Friday, December 3, 2010

WikiLeaks and the LMJC Tactics

Julian Assange is a wanted man. Yes, while Sarah Palin wants him to be assassinated outright and others want him tried and convicted of treason (and then executed, after undue process of law), it seems that the actual "charges" against him come right out of the LMJC playbook: charge him with a "sex crime."

Somehow, I am not surprised, although I am kind of surprised that Chris Arnt has not yet claimed that Assange is wanted for child molestation in Northwest Georgia. Given that child molestation charges seem to dominate the criminal court dockets in the LMJC, what is another false charge, given that the LMJC specializes in prosecutors that suborn perjury, lie, and fabricate "evidence."

So, in this age of Political Correctness, suddenly the Swedes want us to believe that Assange is a deranged sex criminal (although the charges for which he is wanted in Sweden would bring only two years in prison upon conviction), and Interpol is looking everywhere for him. Somehow, I am not surprised.

16 comments:

Doc Ellis said...

No surprise. Just more slime.

Anonymous said...

Didn't they issue their magic arrest warrant during the last leak in August? Then suddenly the charges were dropped. This smells like the LMJC not only because of the tactic of false charges, but because of the fabrication of evidence to support the false charges.

victoria said...

Something stinks in Sweden.

First they drop the rape charges. Then they call him in but won't let him come in. Then interpol is after him. What are the actual "rape" charges? What is the evidence?

John Washburn said...

According to this excellent summary drawing from the declassified and Guardian stories, the actual chargea are "sex by surprise" and "sex without a condom". The sex without a condom charge though may or may not be included within the definition in Swedish law of sex by surprise. It is unclear even to Assange's attorneys what the exact allegations are and if there is one charge or two. Whichever the charge(s) though, it is clear Assange has not been informed of charge(s) let alone of the details supporting the charge(s). In English and American common law this is known as Habeas Corpus (Where is the body). What body of law that justifies bringing this person to court or arresting this person?

The rule of law in general and habeas corpus in particular are precisely designed to protect the accused from false charges and to force the State to, with exacting specificity, detail the charges and evidence against the accused. So far the Swedish investigation into the Assange Swedish affair(s) fails this basic tenet of Justice found in common law. Perhaps there is more to here than is currently known. We will see.

But, given that the Rule of Law is dead in the USA and a president (under the Bush-Obama doctrine that all the world is a battlefield) can add Assange to the secret "People To Be Assassinated" list, I can understand why he is in hiding (though England would not be my choice)I also understand his wariness to appear in a public court of a USA ally until the nature of the charge(s) are made explicit and made public.

Anonymous said...

Yea, that dude needs to hide. No way he can get a fair shake, esp. from US or an ally. The trumped up charges are a pretense to haul him into court where he can be arrested for more trumped up charges related to the leaks.

victoria said...

Yes, I just tracked down more info on the charges as well http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/

"When Interpol issued an arrest warrant earlier this week for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the international police agency charged him with "sex crimes" but didn't specify the offense any further, prompting rumors that he had been accused of rape. He hadn't. "It turns out," Washington's Blog reports, that "it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom." During a business trip to Stockholm last August, Assange had unprotected sex with two women (a bizarre and painfully detailed account is available on the Daily Mail's Web site) who upon realizing that they had both slept with him—and that he had blown them both off—jointly approached police about his refusal to take an STD test. At the time, Assange's Swedish lawyer confirmed that "the principal concern the women had about Assange's behavior … related to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women's request, for sexually transmitted disease." (Assange actually did use a condom with one of the women, but it broke.) This, apparently, is hazy legal territory in Sweden. While the "consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors," as a former attorney wrote in an impassioned op-ed, Assange has been charged with something called "sex by surprise," which reportedly carries a $715 fine. According to Assange's London attorney, Mark Stephens, prosecutors have yet to explain the charges or meet with the WikiLeaks chief to discuss them, which he's agreed to do. "Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only an offense in Sweden—not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens fumed. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls."

Kerwyn said...

blinks...

Sex by surprise eh...

God imagine if we had that law here. My SANE unit would have to hire dozens of new nurses to handle all the complaints....

Marie Lynette said...

This is like charging someone with "handshake without a glove" when

the two willingly shook his hands,
could plainly see whether he wore
rubber gloves or not,
he had actually worn rubber gloves,
the required type of gloves broke,

and they don't even know whether
they have cold symptoms, much
less that he spread them germs!

