John Robles 02/07/2012
Why isn’t the U.S. Government going after those guilty of the crimes exposed by Wikileaks? Why are they going after the whistle-blowers and not the criminals that they have exposed? The letter below by Julian’s mother Christine Assange may shed more light on the case.
There have been many bad things written about Julian Assange and Wikileaks and these have grown even more frequent with his request for political asylum in Ecuador. Like many fighters for the truth on the internet, at the beginning I myself was skeptical, for years I had run a similar site, what you might classify as a “whistle-blower website”, along with hundreds if not thousands of others that sprung up after 9-11, and was in contact with dozens of other like-minded individuals.
The problem we had with Wikileaks was the amount of money he was attempting to raise. This cast a shadow on the independence of the resource. For example my site has never, in nine years of operation made me a cent, quite the opposite in fact, and has caused me countless problems and cost me a ton of money, but I have never received a dime from anyone therefore no one has influence on its contents other than myself and I can truthfully call it independent and free.
Looking back at the sheer size and the impact that Wikileaks has had on the world, and in light of the fact that its co-founder, yes there was another individual who founded Wikileaks along with Assange, has been forced to seek political asylum and has been persecuted for so long, this whole argument begs a re-thinking if not a redaction.
Although at the beginning Wikileaks was not transparent in declaring its expenses and in stating where the hundreds of thousands of dollars it had been seeking was going, this has become a mute point in light of the current state of affairs. However I would advise Wikileaks to be more transparent and open when it attempts to raise funds in the future.
During the past few weeks I have talked to many people closely associated with Julian and Wikileaks, and the more I learn, the more I understand that these are people who are sincere in their attempts to get the truth out and to have those criminals who have been turned the world into their own kill-and-destroy-for-a-buck-playing-field, for over a decade, held accountable for their crimes against each and every one of us, their blatant and clear crimes against humanity.
The pressing and urgent question that the world should be asking and which seems to be getting lost in all of the attention be poured on Julian and Wikileaks, is quite simple yet a question that few dare to ask. Why? Are they afraid? That question is: Why isn’t the U.S. Government going after those guilty of the crimes exposed by Wikileaks? Why are they going after the whistle-blowers and not the criminals that they have exposed?
The letter below by Julian’s mother Christine Assange may shed more light on the case:
Open letter to the Australian people from Christine Assange – mother of Julian Assange
There have been many public statements made about WikiLeaks and its Editor-in-chief Julian Assange that are factually inaccurate.
For example, Prime Minister Julia Gillard: “It’s illegal.” Attorney General Nicola Roxon: “He fled Sweden” and the media generally: “Assange is charged/facing charges” (in relation to Swedish sex allegations).
Some of these inaccurate statements are due to misinformation, but others are designed to smear Julian, to erode his public support, to discredit WikiLeaks work and to prevent the further publishing of uncomfortable truths.
Many Australians including leading lawyers, academics and journalists believe WikiLeaks is a legitimate, ethical and courageous media organisation, and that Julian is an innocent man; a political prisoner persecuted for exposing the US Government and its big corporations for the complicity in war crimes, fraud and corruption, exploitation of the third world, bullying and diplomatic manipulation in other countries, lying to the public and other shady dealings.
They were appalled as the Australian Government stood by in silence as furious US politicians and commentators called for the brutal murder of my son. The Australian Government stood silent when Julian’s personal bank accounts were frozen and the US Government cut off 95 per cent of WikiLeaks funding by pressuring credit card companies to refuse to process voluntary donations (this was despite the fact that the US Treasury stated there was no reason to blacklist WikiLeaks).
They are deeply concerned that the Government refuses to protest against the many documented abuses of Julian’s legal and human rights in the Swedish extradition case or his right to a fair legal process in an imminent US extradition application.
Moreover, many feel his treatment signifies other wider concerns that the Australian Government has become an echo chamber of the US Government and US big business, which is increasingly dictating Australian policy and new legislation against the interests of Australian security, the privacy and civil rights of Australian citizens, Australian businesses and Australian democracy.
I implore you as a mother and urge you as an Australian citizen to look at the facts I have listed below and to make up your own mind.
Included at the end are links to more factual information, what we are asking the Australian Government to do to protect Julian and some actions you may take to support Julian’s right to justice.
At the end of her letter she lists some facts in the case. Too many to list all of them here but here are the main points and they deserve proper consideration by all.
PLEASE NOTE: Julian has not been charged by Sweden regarding the sex allegations, or by any other country in the world in relation to his work at
1) Sam Adams Award 2010: Julian Assange was unanimously awarded to Julian Assange for “Integrity and Intelligence” for the release of the Afghan War Diaries and Iraq war logs by a panel of senior US military and intelligence officers (ret.).
2) 2011 Walkley Award for Excellence in Journalism ; “Today journalists and editors around the world are concerned about the attacks on WikiLeaks. This is an issue of the freedom of the press, people have a right to information through the opportunities provided by the web, and journalists remain ready to fight for the principle of exposure journalism”.
3) WikiLeaks acts in accordance with traditional journalism.
4) WikiLeaks redacts its documents; so to date not one person has been physically harmed by its publications.
5) WikiLeaks has a perfect record with information reliability. No Government has denied authenticity of any documents.
6) After the Afghan War Diary release 25/7/10 Julian visited Sweden to obtain residency and base WikiLeaks there. The US was aware of more WikiLeaks releases to come and wrote threatening letters. Julian was warned of entrapment plans.
7) Woman A.A. invited Julian to speak in Sweden at a seminar about Afghanistan in mid-August 2010. Woman S.W. stated she went to the seminar to meet Julian. Both women have stated to the police and media that sex was consensual and non-violent. Exculpatory evidence (texts to friends) show women had no complaints regarding sex until finding out about each other and 100+ texts between A.A. and S.W. speak of revenge, making money and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to the press.
8) Woman S.W. was so upset police were going to allege rape she does not finish her interview or sign her witness statement, which was then altered again without her consent. She stated she felt railroaded into making a complaint.
9) In Sweden, consensual non-violent sex can be legally defined as rape.
10) Contrary to Swedish police procedure the women’s interviews were not video or audio taped and the first prosecutor, Maria Haljebo-Kjellstrand, unlawfully told the press Julian was wanted for rape. Julian was not interviewed or informed he found out in the tabloid newspaper Expressen that he was, “Being hunted down for double rape”. Within hours, there were millions of website hits for Assange plus rape, causing irreparable harm to Julian’s reputation.
11) The next day after reviewing the file, Stockholm’s chief prosecutor Eva Finne threw out the rape allegation. “I consider there are no grounds for suspecting he has committed rape,” she said.
12) For the last three years, the political advisor to the Swedish Prime Minister has been Karl Rove, a notorious, disgraced former Bush administration advisor who orchestrated vicious smear campaigns against political opponents. Karl Rove is a personal friend of the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrick Reinfeldt and of the Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt.
13) Sweden has close ties to the US and was the major arms supplier to the US-Iraq War.
14) Around a week after the dropping of the rape allegation by the chief prosecutor, a politician/lawyer named Claes Borgstrom appealed the decision. Claes Borgstrom and his business partner Thomas Bodstrom run a thriving legal practice based on representing claimants in sex cases.
15) Woman A.A., Irmeli Krans (interrogating police officer of woman S.W.) and both Borgstrom and Bodtsrom are members of the Swedish Social Democrat Party. They all stood together for elections at the same time, one month after the sex allegations were made against Julian, with one of the platforms being widening the definition of rape within consensual sex.
16) Woman A.A. produced new evidence for the appeal. She submitted a condom which she states Julian tore deliberately. Forensic tests showed there was no DNA evidence in the condom from either Julian or herself.
17) Julian was not informed of the appeal and had no chance to make a submission the appeal was successful.
18) Julian remained in Sweden for five weeks seeking an interview with the new prosecutor Marianne Ny. She made excuses not to interview him and gave him permission to leave Sweden for business on September 15th (meeting with Cablegate media partners). He offered to fly back into Sweden for interview on October 9 or 10. Ny refused because it was a weekend. He offered to fly back on October 11th Ny refused because it was too far away.
19) During October and November Julian stayed at the journalist’s club in the UK preparing for the release of the US diplomatic cables (Cablegate). During this period, he offered to be interviewed by Marianne Ny via the normal protocol for this situation called Mutual Legal Assistance, (MLA), (via Skype, phone or videolink), Marianne Ny refused all offers.
20) Around the time of the release of Cablegate in late November, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for questioning stating that Julian had fled the country and a public Interpol Red Notice for his arrest.
21) For the entire 16 months that Julian has been under house arrest in the UK, Marianne Ny has refused all his offers to be interviewed at the Swedish Embassy or in Scotland Yard.
22) Marianne Ny has misled the Swedish and UK public by stating that she was legally not allowed to interview Julian by mutual legal assistance or in the UK.
23) Many legal people investigating the case are of the opinion that the Swedish extradition case is not bona fide but merely a holding case awaiting a US extradition.
24) The European arrest warrant is only supposed to be issued for prosecution not for questioning. Under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant, no allegations can be tested (including the sex allegations against Julian).
25) The European Arrest Warrant was initially meant for the fast-track extradition of bona-fide terrorists but has been misused. It has been subject to much criticism since its inception as it results in the abuse of many citizens legal and human rights (1000 people a month extradited from the UK).
Thank you to Christine Assange for allowing us to publish her letter.
The views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the author or the Voice of Russia.