reported the fact. I don't know what you mean, unless you are referring to Assange, who WILL be tried by the corrupt, U.S. media, which is the plan outlined by the CIA in their very own memo, published months ago by Wikileaks.

You have in fact decided that there is something to this story, even after it was tossed out by a very respected prosecutor. So the 'trial by media' orcheatrated by the U.S. is working. They are not interested in the 'sex' case, it is merely a ploy to get Assange back to Sweden from where he can be extradited to the U.S. on new, trumped up charges of espionage, and probably murdered, most likely tortured because that is how we 'fairly try' people in this country now.

[PeaceNikki]

39. I haven't "decided" shit because it's not for me to "decide".

If he's innocent, I hope this is cleared up. If he's guilty of something bad, I hope he's held accountable. It's pretty simple. I don't unquestioningly believe everything said by Assange, the accusers, or any of the authorities in this matter.

Whatev. I don't consider myself to have a dog in this fight. Wailing and/or gnashing of teeth won't convict or free him.

[HEyHEY]

40. There you go with all that "due process" nonsense.

pfff :eyes:

[PeaceNikki]

41. lol. Says the Canadian in China.

[HEyHEY]

42. Yeah, but their courts are always right, that's why trials only take half an hour.

[sabrina 1]

23. John Pilger is a hero hinmself. I am so thrilled to see him

supporting Wikileaks so strongly.

This is a movement now. Wikileaks came about because the media did not do its job, controlled as it is by those in power. When there is a void, something will fill it in.

People from around the world realized that without a truly free press, no country is free, no democracy will survive. This is why we have lost our democracy.

Julian Assange was exposing corruption for three years in governments in other countries. He was receiving awards for his work. But when he exposed some truths about the U.S. Empire's brutal wars, he stepped into a minefield. The U.S. Empire has worked hard for many decades to control its own media, and was completely successful. They were not about to tolerate a free press, independent and not controlled by them.

Even those who may not like or agree with Wikileaks, must see the danger in the attacks on this news organization.

:kick: