HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Top EU official tells Jul...

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:45 PM

Top EU official tells Julian Assange: 'Just go to Sweden and answer the questions'

... Cecilia Malmström, the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, said Mr Assange, 41, who is sheltering in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, should “answer the questions” about his alleged attacks on two women.

She also dismissed his claim that he would be extradited to the US, saying that she did not “believe for a minute” that it would happen and that it was only a “purely theoretical” risk.

“I’m not engaged in this, I know there are talks. But he’s accused of rape, of sexual harassment and if he’s innocent, which he might be — I don’t know — why doesn’t he just go and answer the questions? ..." ...

... Ms Malmström, who comes from Sweden, dismissed his claims about the threat from American prosecutors. “He is asked to come to Sweden because he’s accused of some crimes. He stays in the embassy. For the moment there is no solution. Whether Sweden would extradite him to the US or not, that is up to the Swedish authorities to decide. I don’t think that would happen. That’s purely theoretical” ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/top-eu-official-tells-julian-assange-just-go-to-sweden-and-answer-the-questions-8375231.html

192 replies, 23339 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 192 replies Author Time Post
Reply Top EU official tells Julian Assange: 'Just go to Sweden and answer the questions' (Original post)
struggle4progress Dec 2012 OP
99Forever Dec 2012 #1
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #3
msanthrope Dec 2012 #5
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #7
msanthrope Dec 2012 #41
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #63
99Forever Dec 2012 #9
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #10
99Forever Dec 2012 #28
randome Dec 2012 #31
tama Dec 2012 #129
SidDithers Dec 2012 #78
msanthrope Dec 2012 #4
SidDithers Dec 2012 #2
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #6
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #8
msanthrope Dec 2012 #46
pnwmom Dec 2012 #72
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #11
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #14
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #15
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #16
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #24
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #30
former9thward Dec 2012 #163
KoKo Dec 2012 #19
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #20
KoKo Dec 2012 #23
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #29
KoKo Dec 2012 #58
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #79
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #125
morningfog Dec 2012 #109
randome Dec 2012 #112
morningfog Dec 2012 #118
SidDithers Dec 2012 #113
morningfog Dec 2012 #117
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #142
randome Dec 2012 #144
morningfog Dec 2012 #167
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #168
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #169
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #170
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #172
DJ13 Dec 2012 #55
KoKo Dec 2012 #59
DJ13 Dec 2012 #61
KoKo Dec 2012 #70
pnwmom Dec 2012 #73
KoKo Dec 2012 #76
LineLineLineLineLineReply .
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #80
SDjack Dec 2012 #12
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #13
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #18
Zorra Dec 2012 #17
Bake Dec 2012 #22
Zorra Dec 2012 #25
randome Dec 2012 #26
Bake Dec 2012 #27
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #38
Bodhi BloodWave Dec 2012 #57
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #33
randome Dec 2012 #37
Zorra Dec 2012 #42
SidDithers Dec 2012 #45
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #52
SidDithers Dec 2012 #64
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #81
SidDithers Dec 2012 #83
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #85
SidDithers Dec 2012 #86
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #90
SidDithers Dec 2012 #91
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #93
SidDithers Dec 2012 #94
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #96
SidDithers Dec 2012 #97
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #98
SidDithers Dec 2012 #100
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #108
SidDithers Dec 2012 #111
randome Dec 2012 #115
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #122
NCTraveler Dec 2012 #137
Zorra Dec 2012 #54
KoKo Dec 2012 #60
KoKo Dec 2012 #71
SidDithers Dec 2012 #77
KoKo Dec 2012 #92
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #99
SidDithers Dec 2012 #102
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #114
randome Dec 2012 #116
SidDithers Dec 2012 #119
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #121
randome Dec 2012 #104
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #123
randome Dec 2012 #124
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #126
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #127
randome Dec 2012 #66
KoKo Dec 2012 #74
randome Dec 2012 #107
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #47
msanthrope Dec 2012 #67
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #82
msanthrope Dec 2012 #88
randome Dec 2012 #68
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #84
KoKo Dec 2012 #95
randome Dec 2012 #105
Ya Basta Dec 2012 #32
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #34
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #36
Ya Basta Dec 2012 #40
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #49
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #51
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #103
Ya Basta Dec 2012 #39
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #43
hack89 Dec 2012 #139
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #35
Ya Basta Dec 2012 #44
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #50
Zorra Dec 2012 #56
msanthrope Dec 2012 #65
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #87
msanthrope Dec 2012 #89
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #130
msanthrope Dec 2012 #132
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #48
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #53
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #69
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #128
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #62
KoKo Dec 2012 #75
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #101
KoKo Dec 2012 #135
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #106
randome Dec 2012 #110
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #120
Iggy Dec 2012 #134
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #143
Iggy Dec 2012 #161
cemaphonic Dec 2012 #131
randome Dec 2012 #133
KoKo Dec 2012 #136
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #145
randome Dec 2012 #151
Zorra Dec 2012 #149
randome Dec 2012 #150
Zorra Dec 2012 #156
randome Dec 2012 #157
Zorra Dec 2012 #159
randome Dec 2012 #160
Zorra Dec 2012 #138
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #146
Zorra Dec 2012 #152
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #155
SidDithers Dec 2012 #140
randome Dec 2012 #141
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #147
SidDithers Dec 2012 #148
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #153
randome Dec 2012 #158
KoKo Dec 2012 #162
SidDithers Dec 2012 #164
Bonobo Dec 2012 #186
SidDithers Dec 2012 #190
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #166
KoKo Dec 2012 #179
SidDithers Dec 2012 #180
KoKo Dec 2012 #182
SidDithers Dec 2012 #184
randome Dec 2012 #185
SidDithers Dec 2012 #187
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #154
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #165
KoKo Dec 2012 #171
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #173
KoKo Dec 2012 #174
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #175
Cicada Dec 2012 #176
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #177
KoKo Dec 2012 #181
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #183
KoKo Dec 2012 #188
randome Dec 2012 #178
KoKo Dec 2012 #189
randome Dec 2012 #191
KoKo Dec 2012 #192

Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:51 PM

1. So what?

Who asked her? (Whoever the eff she is.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:01 PM

3. The portfolio of the EU Home Affairs commissioner includes matters such as Asylum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:03 PM

5. I think Home Affairs issues the EAW, too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:15 PM

7. Hmmm. Not sure about that. One issue arising in the Assange case was the question

whether the EAW had been issued by a competent authority in Sweden, Assange's lawyers arguing (unsuccessfully) that the warrant had not been issued by a competent authority in Sweden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:05 PM

41. You are right---Sweden did issue the EAW. I wonder if her office coordinates the SIS, then. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:03 PM

63. Her office handles Police Cooperation, so circulating notices of the warrant might have been her job

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:51 PM

9. Impressive.

They got a authoritarian government bureaucrat to agree with the other authoritarian government bureaucrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:53 PM

10. A moment ago, you had never heard of her, yet you instantly begin calling her names

That seems uncharitable of you at best

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:03 PM

28. Precisely why should I...

... be "charitable" to an authoritarian government bureaucrat, that I have never heard of before this thread, spouting the authoritarian government line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:22 PM

31. Because she works for the government, she's automatically 'authoritatian'?

She's doing her job. It's not up to her to decide Assange's innocence or guilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:21 AM

129. Yes

 

She's speaking from the position of hierarchic authority.

Also, someone with strongly anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchic views and character would never end up in such a position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:41 PM

78. Heheheh...

'I don't know who she is, but she's a damn authoritarian bureaucrat!!'



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #1)


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:55 PM

2. DU rec...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:04 PM

6. A top Equadorian official said he doesn't have to.

Guess we're at an impasse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:28 PM

8. The UK is a closer US ally than Sweden.

If the US wanted Assange, why not just extradite him from the UK while they had the chance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:10 PM

46. Shhhh...that doesn't fit in with the narrative of persecution. You see, we are supposed to believe

that the CIA ran two honeypot operations on Assange in Sweden, then let him flee the jurisdiction, and then, let him stay at a country estate in England for over a year so they could extradite him back to Sweden, then hence to the United States.

Got that??? It might look like the slowest and stupidest blackbag operation, ever, but don't let facts interfere....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:15 PM

72. Exactly. But common sense seems to be often lacking in these discussions. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:18 PM

11. why doesn’t he just go and answer the questions? ..."

 

I can't say precisely why, but an innocent man wouldn't hide out afraid of his day in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:30 PM

14. Why don't the CIA drone operators turn themselves in to Pakistan or Sudan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:34 PM

15. WTF does that have to do with Assange answering the questions in a court of law? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:51 PM

16. You said he's not because he fears the law.

I'm saying the same thing about the drone operators who are accused of much more serious crimes. Pakistan and Sudan have courts of law.

Or, how about the torturers at Abu-Ghraib. Why don't they turn themselves into the Iraqi courts for trial?

If they're innocent why do they hide out in the USA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:36 PM

21. You create a man of straw, then knock it down.

 

The one has nothing to do with the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:54 PM

24. What's good for one accused criminal isn't good for another?

The only difference is that the accused murderers and torturers aren't really denying what they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:15 PM

30. .

 



That's what this "discussion" has become. Good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:57 PM

163. Why should they?

We have been told the White House decides who to kill. Or does 'buck' not stop there with this program. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57438585/white-house-to-become-drone-kill-list-decider/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:33 PM

19. "U.S.Officialswarn about Assange ...Treason" (It's a trap to snare him here for Prosecution)

(Yes the You Tube is from Fox News...but it has clips of both Repugs and Democrats claiming Assange is a traitor,etc. Even VP Biden gets unhinged.)


"U.S. Demands to Assassinate Assange"
#t=0s

Last edited Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:30 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
U.S. Demands to Assassinate Assange


http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/?task=viewvideo&video_id=75088


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:35 PM

20. There are no charges from the US, nor have any attempts to extradite Assange to the US been made.

 

And NEwt Gingrich has no role in government, so citing him as "U.S. Demands to Assassinate Assange " is just plain overblown bullshit.

Again, he needs to answer to SWEDEN. The US has no skin in the game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:47 PM

23. Not just Newt...Check out the video....

They want him here so they can prosecute him like with Manning. Tie the two together and treat Assange as a Terrorist/the Enemy..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:14 PM

29. I've watched that crappy video

 

You're spinning like a top. Nobody with any power to extradite him said anything a bout it. You had posturing politicians, nothing else.

Call me when extradiction proceedings begin.

Better yet, call me when ANY charges are actually filed, which is a requirement before there can be any extradiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:47 PM

58. If you did or had followed the news about Assange you wouldn't have

posted what you did.

But...yeah...I'll post when the proceedings begin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:47 PM

79. Please post when charges are filed

 

You need charges before you can try to extradite, so once there's a first step, I'll buy into what is now a whacky conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #79)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:36 AM

125. No charges have been filed against Assange in Sweden but you don't seem to have any

problem with the CT that they have and that is 'guilty' and should 'answer NON charges'.

There is a sealed indictment against Assange in the US. His US attorney has the documents regarding the GJ which show they are attempting to charge a Multiple Award Winning, International Journalist, Editor and Publisher under the epsionage act.

We are making fools of ourselves around the globe. He is a hero to most of the world, to Iceland whose crooked banksters his whistle blowers exposed. To Tunisians whose new President a former Human Rights activist jailed by our former friend and ally, the dictator Ben Ali successfully overthrown, has told Assange publicly that for the role he played in helping Tunisia to gain their freedom at last, he will always be welcome in Tunisia.

Throughout South America also, a region rising up against its oppressors and finally Democratically electing its own leaders, throwing out Western agitators, and beginning the process of prosecuting its own War Criminals, our former allies Assange is regarded as a hero.

And Africa, where again his work exposed corrupt leaders, for which Wikileaks received another reward, he is also regarded as a 'freedom fighter' like any journalist in an oppressive country.

WE have so many Dictator Friends around the world. Assange exposes Corrupt Dictators, and for that naturally, they hate him. It is sad that the US rather than be a part of the newly free world, sides with the oppressors when it comes to Assange and a truly free press.

He had every right to seek asylum once he found out that Sweden was lying about their legal system in his case, and that the US was seeking an indictment against him. The world cheered his escape as they always do when persecuted dissidents escape and are given sanctuary.

American sinks even further in the world's eyes by persecuting journalists and whistle blowers. We have no standing to accuse anyone else of doing so..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:53 PM

109. Assange is under a sealed indictment in the US. US is the only one with skin in the game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #109)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:02 PM

112. Skull-and-dagger stuff. The spies are all out to get Assange.

There have been credible allegations that the email from Stratfor was concocted by Wikileaks, I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #112)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:08 PM

118. There have been denials by US officials, I am not sure who or even if they were named.

Mabye it is a concoction, but I wouldn't trust the US government on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #109)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:04 PM

113. Just like Karl Rove was, right?...

Is Jason Leopold around here somewhere?

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #113)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:07 PM

117. I wouldn't trust the US governments word on it.

It could be a total fabrication to gin up support for Assange. But, if I were in Assange's place, I would be very worried about the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #109)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:20 PM

142. The credibility of that report is quite iffy, due to its very strange provenance:

(1) The proximate source is Wikileaks: Politico says that the Sydney Morning Herald says that Wikileaks says ...

Wikileaks, of course, is very closely associated with Assange. Assange's current schtick is "The US is out to get me!" -- an approach he uses to gather attention and to generate both political and monetary support. And, sad to say, Wikileaks also has some documented history of forgery and misrepresentation

So it might be naive, at best, to accept the Wikileaks "evidence" as definitive. But let's walk further down the road


(2) Wikileaks says it got the material from Anonymous: Politico says that the Sydney Morning Herald says that Wikileaks says that Anonymous ...

Neither Wikileaks nor Anonymous is particularly transparent. But whereas Wikileaks is closely associated with the face of Assange, Anonymous is a very ill-defined group of folk, mostly known for gleeful cyber-nuisance activities. There is usual little way to know who is claiming to be behind the acts Anonymous, or whether the folk taking credit today have any real relation with the folk who took credit yersterday

With this particular release, we have more information, because at least some of the Anonymous hackers got caught up in an FBI sting. Let's say that again: this material (allegedly obtained by Anonymous) seems to have been part of -- or to have become otherwise involved in -- an FBI sting against the hackers! So the fingerprints of Agent Mike show up somewhere along the line! We don't know if Agent Mike's crafty little fingerprints are on the actual "evidence" here, but they could be

Well, that's enough speculation for now about spooky government stuff. Let's walk down to the end of the road


(3) Anonymous (whoever the fug that is) says it stole the material from Stratfor: Politico says that the Sydney Morning Herald says that Wikileaks says that Anonymous says that Stratfor says ...

OK, who is Stratfor? Stratfor does not have a sterling reputation: it is something like a private intelligence service, that charges you a lot of money for passing on rumors together with stuff you would have read in the newspaper, if you actually ever read the newspaper. Being a business, Stratfor hopes a sucker will be born every minute to subscribe to Stratfor's intelligence. And what's the Stratfor scoop? "Hey! Whoa! Listen up! We heard a rumor there's a sealed indictment against Assange!"

So now's a good time for a quick recap and round-up


(4) Julian Assange (whose group Wikileaks has a wee itsy-bit of a history of forgery) says somebody named Anonymous (that's their real name!) just got caught up in a big FBI sting but he got some of their documents anyway, and there's one from a blowhard at an overpriced rumor-mongering service that says the grapevine says the US government has a sealed indictment against Assange, so please don't send him to Sweden because he would end up dead in a secret prison but do please send money, because he's not making nearly the $53 million annually that he wanted to make

Moral: There's usually good reason to avoid using the right-leaning bull-shizz-spreading Politico as a source

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #142)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:13 PM

144. Wow. Thanks for putting all that into the proper perspective!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #142)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:38 PM

167. I wouldn't trust anyone who cites Politico:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:56 PM

168. ... As Atlantic associate editor Max Fischer argues, “The group’s reputation

among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners is poor; they are considered a punchline more often than a source of valuable information or insight.” There’s long been criticism that Stratfor simply uses available, open source material – i.e. news reports out of the regions they’re covering – blending in a heavy dose of gossip (drawn from retired officials, former spooks and others) to provide analysis laced with intelligence jargon. Emails show they were tasked with “tracking” humor-activists the Yes Men and others on behalf of Dow Chemical, a frequent target for their handling of the Bhopal chemical disaster, though it appears Stratfor largely gathered intel by monitoring daily news reports ...
Texas’ own private CIA
February 28, 2012
http://blogs.sacurrent.com/index.php/staff/texas-own-private-cia/

Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously
By Max Fisher
Feb 27 2012, 4:18 PM ET
The corporate research firm has branded itself as a CIA-like "global intelligence" firm, but only Julian Assange and some over-paying clients are fooled.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-it-seriously/253681/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:03 PM

169. FBI may have known in advance of Stratfor hack

Chatroom transcripts reveal discussions weeks before hack became public
By Paul Wagenseil, SecurityNewsDaily Managing Editor
updated 3/7/2012 3:55:54 PM ET
Did the FBI know in advance of the Stratfor hack, but let it happen in order to gather evidence?

Soon after the news broke yesterday (March 6) about the arrest and cooperation of turncoat Anonymous and Lulzsec hacker Hector Xavier Monsegur, known online as "Sabu," the Justice Department released chatroom transcripts that imply the FBI knew in advance of the devastating attack in December upon the Austin, Texas geopolitical analysis firm Strategic Forecasting ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46658033/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/fbi-may-have-known-advance-stratfor-hack/


Inside the hacking of Stratfor: the FBI's case against Antisec member Anarchaos
by Sean Gallagher - Mar 6 2012, 3:54pm EST
On December 6, 2011, a hacker using the handle "sup_g" private-messaged Hector Xavier Monsegur, otherwise known as "Sabu," on Anonymous's IRC server to tell him of a server he had gained access to. But "sup_g"—alleged by the government to be Jeremy Hammond—didn't know that the whole conversation was being logged by the FBI, and that Monsegur had turned confidential informant. "Yo, you round? working on this new target."

The target was the server of Stratfor, the Austin-based global intelligence company that would soon become synonymous with the hacker phrase, "pwned." Over the course of the Anonymous cell Antisec's hacking and exploiting of the company's IT infrastructure, the group of hackers would expose credit card and other personal information of over 60,000 Stratfor customers and a vast archive of e-mail correspondence between the company's employees and customers in the private and government sectors. And it all started with a control panel hack ...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/03/inside-the-hacking-of-stratfor-the-fbis-case-against-antisec-member-anarchaos/



LulzSec frontman Sabu was FBI informant, fed Stratfor docs to Wikileaks from an FBI-owned computer
Xeni Jardin at 9:06 am Wed, Mar 7
The Guardian has more on the big hacking news which Fox News broke yesterday (as noted in a post by Rob). "Sabu," the trash-talking, self-appointed leader of LulzSec, has been working for the FBI for the last six months. The FBI says he helped the US and various European governments identify and arrest five alleged LulzSec members charged with participating in defacement, DDOSing, and "doxing" against high-profile government and corporate targets. Sabu (above) is, in now identified as Hector Xavier Monsegur, a 28-year-old unemployed Puerto Rican guy living in New York, and a father of two. He was charged with 12 criminal counts of conspiracy to engage in "computer hacking and other crimes" last year, pled guilty in August, 2011, then "snitched" on his LulzSec friends ...

http://boingboing.net/2012/03/07/lulzsec-frontman-sabu-was-fbi.html


Stratfor email hackers were tricked into using Feds' server
Spotlight on source of WikiLeaks' files
By John Leyden
8th March 2012 13:36 GMT
WikiLeaks – and Julian Assange – could get caught up in the investigation into the LulzSec takedown saga because it published the internal emails of Stratfor, the private global intelligence firm that was attacked by Anonymous hackers, it has emerged.

A warrant authorising the arrest of the prime suspect in the Stratfor raid revealed that an FBI supergrass persuaded hackers to use a server controlled by the feds to store the emails ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/08/strafor_anon_arrest_analysis/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:06 PM

170. Fake New York Times op-ed a WikiLeaks hoax

By Doug Gross, CNN
updated 2:26 PM EDT, Mon July 30, 2012
(CNN) -- A fake editorial about WikiLeaks, supposedly by the former executive editor of The New York Times, was making the rounds this weekend. It was mocked up so well that it even fooled at least one Times staffer.

The fake piece, written under the name of the Times' Bill Keller, defended the controversial group known for acquiring, and publishing, secret documents from governments throughout the world.

On Sunday, the group said its supporters were behind the hoax, which was published on a Web page that looks convincingly like a page on the Times' site ...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/tech/web/fake-nyt-editorial/index.html


Wikileaks claims responsibility for fake article
Posted by Alexander Porter 1641.20pc on August 02, 2012
by Rosie Harrison
Wikileaks have claimed responsibility for a forged op-ed article which seemed to be written by the former executive editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller. The article concerns the financial blockade that has prevented donations through Visa, MasterCard, Maestro and Paypal to Wikileaks since early 2011 ...

http://www.scottishtimes.com/wikileaks_claims_responsibility_fake_article

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:21 PM

172. OK: I have in #169, #169, and #170 provided you with 8 links showing

that Stratfor's so-called intelligence is often regarded as laughable, that there was surprising FBI awareness of (and perhaps involvemenrt in) the Anonymous-Stratfor hack, and that Wikileaks may not be above falsifying documents

The links support the comments I may in #142, and they are clearly relevant to the credibility of Wikileaks when it waves about claims allegedly made by Stratfor and allegedly discovered by an Anonymous hack

I will stand by my advice: There's usually good reason to avoid using Politico as a source. Of course, you located an instance where I cited both Politico and Firedoglake, another source I also generally prefer to avoid: I did so then because I could not find a source I liked for the information, of an October hearing date on a bid for direct press and public access to records of the Manning court martial

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:32 PM

55. How can someone who's not a citizen be labeled a traitor?

That entire line of thinking by US officials is stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:49 PM

59. we are targeting people in other countries that we label "terrorists" with Drone Attacks

even though they are US citizens. You don't think that Julian Assange is marked as a terrorist for exposing what he did--what our government had done in collusion with other world governments?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:54 PM

61. I'm sure he's (quietly) labeled by DC as a terrorist

But thats not the same as traitor.

Traitor implies an allegiance to our country, which no foreign citizen should be expected to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:08 PM

70. Doesn't matter in the "end" though does it?

Being a "Terrorist" is on the immediate list of "those to be delt with"...and "Traitors" would be held off to build media excitement for another OJ Simpson Trial.

Terrorists..."TAKE 'EM OUT"...Traitors....Media sees "Gold Mind in Viewers."

Just saying. Think about the RW finally getting views for their filth and ratings for Rush and Faux News.

Julian Assange; Sex/Broken Condoms, Swedish Courts, Jurisdiction for "Releasing America's Diplomatic E-Mails along with UK and Other Foreign Correspondence.

Assange who actually did INTERVIEWS on "Russian TV" with known Terrorists like Nasrallah and others who had dissenting viewpoins from the US MIC...

Yes...it's interesting how this could all come down, isn't it. If anyone remembers the Bush Years...the Folks who LIED US INTO UNDENDING WAR!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:16 PM

73. If the US wanted him so badly why didn't they simply extradite him from Britain

in all those months when he was at large there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:26 PM

76. Because Obama is a very clever President and he's playing Cat and Mouse with Assange

We elected him because he's very restrained and cool and pragmatic.

This is EXACTLY how a cool, collected and pragmatic President would deal with what he sees as a Threat to National Security, the MIC and his Creds as President of the USA.

He's waiting like the cat to get the mouse when it has no where else to go. And, given that there are accusations of RAPE by Assange with the "broken condem" by two females that both bedded him within a few weeks of the other...it becomes an incredible NEWS MEDIA STORY!

THE TRIAL OF JULIAN ASSANGE! TRIAL OF THE CENTURY! ASSANGE...RAPIST with BROKEN CONDOM BEDS TWO WOMEN IN ONE WEEK...but the BROKEN CONDOM GOT HIM in SWEDISH LAW!

CNN AND FAUX with flagging ratings will be all over this in a minutes flat as soon as the OKAY comes from State, Pentagon or DOJ!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #76)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:48 PM

80. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:21 PM

12. Go to Sweden and answer the questions -- Worst legal advice ever.

it was only a “purely theoretical” risk.
Since it's only a "purely theoretical" risk, then the prosecutor should take it off the table. That would solve the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:24 PM

13. So, Sweden should somebody to question him in the embassy.

Sweden is a modern nation, has plenty of money, and can afford a couple of plane tickets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:17 PM

18. UK courts have found Sweden wants Assange in order to prosecute him and have ruled

that he should be extradited to Sweden for that purpose

Swedish prosecutions are conducted in the Swedish courts, not in Latin American embassies in the UK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:07 PM

17. Daniel Ellsberg: "Assange has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him

to America".

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, everything that we’ve seen supports the position of his defense team, that this is not about sexual charges in Sweden, essentially, that that’s a cover story—whatever substance there may be to that story. But the procedures that have been followed here are extraordinary: a red notice here, very unusually given, never under these circumstances, to arrest him and these heavy efforts to extradite him, after he had offered either to be questioned by the prosecutor herself or by some representative of her in the Swedish embassy or the British embassy or by British police in London, where he was, something that, by the way, is routinely done all the time, and the expense is paid for that, if necessary—all of that being refused. Why? In a situation where this man is charged with criminal charges by no country—not by Sweden, not by Britain, not by the United States, although there may in fact be a secret indictment already waiting for him in the United States, being denied or lied about right now by my country. But no charges have actually been made public. So, here, all this emphasis just to get him charged—just to get him questioned, rather, when he’s offered himself for questioning, even right now in the Ecuadorean embassy. The state of Ecuador has actually officially proposed that that take place in the Ecuadorean embassy or elsewhere and in London. And that has been refused. All of this supports the idea that this is merely a way of getting him to Sweden, which apparently would be easier to extradite him from to the United States than Britain. If Britain were totally open to extraditing him, it would have happened by now. Two years have passed. But he’s an Australian citizen, a member of the Commonwealth, and the criteria for extraditing somebody who’s been telling the truth and is wanted for what can only be a political crime in another country are apparently more stringent here than they might be in Sweden.

So I think that—in fact, I join his lawyers, Michael Ratner and others, in saying that he 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 as I think one can conjecture. The new National Defense Authorization Act—and I’m a plaintiff in a suit to call that act unconstitutional, in terms of its effect on me and on others, a suit that has been successful so far at the district court level and has led to that act being called unconstitutional. But on its face, that act could be used against Julian Assange or Bradley Manning, if he weren’t already in military custody. Julian Assange, although a civilian, and not an American civilian at that, would seem to me, a layman, to be clearly subject to the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, putting in military detention for suspicion of giving aid to an enemy, which he’s certainly been accused of by high American officials. I don’t see why he couldn’t be put in indefinite contention, without even the charges that I faced 40 years ago for doing the exact same things that he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:38 PM

22. Hmm ... leaking govt secrets ... good ... accused rapist, bad

What's a DUer to think????



Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:57 PM

25. President Clinton was accused of rape also...Dem President...good...accused rapist,

bad

What's a DUer to think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:59 PM

26. Not by a court, he wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:02 PM

27. And THAT is a huuuuuge difference.

Let Assange answer the charges.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:51 PM

38. What charges?? There are no charges. You are taking a false claim made by someone who

has been told over and over again that there no charges have ever been filed against Assange. I wish DU would not feed into the Right Wing hatred for whistle blowers and a free and open press by not doing enough research to know when false information is being disseminated here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:47 PM

57. And you have been told time and time and time, etc etc how things work in sweden

regarding being charged yet you continue with the above line(in different kinds on wordings on different threads) as if nobody has explained the matter to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:37 PM

33. Neiter was Assange. Care to post the 'court CHARGES' here? The world has been waiting

for going on three years now.

And you know this since it has been told to you multiple times already, so why do you keep bringing non-factual falsehoods to DU? It makes this forum look bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:49 PM

37. It's been told to you multiple times, too.

The Swedish court system operates differently from the American system. Charges are not filed until a decision is made to arrest someone. The 2nd interview they want to conduct with Assange is widely believed to be the interview where they plan to arrest him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:06 PM

42. But, Randome, isn't your primary motivation here to see Julian prosecuted by the

US?

For what other reason could you, struggle4progress, and other DU posters who have an extremely similar pattern, be so concerned about Julian getting prosecuted?

C'mon now, let's have the real truth ~

'fess up.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:09 PM

45. Because we don't think rapists should get away with rape?...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:20 PM

52. Please list the 'rape' charges against Assange. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:08 PM

64. See #57...

Last edited Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Thought it's cute the way you expect the whole world to operate the way the US does. Your America-centric outlook is kinda charming, really.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:48 PM

81. How charming, you post on DU, a US Democratic Political site and accuse Americans of

'expecting the whole world to operate the way the way the US does'. This is a DEMOCRATIC site. You are confused. FR is where you find that that attitude. Unbelievable.

'America centric'. Hmm, so you reveal your disdain for Americans. Not that I much care, it was always apparent to people here. It's better out in the open, so I thank you for that. I will keep it in mind always when I see your comments.

Now back to reality. Just why did you link to that post? There is nothing there except an OPINION. and it is a WRONG opinion. It is clearly another person who does not understand Swedish Law and how it operates.

Americans, despite your obvious disdain for them, ARE capable of reading and understanding AND respecting the laws of other countries. Especially Democratic Americans. So let me help you understand Swedish Law, how it operates and how the Swedish Prosecutor lied about it in order to avoid taking the final step that would allow her to file charges against Assange.

Swedish law requires that before filing charges of a crime, the Prosecutor must interview the accused.

Sweden is a member of the EU. The EU has an agreement with member states that all states will cooperate in legal matters such as this, by facilitating eg, interviews with accused who may be in their countries.

Assange was in Sweden, made himself available for that required interview, the Prosecutor declined his offers several times, she then informed his attorney he was free to leave. When he was told she had contacted his attorney, who did not inform him, that she was ready for an interview (way, way late and against procedure in sex cases btw) he offered to return to Sweden. She declined.

His attorneys assured her he was available at any time to speak to her. She then began the lies. She claimed, falsely, that she could not interview him in London. THAT was a LIE. See above. Sweden has done this before, it is pretty common.

For two years now she has refused to interview him. He has always been available.

Their is NO legal impediment to her doing this.
There is however a reason why she refuses to do so. But it is not Swedish law that has prevented her from taking that final step. Nothing.

But the minute she does, she then must present her case, which pretty much fell apart long ago which is generally known around the world. She does not wish to present her case and neither does the attorney who initiated it who admits they have a 'very weak case if any'.

I hope that clears up your understanding of Swedish Law. You should not allow your stated disdain for Americans stop you from learning how Swedish law works. I went to the trouble of studying how it works and have shared that information with you, who apparently never bothered.

Looks like it's the Swedish Prosecutor who does not understand Swedish law after all.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:53 PM

83. Oh ffs...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:06 PM

85. Yes, FFS. Your words, despicable words to say to Americans on an American site. If you do

not want people to remark on them, then you don't post them. We are well aware of the disdain for Americans around the world. And we are aware that some of it is justified thanks to the morons on the Right and to the war mongering Third Way that has infiltrated the Democratic Party here.

But most people who are informed know this, they KNOW, which for some reason you do not, that if there is any kind of 'America-Centric' attitude here, it is definitely NOT on the Left.

You don't get to make such statements and not expect American Democrats to take issue which such obviously disdainful words and made against the Left. You reveal yourself like that, don't blame anyone else for it.

FFS is right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:09 PM

86. I don't have disdain for Americans, plural. Just for one very specific American...

who seems to think that watching Law and Order makes her an expert on the legal systems of foreign nations.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #86)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:24 PM

90. Your words were clear. We are used to such comments, but generally considering the

sources they have zero effect, usually the far right here and their cohorts in other countries, and they are always aimed at the American Left.

Tell it to someone who is gullible. Your disdain for the American left is not unusual but it does not belong on a Democratic Site.

No expertise in Swedish Law is required to know the facts of this case. It is a simple issue raised by the Prosecution that a child in any country could quickly inform themselves about.

Your personal insults have zero affect on me, save them for someone else.

I asked a simple question in response to your false claim that there had been a conviction in this case.

'What were the charges against Assange'? Rather than be honest and admit that there ARE none, you launched into an attack on Americans and me personally.

There was no conviction and your attempt to use women and rape to emotionally manipulate people was also reprehensible, women are SICK of being used like this for political purposes, mostly by men. Women's groups across the globe have condemned this case and for good reason.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #90)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:29 PM

91. Yes, my words were very clear...

Thought it's cute the way you expect the whole world to operate the way the US does. Your America-centric outlook is kinda charming, really.


And yet you chose to misread them.

Edit: Oh, and show me where I made a "claim that there had been a conviction in this case". Please.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #91)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:49 PM

93. You assigned the word 'Rapist' to Assange. I asked you to list the charges because to have that

word applied, there is something called 'due process'. I cannot imagine any Progressive Democrat doing that unless there had been a conviction. To reach that conclusion there would have to have been 1)Charges filed 2)A Trial and 3) A conviction.

Progressive Democrats thankfully, respect the rule of law. They do not use women and charges of rape to go after political opponents. The Far Right does not hesitate to do so as we saw in the Clinton case. Btw, was Clinton a rapist? He certainly was accused by a couple of women of being so. I fought those Right Wingers and demanded of them the same thing I am asking of Assange haters.

Even the Swedish Prosecutor has not dared to use that word.

You did not answer my question regarding your conclusion. Because there are no charges. Not only that, there never were even allegations that could lead someone to that conclusion IF they cared about the facts of this case. Anyone who has reached that conclusion has no concern for facts and loses all credibility regarding any further comment on the case.

'America-centric' is a phrase used by right wing elements against the left here and in other countries. It is never applied to one individual. It is intended for the American Left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #93)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:07 PM

94. Assange fled jurisdiction from Sweden to the UK, before being taken into custody...

and you have the temerity to talk about due process? He fought extradition and a legally executed European Arrest Warrant for two years, lost and then jumped bail, and you have the gall to say that you respect the rule of law? Don't make me laugh.

And "America-centric" is simply an adjective which, in this case, was accurately used to describe your efforts to impose your scattered understanding of the American legal process onto the Swedish judicial system.

OK, now go on about lying prosecutors, Pinochet and Karl Rove some more. And make sure your post is really long, 'cause that makes your argument much, much stronger.

Sid







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #94)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:22 PM

96. Wrong, he did not 'flee'. Another distortion of the facts.

You clearly know nothing of this case and apparently do not want to. HE DID NOT FLEE. He did the exact opposite. He STAYED even when the prosecutor was refusing to meet with him.

He voluntarily went to speak to the police, while trying to get an appointment with the Prosecutor ( a woman who violated every rule she herself made about investigating sexual assault cases and has basically lost all credibility and may even end up being charges with prosecutorial misconduct)

He remained in Sweden VOLUNTARILY way past the date he was supposed to leave. He was told he was FREE TO LEAVE by the prosecutor. That is NOT FLEEING. He was two hours away from Sweden and available always to her which was made clear.

Stop spreading false information on this site. This is all documented and it makes DU look bad to have to constantly correct this false information over and over again.

Even the Lawyer, when asked, had to admit that Assange was free to leave as he had 'committed no crime'.

Uneffing belieivable the total ignorance of the facts of this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #96)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:39 PM

97. You forgot Rove and Pinochet...



And yes, he did flee. His lawyer was told on Sept 22, 2010 that Assange was wanted for the second interview on Sept 28. Assange fled to the UK on Sept 27. That's fleeing jurisdiction before (potentially) being taken into custody.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #97)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:13 PM

98. Wrong, he did the exact opposite of 'flee' and whoever told you what his attorney

admitted to at at the extradition hearing forgot to give you all the information. His attorney proved that it was his negligence NOT Assange's that was responsible.

It also demonstrated that as soon as he got the information, Assange offered to return to Sweden, AND ONCE AGAIN amazingly, the Prosecutor refused to see him!! There is also the small matter of the prosecutor telling him to leave, and being unable to pick up a phone when her emails failed to get a response. Assange had a phone, he never heard from her!

Keep going, at least other people reading can learn the facts as I am more than happy to keep correcting the false info being spread around here.

And there is so much more. I really do enjoy doing this, so as long as you want to keep posting distortions of the facts, I am happy to keep correcting them.

I did not forget Rove's role in the election of the Rightwing government or the fact that the Swedish people were unaware that a war criminal was influencing their elections. They kept that quiet.

The British Courts refused an extradition request for Pinochet, a man who committed genocide on his own people. You find that to be amusing? How revealing, seriously.

His victims were cheated out of the justice they are still seeking thanks to the British Courts. And yes, thanks for reminding me, it is extremely relevant to see how Britain's bias throughout the decades, has caused even more pain for the victims of Dictators like Pinochet.

Iow the old Western Imperial states can be counted on to silence those who expose their crimes. And to protect their favorite Dictators.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #98)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:23 PM

100. I suggest you read the Findings of Facts and Reasons...

issued by the British court in the extradition case.

It will show you how you are wrong in more ways than can be counted.

It shows that Assange's attorney lied to the court, and had to correct his statements about contact with the Swedish prosecutors.

Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview
his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving
evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97).
However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as
significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr
Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I
do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a
week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a
very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in
fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts
then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.


No wonder you're so misinformed. You're relying on the word of Assange's lawyer. If he was willing to make a "statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court", how can anything he said be believed?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

It's got lots of words in it. I'm sure you'll love it.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #100)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:52 PM

108. The NY Times. This is such old news. Are you only finding this now?

What do the actions of his, incompetent at best, attorney have to do with his actions?

The Prosecutor refused to talk to Assange AFTER that information was relayed to Assange and he quickly contacted her and offered to return to Sweden on Oct 9th. Once again, she refused. She DOES NOT WANT to talk to him. That is now the general consensus based on her consistent avoidance including lies about Swedish law, over the past two going on three years, outside the usual suspect channels.

'It shows that Assange's lawyer lied to the court'! Why do you think he did that? That lawyer was fired btw, as he should have been.

Assange is NOT his attorney. Assange was told he was free to leave the country by the Prosecutor and his Attorney which neither she nor the attorney have denied.

When she could not reach his attorney by email, she apparently lost Assange's and his Attorney's phone numbers. Or as most people believe, she deliberately did not pick up a phone when she could not reach his attorney by email AFTER telling him that Assange was free to leave.

It was her duty to get in touch with him, by phone, or even a typed letter. She refused to say why she did not do that.

This is all documented and is well known to those who have followed this case. It is OLD news and has zero relevance to Assange's actions.. So I don't know why you thought it was news.

But at least you've backed off the false allegation of a convicted rapist so that's progress.

Assange was misrepresented by the Prosecutor AND his attorney. But both of them told him he was free to leave. No one has denied that.

So to recap. It is a lie to say he fled and even the prosecutor doesn't dare to make that claim. That is propaganda that comes from the Right. I despise the Right and do not believe we should have to see their lies on this site. I don't come here for that. But I will correct them every time I see them.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #108)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:02 PM

111. That's not the NY Times...

it's the Finding of Facts and Reasons of the British court that ruled on Assange's extradition.

The fact that you can't even grasp that the link goes to an official document of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, hosted on the NYTimes server, tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the case.

Here's the same document on the British Judiciary site, if that link is more to your liking:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

The prosecution contacted Assange's lawyer on Sept 21 or 22. An interview was scheduled on Sept 28. Assange fled on Sept 27.

If you want to believe Assange wasn't tipped off during that week, you're more gullible than I could have ever imagined.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #108)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:05 PM

115. It's not your decision nor mine to decide if someone lied.

This case has been through numerous appeals processes. That's how Western civilization conducts itself. Let the courts make the decision about this.

Getting so deeply into the minutiae of a case is not worth anyone's time. Multiple, independent courts have said Assange needs to return to Sweden.

That should be enough for anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #115)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:28 PM

122. Yes, let the courts make that decision. But the Prosecutor does not want this case to go to

court, does she? She refuses to take it to court. And now we are free to make up our own minds together with the available evidence as to why that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:39 AM

137. He didn't flee.

It was a planned vacation. He had a very specific and personal interest in seeing that embassy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:26 PM

54. *sigh* oh, Sid, Sid....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:51 PM

60. sigh.......+1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:15 PM

71. Could you describe the evidence you've seen that Assange is a Rapist?

SID: know you are going to reply with:

which is your usual reply. But, I've seen you be thoughtful on rare occasions.

Could you give your reasoning on another "Rare Occasion" when you post something besides: so that you contribute to the conversation so that we at least can "try" to understand your viewpoint?


Otherwise...your posts sort of seem to be what we see in the "DU Lounge" which is supposed to be for "recreation purposes" as a "Relief" on DU and not what this whole "Democratic Underground Board" was originally about.

If I've misinterpreted your :rofl" answer to many posts then please accept my apologies, but really.......it would be exceedingly interesting to hear a comment from you that isn't

Thanks for your patience if you even read this post (highly unlikely) and have the conscience to even reply to it because: seems to be your most used response when posts make you "uncomfortable."

Respectfully,
KoKo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:38 PM

77. Here's why, "Koko". A sleeping woman is unable to give consent...

That's the most clear-cut of the 4 allegations against him.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
Emphasis added, 'cause apparently you really like bold text.

How is what Assange did materially different from what was posted in the "sex with passed-out party girls" thread that generated so much justified anger last week?

I eagerly await your "answer".

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:44 PM

92. Thank you Sid...this means a lot to see you finally put out your thoughts, here.

I did see similarities to one poster who mentioned "when you are asleep and assaulted" it is rape. I could see how this would fall over into the Assange case because one claimant against him said that he "forced entry" in the night while she was asleep and then there's the claims that Assange "used torn condom" (which I assume meant he wanted to impregnate her with casual sex by using "torn condom?)

Whatever the claims...both of them were friend of Julian who seemed to have a very good relationship with him. Both of them liking him so much they were willing to share sex with him with in a few weeks time frame.

I won't get into what the circumstances were that one or the other were in bed with him and one claims "torn condom" that she presented to the court (which later turned out to be evidence that wasn't able to be verified) plus what kind of person jerks a condom off the guys part and saves it and then presents it later as evidence when who knows where the condom came from and who did the "tear" that she claims. It would certainly be something that would raise questions from inquiring minds.

The other one is saying he penetrated her when she was asleep in bed with him when they had had "sex before that was consensual between them that night but that she was startled when after she was asleep that he penetrated her again.

I've posted the details that were out there in the British Press awhile back here on DU and so did several others getting into media reports about this.

So..my sense is that you want to come back at me like a lawyer (who has their own readings on their side) with evidence that you won't accept even if I was a Top Lawyer with Degree from Harvard...I won't go further than this...but that the links are there if you do Google or Bing.

There is enough contrary evidence about Assange's Rape charges to disput those who want him tried and put away like Bradley Manning for us to throw evidence/counter evidence against each other in heated posts back and forth here on DU for YEARS...until this winds through the situation with Manning and Assange and how US wants to get both of them to make them an example.

I appreciate that from you.

I've done my reading and research...and I appreciate your reply because at last I see some viewpoint from you that I can understand where you are coming from rather than your persona. Hopefully there will be discussion from you if you feel as passionately about Assange/Manning's trial and what they contributed to working to end these wars by exposing the lies and lies and more lies that's been going on amongst nations. What BUSH/CHENEY DID! I'm for the TRUTH coming out whatever way it can. Maybe you are too young to remember Vietnam. Maybe I'm old enough to know that what we did there was wrong and we are doing it again. Perhaps that's our difference?


Peace! KoKo (I stand by my ferreting out and reading from many sources and I know you will continue to post your own sources you feel comfortable with.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:23 PM

99. And that woman refused to sign the police report alleging just what you have posted. She

was outraged. And that is why there will never be a trial in this case. That woman stated publicly that there was no rape, that she never accused anyone of rape, that she was never threatened and never felt threatened, and her family, friends and other witnesses testified to how distraught she was at these allegations made on her behalf. That too has been documented. As Swedish Legal Experts have stated, 'this case could not stand up in court' and that is why the prosecutor has refused to file charges.

Thanks for using her again though, against her publicly stated wishes. The evidence that will appear in court will by HER OWN testimony, already on the record, not those quickly cobbled together allegations written on her behalf against her wishes by a rabid, extremist attorney who interjected himself into this case.

But then, as he said, 'it doesn't matter what the woman says, the 'state will decide for her'.

Great Patriarchy going on this case. I really hope that woman has been able to get some help to protect her from the operatives who so shamefully used her, and are refusing to bring this case to court where she can speak for herself.

And this is why Women's Groups have publicly stated their disgust with this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #99)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:31 PM

102. Un-fucking-believable...



You're trying to align your defense of Julian Assange, a man who fled jurisdiction and fought extradition, so he wouldn't have to face a rape trial, with women's groups? And the female prosecutor is part of the Great Patriarchy. OMFG.

Now I've seen it al.

Let the rapist go free! It's what women want!!



Sid



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #102)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:05 PM

114. Um no. You should not do this to yourself.

Yes, Women's Organizations have indeed as they should, condemned the use of women's issues especially one as important as rape, in this case. And then we have the CIA memo posted on Wikileaks claiming that the best way 'to get him' was to 'smear him with a sex scandal'.

Disgusting and despicable, that any US Government entity would so blatantly abuse women this way, but not at all surprising.

If you were a Democrat, especially a female Democrat you would understand why this case has enraged those who fought so hard to have crimes against women taken seriously. IF being the operative word. Your shock that this is true, says so much.

Please keep talking. We are learning a lot about you. You have always avoided issues, now I can see why I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #114)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:06 PM

116. Who is 'we'? Is there a cabal I should know about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #114)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:08 PM

119. Keep typing, sabrina. Your voluminous screeds get more and more entertaining...

as your arguments get more and more far fetched.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #119)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:22 PM

121. Thanks for your cooperation. Those voluminous screeds were not for you.

You provided the springboard to provide facts to those who are reading (you're all welcome btw

I know reading more than a few lines is hard for some people and it shows in how little they know.

Btw, do you all get these talking points mailed to you? 'Voluminous Screeds'?? 'Screed seems to the new favorite word in another failure to insult. Omg, I get such a kick out of this. It sounds like something the ditto heads on Rush's site would call more than two sentences! They really can't read more than one liners. I noticed that at the old Cave, where you were pretty popular last time I looked which admittedly was quite a while ago.

Just for you:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #99)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:39 PM

104. Why would you want to parse a court case in Sweden?

You can always find inconsistencies in any case if you look hard enough. And if you badly want to find something to support your preconceived notions.

The fact that this case has been through numerous appeals in different countries should be enough to convince anyone that none of us have the right to second-guess anyone's motives.

This is precisely why Western civilization developed appeals processes! To guard against the very abuses you want fervently to believe in for this case!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #104)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:31 PM

123. Wait, did you just say 'preconceived notions NOT in relation to yourself'?

Omg, what a laugh a minute you are. In every Assange thread you ignore all the facts presented to you and return to your preconceived notions about his case.

I, otoh, have followed it from even before it began, and base my opinions on the facts.

Why don't you stop. So many people want to know why you keep doing this and many are forming their own opinions. It would be better if you just told us..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #123)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:35 PM

124. Why do I support the court system deciding this case?

I have no skin in this game. I think Assange is trying to avoid embarrassing sexual allegations but if I'm wrong, so be it. Makes no difference to me, I will have learned something.

If only there were some organized way of deciding a dispute like this. I wonder...oh! Wait! We have a court system. And an appeals process. And appeals on top of the appeals. And they have all said Assange needs to return to Sweden for his interview.

That, to me, is the start and the finish of this. I am not second-guessing the details of a case like this. The court system has enough checks and balances in it to satisfy me that Assange needs to return to Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #124)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:37 AM

126. And once again, because you keep missing it for some reason. The Prosecutor has the

ball in her hands, and has had it for over two years now. When she is ready to go to court and do what she should have done two years ago, then you can blame Assange for why it has not gone to court. Until she stops playing games, does her job, conducts the interview, files her charges, SHE is the only one who appears to want to avoid the legal system at all costs.

And we are free to assume that after being given chance after chance to do that job and refusing to do it, and having read the available evidence which doesn't even include the emails and messages from the women which negate the allegations, that she has no case at all and is prolonging this because it achieves the goal the CIA said they intended, to 'smear him with a sex scandal'.

The only problem is most intelligent around the globe, never fell for it from the beginning. They have simply made themselves look like fools in the eyes of most of the world, and the US has lost a little more stature for its shameful role in all of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:03 AM

127. I love that pic Sid.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:15 PM

66. Because I think he's wrong here.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikileaks or any assumptions about supporting the Establishment or whatever you're trying to imply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:19 PM

74. If you think he's wrong here...then please give an explantion of your views

as to WHY you think he's wrong.

This is a "DISCUSSION FORUM" so if you can give something to discuss about your viewpoint it might start a meaningful dialog.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:50 PM

107. One thing I do know is that I am not 'pure' enough to judge this case.

That's why Western civilization developed the appeals process. To think that everyone on every level -from Sweden to Interpol- is somehow out to 'get' Assange borders on lunacy, IMO.

I am not qualified to pick apart details of this case. That's for the courts to decide.

Assange's behavior, IMO, implies guilt. Again, that's not for me to decide but for a court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:14 PM

47. I know how the Swedish Court operates. And you KNOW how it operates because I have

(and others btw) have explained to you that the Prosecutor LIED about how the Swedish Court operates. We know that they must interview anyone alleged to have committed a crime. They have done this with no problem in the past, they have gone to other EU countries to do so because the EU facilitates how the Swedish Court operates.

The Swedish Prosecutor, and you know this, so I do not know why you are claiming you do not, has refused to do her duty and interview Assange, she refused while he was in Sweden, he was told he could leave. He went voluntarily to the Swedish Police and was interviewed in Sweden but not arrested. Why did the Swedish Police not arrest him?

Why has the Swedish Prosecutor lied about how the Swedish Courts operate and then when caught in the lie, refused to explain why she lied?

And why have you forgotten all these facts once again?

You jumped from claiming there were charges, to the next false allegation all of which has been gone over again and again with you.

So now that we have cleared that up, why has the Swedish Prosecutor not operated in THIS case as they have, legally, in other cases?

To be clear. There is no legal impediment to the Swedish Prosecutor to act as they always have in the past, in this case. They lied about that, they are still refusing to do their job and conduct that interview. The question is why??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:16 PM

67. Too bad Assange's attorneys in the UK didn't know all this. They might have argued it in court. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:52 PM

82. Too bad he had to fire his attorney for his egregious mishandling of the case. However,

being that British Courts allowed Pinochet to escape extradition, they do not have much credibility themselves when it comes to these matters. A long history of biased decisions in British Courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #82)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:15 PM

88. Which attorney was this? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:17 PM

68. Maybe because they want to arrest him.

It's difficult to do that when you've been granted asylum by Ecuador.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:00 PM

84. She had every opportunity to arrest him for two years, she declined. Which you know because

I very patiently explained all of this to you before.

The Swedish police to whom he went voluntarily, also declined to arrest him..

When it comes to Sweden, Assange is the most UNWANTED man in the world. They do not want to arrest him because then the world will get to see the mountain of exculpatory evidence.

Nothing could be clearer, which you also know since I have very, very patiently explained all of this over and over again to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:16 PM

95. Couple of Articles about ASSANGE...rape, DNA, more allegations...etc. here:

No DNA link to Assange in condom central to sex assault case

Published: 16 September, 2012, 23:57
Edited: 17 September, 2012, 23:35


A ripped condom given to Swedish police by one of Julian Assange’s accusers does not contain the WikiLeaks founder’s DNA, forensic scientists have reportedly found.

In a 100-page document shown to Assange’s lawyers, it was revealed that the torn prophylactic, having been examined by staff at two forensic laboratories, did not bear conclusive evidence that Assange had ever worn it, the Daily Mail reported on Sunday.

Assange’s lawyers said the lack of DNA evidence on the condom, which was allegedly used during a supposed August 2010 sexual assault, indicates that a fake one could have been submitted.

The woman in question, now aged 33, claims to have been molested by Assange at her flat in Stockholm. She says that at one point he deliberately broke a condom in order to have unprotected sex with her.

Assange claims he had consensual sex with the woman, but denies intentionally tearing the condom. He had previously told police that he continued to stay at her residence for the week following the alleged incident, saying his accuser never made any mention of the ripped condom.

But DNA purportedly belonging to Assange was present on a condom submitted by a second woman, who has accused him of rape, prompting Swedish authorities to push ahead with their bid to have him extradited from the UK.

However, his second accuser, now 29, who claimed to have been raped in her sleep by Assange, apparently told police she had not been opposed to having unprotected sex with him despite previous statements to the contrary, the daily reported.

Assange denies the allegation of rape, maintaining he had consensual sex with the second woman as well. The Swedish prosecutor’s office refused to comment on the report, saying that the investigation was ongoing.

"The condom DNA evidence was supposed to be the killer evidence… Now, when we have found that there is no DNA on one of these condoms for one of the alleged victims, it rather calls into question substantial evidence against him,” human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell told RT.


The whistleblower has been holed up at Ecuador's Embassy in London since June, after the UK Supreme Court upheld his extradition warrant to Sweden.

In August he was granted political asylum by the country’s president, Rafael Correa, out of fear he could be handed over to American authorities upon setting foot in Sweden, and eventually charged with leaking classified documents.

Safe passage to Ecuador has not been secured by British authorities, however, as the UK maintains it will arrest him if he leaves the embassy, deporting him to Sweden.

In August, Assange told Ecuador's Gama television network that he expected the diplomatic impasse with the UK to be resolved within a year.

------------------

Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA'

But its thought another condom, submitted by the second alleged victim, does.
Swedish authorities requesting his extradition from Britain to stand trial
First alleged victim claims that Mr Assange deliberately ripped a condom


By Abul Taher

PUBLISHED: 19:31 EST, 15 September 2012 | UPDATED: 19:58 EST, 15 September 2012

Forensic staff could not find any conclusive evidence of Mr Assange¿s DNA on a torn condom given to Swedish police by one of the alleged victims

Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have revealed that a key piece of evidence does not contain his DNA.

A torn condom given to Swedish police by one of the alleged victims was examined by staff at two forensic laboratories but they could not find any conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it.

