Poetry Forum

Full Version: wikileaks founder such a nice guy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
me bad but it still stands. america as a non common market country doesn't have the same extraditition treaties as member states of europe. the uk on the other hand want assange banged up as much as the usa....almost.

thethingy

(12-19-2010, 02:56 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]I hope this will help clarify a recurring error in the post above:

Sweden NOT Switzerland

you know with rules like this;
Quote:You can take sick leave during your vacation if you are ill in Sweden.
I just cant see any corruption in this case here Big Grin

Anyhow, anyone know if the golden boy is still apart of Wikileaks, he is making out he is but I cant see how in his current predicament that he would be able to safely communicate with the mother ship or that the crew would actually want him there??
(12-19-2010, 03:38 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]me bad but it still stands. america as a non common market country doesn't have the same extraditition treaties as member states of europe. the uk on the other hand want assange banged up as much as the usa....almost.

^^true, you only need to look to Scotland & England to see that the warrant for arrest is all the paperwork that is needed, but Julian is off on his conspiracy drug again when he warns about the dangers of EU to EU extraditions simply because he has not yet been extradited nor does he know if he will be.......................
this is a leaked document given to the media.

seems assange and his lawyers saying they didn't know what women the police were talking about was another crock. his lawyers had the info of who they were weeks and weeks ago. after the read it seems taking him to court is justifiable under swede law.


i found this one particularly ironic;
LAWYERS for Julian Assange have expressed anger about an alleged smear campaign against the WikiLeaks founder after incriminating police files were published in the newspaper that has used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.

In a move that surprised many of Assange's closest supporters, The Guardian newspaper yesterday published previously unseen police documents which accused Assange in graphic detail of sexually assaulting two Swedish women. One witness is said to have stated: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

Bjorn Hurtig, Assange's Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain.

"It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position," he told a colleague.

"I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper.

source:
it seems he doesn't think people should leak stuff about him (i larfed)

thethingy


(12-19-2010, 03:55 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]i found this one particularly ironic;
LAWYERS for Julian Assange have expressed anger about an alleged smear campaign against the WikiLeaks founder after incriminating police files were published in the newspaper that has used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.

In a move that surprised many of Assange's closest supporters, The Guardian newspaper yesterday published previously unseen police documents which accused Assange in graphic detail of sexually assaulting two Swedish women. One witness is said to have stated: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

Bjorn Hurtig, Assange's Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain.

"It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position," he told a colleague.

"I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper.

source:
it seems he doesn't think people should leak stuff about him (i larfed)


The ordasity of it all, seems no one bar him is entitled to privacy, but this is the first I've heard off his rape allegations being violent, that if true changes things as far as his potential jail term goes, doubtful his most die-hard supporters will believe it though even if found guilty............
statements like this from his co workers won't help either;

Assange's 'promiscuous lifestyle, refusal to test for HIV led to charges'
2010-12-19 12:40:00

A WikiLeaks employee has shed new light on the allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Julian Assange's legal troubles.

WikiLeaks' Swedish co-ordinator said in an exclusive interview that the two women, who say Assange sexually assaulted them, would never have complained to police if he had agreed to take an HIV test, reports the Daily Mail.

He further added that he repeatedly begged his boss to have the test, both to head off the possible police investigation and for Assange's own peace of mind, given his promiscuous sex life.

"The two women told me that if he goes to the clinic for an HIV test, then they won't go to the police," said the colleague, who wishes to remain anonymous because he is a witness in the case brought by Swedish prosecutors.

"I became the middleman in these negotiations," he added.

"I felt that if Julian had agreed to have the HIV test, they would have dropped it. I told him, 'Just do it, and anyway, it's good for you, because you're sleeping around'. A lot of women were extremely attracted to Julian, and after a few minutes, they offered themselves to him. From my perspective, they were like groupies with Mick Jagger, and he takes these opportunities," said the colleague.

The co-ordinator said he felt certain that the two women - who both allege that Assange forced them to have intercourse during the same week in August without using a condom, against their express wishes - had nothing to do with any supposed American intelligence plot to discredit him, as he has frequently claimed.

"The CIA is not behind this at all," he said.

"Of course it is a golden opportunity for them. But from the beginning, it was personal," he added.

He said Assange refused to take the test until it was too late, when all the Swedish clinics had closed for the weekend.

"Julian said, 'I don't like it when people are blackmailing me, and they are blackmailing me by threatening to go to the police'," said the colleague.

Assange also told him that he had spoken to one of the alleged victims, known as 'Ms W', assuring him that 'she is fine, she won't go to the police'.

The co-ordinator, however, said he knew from his own conversations with Ms W that she was not fine at all, but terrified she had been infected. (ANI)
[nr]
i'd say it's beginning to look dark for julien. if the above is true. the courts will take a dim view of his action.

thethingy

(12-20-2010, 03:10 AM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]These are the two women Julian Assange had unprotected sex with in Sweden,
and who subsequently pressed charges against him:

not the prettiest of pictures........................
sadly because the person being charged is julien
the two women weren't allowed annonimity
as most women are in cases like this.


true but if their names weren't leaked/given out who would have known which facebook to look up?
normally rape victims identities are kept secret. in the uk it's usually done by a court order.

thethingy


(12-20-2010, 02:45 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]Report: Federal Grand Jury Considering Charges Against WikiLeaks’ Assange

Quote:A U.S. federal grand jury is reportedly meeting to consider possible criminal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to a lawyer for Assange.

The grand jury has met secretly in Alexandria, Virginia, according to Mark Stephens, an attorney for Assange.


Looks like the details of his violent rape were leaked just in time for the grand jury to consider it................it's all downhill [for him] now Hysterical

mrmod

(12-20-2010, 02:45 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]Report: Federal Grand Jury Considering Charges Against WikiLeaks’ Assange

Quote:A U.S. federal grand jury is reportedly meeting to consider possible criminal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to a lawyer for Assange.

The grand jury has met secretly in Alexandria, Virginia, according to Mark Stephens, an attorney for Assange.


Really informative video, thanks Wink.

And thethingy, I think they are not going to charge him for his sexual allegations. They are looking for something else Dodgy.



thethingy

(12-21-2010, 03:02 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]Really informative video, thanks Wink.

And thethingy, I think they are not going to charge him for his sexual allegations. They are looking for something else Dodgy.

don't know you know, the details of the allegations have been published a few posts above the video, Julian's solicitor clearly states there has been no info given to Julian about the accusations and that just does not seem to be true, thing is both the UK & Sweden are part of Europe and it would be the EU courts who would ultimately decide on extradition to the US as that is the supreme appeal avenue so Julian's solicitor appears to be talking crap again cause it don't really mater if Julian is in the UK or Sweden.

mrmod

(12-21-2010, 07:33 AM)thethingy Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-21-2010, 03:02 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]Really informative video, thanks Wink.

And thethingy, I think they are not going to charge him for his sexual allegations. They are looking for something else Dodgy.

don't know you know, the details of the allegations have been published a few posts above the video, Julian's solicitor clearly states there has been no info given to Julian about the accusations and that just does not seem to be true, thing is both the UK & Sweden are part of Europe and it would be the EU courts who would ultimately decide on extradition to the US as that is the supreme appeal avenue so Julian's solicitor appears to be talking crap again cause it don't really mater if Julian is in the UK or Sweden.

Take it this way: Assange is an Australian citizen, who is under investigation for a a crime committed in Sweden and gave himself up in the United Kingdom. How are you going to explain extraditing him to the United States? In this specific case, they just should not be involved, if mentioned at all.

thethingy

(12-21-2010, 08:36 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]Take it this way: Assange is an Australian citizen, who is under investigation for a a crime committed in Sweden and gave himself up in the United Kingdom. Who are you going to explain extraditing him to the United States? In this specific case, they just should not be involved, if mentioned at all.

Do you mean how would an extradition to the US be explained?, if so no explanation would be necessary other that a grand jury has indited, but his nationality is no issue and the fact that another state may seek to extradite also has no baring on his case in Sweden.
Assange's legal camp claimed he was given little to no details about the charges against him, but that's been shown to be a fib... legal documents, plus a testimony from Assange's associate that the women had been threatening these charges way before any of the wikileaks hulabaloo. I suppose he was just trying for more sympathy by playing up the witch hunt story (yes, he's being targeted, but he doesn't seem to be as ignorant or innocent as he claims either).

So the US is trying to build a case against him... personally I don't think they'll succeed in any guilty verdict. Possibly they don't even want to, might make him too much of a martyr and all of that. They just want to drag him through the mud for as long as possible Sad
the swedes can agree to an extradition on the grounds the american
charges are more serious a crime, and the uk can do the same.
no explanation is needed. the swedes can also ask that he be extradited back after any trial in america
so he can be taken to court there, giving yourself up in the uk because there is an interpol warrant out for you means nothing. that was proved by the amount of bail he had to put up front as surety, a rather large amount to say the least, the same with the tagging and having to report twice a day to the police station. his refusal to return to sweden and talk with prosecutors there was enough to deem him 'on the run' giving himself up to the british did not negate his refusal to meet the swedes.

anyone can be extradited to anywhere that has an extradition treaty with the holding country. one country can give up the right to the initial trial if it feels the need to. in most cases that;s usually the way it goes. anyone can also be expelled by any country to their country of origin,

as an australian he does not have the right to free and unrestricted travel across europe. any country he is in also has the right to hold him if they deem it prudent until another country expedites an extradition order. at present, assange has very few rights in the uk, at present he is deemed by the courts to be a criminal under arrest

thethingy

Transcript: The Assange interview


Quote:source
The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been holed up in a mansion in East Anglia since he was released from prison last week.

He is under strict bail conditions while he fights extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning about claims of sexual assault.

