HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I don't know what the fuc...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:01 PM

I don't know what the fuck to believe anymore about the Assange case.

The timing that they starting going after him is suspicious, right after he threatened to publish some stuff that would make the Banksters look bad, yet at the same time I am being increasingly nauseated by the misogyny of many of Assange's defenders, and then again I am worried that the PTB are using our own progressiveness by making us afraid be being called misogynists for defending Assange.

I'm about ready to throw my hands in the air.

145 replies, 17132 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 145 replies Author Time Post
Reply I don't know what the fuck to believe anymore about the Assange case. (Original post)
Odin2005 Aug 2012 OP
fleur-de-lisa Aug 2012 #1
proverbialwisdom Aug 2012 #136
Betsy Ross Aug 2012 #2
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #43
Marr Aug 2012 #104
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #105
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2012 #134
TorchTheWitch Aug 2012 #126
Betsy Ross Aug 2012 #143
Chorophyll Aug 2012 #3
99Forever Aug 2012 #5
Chorophyll Aug 2012 #8
99Forever Aug 2012 #11
Chorophyll Aug 2012 #14
99Forever Aug 2012 #17
Chorophyll Aug 2012 #18
99Forever Aug 2012 #21
CabCurious Aug 2012 #24
Chorophyll Aug 2012 #26
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #41
Chorophyll Aug 2012 #106
tama Aug 2012 #129
brush Aug 2012 #89
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #110
tama Aug 2012 #130
reorg Aug 2012 #144
Chorophyll Aug 2012 #145
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #4
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #93
treestar Aug 2012 #6
randome Aug 2012 #7
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #42
randome Aug 2012 #47
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #52
randome Aug 2012 #55
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #86
randome Aug 2012 #90
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #96
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #97
idwiyo Aug 2012 #98
idwiyo Aug 2012 #95
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #111
idwiyo Aug 2012 #121
hunter Aug 2012 #9
randome Aug 2012 #10
WillYourVoteBCounted Aug 2012 #12
Robb Aug 2012 #20
girl gone mad Aug 2012 #82
Robb Aug 2012 #87
girl gone mad Aug 2012 #109
Robb Aug 2012 #112
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #113
WillYourVoteBCounted Aug 2012 #13
randome Aug 2012 #15
Enrique Aug 2012 #25
randome Aug 2012 #27
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #40
randome Aug 2012 #48
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #53
randome Aug 2012 #58
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #59
randome Aug 2012 #60
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #64
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #44
randome Aug 2012 #45
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #54
randome Aug 2012 #56
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #73
randome Aug 2012 #77
idwiyo Aug 2012 #62
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #92
idwiyo Aug 2012 #107
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #116
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #141
cherokeeprogressive Aug 2012 #32
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #99
ismnotwasm Aug 2012 #16
arely staircase Aug 2012 #19
nadinbrzezinski Aug 2012 #23
arely staircase Aug 2012 #28
nadinbrzezinski Aug 2012 #30
arely staircase Aug 2012 #34
nadinbrzezinski Aug 2012 #36
arely staircase Aug 2012 #37
nadinbrzezinski Aug 2012 #38
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #100
MADem Aug 2012 #57
nadinbrzezinski Aug 2012 #22
Kalidurga Aug 2012 #29
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #31
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #33
Kalidurga Aug 2012 #39
sibelian Aug 2012 #46
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #51
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #63
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #74
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #81
Bonobo Aug 2012 #124
tama Aug 2012 #127
Bonobo Aug 2012 #128
tama Aug 2012 #131
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #102
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #117
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #66
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #75
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #76
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #80
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #84
Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #103
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #108
Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #115
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #118
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #125
ljm2002 Aug 2012 #139
ronnie624 Aug 2012 #137
randome Aug 2012 #85
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #88
randome Aug 2012 #91
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #94
Bonobo Aug 2012 #123
ronnie624 Aug 2012 #135
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #101
kestrel91316 Aug 2012 #35
Honeycombe8 Aug 2012 #49
magical thyme Aug 2012 #50
Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #61
magical thyme Aug 2012 #119
NashvilleLefty Aug 2012 #65
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #69
fascisthunter Aug 2012 #67
Comrade_McKenzie Aug 2012 #68
graham4anything Aug 2012 #70
Cleita Aug 2012 #71
NNN0LHI Aug 2012 #72
2pooped2pop Aug 2012 #78
Autumn Aug 2012 #79
pnwmom Aug 2012 #83
Prophet 451 Aug 2012 #114
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #122
ronnie624 Aug 2012 #140
NCTraveler Aug 2012 #120
TheKentuckian Aug 2012 #132
99Forever Aug 2012 #133
Johonny Aug 2012 #138
hifiguy Aug 2012 #142

Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:03 PM

1. Me too.

The story is so confusing. I'm losing interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 11:07 AM

136. Let the whistleblower experts do the vetting and look for consensus.


http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/8/20/craig_murray_and_tariq_ali_speak_in_support_of_wikileaks_julian_assange_outside_ecuadorean_embassay

AUGUST 20, 2012

Craig Murray and Tariq Ali Speak In Support of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Outside Ecuadorean Embassy


VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

See Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and writer and activist Tariq Ali, speak outside the Ecuadorean embassy, where WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange spoke Sunday. "The invasion of a diplomatic premises is a crime in international law and a crime in the state whose premises are invaded," says Murray of the United Kingdom’s threat to raid the embassy to arrest Assange. "So any policeman who forcibly enters the premises of the embassy of Ecuador will find himself liable for extradition to Ecuador as soon as he leaves the United Kingdom." Click here to see all of our WikiLeaks coverage.

CRAIG MURRAY: We should not forget what this is about. This is about the persecution of an individual who has made life much more simple and more productive for whistleblowers in the information age and in an age when, as Western governments become increasingly authoritarian and civil liberties are diminished, we need whistleblowers more than ever to protect the rights of all of us.

We have heard of the areas where WikiLeaks have been active, not only the prosecution of illegal war in Iraq, but the revealing of individual war crimes carried out within that war, the targeting of people for assassination throughout the world and the collusion of governments of different stripes in that targeting for torture and rendition of individuals.

Now consider this. I blew the whistle on torture and extraordinary rendition and the collusion of the CIA and MI6. I was, in consequence, immediately charged with extortion for sexual purposes and blackmailing people into sex in exchange for British visas. It took me one-and-a-half years to clear my name of those charges, because they routinely charge and try to defame and fit up whistleblowers, and that is what is happening to Julian Assange, just as it happened to me.

I shared a platform across the United States with a very brave lady, Brigadier Janis Karpinski, who was the senior woman in the United States Army. She blew the whistle on the fact that she had seen documents signed personally by Donald Rumsfeld authorizing the torture at Abu Ghraib. The very next day, she was charged with shoplifting.

I could name five or six examples straightaway of individual whistleblowers who are always immediately charged with offenses which don’t relate to whistleblowing at all, because in the United States and the United Kingdom and apparently Sweden today, just as used to always happen in authoritarian and totalitarian countries, dissidents are not charged with political offenses, they are fitted up with criminal offenses. That is the state our society has come to.

<...>


http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/17/daniel_ellsberg_i_congratulate_ecuador_for

FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2012

Daniel Ellsberg: I Congratulate Ecuador for Standing Up to British Empire to Protect Julian Assange


VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

Daniel Ellsberg, the most famous whistleblower in the United States, praises Ecuador for granting political asylum to Julian Assange to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over sex crime accusations. "I congratulate Ecuador, of course, for standing up to the British Empire here, for insisting that they are not a British colony, and acting as a sovereign state ought to act," says Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Assange would be arrested if he left the embassy, saying Britain is "under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden." Ellsberg adds: " has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him away to America, where it really hasn’t been made as clear what might be waiting for him."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:05 PM

2. Can someone clarify for me:

To-date, I thought the only actual crime he has been charged with was failing to appear for questioning. IF this is the case, we are really arguing about the reasonableness of extradition for this, not sexual assault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Betsy Ross (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:25 PM

43. The Swedish criminal process is not the same as the process in the UK

The "interview" he is wanted for in Sweden is not a matter of the police wanting to ask him a few questions in a chat over a nice smörgåsbord with maybe some coffee: it is part of the formal process for deciding whether or not to charge him and bring him to trial

The Swedish authorities were attempting to negotiate this interview with Assange's lawyer in September 2010. When it became clear that the interview could involve taking him into custody, Assange fled Sweden for the UK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #43)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:17 PM

104. Do you have a single button that posts that message?

I mean-- I don't get it. Were you really under the impression that most people think the interview authorities want is one of coffee and snacks? Of COURSE the interview would be part of a formal legal process. That goes without saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #104)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:34 PM

105. The Swedish investigation into the Assange matter has reached the point at which the authorities

are ready to take Assange into custody while they make a determination about whether or not to take a case to trial

The day after Assange's lawyer learned this, from the prosecutor who was attempting to arrange the second interview through that same lawyer, Assange fled from Sweden to the UK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #105)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 10:55 AM

134. The worse thing that could happen to the Assange apologists at this point

would be for Assange to go to Sweden, be interviewed and then the authorities release him for lack of evidence to formerly charge. That would blow their every sad, pathetic fantasy of the PTB black-bagging poor Julian to Gitmo right out of the water. It would demonstrate for the world to see that all his ego-manical showboating was just that. It's gotten to the point that Assange not being guilty would be his single greatest act in discrediting himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Betsy Ross (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:45 AM

126. the crimes he's accused of are sexual assault and rape

Are those not good enough crimes in your book to warrant extradition???

Sweden can't officially charge him as according to their laws they have to do the step of having the interview with him where they're required to show him all the information they've gathered following their investigation, give him the opportunity to refute it and offer names of witnesses on his own behalf. The case cannot go forward without this step, and since he can't offer any evidence of his own that would clear him (he's already admitted to having sexual relations with the two women on the dates alleged) following the "interview" (which is probably not the best word to use in translation to describe what it is) he'll be arrested and charged. He was already aware of this since he has a Swedish attorney to explain how their system works and what was likely to happen in the case, and he fled the day before the scheduled "interview" was to take place.

Read the ruling of the British court that decided on extradition following his final appeal and why that conclusion was reached...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #126)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:59 AM

143. Thank you for explaining the differences in Swedish law.

You can keep the snark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:06 PM

3. Frankly, he lost me when he called Sweden "the Saudi Arabia of feminism."

If you're a progressive hero, you're supposed to actually be progressive.

Otherwise, yeah, it's a huge mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:11 PM

5. So...

... you judge someone by an offhand remark you don't happen to like?

How very "progressive" of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:19 PM

8. Yes, I do judge him for that remark.

It was incredibly offensive to me as a woman and a feminist. It's not a remark I would accept as "offhand" from my husband, my son, or any of my male friends.

If a Republican had said it, I'll bet you wouldn't like it.

ETA: the day being liberal or progressive means I can't judge someone based on the words that come out of their mouths is going to be a pretty bleak day. We hide comments like "the Saudi Arabia of feminism" on DU every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:32 PM

11. We're not talking about what I ...

... would or wouldn't like if a Republican "said it." But it's nice to meet a for-real mindreader, a "progressive" one, at that, and one that speaks for "we!" Very kewl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:47 PM

14. Back at ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:57 PM

17. Welll thanks...

That was...


... ummm ...



"deep."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:00 PM

18. I don't see much point in carrying the conversation any further.

I don't like the guy. You do. It's not gonna change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:11 PM

21. There ya go again.

Reading my mind and getting it wrong. I neither "like" nor "dislike the guy."

What I don't do, is buy into a VERY suspect timeline, orchestrated by clandestine intelligence agencies with a record of using EXACTLY these same tactics repeatedly thru history. But perhaps, using a critical eye to look at the situation offends your "progressive" sensibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #21)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:22 PM

24. And bullying people and calling them names is progressive, right? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #21)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:28 PM

26. "The Saudi Arabia of feminism" will never NOT offend my sensibilities.

That doesn't make the timeline of events any less suspect, does it? But it was a misogynistic thing to say and it put a huge dent into any respect I might have had for Assange.

So once again, and have a nice life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:22 PM

41. Help me out here.

I dont understand how that remark bothers you. Seems to me that he was pointing out that Sweden leans toward feminism like Saudi Arabia leans away. He didnt say that was bad or that he was anti-feminism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #41)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:46 PM

106. I took it to be a dig at Sweden BECAUSE it leans toward feminism.

I took it to mean that he feels Sweden is ruled by feminism in the same way that Saudi Arabia is ruled by its royal family.

I do not think it was meant to be a compliment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #106)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 08:31 AM

129. It's not a compliment

 

It's an accusation of Sweden or certain elements of Swedish society being misandrist sexists and female chauvinists. Not a condemnation of egalitarian feminism nor insult to supporters of equal rights for both sexes.

A prime example of Swedish sexism is law that makes attempt to buy sex a crime, but not selling sex. In egalitarian society both sides of transaction would be incriminated or neither. Lawyer representing both women has supported tax on males, on grounds of purported collective guilt of all males.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:08 PM

89. What?

What does the remark mean, the Saudi Arabia of feminism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #89)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:10 PM

110. "... It's embarrassing to say so, given that even a single man, as I was, is liable

to be thought ungallant even for mentioning what went on with a woman in private. Or more than one woman ... Speaking honestly, I would have to say I thought A—— was a little neurotic. But our night together was unremarkable ... On another occasion, I met a woman called W—— at a press conference. I remember she was wearing a nice pink sweater ... I met up with W—— and went back with her to her house ... The thing with W—— was going nowhere, either. She was a little vague, but the night in Enkopping was fun and I thought we'd had a perfectly nice time, albeit one that probably wouldn't be repeated. She didn't seem too fussed herself, as we had breakfast together the next morning and then rode together on her bicycle to the railway station. She kindly paid for my ticket – my bank card was still on the blink, though I'm always skint – and she kissed me goodbye and asked me to call her from the train. I didn't do that, and it has already turned out to be the most expensive call I didn't make. At one point, I did have a short conversation with W——, when she called me, but the phone was low on charge and it ran out while we were still talking ... After a strange few days of contact with the women, one of whom said she wanted me to do an STD test, I needed some time and space to myself ..."
Julian Assange: 'I did not rape those women'
In the first extract from the book, Julian Assange gives his version of the background to accusations of sexual assault that have led to his battle against extradition to Sweden
Thursday 22 September 2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-i-did-not-rape-those-women-2358652.html


... Mr Assange believes her intention in going to the police was to put pressure on him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, but the case was investigated as an alleged sexual assault ... He said he believed his accusers became angry when the younger woman, Miss W, contacted Miss A and they realised he had been to bed with both of them in swift succession ... Mr Assange regards himself as a victim of radicalism. "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism," he said. "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism" ...
WikiLeaks founder baffled by sex assault claims
by: Marie Colvin
From: The Sunday Times
December 27, 2010 12:00AM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/wikileaks-founder-baffled-by-sex-assault-claims/story-fn775xjq-1225976459286



These links are instructive to read, because Assange's innuendo switches back and forth, suggesting his various counter-accusations

The Independent article, by Assange, and nominally about the sex charges, BEGINS with an unsupported claim that an unnamed intelligence agency is out to get him. But the gist of the Independent article is that the women are neurotic and unremarkable; the piece suggests that one of the women was angry because he didn't call -- or because his cell phone battery ran out while he was chatting with her. And it also indicates his completely two-dimensional view of her: "I remember she was wearing a nice pink sweater"

The Times article reiterates his view that one woman wanted him to have an STD text and then adds "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism" and "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"

So he plays a standard game in discussing this: he sets out a full smörgåsbord of options for his audience and allows everyone to choose whether it's an intelligence agency setup, or just the lonely games of some childish and emotional lonely girls in pink sweaters, or an attack by Sweden's out-of-control feminists, or perhaps just a wee bit of a his own fault for being something of a cad ...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #89)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 08:36 AM

130. See post 129 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:19 PM

144. So, what are your credentials?

As opposed to, say, this lady:



The sole "Ur-Feminist" Helene Bergman from Radio Ellen of the 1980s once again reflects on the development she has seen. She asks: "How could the sexual and feminist revolution of the 1960s be turned into an oppressive apparatus of power in the 2000s, where our men and sons are portrayed as potential rapists and women as stupid little geese?"

Her own beginning of an answer describes what has taken place in Sweden:

"Free feminism was kidnapped at the end of the 1980s, was disarmed, renamed Gender Equality and incorporated in the power apparatus. Gender equality was elevated to state norm and ideology, and became a career ladder, not least in politics, bureacracy and the judiciary (...) Sex became gender and the target was no longer the partiarchal state apparatus but turned over to men as a sex and sexual beings."
Source: A Brief History of Swedish Sex: How the Nation that Gave Us Free Love Redefined Rape and Declared War on Julian Assange. Oscar Swartz, e-book publication, available at Amazon.


