The real story about Assange, a successful intel op

Editor’s preface: We now have more than enough information to conclude that Assange was framed, probably at the instigation of the US government. I have added this to my list of hits. The news hit the major US media on 21-22 August 2010. On August 23 and 27 I wrote the first and second of my 20 posts about this affair – flagging it as a likely op run by western intel agencies. But I was wrong on the biggest thing. I expected that the American people also would see through the op. But few did. Even now many believe the fake story. Here is the real story.

Julian Assange on TIME cover - 13 Dec 2010
Julian Assange on TIME cover – 13 December 2010.

Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange

By Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
On the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, June 26.

Torture for that rapist!

How could life in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard ever amount to torture? That’s exactly what I thought, too, when Assange first appealed to my office for protection. 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.

Julian Assange
Julian Assange.

Torture for that hacker Russian spy narcissist!

Alright, I thought, but surely Assange must be a hacker! But what I found is that all his disclosures had been freely leaked to him, and that no one accuses him of having hacked a single computer. In fact, the only arguable hacking-charge against him relates to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help breaking a password which, had it been successful, might have helped his source to cover her tracks. In short: a rather isolated, speculative, and inconsequential chain of events; a bit like trying to prosecute a driver who unsuccessfully attempted to exceed the speed-limit, but failed because their car was too weak.

Well then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy, has interfered with US elections, and negligently caused people’s deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust, duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse, but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes, the facts he disclosed empowered US voters to take more informed decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy? Yes, there are ethical discussions to be had regarding the legitimacy of unredacted disclosures. But if actual harm had really been caused, how come neither Assange nor Wikileaks ever faced related criminal charges or civil lawsuits for just compensation?

But surely, I found myself pleading, Assange must be a selfish narcissist, skateboarding through the Ecuadorian Embassy and smearing feces on the walls? Well, all I heard from Embassy staff is that the inevitable inconveniences of his accommodation at their offices were handled with mutual respect and consideration. This changed only after the election of President Moreno, when they were suddenly instructed to find smears against Assange and, when they didn’t, they were soon replaced. The President even took it upon himself to bless the world with his gossip, and to personally strip Assange of his asylum and citizenship without any due process of law.

Cutting through the propaganda.

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.

Very well, you may say, but what does slander have to do with torture? Well, this is a slippery slope. What may look like mere «mudslinging» in public debate, quickly becomes “mobbing” when used against the defenseless, and even “persecution” once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.

Yes, living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.

Even so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.

Concluding note.

This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to The Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters, and Newsweek. None responded positively.

Originally posted at Medium on 26 June 2019.

———————————–

The op that created the rape accusation against Assange.

A murderous system is created before our eyes

Niles Melzer interviewed by Daniel Ryser at Republik.
Translated by Google, slightly paraphrased for clarity.

Manipulated evidence in Sweden, pressure from the UK government not to end the trial, long imprisonment, psychological torture – and soon extradition to the United States with a prospect of 175 years in prison for uncovering war crimes: for the first time, the UN Special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, speaks  about the explosive findings of his investigation into the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

The Federal Foreign Office in Berlin recently asked me: is this really your core mandate? Is Assange a victim of torture? The case affects my mandate in three ways. First, the man released evidence of systematic torture. Instead of the torturer, he is now being persecuted. Secondly, he is mistreated so much that he now shows symptoms of psychological torture. And thirdly, he is to be extradited to a state that keeps people like him under prison conditions that Amnesty International calls torture.

In summary: Julian Assange exposed torture, he was tortured himself and could be tortured to death in the United States. The case is important for every citizen in a democratic state.

{When I looked into the case in March 2019} I quickly realized that something was wrong, a contradiction that I do not understand with all my legal experience. Why has a person been subjected to a preliminary criminal investigation for rape for nine years without ever being charged? I have never seen a comparable case.

Anyone can trigger a preliminary investigation against anyone by going to the police and blaming the other person. The Swedish authorities were never interested in Assange’s testimony. They deliberately kept him in suspense. Imagine being confronted with allegations of rape by an entire state apparatus and the media for nine and a half years, but you cannot defend yourself because there are never charges. …Assange contacted the Swedish authorities several times to comment on the allegations. The authorities rejected his requests.

