Assange - The Guardian - Forthcoming Opinion Piece - by US Guardian blogger and polemicist Jessica Valenti

Julian Assange Re:  The Guardian Forthcoming Opinion Piece by US Guardian blogger  & polemicist Jessica Valenti Earlier post regarding the above  |  here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Check this out ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. source | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Hello? Jessica Valenti was what, de facto, amounts to an early PR supporter of one of the alleged accusers (I say, 'alleged', because both women have publicly denied (& therefore discounted) Sweden police allegations - here). Check out the date of Valenti's post (above).  Dated 17th December 2010.  That's a mere 10 days following Assange's mass media covered, theatrical, state managed, & state exploited arrest in London. Bet the dust hadn't even settled. So much for The Guardian's proposed 'opinion' piece ... and their denial of right of reply to journalist, Julian Assange. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Please Support Julian Assange Under Siege Ecuador embassy London (3 Years) Detained 5 Years No Charge FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ ꕤ

Assange is the Target of Powers he has Challenged

On Forthcoming Opinion Piece 18 August 2015 23:00 BST Mr Assange’s representatives understand that the Guardian is about to publish an ’opinion column’ by US Guardian blogger and polemicist Jessica Valenti, based on materials provided by parties in Sweden attempting to extradite Mr Assange. These include an interview between the alleged complainant, referred to by the prosecutor as ’SW’, and Valenti. Mr Assange’s representatives have asked the Guardian to present a "right of reply" statement appended to the article, but the Guardian declined, as opinion pieces are not subject to the same editorial standards as news articles. Although Mr Assange’s representatives have not been shown the article, in the interest of accuracy, journalists reproducing or reporting about the piece, and the public in general, should note the following facts: 1) Julian Assange has not been charged at any time. 2) Julian Assange was cleared of ’rape’ five years ago: On 21 August 2010 the Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne stated she "made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape". On 25 August 2010 she stated that "The conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed." The case was then closed. The matter was subsequently re-opened with a different prosecutor after the intervention of a senior Swedish politician, Claes Borgstrom, during the heat of Mr Assange’s conflict with the United States. The new ’preliminary investigation’ has been in stasis since 2010 and has not issued a finding. Mr Assange has not been asked a single question. That an extradition warrant was issued for him under such circumstances has been the subject of serious debate and led to the UK Parliament changing the law in 2014 to ban further cases of "extradition without charge". 3) It is on record that Swedish authorities unlawfully disclosed the identities of Julian Assange and the alleged complainants to the Swedish tabloid press, damaging their reputations and exposing them to vilification. 4) The US states that there is a pending prosecution against Julian Assange for espionage and other offences related to his WikiLeaks publications. The US grand jury against him was launched six months prior to his visit to Sweden. He was granted political asylum in relation to political persecution by the United States. The United Kingdom and Sweden have refused to provide an assurance that he will not be transferred to the United States. 5) ’SW’ felt she was "railroaded by police and others around her": Her SMS messages from the day of the police visit and immediately after, held by the Swedish authorities, state that she "did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on grabbing him" (14:26); and that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test” (17:06); that she “did not want to accuse JA for anything”; and at 22:25 that “it was the police who made up the charges”. This is corroborated by witness statements taken by Swedish authorities from friends of ’SW’, Marie Thorn and Hanna Rosquist. These statements include SW stating that she felt she had been "railroaded by police and others around her”. 6) The prosecution formally admitted that ’SW’ did not intend to make a complaint and only sought advice about STD tests: "After AA and SW spoke to each other and realised that they had both had intercourse with [JA] during the currency of his visit in circumstances where respectively they had or might have been or become unprotected against disease or pregnancy, SW wanted [JA] to get tested for disease. On 20 August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice." (Agreed Statement of Facts to the UK Supreme Court, 2012) 7) Why is this relevant now? In the past two months there have been almost unanimous calls from Swedish jurists, former prosecutors and the editor of Sweden’s top legal journal criticising Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, and even suggesting that she be removed. The United Nations body on Arbitrary Detention, the WGAD, is also about to rule on the case of his continuing detention without charge. So sensitive has the matter become that out of the 34 press releases on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s website, 29 are about Julian Assange. In November 2014 the Swedish Court of Appeal found that the prosecutor was in breach of her duty to progress an investigation expeditiously and at minimum inconvenience and suspicion to the suspect by refusing to take Julian Assange’s statement over the last 4.5 years. As a result of this breach, last week three misdemeanor allegations expired. Sweden’s legal community is practically unanimous that the Assange case has been mishandled and driven by the prosecutor’s attempts to save face. The Secretary General of the Swedish Bar Association Anne Ramberg has said: "The Assange story has become a less than flattering adventure not only for the English courts’ handling of the case, but also for the Swedish prosecutor". Svante Thorsell, an eminent defence lawyer and columnist, wrote that: "Something is rotten in the Assange case... the prosecutor’s passivity in this case is a crime against decency." Former prosecutor Rolf Hillegren has called for her removal, stating that Julian Assange has been "discriminated against". The editor of the Law journal Dagens Juridik, Stefan Wahlberg, told Swedish Radio that "the bottom line is it’s the prosecutor who has the responsibility, no one else!" and that "Prestige has played a big part." https://justice4assange.com/On-forthcoming-opinion-piece.html ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Above is hot off the press, or near enough. Guessing this 'opinion' piece is destined to be an anti-Assange propaganda piece of some kind. Notably, Assange has been denied a