Every child idealizes the idea of one day becoming a hero, saving the world from a great crisis. Stopping the bad guys. Up until Wikileaks, many people were confused on who those, "bad guys" really were - because in a way, it was all simply political. It meshed within the backdrop of our everyday lives as the horrors of bad deeds were explained away as "good", "moral" and "the right thing". Now, we know that most of the human population would not consciously choose to kill as many people that these leaders have. Now, we know that the reasons to defend their actions were lies. The illusion that the general public had some power is completely destroyed. Julian Assange could have been any of us. The people harmed by the governments Wikileaks exposed, could have been any of us. The illusion of Justice, the illusion of political decision, fair participation in the economy has been demystified. Most of the world is plugged in on the internet, learning at a much faster speed, acknowledging, understanding and awakening to the fact that distraction, diversion just does not work any more.
Too many innocent people have died. Too many people have been tortured. Too many people have starved and we all know why. The imprisonment of Julian Assange is a symbolic precipice, that governments around the world must take great care in how they involve themselves right now. Which stance they choose to take, which decisions they make and how they will or will not face up to the true crimes that have been committed. Whilst Julian Assange is in prison for charges that have never been substantiated, George Bush walks free. B.W(Before Wikileaks), the public reaction might have laughed at the notion of George Bush being tried for war crimes. Now, its very serious. Its not just about George Bush, but all the players in these wars.
One might want to ask, how much has the pursuit of Julian Assange costed? How much of United States taxpayers dollars gone into trying to destroy Wikileaks? How much money has gone into trying to censor the internet? Alone, if we consider the average pay for an intelligence officer is $70,000 per year, multiply that by 120 and we have an estimate of 8.4 million dollars. One might want to add that to the cost for legal services to find a way to prosecute Assange under the Espionage act, yet that money could have gone towards something better. Perhaps attempting to house its 2.5 million that are currently homeless could have been a better cause. Yet, instead Julian Assange has become the target of an insane frivolous pursuit:
The term,"United States of Australia"(Australia is termed as "Ausfailia"), a satirical version on Australia originated from the authors Encyclopedia Dramatica intended to provide a lighter view to its audience.
Recent events however are true to this term, but it is no laughing matter. Right now, a somber crowd in London are holding a vigil in hope that Julian Assanges detainment does not lead to extradition. No new reports on how Wikileaks founder is fairing in Wandsworth prison apart from the day after his arrest. The same reports have recycled with inconsistencies on whether or not Julian has access to the internet. What is consistent, is that he is in solitary confinement, that the United States government are mounting a case against him and there is a widely held consensus amongst legal experts that Sweden will deliver Mr Assange to the US.
Only when there was outrage, did the Australian government change their position on Julian Assange, stating that the United States government should tighten their security. The sad fact is that this in Australia is a generous extension compared to previous government stances when expat Australians needed intervention.
Australia on their record of Human Rights has had the "Stolen generation", the "Forgotten generation" and now the "sold out" generation. The sold out generation are the ones whom the governments have abandoned because of trading alliances and loyalties above the priority of its own. Here are a few cases of the sold out generation:
Schapelle Corby
Whilst Australia does not benefit financially from its alliance with Indonesia, the government considers its relationship "strategically important" as 60% of its exports pass through Indonesian waters.
Shappelle Corby was charged by Indonesian authorities for transporting 4kg of marijuana to Indonesia. She is currently confined in an Indonesian prison for 20 years. The case was reportedly riddled with corruption and despite evidence proving that she was Innocent, the Australian government prioritized its loyalties to Indonesia above its own. Although Shapelle Corboys case has never been tried in Australia, her book was censored under legislation that prevents. "Proceeds of Crime".
