Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is expected to appear in a UK court tomorrow!

[Magda Hassan]

This is how Australia looks after its citizens in danger.

Australia 'preparing' for Assange extradition to US

AFP Sat, Aug 18, 2012



Australia confirmed Saturday that its diplomatic post inWashington had been preparing for Julian Assange's possibleextradition to the US but played it down as "contingency planning".
Trade Minister Craig Emerson said the Australian embassy in Washington had been "getting prepared for the possibility of an extradition" but stressed that there was nothing unusual in diplomats bracing for all eventualities.
"The embassy is doing its job, just to be in a position to advise the government if it believed that an extradition effort was imminent. There is no evidence of such an extradition effort," Emerson told ABC television.
"All that was happening is that the post in Washington was doing some contingency planning in the event that such an eventuality arose."
The remarks follow media reports Saturday that Australian diplomats believe Washington is targeting Assange for possible prosecution on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to his WikiLeaks whistleblowing site.
Citing diplomatic cables from Australian officials obtained under freedom of information laws, The Age newspaper said Canberra's post in Washington was taking seriously the possible extradition of the WikiLeaks founder to the US.
According to The Age the cables showed that Australia had no objection to Assange's potential extradition and had requested early advice from the US on any decision to indict the former hacker or have him sent to the US.
It claimed that both the prime minister and foreign minister had been briefed on the matter.
Emerson confirmed that the Washington embassy had been exploring the extradition of Assange, an Australian national, as a potential scenario but he stressed that there was no evidence that the US was preparing to do so.
"You would want, as an embassy, to be in a position that if this were to arise hypothetically in the future, you wouldn't be standing flat-footed and unable to provide advice back to the government in Canberra," he said.
"I wouldn't read too much into it. People can attach their own probabilities or possibilities as to what the United States may or may not do in the future, but the fact is that there's no evidence, no evidence that the United States is seeking to extradite Julian Assange."
The trade minister noted that the US could have sought Assange's extradition from Britain rather than waiting for him to arrive in Sweden and "obviously they haven't done that".
He wouldn't comment on the claim that Australia would not oppose Assange's extradition to the US, saying only that they would abide by "normal processes" and continue providing consular assistance.
Emerson also repeated that there was little the Australian government could do for Assange, who is holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questions over sex assault claims.
Assange fears Stockholm will turn him over to the US, and was granted political asylum by Ecuador on Thursday.
"Remember that this issue about Mr Assange between the UK and Sweden is not in relation to WikiLeaks, it's in relation to allegations of something that he may or may not have done in Sweden itself and that's up to the legal authorities in those countries," Emerson said.




"The legal processes have been followed, and... there's no particular role for Australia beyond ensuring that Mr Assange has reasonable consular assistance and that's what we're offering." http://news.yahoo.com/australia-preparin...14562.html

[Peter Lemkin]

This is how Australia looks after its citizens in danger.

Australia 'preparing' for Assange extradition to US

AFP Sat, Aug 18, 2012



Australia confirmed Saturday that its diplomatic post inWashington had been preparing for Julian Assange's possibleextradition to the US but played it down as "contingency planning".
Trade Minister Craig Emerson said the Australian embassy in Washington had been "getting prepared for the possibility of an extradition" but stressed that there was nothing unusual in diplomats bracing for all eventualities.
"The embassy is doing its job, just to be in a position to advise the government if it believed that an extradition effort was imminent. There is no evidence of such an extradition effort," Emerson told ABC television.
"All that was happening is that the post in Washington was doing some contingency planning in the event that such an eventuality arose."
The remarks follow media reports Saturday that Australian diplomats believe Washington is targeting Assange for possible prosecution on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to his WikiLeaks whistleblowing site.
Citing diplomatic cables from Australian officials obtained under freedom of information laws, The Age newspaper said Canberra's post in Washington was taking seriously the possible extradition of the WikiLeaks founder to the US.
According to The Age the cables showed that Australia had no objection to Assange's potential extradition and had requested early advice from the US on any decision to indict the former hacker or have him sent to the US.
It claimed that both the prime minister and foreign minister had been briefed on the matter.
Emerson confirmed that the Washington embassy had been exploring the extradition of Assange, an Australian national, as a potential scenario but he stressed that there was no evidence that the US was preparing to do so.
"You would want, as an embassy, to be in a position that if this were to arise hypothetically in the future, you wouldn't be standing flat-footed and unable to provide advice back to the government in Canberra," he said.
"I wouldn't read too much into it. People can attach their own probabilities or possibilities as to what the United States may or may not do in the future, but the fact is that there's no evidence, no evidence that the United States is seeking to extradite Julian Assange."
The trade minister noted that the US could have sought Assange's extradition from Britain rather than waiting for him to arrive in Sweden and "obviously they haven't done that".
He wouldn't comment on the claim that Australia would not oppose Assange's extradition to the US, saying only that they would abide by "normal processes" and continue providing consular assistance.
Emerson also repeated that there was little the Australian government could do for Assange, who is holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questions over sex assault claims.
Assange fears Stockholm will turn him over to the US, and was granted political asylum by Ecuador on Thursday.
"Remember that this issue about Mr Assange between the UK and Sweden is not in relation to WikiLeaks, it's in relation to allegations of something that he may or may not have done in Sweden itself and that's up to the legal authorities in those countries," Emerson said.