Today programme presenter John Humphrys went to meet him for what is Mr Assange's first face-to-face broadcast interview since his release.

Q: Why won't you go back to Sweden?

JA: I have been back. I was there for some five weeks after these initial allegations were made. They were dropped within 24 hours of them first being made. The most senior prosecutor in Stockholm reviewed them and they were dropped. Then politician Claes Borgstrom became involved, other forces became involved and the case, the investigative part of the case, was taken up again. We waited some four/five weeks to be interviewed, so I could put my side of this case forward, and that did not happen.

Q: But it has now.

JA: It did not happen, and then I asked: "OK, I have things to do, I had only planned to be in Sweden for one week, it's time to leave. Is there any problem with that?" For the first three weeks, the Swedish prosecution refused to answer whether it was ok to leave or not. So caught there in limbo. Finally, grudgingly admitted that there was no reason to keep me there. And at that stage I went about my normal course of work. And then they say they want another interview, fine. There's plenty ways to do that. So why can't those things be done?

Q: Why can't you go back to Sweden?

JA: I don't need to go back to Sweden.

Q: You do because the law says you must.

JA: Well no, the law says that I also have certain rights. I do not need to go and speak to random prosecutors around the world who simply want to have a chat and won't do it in any other standard way.

Q: But they don't just want to have a chat, do they?

JA: No, they do.

Q: That rather belittles what this is all about. Very serious allegations have been made. It puzzles a lot of people that you're not saying: "Yes, I want to go to deal with these serious allegations, I will go anywhere they want me to go."

JA: I have already spoken to them.

Q: But they want to talk to you again. That's not uncommon in these cases.

JA: If they want to charge me, they can charge me. They have decided not to charge me.

Q: Yet.

JA: Or they can come to Sweden (or they can come here - JH corrects) or we can do a video link up, or they can accept a statement of mine. They have rejected all of that. And they have asked, as part of their application that, if I go to Sweden and am arrested, that I am to be held incommunicado. Entirely incommunicado. They have asked that my Swedish lawyer be gagged from talking about the evidence to the public.

Q: Everything you say may be true. I've no way of judging that. But, surely you can see how very, very damaging, at the very least, it is to somebody like you, somebody who has spent a large part of his life saying: "People are accountable. We must have systems that do transparency. We must have systems under which the public knows what's going on and people can be held to account." And here you are facing, possibly facing, very, very serious charges indeed, double rape even, is a possibility - and you are saying: "I will not go back to the country where those offences are alleged to have been carried out to face the music."

JA: No, I have never said that.

Q: In that case you can catch the next plane back to Sweden.

JA: No, I do things according to proper process. I stayed in Sweden for five weeks to enable that proper process to occur. Proper process did not occur. I left as part of, you know, just my normal course of activity - no complaints from the Swedish government. I have an organisation to run. I have my people to defend. There are other things at stake here… There are other things at stake here. I have a serious brewing extradition case in relation to the United States. I have a serious organisation to run. People affiliated with our organisation have already been assassinated. My work is serious. I do not have to run off to random states simply because some prosecutor is abusing a process in those states.

Q: No. It is happening because a couple of women have alleged that you seriously assaulted them, sexually assaulted them.

JA: No. One of the witnesses. One of the friends of one of those women, she says that one of the women states that she was bamboozled into this by police and others. These women may be victims in this process.

Q: Or they may not be. We can't try the case here, can we? We don't. I don't know enough. I do know what I've read in the newspapers. You know what has been printed in the newspapers. Serious allegations have been made against you.

JA: Most of what we know is, in fact, from the newspapers because somehow the Swedish prosecution has been, deliberately and illegally, selectively taking bits of its material and giving them to newspapers.

Q: Can't you see that it's a bit rum for you to be sitting there under these circumstances. You, Julian Assange, the Wikileaks man, who's become terribly famous, as has your organisation, for leaking material that other people didn't want to see published and here you are saying: "They've leaked something about me."

JA: Not at all. We are an organisation that does not promote leaking. We're an organisation that promotes justice…

Q: You hardly discourage it when you print a couple of million private cables.

JA: … that promotes justice through the mechanism of transparency and journalism.

Q: Based on leaks.

JA: When a powerful organisation that has internal policies, that is meant to be creating and following the law, i.e. Swedish prosecution's judicial system, abuses its own regulation and its own position to attack an individual, that is an abuse of power.

Q: The idea that you have to be dragged back to another country, a civilised country not a banana republic, a civilised country…

JA: A bit more of a banana republic…

Q: It's a country that is respected around the world for its social-democratic system and its rule of law...

JA: That was.

Q: All right, your view no longer is that… that you will be dragged back to this country, possibly in handcuffs, to face charges of serious assault, sexual assault, against a couple of women. What impact so you think that will have on your organisation and what sort of figure do you think you, Julian Assange, cut in the face of all this. How will you be regarded? What will it do to you?

JA: I think it will be quite helpful for our organisation.

Q: Really? You see yourself as a martyr then?

JA: I think it will focus an incredible attention on the details of this case and then when the details of this case come out and people look to see what the actions are compared to the reality of the facts, other than that, it will expose a tremendous abuse of power. And that will, in fact, be helpful to this organisation. And, in fact, the extra focus that has occurred over the last two weeks has been very helpful to this organisation.

Q: You don't think it's damaged you at all?

JA: Two days ago I did a search on Google for my name, some 40 million web pages have my name in it. Now, searching for my name and the word "rape", there is some 30 mil web pages. So this has been a very successful smear.

Q: Well, is it the smear and if it is, who is responsible for it?

JA: But when this is undone, that will also be immunising. People will start to see what is really going on.

Q: Just to answer that question then. You think this will be good for you and good for Wikileaks?

JA: I've had to suffer and we've had incredible disruptions.

Q: You do see yourself as a martyr here.

JA: Well, you know, in a very beneficial position, if you can be martyred without dying. And we've had a little bit of that over the past ten days. And if this case goes on, we will have more.

Q: If all you have is accusation and denial - which is what we have here. We know what the women, you were alleged to have assaulted, have said because we've read it in the newspapers….

JA: Well, they have never said the word "rape". And that is something that is being adduced by other parties.

Q: None the less, people know what they are reported to have said in various forums and that is that you assaulted them in ways that they did not want to be assaulted. That is to say, in one case the woman agreed to have sex with you, apparently she insisted you use a condom, the condom got ripped. In another case the woman said she went to sleep, she woke up and you were trying to have… you were having sex with her without a condom. These are serious allegations. Some people regard them, that second one in particular, as rape. Is there any truth in any of those stories?

JA: No.

Q: No? You deny them completely? But did have sex with the women?

JA: We know there is all sorts of nonsense in the tabloid press and all sorts of spin conducted for all sorts of reasons.

Q: But you haven't denied having sex with those women?

JA: No, I haven't denied that.

Q: So you did have sex with those women?

JA: I have always tried in this case and in my other dealings to be a private person and to not speak about matters that are private.

Q: This is now public. So I'm asking you the question. Did you have sex with those women?

JA: It's a matter of public record as far as the courts are concerned but I am not going to be exposing other people's private lives or my own more than is absolutely necessary. That is not what a gentleman does, that why I have also never criticised these women. We don't know precisely what pressures they have been under, exactly. There are powerful interests that have incentives to promote these smears. That doesn't mean that they got in there in the very beginning and fabricated them.

Q: So you're not suggesting that this was a honey-trap? That you were somehow set up by the Americans, by the CIA? You don't buy into that idea because your lawyer's suggested that that's the case.

JA: He says that he was misquoted. I have never said that this is a honey-trap.

Q: You don't believe it?

JA: I have never said that this is not a honey-trap. I'm not accusing anyone until I have proof.

Q: Do you believe it is possible?

JA: That's not how I operate as a journalist because almost everything is possible. I talk about what is probable.

Q: All right, what do you think is probable here?

JA: What is probable? It is less probable that there was that type of involvement at the very beginning. That kind of classic Russian-Moscow thing. That is not probable.

Q: That leaves us with the fact, because you accept this, that one of those women at least did make a complaint against you.

JA: Not even a complaint. It appears, from the records that we do have, the suggestion is that they went to the police for advice and they did not want to make a complaint. What they say is that they found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had undertaken sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. They went to the police to…

Q: They wanted you to have a test as well.

JA: …to have a test.

Q: Did you have a test?

JA: Ridiculous thing to go to the police about.

Q: The allegation against you, the very broad allegation that's been made over and over again in the media over recent days is that you're some sort of sexual predator who has sex with a large number of young women, ideally without a condom, and that you do it because you can, effectively, because in some cases they're groupies or they're enthralled to your fame or whatever it is. Are you a sexual predator?

JA: That's ridiculous. Of course not.

Q: How many women have you slept with?

JA: That's a private business. Not only does a gentleman not tell, not only does a gentleman like to talk about his private life, a gentleman certainly doesn't count.

Q: Many, without being specific?

JA: I've never had a problem before with women. Women have been extremely helpful and generous.

Q: Not quite the question I asked you.

JA: No, women have been extremely helpful and generous and put up with me. But…

Q: Does put up with you mean having you in their beds?

JA: Of course on occasion, I mean I'm an adult man, but women have been generous to me over many years.

Q: In what sense?

JA: You know, in a sense of assisting me with my work, caring for me, loving me and so on. That is what I am used to. So this particular episode in Sweden came as a great shock. The personal shock of having people you're close to doing that, actually much harder to deal with, in a much greater feeling of betrayal than all of these political disputes I have with United States and being sued by banks and so on. Much harder to handle.

Q: What has the Wikileaks leaks achieved, in your view?