right of reply. In my opinion, the latest offering most probably amounts to a pre-arranged, 'trojan' press assault 'opinion' piece, much like those 'independent' NGO opinion pieces the propaganda churning Western press runs whenever they wish to especially smear official enemies. It shall be presented as a suitably emotive (and divisive) ... but delicately, 'gift-wrapped' appeal to dominant ideology and to 'justice,' one would guess. Aside from casting doubts and aspersions, the PR job will light up more of the same extraneous 'issues' debate that the public never seems to tire of. Most likely this will be a further attempt to divert attention to the official narrative (Hey, how dare Ecuador grant political asylum to a politically persecuted journalist!). Suspect that the aggressive British media campaign is a lead-up to some official assault on the rights of Assange. Somebody's got out what I suspect must be the go-to propaganda big guns in any scenario such as this. The Guardian 'opinion' piece writer is ... "Jessica Valenti is a columnist and staff writer for Guardian US. She is the author of four books on feminism, politics and culture, and founder of Feministing.com" Oh, dear.  So the intended target is probably about to become the recipient of a double-barrelled public assault.  Guessing there's a portrayal of 'female victimhood' - perhaps blended with 'courage' - that's championed by a feminist writer calling for 'justice', that's coming up for public consumption? I could be wrong, but I'm going to carry on with my predictions and see how I go at guessing the 'news'. Taking a wild guess, this 'opinion' piece is going to be the unseen power behind the 'female victim'-shield equivalent of holding up a vial of water at the United Nations Security Council (or, The Guardian readership court of public opinion), and declaring:  Assange has weapons of mass destruction & we must act! ... or something like that.  Yes, I can just see it now:  for the sake of world security, democracy, freedom, justice, womanhood, God, and apple pie – we must invade the Ecuador embassy. The trojan (containing the potent 'female victim' championed by feminist payload) will be used by whoever has arranged this, to further the government agenda - ie the interests of the powers that Assange and WikiLeaks have challenged. Presumably the government agenda is shepherding public opinion in the direction of acceptance and approval of the politically motivated, 5 year de facto imprisonment of Julian Assange or, at least, distracting from the glaring evidence that this is a blatantly politically-motivated detention of a truth-telling journalist by a sociopathic, totalitarian government, that has shown nothing but contempt for democracy and the law. Whoever has arranged this coming media hatchet job will be manipulating public attention and opinion. It's worth considering that over the last 5 years the media has largely presented, and often repeated, the government narrative:  while failing to address inconsistencies in that narrative.  So it's not like the aggressive British media campaign is coming from a necessity to redress media imbalance.  Nope.  It's an aggressive campaign aimed at pulling the wool over the public's eyes, when the public just may be in danger of waking up to what the 5 years of no charge detention is really for and why there's been millions of pounds/euros/dollars spent on this Embassy siege. In wider terms, this isn't merely an assault on Assange:  this is also an assault on justice (and a trial by media); it is an assault on international law (Assange has been granted political asylum); an assault on freedom of press; and an assault on civil liberties ... aided and abetted by corporate media hyenas. So, where Sweden has seen fit to avoid interviewing Assange regarding their flimsy 'allegations,' he is now to be tried by the media - without charge. But trial by media is nothing new; it's just more of the same.  Only perhaps a little nastier this time around. Through sleight of hand and in the guise of acting in the interests of: 'female victimhood' and 'feminism,' the latest media performance piece is most likely aimed at smearing Assange and putting across an impression that seeks to 'validate' the government narrative, while potentially dividing public opinion and, with any luck, eroding public support. The divide and conquer method of dealing with political targets is probably as old as society itself.  But it does smack of the manipulation, disinformation, and disruption style government-run 'social engineering' campaigns we've learned of more recently from the Snowden documents. The forthcoming PR job probably aims to shift or divert attention away from what has become apparent after 5 years of no charge detention amid Swedish long-term inaction to the point of Sweden failing to question Assange prior to the arrival of statute of limitation lapse:  ie. the fact that the Swedish and British government narrative is unsound. British, Swedish, & US powers are practically joined at the hip in terms of political agenda, trade, military, and intelligence sharing. Thus they represent a close political and practical alliance within the broader US-Anglo coalition. And it is this very coalition's war crimes, wrongdoings, lawlessness, hypocrisy, and contempt for justice and democracy, that were exposed by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Julian Assange is the target of powers he has challenged. I don't believe for one moment that he has sexually assaulted anyone, irrespective of would-be claimants to the 'victim' title that the authorities line up PR 'advocates' for. The Anglo-American and Swedish coalition is capable of stooping to just about anything: mass unconstitutional surveillance surveillance of entire countries CIA torture CIA black sites CIA rendition (kidnap & illegal transfer) from Sweden military invasion on false pretexts killings of many thousands of civilians the concealment of these civilian killings the use of air-strike to conceal murder of civilians deliberately misleading parliament over a proposed ban on cluster bombs (United Kingdom) No amount of corporate press hyena 'opinion' presentations or plays on public emotion (seeking to sow misplaced sympathy, doubt, confusion etc), will ever fool anyone who looks at the facts. Meanwhile, the life of Julian Assange hangs in the balance, as Britain and Sweden grimly press for extradition that would will see a journalist who exposed US and allied war crimes delivered by war criminals to war criminals. So where is this 'pillar of democracy', the 'free press'? It is silent and in the service of powerful interests. 'The dangerous cult of the Guardian' Jonathan Cooke Article 'Right of Reply' Denied [  source | slate | here  ] [  source | slate | here  ] [Excuse the repetition above ... I'm not a writer.  lol]  Please Support journalist-publisher Julian Assange Under Siege Ecuador embassy London (3 Years) Detained 5 Years No Charge POLITICAL PERSECUTION FAQ & Support LINK:  https://justice4assange.com/ ꕤ