The same forensic teams found DNA thought to belong to the WikiLeaks boss on another condom, which was submitted by the second alleged victim.

The revelation is contained in a 100-page police report that was written after witnesses were interviewed and forensic evidence had been examined.

The report, which has been seen by Mr Assange’s lawyers, has led to the Swedish authorities requesting his extradition from Britain to stand trial, though he is yet to be charged with any offence.

Mr Assange, who denies allegations of rape and sexual molestation, has been fighting extradition to Sweden for the past two years. He claims it is a ruse to send him to the United States where he could face trial for espionage.


The 41-year-old is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after being granted asylum by the country’s president, Rafael Correa.

In the report, the first alleged victim, now 33, claims she was sexually molested by Mr Assange at her flat in Stockholm on several occasions.

She also claims that Mr Assange deliberately ripped a condom before wearing it so that he could have unprotected sex with her against her will.
Julian Assange is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after being granted asylum

Julian Assange is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after being granted asylum by the country's president, Rafael Correa.

His lawyers have said that the fact no DNA could be found conclusively on an apparently used condom suggests a fake one may have been submitted.

The report also appears to cast doubt on the claim made by the second alleged victim, who told police that she was ‘raped’ by Mr Assange when she was asleep.


More........................

Is this the photo that could clear Assange? Grinning for the camera, WikiLeaks boss and 'Woman A' who says he sexually assaulted her 48 hours earlier
Julian Assange's celebrity backers set to lose $540,000 bail money as he remains holed up in Ecuador Embassy
'I'll stay for a YEAR!' Assange pledges to hide in Ecuador's embassy for as long as it takes for Sweden to drop case against him

But during a police interview, the woman, now 29, apparently suggests that she did not mind him having unprotected sex with her.

The Swedish prosecutor’s office refused to comment on the report but said the case was ongoing.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html#ixzz2E2pQZArC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:43 PM

105. It's neither your business nor mine to pick apart the details of a Swedish court case!

The fact that you want badly to believe in Assange, in fact, makes you a poor example of objectivity.

I tell myself that I don't care if I'm right or wrong about Assange -or anything else for that matter. I have no 'skin in the game'.

But for someone on DU to think they have the experience to make decisions on a court case that has been through numerous appeals levels is astonishing to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:34 PM

32. Given the circumstances why then doesn't Sweden just arrange a video hearing with Assange?

 

Seems simple enough. Sweden authorities get to interview Assange and Assange gets to remain secure against any possible rendition to the U.S.

If all Sweden and the UK care about is Assange answering questions concerning these allegations then there's no reason why all parties (including Ecuador) would have a problem with this. That is unless there are other motives other than "just answer the questions".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:40 PM

34. UK courts have found Sweden wants Assange in order to prosecute him and have ruled

that he should be extradited to Sweden for that purpose

Swedish prosecutions are conducted in the Swedish courts, not in Latin American embassies in the UK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:49 PM

36. Why haven't they charged him in more than two years? Why did they lie when they falsely

claimed they could not interview him in London? And when that lie was exposed with proof, why have they refused to explain why they lied?

If they have charges, take the perfectly legal step they have refused to take and charge him. We all know why they cannot do that.

False allegations are not only a crime against the victim of the false allegations, it is a crime against all women and it is totally irresponsible to support using sexual assault allegations for political purposes.

Refusing to file charges has lost them all credibility at this point except with those who have a political agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:53 PM

40. +1000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:15 PM

49. It all went through the UK courts, for a year and a half. Assange's lawyers argued rather along the

lines you suggest -- and they quite definitely lost in court

The UK courts noted that prosecution procedures in Sweden differ somewhat from prosecution procedures in the UK

But the UK courts found that Assange is wanted in Sweden so that he can be prosecuted for rape and various other varieties of sexual misconduct

In accordance with UK law and binding treaties, the UK courts then determined that Assange should be extradited to Sweden for prosecution

Res judicata

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:18 PM

51. Where are the charges? And why did the Prosecutor lie about being able to take the

legal step she has refused to take for more than two years? All the rest is propaganda. I deal with facts. If you cannot answer those questions, then just say so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:37 PM

103. UK courts have found Sweden wants Assange in order to prosecute him for rape


As you know, Assange's lawyers pursued the approach you still follow, which attempts to confuse persons familiar with English legal procedure by emphasizing terminology used by the Swedish authorities to refer to Swedish legal procedure

That approach, however, failed in the UK courts, which determined that Sweden did not want Assange for "questioning" in the English sense of the word but wanted him delivered to Sweden so that the Swedish authorities could begin prosecution for various alleged crimes, including rape, in accordance with Swedish legal procedure

And in fact, there is still an outstanding warrant, issued by a Swedish court for Assange's arrest for prosecution, that predates the European Arrest Warrant that was the basis of the extradition request

The crimes alleged, in the complaints against Assange, have been repeatedly laid out as Assange's suit passed through the UK courts: you can find the information outlined clearly enough, for example, in the following well-known document, readily-available in pdf form:

The judicial authority in Sweden-v-Julian Paul Assange - Findings of facts and reasons
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:51 PM

39. Assange would be answering Swedish prosecutor's questions in Swedish court's via video link

 

What's the problem?

Again, there's NO reason why this couldn't be done. In fact there are many courts here in the U.S. where the accused who are not out on bail sit in a court room jail with a video link to the court room conducting their case.

I assume you wish to see Assange renditioned to the U.S. and treated the way Manning has been?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:07 PM

43. You're welcome to try to get everyone to change their understandings of extradition, so

that "the court has determined the subject should be extradited to country X for prosecution" means "country X may interview the subject by videolink"

But that's not what anyone currently means, when speaking of extradition for the purposes of prosecution, so you may have a bit of an uphill climb

Meanwhile, until the controlling law and treaties change, it would be unreasonable to expect any countries or their governments to make ad hoc exceptions for Mr Assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:48 AM

139. They can't arrest him via video link

do you think for a second that if Sweden said "we have enough to arrest you, can you please surrender?" that Assange would actually surrender?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:43 PM

35. Because as even their extremist attorney has admitted, they have no case.

To actually file charges would mean they have to make public the exculpatory evidence which is pretty much known to those who have followed this case, and that would mean the end of the game they are playing.

They tried lying about interviewing a person who has not even been charged, by claiming they could not do so. That was thoroughly debunked, now they simply refuse to answer to answer the question you just asked.

At this point, their failure to file charges, now in the third year, simply confirms what most people around the globe already knew, this was a trumped up case to silence Wikileaks. It has not worked of course since this tactic was already exposed when Wikileaks posted a CIA memo stating that smearing him with sex allegations was how they would handle him. One month later they put it into action, but without actually filing charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:07 PM

44. Its a shame some folks can't see that

 

I think some people either comment before they know the whole story or comment mostly, or purely, out of emotions instead of the facts. Glad most folks on the DU are more like you sabrina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:16 PM

50. Some people, in this thread, do know these facts yet continue to misrepresent them.

I would like to know why anyone would continue to do that, but I have a few theories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:41 PM

56. Yes!!! ^^^This^^^. Many inquiring minds of DU want to know.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:10 PM

65. This is the European Arrest Warrant, detailing the offences Sweden seeks answers to:


1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2.Sexual molestation -On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

Note that this is the summary, not the full decision, which is worth the read.



According to Swedish law, the formal charges will be filed after Mr. Assange is interviewed. The SPA has declined to interview him anywhere other than Sweden, which is unsurprising, given his fugitive status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:12 PM

87. The prosecutor lied when she claimed she could not interview

him in Europe. There is only one reason why she lied that I can think of. Once he realized for certain that they were willing to lie about that, he knew he could not trust the Swedish Government or its Prosecutors to get a fair trial.

Sweden's right wing (Karl Rove supported) Government hates Assange.

He was absolutely right to seek asylum once it became obvious that this was nothing more than a political witch hunt. Only here is there any doubt about that, mostly on the Right as it always was even when Wikileaks first became known to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:22 PM

89. Is this what Julian Assange testified to? Can you cite it from testimony of other witnesses? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:37 AM

130. Testified? To what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #130)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:18 AM

132. Your allegations that the prosecutor lied. Was this presented in the British courts

as part of the extradition appeal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:14 PM

48. It all went through the UK courts, for a year and a half. Assange's lawyers argued rather along the

lines you suggest -- and they quite definitely lost in court

The UK courts noted that prosecution procedures in Sweden differ somewhat from prosecution procedures in the UK

But the UK courts found that Assange is wanted in Sweden so that he can be prosecuted for rape and various other varieties of sexual misconduct

In accordance with UK law and binding treaties, the UK courts then determined that Assange should be extradited to Sweden for prosecution

Res judicata

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:23 PM

53. There was never any need for extradition. The Prosecutors lied, and when a Prosecutor

lie, end of 'case'. Assange was correct once he realized that they were willing to lie about something so easily exposed, that he had the right to seek asylum from what became clear was a political prosecution.

He is not the first to have exercised that right, and wont' be the last.

IF the Prosecutor stops lying, takes his offer and interviews him she can then file her charges. Why has she not done that?