JA: Already we see that we have changed governance, we have certainly changed many political figures within governments, we have caused new law reform efforts, we have caused police investigations into the abuses we expose, UN investigations, investigations here in the UK especially in relation to our revelation of the circumstances of the deaths of 109,000 people in Iraq. Before Cablegate, the change is so vast that I cannot, and my whole team cannot, even keep track of it.

Q: Isn't there a danger in the long term that we will know less about the way governments, authorities, various institutions run, because of what you call Cablegate, this release of millions of documents, millions of cables? Because in truth… what people in organisations like MI5 and MI6 will say is: "If we were doing bad things, we won't stop doing bad things, we just won't write them down."

JA: That's something that I thought of before we ever launched this project. It's not so easy. There is a reason why people write things down. Yes, you can organise a small group of people to do something with just word of mouth. But if you want to enact policy, for example, to get Guantanamo Bay guards to do something, get the grunts to do something, you've got to write it down or it will not be followed.

Q: But you do see the difference between transparency, which may or may not be desirable, and accountability, which is always desirable?

JA: Yes of course. I have always said that we are an organisation which is designed to promote justice, through the method of transparency. But we do not put the cart before the horse. We know what is leading this, justice is leading this.

Q: You will have released, by the time it's all over - Cablegate - maybe a quarter of a million documents… A lot of it's fascinating. A lot of it's intriguing. But it's tittle-tattle. It's the kind of thing an ambassador would tell his boss at home just because it's something he's found out. In whose interest is it that we should all of this stuff?

JA: With respect it is not tittle-tattle. There's is very, very serious matters in there. When the head of the state or an ambassador is reporting what you call tittle-tattle, it is no longer tittle-tattle. It is either very dangerous poisonous political gossip, or it is the truth.

Q: But do you really believe you can stop people gossiping? Gossip is what makes the world go round? You do it. I do it. Everybody does it.

JA: We try and do it less than other people.

Q: But in whose interest is it that diplomats can no longer speak freely to their own foreign office or whoever it happens to be?

JA: They can speak freely… They just have to start committing things to paper that they are proud of.

Q: This is very different from releasing, for instance, the kind of information that was released relating to sensitive sites, in some cases important security sites. In whose interest was it to do that, apart from people who might potentially benefit, like terrorists?

JA: Your suggestion was that it is tittle-tattle. Now you are saying that this is something that is serious.

Q: I said the vast majority of it was tittle-tattle but I would also suggest to you that some of it was dangerous.

JA: I believe none of it is dangerous. Vastly more detailed things have been released by the United States government itself, by Congress. For example, a year-and-a-half ago it released a list of all US nuclear sites.

Q: But that is for them to decide, because they are the elected government of that nation and they can do that… You are getting leaks illegally.

JA: Not illegally… We have been victorious in every single court case we have ever had. Legality is something for the highest court in the land to decide. It is not what a general claims.

Revealing illegal behaviour is in most countries not illegal. We are a publisher. We accept information from whistleblowers. We vet it, we analyse it and we publish it and that's what we do.

Q: It is illegal to hack into protected sites. It is illegal.

JA: Where is the suggestion that any of the things we have published about government sites have come from illegal hacking?... The allegations are in this case, that an intelligence agent walked out with the material on a CD. That's the allegation.

Q: I'm going to have to end this interview very soon because you have to go off to report to the police for your daily check.

JA: For my high-tech house arrest.

Q: Just a final thought. Do you see yourself… as some sort of messianic figure?

JA: Everyone would like to be a messianic figure without dying. We are bringing some important change about what is perceived to be the rights of people who expose abuses by powerful corporations and then to resist censorship attacks after the event. We are also changing the perception of the west.

Q: I'm talking about you personally.

JA: I'm always so focussed on my work, I don't have time to think about how I perceive myself… I had time to perceive myself a bit more in solitary confinement. I was perfectly happy with myself. I wondered what that process would do. Would I think "my goodness, how have I got into this mess, is it all just too hard?"

The world is a very ungrateful place, why should I continue to suffer simply to try and do some good in the world. If the world is so viciously against it ,why don't I just go off and do some mathematics or write some books? But no, actually, I felt quite at peace.

Q: You want to change the world?

JA: Absolutely. The world has a lot of problems and they need to be reformed. And we only live once. Every person who has some ability to do something about it, if they are a person of good character, has the duty to try and fix the problems in the environment which they're in.

That is a value, that, yes, comes partly from my temperament. There is also a value that comes from my father, which is that capable, generous men don't create victims, they try and save people from becoming victims. That is what they are tasked to do. If they do not do that they are not worthy of respect or they are not capable.

mrmod

(12-22-2010, 01:49 PM)thethingy Wrote: [ -> ]Transcript: The Assange interview


Quote:source
The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been holed up in a mansion in East Anglia since he was released from prison last week.

He is under strict bail conditions while he fights extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning about claims of sexual assault.

Today programme presenter John Humphrys went to meet him for what is Mr Assange's first face-to-face broadcast interview since his release.

Q: Why won't you go back to Sweden?

JA: I have been back. I was there for some five weeks after these initial allegations were made. They were dropped within 24 hours of them first being made. The most senior prosecutor in Stockholm reviewed them and they were dropped. Then politician Claes Borgstrom became involved, other forces became involved and the case, the investigative part of the case, was taken up again. We waited some four/five weeks to be interviewed, so I could put my side of this case forward, and that did not happen.

Q: But it has now.

JA: It did not happen, and then I asked: "OK, I have things to do, I had only planned to be in Sweden for one week, it's time to leave. Is there any problem with that?" For the first three weeks, the Swedish prosecution refused to answer whether it was ok to leave or not. So caught there in limbo. Finally, grudgingly admitted that there was no reason to keep me there. And at that stage I went about my normal course of work. And then they say they want another interview, fine. There's plenty ways to do that. So why can't those things be done?

Q: Why can't you go back to Sweden?

JA: I don't need to go back to Sweden.

Q: You do because the law says you must.

JA: Well no, the law says that I also have certain rights. I do not need to go and speak to random prosecutors around the world who simply want to have a chat and won't do it in any other standard way.

Q: But they don't just want to have a chat, do they?

JA: No, they do.

Q: That rather belittles what this is all about. Very serious allegations have been made. It puzzles a lot of people that you're not saying: "Yes, I want to go to deal with these serious allegations, I will go anywhere they want me to go."

JA: I have already spoken to them.

Q: But they want to talk to you again. That's not uncommon in these cases.

JA: If they want to charge me, they can charge me. They have decided not to charge me.

Q: Yet.

JA: Or they can come to Sweden (or they can come here - JH corrects) or we can do a video link up, or they can accept a statement of mine. They have rejected all of that. And they have asked, as part of their application that, if I go to Sweden and am arrested, that I am to be held incommunicado. Entirely incommunicado. They have asked that my Swedish lawyer be gagged from talking about the evidence to the public.

Q: Everything you say may be true. I've no way of judging that. But, surely you can see how very, very damaging, at the very least, it is to somebody like you, somebody who has spent a large part of his life saying: "People are accountable. We must have systems that do transparency. We must have systems under which the public knows what's going on and people can be held to account." And here you are facing, possibly facing, very, very serious charges indeed, double rape even, is a possibility - and you are saying: "I will not go back to the country where those offences are alleged to have been carried out to face the music."

JA: No, I have never said that.

Q: In that case you can catch the next plane back to Sweden.

JA: No, I do things according to proper process. I stayed in Sweden for five weeks to enable that proper process to occur. Proper process did not occur. I left as part of, you know, just my normal course of activity - no complaints from the Swedish government. I have an organisation to run. I have my people to defend. There are other things at stake here… There are other things at stake here. I have a serious brewing extradition case in relation to the United States. I have a serious organisation to run. People affiliated with our organisation have already been assassinated. My work is serious. I do not have to run off to random states simply because some prosecutor is abusing a process in those states.

Q: No. It is happening because a couple of women have alleged that you seriously assaulted them, sexually assaulted them.

JA: No. One of the witnesses. One of the friends of one of those women, she says that one of the women states that she was bamboozled into this by police and others. These women may be victims in this process.

Q: Or they may not be. We can't try the case here, can we? We don't. I don't know enough. I do know what I've read in the newspapers. You know what has been printed in the newspapers. Serious allegations have been made against you.

JA: Most of what we know is, in fact, from the newspapers because somehow the Swedish prosecution has been, deliberately and illegally, selectively taking bits of its material and giving them to newspapers.

Q: Can't you see that it's a bit rum for you to be sitting there under these circumstances. You, Julian Assange, the Wikileaks man, who's become terribly famous, as has your organisation, for leaking material that other people didn't want to see published and here you are saying: "They've leaked something about me."

JA: Not at all. We are an organisation that does not promote leaking. We're an organisation that promotes justice…

Q: You hardly discourage it when you print a couple of million private cables.

JA: … that promotes justice through the mechanism of transparency and journalism.

Q: Based on leaks.

JA: When a powerful organisation that has internal policies, that is meant to be creating and following the law, i.e. Swedish prosecution's judicial system, abuses its own regulation and its own position to attack an individual, that is an abuse of power.

Q: The idea that you have to be dragged back to another country, a civilised country not a banana republic, a civilised country…

JA: A bit more of a banana republic…

Q: It's a country that is respected around the world for its social-democratic system and its rule of law...

JA: That was.

Q: All right, your view no longer is that… that you will be dragged back to this country, possibly in handcuffs, to face charges of serious assault, sexual assault, against a couple of women. What impact so you think that will have on your organisation and what sort of figure do you think you, Julian Assange, cut in the face of all this. How will you be regarded? What will it do to you?

JA: I think it will be quite helpful for our organisation.

Q: Really? You see yourself as a martyr then?

JA: I think it will focus an incredible attention on the details of this case and then when the details of this case come out and people look to see what the actions are compared to the reality of the facts, other than that, it will expose a tremendous abuse of power. And that will, in fact, be helpful to this organisation. And, in fact, the extra focus that has occurred over the last two weeks has been very helpful to this organisation.

Q: You don't think it's damaged you at all?

JA: Two days ago I did a search on Google for my name, some 40 million web pages have my name in it. Now, searching for my name and the word "rape", there is some 30 mil web pages. So this has been a very successful smear.

Q: Well, is it the smear and if it is, who is responsible for it?

JA: But when this is undone, that will also be immunising. People will start to see what is really going on.

Q: Just to answer that question then. You think this will be good for you and good for Wikileaks?

JA: I've had to suffer and we've had incredible disruptions.

Q: You do see yourself as a martyr here.

JA: Well, you know, in a very beneficial position, if you can be martyred without dying. And we've had a little bit of that over the past ten days. And if this case goes on, we will have more.

Q: If all you have is accusation and denial - which is what we have here. We know what the women, you were alleged to have assaulted, have said because we've read it in the newspapers….

JA: Well, they have never said the word "rape". And that is something that is being adduced by other parties.

Q: None the less, people know what they are reported to have said in various forums and that is that you assaulted them in ways that they did not want to be assaulted. That is to say, in one case the woman agreed to have sex with you, apparently she insisted you use a condom, the condom got ripped. In another case the woman said she went to sleep, she woke up and you were trying to have… you were having sex with her without a condom. These are serious allegations. Some people regard them, that second one in particular, as rape. Is there any truth in any of those stories?

JA: No.

Q: No? You deny them completely? But did have sex with the women?

JA: We know there is all sorts of nonsense in the tabloid press and all sorts of spin conducted for all sorts of reasons.

Q: But you haven't denied having sex with those women?

JA: No, I haven't denied that.

Q: So you did have sex with those women?

JA: I have always tried in this case and in my other dealings to be a private person and to not speak about matters that are private.

Q: This is now public. So I'm asking you the question. Did you have sex with those women?

JA: It's a matter of public record as far as the courts are concerned but I am not going to be exposing other people's private lives or my own more than is absolutely necessary. That is not what a gentleman does, that why I have also never criticised these women. We don't know precisely what pressures they have been under, exactly. There are powerful interests that have incentives to promote these smears. That doesn't mean that they got in there in the very beginning and fabricated them.

Q: So you're not suggesting that this was a honey-trap? That you were somehow set up by the Americans, by the CIA? You don't buy into that idea because your lawyer's suggested that that's the case.

JA: He says that he was misquoted. I have never said that this is a honey-trap.

Q: You don't believe it?

JA: I have never said that this is not a honey-trap. I'm not accusing anyone until I have proof.

Q: Do you believe it is possible?

JA: That's not how I operate as a journalist because almost everything is possible. I talk about what is probable.

Q: All right, what do you think is probable here?

JA: What is probable? It is less probable that there was that type of involvement at the very beginning. That kind of classic Russian-Moscow thing. That is not probable.

Q: That leaves us with the fact, because you accept this, that one of those women at least did make a complaint against you.

JA: Not even a complaint. It appears, from the records that we do have, the suggestion is that they went to the police for advice and they did not want to make a complaint. What they say is that they found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had undertaken sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. They went to the police to…

Q: They wanted you to have a test as well.

JA: …to have a test.

Q: Did you have a test?

JA: Ridiculous thing to go to the police about.

Q: The allegation against you, the very broad allegation that's been made over and over again in the media over recent days is that you're some sort of sexual predator who has sex with a large number of young women, ideally without a condom, and that you do it because you can, effectively, because in some cases they're groupies or they're enthralled to your fame or whatever it is. Are you a sexual predator?

JA: That's ridiculous. Of course not.

Q: How many women have you slept with?

JA: That's a private business. Not only does a gentleman not tell, not only does a gentleman like to talk about his private life, a gentleman certainly doesn't count.

Q: Many, without being specific?

JA: I've never had a problem before with women. Women have been extremely helpful and generous.

Q: Not quite the question I asked you.

JA: No, women have been extremely helpful and generous and put up with me. But…

Q: Does put up with you mean having you in their beds?

JA: Of course on occasion, I mean I'm an adult man, but women have been generous to me over many years.

Q: In what sense?

JA: You know, in a sense of assisting me with my work, caring for me, loving me and so on. That is what I am used to. So this particular episode in Sweden came as a great shock. The personal shock of having people you're close to doing that, actually much harder to deal with, in a much greater feeling of betrayal than all of these political disputes I have with United States and being sued by banks and so on. Much harder to handle.

Q: What has the Wikileaks leaks achieved, in your view?

JA: Already we see that we have changed governance, we have certainly changed many political figures within governments, we have caused new law reform efforts, we have caused police investigations into the abuses we expose, UN investigations, investigations here in the UK especially in relation to our revelation of the circumstances of the deaths of 109,000 people in Iraq. Before Cablegate, the change is so vast that I cannot, and my whole team cannot, even keep track of it.

Q: Isn't there a danger in the long term that we will know less about the way governments, authorities, various institutions run, because of what you call Cablegate, this release of millions of documents, millions of cables? Because in truth… what people in organisations like MI5 and MI6 will say is: "If we were doing bad things, we won't stop doing bad things, we just won't write them down."

JA: That's something that I thought of before we ever launched this project. It's not so easy. There is a reason why people write things down. Yes, you can organise a small group of people to do something with just word of mouth. But if you want to enact policy, for example, to get Guantanamo Bay guards to do something, get the grunts to do something, you've got to write it down or it will not be followed.

Q: But you do see the difference between transparency, which may or may not be desirable, and accountability, which is always desirable?

JA: Yes of course. I have always said that we are an organisation which is designed to promote justice, through the method of transparency. But we do not put the cart before the horse. We know what is leading this, justice is leading this.

Q: You will have released, by the time it's all over - Cablegate - maybe a quarter of a million documents… A lot of it's fascinating. A lot of it's intriguing. But it's tittle-tattle. It's the kind of thing an ambassador would tell his boss at home just because it's something he's found out. In whose interest is it that we should all of this stuff?

JA: With respect it is not tittle-tattle. There's is very, very serious matters in there. When the head of the state or an ambassador is reporting what you call tittle-tattle, it is no longer tittle-tattle. It is either very dangerous poisonous political gossip, or it is the truth.

Q: But do you really believe you can stop people gossiping? Gossip is what makes the world go round? You do it. I do it. Everybody does it.

JA: We try and do it less than other people.

Q: But in whose interest is it that diplomats can no longer speak freely to their own foreign office or whoever it happens to be?

JA: They can speak freely… They just have to start committing things to paper that they are proud of.

Q: This is very different from releasing, for instance, the kind of information that was released relating to sensitive sites, in some cases important security sites. In whose interest was it to do that, apart from people who might potentially benefit, like terrorists?

JA: Your suggestion was that it is tittle-tattle. Now you are saying that this is something that is serious.

Q: I said the vast majority of it was tittle-tattle but I would also suggest to you that some of it was dangerous.

JA: I believe none of it is dangerous. Vastly more detailed things have been released by the United States government itself, by Congress. For example, a year-and-a-half ago it released a list of all US nuclear sites.

Q: But that is for them to decide, because they are the elected government of that nation and they can do that… You are getting leaks illegally.

JA: Not illegally… We have been victorious in every single court case we have ever had. Legality is something for the highest court in the land to decide. It is not what a general claims.

Revealing illegal behaviour is in most countries not illegal. We are a publisher. We accept information from whistleblowers. We vet it, we analyse it and we publish it and that's what we do.

Q: It is illegal to hack into protected sites. It is illegal.

JA: Where is the suggestion that any of the things we have published about government sites have come from illegal hacking?... The allegations are in this case, that an intelligence agent walked out with the material on a CD. That's the allegation.

Q: I'm going to have to end this interview very soon because you have to go off to report to the police for your daily check.

JA: For my high-tech house arrest.

Q: Just a final thought. Do you see yourself… as some sort of messianic figure?

JA: Everyone would like to be a messianic figure without dying. We are bringing some important change about what is perceived to be the rights of people who expose abuses by powerful corporations and then to resist censorship attacks after the event. We are also changing the perception of the west.

Q: I'm talking about you personally.

JA: I'm always so focussed on my work, I don't have time to think about how I perceive myself… I had time to perceive myself a bit more in solitary confinement. I was perfectly happy with myself. I wondered what that process would do. Would I think "my goodness, how have I got into this mess, is it all just too hard?"

The world is a very ungrateful place, why should I continue to suffer simply to try and do some good in the world. If the world is so viciously against it ,why don't I just go off and do some mathematics or write some books? But no, actually, I felt quite at peace.

Q: You want to change the world?

JA: Absolutely. The world has a lot of problems and they need to be reformed. And we only live once. Every person who has some ability to do something about it, if they are a person of good character, has the duty to try and fix the problems in the environment which they're in.

That is a value, that, yes, comes partly from my temperament. There is also a value that comes from my father, which is that capable, generous men don't create victims, they try and save people from becoming victims. That is what they are tasked to do. If they do not do that they are not worthy of respect or they are not capable.


I only read half, was a bit long. But from what I can see the reporter does his job quite well, pushing Assange. However he was a very rude journalist. "How many women have you slept with?" seemed like an irrelevant question.

mrmod

(12-23-2010, 07:45 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]this is just ridiculous Angry

Nice article. But I cannot stand news that are broadcast like that Dodgy.
off topic.

in truth i think cnn are just climbing on the bandwagon. assange has had his fame and now it's time for the media to change sides and bring him down. it's how they work irrelevant of who it is.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7