Why write a book with the police interrogations in the Assange case when there have been copies available online in English for over two years?
Simple. Because not enough people are reading them.
It’s not enough to say you support Julian or you’re against him. The case itself is pivotal. It takes but a few short hours to read the book a single time, and our hope is you’ll refer back to the book continually.
Why? Because the case isn’t so much about Julian Assange as it is about Sweden. And the world needs an historical document, a work of reference, for this case.
Of course it’s absurd to think William Hague would consider storming an embassy to kidnap someone who may or may not have ripped a condom. Just as it’s absurd for one of the accusers to say she wasn’t even sure a condom ripped, and the other to say she hadn’t bothered to check.
It’s equally absurd to think the seasoned William Hague would himself have come upon such folly.
But it’s far less absurd to believe the words of Craig Murray who says someone inside Hague’s office leaked information to him about the pressure put on their office by the United States.
And if the United States wanted Hague and the UK to storm an embassy and catapult the world into diplomatic turmoil, why were they so intent? Was it the long arm of US international justice that wanted to see an alleged condom ripper brought to justice in a far off country? Of course not.
Or consider the blank denials of Sweden’s former minister for justice Thomas Bodström only this year that a special agreement on “temporary surrender” existed between the US and Sweden – only to have the Twittersphere uncover not one but two such agreements, one signed by Bodström himself and the other signed by his father Lennart Bodström, former minister with the government of Olof Palme.
It’s all absurd. Everything the UK and Sweden are doing is absurd.
And now sending a Supreme Court justice down under to hold a speech in a language he can’t understand? A speech full of gross
Why are the Swedes lying so much if the case is straightforward? Why did Marianne Ny lie to TIME Magazine in 2010 when she said use of Mutual Legal Assistance was illegal in both Sweden and Britain? Why were the Swedish news sites scrubbed of their reports on these statements? Why did minister for foreign affairs Carl Bildt lie in the summer of 2012 when he claimed use of MLA was “unconstitutional”?
For they lied. Time and again they lied. As did Karin Rosander for Al Jazeera when she claimed two prosecutors can of course come to different conclusions when looking at different documents – completely concealing the fact that the first prosecutor had no documents at all.
Oh yes they lied. And they keep on lying. And they get caught out each and every time. Ambassador Sven-Olof Petersson, who said he was “out-of-control mad” at Australian journalist Elizabeth Farrelly for hinting that Sweden would at times cooperate with the CIA in “black ops” missions, was found shortly afterwards to himself have been a central coordinator for the CIA rendition of two innocent Egyptians to Mubarak’s dungeons. Why was Petersson so foolish?
Why have they all lied, and why have they all lied so badly? Bodström knew the truth was out there and he’d be found out. Ny knew as well. So did Bildt. So did Petersson. And Hague must have suspected someone in his office would leak. So why did they do it? Why throw egg on their own faces?
Clearly they weren’t thinking. But why not?
There’s only one reasonable explanation: they were all under a lot of pressure.
“The US says ‘jump’ and Sweden answers ‘how high?'” remarked Rick Falkvinge. Legislation in the 2000s by Carl Bildt’s conservative party followed a formal checklist laid down by the US Embassy. The FRA (“Lex Orwell”) law, the IPRED law, the raid on The Pirate Bay and the ensuing verdicts – all of this dictated by the US Embassy. The US threatened Sweden with trade sanctions if they didn’t fall in line. Sweden fell in line.
And so did England. Hague never stormed the Ecuadorean Embassy – he came to his senses. But it was close. And today, some £3 million later, the embassy is still guarded by the Met 24/7. This isn’t about a ripped condom.
Back on Swedish soil, the situation is, if possible, even worse. The flow of information into the country through Swedish media is harshly filtered. Many times there’s been a total media blackout on major events surrounding Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Why?
Why is it that so many whistleblowers are portrayed to have perversions in the closet? Do the two propensities go hand in hand? Or can we hazard a wild guess that smearing whistleblowers is standard operating procedure for the powers that be?
- arrested Julian Assange in absentia before any testimony had been submitted
- helped blast his name with the accusation of “rape” to the world media within hours
- rescinded the arrest warrant twelve hours later
- told Al Jazeera that such reversals were common occurrences
- told television viewers they should try to not think about the case
- had at least three of their own intelligence agencies following Assange’s every move, one of those agencies being the feared KSI who have a carte blanche to ignore Swedish law if they choose to
- lied to the international media about the possibility of using MLA
- waited patiently for twelve days after telling Assange he could leave the country so they could issue a secret warrant and steal his luggage from behind the Lufthansa check-in counter
- tried to ambush him on his return in October 2010 with the press and photographers on location to get front page shots
- raised the level of suspicion to conform with the requirements of the European Arrest Warrant
- modified the details of the alleged crimes to conform with the requirements of the European Arrest Warrant
- told the UK courts Assange was wanted for prosecution but simultaneously told the Swedish media and the Swedish people he was only wanted for questioning as no one yet knew whether they could prosecute
- was invited to attend the UK hearings “undercover”
- lied about Mutual Legal Assistance being against the Swedish constitution (Sweden doesn’t even have a constitution)
- mostly ignored the releases of WikiLeaks
- at cabinet level, refuses to comment on anything released by WikiLeaks
- has a governing political party whose chief adviser is Karl Rove
- has a minister for foreign affairs who’s openly been an informant for the US for nearly forty years, who’s been called a spy by other convicted spies, and who today is keeping Marianne Ny out of the loop on important developments in the Assange case
- sent a Supreme Court justice “down under” to speak about a case that can come before his court, something Jennifer Robinson cautiously called “remarkable”
Clearly this is about ripped condoms and no more. Clearly Julian Assange is not in danger if he returns to Sweden to clear his name and restore his reputation.
And that’s why we write a book.
The current publication is one of more than a dozen currently in the works. It was intended to be an appendix to each of the other books, until we realised how much material it represented.
We also agreed that this book should not be an appendix, as it is simply too important to be relegated to back pages anywhere.
And most importantly, we wanted people everywhere to read it. And to have a book they could take down off their bookshelves whenever they wanted, when discussing the case with others.
The truth will out, the truth wins out.