On the verge of signing the 2004 Australia-United States Free trade agreement, David Hicks was formally charged with conspiracy to commit murder, attack civilians and civilian objects and terrorism,attempted murder, and aiding the enemy by United States military commission. Amnesty International noted that the military commission did not meet the international standards for fair trials. The Australian Government was aware of David Hicks case from the moment he was delivered to United States. In fact it was Australian Officials that David hicks was originally interrogated by. During his detainment at Guantanamo, David Hicks described being repeatedly beaten, restrained, blindfolded, enforced to taken unknown medication, sleep deprived and constrained to a small cell for a year without sunlight and exercise. David Hicks father had requested that the Australian government intervene and bring David Hicks to complete the remaining sentence in Australia. There were many public pleas, but it was not until 2007 that David Hicks arrived in Australia, five years after enduring Guantanamo. Australian Officials were well aware of the torture on Guantanamo making little effort to release David in contrast to Swedish and British authorities on detainee release.
Kerry and Kay Danes
Just as Australia had set its sights upon building stronger economic ties to ASEAN, Kerry and Kay Danes were imprisoned by Laos authorities for allegedly stealing from a gem mine. Kerry and Kay operated a security company in Laos when they noted in their account that when the company was doing particularly well, that was when all the trouble began. The following article, that I note was deleted from ABC website, revealed that Laos officials had stated that they were willing to let Kerry and Kay Danes go if another couple was willing to stand in their place.
The foreigner Prison Support Service makes an interesting point when they place webster's definition at the top of their report.
During their confinement, they were placed in a 3x3 metre cell with 11 other inmates where they endured torture and harsh conditions. According to the Foreign Prison Support Service report, Kerry was detained in the presence of the Australian Embassy. It took 11 months for the couple to be released by Australian authorities.
And there are more
There are many more cases appearing from the outset that these people have committed heinous crimes, but instead become victims of corruption and global politics. Where the Australian government has finally intervened is often at a later stage when the damage is already done or when enough people know that these people are innocent of the crimes that justified torture. What has become clear in these three cases is that there was a delay because there are financial ties with each country.
We know from these historical jailings of Australians that the government will prioritize their ties with other countries above people and we are learning more about that through the cablegate leaks. Most of the world agrees that the charges against Julian Assange is not legal or even valid. People from across the political spectrum have spoken out against it.
We also know that the United States government has been very vocal about seizing the opportunity to have Julian extradited whilst he is detained to face charges from laws that they are updating to ensure that Julian Assanges actions are deemed "illegal". Julian Assange and his organisation are doing what journalists across the globe do everyday and that is providing the information to the public. The only difference is that the organisation is shaped in a way that protects its sources from retaliation.
If United States do successfully charge Julian Assange under an updated version of the Espionage Act, then it will become a landmark case that will kill the media around the world. It is why it is vital that this does not occur. Tools such as writing recording and publishing is a vital resource for accountability that protects us and provides some constraints on what would be enacted freely in silence. It is why it is so important to support Wikileaks and its members, by participating in protests, signing petitions, writing letters to government and donating to Wikileaks.
Some have compared the Wikileaks story to 1984. The leaders whilst behaving badly in 1984 in my humble opinion, appeared to have more intellect than in reality. Instead of the tv show, "The worlds dumbest criminals", maybe there should be one titled, "The worlds dumbest leaders". So far, with the latest comments from American leaders on Wikileaks, appear to be in the lead. There is a belief amongst American leaders, that if they kill the Wikileaks founder with their um..'Spethal' forces, they will stop everyone from knowing about the human rights abuses, corruption and war crimes.
The fact is that we are not seeing 1984 manifesting into our reality, we are seeing idiocracy at its worst. If they bother to do the numbers, most of the world supports Wikileaks, because it stands for the freedom of speech, especially in the face of corruption, injustice and human rights abuses. Many media organisation representatives have become highly vocal on how this is not just an attack on Wikileaks, but on all media outlets. United States leaders efforts to stop this organisation from publishing documents are in reality, a waste of public money. Mirrors are growing into the thousands and worldwide protests are ongoing at the arrest of its founder. Other leaders have spoken out on their outrage at the arrest of the founder and United Nations have condemned the attacks against Wikileaks. When will this Idiocracy amongst American leaders stop? Perhaps only when they are held accountable.
