WikiLawyer:
US investigation against Assange 'unprecedented in size and scale'
A
US criminal inquiry against WikiLeaks frontman has reached an
“unprecedented” size and scale, Julian Assange’s lawyer told
RT. Sweden, on the other hand, seems to have turned a deaf ear to all
offers to interview Assange anywhere in the UK.
RT,
2
August, 2012
Sweden
has turned down Ecuador's invitation to question Assange at its
London embassy, WikiLeaks' Twitter reports. The news is yet to be
confirmed by officials from either country.
The
frontman of the whistle-blowing site has been holed up in Ecuador's
diplomatic mission for over six weeks now, seeking political asylum.
Assange lost an extradition appeal in the UK Supreme Court in May and
will be sent to Sweden once British law enforcement manages to get
hold of him.
In
Sweden, prosecutors are investigating a sex crimes case against
Assange. The scandal-stirring whistleblower is wanted for an
interview, as no official charges have been put forward yet.
Assange
denies the sex crime allegations. He believes they are a pretext to
hand him over to the US, where many officials have talked in favor of
trying Assange in a court-martial as a terrorist and spy after a
massive leak of secret diplomatic and military files.
There
are signs that the US has already lodged a sealed indictment to sue
Assange, and that his case might outdo the one of Bradley Manning,
Jennifer Robinson, Julian Assange's lawyer, told RT in an interview.
RT:
WikiLeaks' Twitter feed says Sweden has refused to question Assange
in London. Are you aware of any confirmation from either side? And,
why do you think Sweden would not want to talk to Assange in
Ecuador's embassy?
Jennifer
Robinson: I have received confirmation from Mr. Assange himself that
the request that was put to Sweden to question him in the Ecuadorian
embassy has been denied. But we do not have any explanation for that,
and we have never had an adequate explanation from Sweden as to why
they have not used neutral legal systems to question Julian in
relation to these allegations.
He
has been offering his testimony since well before the European Arrest
Warrant was issued. And there have been other ways of obtaining his
testimony. He’s offered it here in the Swedish embassy, at Scotland
Yard, by telephone – by various means that are legal means
available under the Swedish Treaty with Great Britain.
As
I’ve said, we have not had any clear explanation from Sweden as to
why they have not used that today.
RT:
Ecuador will announce its decision on Assange's asylum application
after the Olympics. What if it refuses? Do you and his legal team
have a Plan B?
JB:
As was announced just last week, Baltasar Garzon, the very well
respected international jurist, has been appointed as the head of the
legal team managing this matter. We are now just waiting for the
outcome of the asylum application with Ecuador.
It
is impossible to speculate about what might happen, depending on the
outcome.
RT:
You met the Australian Attorney-General over Assange's case.
Australia refuses to protect their citizen or make requests on his
behalf. Why is Ecuador protecting him, and not his home country?
JB:
That is a very good question, and I think one that the Australian
public is now asking of our government. We have been putting these
questions to the Australian government for 18 months now, since the
arrest warrant first came through.
Julian’s
main concern is and has always been the risk of onward extradition to
the United States to be prosecuted for his publishing activities and
his work with WikiLeaks.
We
have requested the Australian government to ask the very same
assurances that we now see Ecuador ask, in accordance with their
obligations in investigating a political asylum application.
But
it is a great shame; this is to my knowledge the first time in
history that an Australian citizen has sought refuge with a foreign
government, because our government refuses to take the actions which
it was legally possible for our government to take.
RT:
The US Ambassador to Australia said Washington is not interested in
what is happening with Assange. If that's the case why are they not
giving any official assurances?
JB:
Again it is a very good question, and one we have been asking.
Many
suspect that there is an existing sealed indictment for Julian, and
that they’re simply waiting for the appropriate time to implement
that indictment.
As
a matter of US law, it is a criminal offense to reveal the existence
of a sealed indictment. But what the US government has not done, and
which is available to them – if they are not interested, as the US
ambassador states, then it would be a simple matter for the US
Attorney General to say it explicitly to confirm that the criminal
investigation is over and that no charges will be laid and no
extradition request will be made.
But
they have so far failed to do so.
Unless
and until they do that, we are very alert to the possibility that
this is an ongoing criminal investigation. All of the evidence that
is coming out of what we know about the Grand Jury and what is coming
out of the Bradley Manning proceedings – confirm that there is, as
the Australian government has been reported, by our own embassy in
Washington, a criminal investigation of unprecedented size and scale.
So
unless and until the US government confirms that the criminal
investigation is over and no charges will be laid, we have to be
alert to that very real possibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.