Wikileaks and Assange?

Post Reply New Topic

Letter [ allegedly ] from Swedish Counsel Bjorn Hurtig to English co-Counsel for Julian Assange.

Note Neither Mr. Assange nor Counsel, nor WikiLeaks have ever received a single written word, at any time, in any form, from Swedish authorities on the Swedish investigation against our editor.

From: Björn Hurtig
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Jennifer
Subject: SV: Our client

Dear Jennifer,

Enclosed You will find a copy of the documents that I have would like to send to the prosecutor. I have not been able to have the document translated in detail, but I will now tell you the most important things in it.

First of all I comment the ongoing investigation and tell the prosecutor that I have asked her several times that they should hear my client so that we can be aware of the accusations. They have said no to this initially (and by this I mean for several weeks). Furthermore I remind her that I several times have asked her to give me the evidence in the case. She has said no to this also. I then tell her that I have asked my questions informally and in writing and tell her about a formal request that I made 14 of September 2010. This formal request has not yet been formally answered, which I find to be a breach of Swedish law (23:18 Rättegångsbalken). I also tell her that Sweden has not followed art 6:3 of The European Convention of the 4 november 1950, because Julian has not been informed of the accusation in detail and in his own language. Neither has he been informed of the documents in the case in his own language. This is an incorrect behavior.

I then tell her that Julian is indeed willing to participate in a hearing. But I remind her that I asked her in writing (14 of September) if he was free to leave Sweden for doing business in other countries and that she called me and said that he was free to leave. This is important because it means that Julian has not left Sweden in trying to escape the Swedish justice. Then I remind her that Julian and I several times have tried to give them dates when he could come to Sweden and participate in a hearing, for example I spoke to the second prosecutor Erika Leijnefors during week nr 40 and told her that Julian could participate in a hearing the 10 of October (a Sunday) or some day the following week. The prosecutor in charge (Marianne Ny) said no to this. Other times Marianne Ny has said no to our proposals due to that one of her policeofficers were sick or because the time did not suit her. This is also important because it shows that Julian has tried but Marianne Ny has said no. I go on remembering her that Julian has suggested that he could participate over a phone line and from an Australian Embassy. She has said not to this also. Then I tell her that Julian is willing to participate through a video conference or to make a written statement over the accusation and the questions they may have. This is of utmost importance, since it shows his willingness to participate. I remind her of a ruling from our Highest Court; NJA 2007 s.337, in which the court did not put a man in custody although he was abroad and did not come to Sweden to participate in a hearing. It was not proportional to do such a thing, since he left Sweden rightfully (just like Julian) and thus did not try to escape the Swedish justice, he was willing to participate via phone or in writing and so forth.

In the second last section of the letter I tell the prosecutor that she should think of the damage that Sweden already has done to Julian by letting his name in public. I tell her that I have heard that there is a police investigation going on about the first prosecutor who let Julian's name out in public, which shows that it is a serious matter. If the prosecutor now goes forward with a request of Julian being put in custody it is my opinion that the damage could be enormous; whatever ... ... ... [ and here the poster ran out of comment space? because the rest is missing ] ... ... ...
.

... I want to change the world but sh** like this scares and intimidates me...

So it should. Espionage is not a game. If someone enters into that kind of activity they should understand that the consequences are likely to be life changing at a minimum, and more likely than not life-ending

So it should. Espionage is not a game. If someone enters into that kind of activity they should understand that the consequences are likely to be life changing at a minimum, and more likely than not life-ending

If Assange is engaged in espionage then so is every investigative journalist who ever put pen to paper. Besides which, the US is a bully. If you don't stand up to Bullies, they just hit you harder.

"Bank of America says Cut Off Wikileaks!" Dec 18 (Reuters) - Bank of America was quoted as saying late on Friday that it was joining other financial institutions in declining to process payments to WikiLeaks, which has angered U.S. authorities with the mass release of U.S. diplomatic cables.

"Bank of America joins in the actions previously announced by MasterCard, PayPal, Visa Europe and others and will not process transactions of any type that we have reason to believe are intended for WikiLeaks," the bank said in a statement, quoted by McClatchy Newspapers.

If Assange is engaged in espionage then so is every investigative journalist who ever put pen to paper. Besides which, the US is a bully. If you don't stand up to Bullies, they just hit you harder.

Dear President Obama and Attorney General Holder,

Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organization, would like to share with you its concern about reports that the Department of Justice is preparing a possible criminal prosecution against Julian Assange and other people who work at WikiLeaks.

We regard the publication of classified information by WikiLeaks and five associated newspapers as a journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment. Prosecuting WikiLeaks’ founders and other people linked to the website would seriously damage media freedom in the United States and impede the work of journalists who cover sensitive subjects.

It would also weaken the US and the international community efforts at protecting human rights, providing governments with poor press freedom records a ready-made excuse to justify censorship and retributive judicial campaigns against civil society and the media.

We believe the United States credibility as a leading proponent of freedom of expression is at stake, and that any arbitrary prosecution of WikiLeaks for receiving and publishing sensitive documents would inevitably create a dangerous precedent.

Members of the faculty at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism wrote to you recently warning that “government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.” We fully agree with this analysis.

The ability to publish confidential documents is a necessary safeguard against government over-classification. We urge you to use this debate to review the government’s policy of classifying documents in order to increase transparency in accordance with the promises made by the administration when it first assumed office.

We thank you both in advance for the attention you give to our observations.

Sincerely,

Jean-François Julliard Secretary-General

Assange fans, check it. This is genius.

http://anonops.blogspot.com/2010/12/fre ... peech.html

Obtaining vast quantities of confidential US material for political gain clearly doesn't stretch the definition of "espionage" too far, Macbeth. If he'd done this to China or Russia he'd most likely be dead by now, so I find the US reaction somewhat restrained at present. What I find shocking is how many US liberals here think that a man who's caused massive damage to the credibility of their country is some kind of hero. Even that Europeans should think the same is worrying. The US may not be a particularly pleasant entity, but it does share much in common with us in Europe, and its strength and stability is conducive to our wellbeing. I'd be the first to object when they stick their nose into our affairs, but this Assange business is a direct attack on them by someone who is not a British citizen.

I'd add that all this limp-wristed liberal sympathy and the shock expressed -- born of naivety, and a soft western upbringing-- over what governments actually get up to doesn't bode well for our future. The idealistic 21st century mores of liberals and leftists are the seeds of our destruction.