To: Ed Pearl
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Responses to my remarks and the subject: Part II...Feminists
Debate Sexual Allegations against Julian Assange
Hello Ed
I found the conversation, verging on argument, and almost shameful in the
way they both tried to top each other in who represents (more) rape victims.
Friedman put Naomi on the defensive for no reason, since she (Friedman) did
have important points to make. However, Friedman's behavior was indicative
of the psychological damage that rape victim's (Friedman) endure, unable to
separate her own baggage from Assange's situation. From a therapists point
of view, she seemed incredibly angry and vindictive. To say that, well if he
does get extradited to the US and faces cruel punishment she'd be on the
front lines fighting for him, is absurd for it would be, more than likely,
too late. Reminds me of the local county policy stipulating that they'll
only put a traffic light in the intersection once someone gets killed.
More important- to have a discussion on "facts" when all the facts are not
in, most importantly, we have not heard Assange's testimony- is really
frustrating and therefore one sided.
I also have a feeling that Friedman does not have in depth knowledge on how
cruel are corrupt our foreign and domestic policies (e.g. John Perkins
Confessions of An Economic Hit Man).
Rachel Madow turned out to be a real disappointment. I think she showed her
true colors when she went to Afghanistan, and later commented how she would
have joined the military if not for DADT. She made a fool of herself during
the mid term elections when she went to a shooting gallery to target
practice, and her more recent comment about how she "used to like" Glen
Beck. She acts like an overgrown teenager, smug and full of herself and her
reporting is less and less informative.
You're right, thank the lord for Amy Goodman!
Happy holidays, Ed to you and yours and toda rabah, again for your important
emails.
Naomi
***
http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/370-wikileaks/4370-trial-by-newspaper
Trial by Newspaper
By Bianca Jagger,
Reader Supported News: 23 December 10
Petition in support of Julian Assange
Click to read and support now:
http://www.readersupportednews.org/julian-assange-petition
Also See:
WikiLeaks' Twitter Page: http://twitter.com/wikileaks
WikiLeaks' Support Page: http://wikileaks.ch/support.html
Lieberman Attacks New York Times Over WikiLeaks Documents:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-joe-lieberman-new-york-times-investigated
What was missing in "10 Days in Sweden: The Full Allegations Against
Julian Assange"(the Guardian, Nick Davies, 17 December 2010):
was surprised to read the article, "10 Days in Sweden: The Full Allegations
Against Julian Assange" because I hold the Guardian in high esteem and I
cannot fathom why such a credible publication would publish a prejudiced and
unfair article. I object to the Guardian's decision to publish selective
passages from the Swedish police report, whilst omitting exculpatory
evidence contained in the document.
Julian Assange has the right to a fair and impartial trial in a court of
justice; instead, in denial of due process, he is being subjected to a
'trial by newspapers,' in an effort to discredit him. This tactic is not
new. As Justice Felix Frankfurter said in 1961, 'inflammatory' news stories
that prejudice justice are 'too often' published. For those that remember
Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 to The New York Times,
this seems to be a case of history repeating itself. Like Assange, who has
been hailed a 'terrorist' by US Attorney General Eric Holder, Ellsberg was
subjected to a malicious media campaign, in which he was branded 'the most
dangerous man in the world.'
It is deplorable the Swedish police files have been given unlawfully to the
Guardian and other newspapers. By whom I wonder? We have the right to know
who is behind this obvious effort to conduct a smear campaign. According to
Assange's legal team there is a lot of exonerating evidence in the police
file, and material which they supplied to the Guardian, including a copy of
the chronology of events, and the press statement of the initial chief
prosecutor Eva Finne. This important evidence was omitted from the article.
The statement by Ms. Finne, "The decision which up to this point has been
established is that Assange is not suspected of rape and he is therefore no
longer wanted for arrest," is nowhere to be found.