To The Swedish Ombudsmen for Justice (JO)

We most urgent require that the ombudsmen for justice investigates the Swedish handling of the case of Julian Assange, by the prosecutor Marianne Ny, Director of the Public Prosecution Authority Development Center in Gothenburg.

1. Mr. Assange could have been investigated by the Swedish police before he left the country on September 27, 2010, and with the knowledge of the prosecutor Marianne Ny. At that date Mr. Assange had been available for an interwiev during five weeks.

2. Since Mr. Assange arrived in London, he has on several occasions offered to give his own version of what happened in Stockholm in August 2010, at the Swedish embassy, or being questioned by video link.

3. In late July, Mr. Assange offered to talk to the Swedish prosecutor, now at the embassy of Ecuador, where he has asked for asylum.
The prosecutor, Ms. Ny has at all different occasions neglected or rejected Mr. Assanges proposals.

Between August 13, and August 16 Mr. Assange had consensual sex with two different women.

On August 20, 2010, the two women went to a local police station in Stockholm in order to urge Mr. Assange to undergo an HIV-test. At that point the police choosed to start an investigation about rape, without the consent of the two women.

On the same day a prosecutor decided to issue an arrest warrant for Mr. Assange. At the time the newspaper Expressen, headlined a front page article “Assange accused of rape”.

The next day another prosecutor decided that there was no reason for the warrant.

On August 30, interrogates Julian Assange for the first time by the Swedish police, and denies all allegations.

The day after the lawyer of the two women, Mr. Claes Borgström, who also was a former Swedish Ombudsman for equality, requested that the case should be reopened by the prosecutor in Gothenburg, Marianne Ny.

Julian Assange is now again accused of rape, molest, and sexual harassment.

Mr. Assange stayed in Sweden until September 27 for further questioning.

We are, like his lawyer, Mr. Baltasar Garzón, serious concerned, regarding the lack of safeguards and transparency with which actions are being taken against Julian Assange, and the harassment he is being subjected to which has irreparable effects on his physical and mental wellbeing.

The threats against his person are further aggravated by the complicit behavior of the Swedish governmental authorities. This has implied that Mr. Assanges civil rights, and his rights according to the European Convention have been violated.

Helene Bergman, journalist
Anders Carlgren, journalist

Helene Bergman has worked as a journalist for more than 40 years, mainly at the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation, which is the main public service company in Sweden. She co-founded and anchored the legendary Swedish feminist radio show, Radio Ellen.

http://khelenebergman.blogspot.de/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #144)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:14 PM

145. I don't need credentials to have an opinon.

And I don't have to march in lock step with every other woman/feminist on earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:10 PM

4. it's spy v spy, that's why

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:17 PM

93. How do you define the word "spy"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:13 PM

6. Read this:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1801343

Easy to read and makes a summary of what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:13 PM

7. Obviously he doesn't have shit about the banksters.

If he did, and he was the socialist hero he believes himself to be, he would have released the information.

I'll make a prediction. If Obama makes a statement that the U.S. has no interest in Assange -and I think Obama will make this statement after the election- then Assange will simply move on to the next leg of the conspiracy. He will then claim it's yet another elaborate trap and that he could be extradited to, say, Russia, and THEN extradited to the U.S.

The conspiracy only exists inside his head. Eventually even Ecuador will grow tired of him and push him out the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #7)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:25 PM

42. So you support big brother government and not a whistleblower?

Somehow I am not surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #42)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:31 PM

47. I fully support whistleblowers and I support Wikileaks.

What Assange did was to talk Manning into stealing classified documents and giving them to him. That's not whistle-blowing. It's not even investigative journalism.

It's theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #47)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:40 PM

52. How can you blow the whistle without stealing information?

You are trying to rationalize why you support the big brother government that wants to hide it's dirty little secrets FROM IT'S OWN CITIZENS by using "classification".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #52)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:44 PM

55. What part of 'support whistle blowing and Wikileaks' do you choose to not read?

Whistleblowing, IMO, is more about pointing out a specific instance of wrongdoing by the government, trying to work things out with one's superiors and then, when not making progress, to go public with the allegations.

This was not whistleblowing. This was stealing classified documents -millions of pages- and then dumping them into the public arena. It wasn't even investigative journalism.

Well, guess what? Some of those documents showed some misdeeds by our government. And I'm glad they were exposed. That has NOTHING to do with Assange being a class-A jerk and womanizer. IMO.

And some of those documents probably put a lot of good operations and people at risk. Assange didn't know if they did or not. He didn't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #55)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:05 PM

86. Good grief. Blowing the whistle involves breaking some rules, violating some

laws, otherwise you're just having high tea and playing patty-cake.

The government is guilty of hiding information that we deserve to know. They hide it by classifying it along with truly confidential information. If you know anything about security you will know this is a dangerous practice. Over classification causes a security problem. So if someone finds out that our government - let me interject here that they WORK FOR US - is hiding information from us that would prove they are violating our trust, what do you suggest they do??? Ask nicely if they can go thru the information and only expose some?

Some people dont like Assange because he revealed that our trust in our government may be misplaced. Therefore they will go to any lengths to discredit him. Like you calling him a class-A jerk and womanizer when you dont know those as facts. THen you go on to say "And some of those documents probably put a lot of good operations and people at risk." Good grief, "probably", based on what?

Why is it so important to you to discredit him? Did he rock your world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #86)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:11 PM

90. No. Truly, I just think it's an interesting case.

An example of how even Progressives can be subject to disconnection. It's either the Assange supporters or the ones who think poorly of him that are disconnected.

Either way, I stand to learn something about human nature (and myself) once some kind of resolution occurs.

If it ever gets to that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #90)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:32 PM

96. If in doubt I tend to side against "The Man".

By the way winning the war is meaningless if you dont maintain your ideals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #47)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:41 PM

97. Do you know of evidence that Assange "talked" Manning into providing the documents?

Assange was a publisher who accepted anonymous information on the internet and published it widely.

Judith Miller was told supposed secrets of the US and published them in the NY Times -- like Valery Plame's name. Even if others knew it before Judith Miller, she was the first to publish the information.

Journalists and newspapers print what they can get a hold of.

Our laws about classification need to be revisited. Some information should be kept secret, but our country has become a place in which the rich and powerful have secrets and the rest of us are expected to live without privacy even when we walk down the street.

Never has the invasion of privacy of ordinary people on the one hand and on the other the protection of the secrets of the rich and powerful been so pervasive in any society.

Neither the Russians nor the Germans nor even the North Koreans have the network for collecting personal information about citizens that we have. They may have had the will to collect it, but they did not have the computers to do it with.

Every library book we borrow, every internet site we visit, every electronic purchase we make, everywhere we take our cell phones -- all of that information is pretty readily available to the government. They can even find out the color of pajamas we put in our suitcases when we go on an airplane.

But we are not supposed to know what our troops have already done IN THE PAST in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iraqis and the Afghanis, the Pakistanis, all those there know what we have done. It's only we Americans who are to be kept ignorant about these things.

I know the accusations against Assange. I also believe that there is a lot of evidence that our government uses sexual humiliation as a psy-ops method. Abu Ghraib showed me that.

I do not know of any future military operations that Assange revealed publicly. I don't think he received any information on that.

Assange's "crime" is having embarrassed the US government. The rape charge is an allegation that the Swedish government already dismissed once. If the Swedish government really had the goods on Assange, they would probably leak it. That is what governments do, especially our government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #47)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:51 PM

98. Wow, just wow! Not only do you use unsubstantiated accusation about Assange's involvement

Last edited Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

with Bradley Manning, you also accuse Manning of theft (!) AND make him look like a simpleton who is not capable of having a will of his own. The only missing part is accusation of treason.
All in the same breath while you claim to support wistelblowers and Wikileaks. What is it exactly that you support bout Wikileaks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #7)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:28 PM

95. Assange doesn't have that info anymore. It was deleted by a turncoat,

former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #95)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:22 PM

111. Assange in February 2011 said the BoA stuff just wasn't interesting:

... Assange privately acknowledged the material was not self-explanatory and that he personally was unable to make much sense of it," the Reuters story Wednesday stated, citing the sources. "Assange indicated it would require a substantial amount of effort by financial experts to determine whether any of the material was newsworthy" ...


WikiLeaks: Assange doubts value of Bank of America e-mails
Rick Rothacker | Charlotte Observer
Posted on Friday, February 11, 2011
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/11/108626/wikileaks-assange-doubts-value.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #95)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:37 AM

121. More info here:

Wikileaks statement concerning Daniel Domschet-Berg

http://wlcentral.org/node/2171

BBC article about destruction of files on Wikileaks servers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14616899

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:26 PM

9. Assange is getting what he wants. Lots of attention.

He's making people in charge look foolish.

I think they should ignore him, ignore the embassy, and feign surprise when he shows up in some other country.

It's not like the fellow is going to disappear. He's too full of himself to remain invisible for long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:30 PM

10. Plus he's already so visible, it would be impossible to 'disappear' him.

Any more than, say, Tom Hanks could be 'disappeared'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:38 PM

12. UK protected Pinochet from extradition. Assange not charged w/any crime

Assange is NOT charged. The UK would hand him over to Sweden where there are no rape charges.
Sweden has no bail system, the trial would be in secret.

Julian has invited Sweden to question him in the UK and Sweden refused.

He has already answered allegations once and then Sweden dropped it, and he left Sweden.

Ironically the UK protected one of the world's worst war criminals , Pinochet from extradition, yet won't protect Julian from extradition to a country where there is no bail, trials are secret, and where Julian hasn't even been charged.

Do you know what Pinochet did? He had people dissappeared, tortured, murdered and had women raped by dogs.

Julian has not been charged with any crime.

Do you know of Karl Rove's relationship with Sweden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:06 PM

20. Nonsense.

Assange is NOT charged. The UK would hand him over to Sweden where there are no rape charges.


Time and again the question of Assange "not being charged" is raised. Well, that all depends on how you translate the term. If you mean that being charged is the same as being prosecuted, then the answer is that Mr Assange is NOT charged.

If, on the other hand, the term is meant as a mandatory prelude to being prosecuted, then yes, Mr Assange is charged. This does not mean that he WILL be prosecuted.

There is no such thing as being charged in Swedish law. There is however a formal step that must be taken before a prosecutor can _ as in the case of Mr Assange _ reguest a court to remand a person. This is the notification of a suspicion of crime. There are two levels of suspicion, reasonable and probable, the latter being the more serious level.

Mr Assange is "on probable grounds" a suspect of a crime that carries at least one year in prison (four years is usual for "standard rape" in Sweden) That is why the District Court of Stockholm remanded him (in absentia) and why the Svea Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador-embassy-live?mobile-redirect=false

Julian has invited Sweden to question him in the UK and Sweden refused.


This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.


http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #20)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:01 PM

82. Why do people keep cutting and pasting this dude?

He has contradicted himself to the point of absurdity, he is clearly writing from a very biased perspective, he doesn't seem to be reputable, or all that intelligent. I find it to be a bit suspicious that all of the sudden this sub-par article from a nobody writing for a no-name organization is being pasted *everywhere* with the expectation that it will be accepted as gospel, and actual discussion will be shut down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #82)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:08 PM

87. You've proven only you didn't read my post.

Congratulations!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #87)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:59 PM

109. Actually, I think you did not read my post.

Your post was a cut and paste which included a discredited portion of an article written by a not too bright author who makes up facts and contradicts himself. This article has now been cut and pasted to DU dozens of times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #109)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:53 PM

112. Someone besides me is quoting Dan Lucas?

The other guy, perhaps. But I don't think anyone else on DU has quoted the former UK correspondent for Dagens Nyheter but me.

I could be wrong. Don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #82)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:04 PM

113. "David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman"

Legal myths about the Assange extradition
A brief critical and source-based guide to some common misconceptions.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

I think people reference it because it's a useful summary with lots of informative links

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:40 PM

13. WikiLeaks' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us

WikiLeaks' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us
Wikileaks has shown that our government and military form a 'vast lying machine' that perpetrates mass murder in our name.
January 3, 2011


-- U.S. MURDER OF CIVILIANS:
-- REGULAR COVERUPS OF U.S. CIVILIAN MURDER:
-- U.S. AND A CORRUPT AFGHAN GOVERNMENT ARE ALIENATING AFGHAN CIVILIANS AND LOSING THE WAR:

http://www.alternet.org/story/149393/wikileaks'_most_terrifying_revelation%3A_just_how_much_our_government_lies_to_us

=================================================
5 more WikiLeaks Revelations Exposing the Rapidly Growing Corporatism Dominating American Diplomacy Abroad
One of WikiLeaks' greatest achievements has been to expose the exorbitant amount of influence that multinational corporations have over Washington's diplomacy.
June 21, 2011

"...From mining companies in Peru to pharmaceutical companies in Ecuador, one WikiLeaks embassy cable after the next illuminates a pattern of US diplomats shilling for corporate interests abroad in the most underhanded and sleazy ways imaginable...."

‎7. US officials work as salespeople for Boeing.
8 US diplomats by day — Monsanto henchmen by night.
9. Pharmaceuticals + US diplomats = best friends forever.
10. Washington 'hearts' abusive mining companies in Peru.
11. Diplomats as corporate spies

http://www.alternet.org/story/151370/5_wikileaks_revelations_exposing_the_rapidly_growing_corporatism_dominating_american_diplomacy_abroad/


=================================================

5 WikiLeaks Hits of 2011 That Are Turning the World on Its Head -- And That the Media Are Ignoring
June 7, 2011
Is 2011 capable of exceeding 2010's revelations? And what discoveries in 2011 has WikiLeaks unearthed thus far

1. Arab Spring: The Tunisians were 1st in Arab world to oust a leader in a generation.
2. WikiLeaks released Guantanamo Files..showing an oppressive detention system riddled w/ incoherence & cruelty at every stage.
3. US allies are among the leading funders of international terrorism.
4. World leaders are practically lighting a fire under the Arctic.
5. US would let Haitians starve to protect US corp. interests.

http://www.alternet.org/world/151232/5_wikileaks_hits_of_2011_that_are_turning_the_world_on_its_head_--_and_that_the_media_are_ignoring/

===================================================

WikiLeaks: Israel Plans Total War on Lebanon, Gaza
The Israeli military is planning out massive bombings of areas full of innocent civilians.
January 3, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/world/149387/wikileaks%3A_israel_plans_total_war_on_lebanon,_gaza

==================================================

7 Shocking WikiLeaks Revelations
Round 1 of Cablegate, Julian Assange's big reveal.
November 29, 2010 |

1. We’ve been secretly bombing Yemen.

2. U.S. uses diplomats as spies. Speaking of Clinton... she ordered diplomats to spy on government officials at the UN, gathering such info as credit card and frequent flyer numbers, computer passwords...and DNA

3. U.S. uses Guantanamo Bay prisoners as bargaining chips.

4. China’s been hacking our systems since 2002.

5. Afghanistan is corruption Disneyland. OK, no big surprise there, but it is interesting that Ahmad Zia Massoud was caught traveling to the UAE with $52 million in cash. After being detained by the DEA, he "was ultimately allowed to keep
6. Iran might have long-range missiles. Practically the entire Middle East has urged the U.S

7. Putin and Berlusconi's close relationship causes alarm. "Alpha dog" Vladimir Putin and Italian partier/prime-minister Silvio Berlusconi have forged a close relationship, potentially involving shady business deals.

http://www.alternet.org/world/149015/7_shocking_wikileaks_revelations/



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:48 PM

15. And what changed because of this? Anything?

I can tell you I don't feel 'terrified' to know that politicians lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #15)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:23 PM

25. the Tunisian revolution

I have seen convincing arguments that a Wikileak deserves credit for that, a cable that detailed the corruption of the ruling family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #25)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:30 PM

27. Maybe so but did that affect the U.S.?

Enough to plan some elaborate more-than-two-year process to 'get' Assange? I don't see that it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:43 PM

40. You don't seem to remember...

the rabid right-wing calling for Assange to receive the death penalty. What motivated this? Even Feinstein and Biden were calling for his prosecution for espionage, without, apparently, any legal basis for doing so. Even the White House, several days ago, admitted that there is still an ongoing investigation of Assange himself, but the likelihood of him being prosecuted is receding. That is, until the next big revelation by Wikileaks.

These are very real threats and your attempts to downplay them don't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #40)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:34 PM

48. Really? Pontificating policians are now to be believed?

Blowing hot air to see which of them can appear tougher on matters of national security? It's nonsense.

Even if they are to be believed, there is no evidence that the U.S. has spent the past 2 years setting up some elaborate scheme to get Assange to be very publicly embarrassed by his actions.

None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #48)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:42 PM

53. No, but the point is...


he faces possible prosecution for espionage:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8508517/WikiLeaks-grand-jury-hearing-opens-in-US.html

The FBI has ordered a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts to testify at a grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, who faces the possibility of being charged with espionage in the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #53)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:48 PM

58. That was more than a year ago.

Assange ran out of Sweden two years ago, before the grand jury was convened. And has the grand jury finished its investigation by now? Have any charges or arrest warrants been issued?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #58)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:52 PM

59. According to this Reuter's article...

less than a week old:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-wikileaks-assange-usa-idUSBRE87L12W20120822

Assange made it more difficult for Washington to abandon what officials acknowledge is a continuing U.S. probe of Assange and WikiLeaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #59)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:58 PM

60. The first link you provided was written in May, 2011.

And the next link says:

U.S. and European government sources say the United States has issued no criminal charges against the WikiLeaks founder and has launched no attempt to extradite him.


So what's the problem? Why did he run from Sweden 2 years ago before either of these was an issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #60)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:19 PM

64. I can't read his mind, but...


some the emails intercepted from Stratfor indicate that there was a possibility of prosecution for espionage if Wikileaks released a certain insurance document. Also there was an email claiming evidence of a sealed indictment against Assange, which officials would not acknowledge publically by virtue of it being sealed.

These emails were written in 2011 and subsequently released, but one can only speculate about the sum total that Assange is aware of.

I'm not going to vouch for his character, and he may have had selfish reasons for fleeing Sweden. I'm mainly interested in defending Ecuador's statement that he has valid concerns about being prosecuted in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:26 PM

44. I appologize. My statement wasnt polite. I have periods of frustration. nm

Last edited Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:30 PM

45. Ha! I agree only with the evidence as I see it.

Accusations of one's motivations do not belong on a Progressive board, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #45)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:44 PM

54. And some would argue that conservatives shouldnt be allowed on progressive boards

but I disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #54)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:45 PM

56. Ouch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #56)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:44 PM

73. I again appologize. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #73)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:53 PM

77. Wow. That was impressive. No snark intended.

Never a problem. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:13 PM

62. Seems that someone doesn't like you :)

I was juror #1:

At Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:42 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Seems you agree with the RW on this. nm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1206076

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling someone a rightwinger (repeatedly) because they disagree on this case isn't a very progressive thing to do.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:55 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Fishing for a reason to lock someone out of discussion? Looks that way too me. Not a very progressive thing to do, is it?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: He didn't call you a right winger. He said you agree with the right wing on this.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Saying his or her position is in agreement with the right wing is simply stating the obvious. Are we supposed to pretend we don't see it to appease right wing apologists?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #62)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:16 PM

92. Well I was wrong. I should be able to stand up to the conservatives

here in DU w/o getting snarky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #92)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:51 PM

107. Nah, nothing wrong with good snark once in a while. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #107)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:10 PM

116. Yes I agree. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #15)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:58 PM

141. So much, where should we begin? Iceland? Wikileaks exposure of

the corruption in Iceland's largest Bank, helped the people of Iceland understand why their country's economy was so destroyed, it enabled them to take over the bank, arrest the crooks, throw out their government who enabled the corruption and arrest them also. And most of all, helped them start the recovery which made them the only country that was part of the global meltdown to recover from it.

Similar results of these revelations have occurred worldwide. India, eg. Exposure of the buying of votes in a special election awakened the people to the fact that their democracy was in grave danger and to start doing something about it. Nearly brought down the Indian Government and exposed interference in their democracy by Washington DC.

Tunisia, confirmed the suspicions of the people as to the corruption of the Ben Ami regime and made it clear that it was way past time to get rid of that regime.

Shall I go on? Do not assume that because the MSM here never covered any of the results around the world of these leaks, that there were none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:43 PM

32. My favorite part of this: Wikileaks unearthed that the Tunisians were 1st in arab world to oust

a leader in an entire generation!

Way to gooooo Wikileaks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:56 PM

99. Note that all of these "leaks" are about past events.

Why should events that happened in the past be secret.

None of them contain information that is secret, i.e., that is not known to anyone.

I have read books about espionage. Espionage focuses on finding future plans and on placing spies where they can get strategically important information of military value for future military operations.

The Wikileaks information I read was not about planned or even very recent troop movements. The closest I saw to anything that real spies would be interested in would already be known to our enemies.

That does not mean that the actual person who had access to the files, promised not to divulge it but did anyway will not be punished. He or she probably will and probably knew when he or she did it precisely what would happen if the information was divulged.

Spies don't print the information they gather on the internet. They sell it for money or divulge it to benefit a cause.

Assange was not targeting the US. He divulged information about injustice and wrongdoing in many nations including, I believe, Kenya before someone gave him U.S. information.

Assange was not a spy. And our press is remiss if they receive information and feel obliged to clear whether they should publish it or not with the government. That process does not comply with the First Amendment's statement that freedom of the press shall not be abridged.

Loyalty must be earned. That does not make disloyalty legal. But we tend to be more loyal to employers who treat us fairly, listen to our criticisms and appreciate our work and input. The US needs to treat its soldiers better than it does. Loyalty is earned.

Same as in a relationship. Loyalty and trust are earned. And a person should be very careful to make sure that a person with whom they enter into a relationship can be trusted.

I am not blaming women who are raped, but caution is always wise when you allow someone of the opposite sex to spend the night with you. Same for men. Women can make false accusations. So can men.

And yes, I do believe that date rape happens. I know someone to which it happened. It is a horrible thing. The person I knew did not have breakfast with her rapist the morning after. Some of the facts in the Assange case are undisputed thus far but inconsistent with rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:50 PM

16. I think he's a creep

Who performed a potentially great public service. I believe the rape charges to be true as far as what I can read, and I also believe he didn't show concern over the protection his sources would need in certain cases, which is more than disturbing, given the nature of what he does.

People are defending Assange because of what he stood for, the right for the public to know. I understand he's an egotist, not the worlds nicest guy, but he stood up and did something at a time when much of what we we had were rumors and denials. Much of what was released didn't make a difference but a few things did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:02 PM

19. i agree, i haven't waded off into the assange business here until today

i was reading in another thread that wikileaks published what they thought were steve jobs' medical records. if that is true it is beyond disgusting and unbelievable that anyone could admire such a person. the responses to the thread from assange's supporters don't even address the shear crappiness of that. would they like their medical records posted on the internet? seriously, where does the general public get the right to look at anyone's medical records?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:16 PM

23. Personally I doubt they got those records

the reason is how secure patient records are.

True story, due to HIPA we cannot get info on the status of somebody injured at a car crash. I am dead serious. We cannot get a straight answer about a snake bite victim, and I include the very general area where that byte occurred, not where on the patient. I am dead serious. That release, I suspect that there is more to that story than meets the eye.

In fact, some of this is so bad that in a major disaster, think quake... with missing people, it will be an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:31 PM

28. apparently they turned out to be fake

which is really beside the point. if you are releasing what you think are someone's medical records you are one sorry pos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #28)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:42 PM

30. Let me offer you a possibility here

well within the technical capabilities of several intel agencies. What if you were penetrated by a worm or what have you, and it was released in your name?

Just throwing it out there.

A lot of this reads like a bad B spy movie, but only because reality is actually weirder than whatever we can write.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #30)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:50 PM

34. no wikileaks released what they thought were steve job's medical records

they do not deny this. if some intel agency slipped this to them to discredit them they certainly took the bait and released what they thought were results of a steve job's hiv test. f'n disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #34)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:04 PM

36. Yeah but the problem we have is the series of honey pots

involving this. It's to the point that I really do not know what is a real release and what is not.

As I said, cheap B style spy movie comes to mind. To be truthful, I wrote a screen play (before wiki leaks), with all the details we have seen... I would not be able to sell it... for lack of credibility. I mean, it strains it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #36)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:24 PM

37. unless the cia hypnotized them and made them proudly release what they

thought were a private citizen's hiv test results then any government subterfuge is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #37)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:29 PM

38. I do not remeber them being proud of it

more like see, this was hidden too.

I have a problem with them releasing patient data, but what they were doing is more the... see this is how far corporations go to hide stuff. They missed the problems with HIPA, it is not Jobs, it is everybody. That was a lack of understanding US policies and laws, and foreigners have issues with that one actually regularly. We have some really particular laws when it comes to privacy.

But hey, my interpretation of the whole Julian Assange saga is that at this point his life is over, and multiple governments have been embarrassed. It revealed a lot about the international order and quite frankly, how much misgovernment protect corporations.

We are, imho, at the end of the nation state and the beginning of the dominance of the new corporate order. That by the way was the big picture note Assange made at one point, and he was not prescient. I will give that to the writers of cyberpunk back in the 1980s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #38)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:02 PM

100. You are probably right.

The end of the nation state and the beginning of the corporate world order. In fact, I think we are already there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:48 PM

57. Wikileaks DID leak that, and it turned out, it was fake.

http://gawker.com/5847341/wikileaks-honors-steve-jobs-with-fake-hiv-report


I am guessing Assange had more than a bit of animus for Jobs, and/or has animus towards APPLE:


Just minutes after news broke that Steve Jobs had died, Wikileaks tweeted a link to "purported Steve Jobs medical records." The link goes to a torrent file for a couple images of test results from a company called SxCheck which supposedly show Steve Jobs tested positive for HIV in 2004. They're obvious fakes—most obviously because SxCheck wasn't even founded until 2006—and even Wikileaks concludes "the images should not be taken at face value."

A lot of people thought these were newly leaked. In fact, Wikileaks posted the documents in 2008, and they've been fueling conspiracy theories about Apple and Steve Jobs ever since.


Outrage ensued, among Wikileaks' geeky supporters: "Minutes after Steve Jobs death announcement, @wikileaks tweeted link to unverified report that he had HIV. #stayclassy" wrote Twitter user Student Activism.

It is pretty awful to publicize a guy's fake HIV test right after he died! Instead, why not check out some real private documents we've got on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: Here are his creepy love emails and a picture of a broken condom from his Swedish rape investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:13 PM

22. IT stopped being about Julian Assange a while ago

and became part of global politics, south vs north, BRIC, versus non-BRIC, and all the games that go with it.

In fact, in some ways Julian Assange has become a pawn in a game between power blocks at a global level.

Oh and get settled in, will last a few years I suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:37 PM

29. If you think you are confused now...

There is a picture of one of the women standing right next to Assange at a party. It looks like they are side hugging. It was taken about 48 hours after the incident. The woman's face is blurred out, but she doesn't appear to be uncomfortable in any way. Neither woman was trying to get rape charges. The police questioned him and said he was free to go. Sometime later they police charged him and wanted him back. I dunno where he was at that point. Both women say they will refuse to cooperate. The condom that is evidence lacks any DNA, no word on whether or not the condom even appears to have been used.

The story has bigger holes in it than a split condom. I am very suspicious of the timing. I don't think either woman is lying. I think the Swedish government is lying. I don't think if he had been some regular guy say a construction worker that any of this would be happening. Would there really be an international incident over the whole thing. Nope, so why is it so important to everyone that this guy gets what is coming to him? That is suspicious to me as well. The evidence is less than stellar, the witnesses uncooperative, and several governments are involved. If only all suspected rapes were treated this way, we could perhaps wipe out the crime altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:42 PM

31. +1!

This discussion has two bad assumptions - that the allegations are true at all, and that Sweden will be honest when dealing with Assange.

I'd agree with the idea of Assange going to Sweden to straighten this out, and I'll bet Assange himself would too, if Sweden was dealing honestly, and not using this case as an excuse to throw him in a very deep hole for political reasons. I don't trust the Swedish government, and Assange would be crazy to trust them to handle this case honestly, when it's abundantly clear that the reasons they're interested in this case isn't about those women at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:48 PM

33. This is exactly the misogynistic shit I was speaking of.

Assuming that all rape victims act a certain way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:33 PM

39. I am not assuming anything.

I am saying this is how she acted. This is what the photo shows. I don't think all rape victims act a certain way. But, if this goes to jury do you really think that won't have an impact and by impact I mean a negative one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:31 PM

46. What assumptions would they be?


I can't see anything particularly substantive being said about the alleged victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:37 PM

51. Kalidurga's post is misogynistic? Say what??

S/he makes no assumptions - the post simply states a fact. If you've ever attended a rape trial, showing a pic of the involved people at a party is the least alarming part of the process trust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:16 PM

63. I believe it is misogynistic to assume that women, unlike men, can never be wrong.

That is putting women in a 'special and protected' category which they have fought so hard to get out of.

The facts are that women are capable of doing everything men are capable of doing, the good and the bad. They DO lie, just like men, they DO murder, just like men, they DO steal just like men.

And because rational people know this, they do not jump to the conclusion that just because a woman makes an allegation, there is no need for a trial. That is sexist beyond belief and puts women in a protected category that endangers their status and most importantly our entire system of justice. It is a dangerous notion, creating a false image of women to be used, once again, as mere tools by unscrupulous individuals.

A crime has been alleged. The anti-Wikileaks contingency has been attempting to use the fact that anyone who dares to ask from evidence to back up the allegations, is anti-women, or rape apologists or groupies without ever addressing the facts of the case. They never deal with the evidence.

Here is one fact you don't see coming from the anti-Wikileaks crowd. The women's own attorney has stated that this 'case is weak' and has acknowledged, contrary to false claims about Assange leaving Sweden, that 'Assange was free to leave Sweden, he was under no obligation to stay as he was not charged with a crime'.

Yet the lies persist. I have read the evidence that has so far been made public. And I agree with the women's attorney, it will be very difficult to get a conviction in this case in a fair trial. There are so many contradictions, by one of the women especially, three different stories since this began, eg.

So no, it is not misogyny to ask for proof when someone is accused of such serious crimes.

It is the right thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #63)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:48 PM

74. It IS misogynist to assume that...

...just because somebody acts friendly towards somebody who raped them doesn't mean it "wasn't really rape". In cases in which the victim personally knows the rapist ("acquaintance rape"), which are the majority of cases, the victim often has mixed emotions towards the rapist because of common assumptions of rape involving a guy grabbing women off the street. the victim often second-guesses herself and blames herself for getting into a stupid situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #74)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:01 PM

81. This is not the reason for the doubts about these women's testimony. The doubts arise from

evidence already known including some forensic evidence which is very damaging to the prosecution's case.

There is also, entered into evidence and seen by the defense, acknowledged by the prosecution, messages between the women joking about 'making money from this' and 'destroying his reputation by going to the tabloids'.

There is also the fact that one of the women changed her testimony three different times making it difficult for the prosecution to decide which version to use. Needless to say the Defense wants to know why the story changed so often.

Not to mention the online material on the women's blogs which I actually saw at the beginning of this case before it was scrubbed, which also raises serious questions about motive.

Rape victims tend to remember the actual rape, even if they continue to be friendly to the rapist. As Naomi Wolf and other womens rights activists have pointed out regarding this case, including the whole handling of it as a sex case, there are some serious questions as to the validity of the allegations. A fact SHE and other women's rights organizations have grave concerns over as every false allegation of rape, weakens the seriousness of the crime against women.

Their own attorney has acknowledged the weakness of the case and has refused to respond to questions regarding the contradictory elements saying only he has 'tactics' he will use to deal with it.

It IS sexist to simply assume that women in general are such shrinking violets they could never do anything wrong and therefore should never be questioned but rather protected from the big bad world only men are capable of handling. I hate that depiction of women, it is false and sexist and an insult to women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #81)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:10 AM

124. Once...

A woman I had a one night stand with touched my dick while I was sleeping.

While it IS true that we had sex the night before, I never gave her permission to touch my dick while I was sleeping.

I woke up with her hand on me. Against my will, I got an erection. She climbed on top of me and we had sex even though I wasn't sure I wanted to and tried to tell her I was tired.

The next day I tried to act like nothing was wrong, but after speaking to my friends, they assured me that it was sexual abuse since I had not given consent while I was asleep.

I am still wondering whether to call the police. It is complicated sometimes and when I saw her next, I put on a fake smile and pretended like everything was okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #124)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 07:56 AM

127. I've had

 

a drunken gay man touch my crotch, which led to erection, but he stopped when I clearly expressed I was not interested. So I don't consider that abuse. Sexual initiatives are difficult to make for many if not most of us, our body and mind does not always act in unison so we are difficult to interpret, and the one who makes the initiative is entitled to clear expression of 'no' if and when the initiative is consciously rejected.

I do enjoy feeling wanted when woman makes the initiative, also while asleep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #127)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 08:08 AM

128. Yes, but the question is...

If you had let him keep touching your crotch until you were "finished" and then later decided that he hadn't asked you BEFORE touching you, would you then be able to claim that you were sexually abused at the point at which he first touched you without permission?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #128)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 09:09 AM

131. It becomes abuse or rape

 

only after if he or she continues after being made aware of 'no'. Or if you are not in position to say no (drugged unconscious, threatened, blackmailed etc.). In both cases, yours and SW's, you woke up in to full consciousness from sleep or slumber to the to the sexual initiative and had opportunity to reject the initiative, but chose not to. So the maker of the initiative had no reason to suspect or believe that the initiative was unwanted or rejected at the time - potential post-fact future regrets are immaterial. Court that decides the case makes it's decision after hearing both sides and inquiring the states of minds of both sides, not just the accuser. For crime to happen the court has to establish that there was also criminal intent (not taking no for answer or denying the ability to say no) on the side of the accused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #63)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:12 PM

102. I agree with you, sabrina 1.

It is unfair, but women who live alone have to be very careful about who they invite to their home. Unless rape is violent or there is some other very clear evidence that rape occurred, the accused, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt. That is the same whether the accusation is rape or shop-lifting or murder or whatever. The crime in the US has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I read a scholarly paper on Swedish law that stated that is the standard of proof in Sweden also.

The charges against Assange would be nearly impossible to prove. Like it or not, that is the reality. It is not a question of misogyny or believing men more than women. It is just the law regarding the burden of proof in criminal cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #63)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:15 PM

117. Well put. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:24 PM

66. I think a good starting point for a rape victim is them saying "i was raped"

If the "victims" themselves dont think they were raped, then...


Well, shit, im sure i'll be accused of "misogyny" so i better shut up, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #66)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:50 PM

75. I don't know what sources to believe.

Some sources say that the women claim to have been raped, and some sources say the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #75)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:52 PM

76. The whole story is weird.

It woud be far simpler if he could deal directly with the swedish situation free of implication that he could be hustled off to Gitmo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #76)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:00 PM

80. The Swedes just need to promise that they don't rendition him to the US.

That they refuse to makes me suspicious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #80)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:02 PM

84. Exactly.

I dont buy the assertion that such a thing is impossible. If it was that important, they would find a way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #80)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:16 PM

103. they can't make such a promise since it would go against international law

that require each extradition request to be judged on its merits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #103)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:56 PM

108. International law is guided by the specific treaty between the US and Sweden...

but in this case, due to the Extradition for Criminal Offences Act:

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435

"Extradition may not be granted for military or political offenses."

Sweden does not need to make a blanket promise with respect to Assange, it only needs to affirm that he would not be extradited in the case of military or political offense.

Sweden could make such a promise, then if and when the extradition request occurs it could still consider the request based on its merits, but then decide, based on the above law, not to grant the request.

I don't believe International Law governs the making of promises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #108)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:57 PM

115. why request a promise for something that goes against the treaty by its own words?

and while i forgot to add it above I'll add it again here

A promise by the Swedish government would be worthless legally since the request would be decided by an independent Swedish court(and i don't much favor the government interfering in the courts dealings)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #115)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:25 AM

118. I'm not an expert...

but I don't believe there is anything in the treaty with the US that would invalidate the Extradition for Criminal Offenses Act, so it could still be utilized.

There are experts, however, who argue that the supreme power in making the decision is with the government, not the Swedish Court:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1205347

and the conclusion drawn by David Allen Green is incorrect.

In this case, the decision should be left up to diplomats who can work to smooth over the international rift being caused, and the Swedish courts can stay out of the international politics and just focus on the rape case against Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #118)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:40 AM

125. Here's an update to my response above...

Glenn Greenwald has been in a debate with a Dr. Klamberg over this very issue, and Greenwald also has the backing of a Prof. Heller (Klamberg and Heller both being legal experts in Sweden).

Klamberg's latest blog post is here:

http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2012/08/sequencing-and-discretion-of-government.html

In my previous post I described how the Swedish extradition procedure works and its sequence. I explained that prior to the evaluation and decision of the Government the law provides that 1) the Prosecutor-General shall deliver a statement of opinion on the matter and 2) the Supreme Court shall rule on the matter. I wrote that the Government is the final body to approve an extradition request and it may deny a request even if it has been approved by the Supreme Court, but I did not go into the question of the discretion of the Government when there is an extradition agreement. Glenn Greenwald cited parts of my post on the Guardian website on this matter.

The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers.


My problem with Klamberg's argument is that he is approaching this from a purely legal, and not a diplomatic, point of view. What if Sweden were to give Ecuador non-legally binding, yet very public, assurances that it will follow the letter of its own law and, in the case of an extradition request for military or political reasons it will refuse extradition to the US?

Klamberg goes on to postulate:

Or is Greenwald arguing that the Swedish Supreme Court should give an advisory opinion in advance of a non-existing request? There is no legal basis for such advisory opinions. The reversed sequence of processing a (non-existing) extradition request that Assange, Ecuador and Greenwald is asking for would be in conflict with the Extradition Act and possibly even with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Swedish constitution. My reasoning is similar to professor Ove Bring who has been interviewed by Dagens Nyheter.


Again, there should be no reason that the government could not provide assurances to Ecuador ahead of time, but still go through the required legal process of evaluating the extradition request through the courts, when it occurs. Why not?

Klamberg goes on to say this about international law:

To summarize, if there is an extradition treaty the Government is bound by an international obligation to extradite and it is only for legally sound reasons that it may refuse. An extradition treaty limits in a considerable way the discretion of the Government to deviate from the ruling of the Supreme Court. Without an actual request it is difficult to legally asses the exact discretion and whether the Government can exercise such discretion.


But in this section of his blog post, he seems to be completely ignoring the fact that if there is an extradition request for prosecution in an espionage (or even military) case then it would indeed be in conflict with Swedish law and both the courts and the government, in its discretion, should have a sound reason to refuse it. What am I missing here?








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #115)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 11:28 AM

139. You are wrong about the court's role.

The court decides whether or not extradition CAN occur:

-- If the court decides that extradition cannot occur, then that is the deciding factor and the government cannot extradite the person.

-- If the court decides that extradition can occur, that means the government is permitted to extradite the person. It does not, however, mean that the government must extradite the person. The government can still decide not to extradite, based on their own considerations.

Of course there is international law based on treaties the government has signed. But that is a different point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #103)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 11:09 AM

137. What international law would it violate?

Can you be specific?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #76)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:02 PM

85. I'm sure everyone accused of a crime would like a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card for any other crimes.

Assange should not be treated any differently from anyone else. He should have let the Swedish system run its course. And it did when both the arrest warrant and extradition request were ruled valid after several appeals.

But then he skipped bail and ran to Ecuador and now we have this great kerfuffle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #85)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:08 PM

88. So, then, the RULES are the RULES, right?

Okay, well, according to the RULES, Ecuador has granted him Asylum.

So, im sure the people who have a hard on to make sure Assange gets punished for making the US Military look bad faces the fully legitimate charges he may or may not be charged with in Sweden, understand that the same international RULES that say Sweden has to - HAS to! - hand him over to the US, ALSO say that Ecuador has granted him asylum, so tough shit, where he is now you can't touch him.

Those are THE RULES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #88)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:13 PM

91. I don't think Sweden has to do shit.

They can flip us off if they want. And if I were a diplomat in Sweden, that's exactly what I would do -tell the U.S. to fuck off. But there is no evidence that the U.S. wants him.

I'm not 'after' Assange. I think his 15 minutes of fame are up and I wish he would face his accusers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #91)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:19 PM

94. I can understand his hesitation, though.

But I agree that the simplest and morally clear course for everyone would be for him to deal with the Swedish situation directly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 10:58 AM

135. Misogynistic?

That is a very bizarre and rude comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:07 PM

101. And Bush and Cheney enjoy their retirement although they started the War in Iraq on a pretext

and were so lax in regulating Wall Street and the mortgage industry that the world's economy fell apart.

I don't know what the statute of limitations is in Sweden but I have been wondering whether, if this case is so important to Sweden that is spending who knows how much money to fight it, why didn't they just wait for Assange to come and speak to a convention in Sweden (as he did when the events behind the allegations took place) and question and charge him while he was in the country?

What is with all this drama? It seems way overdramatic. I think it was designed to stop not only Wikileaks but anyone with the idea of publishing anything controversial (beyond opinion) without corporate/government approval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:56 PM

35. I've given up trying to figure Assange out.

But I still approve of Wikileaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:34 PM

49. It doesn't matter. You can't do anything about it. Best to put your energy

into things that matter in your daily life, and that you have some control over. Like voting, health care, Medicare, Social Security, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:35 PM

50. it is not mysogyny to say there is no rape charge

The allegations are "sex by surprise." Two women dating Assange continued to date, party and live with Assange after the "sex by surprise" until they found out about each other. They went to the police concerned about testing for STDs, not about charging him with any crime.

Assange was questioned in Sweden and released, free to leave the country, with allegations dropped. It wasn't until he went to the UK that the allegations re-appeared. Sweden is welcome to question him in the UK. They are the ones refusing to go to the UK to question him.

How many other times have you seen Interpol involved in "sex by surprise" due to a broken condom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #50)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:00 PM

61. No, it's stupidity.

The European Arrest Warrant specified "rape". The charge is "rape". The actions he's accused of constitute rape under Swedish and British law. Saying "no, it's not rape" is the same thing as saying "hello, I am a moron and have no idea what I am talking about".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #61)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:51 PM

119. way to have a civil conversation, win contempt and influence nobody

I may be stupid and a moron, but you are a vile asshole.

Welcome to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:20 PM

65. I don't blame you. Which is what I've been trying to explain -

this issue is a lot more complicated than many here try to paint it. Indeed, more so that Assange himself has tried to paint it.

One thing that everyone should realize - many of the people that we consider "heroes" are only human and may be assholes in person. I learned that lesson in college.

As far as Wikileaks is concerned, much of the actual work was done by Assange's associates and not by Assange himself. Further, although Assange portrayed himself as a "journalist" he was not. The Wikileaks posts were simply posted without context or analysis. A true whistleblower supplies context first, and uses leaked evidence to support that context.

OTOH, it could be argued that Wikileaks simply posted the evidence and allowed the viewer to draw their own conclusions and context. But even so, without context we are not getting the whole story. Even so, reports are that Assange frequently disagreed with his own staff.

BUT, regardless of his work that may or may not be considered heroic, the rape charges should be considered separately. And, his reaction to them is very telling.

If you are familiar with the charges, the very idea that he was "setup" is ridiculous. As many here have pointed out, the 2 women involved did not want him charged with rape. If either or both were CIA plants, they would have insisted on it. Instead they wanted him checked for HIV and presented circumstances that the vast majority of DUers have characterized as rape when presented as a hypothetical.

Assange then sought asylum to avoid facing these charges by claiming that he was being "set-up" in order to be extradited to the US. He sought guarantees from the Swedish government not to be extradited to the US. However, there are no charges against him in the US. Sweden does have guarding against extradition for political charges. However, since the US has charged ANYTHING as yet, they do not know if any "future charges" would be political or otherwise. Basically, he played them.

Basically, this follows the impression that I have developed of Assange over the long term. Although I am the first to admit that I could be wrong, his actions over the long term convinces me that he is a ego-maniacal asshole that is playing the system for his own personal benefit.

As for WikiLeaks, he may have been instrumental in starting it, but the "good' they have done happened in spite of him. I also believe that WikiLeaks has done some unnecessary damage, in addition to the good they have done. But that's for another thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #65)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:33 PM

69. I disagree with the latter parts of your post....


the CIA may have simply been interested in extracting intelligence, after all, that's what they do. "Setting him up" may serve Karl Rove's interests, but the Bush Admin is no longer in charge.

Also, if he is simply "playing Sweden" to get out of a rape charge, why is Ecuador and other SA nations backing him up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:26 PM

67. Lol... Misogynists

Good lord

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:30 PM

68. I don't give a shit what he did at this point...

 

The common good prevails from him being allowed to do his work.

And I worry more about the common good than a broken condom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:36 PM

70. rape is rape

 

is rape is rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:38 PM

71. Believe only the facts that can be verified.

The manipulation of mass public thinking is very much there. I personally don't want to throw stones at anyone first and find out that they were set up for a witch hunt and burning before all the facts are on the table. I don't think our government wants that because those facts will reveal what we have been doing in the Middle East and they will be very damning. That is why they are taking the low road and hyping up the sex scandal with Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:55 PM

78. at this time I stand with Assange

I may not know for certain what is going on. But I do know for certain that something ain't right with the story.

I will stand by him until I am convinced otherwise.

I would also have to wonder if some of those that try to stir shit are just that; shit stirrers. There does seem to be some effort to discredit him and any support. That only makes me stand firmer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:00 PM

79. And that is how they want you to feel.

Masters of psych ops. Whoever they are. Personally, I am a woman and I stand with Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:01 PM

83. Join the club.

Welcome to the world where little is black and white.

It would be so much easier if things were always nice and clear cut.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:30 PM

114. Right there with you, buddy

The way I figure it is that although the charges against Assange are serious, there is no way two separate jurisdictions would chase him into the Ecuadorian embassy and no way my own government would risk an international incident by threatening to storm the embassy, all over some questionable sexual charges. We (the British) didn't make this much fuss over Gary Glitter (pop icon who was outed as a paedophile) or Pinochet. No way is this all about Assange's sexual escapades, serious as they may be. This is because Assange is inconvenient to the PtB.

Now, as I understand the situation, there are questions about Assange's sex life and he needs to answer those but Assange answered those questions in Sweden and Sweden said they weren't pursuing the case. Then, after he left Sweden, they decided to pursue it and Assange offered to answer the questions in England but Sweden declined. I'm not saying Assange is whiter-than-white. I'm sure he has as many skeletons in his closet as anyone and, depending on the truth of those charges, maybe more than most but he's being chased because he's inconvenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #114)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:56 AM

122. That's pretty much it.

There's no way the US, UK or Sweden would have pursued those allegations as far as they did, all the way to threatening to violate the sovereignty of Equador's embassy by storming it, if all this was about was a broken condom, or whether a woman did or did not give consent. Assange embarrassed and implicated the powerful, therefore, the powerful have decreed that Assange must be put into a deep, dark hole by any means necessary.

The authoritarian apologists keep demanding that Assange be taken to justice in Sweden. There is no justice waiting for him in Sweden. Only a deep dark hole of injustice. The power-elites there, and in the US and UK, have already pre-ordained Assange's fate. They want Assange in a hole, and they will put him in a hole if they ever get their blood-soaked hands on him. They don't give a fuck about the women involved - they're just using them as pawns to get what they really want - revenge for Wikileaks and an example to show to anyone else who would dare follow him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #122)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 11:57 AM

140. The words of U.S. government officials make things quite clear.

"I personally authorised a number of things last week and that's an indication of the seriousness with which we take this matter and the highest level of involvement at the department of justice. I don't want to get into what our capabilities are. We are looking at all the things we can do to try to stem the flow of this information."

Those are the words of Eric Holder, but when one considers the history of the U.S. government, it can be logically assumed that similar efforts are being undertaken in other agencies, like the CIA, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:57 PM

120. "right after he threatened to publish some stuff that would make the Banksters look bad"

That is my biggest problem with him. It became about him. He is a seriously flawed man. Wish he would just go into the background and let wiki get on with it but he ego is too big for that. Assange does not equal wiki.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 10:38 AM

132. The actions of the governments involved make no sense in historical context

Put Assange and the charges to the side for a moment, focus on the behavior of the governments, and then reconsider the accusations in that context and ask yourself "does this chain of events make sense in this situation?".

Not should they either but DO they based on track record? I would argue that something stinks to high heaven.

Emotional reaction to the accusation is distorting logic here, it seems to me. Big picture what is going on doesn't jibe even if Assange was guilty as sin and that is without drilling down on the accusations themselves.

Threatening to storm an embassy, really? I would assume that alone would cross any credibility threshold. There is no fucking way. Whatever else one believes, surely no one believes that even such a threat would be made for any such reason.

Hell, I doubt there would be much more than talk if a bin Ladin was holed up an embassy. Add in the Swedish government's lurching about, some very public comments from highly placed American pols, and Ecuador's willingness to actually get in the middle of this shit and questions have to be had or we aren't thinking.

As for the events in question, I lean toward thinking they are essentially unknowable and that the handling of the situation has precluded what only had a puncher's chance of being a fair trial that could get to the bottom of the situation anyway because of the circumstances. At best this was he said, she said. Now it is a trainwreck with almost no possibility of impartial jurists or judges.

How is the presumption of innocence overcome in this kind of situation? So, all of this hubbub over what has to be a dicey case, one now years old where the accused has already once told he was free to go on (and I mean free to go anywhere rather than a "don't leave town" deal) with apparently no new bombshells having come to light?

What Assange did or didn't do is a distraction at the moment because assuming the worst, the governments are not behaving rationally compared to that "worst" and the personal level shit doesn't matter until the big picture why is settled.

I also get the impression that there is much consideration of how you view your self as viewed through the lens of the scenario that is creating internal conflict and I believe that also is distraction and such a distraction that logic gets at least handcuffed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 10:47 AM

133. "I don't know what the fuck to believe anymore about the Assange case."

Looks like the smear campaign by the scumbags is working just fine, then, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 11:17 AM

138. I agree

This is a topic I'm going to sit back and let unfold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:04 PM

142. Anyone that TPTB are that desparate to take down

is by definition one of the good guys.

Remember Daniel Ellsberg? Ellsberg sees Assange as the modern version of himself. That's good enough for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread