''They are killing my son''- Assange's father speaks out

Post Reply New Topic

It saddens me to read so much negativity blasted at others who focus on facts. People who have an opinion not based on facts but misinformation tend to be the ones that attack others unneccessarily because they are in cognitive dissonance.

Firstly, I'd like to share something very personal here. My husband was kidnapped and brutally tortured by different factions of shadow government for his whistleblowing activism some were American shadow government and some were Ecuadorian shadow government, he later died a year and a half ago.

I am someone who has first hand personal experience of the consequences of what happens to a person who exposes truth that threatens elite corruption. I've lost my husband and there is no justice to be sought as those that destroyed him are the ones in power and in government, in police, in military, CIA doctors and so on, a net work of corrution that is actually a global reality.

Any stories that come out to slander such people like Assange or my husband, are often questionable and need to be treated suspiciously. I am an independent journalist and I have studied Journalism, Free Press, law, libel and slander and human rights, British newspapers like the Guardian have overstepped many slander laws with smear campaigns on Assange along with others, because their editorial board are funded and controlled by government and MPs that are implicated in Wikileaks cables. Most of you here seem unaware of how mainstream papers are being censored to publish the GRAVE human rights violations by keeping Assange in prison beyond his release date the 22nd of September, ALL ILLEGAL, just because its the powers that be doing it, doesnt make it right! Meanwhile, he is ill in the prison hospital and being kept in isolation from other prisoners. Craig Murray worked in countless investigations in Usbekistan and other countries as a British Ambassador, defending victims of tortured, him and Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture have both been explicit in their observations of Assange in his latest court case, shows clear signs of torture. After my husband was electricuted for four days, I know what torture does to people too. Assange has been tortured in Belmarsh prison. The British government is accountable for the coersion with US officials, lack of real objective justice in court, mental torture, isolation and drugging of Journalist Julian Assange.

Secondly, the best sources of non-biased independent news, those from non governmental news sources, and investigative journalists like Sir John Pilger, since governments both in the UK and the US are implicated in Wikileaks cables and have been exposed on multiple levels of corruption, various examples are Hilary Clinton selling arms to ISIS and John McCaine funding and having secret meetings with Muslim extremists. If you still trust your government, not much I can say about that other than people prefer to stay in a comfort zone than accept the truth.

John Pilger talks about it here. https://soundcloud.com/rttv/going-under ... 19Yv4CFnB0

[Mod]

Tried posting this with the quotes but Captcha didn't like it.

Fnord - users are allowed to post about things that you don't personally find interesting. If you don't have anything to add to a discussion, then rather than criticising people for having the discussion, I would suggest a better use of your time would be to simply not comment.

John - ethical issues are often complex, and there are a broad range of perspectives on most issues. People who disagree with you are not necessarily Nazis. Please try to disagree politely and treat others with respect, rather than insinuating that everyone who disagrees with you is evil.

[/Mod]

It's not people disagreeing with me it is crowing for Journalists to be killed and supporting wars of aggression all over the place. The kind of acts that would have had those responsible hung at Nuremberg.

Assange has done a lot of good work (although he endangered many innocent lives doing so and should have been more responsible). Let's not pretend for a second that he's being imprisoned "for being a journalist". He is being imprisoned because he is a rapist and he went on the run from the law rather than face justice. Publishing leaked documents doesn't magically give you impunity to rape whoever you want.

Like most of the public, I had been subconsciously poisoned by the relentless smear campaign, which had been disseminated over the years. So it took a second knock on my door to get my reluctant attention. But once I looked into the facts of this case, what I found filled me with repulsion and disbelief.

Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the United States had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, Swedish prosecution informed the tabloid press that he was suspected of having raped two women. Strangely, however, the women themselves never claimed to have been raped, nor did they intend to report a criminal offence. Go figure. Moreover, the forensic examination of a condom submitted as evidence, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure again. One woman even texted that she only wanted Assange to take an HIV test, but that the police were “keen on getting their hands on him”. Go figure, once more. Ever since, both Sweden and Britain have done everything to prevent Assange from confronting these allegations without simultaneously having to expose himself to US extradition and, thus, to a show-trial followed by life in jail. His last refuge had been the Ecuadorian Embassy.
...
In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.

The thing is, every time someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of crowing for journalists to be killed and supporting wars of aggression (and now seemingly you call for them to be hung at Nuremberg?), regardless of whether they actually do those things. It doesn't logically follow that because someone disagrees with you, that they must disagree in the most extreme way possible with all of your views.

No I do that when the crow for journalists to be killed and when they support wars of aggression and dropping nukes on people.

Hello Mr Walrus, apologies for neglecting this topic for so long, I've been busy.

I note that someone has hit the magic reset button again and that you've resumed accusing Wikileaks and Assange in particular of being irresponsible, when it was the Guardian, specifically David Leigh and Luke Harding who leaked the password to the unredacted records.

https://techfruit.com/2011/09/01/did-th ... -password/

Secondly he is being held not on the Swedish accusations but on the American grand jury charges.

Thirdly I noticed you enthusiastically pronounced him a rapist.
So I will take the time to post the words of Nils Melzer UN Special Rapporteur who is far more erudite than me.

Mr Melzer is mistaken or lying. Assange has been accused of rape by two women. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/ ... nge-sweden

Unfortunately due to his perversion of the course of justice, the case has now been dropped. I hope the Swedes charge him with their equivalent to this crime, in which case I would support his extradition to Sweden.

If the Swedes want him then he should be extradited there to face sentencing. I think a fair sentence would be the equivalent to the one he has dropped out of for the four offences he has been charged with. A bit like how if you refuse to give a breath sample you receive the same punishment as someone who commits drink driving. But on the other hand, there are other factors to consider such as whether Assange's supporters would become angry. I don't really think those sorts of things should be allowed to prevent justice taking its course, but I understand that professionals need to consider more things.

As the Swedes don't want him any more, and he has served his time in this country, I think he should probably be released. I don't think his human rights would be breached by an extradition to America, as that would endanger the extradition treaty, so if that did happen then I wouldn't be up in arms. But if he is going to be extradited then just get on and do it. Holding him without charge just seems somewhat vindicative. Being a petty manchild is not a crime.

Mr Melzer is mistaken or lying. Assange has been accused of rape by two women. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/ ... nge-sweden

Unfortunately due to his perversion of the course of justice, the case has now been dropped. I hope the Swedes charge him with their equivalent to this crime, in which case I would support his extradition to Sweden.

If the Swedes want him then he should be extradited there to face sentencing. I think a fair sentence would be the equivalent to the one he has dropped out of for the four offences he has been charged with. A bit like how if you refuse to give a breath sample you receive the same punishment as someone who commits drink driving. But on the other hand, there are other factors to consider such as whether Assange's supporters would become angry. I don't really think those sorts of things should be allowed to prevent justice taking its course, but I understand that professionals need to consider more things.

As the Swedes don't want him any more, and he has served his time in this country, I think he should probably be released. I don't think his human rights would be breached by an extradition to America, as that would endanger the extradition treaty, so if that did happen then I wouldn't be up in arms. But if he is going to be extradited then just get on and do it. Holding him without charge just seems somewhat vindicative. Being a petty manchild is not a crime.

Mr Melzer is mistaken or lying. Assange has been accused of rape by two women. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/ ... nge-sweden

Assange, who was released on bail on Thursday, denies the Swedish allegations and has not formally been charged with any offence. (Emphasis mine)

Second, as far as SW is concerned, her police report states that, after Assange woke her up trying to initiate intercourse, the two had a conversation in which she asked Assange whether he was wearing a condom and he replied he was not. She then said he “would better not have HIV” and he replied that he did not, after which, she “let him continue” (lät honom fortsätta) to have unprotected intercourse. There are no indications of coercive or incapacitating circumstances suggesting lack of consent. Accordingly, Chief Prosecutor for Stockholm Eva Finne stated: “I do not think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape” and closed the case on 25 August 2010 concluding that the “conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all”. Having examined all the evidence before me, I agree with her. My position, like Finne’s, is not that SW’s account is not credible, but rather that the conduct alleged does not constitute “rape”.

Third, as far as AA is concerned, even the Swedish prosecution never suggested that the conduct alleged by her could amount to “rape”. In a Twitter-message of 22 April 2013, AA herself publicly denied having been raped (jag har inte blivit våldtagen). AA also stated in a tabloid interview that Assange is not violent and that neither she nor SW felt afraid of him. While I agree with the prosecution that AA’s allegations, if proven to be true, could amount to sexual assault other than rape, the fact that she submitted as evidence a condom, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with Assange, which carried no DNA of either Assange or AA, seriously undermines her credibility.

Fourth, according to their own accounts, neither AA nor SW ever alleged to have been raped, and neither of them intended to report a crime. Rather, evidence shows that AA took SW to a police station, so SW could enquire whether she could force Assange to take an HIV-test. There, they were questioned together by an investigating officer who knew AA personally and ran on the same political party ticket as AA in the general elections three weeks later. When superior investigators insisted on registering SW’s enquiry as a report of “rape” and to immediately issue an arrest warrant against Assange, SW reportedly refused to sign her statement and became so emotionally distraught that the questioning had to be suspended. While at the police station, SW even texted that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange” but that “the police were keen on getting their hands on him” (14:26); and that she was “chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him” because she “only wanted him to take a test” (17:06). Once Chief Prosecutor Finné had intervened and closed the case, it reportedly was again the police (not SW) who “revised” her statement lodged in the police system to better fit the crime of “rape” before it was resubmitted by a third Social Democrat politician to a different prosecutor who was prepared to re-open the case.