Rundle: timeline of Assange’s visit to Sweden and events that followed

Rundle: timeline of Assange’s visit to Sweden and events that followed | Crikey

by Guy Rundle

The following is a timeline and summary of the public record of Julian Assange’s visit to Sweden, incidents therein, and accusations arising therefrom. Since what would otherwise be a private legal issue has become a global public cause, and since the level of misinformation has been excessive, we’re presenting this run-down of events in the interests of clarifying debate.

All material, unless otherwise marked, is a matter of public record. Even parts that are marked unconfirmed have multiple separate sources. Nothing that is purely directed towards the character or the history of the two female complainants has been included. Material that has been included is that which goes to questions of reliability of evidence in court proceedings. The timeline has been prepared from public sources in English and Swedish media, and from first-person interviews by Guy Rundle.

Timeline

1) In early August, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, goes to Sweden, possibly to explore basing the organisation there. Sweden has very good journalistic shield and media protection laws. Iceland had been the previous base — and a WikiLeaks holding company, Sunshine Press, is still based there. By Assange’s account, the sway of the US over Iceland’s politics made the country unsuitable for the organisation.

2) In early August, 31-year-old Anna Ardin, a political officer with the “Brotherhood”, a leftish Christian faction of the Social Democratic Party, invites Assange to speak at a “Brotherhood” function in Stockholm, which she organised. She also offers him accommodation, and Assange moves into her Stockholm apartment on August 13. The sexual encounter that will later form the basis of Ardin’s complaint takes place either that night or Saturday. (Unconfirmed: It is often reported that Assange came to Sweden at the invitation of Ardin, which may be significant if true. However, this cannot be fully verified. WikiLeaks has used Swedish servers as hosts for the site, and the possibility of basing the organisation there had been suggested previously).

3) Assange addresses the meeting on Saturday August 14. Also in attendance was 26-year-old photographer Sofia Wilen. She also attended the lunch after the event, where, reportedly, she and Assange flirted, and spent the afternoon together, seeing a movie. (Unconfirmed: Assange’s and Wilen’s sexual relationship begins at this stage) Meanwhile, Ardin sends a tweet: “Julian really wants to attend a crayfish party, anyone got two spare places”?*(*crayfish parties are a traditional summer activity in Sweden, less formal than usual, but more formal than, say, a barbecue. You can’t just turn up with extra guests. There being none going, it appears that Ardin arranges an impromptu one at her apartment.)

4) In the evening, Assange returns to the crayfish party. In attendance are several members of Sweden’s libertarian “Pirate Party”, some journalists and others. From the party Ardin tweets, “i’m with the most important, exciting people in the world”. Assange texts Wilen from the party.

5) On Monday August 16, Assange goes on the train with Wilen to her apartment in Enkoping (Ardin is out of Stockholm during the week), and stays the night. It is the events of this night that will form the basis of the complaint to the police in Wilen’s name. Wilen will later tell police that Assange spent most of the train trip ignoring her and checking his computer

6) *On Wednesday August 18, Ardin tells Assange that he is no longer welcome to stay in her apartment. Assange refuses to leave and does not depart until Friday August 20.

7) On Wednesday August 18 or the 19th, Ardin and Wilen exchanged texts and arrange to meet. (Unconfirmed: tweets from Wilen are made at this time regarding the events of the previous days. Wilen’s internet presence later disappears so completely that Swedish hacker sites conclude that a professional clean-up job has been performed).

8 ) On Friday August 20, Ardin and Wilen go to Klara police station in Stockholm to make inquiries about the possibility of forcing Assange to take an STI test. From the interview, the duty officer concludes that there may be grounds for charges. The on-duty prosecutor (a junior fill-in prosecutor, during the Swedish summer holidays) agrees and issues charges — one for rape/sexual assault for matters concerning Wilen, the other for “ofredande” (o-freda, unfreedom) a misdemeanour best translated as “annoyance”, applying to sexual and non-sexual crimes, in matters concerning Ardin.(Note: there is no equivalent to ofredande in English law, in terms of its reach across private and public life in Sweden. The charge applies equally to bothering someone repeatedly in the street, to the sexual conduct cited in this case. The usual translation of “molestation” is quite misleading in terms of the word’s connotations in Swedish).

9) The details of the charges are immediately leaked to Espressen, the Stockholm tabloid comparable to the Herald-Sun, in style and politics. The leaks come either from the complainants, or the police. Contacted by the paper, the duty prosecutor confirms the charges, an act which is illegal under Swedish law.The duty prosecutor is later quoted as not being aware that it was illegal to do this.

10) Eva Finne, the chief prosecutor for the Stockholm region, hears of the charges in the news, and has the case file couriered to her holiday house. On Saturday August 21, she rescinds the rape charge, but allows the ofredande charge to stand. On the basis of the police interview with Wilen, Finne says that she does not dispute her story, but sees no description of rape within the statements.

11) On Saturday August 21 (published August 22), Ardin gives an anonymous interview to Aftonbladet, the Stockholm broadsheet. In this Ardin remarked that: “The other woman wanted to report a rape. I gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her. / I immediately believed her account because I had an experience similar to hers. /It is quite untrue that we are afraid of Assange and and therefore didn’t want to report him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him./ The charges against Assange are of course not orchestrated by either the Pentagon or anyone else. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl is with a man with a warped attitude to women and a problem with taking no for an answer.” (Ardin’s remarks appear to be responses to several questions by the reporter, so I’ve separated them with slashes).

12) On Monday August 23 or the 24th, lawyer Claes Borgstrom becomes involved in the case. It is unclear whether the complainants approached him or vice versa. Borgstrom is a former minister in the Social Democratic Party, and was a for a time the “gender equality ombudsman”, a civil service post.

13) On Tuesday August 24, Swedish feminist blog Rebella, which is run by Ardin and others, posts a long article by Sara Gunnerud entitled “even WikiLeaks heroes can do crappy things”, which gives one account of what happened. This alleged that Assange had continued sex after a condom had broken, despite the complainant’s wish to discontinue. It also mentioned the women’s desire that Assange take an STI test. The posting was later removed from the Rebella website, and is also retrieved from the Google cache.

14) About this time, two tweets are deleted from Ardin’s twitter account — one organising the crayfish party on August 14, and one from the crayfish party announcing that she is with the most exciting people in the world. The tweets are retrieved from the Google cache by a libertarian website.

15) During this week, there is a great deal of blogosphere attention to an item on Ardin’s blog, a “7-step guide to revenge on ex-lovers”. This item, posted on January 19, 2010, a translation of joke material on a US website, features a detailed list of ways to hurt ex-lovers. On September 1, in the comments string, one commenter chides her for being “obsessed with revenge”. Ardin denies the charge, going on to say: “Even though I right now have kind of a strong feeling of punching you in the face … Sometimes it is difficult to go on without some kind of payback. As a human being you should be able to understand that. In this case I was very upset with a former fiancé who betrayed me for a long time. My revenge at that point consisted in posting this translation.”

16) On August 30, Borgstrom approached Marianne Ny, who is the head of a special unit in Gothenburg, Sweden’s second city, 200 kilometres from Stockholm. Ny heads a special “crime development unit” and is a specialist in the development of sex crime law. Sweden’s state system allows for different departments to act “entrepreneurially” — thus, one can apply to multiple agencies (especially in the area of ombudsmen) for similar services.

17) On August 31, Assange is interviewed by the prosecutor’s office. However, this interview concerns only the “ofredande” accusations. Assange tells Swedish TV that he rejects all the accusations, that he does not engage in non-consensual sex, and declines to answer questions about any relationship to the complainants. Asked to respond to the charges he replies that he “does not criticise women”, but is losing faith in the Swedish justice system.

18) Also on August 31, Assange applies for a work and residency permit in Sweden. The permit would be essential to his plan to found WikiLeaks as a media company in Sweden, with full protection of media shield laws.

19) On September 1, Ny re-opened the investigation into r-pe. There were now three “pre-charges” — one of rape of Ardin, one of misconduct against Ardin, one of rape against Wilen.

20) At some point in September, Ardin deleted from her blog the seven-step guide to revenge, which features on Ardin’s blog. This is a translation of a US joke website item, which details ways in which to get revenge on ex-lovers. This too is retrieved from the Google cache by others. No other items are deleted from Ardin’s blog.