"The legal processes have been followed, and... there's no particular role for Australia beyond ensuring that Mr Assange has reasonable consular assistance and that's what we're offering." http://news.yahoo.com/australia-preparin...14562.html

Good Grief Magda, What do they do to non-citizens....oh, yeah...I was just watching them watch them drown on TV as they tried to get there.... It is shameful, but Australia is not the only one. Of the larger countries, I can't think of a single one that has stood up and said, 'Wait a moment, what we do to any person, we do to all persons - the law is to be applied equally.' - or anything of that type. Nor have I heard much in the way of recriminations as Oz's apparent 'interest' in Assange is only a 'betting one'...or worse, an illegal favor for a 'friend'. As history has shown, it may happen to those who think they can't be touched. Yet.

[Adele Edisen]

The New York Times
August 20, 2012


WikiLeaks and Free Speech
By MICHAEL MOORE and OLIVER STONE


WE have spent our careers as filmmakers making the case that the news media in the United States often fail to inform Americans about the uglier actions of our own government. We therefore have been deeply grateful for the accomplishments of WikiLeaks, and applaud Ecuador's decision to grant diplomatic asylum to its founder, Julian Assange, who is now living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

Ecuador has acted in accordance with important principles of international human rights. Indeed, nothing could demonstrate the appropriateness of Ecuador's action more than the British government's threat to violate a sacrosanct principle of diplomatic relations and invade the embassy to arrest Mr. Assange.

Since WikiLeaks' founding, it has revealed the "Collateral Murder" footage that shows the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Baghdad civilians by a United States Apache attack helicopter; further fine-grained detail about the true face of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; United States collusion with Yemen's dictatorship to conceal our responsibility for bombing strikes there; the Obama administration's pressure on other nations not to prosecute Bush-era officials for torture; and much more.

Predictably, the response from those who would prefer that Americans remain in the dark has been ferocious. Top elected leaders from both parties have called Mr. Assange a "high-tech terrorist." And Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has demanded that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations of sexual assault in 2010.

All such allegations must be thoroughly investigated before Mr. Assange moves to a country that might put him beyond the reach of the Swedish justice system. But it is the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of an investigation, not Mr. Assange.

Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear his willingness to be questioned in London. Moreover, the Ecuadorean government made a direct offer to Sweden to allow Mr. Assange to be interviewed within Ecuador's embassy. In both instances, Sweden refused.

Mr. Assange has also committed to traveling to Sweden immediately if the Swedish government pledges that it will not extradite him to the United States. Swedish officials have shown no interest in exploring this proposal, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt recently told a legal adviser to Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks unequivocally that Sweden would not make such a pledge. The British government would also have the right under the relevant treaty to prevent Mr. Assange's extradition to the United States from Sweden, and has also refused to pledge that it would use this power. Ecuador's attempts to facilitate that arrangement with both governments were rejected.

Taken together, the British and Swedish governments' actions suggest to us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden. Because of treaty and other considerations, he probably could be more easily extradited from there to the United States to face charges. Mr. Assange has every reason to fear such an outcome.The Justice Department recently confirmed that it was continuing to investigate WikiLeaks, and just-disclosed Australian government documents from this past February state that "the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr. Assange has been ongoing for more than a year." WikiLeaks itself has published e-mails from Stratfor, a private intelligence corporation, which state that a grand jury has already returned a sealed indictment of Mr. Assange. And history indicates Sweden would buckle to any pressure from the United States to hand over Mr. Assange. In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the C.I.A., which rendered them to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them.

If Mr. Assange is extradited to the United States, the consequences will reverberate for years around the world. Mr. Assange is not an American citizen, and none of his actions have taken place on American soil. If the United States can prosecute a journalist in these circumstances, the governments of Russia or China could, by the same logic, demand that foreign reporters anywhere on earth be extradited for violating their laws. The setting of such a precedent should deeply concern everyone, admirers of WikiLeaks or not.

We urge the people of Britain and Sweden to demand that their governments answer some basic questions: Why do the Swedish authorities refuse to question Mr. Assange in London? And why can neither government promise that Mr. Assange will not be extradited to the United States? The citizens of Britain and Sweden have a rare opportunity to make a stand for free speech on behalf of the entire globe.

Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are Academy Award-winning filmmakers.

Adele

[Peter Lemkin]

Good Op-Ed [I presume]. I think the answers they ask will be answered with the silence of Deep Politics. Sadly. IMHO, the UK has NO reputation to preserve. Sweden, however, does - even if I'm very aware it is a false one....they have missed EVERY opportunity to revive it. The Gladio in Sweden thread now is MOST relevant...ditto the Palme, Hammarskjold and even Wallenburg threads...the Swedish man who hired the theft of the Auschwitz sign recently is also relevant. Sweden needs to look at itself in the mirror. Fast!

[Ashley Bishop]

Yes Galddio is still alive an kicking, the assasination of Palme was the result of scadal concerning covert arms shipments to Iraq, add to this Andre Cools and Gerald Bull.

The darkness beneath politics is something they will do anything to stop being revealed and they will silence anyone who might expose them.

[Magda Hassan]

Yes Galddio is still alive an kicking, the assasination of Palme was the result of scadal concerning covert arms shipments to Iraq, add to this Andre Cools and Gerald Bull.

The darkness beneath politics is something they will do anything to stop being revealed and they will silence anyone who might expose them.

Welcome Ashley! We have some posts here about Olaf Palme here and Gerald Bull here And Gladio here and here and here and here Some on Ergenekon here: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/for...ight=Ergenekon

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/for...ight=Ergenekon

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/for...ight=Ergenekon

[URL="http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1141&highlight=Ergenekon"]http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/for...ight=Ergenekon

A[/URL]nd the Grey Wolves here https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1156-Grey-Wolves

[Peter Lemkin]

Australia won't lift a finger to help Assange...yet....
By Dan Goldberg and Ofer Aderet

Haaretz, August 15, 2012

The Australian government will not surrender alleged Nazi war criminal Karoly (Charles) Zentai to his native Hungary on a war crime charge following a High Court ruling that has been slammed by Jewish officials, Holocaust survivors and Israel's leading Nazi hunter.

The long-awaited ruling, handed down in Canberra on Wednesday, dismissed an appeal by the federal government into an earlier Federal Court judgment that Zentai could not be extradited because war crimes was not an offense in Hungary on November 8, 1944 the date Zentai is accused of helping murder Peter Balazs in Budapest.

Zentai, who was a cadet sergeant in the pro-Nazi Hungarian army, has vehemently denied he helped murder the 18-year-old Jew for not wearing the mandatory yellow Star of David before dumping his body in the River Danube. The 90-year-old Perth pensioner, who was first arrested by Australian Federal Police in 2005, claimed he left Budapest the day prior to Balazs's murder.

2788174540 Australian Court Bars Extradition of 90 Year Old Accused of Killing Jewish Teenager in WWIICharles Zentai's Australian landing card

In their 5-1 verdict, the judges argued that the extradition could not be approved because the Hungarian authorities had requested Zentai's surrender for war crimes, which was not an offense under Hungarian law at the time.

"I'm just overwhelmed," Zentai told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Perth. "I've been so stressed, the last few days in particular."

But the judgment was met by a chorus of condemnation.

Michael Danby, a Jewish legislator of the governing Labor Party, slammed the verdict as "appalling."

In a speech to be delivered in parliament in Canberra tonight, Danby said Hungary enacted laws in 1945 to retrospectively make war crimes an offense.

"Now when a country seeks to pursue and even investigate the crimes of former Nazis like Zentai they will be prevented from doing so by a blockheaded majority of High Court judges," he said. "Those who voted for it shall live in infamy."

Danby said he had already approached the Hungarian ambassador to ask whether officials in Budapest will seek Zentai's extradition for murder.

Israel's chief Nazi hunter, Dr Efraim Zuroff, who has pursued this case since 2005 when the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Operation Last Chance helped flush out Zentai's whereabouts, said the decision was "a travesty of justice."

"I'm fuming, I'm fuming. It's simply awful, a total failure on Australia's part. They live on a different planet. The decision not to extradite him is simply a scandal," said Zuroff. "The last Nazi hunter."

"Australia totally failed in terms of extraditing Nazi criminals as opposed to other English-speaking countries, like Canada and the U.S," he said. Zuroff also staunchly criticized the reasons stated for the failure to extradite, saying "There are a ton of legal precedents in which people were tried for crimes that weren't in the law books when they were committed. The Nuremberg Trials were based on that."

"It's a very sad day for Australia, a very sad day for justice and a very sad day for the victims of the Holocaust, their relatives and anyone who has any sense of empathy with the victims of the Holocaust," Zuroff said from Jerusalem. "Today my thoughts are with the Balazs family."

But he said the decision was "not a reflection of Zentai's guilt or innocence."

Australia has "totally failed" on the issue of Nazi war criminals, he said. "It pains me to criticize Australia. But it has officially confirmed its status as the worst of the Anglo countries which sought to take legal action against Nazi war criminals."

He noted that in 1987 Australia's government opened a Special Investigations Unit and investigated 841 suspects but it closed five years later without a single conviction.

"That was a disaster and we're paying the price to this day," Zuroff said. "The only people who benefitted were the Nazi war criminals whose haven in Australia proved to be the right choice."

But he vowed the fight for justice is not over, even if Zentai believed to be Australia's last Nazi war crimes suspect will not be extradited. "Last month we caught a big Nazi criminal," he said referring to Laszlo Csatary. "It may be over in Australia but it ain't over elsewhere."

Marika Weinberger, 84, a Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor whose mother and two grandmothers perished at Auschwitz, said: "It does not come as a surprise. Yes, I am disappointed. Yes, I am sad. But I am not surprised."

She said although she was a "proud Australian" governments on both sides of politics had "never spoken up hard enough.

"We remain the only country who could have and should have" convicted Nazi war criminals. "This is why it hurts. I can't understand it.

"I would have liked to live long enough that at least one would be convicted so that we would show the world we care. But we didn't."

Anna Berger, the president of the Australian Association of Holocaust Survivors and Descendants, described the decision as "regrettable." But she said as Australian citizens "we are loyal and grateful to this country for the shelter it gave us and we respect the laws of the land even if we don't like the decision."

Dr Danny Lamm, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said in a statement: "The decision of the High Court will of course be respected and adhered to even though to many people it will seem like the triumph of narrow formal legalism over substantive justice. It will be distressing to many that Zentai will now live out his final days untroubled by any prospect of having to account for his past actions."

The federal government approved Zentai's extradition to Hungary in 2009 but the decision was overturned on appeal in the Federal Court in 2011. The government then sought the ruling of the justices of nation's highest court, who reserved their decision in March before dismissing the appeal today.

Zentai is not the first alleged Nazi war criminal to avoid facing his accusers. Konrads Kalejs, an alleged leader of Latvia's notorious Arajs Kommando unit, accused of murdering thousands of Jews and gypsies in Riga in 1942-43, died in Australia in 2001 while awaiting a court decision of whether he should be extradited to his native Latvia.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewi...i-1.458413

[Ashley Bishop]

After the second world war the nazi ideology survived through its intelligence systems, scientists, SS and Gestopo officers.

Gehlen went on to form the CIA the BND and the Egyption intelligence services this inteliigence organistaion went on o become an international organisation simply called "the Organisation" which functions within the structure of Western Governments and has total control of less sofisticated governments through being able to place in power their own chosen people.

Following the fall of Germany Russia, America and Britain divided uop amonst themselves the Nazi scientists.

As they say it is all in the history.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Triggered by curiosity why, according to a "mole" in the BBC, BBC reporters are not allowed to mention the name of Irmeli Krans (besides Anna Ardin), I found this little piece:
http://rixstep.com/1/20110311,00.shtml

It turns out that Irmely Krans is the police interrogator who took testimony from Sofia Wilen on 20 August, 2010. Sofia Wilen refused to sign it.
It also turns out that Irmely Krans is a friend of Anna Ardin. Sofia Wilen was also a friend of Anna Ardin, don't know if she still is.

It is a small world indeed.

And why, again, is it not allowed to mention that on the BBC?

See also http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2...ned-names/

[Magda Hassan]

Yes, it is a curious thing isn't it? Some times while a court case is in process there are some media restrictions on certain identifying things but this would only be the case if the trial was in the UK. This would not happen for any Swedish court case or that of any other country. Nor is Assange a UK citizen. Just stuck there due to circumstances beyond his control. Nothing about this whole thing is according to normal procedure.