I speak Swedish fluently and was therefore able to read all the original documents. I couldn’t believe my eyes. According to the woman concerned, there has never been rape. And not only that: the statement of this woman was subsequently rewritten by the Stockholm police without her involvement, in order to somehow be able to raise suspicions of rape. I have all the documents, the emails, the SMS.

On August 20, 2010, a woman named S. W., accompanied by a second woman named A. A., entered a police station in Stockholm. S. W. says that she had sexual intercourse with Julian Assange. But without a condom. She is afraid that she may have been infected with HIV and wants to know whether she can commit Assange to take an HIV test. The police her testimony and immediately inform the public prosecutor. Before the interrogation can be completed, S. W. is told that Assange will be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. is shocked and refuses to continue the survey. While still in the police station, she texted a friend and said she didn’t want to blame Assange at all. She refused to continue the questioning and goes home.

Nevertheless, the title headline appears two hours later in Expressen, a Swedish tabloid: Julian Assange is suspected of double rape. …We know today that the prosecutor put it in the press.

Then there is the second woman, A.A. She also did not want to file a complaint, but only accompanied S. W. to the police station. She did not report anything at that time. But later she said that Assange had molested her sexually. Of course, I cannot say whether this is true or not. …

She was interrogated on August 21 {After Expressen published its story.} She testified that she had let Assange, who came to Sweden for a conference, stay in her small one-room apartment. While Assange is in the apartment, she came home earlier than planned. She tells him that is not a problem, and he could sleep with her in her bed. That night there was consensual sex with condom. She told the police that Assange deliberately broke the condom during intercourse. If so, it is of course a sexual offense, so-called stealthing, But the woman also said that it was only later that she noticed that the condom was broken. …No DNA from Assange or A.A. could be detected on the condom submitted as evidence.

The {two women} didn’t know each other well. A. A., who acted as his press secretary, had met S. W. on {one} occasion …One evening she received a text message from a friend: Assange live with her, he would like to contact him (?). A. A. answers him: Assange is probably sleeping with the “Kashmir girl” at the moment. The next morning, S. W. calls A. A. and says that she actually slept with Assange and was now afraid of being infected with HIV. This fear is obviously real, because S. W. even went to a clinic to get advice.

Then A.A. suggests that they go to the police, who can force Assange to take an HIV test. The two women do not go to the nearest police station, but to a distant one, where a friend of A.A. works as a policewoman. This policewoman then interviews them together, which is not correct procedure. …

The deliberate malice of the authorities became apparent then when they released the false story to the tabloid press – without questioning A. A., in contradiction to the statements by S. W ., and in violation of Swedish law that prohibits publishing the names of suspected victims or suspects in a sexual crime.

Then the supervisor emails instructions to the interrogating police officer to rewrite S. W.’s statement. The original form was overwritten in the computer file and no longer exists. We only know that the original statement, according to the chief prosecutor, contained no evidence of an offense. The revised form states that repeated intercourse occurred by mutual agreement and with a condom. In the morning the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom. She asked, “Are you wearing a condom?” He said, “No.” She said, “You better not have HIV” and lets him continue.

This form was changed without the involvement of the woman concerned and was not signed by her. It is manipulated evidence from which the Swedish authorities then constructed a rape.

Read the full interview to learn what happened next. It got much worse.

Originally posted at Republik on 30 January 2020.
From German to English by Google Translate.
———————————–

Nils-Melzer
Photo: Salvatore Di Nolfi/AP/TT

About Nils Melzer

He has a PhD in law from the University of Zürich. he then served for 12 years with the Red Cross in several roles, including Delegate, Deputy Head of Delegation and Legal Adviser in various conflict areas. Next he was Research Director of the Swiss Competence Centre on Human Rights (U Zürich), as Senior Fellow and Senior Advisor on Emerging Security Challenges at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. He has also served as Senior Adviser for Security Policy at the Political Directorate of the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs.

He is today a professor of international law at the University of Glasgow. Since 2009 he has held the Human Rights Chair at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in Switzerland.

Since November 2016, Melzer has served as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

For More Information

Hat tip on these stories to Ray McGovern at Consortium News.

Ideas! For some shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.

Please like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information see all posts about Julian Assangeabout rapeabout propaganda, about ways to reform America’s politics, and especially these …

  1. America’s courtiers rush to defend the government – from us. About the mockery and smears of Snowden and Assange.
  2. Julian Assange trapped & smeared. Wikileaks weakened. Mission accomplished for CIA?
  3. Important: The Affair Assange shows us what’s behind the curtain – Analysis by journalist Chris Hedges and the Strategic Culture Foundation.
  4. James Howard Kunstler looks at the news about Assange & sees useful idiots on parade.
  5. The “Resistance” is Silent on Julian Assange – by Margaret Kimberley at the Black Agenda Report.
  6. The secret weapon that brought down Assange of Wikileaks.
  7. Craig Murray shows mysteries in the attacks on Julian Assange.

Books that show what’s behind the news

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner (2007). One of the best books about the CIA.

Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1936). “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda by Noam Chomsky (2002). “Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.”

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
Available at Amazon.
"Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda" by Noam Chomsky.
Available at Amazon.

 

11 thoughts on “The real story about Assange, a successful intel op”

  1. “This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek. None responded positively.”

    After Alan Rutbridge stepped down at the Guardian and Katharine Viner took over, the Guardian turned on Assange and sought to mend bridges with the British security services. I have no idea why this happened, perhaps it was a pro quid pro, access for Assange, perhaps it was out of some misguided “believe her” convictions, perhaps it was rage at the election of Trump, or simply MI6 know something about Viner, or the Guardian Trust which they wished to keep quiet. Whatever it was it was shameful. The Guardians excellent critical reporting on the war on terror dried up around the same time, this coincided with a relentless focus on gender and race and Trump which continues to this day.

    I used to love this paper, one of the few publications I would trust to act with integrity, those days are gone.

  2. How do you shut a man down? Call him a rapist. In a previous post FM Highlights the high amount of false rape accusations.

    Dont believe anything this guy says because he is a rapist….

  3. The picture by the author is a picture of Assange, not the author.

    What’s all the hullaballoo about the new budget? I can’t really tell what the issue is with it, because there are so many conflicting messages zooming around. Some say there’s cuts to safety net, while others say that its requirement tightening and other things.
    Two takes on it
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-budget-foreign-aid-defense-border-wall-veterans-homeland-security
    https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-blast-trumps-2021-budget-cuts-against-epa-student-loan-borrowers-medicaid-hit-list-1486572

    1. Isaac,

      Thanks for catching that!

      As for the budget, that’s what Republicans do – slash spending on citizens, boost it for mega-corps. Anyone that does not realize that by now should not be voting. The boost in Veterans funding is bipartisan, necessary as the number of vets increase and their average age increases.

      “The White House on Sunday unveiled a $4.8 trillion budget proposal that would slash spending dramatically on foreign aid and social safety nets, while including $2 billion for a southern border wall and substantially boosting funding to NASA, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security.”

      1. Isaac,

        “So the requirement tightening line is bull?”

        No. It is just one tool the GOP uses to cut spending on citizens, freeing up funds that can be given to mega-corps and fund tax cuts for the rich. But lots is never enough for the GOP, so they also boost deficit spending – even during economic expansions when people who care about the Republic cut deficits (as did Clinton and Obama).

        That people vote for the GOP because of their fiscal prudence makes me wonder if we are still capable of self-government.

  4. Sorry to bother you again

    Do you know of any Nonpartisian websites that handle tax analysis that would benefit people besides the 1percent

    Thank you
    Ps People should tell you more that you are of infinite value

    Pps Skeptical science and roger piekle are going to war

    1. Isaac,

      (1). No.

      (2) It’s not a war. One side is backed with almost unlimited money – and support by academia, the news media, the massive complex of NGOs, and government agencies. All are totally focused on producing propaganda.

      Unfortunately for Activist Inc, America has been saturated by propaganda for decades. However slowly, people have learned skepticism. Now instead of looking for truth, people believe only tribal truths.

      So leftists read Naked Capitalism every morning and learn that global warming is destroying the world right now. That the data and major climate agencies disagree are hidden truths to them.

      Ditto on the right.

    2. Isaac,

      Remember the big truth when looking at climate activist scientists: this is not how scientists behave when they have decisive evidence about an imminent threat to the world. This is how they act when they want to convince the public for professional or political reasons.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: