{"id":72605,"date":"2010-12-23T06:25:06","date_gmt":"2010-12-23T06:25:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/12\/23\/assange-face-a-la-presse-pravda\/"},"modified":"2010-12-23T06:25:06","modified_gmt":"2010-12-23T06:25:06","slug":"assange-face-a-la-presse-pravda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/12\/23\/assange-face-a-la-presse-pravda\/","title":{"rendered":"Assange face \u00e0 la presse-Pravda<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La position de Julian Assange vis-\u00e0-vis de la presse britannique s’est consid\u00e9rablement tendue \u00e0 la suite d’une certaine \u00e9volution des organes d’information de la presse classique, notamment de centre gauche, (re)devenant, dans cette occurrence des organes relevant de ce qu’on nomme la presse-Pravda<\/em>. M\u00eame le Guardian<\/em>, tr\u00e8s favorable \u00e0 Assange, a publi\u00e9 l’un ou l’autre article<\/a> d\u00e9taillant d’une fa\u00e7on critique, \u00e0 l’aide de fuites anti-Assange, ce qui est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 comme les circonstances des agressions sexuelles, ou pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es comme telles, et les r\u00e9actions d’Assange \u00e0 tout cela. The Independent<\/em>, plus d\u00e9favorable \u00e0 Assange d\u00e8s l’origine, notamment parce qu’il \u00e9tait priv\u00e9 de l’exclusivit\u00e9 des fuites WikiLeaks<\/em>, a publi\u00e9 plusieurs articles violemment critiques, surtout sur le terrain du f\u00e9minisme exacerb\u00e9 et de la simple humeur, deux choses qui semblent aller de pair dans ce quotidien. (Voir l’article de Christina Patterson ce 22 d\u00e9cembre 2010<\/a> o\u00f9 le proph\u00e8te Assange est soup\u00e7onn\u00e9 de n’\u00eatre pas aussi vertueux que le voudrait la morale postmoderniste et f\u00e9ministe ; ou l’article de Julie Burchill, ce 23 d\u00e9cembre 2010<\/a>, discutant avec un sarcasme qui confine parfois \u00e0 l’hyst\u00e9rie le seul fait qui semble importer, \u00e0 savoir le degr\u00e9 de machisme de Julian Assange ; les deux articles chaque fois annonc\u00e9s en grands titres d’information sur le site alors qu’il ne s’agit que de commentaires d’opinion Cela rejoint cette remarque de Naomi Klein, que rapportait John Pilger le 17 d\u00e9cembre 2010<\/a> : \u00abRape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan.<\/em>\u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Il y a aussi une interview de la BBC d’Assange qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 ressentie comme une attaque violente contre lui. Le site WSWS.org<\/em>, fort pr\u00e9cieux dans cette affaire Cablegate<\/em>\/Assange, en donne un compte-rendu pr\u00e9cis ce 22 d\u00e9cembre 2010<\/a>, qui met en \u00e9vidence le r\u00f4le de procureur quasiment su\u00e9dois (ou am\u00e9ricaniste) jou\u00e9 par l’intervieweur. (On pourra comparer ce compte-rendu qu’en fait WSWS.org<\/em> avec celui qu’en fait Patterson, et ainsi mesurer la valeur morale, puisque Patterson parle de morale \u00e0 propos d’Assange, de la presse-Pravda<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abIn a lengthy interview with BBC News, broadcast Tuesday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange answered many of the smears directed by the media against him as part of a campaign to discredit the organization as it releases of thousands of secret US diplomatic cables.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIt was Assange’s first face-to-face broadcast interview since his release from jail December 17, after spending nine days in London’s Wandsworth prison on an extradition arrest warrant from Sweden. The presenter of the BBC’s Today program, John Humphrys, focused the interview almost entirely on the trumped-up claims of sexual assault that are the basis of the Swedish warrant, although no actual charges have been filed against Assange.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe entire tenor of the interview is that of a prosecutor interrogating a prisoner, not one journalist engaging in a discussion with another. The BBC man might as well have been wearing a badge.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbHumphrys’s first question was Why won’t you go back to Sweden? suggesting that Assange’s resistance to extradition was proof that he had something to hide. Assange replied by explaining that he had left Sweden with the permission of the Swedish authorities, after they had failed to follow up on an initial request to interview him. He had agreed to answer any questions about his sexual encounters with two Swedish women, both consensual.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb I stayed in Sweden for five weeks to enable that proper process to occur, Assange explained. Proper process did not occur. It was only after he left the country, he continued, that a Swedish prosecutor demanded an interview, and refused to conduct it by videoconference, by deposition, or face-to-face in London, where Assange was working on his organization’s efforts to publish secret US government documents.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbHumphrys said that Assange was obliged to go back to Sweden because the law says you must. Assange replied, Well, no, the law says that I also have certain rights. I do not need to go and speak to random prosecutors around the world who simply want to have a chat and won’t do it in any other standard way.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbMoreover, he pointed out, they have asked, as part of their application that, if I go to Sweden and am arrested, that I am to be held incommunicado. Entirely incommunicado. They have asked that my Swedish lawyer be gagged from talking about the evidence to the public.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn other words, the demands from Sweden served the purpose, not of furthering an investigation into a sex crime, but of disrupting the functioning of WikiLeaks by seizing and gagging the group’s principal leader.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb I have an organisation to run, he continued. I have my people to defend. There are other things at stake here I have a serious brewing extradition case in relation to the United States. I have a serious organisation to run. People affiliated with our organisation have already been assassinated. My work is serious. I do not have to run off to random states simply because some prosecutor is abusing a process in those states.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Quant aux raisons qu’a Assange de vouloir \u00e9viter une extradition vers la Su\u00e8de, on signalera deux<\/a> vid\u00e9os<\/a> d’un avocat am\u00e9ricain, Douglas C. McNabb. (Voir ce lien<\/a> nous informant de la position professionnelle de McNabb.) McNabb s’attache \u00e0 expliquer des dispositions du trait\u00e9 bilat\u00e9ral d’extradition entre les USA et la Su\u00e8de datant des ann\u00e9es 1960 et renforc\u00e9 d’une annexe en 1984. McNabb semble (selon notre compr\u00e9hension de ses explications) affirmer que l’article 6 de l’annexe stipule que toute personne faisant l’objet d’une proc\u00e9dure judiciaire su\u00e9doise et \u00e9tant l’objet d’une demande US d’extradition peut \u00eatre extrad\u00e9e aux USA avant que la proc\u00e9dure su\u00e9doise ait \u00e9t\u00e9 termin\u00e9e, selon un arrangement entre les deux gouvernements. Ainsi McNabb, prenant le cas d’une extradition d’Assange en Su\u00e8de m\u00eame pour un simple interrogatoire, affirme-t-il qu’on ne peut exclure que Assange, sans que la proc\u00e9dure su\u00e9doise (l’innocentant \u00e9ventuellement) soit termin\u00e9e, puisse \u00eatre extrad\u00e9 aux USA, jug\u00e9, condamn\u00e9, et doive ex\u00e9cuter sa peine avant d’\u00eatre renvoy\u00e9 en Su\u00e8de.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 23 d\u00e9cembre 2010 \u00e0 06H25<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La position de Julian Assange vis-\u00e0-vis de la presse britannique s’est consid\u00e9rablement tendue \u00e0 la suite d’une certaine \u00e9volution des organes d’information de la presse classique, notamment de centre gauche, (re)devenant, dans cette occurrence des organes relevant de ce qu’on nomme la presse-Pravda. M\u00eame le Guardian, tr\u00e8s favorable \u00e0 Assange, a publi\u00e9 l’un ou l’autre… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9886,3837,3922,5145,10596,8641,8861,9953],"class_list":["post-72605","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-assange","tag-feminisme","tag-independent","tag-klein","tag-mcnabb","tag-noami","tag-presse-pravda","tag-viol"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72605","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72605"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72605\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}