Eight years late, the request for a European Arrest Warrant for Assange was finally put to the appropriate authority, writes Craig Murray.
By Craig Murray
When, eight years late, the European Arrest Warrant request for Julian Assange was finally put before a Swedish court, the court refused to issue it.
Readers of this blog are amongst the very few people who have had the chance to learn that the original European Arrest Warrant for Julian Assange from Sweden was not issued by any court but by a prosecutor; that this was upheld in the U.K. Supreme Court despite the court’s open acknowledgement that this was not what the U.K. Parliament had intended by the phrase that the warrant must come from a “judicial authority;” and that the law had been changed immediately thereafter so it could not be done again.
Consequently, in seeking a new European Arrest Warrant against Assange, Swedish prosecutors had finally, eight years on, to ask a court for the warrant. And the court looked at the case and declined, saying that the move would be disproportionate. It therefore remains the case that there is no Swedish extradition warrant for Assange. This is a desperate disappointment to the false left in the U.K., the Blairites and their ilk, who desperately want Assange to be a rapist in order to avoid the moral decision about prosecuting him for publishing truths about the neocon illegal wars that they support.
The problem is that the evidence of sexual crimes was always extremely, extremely weak to anybody who took the trouble to examine it — which is why the same false left were desperate to convince us that it was wrong to examine the evidence as the “victim” must always be believed, a strange abandonment of the entire principle of justice.
In the lesser charge, which fell through the statute of limitations, Anna Ardin claimed that during the act of sex Julian Assange had deliberately torn the condom with his fingers. But the torn condom she produced to police had none of Assange’s DNA on it, a physical impossibility.
In the remaining charge of “rape, less serious,” Sofie Wilen alleges the following. She had consensual sex with Assange in her bed. She then dozed and was “half asleep” when Assange started having sex with her again. He states that she was fully awake and responsive through a series of sexual acts.
I have looked Julian Assange in the eye when he explained what happened, and believed him. I have not had the same opportunity with Sofie Wilen, and quite possibly she is equally honest in her account of events and I would believe her too. They had both been drinking. The difficulty is that this scenario is incapable of proof. A private sexual act that everybody agrees started and was consummated as fully consensual, but then continues or resumes as one partner is drifting off or has drifted off, but the other partner says they were still awake, absent a recording is quite simply incapable of proof either way.
Seeking DNA Test, Not Rape Charge
What is beyond doubt true is that Sofie Wilen had no thought she had been raped when she met police to ask if Assange could be compelled to take a DNA test — a visit to the police which had been encouraged by Anna Ardin (she of the faked condom evidence). Ardin was present during Wilen’s police interview.
At the police station, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”
At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test.”
The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges.”
Despite this, Wilen’s lawyer is adamant that she now does wish a prosecution to proceed. The problem is that question of proof. As the court has seen, there is none.
Willing to Be Interviewed
Julian Assange was interviewed in detail in Sweden before he was given permission to leave the country when the case was dropped by the chief prosecutor of Stockholm. When it was reopened by another prosecutor (possibly in Sweden), who issued the European Arrest Warrant, Assange at all times during his detention in the U.K. declared his willingness to be interviewed again, and eventually was interviewed over two days in the Ecuadorian Embassy in November 2016.
Julian Assange has never tried to avoid the investigation in Sweden. His concern was always that the whole thing was cooked up as a ruse to get him into custody for extradition to the U.S.A. Events have proved this to be true.
To return to Sweden, the remaining question at issue is a very simple one. Was Sofie Wilen awake and responsive when sex was resumed, as Julian Assange insists, or was she “half-asleep” as Sofie says? Exhaustive questioning both in Stockholm and London has failed to produce an answer which could convince a court to issue a warrant. Prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson is now going to apply to interview Assange again. I genuinely cannot see what she feels this is going to achieve, unless she hopes to harass an ill man into a false confession.
The Swedish courts have finally injected a note of realism. The evidence Assange broke any law in Sweden has never stacked up. At some point, this poisonous farrago of prosecutorial grandstanding and Swedish sexual politics needs to be brought to a close.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. This article is from his website.
The issue for the Swedish prosecutor and lawyer will be when Sofia is asked about this allegation and repeats her original position on all this:
That the police made up all the charges and she didn’t want to accuse Julian of anything.
The timing of Julian’s arrest was inconvenient for them. In less than a year the statute of limitations will expire for this “lesser rape” allegation he’s never been charged with.
It was almost all over for the scammers.
Some common sense cited in this article. What I’d like to understand however, is if from a judicial perspective it will still be possible to extradite Assange somehow to Sweden? Are there still other legal loopholes the Swedish prosecution can jump through in other words, to ensure extradition of Assange to Sweden? I ask since it seems less likely Assange is extradited from the UK to the US (since extradition from the UK for charges that are political of nature at first sight seems to be forbidden), whereas I am in the the understanding Sweden has granted every extradition request to the US thus far. So: are there still other legal loopholes the Swedish prosecution can jump through in other words, to ensure extradition of Assange to Sweden?
“This is a desperate disappointment to the false left in the U.K., the Blairites and their ilk, who desperately want Assange to be a rapist in order to avoid the moral decision about prosecuting him for publishing truths about the neocon illegal wars that they support.”
Absolutely. this is the attitude I attacked in my article, “Swedish Sex Pistol Aimed at Assange (http://www.thepolemicist.net/2019/05/swedish-sex-pistol-aimed-at-assange.html)
With the demise of the “hacking not publishing indictment” argument, the Swedish sex allegation is going to become the prominent tool for misdirecting us from solidarity with Assange. It is a ruse and a diversion, whose real purpose is to support Assange’s extradition to the US by ignoring it. This can be proved by raising the obvious and legally valid demand that any extradition to Sweden be conditioned on no onward extradition to the US, and watching the reaction from those who claim to be so concerned about resolving the sex allegation. Those who are speaking in good faith will accept that position immediately. Those who are liars and hypocrites, and are basically chill with Assange being extradited to the United States, will hem and haw and try to ignore.
It’s an extension of the same obvious fault in the logic of people who for nine years pushed the “Assange was fleeing sex crime allegations” line. They say Assange is responsible for not confronting sex crime allegations because he would not go to Sweden; they never say Swedish authorities are responsible for refusing to confront the sex crime allegations on their own terms because they wouldn’t give up on an irrelevant extradition to the US. The Swedes’ first priority was not questioning Assange; it was getting him to Sweden with the option of onward extradition to the US.. Assange was saying, “Let’s get rid of an entirely irrelevant third-party that is preventing an investigation into the allegations on their own terms.” The Swedes were saying: “No, we insist on preserving the prerogatives and interests of that irrelevant third-party as a condition of our investigation into these sex crime allegations.” The Swedes weren’t taking that position for the sake of the women making the allegations. Who was centering and who was deprecating “the seriousness with which such allegations are viewed”?
Even under the worst interpretation for him, there is no conceivable logic in which the Swedish prosecutors are not at least as responsible as Julian Assange for not doing what was necessary to deal with sexual assault allegations. Nobody who did not demand that the Swedes abjure American extradition can claim that their primary concern was the sexual allegations. If you say he’s bluffing, call it! Unless it’s you who doesn’t want to show your cards.
Guardian liberals claim now to oppose US extradition for Assange’s publishing activities. But, at the same time, they also insist on extradition to Sweden if requested ‘Cause “sexual asaault” Brits would prefer to be seen complying with anti-“rape” than
anti-press. It’s a matter of washing hands of complicity with imperialism with feminist soap. (Feminism trumps anti-imperialism, as we know.) It’s also a matter of having “rape” hanging over his head forever, so libs can tell themselves :”He deserves to be in prison, anyway.”
It’s important to remember that there are *no rape or any other charges* against him in Sweden; it’s still a “preliminary investigation” to determine *if* charges can be filed. It’s my opinion that, if he’s extradited to Sweden, charges will never be filed. Swedes will say, precisely: “Well, we have no charges yet, so we’ll “suspend” our investigation again and accede to extant US charges. They do not want to resolve the sex allegation. They want to have him sent to custody in Sweden under the rubric of “rape”, and onwardly extradited to the US with that unresolved and stuck to him forever. Muddying the waters. It’s a very nasty game they’ve been playing for 9 years.
Great piece of writing, Craig!
The women are being coerced however softly, but they are.
It was my understanding that the Swedish charges against Mr. Assange were actually an impediment to his being extradited to the US. If so we can expect them to be disappeared soon. And shortly after that, Mr. Assange will also be disappeared into the American gulag. I imagine any trial could turn into a circus, so something else will happen. An illness or an accident, perhaps.
Why? It would not stop extradition to the USA. If there was a trial then it would delay extradition, not stop it. The charges and the trial could be dropped, which would allow for immediate extradition.
Here are photos of Assange in Belmarsh prison, as well as a statement from Nils Melzer, who says based on his observation of Assange in Belfast, Assange could die.
Have you ever asked yourself if the video was recorded before he went to the prison hospital wing?
It is glaringl self evident-that Swedenis acting at the behst of US Admin which isdetermind to get its hands on Julian by whatever coercive ans possible This whole Kafkaesque saga has been orchestrated by US – and UIK/Swe3dish authorities have meekly “bent the knee” to US unlawful/unconstititional demands It is time for journalists en masse to vociferously speak out and rememberv”And then they came for me”
One just need to read the wonderful swedish novel “the girl wih the dragon tattoo” to understand the unealthy link between the Swedish and American secret services.
So Julian’s fear of being extradited from Sweden to the USA was indeed always a reality.
Absolutely correct. When you deliberately kick a hornets’ nest not just once but several times, you must know they are going to come after you and sting you. Only a naive person (or someone “playing the victim/martyr”) would act all hurt and indignant that the hornets even dared to retaliate because you attacked them in the first place. Just be glad that Julian chose the US and not Russia as his target. At least America is coming after him using the legal process. Had he dumped on Russia, which has no tradition of rule of law, he would have been ‘neutralised’ long ago (e.g. radioactive isotopes in his pot of tea, or as we saw more recently in Salisbury, poisoning with Novichok). He is simply reaping what he has sown, and he rightly fears their well-earned retaliation.
Of course you presume guilt, presume that retaliation is justified, presume that any excuse is legal, and presume that any law is justified. So when others come to you, to what will you appeal? And who do you suppose would be so foolish as to be influenced by such careless thinking?
Only someone who is a few fries short of a happy meal would think going after a publisher is justified. The job of a free press is to inform the public, not cover up the dirty laundry.
Fun fact: Neither Porton Down nor OPCW have stated conclusively that Novichok was involved in the Salisbury incident. The US, however, is on record having applied for up to 140 patents in which the term Novichok appears.
A dry powder inhaler may include a powder storage, an inlet channel, a dispersion chamber, and an outlet channel. A geometry of the inhaler may be such that a flow profile is generated within the dispersion chamber that causes an actuator to oscillate, enabling the actuator when oscillating to deaggregate powdered medicament within the dispersion chamber to be aerosolized and entrained by the air and delivered to a patient through the outlet channel.
0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/664,013, filed 25 Jun. 2012, entitled “Powder Dispersion Devices and Method,” the entirety of which is hereby incorporated by reference for all purposes.
 Examples of nerve agents may include G series such as Tabun (GA), Sarin (GB), Soman (GD), Cyclosarin (GF), GV series such as Novichok agents, GV (nerve agent), V series such as VE, VG, VM, and the like.
The patent application document further purports that the described weapon could be suited to delivering blistering agents, psychological agents, vomiting agents, choking agents, arsenic, multiple variants of mustard gas, etc.