Governments should abide by their own laws, before dishing out harsh penalties to others. There is an entire chapter on defamation and here is some of the evidence(More evidence than what is in the charges against him).
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
The law in Sweden:
The Swedish government should compensate Julian Assange for all damages that have occurred during his ordeal and even a million dollars is enough to compensate for over one million search results of "rape" and Julian Assange. That would be one dollar for every site which simply does not equate to say compensation amounts awarded in previous cases where damages have occurred over just one site. Julian Assange should be entitled to the same amount as other damages have warranted. It is of course in the best interests of Swedens economy and its people to simply drop the case and make an early settlement.
The main website glosses over with its educational programs, counselling services and gymnasium. The devil, of course is always in the detail, buried within the reports from the chief inspector of prisons. The grim picture of Wandsworth prison reflects the atmosphere described within these reports. It was six years ago when the prison was last in the spotlight for being in a terrible state. Over-crammed, cruelty to prisoners and neglect was the prime feature in news reports that dissipated from the spotlight whilst the situation lingered.
Julian Assange is spending time in jail right now for charges that have not been substantiated. The charges were brought by Swedish prosecution were initially dropped and then raised again. The charges include molestation, a charge usually brought against pedophiles, yet there are no children involved in this case. The case has been brought against Julian Assange over the malfunction of a condom where the alleged victims state was deliberate. The facts surrounding the case, makes the allegations dubious based upon the statements of the two women whom have stated that sex was consensual. The only reason why they inquired to the police initially, was to see if they could get him to take an STD test. Swedish law surrounding STD tests, is greatly contrasted to the charges made against him. The procedure is that the law can force someone to take an STD test, but only initiate charges if he knowingly transferred an infection. Given the extensive details of the case leaked to the media by the women, the charges do not even loosely warrant rape, coercion or sexual molestation as defined in the Swedish penal code.
Whilst Sweden was commended upon being a country that established good practice in promoting womens rights, well known feminists are now condemning the treatment of Julian Assange and particularly the misuse of laws. Since the publicity over these charges, the United States government have been preparing to cash in on the opportunity by planning to extradite him to be tried under the Espionage Act.
Along with recent leaks revealing the strong ties between Swedish and US intelligence, it has become obvious that the detainment of Julian Assange was never about rape, but a means for the US government to retaliate against recent releases of war crimes and corruption on behalf of their administration. Increasing news reports have been confirming links between one of the women to the CIA. The media surrounding this case has shifted the spotlight away from the crimes committed by the American government to debate surrounding the actions of Wikileaks founder and what should be done to him. Many reputable organisations have released statements condemning the detainment of Julian Assange, echoing the chorus of his lawyer that this is not a prosecution, but a persecution. The facts surrounding the case, the public statements from governments clarify that the case against Julian Assange is entirely political.
Well respected journalists, commentators and activists have spoken out on this issue, particularly their concerns about the treatment of Julian Assange whilst in confinement. Rightfully so is anyone to be concerned about his treatment, not only because of the statements of retribution made by senior members of government, but also the state that Wandsworth prison is in. It was only last year, that it was reported to be plagued with cockroaches, unhygienic and the general morale towards prisoners is already considered abusive. Just under a quarter of the prison population reported feeling unsafe and there were an unusually high number of suicide attempts.
Upon legal analysis, Julian Assange could be fighting extradition for up to a year and thus remaining under these conditions during that phase. Without substantiated charges, no innocent person should be confined especially under these conditions. The detainment of Julian Assange is not only an attack on freedom of speech, but a blow to human rights everywhere. It sends a dark message to the rest of the world, "If you help whistle blowers, we will get you jailed one way or another".
Anonymous group sent out a campaign poster encouraging supporters to vote up Julian Assange as Time Magazines, 'Man of the year'. Votes have continued to increase as Julian Assange remains on top. For those who are serious about stopping human rights abuses, it appears a superficial act of inflating ego.
From a strategic perspective, this is one of the best things you can do. Think about it. If Julian Assange made it as TIME magazines man of the year, would governments be so quick to state that he is a terrorist in the public eye?
Would they be so quick to ship him off to United States Supreme court to charge him over the espionage act? They need support for that and they are losing so much already. It would be a little embarrassing
The Swedish court might actually have to give this guy a fair trial. Intelligence agencies might actually have to think. They can't use this as an opportunity for a disappearance. They could lose support or even the unthinkable...funding.
Location: Embajada de Suecia en A Coruña (Swedish Embassy): Sale del Cantón Grande a las 18.00 en el Obelisco hacía la Avenida de Linares Rivas 18-21, A Coruña, Spain
Location: Consulado General Británico en Barcelona (British General Consulate), Edificio Torre de Barcelona, Avenida Diagonal, 477, 13º, 08036 Barcelona
If you are organizing a protest and you don't see it here, simply add the details in the comments box below and announce it on the Wikileaks Protests Facebook page. The google maps page is open so anyone can add their protest. If it is abused, editing will need to be by request to the author. The Author can be contacted privately via facebook for collaboration etc.
Even Julian Assanges lawyer has stated that the "sex" charges were a political stunt. Despite all risks, Julian Assange has offered to have a meeting with the police in UK. On the dawn of Christmas, Wikileaks founder is not allowed to return home to be with his family over Christmas as Australian authorities are looking into pathways to detain him too. Scotland yard has received a request by Swedish authorities to extradite Julian to Sweden. United States government has changed their law within the espionage act so that they can successfully prosecute Julian Assange. Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks has gained worldwide support from people from all walks of life. Its only a few who do not see or understand the impact right now that this case has on freedom of speech in the future.
Despite all of the spin, he has been able to prove deeply how United States government and others have engaged in war crimes, corruption and human rights abuses against everyday citizens. Exposing the truth is always the starting point to improving human rights as the evidence to prove them are often hidden away from the public eye. For the first time since the pentagon papers, the world has been able to really understand how deep the rabbit hole goes...How we have all been lied to.
The reward for a noble act? United States, Australia and Sweden have scraped around the garbage dump of "laws" that they can use to detain him. Detaining is of course in history, proven to be a remarkable method for governments to do what they wish behind closed doors. Its a place where the media cannot simply waltz in there and keep the spotlight on the authorities treatment. Most accounts of abuse are often told by the subject after the detainment where authorities can debate the occurrence or write it off as "before the reforms". Public reforms are a wonderful show when abuses happen to make it to the media and maintains the visage that governments are actually working to look after their people in a fair and transparent manner.
A brilliant example is the Australian government making a public apology for the stolen generation whilst initiating a very controversial program that only targeted indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.
This time, despite all of the threats by governments around the world, they risk losing worldwide support. In fact, they risk a great backlash. Supporters of Wikileaks are growing and are a majority, beyond the few trying to claw away at reviving the former regime. Everyone can at least think of one release that help the world understand that it was not the leak, but the act that was wrong. Government spokespeople on the issue have openly admitted that the Swedish court case is an opportunity for revenge. Many well respected reporters have put into perspective how the case is fraught with corruption and denial of justice. If governments do succeed in their ambitions of revenge, they will lose all support and any efforts to contain public reactions will also add to the outrage.
Governments must choose between saving face and destroying the messenger or doing the right thing and ensuring proper administration of natural justice. If they choose the latter, they have the opportunity to redeem themselves as responsible leaders with accountability for their past actions and the apologies they made have at least substance. The outcomes of their decisions also hang in the balance.
1. "Illegal" Leaks from both the Iraq, Afghanistan war diaries demonstrated how United States repeatedly broke the treaty on convention against torture. UN chief investigator Manfred Nowak, called upon the United States government to investigate war crimes after the Iraq release.
Iraq war logs: UN calls on Obama to investigate human rights abuses. Read more here.
The latest embassy cables show that United States were spying on the UN which is currently being investigated.
2. "..puts peoples lives in danger" The United States government has either directly threatened or taken no legal action against its citizens on murdering Julian Assange and his family. In the afghan documents, Amnesty pointed out that the United States had no consideration of the civilians lives in Afghanistan:
3. "...threatens US national security" As pointed out by the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights President Stephen Keim, the threat posed to Wikileaks and its members is a threat to the freedom of speech.
To really understand not only is Wikileaks not a threat, but a protection to every nations security, one has to really delve into understanding what "National Security" means.
Interests of a country is naturally democracy and within the concepts of a democracy, every country must have freedom of expression without intimidation. Thus, United States government action against Wikileaks and all other media outlets is a threat to every nations security. These are after all why citizens agreed to supporting the establishment of such in the first place as it was never mean to be securing government interests, but of their people.
4. "..to solve shared problems" Recent leaks on the Copenhagen Accord reveal how United States government monopolized global action on climate change by paying off developing countries to accept agreements that were obviously not in the interests of the planet. The fact remains, despite slight inaccuracies that global warming is occurring, that its getting worse and that we only have a few years to solve the problem before it gets to a stage beyond the capacity of human beings. The prediction of a runaway greenhouse effect remains consistent, despite the efforts of polluting companies to hire "experts" to state otherwise. Some experts have stated that if action is not taken, this will effect our children. It is no wonder that United States is the only developed country in the world that has not signed the convention on the rights of the child.
5. "An attack on the international community" In one of the cable leaks, United States recommended nuclear weapons for Pakistan to defeat India, despite security scholoars raising concerns over the years of state sponsored terrorism. In July last year, the president of Pakistan publicly admitted to supporting and nurturing terrorist groups. The same terrorist groups that United States government have publicly stated their dedication on eradicating.
In the wake of signing sleazy deals with Stephen Conroy on "Filtering Threats", Robert McClelland announced that they were looking into seizing Wikileaks founders passport. To be able to seize Mr Assanges passport, they would have to establish that he is aiding terrorism. The problem is that if they reinterpret defining terrorism to include media outlets, then they risk losing all support for national security altogether. A week after the release of the Iraq war logs, Hilary Cinton announced on her visit to Australia her intentions to establish a stronger military alliance with Australia including, "cybersecurity". She strongly condemned Wikileaks prior to her visit:
The fact remains that under many definitions, Wikileaks is not a terrorist organisation. Commentators have made some good arguments against this. The pressure from world governments after the release of classified diplomatic cable data to undermine the work of Wikileaks is great. They have received heavy DDOS attacks, denied a paypal account and a domain name since its release. There is an international arrest warrant out for Julian Assange for a crime that has never been substantiated. Legal analysis, has confirmed that it is possible to transfer Julian Assange upon agreement with Sweden to United States where he can be charged for laws they introduced specifically to stop Wikileaks from publishing its releases.
Instead of defending Julian Assange as an Australian citizen and a human rights defender of free speech, the Australian government placed a considerable amount of resources into investigating whether there are any Australian laws that could put Julian Assange in custody. To date, there has been no announcement of such.
Ego- front or no ego, no human being deserves to be treated so poorly. Along with being denied access to justice, indication that he will be detained if he were to arrive in Australia would also be detained by Australian authorities. Clearly, his rights are violated here. Julian Assange should be able to go to Australia to visit his family without harassment.
