About | ACP | Buy | Forum | Industry Watch | Learning Curve | Search | Twitter | Xnews
Home » Industry WatchThe Technological » Hall of Monkeys » Heroes Banquet)

Svea's Covered Wagons

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.


Buy It

Try It

DUCKPOND (Rixstep) — So today the ducks circled their covered wagons again. Forgive the mixed metaphors. But it wasn't to be expected that those running things in the pond would turn against one of their own.

The detention in absentia of Julian Assange was upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal, but there was a curious caveat in the ruling.

The Court of Appeal notes, however, that the investigation into the suspected crimes has come to a halt and considers that the failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation - in the interests of everyone concerned - to move the preliminary investigation forward. The fact that the detention order is also intended to ensure the presence of Julian Assange for a possible future trial is of no importance, as such, in this context.

To this Marianne Ny responded on her own website.

This has been a complicated case. And we have continually evaluated this issue. As the appeals court pointed out, there's all reason to continue to evaluate how the case can be made to move forward.

Which most people have already interpreted to mean that Marianne Ny is going to duke it out with the court - in other words, even though the court already said in an interview that she should get on a plane, she probably won't do it.

Marianne Ny has her reasons. Or so she says. Even though everyone worldwide is telling her to stuff it and get over to London.

  • A Swedish supreme court justice made a statement to this effect in Australia.
  • Eva Joly came all the way to Sweden to discuss this with Ny - and was ignored. Ny refused to even meet her.
  • 59 organisations petitioned the United Nations to look into the matter.
  • A retired Swedish prosecutor went public with this same opinion.
  • The Mother of Swedish feminism defended Assange's decision to stay at the embassy.

And so forth. But of course Marianne Ny has her reasons, right? The Svea Court of Appeal noted in their ruling that the case is at a standstill because Marianne Ny won't do what Julian Assange has asked, and this is because she has her reasons?

So what are those reasons? This is where things get murky. For Marianne Ny keeps changing her mind. No, she won't come right out and say, but she keeps dropping hints. The trouble with those hints of hers is that they make no sense and are usually refuted within minutes.

Why would someone with a relatively lacklustre career - someone who keeps her ear to the grindstone and keeps a low profile so she can get into her local Rotary Club on her own merits - get herself into such a mess?

The latest blooper by Marianne Ny, after the district court ruling, was that Assange had to come to Sweden so she could get a DNA swab. That lasted minutes. As it was pointed out that the British authorities already had Assange's DNA on record. Oops.

Then there was the magnificent interview with TIME in December 2010, where Marianne Ny told a gullible reporter that interrogation of Assange in the UK was illegal both in Britain and in Sweden. That blooper was copied into the Swedish MSM shortly after. And Marianne or someone else connected to her had a lot of clout, for the Swedish MSM scrubbed their sites of all mention of it.

Then of course we had the infamous confrontation between Jennifer Robinson and Carl Bildt, where the latter tried to bamboozle Jen with the claim that traveling to the UK for such purposes was unconstitutional.

Then the extended exchange with Carl Bildt's foreign office.



One wonders why a lacklustre prosecutor and a very dodgy demagogue would both put their feet in it. Totally out of character, like Billy Hague's brash plan to storm the Ecuador embassy and thereby bring the whole Vienna Convention house of cards on diplomatic immunity crashing down - not even in World War Two was it violated, but for obscure allegations involving improper use of a condom it'd be OK?

Why would they mess up like that? People known for being crafty thinkers - why would they suddenly blow it, completely out of character?

Or take the presidential jet of Evo Morales. Not allowed to land anywhere when leaving Moscow. Getting permission in Vienna. Being met at the airport so the plane could be inspected. And messing with a presidential jet is something, as with an embassy storming, that just isn't done.

Marianne Ny has also said that Assange has to be in Sweden for questioning in case there's a trial as a result - but now the Svea Court of Appeal tossed that out too.

Marianne Ny doesn't have a leg to stand on, but it's likely she'll not budge anyway. Even an appeals court can't force her. They didn't really order her to do anything. They only strongly advised. With 59 human rights organisations, a Swedish supreme court justice, the famed Eva Joly, and a retired Swedish prosecutor all backing them up. And the Brits reportedly growing increasingly perturbed.

About | ACP | Buy | Forum | Industry Watch | Learning Curve | Search | Twitter | Xnews
Copyright © Rixstep. All rights reserved.