Please provide proof for any of your examples of Russian assassinations. I have heard alternate theories that seem quite plausible for the instances you mention. And Wikileaks did in fact release dirt on Russia. They are non-discriminatory in their releases. And Russia does have at least as much “rule of law” as our evil empire. Putin and Lavrov are constantly appealing to the USA to abide by international law, to no avail. Magnitsky was in prison for helping Browder commit tax fraud, not for reporting crimes by other oligarchs, as revealed by Andrei Nekrasov, where he died of a preexisting medical condition, not a beating.
We are not naive here at CN. Maybe you wish we were, you’d be more successful with your trolling.
The post says that Wilen wanted Assange to take a DNA test — should that be HIV test?
As I recall from earlier you are correct, she wanted an HIV test. There would be no point in a DNA, she wasn’t pregnant and there was never any question of whether or not he had sex with her.
Amir Yussof – In your first paragraph, please tell me what has he done? You have a lot to learn.
The same could be said about you – you have a lot to learn. He is wanted in two countries on serious allegations – suffice to say he is not being extradited for jaywalking. Whether you (or I, for that matter) agree with these allegations (or not) is a moot point, but as the Wikileaks editor recently commented in relation to the Swedish allegations, “he now has the chance to clear his name”. Well, he has had that chance for the last seven years now and passed on it, so it is apparent that he was hoping to run out the clock on all the Swedish allegations and thus invalidate them by exceeding their statute of limitations. Not really him trying to clear his name, but a pretty cowardly (but effective) way of dealing with those allegations. It would have worked had he managed to stay in the embassy until August 2020, but the Ecuadoreans finally booted him out. So yes, he needs to be held accountable and not evade due process. After all, here is the golden opportunity to “clear his name” (in this I agree wholeheartedly with the Wikileaks editor’s recent statement to that effect)!
And you were not cowardly in failing to stand for truth and justice?
How brave in your little corner, repeating the mantra of your bosses!
Trumped up chargers are not serious charges. Sweden had every opportunity to interview Assange but Sweden decided not to. The fact that you ignore this proves you are a troll. Move along troll.
Evade due process for what? And what serious allegations do you think he should answer for? For publishing the war crimes that US troops committed? Why should they have stayed hidden?
In case you weren’t aware of what happens during a trial when someone is charged under the espionage act they are not permitted to give a defense. This is not like a regular trial where a jury hears both sides of the case against and defense of some one. So how could Assange have cleared his name when he would never be given the chance?
And it’s very apparent that you don’t believe in a free press and everything that is unlawful should stay secret. I would not like to live in that type of world and it’s very sad that you do. BTW. Try reading this article again and see what you have obviously missed.
And here comes Iceland! Is there no end to nations which are run by lackeys, people of no integrity and those who seem to enjoy the suffering of others? This just keeps getting weirder! The US certainly does have some very “special” friends!
” He was just as extraditable from Britain as Sweden; subsequent events have now proved this and dispelled the bullshit that he sought asylum to avoid extradition to the US from Sweden. ”
What a ridiculous comment. He sought to avoid being held in custody in Sweden , during which time the extradition request would be made. Then the UK ordered his extradition to Sweden , after which he was in similar danger in the UK. That’s when he sought asylum. Of course Assange would have faced extradition from the UK as well as Sweden , or from any of the other European puppets of the US. The essential point that has been confirmed by recent events is that his fear of extradition to the US was entirely justified , as evidenced by his indictment under the Espionage Act.
