Swedish Judge Accuses Assange’s Prosecutor of Being Biased
The extradition hearing in the case of Julian Assange, the Australian-born editor-in-chief of the whistle-blowing recently Nobel Peace Prize nominated website WikiLeaks, takes a new turn as a retired Swedish female judge accused the Swedish female prosecutor of Assange of having a “biased view” on the case.
During the two-day hearing meant to establish whether Assange will be extradited to Sweden, where he is to face charges of sexual assault against two Swedish women, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, former judge, launched an attack on Marriane Ny, the prosecutor who is asking for Assange’s transfer to Sweden, saying that the prosecutor was so caught up in fighting abuses on women that she forgot to keep the balance of justice.
Sundberg-Weitman was brought to England by Assange’s team and accused Ny of taking for granted that all people under prosecution are guilty.
According to press reports, Sweden is going through a very strange crisis related to the sex crimes: though it has one of the highest standards of gender equality, Sweden also has the highest level of rape cases, and the lowest of convictions.
This has created a national debate, with the focus on whether women are being prejudiced by the judicial system, and it was in this context that Sundberg-Weitman has made her allegations about Ny.
It is said that in fact the former judge does not know Ny personally, and that she formed her opinion on her only based on what she read in Swedish newspapers and saw on television.
Even so, Assange’s defense team is counting upon her testimony in order to convince British judges to refuse the extradition to Sweden.
Another serious argument in Assange’s defense is that if extradited to Sweden, he could end up in the United States, where he is in danger of being taken to Guantanamo Bay, or worse, be sentenced to death and executed.
The arguments for this are the following: first off, Sweden has established a precedent when extraditing an Egyptian citizen back to his country, where he was submitted to torture, and other demeaning actions.
Then, many voices have asked for Assange to be treated like a terrorist and to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Sarah Palin has asked for his death, and others said that in his case an assassination would be “morally justifiable,” given that the man is a threat to the security of the country.
Palin’s careless words were slammed by many officials in the United States, even though there were voices, officials prosecutors amongst them, who said that in case the “fullest extent of the law” did not permit hunting Assange down then new laws should be made to take care of the problem.
This hysteria was provoked by the daring action of WikiLeaks to publish U.S. diplomatic cables that revealed many of the international secrets of the people who lead the world.
Many nations and their leaders reacted violently to these leaks, others played them down or even ignored them.
The troubles began for Assange immediately after that, and the case in Sweden, previously closed for lack of strong evidence, was reopened, forcing at some point Assange to surrender to the United Kingdom authorities.
Even so, his website went against all troubles and continued publishing the cables, announcing that other secrets would be disclosed.
As some of the world leaders were beginning to wonder what hit them, the idea that someone is behind all this emerged.
Given that the fewest leaks were on Israel, many considered Israel as being behind the whole operation, Israeli press documented a few weeks ago a story about the conference of Assange in Geneva, staged by an Iranian NGO.
By this material, Israeli authorities were trying to imply that Mossad did not bargain with Assange on the issue of U.S. diplomatic leaks, and that those behind Assange, if any, should be looked for elsewhere.
As Assange fights for his freedom, and ultimately for his life, the question that the American authorities strenuously try to answer is where did Assange get his info.
Any possible serious case against him on American soil depends upon the answer to this question. Otherwise, Mama Grizzly’s calls for spilling blood will go unanswered, unless of course some Iranian-like “warring against God” is implemented in the “full extent” of the American law to suit her taste.11