Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

paulsurovell said:


dave23 said:
When you use the far right's language (deep state, fake news), you give yourself away.
 dave, get a grip.
https://billmoyers.com/story/the-deep-state-explained/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/where-does-the-term-fake-news-come-f

 It's not been in popular use in a long time. (BTW, you linked to the same story twice.)


Julian Assange rejects UK-Ecuador deal for him to leave the embassy

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/06/julian-assange-rejects-uk-ecuador-deal-leave-embassy/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Julian Assange's lawyer has rejected an agreement announced by Ecuador's president to see him leave the Ecuadorean embassy in London, after six years inside.
Lenin Moreno, the president of Ecuador, has made no secret of his wish to be rid of the WikiLeaks founder, who sought asylum inside the embassy in June 2012 and has not left since.
On Thursday Mr Moreno announced that a deal had been reached between London and Quito to allow Mr Assange, 47, to be released.
"The way has been cleared for Mr Assange to take the decision to leave in near-liberty," said Mr Moreno.
He did not specify what "near liberty" meant.
Mr Moreno added that Britain had guaranteed that the Australian would not be extradited to any country where his life is in danger.
But Mr Assange's lawyer, Barry Pollack, told The Telegraph that the deal was not acceptable.
The legal team have long argued that they will not accept any agreement which risks his being extradited to the United States

dave23 said:


paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
When you use the far right's language (deep state, fake news), you give yourself away.
 dave, get a grip.
https://billmoyers.com/story/the-deep-state-explained/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/where-does-the-term-fake-news-come-f
 It's not been in popular use in a long time. (BTW, you linked to the same story twice.)

 Not sure why that happened.  This is the first link:

https://billmoyers.com/story/the-deep-state-explained/


United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention calls on UK to rescind its arrest warrant for Assange, noting the Swedish investigation of allegations against him has been closed for 18 months.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24042&LangID=E


paulsurovell said:
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention calls on UK to rescind its arrest warrant for Assange, noting the Swedish investigation of allegations against him has been closed for 18 months.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24042&LangID=E

How the OHCHR portrays the Swedish prosecutor’s action:

Mr. Assange was arrested on 7 December 2010 in the United Kingdom, pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued against him after he was accused of sexual misconduct in Sweden. That accusation has not been substantiated and after he was interrogated in London the Swedish Prosecutor decided in 2017 not to pursue the investigation.

How the Swedish prosecutor portrayed her action:

“In order to proceed with the case, Julian Assange would have to be formally notified of the criminal suspicions against him. We cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador regarding this. Therefore the investigation is discontinued.

“If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/19/swedish-prosecutors-drop-julian-assange-investigation


John Pilger visted with Assange and says he told him that he did not meet with Manafort.  The following article includes a video.


Pilger: ‘Julian is a touchstone for opposition’  

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/24/video-pilger-says-assange-denies-meeting-manafort/

WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has vehemently denied that he ever met Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, according to journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, who met with Assange at Ecuador’s embassy in London last week.

Pilger said Assange told him the story published by The Guardian on Nov. 27 was a “total fabrication.”  Pilger told Consortium News in an interview for the Unity4J vigil on Friday that “I personally can confirm that did not happen. He said it was a fabrication. It was not possible. The way internal security works at that embassy, it was not possible.”

Pilger called The Guardian story “an indication of a kind of degradation of the media today and especially of the ‘respectable’ media. We discussed that a great deal.”

Pilger said Assange had been the target of attacks “over the years” that have come “thick and fast.” He said:  “And for one man to cope with them is an extraordinary feat. Only occasionally does he express anger—he does it as anyone of us would feel—say on an attack like The Guardian‘s utterly false story.”

DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention calls on UK to rescind its arrest warrant for Assange, noting the Swedish investigation of allegations against him has been closed for 18 months.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24042&LangID=E
How the OHCHR portrays the Swedish prosecutor’s action:
Mr. Assange was arrested on 7 December 2010 in the United Kingdom, pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued against him after he was accused of sexual misconduct in Sweden. That accusation has not been substantiated and after he was interrogated in London the Swedish Prosecutor decided in 2017 not to pursue the investigation.

How the Swedish prosecutor portrayed her action:
“In order to proceed with the case, Julian Assange would have to be formally notified of the criminal suspicions against him. We cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador regarding this. Therefore the investigation is discontinued.
“If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/19/swedish-prosecutors-drop-julian-assange-investigation

 The article also notes that:

Assange was interviewed by Sweden’s deputy public prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren, in the embassy in November, following a lengthy diplomatic and legal impasse between the Swedish and Ecuadorian authorities.
Friday’s announcement in Sweden followed the Swedish government receiving a letter from the government of Ecuador which accused the prosecutor of “serious failure”, including a “lack of initiative” to complete inquiries.

which puts the onus for the failure to complete the investigation on the Swedish prosecutor.


nan said:
John Pilger visted with Assange and says he told him that he did not meet with Manafort.  The following article includes a video.


Pilger: ‘Julian is a touchstone for opposition’  

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/24/video-pilger-says-assange-denies-meeting-manafort/


WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has vehemently denied that he ever met Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, according to journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, who met with Assange at Ecuador’s embassy in London last week.

Pilger said Assange told him the story published by The Guardian on Nov. 27 was a “total fabrication.”  Pilger told Consortium News in an interview for the Unity4J vigil on Friday that “I personally can confirm that did not happen. He said it was a fabrication. It was not possible. The way internal security works at that embassy, it was not possible.”

Pilger called The Guardian story “an indication of a kind of degradation of the media today and especially of the ‘respectable’ media. We discussed that a great deal.”

Pilger said Assange had been the target of attacks “over the years” that have come “thick and fast.” He said:  “And for one man to cope with them is an extraordinary feat. Only occasionally does he express anger—he does it as anyone of us would feel—say on an attack like The Guardian‘s utterly false story.”

To paraphrase former Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir

"For Russiagate it is permissible to lie"


paulsurovell said:


which puts the onus for the failure to complete the investigation on the Swedish prosecutor.

The onus is open to debate, which I’ll leave to you. What strikes me as pretty clear, though, is that the Swedish prosecutor, contrary to the OHCHR, did not consider the case “closed.”


DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:

which puts the onus for the failure to complete the investigation on the Swedish prosecutor.
The onus is open to debate

Only if you doubt the Ecuador government which blamed the Swedish prosecutor for failing to complete the investigation.

DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:

which puts the onus for the failure to complete the investigation on the Swedish prosecutor.
What strikes me as pretty clear, though, is that the Swedish prosecutor, contrary to the OHCHR, did not consider the case “closed.”

You're arguing semantics. "Dropped" means "closed." The Swedish prosecutor's decision triggered a number of legal developments: (a) the European Arrest Warrant for Assange was withdrawn; (b) the London Police announced that Assange was no longer wanted in connection with the rape allegation; and (c) Assange was no longer under threat of extradition to Sweden.

Yes, the prosecutor said she might re-open ("resume") the investigation in the future, but that's always an option when an investigation is closed (and keep in mind that Assange was never charged). And in this case, it would depend on Assange returning voluntarily to Sweden.

The investigation is closed.

