Julian Assange to appear in court to appeal for release

| Media | The Guardian

The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, will try to win his release from prison tomorrow, a week after being held on remand after Sweden requested his arrest over allegations that he sexually assaulted two women.

Even if the judge at Westminster magistrates court in London grants Assange bail, he could still be held.

The Crown Prosecution Service, which will represent the Swedish authorities in the UK court, has the right to appeal against any bail decision. Usually the suspect would be held in custody until an appeal hearing anyway.

Raj Joshi, a former head of the European and international division at the CPS, and an expert on extradition, said: "If they feel they have grounds for opposing bail, they would be duty bound to appeal that. He'll be held pending the appeal, and until it is decided. That hearing is usually held within 48 hours."

The chances of Assange going underground, given that his face was "plastered all around the world", were low, he added. "With a number of conditions, such as, maybe, a tag, it would be difficult to see why bail would not be granted."

The decision on whether to oppose bail will be made by the Swedish authorities, with Britain's CPS merely representing their interests at tomorrow's hearing. Speculation that the US could lodge an extradition request continued over the weekend, but it is regarded as highly unlikely that any such request would be lodged tomorrow.

Lady Kennedy, who has extensive experience in human rights, has joined Assange's defence team.

His case has stirred fresh controversy about European arrest warrants, which the Swedish authorities would use for his extradition.

Lady Ludford MEP, the Liberal Democrat European justice and human rights spokeswoman, claimed the arrest warrant system, which she said she supported, was being used by Sweden to carry out a fishing expedition. Sweden had yet to formally charge Assange with any offence.

In a letter to the Guardian, Ludford wrote that past cases showed that it was "not a legitimate purpose for an EAW to be used to conduct an investigation to see whether that person should be prosecuted". She added: "Normal cross-border cooperation on collection of evidence or interrogation of suspects called 'mutual legal assistance', using for example video-conferencing or a summons for temporary transfer of a suspect, should be used when more appropriate. "I urge the UK courts to refuse to allow the Assange EAW to be a fishing expedition without a pending actual prosecution. EU rules should be properly respected so that the integrity of the European arrest warrant process is protected."

Ahead of the case, lawyers today visited Assange in Wandsworth prison, south London, where the 39-year-old is being held in the segregation unit.

Assange's mother Christine is understood to have flown from Queensland, Australia to London to attend his bail hearing afternoon. It also emerged last night that the film-maker, Michael Moore, has offered to post security for the WikiLeaks founder.

Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens visited him in Wandsworth prison yesterday afternoon and said his client was being held under harsher conditions than last week. He claimed Assange was being confined to his cell for all but half an hour a day, and denied association with others prisoners, access to the library or TV.

"He's subject to the most ridiculous censorship," Stephens said. "Time magazine sent him a copy of the magazine with him on the cover and they censored it not just by ripping off the cover but by destroying the whole magazine."

Stephens also claimed a number of letters to Assange from media organisations have not reached him. He said Assange was under 24-hour video surveillance and had complained that a tooth which broke off while he was eating had later been stolen from his cell.

Stephens said Assange's UK legal team had still not seen the prosecution evidence against him. "His Swedish lawyers have some of the material but not all and it's in Swedish so we can't take proper instructions."

The decision by the district judge Howard Riddle to remand Assange into custody was made despite the film director Ken Loach, the journalist John Pilger, and the socialite Jemima Khan, offering sureties for him totalling £180,000. The judge had concluded that because of the "serious" nature of the allegations against Assange, his "comparatively weak community ties" in the UK, and the fact it was believed he had the financial means and the ability to abscond, there was a substantial risk he would fail to surrender to the courts.

The allegations about Assange were made by two women. The first complainant, known as Miss A, said she was the victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in 2009 in Stockholm. The court heard Assange was alleged to have "forcefully" held her arms and used his body weight to hold her down. The second charge alleged he had "sexually molested" her by having sex without using a condom. A third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August.

A fourth charge, relating to a woman called Miss W, alleges that on 17 August, Assange "improperly exploited" a situation where she was asleep, to have sex with her without using a condom.

A poll by Comres for CNN revealed today that 44% of Britons believe the charges against Assange are an excuse to place him in custody so the US can prosecute him over the US embassy cable leaks. But the same number say he should be sent to Sweden for questioning.

Meanwhile a dating site profile from 2007, supposedly created by Assange, had prompted by yesterday some lively online debate. The profile on the OKCupid site featured pictures of Assange, though gave the name Harry Harrison – who described himself as a "passionate and often pig- headed activist intellectual" who sought to change the world. He concluded: "Write to me if you are brave."

See..Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is authoritarian...firing his mate without reason..huh

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fires foreign minister | The Australian

IRAN'S president has abruptly fired his foreign minister and named the country's nuclear chief as acting top diplomat.

The move is the latest sign of a rift at the top levels of the Islamic theocracy as the country faces intense pressure from the West over its nuclear program.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave no explanation for the change in a brief statement on his website. But the fired diplomat, Manouchehr Mottaki, is seen as close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And the president may be aiming to install a figure more personally loyal to himself as Tehran resumes critical talks with world powers over the nuclear program that has brought four rounds of UN sanctions on Iran.

The nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, is one of Ahmadinejad's 12 vice presidents.

"This move shows not only the internal tensions but the primacy of the nuclear issue as Iran's main foreign policy objective," said Rasool Nafisi, an expert on Iranian affairs at Strayer University in Virginia.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Just a week before the shake-up, Iran resumed negotiations with six world powers over its suspect nuclear program after a long hiatus and another round is planned for early next year. Four sets of UN sanctions appear to be biting into the Iranian economy and Ahmadinejad may be looking for a loyal foreign minister who will help him clinch a deal with the six powers to ease the punitive measures.

A fourth round of sanctions was imposed in June over Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a key part of its nuclear program that is of international concern because it can be used both for making reactor fuel and atomic weapons. Iran insists its aims are entirely peaceful, but the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency says its years of investigating have not been able to confirm that.

The sanctions are making it more difficult for Iran to trade with the outside world.

The president of Iran's chamber of commerce, Mohammad Nahavandian, said last month that import prices for most goods have risen by 15 to 30 percent because of sanctions. That is because companies, particularly Asian firms, are bumping up prices because they know Iran is now a desperate market and insurance is difficult - if not impossible - to obtain on shipments to Iran.

And many European firms avoid dealings with Iran or their banks refrain from transactions with Iran.

Some of the tensions between Ahmadinejad and Mottaki have spilled out into public in this closely guarded nation.

In the past year, Mottaki opposed a decision by Ahmadinejad to appoint his own special foreign envoys to key areas such as the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Caspian Sea region. Mottaki found the appointments embarrassing to the foreign ministry and allegedly took his complaint to the supreme leader, who has the final say on all state matters and runs the nuclear program.

Khamenei reportedly sided with Mottaki, forcing Ahmadinejad to moderate his position and change their title only to the level of advisers.

The difference was exposed in September when Mottaki publicly attacked Mohammad Baghaei, one of the four trusted foreign policy envoys appointed by Ahmadinejad, calling him an "inexperienced" figure who was "creating problems for the country's foreign policy."

Mottaki overtly said that parallel foreign policy work must be avoided, a clear reference to Ahmadinejad appointees who operated outside the foreign ministry.

Iranian media have also reported in the past year that some lawmakers were pushing for Mottaki to be dismissed, arguing that he failed to adequately defend Iran at international organizations such as the United Nations.

It was not immediately clear how long Salehi would remain in the caretaker role. The semiofficial Fars news agency says Mohammad Ghannadi, a prominent nuclear scientist, is expected to replace Salehi as the new nuclear chief - an indication Ahmadinejad wants him to keep the job permanently. Ghannadi is currently Salehi's deputy at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

Salehi - or any other candidate - has to win a vote of confidence from the 290-seat parliament to be appointed to the job.

Prominent conservative lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi says he was stunned to hear the news, saying the parliament was not aware of Ahmadinejad's decision to dismiss Mottaki, according to khabaronline.ir news website.

Mottaki was fired as he was in the middle of a tour of African nations that took him to Senegal, where he delivered a message from Ahmadinejad to the West African nation's president on Monday, according to the official IRNA news agency.

The president thanked him for his more than five years of service - spanning Ahmadinejad's entire time in office.

"It's unpleasant that he is fired in the middle of a foreign assignment. The president should have waited for Mottaki to return home first before a replacement," said conservative lawmaker Mahmoud Ahmadi Biqash.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Mottaki's dismissal should not affect the nuclear talks, which should continue regardless of the officials involved.

The next round of talks between Iran and the six permanent UN Security Council members - the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China - and Germany is scheduled for January.

"We put emphasis that talks which just started in Geneva will continue and that different political constellations in Iran will not lead to any disruptions or delay in the talks," Westerwelle said in Brussels, where he is attending a meeting of EU foreign ministers.

Talks between Iran and the world powers broke down last year when Iran rebuffed a UN-drafted plan to ship abroad its stockpile of low-enriched uranium in exchange for reactor-ready fuel. Low-enriched uranium can be used in reactors, but also for warheads if brought to much higher enrichment levels.

Earlier this month, Mottaki attended a security conference in Bahrain that included US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mottaki, however, was on the defensive after American diplomatic memos released by WikiLeaks showed some Gulf Arab leaders urging for a US military strike to cripple Iran's nuclear program.

He tried to reassure Gulf Arab nations that Iran was not a regional threat, but his statements did not resonate, said Salman Shaikh, director of The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar.

"He had a golden opportunity to change some minds about Iran, but failed," said Shaikh. "This showed that Iranian foreign policy was stumbling and perhaps this led to the change."

Snaptu: Iran not a rogue state: Australia

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia is at odds with its major security ally the United States over Iran, saying it is not a "rogue state" and its nuclear weapons program is for deterrence, not attack, according to U.S. cables released by WikiLeaks.

Click here to read the full story

--
This email was sent to you from Snaptu mobile application.

Funding illegal Israeli settlements? Priceless.

Funding illegal Israeli settlements? Priceless. | Crikey

by Bernard Keane

Visa, Mastercard and PayPal all enable donations to be made to US-registered groups funding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law.

It appears at least one of the major credit cards also enables donations to an extremist Jewish group that has placed a bounty on the lives of Palestinians.

All three have in the last week ceased enabling donations to WikiLeaks. Neither Mastercard nor Visa have explained the basis for their decision to do so. PayPal has backed away from its initial claim that the US State Department told PayPal WikiLeaks had broken the law after the claim was discredited. This is the third occasion on which PayPal has suspended payment services for WikiLeaks.

Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. Another 100+ are “illegal outposts” even under Israeli law. All benefit from extensive support from the United States, channelled through a range of Jewish and right-wing Christian bodies, all of which have charitable status under US law. The International Crisis Group’s report on settlements in July 2009 identified the important role played by US charities. Israeli newspaper Haaretz has investigated the strong support provided via US charities, and Israeli peace groups have also targeted the generous support provided via private donations from the US and Canada.

Credit card transactional systems play a key role in facilitating this support for illegal settlements. Here are some examples.

* The Shuva Israel group, an evangelical Christian group based in Texas, is accused by Israeli group Gush Shalom of channelling money to fund the illegal West Bank settlement of Revava. You can donate to it, says the Shuva Israel website, via Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.

* The One Israel Fund, used as an example in the International Crisis Group report, boasts of being “the largest North American charity whose efforts are dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha”. You can donate to the One Israel Fund, according to its website, via Mastercard, Visa and Amex.