You DON’T already have to be in custody on some other matter (like sex assault) beforehand, in order for the US to extradite you. You can be out freely roaming the streets and suddenly be arrested on the US extradition request, without being in prior custody. Prior custody on some other legal matter is NOT a precondition for a US extradition warrant. They’re not going to let you know in advance – it happens without prior warning. If Julian was truly that concerned in the first place about imminent arrest and extradition to the US, he shouldn’t have even gone to the UK from Sweden when the Swedes let him go after the first round of questioning, as “he was just as extraditable from the UK as Sweden to the US” (my point again), since both countries have extradition treaties with the US. No, he should have gone on to a non-extradition country (like Russia) after the initial questioning for sex assault in Sweden. That’s why his claim about his reason for seeking asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy rings so hollow – it really was about avoiding the sex assault proceedings in the first place. Now he is paying for the mistake of not going to a non-extradition country when he had the chance to do so! You live and learn, in this case the hard way.
What you state above is incorrect. Assange was interviewed by the Swedish prosecutor who said there was no crime committed. He was still in Sweden and told by their authorities that he was free to leave Sweden. Once in the UK he learned of two things: 1. a new prosecutor (one we now know for certain was in cohoots with the UK/US due to FOIA documents) wanted to question him and 2. it became known that the US was holding a secret grand jury to indict Assange.
At no time did Assange refuse to answer questions about this investigation, not ever. He asked for asylum based on fear of extradition to the US. That fear has been shown to be legitimate, even to people who despise Assange.
I’m not really certain why you are repeating incorrect information but you are.
Amir Yussof is repeating false information because Amir Yussof is a troll. That is the only purpose for his posts.
“pork roast being pulled from the oven”
It is nothing short of astonishing how opinionated absolutely worthless scum of the lowest denomination imaginable of your like is.
Meh, sweden is a fascist cesspool, client state of the US empire and run by feminazis.
….and justice for all (except when the state needs to break it’s own laws.
“[Julian Assange’s] concern was always that the whole thing was cooked up as a ruse to get him into custody for extradition to the U.S.A. Events have proved this to be true.” Also Julian Assange’s belief, or suspicion, that AA was acting as a CIA asset, noted elsewhere [cf., Phillip Knightley (British Press Awards Journalist of the Year, 1980 and 1988 – one of only two journalists to have won the honour twice), in the Sydney Morning Herald, December 19th 2010, https://www.smh.com.au/technology/victims-jilted-lovers-or-undercover-agents-20101218-191ae.html%5D, may also prove to have a basis in truth.
Knightley’s view is that AA’s political activities and contacts within Sweden’s historically dominant SDP party, as well as her activities in Cuba and Miami, fit the model of someone who would be regarded as an intelligence asset and also a possible resource for Sweden’s own small spy agency. It is noted that Sweden was a major site for anti-Russian activities during the Cold War involving much contact with the CIA. A further connection is Ardin’s family’s involvement with the military and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
[From the linked articles above] while interned with the Swedish embassy in Washington, DC, AA (also known as Anna Bernardin) visited Cuba several times between 2003 and 2006 while working on her master’s thesis on Cuban opposition groups. She become involved in the 59 year de facto ‘war’ between Cuba and the United States of America, and was advised to leave Cuba (or deported).
There are indirect connections regarding AA’s ‘field tutor’ while in Cuba (Miriam Leiva), a prominent member of the Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White). Leiva’s husband was arrested for in 2003 for receiving funds from US diplomats. He was writing anti-Castro propaganda for publications funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which in turn is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
These and further intrigues regarding US funded anti-Castro groups in Miami are detailed in the links posted above:
“In Miami, Ardin interviewed the CIA counter-revolutionary militant Lino Fernández, aka Ojeda. Fernández. Five hundred of his men were captured while awaiting a CIA air-drop one month before the invasion at the Bay of Pigs.”
“In Cuba, Ardin interviewed Manuel Cuesta Morúa, a leader of Arco Progresista (Progressive Arc Party), who in several interviews has described ‘working’ with Ardin and the Swedish Social Democrats. It also seems that Ardin may have caused Cuesta Morúa various difficulties not dissimilar to those experienced by Julian Assange several years later.”
Whereas, not directly part of the payrole, it might be taken that a suitably placed and cooperative asset would receive payback in the form of other perks – contacts, lucrative placements, etc. “That’s the way it works”, to quote from Chris Mullin’s “A Very British Coup”.
Sorry, correct Sydney Morning Herald link:
Tnx CN, Craig… TWO Activist NY attys gen. were Stopped from Crook Corp prosecution
thru SEX SCANDALS… just sayin’
And don’t forget similar fabrications about, and/or entrapments of, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Heinz-Christian Strache- or the Steele dossier allegations- yet very little in the media about the Clintons traveling with Jeffrey Epstein to his pedophilia ‘fantasy island’ (or of all of the other willing participants who are now laying low).
My understanding of the court’s refusal to issue the EAW is that the defense argued the law and that law took the prosecutor and judge off guard. The law states a warrant can only be issued for an arrest and not until an investigation is complete. As the prosecution was arguing they needed the EAW to complete their investigation, in effect, the prosecution had made Assange’s lawyer’s case for them. It was reported that both the prosecutor and the judge were taken off guard by this information and seemed surprised by it.
IMO, the judge was not prepared with some lie or another to “overcome” this fact. I believe the Swedish courts will be working on that! In the meantime, I believe the US and UK govt. has moved into another tactic against Assange,
Cassandra Fairbanks has an interview allegedly showing pictures of Assange in Belmarsh prison from about a month ago. The fellow “inmate” who offered these pictures has rather copious advice for Assange but little information concerning how he is actually doing and what Assange has been saying while in Gitmo UK.
For example, this inmate knows Assange’s current lawyers are no good and helpfully recommends a “good” lawyer for him. He does not state why his current lawyers are bad. He seems to know an awful lot of detail concerning this case and how Assange’s supporters feel about his situation. This type of information would be extraordinarily difficult to know in a place w/restricted access to the outside world. He knows how to play to Assange’s desperate supporters. This all smacks of a government psy-op and I hope people will read this interview with much care and attempt to think about what exactly is being said here.
Mr. Murry, Thank you for all you have done on behalf of wikileaks and Assange.
In retrospect, never a good idea for a journalist who has exposed secret wrongdoing by them, to move to a Five Eyes Deep State controlled country.
I have always suspected that Mr. Assange prosecution was a total joke. The following lines summarized this charade:”the evidence Assange broke any law in Sweden has never stacked up” It could not have been penned more clearly.
A nine year investigation of a broken condom has forever destroyed Sweden’s reputation as a free nation.
It definitely reveals their vassalage to the US MIC/Deep State (along with the UK’s).
As a feminist from the 60s and 70s it is very disheartening (to put it mildly) to see this abysmal, deeply cynical misuse of sexual assault for political ends.
A broken condom without trace of DNA, how can that be? It seems reasonably clear that Anna Ardin has been put up to making mischief here, and she herself needs to be properly investigated, of course, it won’t happen.
As to Sofie Wilen, I just can’t go along with the official view, that drunken consensual sex becomes rape if one partner starts to drop off to sleep. If this sort of nonsense is taken seriously, then nearly all men will have been guilty of rape, at some time and need locking away.
More generally the time to start worrying about HIV is before jumping into bed with a stranger. Demanding a test for HIV, after this type of sexual encounter is largely futile.
“Demanding a test for HIV, after this type of sexual encounter is largely futile.”
My understanding is that in Sweden in a situation like Sofie Wilen found herself, the authorities can force someone to have an HIV test. She seemed to have had unprotected sex with Assange and didn’t think anything about it until she met the other woman and discovered that Assange was having multiple sex partners.
Again, my understanding is that she and the other woman then went to the authorities in order to get that official demand for a test. (I don’t know why they didn’t go to him.)
But that didn’t happen. Instead the authorities wanted to charge Assange with sexual assault. As shown by Murray, Wilen did not cooperate with that. She did not agree to press charges.
A broken condom lacking any microscopic trace of DNA at that.
I think it goes as far back as 1995 when Sweden joined the EU. And even before then (1985) there was a law restricting homeschooling.