More on Julian Assange

Got this email from my mate Robbo this morning - it seems that quite a few Australian's are bothered by what is happening to Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Hi Roger,

I share your grief and dismay over the Wikileaks developments and Assange's incarceration and likely rendition extradition to Sweden. What a farcical yet chilling episode and what a dreadful disappointment our little mates the Swedes are turning out to be. A few questions occur to me in regard to this:

* What are the Swedish precedents for criminal investigations into males on similar grounds to those that appear to be levelled at our boy Julian? Specifically, how many times has a Swedish prosecutor picked up an equivalent case?

* If any such cases have been prosecuted in Sweden, how many have lead to convictions and what have been the sentences?

* If there are any precedents, how many have resulted in extradition proceedings?

* What is known about the Swedish prosecutor, especially in regard to her affiliations? The little I've discovered so far is great cause for concern:

"Marianne Ny is regarded as a prosecutor who goes especially far. In one case of a woman being mistreated she voiced the opinion that men accused by women but not convicted should in any case be preventively locked up – to give the women “space to think things over”.

* Given this last point, we may not need to look for direct collusion between the Swedish judicial system and the US, but it is certainly a windfall for the Yanks and I've little doubt they'll exploit it any way they can. They'll make strange bedfellows, the Swedish femonazi enclave and the US - if it does go that way. I'm referring of course to the risk that Sweden will hand Julian over to the US if he winds up in their care.

As to Assange's accusers, what I've heard so far completely beggars credibility.

* Two young women, one of whom seemed to have been virtually a stalker, wind up bumping uglies with Julian over a similar time period.

* Both appeared happy with events at the time, and for some time after, and then what?

* Superficially, it looks like resentment, some kind of reaction to his neglect after the fact, some lack in returning affections?

* How can a notion of molestation and rape be retrospective? If it hadn't been experienced as such at the time, (and one supposes therefore, Julian wouldn't have been made aware of any problems at the time), how can we accept that reflecting on it makes it so, especially to the extent that it may satisfy a senior prosecutor?

* In particular, how can we accept the integrity of the case when it didn't even make it to a police report until the two women had colluded?

* Who advised these women to *seek advice* from the police rather than putting themselves at risk by actually making accusations that could have been proven false in a subsequent court case?

* We're also expected to believe that action was taken because they were concerned about STDs and Julian wasn't returning calls. If they wanted him to see a doctor, what's wrong with Facebook or Twitter? "Oi, Julian, get your bits checked mate and let us know how it goes". It's not like they were concerned about anyone's privacy.

And on the bright side? Well, not counting our rather strangely sycophantic PM, I've been slightly heartened by the responses from Australian politicians from both sides. Rudd, Turnbull and even Howard have all come out and said that Assange hasn't broken any Australian laws and the the US needs to attend to its own security issues, not pursue Assange. We'll wait and see if anyone balls up enough to actually do anything about it.

Cheers

Peter

PS - and now we have over 5100 comments on the Open Letter to Julia Gillard - here. And not a whisper from the *Bogan in Chief* about it. Perhaps she will reveal all when she meets with *Oprah* this afternoon ;-)

PPS - You must check Glen Beck's interpretation of events on YouTube - it's hilarious.