* The website of another right-wing Christian group, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities describes support for settlements like Argaman, which are illegal under international law. You can donate, their website says, via Mastercard, Visa and PayPal.

* One of the highest-profile groups is the Hebron Fund, the centre of a 2009 row when the New York Mets were criticised for hosting a fundraising dinner for the group. It provides extensive support for the extraordinarily aggressive Hebron settlement, described by one Israeli group as “an ongoing war crime”, while the Fund itself has been linked to praise for an Israeli mass murderer. According to its website, it receives donations via all major credit cards.

* Worst of all is the extremist SOS Israel group, which has incurred even the wrath of the Israeli Defence Force by rewarding Israeli soldiers who disobey orders to evict settlers from illegal outposts (i.e. inciting mutiny), and which has offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers. The SOS Israel website describes a number of ways you can make your “generous donation” to it, including credit cards. Crikey’s token $2 donation via a Visa card was successful last night.

At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. All three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations.

Crikey invited Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to comment but none had responded by deadline.

Life and death under WikiLeaks: what we learnt in Kenya

Life and death under WikiLeaks: what we learnt in Kenya | Crikey

by Rafiq Copeland in Kenya

Few countries have more experience of the power of WikiLeaks than Kenya. In recent interviews Julian Assange has claimed that WikiLeaks “changed the result of the Kenyan general election” in 2007. Now, three years after that disputed ballot, newly released WikiLeaks cables indicate that that Kenya is still plagued by rampant corruption and at risk of renewed violence.

The latest cables quote the director of the Kenyan Anti-Corruption Commission Patrick Lumumba as saying he is “convinced that there is hardly a single minister in the country’s bloated, 42-member cabinet, that doesn’t use their position to line their own pockets”. Given the prominent role that WikiLeaks has already played in rocking Kenya’s political landscape these latest revelations have the potential to be explosive.

The timing of the latest leak comes at a critical time in Kenyan politics. This Wednesday the International Criminal Court will release the names of prominent Kenyans — including at least one former minister — who will be charged over orchestrating Kenya’s post-election bloodshed. Even before the latest leaks this announcement was expected to be met with protests. Meanwhile, electioneering has already begun for the next Kenyan election scheduled in 2012. The current WikiLeaks scandal will make it harder for the government to maintain its already thin veneer of credibility.

As Kenya struggles to comes to terms with the newest leaks, it is worth re-examining the contentious role that WikiLeaks played in the 2007 election.

In August 2007 WikiLeaks released a report on corruption in Kenya by the international risk assessment company Kroll. The 2004 report, commissioned by President Kibeki into the previous administration led by the notorious Daniel arap Moi, had never been publicly released. It detailed shocking abuses by Moi and his cronies relating to about $3 billion of misused and stolen government funds.

When the election was held three months later it became apparent that corruption was going to be more than just a campaign issue. International observers reported widespread manipulation from both sides. In the ensuing violence about 1500 Kenyans were killed and up to 600,000 displaced. It was WikiLeaks’ biggest coup. The Kroll report and its political fallout put WikiLeaks on the global media map.

Answering questions about the morality of WikiLeaks, Assange has also made reference to Kenya. In August Assange told The Guardian: ”1300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak. On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased.”

These comments were made in defence of WikiLeaks, but some commentators — particularly on the right — have labelled them a “shocking admission”. And to a certain extent they have a point.

In his op-ed for The Australian, Assange states: “We have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed.” On the face of it this would seem to flatly contradict his earlier statement on Kenya. If WikiLeaks is responsible for the election outcome — as Assange claims — then surely WikiLeaks must also bear some responsibility, even if indirectly, for election-related violence.

Which brings us back to the potential fallout from the latest leaks. If the Kroll report was capable of such a profound effect on the 2007 election as WikiLeaks believes, then it seems that Kenya again is set for troubled times. In the context of an already shaky political backdrop, these leaks are at least as dramatic as those of three years ago.