Many American security scholars were happy to write about human rights abuses by those who are not American or their allies. During the "War on Terror", few wrote against Americas actions and those who did were treated with suspicion that they may be supporting terrorism. Wikileaks is one of those organisations. The problem is the fact that Wikileaks has provided clear cut evidence that supports years of war crimes yet to be addressed. These crimes are not being addressed because the diversion is at the messenger. Allegations without substance are made against Wikileaks as an organisation or its founder, Julian Assange. Delaying the spotlight resting upon American shoulders, is nothing but old fashioned propaganda. Fortunately, with nearly everyone on this planet being an internet user, most are smart enough to know when they are being lied to. Wikileaks and the support of some media outlets has assisted in giving the population an opportunity to decide whether Wikileaks is what the United States government has painted them as.
Propaganda against Wikileaks in comparison to Cold War propaganda.
The problem is that many countries in alliance of United States have been shielded from knowing what is happening to the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Deaths are more often assumed to be a mistake rather than a deliberate act of hatred. This was until earlier this year when the Iraq video "shook the world" into a new understanding. It was the precipice that we were being lied to. We were being lied to about the amount of civilian deaths, the conduct we believe our soldiers are upheld to and the accountability within government. For those never touched by government corruption or knew it existed, were suddenly awoken to this. Those who thought that America were not as bad as other countries in upholding human rights, suddenly realized that it was only because America was monopolizing the UN. Not only that, they were collecting data on the general secretary, Ban ki Moon. So invasive was the espionage, it was described in some news commentary as "frightening". Yet Hilary Clinton and other US government commentators have described the leaks as "an invasion of privacy".
There is yet more to be said as US continues its diversion from their actions. Three major leaks have demonstrated criminal behavior, the same word they used to describe Wikileaks founder. Yet these statements tend to fall at the wayside as the facts from the leaks as bare and raw data stand alone beyond the propaganda United States has utilised. For most the reactions seem to leave more questions and one of the most burning:
When is the United States going to be charged for war crimes?
While the chase is on to silence Wikileaks and disable its founder, the world watches and waits. The struggle to shine the spotlight on the depth of corruption inside the US embassy is one of the most intense. Commentary from US government is as expected, against the release. More disturbing, calls for his assassination were made public.
It leaves a lingering question, is Julian Assange safe in the custody of police or in Swedens jail?
Whats clear is that the crimes have become merged, the issue is no longer about whether or not the Swedish charges were correct, but more about how they can use these charges as a foothold for United States to detain him.
Considering United States history on torture of detainees, it is of great concern that the United States government is attempting to use the Swedish charges to detain Julian Assange in their country.
The same people making such requests are from the top and as Wikileaks have proven, are criminals that are not being charged for crimes beyond the fraying case they are attempting to establish against him.
Amnesty International has noted serious concern over United States transferring prisoners to places where they can be abused without accountability. The prospective of transferring Julian Assange from Sweden to United States, I would argue as no different other than they are yet again planning to breach the convention against torture.
The outcome of Julian Assanges case is important and will have a dramatic impact on how free speech is delivered in the future. You can help change this by adding your signature here or by donating to the Julian Assange legal fund here.
Update: Mobile sms text messages show that both Sophia Wilen and Anna Ardin did not complain about rape, but bragged about intercourse with Julian and planned to release the story to the Expression to damage his reputation. Full story here.
1. It was reported to the media by the courts prosecutor immediately after the women attended the police station.
Prosecutor Marie Häljebo Kjellstrand confirmed to the Expression that a warrant was issued on 20th of August, hours after the report was made. Within 24 hours, the story was worldwide. After Julian Assange was interrogated, the transcript was then released to the Expression again. Julian Assange's response to the media remain inconsistent to the transcript. Like many cases in closed courtrooms where transcribers are employed directly by the court, the transcript may have been edited to convey a specific agenda. This is not an uncommon experience.
2. Julian was not notified directly
He thought it was just a tabloid story as he had not been contacted by police
Julian Assange first learned of the charges through the media. Staying in Sweden at the time, he did not believe that these charges existed. According to the Expression, he was charged in his absence on the grounds that the prosecutor "had no idea" whether he had left the country.