I am aware that Assange's legal team failed to respond to the Guardian on
time when invited to publish a response to the article prior to its
publication. However, the point here is not about the defense. The issue is
the choices the Guardian made when presenting the facts contained in the
police dossier, and the overriding duty of any credible news publication to
present a fair rendition of events, particularly when due process is at
stake.
There is information in the public domain, including Tweets, SMS messages
and statements to friends, from the two complainants. Although there are
vague references to this correspondence, the content is conspicuously absent
from the narrative the Guardian has woven.
If the media insists in engaging in this reprehensible method of publicly
trying Julian Assange, the least they could do is publish an accurate
account. The Guardian has reversed the presumption of innocence by only
publishing allegations against him, and not his account of events or the
mitigating evidence in the police dossier. Although the article alludes to
his objections to the allegations, his account, contained in the police
file, is not directly quoted.
From a molehill, a mighty mountain of innuendos has been made to cast Julian
Assange as some kind of rapist. I refuse to be drawn into passing judgment
on the case, however, we should all remember, Assange is innocent until
proven guilty.
I condemn and abhor rape and as an advocate of women rights, I will denounce
any man who forces his sexual attention on women. I have found the sequence
of events in the case against Assange, disturbing to say the least. At the
end of the day, the issue here is justice and due process for all. Denying
justice for men will not achieve justice for women.
Assange has been criticized for not being willing to return to Sweden to
prove his innocence. It is hardly surprising he has reservations, given
Sweden's human rights record. Anyone acquainted with it will remember the
cases of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery, two Egyptian asylum seekers who
were, according to Redress, 'removed from Sweden to Egypt by the United
States' Central Intelligence Agency in cooperation with the Swedish
authorities and outside of any legal process,' on charges of terrorism in
2001. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on
Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen as passive onlookers.
In 2005, in Agiza v. Sweden (Communication No. 233/2003), the UN Committee
against Torture found that Sweden had violated the Convention against
Torture. The following year, in Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden (Communication No.
1416/2005), the UN Human Rights Committee found Sweden to have violated the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Alzery was released
without charge after two years in prison however, 'he continues to suffer
physically and psychologically as a result of his torture and
ill-treatment.' Agiza was sentenced to 15 years in prison in a military
tribunal. The process was not fair, and there is doubt as to the men's
guilt.
Redress has stated:
Mr. Agiza and Mr. Alzery remain at a real risk of torture and
ill-treatment as a result of Sweden's violations of the Convention against
Torture. These cases epitomise the recent attempts by states to circumvent
the absolute principle of non-refoulement enshrined in the CAT in the name
of counterterrorism.
Given this precedent, one can appreciate why Julian Assange is apprehensive
about being extradited to Sweden. In the Today Show on December 21st,
Assange revealed that Sweden has requested that if he returns and is
arrested, he is to be held incommunicado, and his Swedish lawyer is to be
given a gag order.
Having grown up under a dictatorship in Nicaragua, I am very sensitive to
any attempts to weaken our democracy. Although I do not agree with
everything WikiLeaks has done, I feel compelled to defend freedom of speech,
freedom of the press and due process. I was in court last week, not, as has
been reported to pledge surety for Assange's bail, but to voice my support
for the founder of WikiLeaks, because I suspect that what is on trial here
is not Julian Assange's alleged sexual misconduct, but freedom of speech
guaranteed in Art 19 of The Universal declaration of Human Rights, The First
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art 10 of The European
Convention on Human Rights. This trial has far reaching implications for all
of us who believe in the core values of our democratic system. I fear that
Mr. Assange is being punished for releasing information, which reveals the
misuse of power by the US and other governments. He is on trial for holding
governments to account.
It is my hope that justice will be served in the British judicial system. In
the meantime, I hope readers will have the insight to suspend judgment until
all evidence is available. Julian Assange is innocent until proven guilty.
I am pleased to learn that the Guardian will be publishing an interview with
Julian Assange.
No comments:
Post a Comment