From another Guardian article with more detail (my bold)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/19/swedish-prosecutors-drop-julian-assange-investigation

Swedish prosecutors drop Julian Assange rape investigation
Sweden’s director of public prosecution says she has decided to discontinue the investigation into WikiLeaks founder
Swedish prosecutors have dropped their preliminary investigation into an allegation of rape against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, bringing an end to a seven-year legal standoff.
The decision was taken after prosecutors concluded that “at this point, all possibilities to conduct the investigation are exhausted”, Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, said on Friday.
“In order to proceed with the case, Julian Assange would have to be formally notified of the criminal suspicions against him. We cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador regarding this. Therefore the investigation is discontinued.
“If he, at a later date, makes himself available (see below -- PS), I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately.”
However, a lawyer representing the woman who made the allegation of rape described the decision as a “scandal”.
“It is a scandal that a suspected rapist can escape justice and thereby avoid the courts,” Elisabeth Massi Fritz told Agence France-Presse in an email. “My client is shocked and no decision to [end the case] can make her change [her view] that Assange exposed her to rape.”
With the threat of extradition to Sweden removed, the 45-year-old Australian could potentially opt to leave the embassy.
[ . . . ]
The Metropolitan police in London said Assange would also face immediate arrest for breaching his bail conditions; a warrant was issued when he failed to attend a magistrates court after entering the embassy.
“The Metropolitan police service is obliged to execute that warrant should he leave the embassy,” the statement said.
It added: “Whilst Mr Assange was wanted on a European arrest warrant (EAW) for an extremely serious offence, the MPS response reflected the serious nature of that crime. Now that the situation has changed and the Swedish authorities have discontinued their investigation into that matter, Mr Assange remains wanted for a much less serious offence. The MPS will provide a level of resourcing which is proportionate to that offence.”
[ . . . ]
The EAW (against Assange was formally withdrawn at Westminster magistrates court on Friday morning, the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed. The UK Home Office said the decision to drop the rape investigation was a matter for the Swedish authorities, and not one in which the British government had any involvement.
[ . . . ]
Assange was interviewed by Sweden’s deputy public prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren, in the embassy in November, following a lengthy diplomatic and legal impasse between the Swedish and Ecuadorian authorities.
Friday’s announcement in Sweden followed the Swedish government receiving a letter from the government of Ecuador which accused the prosecutor of “serious failure”, including a “lack of initiative” to complete inquiries.
[ . . . ]

paulsurovell said:


DaveSchmidt said:

The onus is open to debate
Only if you doubt the Ecuador government which blamed the Swedish prosecutor for failing to complete the investigation.

It’s debatable no matter what I doubt or believe.

You're arguing semantics.

If that’s what saying “It was clear to me what Marianne Ny meant, and the OHRCR implied something different” is doing, OK.

From another Guardian article with more detail (my bold)

 Same article I linked to (and read).


Chris Hedges just wrote a great piece on Seymour Hersh and his new book, "Reporter."  

Banishing Truth

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/banishing-truth/

In the article, he says Hersh is the best investigative reporter of his generation and tells why he is banished from mainstream media. Importantly, he discusses how difficult it is to be an investigative reporter now and how hackers like Julian Assange are the few left we can turn to for exposure of government crimes.


The government’s wholesale surveillance, however, has crippled the ability of those with a conscience, such as Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden, to expose the crimes of state and remain undetected. The Obama administration charged eight people under the Espionage Act of leaking to the media—Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Stephen Kim, Chelsea Manning, Donald Sachtleben, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou and Edward Snowden—effectively ending the vital connection between investigative reporters and sources inside the government.

This government persecution has, by default, left the exposure of government lies, fraud and crimes to hackers. And this is the reason hackers, and those who publish their material such as Julian Assange at WikiLeaks, are relentlessly persecuted. The goal of the corporate state is to hermetically seal their activities, especially those that violate the law, from outside oversight or observation. And this goal is very far advanced.

Hersh notes throughout his memoir that, like all good reporters, he constantly battled his editors and fellow reporters as much as he did the government or corporations. There is a species of reporter you can see on most cable news programs and on the floor of the newsrooms at papers such as The New York Times who make their living as courtiers to the powerful. They will, at times, critique the excesses of power but never the virtues of the systems of power, including corporate capitalism or the motivations of the ruling elites. They detest reporters, like Hersh, whose reporting exposes their collusion.

DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:


DaveSchmidt said:

The onus is open to debate
Only if you doubt the Ecuador government which blamed the Swedish prosecutor for failing to complete the investigation.
It’s debatable no matter what I doubt or believe.
You're arguing semantics.
If that’s what saying “It was clear to me what Marianne Ny meant, and the OHRCR implied something different” is doing, OK.

I'm saying that the difference between what Ny said ("the investigation has been discontinued") and what the OHRCR said ("The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now") is semantic on its face, confirmed by the legal consequences of Sweden's closing/discontinuing the investigation (the withdrawal of Assange's European Arrest Warrant and the end of the threat to extradite him to Sweden).

A more recent article reveals that the Swedes wanted to close the investigation in 2013, but were pressured by the Brits to keep it open.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show

The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so


nan said:
Chris Hedges just wrote a great piece on Seymour Hersh and his new book, "Reporter."  
Banishing Truth
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/banishing-truth/


 Great quote, Nan. This part stands out the most (for me). And Hedges wrote it based on his experience as a foreign correspondent for the NY Times for 15 years.

Hersh notes throughout his memoir that, like all good reporters, he constantly battled his editors and fellow reporters as much as he did the government or corporations. There is a species of reporter you can see on most cable news programs and on the floor of the newsrooms at papers such as The New York Times who make their living as courtiers to the powerful. They will, at times, critique the excesses of power but never the virtues of the systems of power, including corporate capitalism or the motivations of the ruling elites. They detest reporters, like Hersh, whose reporting exposes their collusion.
Robert Parry called these reporters "careerists" which explains why they follow the company agenda/narrative, rather than the facts.


paulsurovell said:


I'm saying that the difference between what Ny said ("the investigation has been discontinued") and what the OHRCR said ("The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now") is semantic on its face, confirmed by the legal consequences of Sweden's closing/discontinuing the investigation (the withdrawal of Assange's European Arrest Warrant and the end of the threat to extradite him to Sweden).
A more recent article reveals that the Swedes wanted to close the investigation in 2013, but were pressured by the Brits to keep it open.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show


The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so

The legal consequences are one thing; how they were reached are another, and different words convey different paths. I can find plenty of legal and lexicographal sources that support what “closed” means to me: The case is resolved to the satisfaction of the investigating authorities. To you, it’s the same as “dropped,” even if only under current circumstances. That’s fine. I don’t think it’d be out of line, however, to think your meaning may reflect your opinion of the case.

Earlier Tuesday, in a different thread, you said, “A sound analysis of a document must address potential bias in the document.” When a prosecutor said an investigation was “discontinued” but a document calls it “closed,” that goes into my analysis.


paulsurovell said:


nan said:
Chris Hedges just wrote a great piece on Seymour Hersh and his new book, "Reporter."  
Banishing Truth
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/banishing-truth/
 Great quote, Nan. This part stands out the most (for me). And Hedges wrote it based on his experience as a foreign correspondent for the NY Times for 15 years.


Hersh notes throughout his memoir that, like all good reporters, he constantly battled his editors and fellow reporters as much as he did the government or corporations. There is a species of reporter you can see on most cable news programs and on the floor of the newsrooms at papers such as The New York Times who make their living as courtiers to the powerful. They will, at times, critique the excesses of power but never the virtues of the systems of power, including corporate capitalism or the motivations of the ruling elites. They detest reporters, like Hersh, whose reporting exposes their collusion.
Robert Parry called these reporters "careerists" which explains why they follow the company agenda/narrative, rather than the facts.

 Yes, that's why they get hired--cause people who don't follow along get fired.  And then they end up on RT where people in MOL land won't listen because they have been trained to call them Russian bots.  Amazing how well the system works to keep those in power isolated from blame. 


DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:

I'm saying that the difference between what Ny said ("the investigation has been discontinued") and what the OHRCR said ("The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now") is semantic on its face, confirmed by the legal consequences of Sweden's closing/discontinuing the investigation (the withdrawal of Assange's European Arrest Warrant and the end of the threat to extradite him to Sweden).
A more recent article reveals that the Swedes wanted to close the investigation in 2013, but were pressured by the Brits to keep it open.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show


The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so
The legal consequences are one thing; how they were reached are another, and different words convey different paths. I can find plenty of legal and lexicographal sources that support what “closed” means to me: The case is resolved to the satisfaction of the investigating authorities. To you, it’s the same as “dropped,” even if only under current circumstances. That’s fine. I don’t think it’d be out of line, however, to think your meaning may reflect your opinion of the case.
Earlier Tuesday, in a different thread, you said, “A sound analysis of a document must address potential bias in the document.” When a prosecutor said an investigation was “discontinued” but a document calls it “closed,” that goes into my analysis.

 And your basis for implying that the OHRCR is biased is . . . .?


nan said:


paulsurovell said:

nan said:
Chris Hedges just wrote a great piece on Seymour Hersh and his new book, "Reporter."  
Banishing Truth
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/banishing-truth/
 Great quote, Nan. This part stands out the most (for me). And Hedges wrote it based on his experience as a foreign correspondent for the NY Times for 15 years.



Hersh notes throughout his memoir that, like all good reporters, he constantly battled his editors and fellow reporters as much as he did the government or corporations. There is a species of reporter you can see on most cable news programs and on the floor of the newsrooms at papers such as The New York Times who make their living as courtiers to the powerful. They will, at times, critique the excesses of power but never the virtues of the systems of power, including corporate capitalism or the motivations of the ruling elites. They detest reporters, like Hersh, whose reporting exposes their collusion.
Robert Parry called these reporters "careerists" which explains why they follow the company agenda/narrative, rather than the facts.
 Yes, that's why they get hired--cause people who don't follow along get fired.  And then they end up on RT where people in MOL land won't listen because they have been trained to call them Russian bots.  Amazing how well the system works to keep those in power isolated from blame. 

 I think lots of journalists, maybe most journalists, start out idealistic, wanting to do real reporting, real investigations. But they quickly learn that there are parameters (walls) that they cannot cross.


paulsurovell said:


nan said:

paulsurovell said:

nan said:
Chris Hedges just wrote a great piece on Seymour Hersh and his new book, "Reporter."  
Banishing Truth
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/banishing-truth/
 Great quote, Nan. This part stands out the most (for me). And Hedges wrote it based on his experience as a foreign correspondent for the NY Times for 15 years.



Hersh notes throughout his memoir that, like all good reporters, he constantly battled his editors and fellow reporters as much as he did the government or corporations. There is a species of reporter you can see on most cable news programs and on the floor of the newsrooms at papers such as The New York Times who make their living as courtiers to the powerful. They will, at times, critique the excesses of power but never the virtues of the systems of power, including corporate capitalism or the motivations of the ruling elites. They detest reporters, like Hersh, whose reporting exposes their collusion.
Robert Parry called these reporters "careerists" which explains why they follow the company agenda/narrative, rather than the facts.
 Yes, that's why they get hired--cause people who don't follow along get fired.  And then they end up on RT where people in MOL land won't listen because they have been trained to call them Russian bots.  Amazing how well the system works to keep those in power isolated from blame. 
 I think lots of journalists, maybe most journalists, start out idealistic, wanting to do real reporting, real investigations. But they quickly learn that there are parameters (walls) that they cannot cross.

 Yes, it I was making 30K a day I'm not sure I'd want to rock the boat. 


paulsurovell said:


DaveSchmidt said:

When a prosecutor said an investigation was “discontinued” but a document calls it “closed,” that goes into my analysis.
 And your basis for implying that the OHRCR is biased is . . . .?

My comment directly above your question speaks for itself. 


DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:

I'm saying that the difference between what Ny said ("the investigation has been discontinued") and what the OHRCR said ("The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now") is semantic on its face, confirmed by the legal consequences of Sweden's closing/discontinuing the investigation (the withdrawal of Assange's European Arrest Warrant and the end of the threat to extradite him to Sweden).
A more recent article reveals that the Swedes wanted to close the investigation in 2013, but were pressured by the Brits to keep it open.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show


The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so
The legal consequences are one thing; how they were reached are another, and different words convey different paths. I can find plenty of legal and lexicographal sources that support what “closed” means to me: The case is resolved to the satisfaction of the investigating authorities. To you, it’s the same as “dropped,” even if only under current circumstances. That’s fine. I don’t think it’d be out of line, however, to think your meaning may reflect your opinion of the case.

 "A discontinuation of the investigation does not mean that the charges against Assange have been dropped. The investigation can be reopened until the statute of limitations for the rape charge runs out in 2020.  (58 Ch. 6a § Code of Judicial Procedure; Press Release, Åklagarmyndigheten, Utredningen mot Assange läggs ned [Investigation of Assange Discontinued] (May 19, 2017), Swedish Prosecution Authority website.)  The statute of limitations has already run out on two other related crimes allegedly committed by Assange in Sweden during the same time period.  (Elin Hovferberg, FALQ: The Swedish Detention Order Regarding Julian Assange, IN CUSTODIA LEGIS (Nov. 7, 2016).)  According to a Swedish press release issued in mid-May, Ny would be prepared to reopen the investigation should Assange visit Sweden.  (Utredningen mot Assange läggs ned, supra.)  By discontinuing the investigation, Sweden also cancelled the European Arrest Warrant for Assange.  (Beslut om att häva ett häktningsbeslut [Decision to Revoke a Detention Order], Case AM-131226-10, Document 445 (May 19, 2017), Swedish Prosecution Authority website.)"

http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/sweden-swedish-prosecutors-discontinue-assange-investigation/


South_Mountaineer said:


DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

I'm saying that the difference between what Ny said ("the investigation has been discontinued") and what the OHRCR said ("The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now") is semantic on its face, confirmed by the legal consequences of Sweden's closing/discontinuing the investigation (the withdrawal of Assange's European Arrest Warrant and the end of the threat to extradite him to Sweden).
A more recent article reveals that the Swedes wanted to close the investigation in 2013, but were pressured by the Brits to keep it open.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show


The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so
The legal consequences are one thing; how they were reached are another, and different words convey different paths. I can find plenty of legal and lexicographal sources that support what “closed” means to me: The case is resolved to the satisfaction of the investigating authorities. To you, it’s the same as “dropped,” even if only under current circumstances. That’s fine. I don’t think it’d be out of line, however, to think your meaning may reflect your opinion of the case.
 "A discontinuation of the investigation does not mean that the charges against Assange have been dropped. The investigation can be reopened until the statute of limitations for the rape charge runs out in 2020.  (58 Ch. 6a § Code of Judicial Procedure; Press Release, Åklagarmyndigheten, Utredningen mot Assange läggs ned [Investigation of Assange Discontinued] (May 19, 2017), Swedish Prosecution Authority website.)  The statute of limitations has already run out on two other related crimes allegedly committed by Assange in Sweden during the same time period.  (Elin Hovferberg, FALQ: The Swedish Detention Order Regarding Julian Assange, IN CUSTODIA LEGIS (Nov. 7, 2016).)  According to a Swedish press release issued in mid-May, Ny would be prepared to reopen the investigation should Assange visit Sweden.  (Utredningen mot Assange läggs ned, supra.)  By discontinuing the investigation, Sweden also cancelled the European Arrest Warrant for Assange.  (Beslut om att häva ett häktningsbeslut [Decision to Revoke a Detention Order], Case AM-131226-10, Document 445 (May 19, 2017), Swedish Prosecution Authority website.)"
http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/sweden-swedish-prosecutors-discontinue-assange-investigation/

 The debate is whether the investigation has been "closed" as stated by the OHRCR.  This passage confirms that the investigation has been closed.  It also confirms that a closed investigation can always be re-opened (as long as the statute of limitations has not expired), but in this case, the investigation won't be re-opened until Assange returns to Sweden.

Thanks for this further support for the OHRCR.


paulsurovell said:


South_Mountaineer said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

I'm saying that the difference between what Ny said ("the investigation has been discontinued") and what the OHRCR said ("The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now") is semantic on its face, confirmed by the legal consequences of Sweden's closing/discontinuing the investigation (the withdrawal of Assange's European Arrest Warrant and the end of the threat to extradite him to Sweden).
A more recent article reveals that the Swedes wanted to close the investigation in 2013, but were pressured by the Brits to keep it open.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show


The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so
The legal consequences are one thing; how they were reached are another, and different words convey different paths. I can find plenty of legal and lexicographal sources that support what “closed” means to me: The case is resolved to the satisfaction of the investigating authorities. To you, it’s the same as “dropped,” even if only under current circumstances. That’s fine. I don’t think it’d be out of line, however, to think your meaning may reflect your opinion of the case.
 "A discontinuation of the investigation does not mean that the charges against Assange have been dropped. The investigation can be reopened until the statute of limitations for the rape charge runs out in 2020.  (58 Ch. 6a § Code of Judicial Procedure; Press Release, Åklagarmyndigheten, Utredningen mot Assange läggs ned [Investigation of Assange Discontinued] (May 19, 2017), Swedish Prosecution Authority website.)  The statute of limitations has already run out on two other related crimes allegedly committed by Assange in Sweden during the same time period.  (Elin Hovferberg, FALQ: The Swedish Detention Order Regarding Julian Assange, IN CUSTODIA LEGIS (Nov. 7, 2016).)  According to a Swedish press release issued in mid-May, Ny would be prepared to reopen the investigation should Assange visit Sweden.  (Utredningen mot Assange läggs ned, supra.)  By discontinuing the investigation, Sweden also cancelled the European Arrest Warrant for Assange.  (Beslut om att häva ett häktningsbeslut [Decision to Revoke a Detention Order], Case AM-131226-10, Document 445 (May 19, 2017), Swedish Prosecution Authority website.)"
http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/sweden-swedish-prosecutors-discontinue-assange-investigation/
 The debate is whether the investigation has been "closed" as stated by the OHRCR.  This passage confirms that the investigation has been closed.  It also confirms that a closed investigation can always be re-opened (as long as the statute of limitations has not expired), but in this case, the investigation won't be re-opened until Assange returns to Sweden.
Thanks for this further support for the OHRCR.

 It's not support, sorry. 


South_Mountaineer said: It's not support, sorry. 
 

I understand that support was not your intention, but you inadvertently posted a passage that in every way supports the position of the OHRCR, the British government and everyone else (except for perhaps DaveSchmidt) that the Swedish investigation has been closed.


paulsurovell said:


South_Mountaineer said: It's not support, sorry. 
 
I understand that support was not your intention, but you inadvertently posted a passage that in every way supports the position of the OHRCR, the British government and everyone else (except for perhaps DaveSchmidt) that the Swedish investigation has been closed.

 You rely on semantics, I prefer reality. Julian isn't out of the woods on the rape charge, no matter how much you wish he was. 


South_Mountaineer said:


paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said: It's not support, sorry. 
 
I understand that support was not your intention, but you inadvertently posted a passage that in every way supports the position of the OHRCR, the British government and everyone else (except for perhaps DaveSchmidt) that the Swedish investigation has been closed.
 You rely on semantics, I prefer reality. Julian isn't out of the woods on the rape charge, no matter how much you wish he was. 

 As your passage noted, the investigation won't be re-opened (should the prosecutor decide to do so) unless Assange returns voluntarily to Sweden. The arrest warrant has been withdrawn.


There he goes again.  Word games.


Words, or semantics, can matter. Paul and I just disagree on this one.


Mark Curtis, a British historian has started analyzing some of the tweets associated with the Integrity Initiative related to Julian Assange.  I posted about this on a separate thread, but wanted to put the Assange tweets here.  

Twitter and the smearing of Corbyn and Assange: A research note on the “Integrity Initiative”

http://markcurtis.info/2018/12/28/twitter-and-the-smearing-of-corbyn-and-assange-a-research-note-on-the-integrity-initiative/

Linking Assange to the Kremlin

Many of the same individuals have also been tweeting false statements about Julian Assange and Russia.

The Integrity Initiative twitter site itself retweeted a Guardian smear article, stating “US lobbyist for Russian oligarch visited Julian Assange nine times last year – referring to a lawyer, Adam Waldman, visiting the Wikileaks founder.  It also tweeted: “If you still believe Assange is some kind of hero, you deserve pity at best”.

Anders Aslund has tweeted that Assange “represents certain Russian agencies, that “Wikileaks, Assange & Snowden are nothing but highly successful Russian special operations and “Kremlin agents, and that “Assange is collaborating w[ith] Russia Today as program host. Would be strange if not full-fledged agent”.

Carole Cadwalladr has also sought to overtly link Assange to the Kremlin.  She has tweeted that “Assange & Milne… are both Russian propaganda tools, that Assange is a “special friend” of Russian intelligence and that Wikileaks has “colluded with…the Kremlin. In addition, Cadwalladr has tweeted several times that “Assange was in direct communication with Russian intelligence in 2016 and that “Wikileaks sought assistance from Russian intelligence officers to disrupt the US presidential election.

Cadwalladr is here claiming that Wikileaks knowingly colluded with Russian intelligence by releasing the files on the Democratic Party in 2016: in fact, this is not known or proven at all, while numerous media outlets also published or had contacts with Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks in 2016 – though do not figure as targets in her attacks.

Nick Cohen has also made many smears against Julian Assange, variously calling him a “Russian stooge” , a “Putin agent” , “pro-Putin, a “Russian toady, that he “works for Russia propaganda machinewhile “Wikileaks will think whatever Putin tells it to think”.

David Leask, chief reporter of The Herald (Scotland), has described Assange as a “Kremlin proxy while Anne Applebaum tweeted: “’Wikileaks is a front for Russian intelligence’”, linking to an article of the same headline. Edward Lucas retweeted his Times article suggesting that Assange and Wikileaks are part of the “Kremlin-loving camp” while David Clark has tweeted that “Assange is an active accomplice” of autocrats such as Putin.

Need for further research

There are some key points to be made about this analysis.

First, some of the tweets made by these individuals on Corbyn and Assange, not all of which are included here, are fair comment, even if, in my view, they are usually wrong. But others go beyond this, inferring that Corbyn (and Assange) are in effect agents of Russia and/or are willingly and knowingly amplifying Russia’s agenda, as little more than “tools” – with no evidence provided (understandably, since there is none). There is also sometimes the association of Corbyn with former communists. These areas are held to constitute smearing.

Second, it is not known and certainly not proven that these tweets are associated with the Integrity Initiative. Little is known of the internal workings of the Initiative. It is possible that some of the individuals may have been chosen by the Integrity Initiative to be associated with it precisely because of their pre-existing criticism of Russia or their willingness to accuse figures such as Corbyn with association with Russia. While I am not suggesting that these individuals’ tweets are necessarily linked to their role in the Integrity Initiative, there does appear to be something of a pattern among these people of smearing both Corbyn and Assange.

Third, and equally important, this is not a full analysis of these individuals’ outputs: it is limited to their tweets. Neither is it a full analysis of the false linking to Russia by individuals associated with the Integrity Initiative: several other journalists and figures named in the documents are not analysed here. Again, further research is needed.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.