3. Both women did not want him charged.
They attended the police station to inquire about their experience after they both learned that Julian had slept with them during that week. The older women stated that she did not feel he had threatened her and why she refused to sign the day after the media storm:
The younger women did not attend the police station to press charges, she simply wanted to find out how she could go about getting him to take a medical test. The older women accompanied her as support and did not want to press charges either.
4. Both women have stated it was with consent.
Both women have stated that intercourse was consensual and even though there was an issue with the condom, both had stated that he had not forced himself upon him. Whilst his refusal to take a medical test might warrant enforcement to take one under Swedish law, these were entirely different charges.
In fact, both women parted on friendly terms:
5. The Swedish prosecution dropped the charges and then started it again.
The following day, the charges were dropped. Chief prosecutor, Eva Finne made a public statement that she, "did not think that there was a reason to suspect he committed rape". It was on the 31st of August that the decision was overthrown:
Clae Borgstrom, a spokesperson on gender equality issues launched an appeal and successfully overturned the decision. This was all without Julian Assange or his lawyer present.
6. The first prosecutor was under investigation Prosecutor Marie Häljebo Kjellstrand, was later under investigation for breaching confidentiality in the case by leaking it to the media:
Although it was a confidentiality rule that was violated in the case, there also remains the fact that few attempts have been made to contact and investigate properly. This error has led to an international arrest warrent for Julian Assange.
7. One of the charges is suppose to be for a child sex offence, yet there were no children involved. When referring (screenshot in case of page removal here)to this case, Chapter 6, Section 7 of the Swedish Penal code is provided to justify the molestation charges. Some newspapers have wrongfully interpreted "molestation" to refer to "Sexual Harrassment". Below is section 7 that clearly refers to child sexual abuse:
The bottom half may deter away from children, but clearly this is still outlining harassment towards children and young people under the age of 18. Whilst the new prosecutor Marianne Ny had experience specializing in law regarding children, there are no children present in this case. It seems inadequate for these laws to be misused to address a 25 and 30 year old. During the time Marianne Ny was making a decision and putting an enormous unnecessary amount of resources into Julian Assanges case, a 32 year old was freed from charges over having violent "sex" with a 16 year old. It would appear that in this case the above section would be far more appropriate here. Yet there is an international arrest warrant out for Julian Assange.
8. This is the only way governments can deter mass support for Julian Assange
Former intelligence officer, Andrew Wilkie stated that the rape charges could be set up as it is patternistic with other government reactional trends towards whistle-blowers in a means to deter others from supporting them. Whether or not it is a set up, the interpol arrest has been a very convenient legal avenue to detain and persecute Julian Assange. Questions surrounding as to whether Sweden could adequately protect Julian Assange from all of the governments affected by the latest cablegate leaks would be important. If Sweden is innocently detaining Julian Assange, then it is with stupidity. The danger it poses to swede's national security has not yet been properly calculated. It is why Julian is safest on the move. If Sweden were to successfully detain Julian Assange, then they must also spend an exorbitant amount of money to keep him alive or face world wide condemnation.
9. The Swedish courts have a dodgy history.
Only a few days ago, the founders of the Pirate Bay were sentenced to prison for copyright violations. At Stockholm district court, the judge deciding on this case was a member of two copyright organisations. Whilst the case was appealed, the court asserted that there were no findings in bias from the judge.
Then there the case that should have never gone to court. A 16 year old who had consensual sex with two boys one year younger than her was charged with the same charges as Julian Assange. The fact that this case went to court was appalling enough let alone such things being reported in the media. The trauma that this young person must have felt to have been tried as though she were an adult pedophile. This case had gone on for so long that this was something that she did when she was 14.
10. Former members of Wikileaks would have been the first to speak up about it.
Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a former Wikileaks member disclosed a lot of embarrassing things about Julian Assange and the organisation. If the rape allegations were true, he would have known that they were and upon his change of views with Julian Assange and Wikileaks, he would have stated so.
Even Herbert Snorrason had nothing to say supportive of the rape charges despite his very public outburst:
