What a year 2013 is likely to be for Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Still to come: over 1 million documents that concern every country in the world, and on hearing that, some may have just fallen off their chairs in the Pentagon. For Australians however, the most intriguing part of Assange’s second balcony speech from the Ecuadorian Embassy might have been the following:

“In Australia, an unelected Senator will be replaced by one that IS elected.”

We don’t have many unelected Senators Down Under, but of course the one that springs to mind is the ALP’s Bob Carr, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It might be interesting to speculate on what challenge Assange could be throwing Carr’s way. Recently we have seen Labor Inc. come crashing down, revealed as one of the most corrupted State governments in Australian history. Carr was of course leader of State ALP from 1995-2005, the last two years of which he worked alongside ALP State Secretary Mark Arbib, who later became an Australian Senator. In 2005 Carr left State politics to become a part-time consultant and political lobbyist for Macquarie Bank, Australia’s largest investment bank. According to economist John Quiggin, Carr had already helped carve it into a pot of gold, aka “The Millionaire’s Factory”, during his time as State Labor leader.

In March 2012, after the departure of a very red-faced Senator Mark Arbib, who had been outed by Wikileaks as a US informant, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that Bob Carr would be back, and nominated by her, without consultation with Australian voters, to fill the vacancy in the Australian Senate. In a Cabinet reshuffle, Gillard also named him as Minister for Foreign Affairs in succession to Kevin Rudd.

It is interesting to note that Carr has also served on the board of directors at the United States Studies Centre since 2009, and was awarded a Fulbright Distinguished Fellow Award Scholarship for his work in improving Australia–US relations.

Indeed good relations with the US have been a critical key to political success within the ALP, as the pragmatic Julia Gillard would know, and possibly financial success too…

But are the times a-changing? In 2010, US Embassy officials said:

“Labor Party officials have told us that one lesson Gillard took from the 2004 elections was that Australians will not elect a PM who is perceived to be anti-American.”

Since that time, and due to Wikileaks revelations, attitudes towards the US have shifted somewhat in Australia and throughout the world. According to a recent poll in The Melbourne Age, 72% of readers would elect Senator Assange, who it is clear, did not feel obliged to sign up for the Mickey Mouse Club.

They see him standing stronger than all those who herd around empire; not only as a proud Australian, but a world citizen. And this is Everyman’s time.

TRANSCRIPTION

Good evening London.

Now.

It’s clear for Michael Pearce QC that Australians will have to raise their voice (scream blue murder?) as they eventually did about the plight of David Hicks, before their government will offer the political and diplomatic assistance Julian Assange needs to resolve his current situation.

Mr Assange is currently trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, despite having been granted asylum, since police outside have been briefed to arrest him “under all circumstances”. Curiously, this extraordinary predicament is the result of one judicial authority’s decision; the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny, who refuses after two years to question him anywhere or anyhow but in person and in Sweden.

Ms Ny has admitted since February 4th 2012 that she could very well use Mutual Legal Assistance, a commonly employed method of interviewing suspects in other countries, but for reasons she will not explain, deems this process “inappropriate” in the case of Assange.

Ny has also refused Ecuador’s invitation to question Mr Assange at their London embassy and has insisted that he be extradited. Lawyer Susan Benn, who spoke outside the Ecuadorian embassy the day Assange arrived there, has pointed out that this “more appropriate” method will involve Assange passing through Swedish custody (most probably for 4 days) before seeing the prosecutor.

Benn adds that this provides the ideal window of opportunity to open the sealed indictment for his temporary surrender to the US in relation to a charge of espionage, since this step necessitates Assange’s prior incarceration. It is perhaps only within this context that Ny’s actions could be deemed appropriate. The case should have been dropped in October 2010, when forensic analysis showed that the famous ripped condom, which served as her material evidence to re-open the investigation, was a fake.

Ny’s refusal to question Assange in a safe place has also permitted her to withhold other exculpatory evidence from his defence team; namely electronic records of conversations between her two clients, before they went to the police station to make an enquiry about STD testing.

Ove Bring, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law recently stated that the charges against Assange would probably have to be dropped following an interview, since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime”. That would appear to be an understatement, but as Naomi Wolf has pointed out, none of the Swedish players seem to be going for a win, since that is not the point of getting Assange to Sweden.

“Both women are being advised by the same high-powered, politically connected lawyer. That would never happen under normal circumstances because the prosecutor would not permit the risk of losing the case because of contamination of evidence and the risk of the judge objecting to possible coaching or shared testimony in the context of a shared attorney. So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.”

Marianne Ny is not the only one who is pushing her professional integrity to the limits. Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is also a lawyer, publicly announced that Assange had committed an illegal act by publishing material that had been sent to Wikileaks. Craig Murray, ex Bristish Ambassador to Usbekistan, not only informs us that other ambassadors around the world do not agree with the actions of Britain’s Foreign Minister William Hague; he also makes it clear that Mr Hague will be putting local police at risk of extradition to Ecuador if they enter the embassy to arrest Assange.

Back in Australia, Foreign Minister Bob Carr claimed that there was not the slightest hint that the US was gunning for Assange, only a week before news of the Grand Jury investigation broke. He was also contradicted by diplomats at the Australian embassy in Washington, who expressed no doubt that a request for extradition was on the cards.

On July 12th 2012, Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam challenged Bob Carr’s persistent denials that Julian Assange is in danger. Who would doubt it now, given the desperate measures numerous public figures are taking, and the international crisis that is building over the capture of someone who has not even been charged with a crime?

Australians should take note of Senator Ludlam’s assessment of the situation and respond en masse by writing IMMEDIATELY to their MPs; to demand not only consular, but political and diplomatic support for their fellow citizen. It is now appropriate that the Australian Government reiterate their request for DUE PROCESS according to international law, no matter how embarrassing it feels to argue Assange’s position as Australia’s first political refugee.

Safe passage to Ecuador must be granted by the UK and if Sweden refuses to question Mr Assange before he goes, so be it. Ecuador are convinced that he will be exposed to the risk of “temporary” surrender to the US – the terms of Obama’s NDAA can make that rather permanent – if prosecutor Ny’s wishes, and hers alone, be granted.

The Australian Government will only help Assange when the people object

Making his television debut on ABC’s QandA, Andrew Partos leads with two questions about Julian Assange to a panel that includes Australia’s Attorney General Nicola Roxon and Jeffrey Robinson QC. If given a third chance to speak, he would have mentioned his conversation with Mastercard executive David Masters, regarding the Wikileaks blockade.

In this interview, Partos stands his ground against Masters, who denies he said that Mastercard Australia acted on instructions from Julia Gillard and the former Attorney General Robert McClelland, to block donations to Wikileaks. When this story broke just over a week ago, journalists flocked around Masters but completely ignored the other party, and the official statement was as expected. Masters did not deny that the conversation with Mr Partos took place; just what was said. In a case where it’s one man’s word against another, we feel it only fair to let both parties speak.

Partos stands his ground - Mastercard Australia said they acted on instructions from Julia Gillard and the Attorney General to block donations to Wikileaks.

Andrew is a Holocaust survivor and prolific writer of letters to the press in the name of truth, justice and free speech. In the last six years, he has had some 600 letters published but claims to have written over 3000. For that reason he calls himself both the most published – and unpublished! – citizen in Australia.

Fullscreen version:

Good luck Christine...

While US President Barack Obama is addressing the Australian parliament, Christine Assange will be on the lawns with anti-war protesters opposing the Australia-US alliance.

Sydney’s STOP THE WAR COALITION are hiring a bus that will leave Sydney at 7am on Thursday morning (meeting time is 6.30am) to arrive in Canberra at 10.30am and return in the evening of the same day. The cost will be $30-$40. Contact details here. The group will protest against the proposed “joint operation of military bases in Australia, attacks on WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, and the US government’s persecution and torture of accused WikiLeaks whistleblower, Bradley Manning.”

Linking up onsite with a number of other groups, they will “join the movement of the 99% opposing wars for the 1%”.

Mrs Assange specifically wishes to question what she calls “arse-covering” by the Australian government for the US, in respect to WikiLeaks. She claims that for the sake of the US alliance, it has failed in its obligations to an Australian citizen.

“In my opinion we have become nothing more than a franchise of the US and Julia Gillard has traded my son for her position as prime minister … I’m going right to where the buck stops, which is Canberra, and I’ll be talking to people about this case.”
Read More

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
Strong words, but Julian could be in a Swedish jail by Christmas, and a Grand Jury indictment for US extradition issued at any moment after that. The US and Sweden have gotten around European Law (which would normally give Britain the right to object) by creating a “Temporary Surrender” treaty, essentially permitting Sweden to “lend” Assange secretly and quickly to the United States – even before he’s been tried in Sweden!

John Pilger tells us in his article ‘The Smearing of a Revolution’ that some members of the British judiciary are amazed at how this affair is somewhat oddly but  inevitably proceeding:

“At the appeal hearing in July, Ben Emmerson QC, counsel for the defence, described the whole saga as “crazy”. Sweden’s chief prosecutor had dismissed the original arrest warrant, saying there was no case for Assange to answer. Both women involved said they had consented to have sex. On the facts alleged, no crime would have been committed in Britain.” [either]

User MEJ at maxkeiser.com makes a good point for someone who doesn’t give a shit:

“It would be a mistake for USA to take Assange now. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, and all we would do is make ourselves look even worse than we already have (which is saying something). Assange’s organization is already seriously split apart and he is dissed in many quarters, not just D.C.. If we try him in the USA it will probably be in a secret court and there will be huge publicity in the blogosphere and he will turn into a martyr for the revolution.”

Oh yes. Give up Dorothy, we do implore you, while sensing that Assange is more likely to go through that very process and find himself in a similar hell hole to Bradley Manning, where visions of Twin Chairs come to mind… Pilger’s description of the legal climate in Virginia does nothing but add to that sinking feeling of inevitability:

“The grand jury is a “fix”, a leading legal expert told me: reminiscent of the all-white juries in the South that convicted black people by rote. A sealed indictment is believed to exist.”

Oh Shit!

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Christine Assange said her son could get an unfair trial in Sweden, where there are “provisions for incommunicado detention and secret trial”.
The website swedenversussassange.com points out that Assange, even if not charged or acquitted, could be nevertheless looking at a year in solitary confinement, simply awaiting a decision. That’s a torturously long time to “wait-and-see” if a US extradition order arrives…

If extradited [to Sweden], Assange’s lawyers affirm that he will be:

held in prison in solitary confinement when he is returned, despite not having been charged (likely to spend up to a year in custody). There is no time limit to detention in Sweden.

There is no bail system, so he would remain in detention indefinitely.

If there is a charge and a trial, it will be held in secret.

He will not be judged by an ’independent and impartial tribunal’, a fundamental requirement under the European Convention of Human Rights (article 6.1). Three out of the four judges are lay judges, who have been appointed by political parties and have no formal legal training (see Lay Judges).

The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has not given Julian Assange or his lawyers information on the allegations against him in writing, which violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5), and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights.

There has been political interference with the Prime Minister’s statements to the Swedish Parliament during the trial (see Political Interference, and constant press attention has been given to the complainants’ lawyer (see Media climate in Sweden).

The bilateral agreement between the United States and Sweden allows Julian Assange to be extradited to the US as soon as he arrives in Sweden (see section on US extradition). Under US custody, Julian Assange risks kidnapping, torture, and execution.

And if that seems like a bit of an exaggeration, listen to Former British Ambassador Craig Murray talk about the UK and USA sending prisoners to Uzbekistan to be tortured, in order to generate FALSE intelligence:

It would seem that very, very soon, the whole world will NOT be watching any more… Julian Assange is about to disappear. And if the “Temporary Surrender” process is secret, it will have already happened before the world even hears about it.

Christine Assange describes the process as:
“…a program of illegal abductions, under which thousands of mostly innocent people were tortured by the CIA in secret “black sites” all over the world or sent to pro-US dictatorships to be tortured under CIA supervision.”

One wonders if she will stand Buckley’s chance of asking President Obama how he will follow through on his election promise to end this practice, given that he has so far pursued more whistleblowers than any of his predecessors.

What Mrs Assange wants is fairly simple; that her son be permitted to answer Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny’s questions from the Swedish Embassy in London. It is equipped, and well practiced in setting up telecommunications for this purpose. The Prosecutor has always had this option, but refused to use it, and refused to explain why. She might feel obliged to be slightly more co-operative if our Prime Minister asked her, on our behalf, to extend Julian this small courtesy. It’s a maddening thought to consider, that eventually, because Ms Ny won’t Skype, Julian has to wait in solitary confinement for a year until his name is called. After all, this is still “Much Ado About NOTHING” criminally speaking.

Barrack for Julian and not Obama on November 17th, and join Christine on her journey to Canberra, where she will attempt to avoid pointless imprisonment for Julian and clear this matter up quickly. We must not tolerate indefinite imprisonment, pending decisions on whether someone is to be imprisoned or not. That amounts to letting punishment precede justice. Good luck Christine. Your efforts may also help sensitise Ms Gillard to the similar plight of our refugee detainees.

Waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting...

ADMINISTRATIVE NEGLECT
Craig Murray’s revelations in Part 2 of the video you have seen above complete this picture in a most surprising and alarming way, while pointing to a causal factor that is just as apparently innocuous as a Swedish Prosecutor refusing to Skype – insouciance, or as the French would actually call it “nombrilisme” (being aware or concerned about little more than your belly-button). In a way, it’s a human condition that must precede the looking after of Number 1, and by default, the looking after of Mr 1%, since we can never really get HIM out of our lives… Deploring the banality of evil, Mr. Murray states:

Our legal advisors had decided that under the the UN’s Convention against torture, it is not illegal to obtain or use intelligence gained from torture, as long as we didn’t do the torture ourselves. I just couldn’t believe this! He was a nice man… Sir Michael Wood… and I thought how can someone?? – YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN BEING TORTURED IN FRONT OF THEIR PARENTS, and you’re saying: “Well I don’t think Clause 4 quite covers it, given this particular legal meaning of the word “COMPLICITY”.

72747954 Letter Gareth Peirce to Minister Rudd