Well, if this is all done because he refused to be tested ... tell them, they didn't ask him to test BEFORE shaking his hand.

Anonymous said...

5 Reasons The CIA Should Have Already Killed Julian Assange

http://tinyurl.com/288ywq6

Anonymous said...

Interesting "Insurance" file from Assange. To find out just how far the government is in bed with the banks, lets see how much they bend to to this threat. I suspect that certain high ranking officials in govt alreedy know what is in the insurance file. That is why Assange probably has a get out of jail free card. Not that anyone needs one for a "sex by surprise" charge.

Anonymous said...

anon 9:05, very interesting take. Thank you for sharing.

I'm in a bit of a pickle on this whole situation.

1) I believe some of the information should have been already taken to task through the MSM, but they are talking heads of the government.

2) A great deal of this information should not be out there for everyone to read & know. I agree that every government has their right to have "secrets", just as businesses do & the like. As said in that post, if we want to stand behind something like Wikileaks, why not post all of our passwords, credit card info & SSN's? We wouldn't & neither should the government be held to that either.

3) This is very sensitive information & lives are at stake. It's not a simple, "I believe it should be out there" or "I don't believe it should be out there". It comes to a balance & back to my first point. If the MSM would have done their jobs as being the "watchdogs" of our government, quite a bit of the information would be useless. Instead, we have a situation where some things are "we should know", but more so of things "we should not".

As an American & a person who believes covert missions are necessary, I will not defend Wikileaks. I can not dig deep enough to figure out how the majority of information would be helpful to our government, but even more, to our troops. They are the ones in harms way.

I do NOT agree with trumping up charges against Assange. I do believe he has not done a service to the world, but I also believe in justice....the right way.

I will not read any of these things, as I believe it only encourages poor behavior. It's almost like getting a computer virus. IMO, this is the same type of person who would spend his time trying to mess up someone's day or computer.

I am torn though, but do know where I stand. The torn part is if our "media" (cough) would have been doing its job the last 50 plus years, it would be simple to say the guy needs to be "offed". There is information in which we should know, but I don't want to read through the items in which we don't to get there.

All of this is just my opinion & my beliefs on this particular subject. I normally stand behind Bill 100%, but I know some of the people who do the important missions (of course I never know what they are, but I prefer it that way) & their safety & their names should not be put out there. A lot of these people are true patriots & also believe our government has been going the wrong direction for many years. A couple have written books about it. In fact, one friend even wrote a book on how 9/11 would happen. He spent 2 years writing it & also had other commentaries by other people at the Pentagon. It was released about 3 months before 9/11. No, it didn't give specifics, but it did tell a great deal about how our government was not prepared for how future "wars" would take place. This person saw the plane that hit the Pentagon & even though Rumsfeld was very much a critic of his book, he begged him & a few other contributors to help him after 9/11. Unfortunately, a great deal of their ideas fell on deaf ears. He knew that technology would devistate us & that bombs would not have "neat" names, but that they would be United, American, Delta.....

It's definitely a good subject for debate, but I just wanted to share my thoughts.

Thanks! And Bill, even though I'm a little disagreeable on this subject, I still love your writings & respect your opinions.

UGA Mom

Anonymous said...

Tonya was on Today with Joal. The lawsuit against him is being dismissed this week. Matt Lauer asked him if Joal now believed that the charges were false. Joal dodged the question and Matt being the stellar journalist (cough) that he is never followed up. They have been tight lipped about this. My only hope is that Joal will oome clean and rat out the LMJC.

Anonymous said...

I guess Joal is afraid to admit he lied. Anyone know who has the children now?

kbp said...

It cannot be refiled. A voluntary action by Tonya to accept that condition, for she could have dismissed them (Sarah also) and left it open to be refiled.

There is reason for such a finite end here. I'm not sure what it is, but I'd find it hard to believe it had anything to do with a promise from Joel.

I do feel certain that a few other defendants will not like this!

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

Joal will probably end up being a very valuable witness for Tonya against the other defendants.

kbp said...

When it moves on to discovery, if it does, I anticipate there may be an offer by the McDonalds to cooperate.

Tonya has stated she wanted to study law to prevent the authorities from doing what they did in her case.

The most she could get from the McDonalds is what their homeowners insurance would pay, if that.