<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
But let us be clear that the rich countries play fast and loose with
their own laws, according to a well referenced comment (seems
consistent with other reports) on the UK Guardian editorial
lambasting Assange (quoted below) and that Australia also seems to
have <a
href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html">no
concerns regarding Assange and his extradition</a> (and possible
torture). So the double standards in the selective application of
Swedish law is something that also needs to be faced and it is
INSUFFICIENT to argue that Sweden is just following the rules.
Perhaps we need to widen the net say that it is not just America and
its poodle (as the Atlanticist humour goes) but Northern
exceptionalism. Perhaps IG could consider a coalition of civil
society that firmly rejects such exceptionalism, irrespective of
one's position on how to change CIR governance.<br>
<br>
The problem I have on this list is how to deal with those who enter
the fray and then do not deal with issues that are raised in
response. I am sure that I have not been convincing in many cases,
but it shows the tenor of discussions on this list... those with
critical views are required to justify ad nauseum while the
"mainstream IG" views can just plod along with satisfaction that
they are hanging on the coat tails of the mighty...<br>
<br>
As this is a techie community perhaps I should explain why this
sucks (barring people being busy etc): because it indicates that one
is participating not in a genuine dialogue (people are interested in
being partisan or being right, not in an evolutionary manner that is
apt to change). The matters are not interrogated to the point where
the essentialia of the dispute are clarified so that lurkers can
discern the points in contest, forks in the road regarding
reasoning/judgement are identified, etc - and then make judgements
based on their own predilection - they just drop the issue. It is
important to engage so that this point is reached if we are civil
society, otherwise we are idiots (the classical definition - as I
would like to those who have the monopoly on namecalling to retain
it as it bespokes for most not only intent but substance as far as I
discern). But then again tolerance of double standards is something
"we" just have to put up with (and still be called out for
non-participation even though it is exercise of a democratic choice,
fork in the road decision, etc). But if this is the case, then let
it not be said there is not grounds for saying that at an ESSENTIAL
level (many of those who engage against a proverbial "us") the
virtue of engagement on this list is based on "might is right"
(which explains namecalling and double standards as preponderant
method of engagement on CIR and "tangential" issues)... Now it is
convenient to think that the excellent dialogue between Conrad and
Parminder showed up Parminder as being unclear, non--technical,
not-knowing-what-he-is-talking-about, etc... on the other hand it
can be a reflection of the virtues of engagement in a community
where we work together even if we disagree on issues... I prefer the
latter discourse to the former....<br>
<br>
Snip:<br>
<p><i>"Firstly, in Sweden they revealed the identity of Assange
against the law (SFS: 2009:400 Law about Public Access to
Information and Security, Chapter 18 and 35). In Britain,
Assange could sue for defamation simply on those grounds. </i></p>
<p><i>It is also important that the case is addressed immediately so
that a person can be detained on a sufficient basis. Ms Ny, the
prosecutor, denied the opportunity to interview Mr. Assange
after she took over the case on 1 September 2010, even though he
was in Sweden until the 27 September 2010, and had already been
voluntarily interviewed over the three lesser allegations.</i></p>
<p><i> When Ms Ny revived the investigations on the 2 September and
had re-interviewed one of the complainants she did not act then
to interview Mr Assange, which would have been an imperative in
such a case (Supreme Court in Sweden NJA 2009 s. 447 I o II and
B 2937-10). </i></p>
<p><i>Also another denial of justice was done to Mr Assange by the
Swedish police when they interviewed both complainants together
allowing the contamination of evidence.</i></p>
<p><i> Ms Ny also used unreasonable and disproportionate powers by
enacting a European Arrest Warrant rather than arranging for
questioning in Britain using Mutual Legal Assistance, especially
in a case where it is one person’s word against another."</i><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/08/21 02:48 AM, Norbert Klein
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5032DAEB.8020104@gmx.net" type="cite">On
8/21/2012 1:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In message
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:503245F7.8000109@gmx.net"><503245F7.8000109@gmx.net></a>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug
2012, Norbert Klein <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nhklein@gmx.net"><nhklein@gmx.net></a> writes
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">" For more than 19 months now, the
Swedish government has refused to explain why he could not be
questioned in the UK."
<br>
<br>
Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old
question?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be
done in front of what's generically described as an
"investigating magistrate" (and not the police) and therefore
has to be on that magistrate's home territory.
<br>
</blockquote>
Thanks for the revelation - still extremely surprised that the
Swedish government did not give this information for 19 months!
But now, thanks to this information on our list, the world can
know and relax.
<br>
<br>
Still deeply wondering why the world had to wait for 19 months
until finally our list breaks the silence.
<br>
<br>
And I observe all this in the context where I live and work,
where, years ago, there were often appeals using examples from the
"developed world" which should be followed where there is
transparency and public justice. Of course such black-and-white
arguments where wrong anyway, but convenient.
<br>
<br>
To take a similar approach when we here have to discuss more and
more issues of freedom of expression (which is in the
constitution) and Internet control, it is not so easy to point to
other more ideal worlds.
<br>
<br>
That is the background from which I think that the allegation of
personal misconduct and the different case of Wikileaks have a
rightful place on this list: different legal issues are connected.
Like we have to struggle often in similar ways here.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Norbert Klein
<br>
Cambodia
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>