21) On October 30, Assange’s request for a work and residence permit in Sweden is refused.

22) In early November, Assange was given permission to leave the country by the courts. He goes to the UK to work on the Cablegate release.

23) On October 22, WikiLeaks releases the “Iraq War logs” 300,000 documents from the Iraq War, after weeks of pre-publicity, and warnings by the US government not to do so.

24) Accounts now vary concerning events. Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, says that he made repeated attempts to arrange for Assange to answer questions from Ny. Ny’s Gothenburg office claims no approach was made.

25) On November 20, the Swedish courts issued an arrest warrant for Assange, to appear to answer questions from the prosecutor’s office. No charges had been laid, nor accusations specified by the office.

26) On November 28, the first of the Cablegate logs were released in major parts of the world’s press, prompting calls in the US for the assassination or arrest of Assange.

27) On November 30, Interpol issued a “red notice” on the basis of the Swedish warrant, advising that Assange was a person to be detained by police authorities across the world.

28) On December 6, a European arrest warrant was issued for Assange.

29) On December 7, as pre-arranged, Assange surrendered himself to UK police, and appeared in court on a bail hearing ahead of a battle over extradition. At this point, the Crown Prosecution Service, acting for the Swedish Prosecutors Office, read out four “charges”:

* rape charge: that Assange had held Ardin down, forcibly parted her legs, and had sex with her
* ofredande charge: that Assange had had unsafe sex with her, despite her earlier statement that she was most opposed to the practice, thereby violating her sexual integrity
* ofredande charge: that Assange had pushed his erect penis into Ardin’s back, thereby violating her sexual integrity
* sexual assault charge: that Assange had had unsafe sex with Wilen while she was sleeping

Assange was remanded in custody due to his lack of ties to UK community, and permanent residency, with a new hearing set for December 14.

Some key points:

1. There are four formal accusations against Assange: three by complainant A (Anna Ardin): one of r-pe (using body weight to hold down and forcibly parting legs), and two of ofredande/misconduct/harassment: unsafe sex, and pressing p-nis against back. One by complainant S (Sofia Wilen): sexual assault, sex while complainant was sleeping.
2. These were first made public at Assange’s extradition bail hearing on December 7. They vary from earlier accusations, both formal and informal.
3. There remains confusion as to whether these are formal criminal charges, or retain the status of accusation.
4. No supporting evidence was produced by the UK Crown Prosecution Service, acting for the Swedish Prosecutor in this matter. The judge made specific criticisms of the prosecution for this omission. Refusal of bail for Assange was based on his lack of community ties, not on any aspect of the charges per se.
5. Contrary to many reports there is no accusation of consent being discontinued mid-act. Though this may emerge as part of the detail, none of the accusations turn on the issue of withdrawn consent.
6. Neither of the accusations involving unsafe sex are being made as full rape accusations.
7. The accusation of physical force has not been previously aired, and is contradicted by interviews that the complainant gave immediately after charges were made on August 20.
8. Since the initial withdrawal of the rape investigation and its aftermath, there has been no public statement by either complainant. As elsewhere, the Swedish prosecution service is at liberty to continue an investigation, even if the initial complainants do not wish to continue it.

discussing Julian Assange, Mark Arbib and WikiLeaks contents

WikiLeaks news: discussing Julian Assange, Mark Arbib and WikiLeaks contents. | Crikey

Mungo: WikiLeaks principle critical, but contents … oh well
by Mungo MacCallum

The quick verdict on WikiLeaks is that the principle is critical, but the contents are not all that important.

It is useful but not entirely surprising to learn that the United States regards its ally Saudi Arabia as the greatest source of funding for its arch enemy al-Qaeda and that the Saudis would like the US to obliterate Iran on their behalf. It is heartening to hear that the US takes the stories about nuclear co-operation between North Korea and Burma seriously.

And it is almost certainly a good thing that these are now matters of public record. The truths may be inconvenient for some, but there is far more likelihood they will be dealt with in a sensible and serious manner now that they are openly acknowledged.

There will no doubt be other interesting snippets as the slow release of documents continues and the mass media (who, unlike WikiLeaks’ supremo Julian Assange, appear to be under no threats or constraints whatsoever — funny, that) convey them to the world at large. But so far the bulk of it is at best yesterday’s news and at worst just gossip.

Of course we’ve been lied to about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; in what war have we ever been told the truth? And of course diplomats send bitchy reports back to headquarters about wherever they are based; not only is it their job, but they enjoy it. As ex-diplomat Kevin Rudd pointed out, diplomats rival journalists in their cynical and wise-cracking view of the world.

And another thing Rudd got right was that while the massive scale of the leak is a huge embarrassment to the heavies of Washington, they have only themselves to blame. If they didn’t want this stuff to become known, they should have taken more care with their security. Which brings us to the critical question of principle: what was so secret about it in the first place?

The zealots who are demanding the head of Julian Assange on a platter tell us that the revelations have placed lives at risk and have compromised the security of nations, but they have supplied absolutely no evidence for either claim. It would appear that most of the cables were stamped “secret” or “confidential” almost as a matter of reflex; there is nothing in them to justify the classification.

It is further proof, if proof were needed, that even democratically elected governments become addicted to control for its own sake. In a free and open society the availability of information should be the default position; it is not a matter of the public’s right to know, which should be a given, but of the government having to justify any restriction of that right.

It is not enough for the punishers and the straighteners, as Manning Clark christened them, to parrot slogans such as “national security” and “operational matters” and “commercial in confidence” in order to suppress what they would prefer not to discuss. They should be compelled to demonstrate that the disclosure would do actual harm. The right to personal privacy is one thing, but the curtailing of public debate by withholding the relevant facts is another entirely.

This is why questions such as: “But is it in the public interest?” and “Do we really need to know?” are not only irrelevant but downright silly. If these were serious criteria we would immediately abolish the advertising industry and commercial radio and television services would be shut down forthwith. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the first amendment of the US constitution, but it is not formalised under Australian law. Nor should it need to be. It is the very basis of our society.

And this is not, or should not be, a divisive issue: the small government ideologues of the right have just as big a stake in it as have the anti-censorship populists of the left. And for that matter, Julia Gillard and Sarah Palin are equally wrong. Julian Assange may not merit a Nobel prize, but he sure as hell doesn’t deserve to be persecuted either. If we are serious about defending democracy, he is not our enemy but our new best friend.

One of the more obvious revelations from WikiLeaks was the news that self-styled Labor powerbroker Mark Arbib is a tattletale and informer.

Arbib, we are told, regularly briefs the United States embassy about the goings on in the ALP and has done so for years. And why not, say his right-wing colleagues; lots of us do it. Well, maybe; but have they all followed Arbib’s lead in asking for anonymity, to be designated a “protected source?”

Of course, this may reflect no more than a desire on the part of the miniscule apparatchik to be seen as an important player, a key figure in the secret world in the mould of James Bond, or at least Godwin Gretch. But it may also suggest that the Yanks are grooming Arbib as a genuine agent of influence.

This was certainly how ASIO saw the friendship between the former ALP national secretary David Combe and the Russian diplomat Valery Ivanov, a relationship that was completely open, and as a result Combe was declared personal non grata by the Hawke government and ostracised by many of his former colleagues.

Given Arbib’s unsavoury reputation, such a sentence on him would probably be redundant. But it would be nice to see the message “Arbib is a fink” painted on the walls of Sussex Street.

At least Cancun was an improvement on Copenhagen; there was something approaching agreement between the developed and the developing and a general consensus that something needs to be done.

But nothing too specific, and certainly nothing binding. And so again climate change goes to the backburner. The latest talkfest has resulted in a great many expressions of good intentions but still no binding commitments to actually do something.

A couple of weeks ago the question was: Can Cancun? Now the answer is: Cancun Can’t. We will heroically resist adding the obvious expletive to conclude this word play.

The Orwellian campaign against Assange

The Orwellian campaign against Assange | Crikey

Correction:

Last Thursday, Crikey wrote that Melbourne University Press publisher Elisa Berg was temporarily out of the office. That is incorrect, she is currently continuing to work at MUP.

WikiLeaks:

Brian Mitchell writes: Re. “WikiLeaks secretly covering up release errors“ (Friday, item 1). It is highly unfortunate that WikiLeaks has published information that might cost lives, but at least it is scrambling to do what it can to redress the issue. What concerns me more is that the US Government made available to some three million personnel information that, if released, could cause someone’s death. The level of security clearance required to access the cables that been illegally downloaded and provided to WikiLeaks is relatively low.

One would have thought that secret escape routes out of Middle Eastern countries is the sort of information that should be closely held on a need-to-know basis, not something to be spread throughout the vast US Intelligence-Defense establishment on a low-level classification. The US government has the right to expect that those with whom it entrusts its secrets do so, but that doesn’t negate its responsibility to manage the possibility that it has traitors within its midst — something Britain learned to its cost during the Cold War.

My view on this matter is clear: The person responsible for the leak should be held to account for what is prima facie an act of espionage and/or treason. If that person believes they were acting out of some higher noble cause, they should wear the consequences of having broken a legal contract they’d entered into to that required them keeping the information to themselves.

WikiLeaks — as the receiver of the information — should be left alone, just as we would expect any newspaper to not be punished for receiving leaked information. By all means, seek to appeal to Assange’s better nature and try to have the most sensitive material kept secret: Seek legal injunctions to prevent its release, etc, but stop this frankly disturbing and Orwellian campaign against the man.

Peter Kemp writes: When I was quite young my father who headed a NSW government department of about 20 people submitted annual staff appraisals. At some stage the rules were changed and appraisals had to be sighted by the person concerned. Until he retired my father never wrote another stall appraisal. Later, I had to complete staff appraisals and being military I could not avoid the duty. I was extremely uncomfortable when interviewing my troops even though the appraisals were largely tick the box affairs. I believed my father to be entirely correct in feeling that appraisals should not be shown to the subject.

Many years later I worked for a supervisor who was entirely comfortable telling anyone exactly what he thought them including those above him but he would defend his men if required regardless of any consequences to himself. I must also say that he always did his best to implement company policy even if it was unpopular, he did not himself approve or both.

Everyone that worked for this man would follow him to the ends of the earth and I came to realise that secrecy was often not required but there is a desperate need for people of integrity who knew when to say nothing and otherwise say what they really thought without fear or favour. I can see that governments need to keep some secrets but they must be responsible for keeping them secret. Most of the WikiLeaks material only reveals the world as it really is and might conceivably encourage politicians with integrity.

Harold Thornton writes: Justin Pettizini (Friday, comments) worries that WikiLeaks has breached copyright in distributing copies of US government cables. This is not correct. As was established in the Pentagon Papers case among others, US government records are not subject to copyright, since they are public documents.

The words of Justice Black in that case deserve repetition:

“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

Perhaps it’s guilt about failing in their paramount responsibility that has led to such rage about WikiLeaks in the mainstream media commentariat.

Does Julian Assange Have a Profile On OKCupid?..oh well

Does Julian Assange Have a Profile On OKCupid? - New York News - Runnin' Scared

The extensive team of quirky internet experts at Reddit are pretty positive they've discovered WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's old OKCupid dating profile. It looks shockingly legitimate. Under the name HarryHarrison, three pictures of Assange accompany an extensive profile, last accessed by the user in 2006. Assange's location is listed as Melbourne, Australia, his age a seemingly incorrect 36 and his sexual preference as straight. There is much, much more.

Assange's "self-summary," in its entirety, sounds spot-on for a burgeoning revolutionary/egomaniac:

WARNING: Want a regular, down to earth guy? Keep moving. I am not the droid you're looking for. Save us both while you still can.

Passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual seeks siren for love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy.

Such a woman should spirited and playful, of high intelligence, though not necessarily formally educated, have spunk, class & inner strength and be able to think strategically about the world and the people she cares about.

I like women from countries that have sustained political turmoil. Western culture seems to forge women that are valueless and inane. OK. Not only women!

Although I am pretty intellectually and physically pugnacious I am very protective of women and children.

I am DANGER, ACHTUNG, and ??????????????!

Asked what he's doing with his life, the Assange profile describes "a consuming, dangerous human rights project which is, as you might expect, male dominated. Variously professionally involved in international journalism/books, documentaries, cryptography, intelligence agencies, civil rights, political activism, white collar crime and the internet."

When prompted to explain how he spends his time, Assange is similarly grandiose:

Changing the world through passion, inspiration and trickery. Travel (33 countries). Structure of reality. Birth and death of the universe (physics background) Ontology. Chopping up human brains (neuroscience background)

In conclusion, he warns: "Do not write to me if you are timid. I am too busy. Write to me if you are brave."

There's also this:

I have asian teengirl stalkers. Hello.

​
But is it real? Barring some expert fan fiction writing and hacking, yes it probably is. If the profile was indeed last accessed in 2006, it seems far too early in Assange's ascent for anyone to be creating a fake profile, except maybe close and playful friends, which Assange doesn't seem to have. Existence of the profile seems to have been first noted at this random Blogspot on Saturday (h/t Hunter Walker) and since, Reddit members have been obsessively looking for evidence to support its authenticity.

On the choice of HarryHarrison as a moniker, one user writes:

The most interesting thing is the choice of user name. When I saw it I jumped up and grabbed a book off the bookshelf. Harry Harrison is a scifi writer that was popular in the '70s and '80s for his Stainless Steel Rat character. The SSR was an intergalactic criminal mastermind with a conscious who was too smart to get caught. It's been decades since I've read any of this stuff, but I may have to wave my current ban on fiction to reacquaint myself with the stories. I can instantly see why Assange would choose such a moniker.

"...We must be as stealthy as rats in the wainscoting of their society. It was easier in the old days, of course, and society had more rats when the rules were looser, just as old wooden buildings have more rats than concrete buildings. But there are rats in the building now as well. Now that society is all ferrocrete and stainless steel there are fewer gaps in the joints. It takes a very smart rat indeed to find these openings. Only a stainless steel rat can be at home in this environment..."

Could WikiLeaks be prosecuted under copyright law?

Could WikiLeaks be prosecuted under copyright law? | Crikey

by Tom Cowie

Any copyright action leveled against WikiLeaks for the release of a quarter of a million secret United States government cables would be a “grotesque misuse” of copyright law, says an expert in intellectual property.

WikiLeaks have come under intense scrutiny in the past fortnight for their planned release of an enormous cache of cables sent from US embassies around the world.

While the whistleblower website has released just 1344 out of 251,287 cables so far, there have been calls from politicians around the world for founder Julian Assange to be prosecuted for breaching an assortment of laws — including espionage, terrorism and copyright.

But Professor Michael Fraser, professor of law and director of the Communications Law Centre at the University of Technology, says that a copyright finding is unlikely and any potential prosecution under that law would be a desperate attempt to stymie the further release of the cables.

Under section 107 of the United States Code, which is based around the first constitutional amendment of free speech, fair use of copyrighted work for the use of news reporting is not a breach of copyright. Fraser said that, given the very strong first amendment basis in the constitution for freedom of expression, fair use could be used as a defence by WikiLeaks.

“It would be a grotesque misuse of legitimate copyright laws, which are not meant to shut down whistle-blowers,” Fraser said. “I’m somebody who is in favour of the legitimate and proper use of copyright to protect creators’ livelihood and to protect freedom of expression. This would be a sad misuse of those kind of laws and it wouldn’t be doing anybody any favours.”

Fraser said that while Australian government documents are the subject of copyright, the Australian Copyright Act (1968) also allows a person or organisation to use copyright material without permission if it is for a “fair dealing” for the purpose of reporting the news.

“It could be argued that releasing a quarter of a million documents is beyond the bounds of fair dealing in the reporting of the news,” Fraser said. ”But the Australian law doesn’t law apply here, it’s the American law that applies.”

Some US politicians have also called Assange to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which prohibits the release of sensitive government information which could be used to the detriment of the US government or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

“It [action against WikiLeaks] is clearly not about copyright,” Fraser said. “It would be a misuse of copyright law to deal with this problem, when obviously from the point of view of the government their concern is not a copyright issue.”

Fraser said that the real debate should centre around the public’s right to know, in contrast with the confidentiality that governments rely on to operate effectively.

“While the government has abused the public’s trust by keeping too many secrets, publication is not its own justification and something of this kind could result in more secrecy. So perhaps not all 250,000 documents are in the public interest, but certainly some of them are.”