Ska Hillary Clinton också prata om Assange?

Bradley Manning, den amerikanske soldat som anklagas för att ha läckt material till WikiLeaks, har torterats  ( genom fullständig isolering under makabra förhållanden) under två år och  hotas av livstidsstraff. Vidriga förhållanden som knappt kommenteras i svensk media. President Obama har under samma tid firats med spaltmil för Nobels fredspris. Att döda oskyldiga med obemannade drönare  ses inte som något brott. Hillary Clinton behandlas inte precis som en krigsförbrytare när hon nu är i Stockholm. Ingen insatsstyrka väntar på att ta henne till Haag! Vare sig Reinfeldt eller Bildt kommer heller att  ifrågasätta varför USA nu tänker stationera sex hangarfartyg i Asien. Vad vi vet finns det inte ens en enda kinesisk kanonbåt i Mexikanska golfen.

.

Varför förhörsledarna i sexmålet mot Julian Assange aldrig kallade honom under tiden i Sverige och sedan under 540 dagar inte har orkat med en flygresa till London ifrågasätts inte av särskilt många, ens inom vänstern.

”Blott Sverige svenska krusbär har”, skaldade Carl Jonas Love Almqvist och det tycks gälla synen även på ”svensk rättvisa”. Även efter målen mot ”massmördaren” Thomas Quick…

”Det hela handlar bara om sexmålet”, heter det barnsligt nog (som för övrigt kommer att läggas ner efter ett eventuellt förhör). Men i själva verket är det bara en bred solidaritet med WikiLeaks och Assange som kan förhindra en utlämning till USA. Det måste helt enkelt bli politiskt omöjligt för Carl Bildt att iscensätta den handräckning som Washington kommer att försöka få till stånd. Hillary Clinton och Bildt dryftar säker vad som är möjligt under hennes besök i Stockholm. Har alla glömt Anna Lindhs utlämning till Mubaraks tortyrhålor?

I veckan demonstrerade radikala människor runt om i Australien mot en utlämning av Assange till Sverige. I Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth och på många andra var slagordet ”Stand up for Assange”. I Sydney gav David Hicks, själv ett offer för den amerikanska rättvisan som fånge i det Guantanamo som USA ockuperar på kubanskt territorium, ett emotionellt tal där han berättade om vad som kan vänta Assange:


 

****

I veckan återgav DN samtidigt två korta stycken från en egen intervju med John Pilger. Nedan finns hela intervjun:

Julian Assange has been fighting extradition to Sweden at a number of British courts. Why do you think it is important he wins?

Because the attempt to extradite Assange is unjust and political. I have read almost every scrap of evidence in this case and it’s clear, in terms of natural justice, that no crime was committed. The case would not have got this far had it not been for the intervention of Claes Borgstrom, a politician who saw an opportunity when the Stockholm prosecutor threw out almost all the police allegations.

Borgstrom was then in the middle of an election campaign. When asked why the case was proceeding when both women had said that the sex had been consensual with Assange, he replied, ”Ah, but they’re not lawyers.” If the Supreme Court in London rejects Assange’s appeal, the one hope is the independence of the Swedish courts.

However, as the London Independent has revealed, Sweden and the US have already begun talks on Assange’s ”temporary surrender” to the US — where he faces concocted charges and the prospect of unlimited solitary confinement. And for what? For telling epic truths. Every Swede who cares about justice and the reputation of his or her society should care deeply about this.

You have said that Julian Assange’s human rights have been breached. In what way?

One of the most fundamental human rights — that of the presumption of innocence — has been been breached over and over again in Assange’s case. Convicted of no crime, he has been the object of character assassination — perfidious and inhuman — and highly political smear, of which the evidence is voluminous.

This is what Britain’s most distinguished and experienced human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, has written: “Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions … it is very hard to preserve for [Assange] any presumption of innocence.

“He has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country. [And] his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”

You, as well as Julian Assange, don’t seem to have confidence in the Swedish judicial system. Why not?

It’s difficult to have confidence in a prosecutorial system that is so contradictory and flagrantly uses the media to achieve its aims. Whether or not the Supreme Court in London find for or against Assange, the fact that this case has reached the highest court in this country is itself a condemnation of the competence and motivation of those so eager to incarcerate him, having already had plenty of opportunity to to question him properly. What a waste all this is.

If Julian Assange is innocent, as he says, would it not have been better if he had gone to Stockholm to sort things out?

Assange tried to ”sort things out”, as you put it. Right from the beginning, he offered repeatedly to be questioned — first in Sweden, then in Britain. He sought and received permission to leave Sweden, which makes a nonsense of the claim that he has avoided questioning.

The prosecutor who has since pursued him has refused to give any explanation about why she will not use standard procedures, which Sweden and the UK have signed up to.

If the Supreme Court decides that Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden, what consequences/risks do you see for him?

First, I would draw on my regard for ordinary Swedes’ sense of fairness and justice. Alas, overshadowing that is a Swedish elite that has forged sinister and obsequious links with Washington. These powerful people have every reason to see Julian Assange as a threat

For one thing, their vaunted reputation for neutrality has been repeatedly exposed as a sham in US cables leaked by WikiLeaks.

One cable revealed that ”the extent of [Sweden’s military and intelligence] co-operation [with Nato] is not widely known” and unless kept secret ”would open up the government to domestic criticism”. Another was entitled ”WikiLeaks puts neutrality in the dustbin of history”.

Don’t the Swedish public have a right to know what the powerful say in private in their name?

****

Här är WikiLeaks egen hemsida..

****
.
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , ,

I media: DN1,DN2,DN3,SVD1,GP1,DN4,SVD1,AB1,

2 reaktion på “Ska Hillary Clinton också prata om Assange?

  1. Jo Clinton pratar säkert om Assange. Men det finns ( icke-rättsligt-prövade ) möjliga brottsoffer i den här härvan. hade Assange haft lite heder i kroppen så hade han genomgått den rättsliga prövningen och antingen tagit sitt straff eller blivit friad. Exakta turerna vet jag ej.

    Ingen rättslig expert i Sverige har sett några möjligheter för USA att få honom utlämnad.
    http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/janguillou/article12926443.ab

  2. Clinton skulle diskutera ”friheten på Internet” med herrarna Reinfeldt och Bildt, och då kan vi nog tänka oss att Julian Assanges namn kom upp. Och diskussioner om ACTA.

Kommentera