Oh yes, and the British Courts refused extradition for Pinochet. Not that long ago either. Did you agree with that decision also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:42 PM

69. Your claim "British Courts refused extradition for Pinochet" shows how careless you are about facts

It was a dozen or more years ago now, of course

And the affair was complicated: Spain trying Pinochet for crimes in Chile, for example, potentially involved issues of "universal jurisdiction," which not everyone accepts; moreover, there is a dual-criminality standard for extradition, but changing UK law was held to leave Pinochet immune under UK law for crimes committed prior to 1988

Nevertheless, your "British Courts refused extradition for Pinochet" is flat-out false, and in fact your assertion is contradicted by multiple rulings in the case

The British courts actually ruled that Pinochet could be extradited, but this left the decision to the government. Meanwhile, Chile opposed the extradition, and Pinochet allegedly suffered several minor strokes. The decision being in the government's hands, Jack Straw determined not to extradite Pinochet to Spain, citing his ill-health

Here are a few links

... London's Bow Street Magistrates Court committed Gen Pinochet on the 35 charges he is accused of, which include one of conspiracy to torture and 34 of torture ... In his ruling, Deputy Chief Stipendiary Magistrate Ronald Bartle told the court he was satisfied that "all the conditions are in place which oblige me under the terms of the Extradition Act 1989 to commit Senator Pinochet to await the decision of the Secretary of State" ...

Friday, October 8, 1999
Published at 13:01 GMT 14:01 UK
Way cleared for Pinochet extradition
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/468589.stm


... A foreign ministry official said Chile would ask the International Court of Justice to rule that Spain's judiciary cannot judge him. The spokesman said Chile would begin the proceedings before the end of the year. Gen Pinochet is wanted in Spain on charges of human rights abuses in Chile during his 17 years of strong-arm rule ...

Tuesday, September 28, 1999
Published at 12:08 GMT 13:08 UK
Chile to fight Pinochet extradition
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/459850.stm


General Augusto Pinochet has been excused appearing at the next hearing in his fight against extradition after a court heard he had recently suffered two minor strokes. The former Chilean dictator was due to attend Bow Street Magistrates Court in London on Friday to hear whether he would be committed to face extradition to Spain for alleged human rights crimes. But sitting at Bow Street on Wednesday, Deputy Chief Stipendiary Magistrate Ronald Bartle granted an application by the 83-year-old's lawyers that he should be excused attendance because of ill-health ...

Wednesday, October 6, 1999
Published at 14:31 GMT 15:31 UK
Pinochet excused court after strokes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/466961.stm

... Home Secretary Jack Straw is said to be "minded" to release General Pinochet - and not extradite him to face charges in the Spanish courts - after medical reports showed he was not well enough. The Home Office said the "unequivocal and unanimous" conclusion of a four-strong medical team who examined the 84-year-old on 5 January was that he was "at present unfit to stand trial, and that no change to that position can be expected" ...
Wednesday, 12 January, 2000, 00:04 GMT
Pinochet 'unfit to face trial'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/599526.stm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:10 AM

128. "shows how careless you are about facts"




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:57 PM

62. Still obsessed with this losing position, I see. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:20 PM

75. I'm still hoping that there will be some defense of the "losing position." I've asked..

Hopefully the replies will come later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:28 PM

101. The Manning Trial is going on. My twitter feed tells me the propaganda against Assange has

started again to coincide with the trial. I had not seen it until I came to DU. Lol!

What's sad is how they used to be able to fool people with their big PR Corporations writing all this stuff and disseminating it to their favorite 'journalists'.

But today is really is encouraging to see how the people are no longer fooled, how they even anticipate what they are going to do.

We are likely to see lots of the Rendon Group type propaganda about Assange to try to smear Manning and influence how people view him.

It's almost amusing to watch. What is not amusing is what has happened to DU where so many smart Democrats never fell for this kind of propaganda. I miss them. But I think they have moved to the Social Media which is far more influential thankfully and where operatives have a far more difficult time spreading lies and distortions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #101)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:50 AM

135. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:45 PM

106. Remember, just because you're paranoid

doesn't mean everyone ISN'T after you!


I don't trust Assange. If he were truly innocent, he would have given himself up. He claims that he refuses to proclaim his innocence because it's a ploy to allow him to be extradited to the US, where he also claims he would be found guilty on trumped-up charges?

So he is charged in 2 separate countries on 2 separate charges and he refuses to address the first set because he may have to address the second set?

There is seriously something wrong here. I support transparency, but I know when someone is pissing on my boots and telling me that it's raining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:00 PM

110. He's not even claiming there are charges in the U.S.

He wants the world to believe there are. Some men will do ANYTHING other than to face embarrassing sex charges. I think that's the case with Assange, here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:13 PM

120. 'Give himself up'. For what? He has never been charged. You don't give yourself up

unless you are wanted. All he is wanted for is 'questioning'. And he has been available for more than two years to the Prosecution for that. They have refused time and time again to accept his offers, both when he was in Sweden and stayed for weeks to accomodate them, and then two hours away in London.

Why do you think the Prosecution keeps refusing to talk to him? Because as soon as she gets that done, she can file charges according to Swedish Law. So isn't it odd that they still have not done this?

IF they have a case, which frankly having seen much of the available evidence, most people do not believe they have, you would think they would have arrested him in Sweden when he voluntarily went to the Police and later when he repeatedly offered to speak to them both in Sweden and in London, which is perfectly legal under EU and Swedish law. It's going on three years now and still no charges.

No person in the history of the EU, Interpol or Sweden or London, NOT charged with any crime has been so pursued before. I think most people have figured out why.

He challenged the Western Imperialists simply by publishing truths about them. He would have been better to have committed a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #120)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:19 AM

134. Right...

 

Assange has already answered these bogus "questions"; I'm not sure why geography matters-- unless of course what the Swedish authorities actually want to do is immediately arrest and jail Assange when he steps onto Swedish soil-- on the more "serious" charges. extradition to the U.S. would be next on the agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #134)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:30 PM

143. There is a Swedish arrest warrant for Assange, that predates the

European Arrest Warrant: this is because the Swedes plan to prosecute Assange for rape and other sexual misconduct

The UK courts have determined that the Swedish extradition request is a request to deliver Assange to the Swedish authorities so that he can be prosecuted

Geography matters, because Swedish prosecutions are conducted in Sweden, where the Swedish justice system provides useful amenities, such as Swedish courtrooms and Swedish prosecutors and Swedish defense attorneys and Swedish judges and other Swedish auxiliaries, to which the Swedish justice system has become accustomed

If you think Swedish criminal prosecutions ought properly be conducted elsewhere, perhaps in some Latin American embassy in London, or atop the High Himalaya, or amidst the glorious rings of Saturn, you should of course feel free to lobby at Helgeandsholmen for such changes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #143)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:20 PM

161. I'm Supposed to Believe...

 

It's ALL about the "rape" and "sexual misconduct" charges in Sweden??

Gimme a break.

wish I had $20 bucks for every time the CIA squealed "rapist!" or "pervert" at every dissident who crossed them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:11 AM

131. Man, 3 days of raging flamewars about attitudes on rape,

but when an official suggests that a rape suspect should maybe go and face trial, people will still line up to say that he shouldn't have to because conspiracy theory.

This site...

(the periodic releases about his health from Ecuador, along with Assange's assurances that he's fine are interesting. I wonder if they're angling for a way to be rid of him while still claiming the moral high ground.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cemaphonic (Reply #131)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:45 AM

133. Part of it, IMO, is hero worship.

People want strongly to believe in someone or something. Assange. Manning. Wikileaks. Anonymous. Occupy.

With all the crap that this country has had to endure -with all the crap Obama has had to endure- it's understandable when our heroes seem to not be quite as squeaky clean as we wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #133)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:27 AM

136. Your statement is quite revealing about your views. Interesting. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #133)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:14 PM

145. A very enlightening statement from you.

Now I think I understand ...

'Our heroes'?? Do not project your own needs to have a hero onto other people. If you are disappointed in your heroes, here's some advice. Do not ever raise any human being to the level of hero, then you will not be disappointed.

So this is why you keep posting incorrect information in this threads no matter how many time you are proven to be wrong?

Which hero of yours does OWS and/or Wikileaks threaten? Which hero does the Left threaten?

We know how much you abhor those organizations which is strange to see on a Democratic Forum.

The only people who should feel threatened by a free press (Wikileaks) and by the people (OWS)are corrupt bankers, such as the one in Iceland exposed by Wikileaks.

So what heroes of yours do they threaten?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #145)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:12 PM

151. I tend not to hero worship at all.

Because I know how flawed even heroes can be. I only care about learning the truth, regardless of where it leads me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #133)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:46 PM

149. Ah, the old THIRD WAY "hero worship strawman" meme once again. Do y'all have an old list of

these memes that you consult when posting?

Was the propaganda piece posted below the original Third Way directive for using the "hero worship strawman" on internet boards? Or was there maybe a memo that preceded this?

From the co-founder and President of the Third Way:

Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks Attack on Progressive Values
January 7th, 2011
by Jonathan Cowan, Nancy Hale, and Matt Bennett

That’s why it is so distressing to see well-known progressive voices like Moore’s taking up the cause of Julian Assange. The WikiLeaks leader should have a status more in line with the self-important, misguided, rigid and ideologically blind Charlton Heston, who Moore exposed so brilliantly in his film.

We hope that Moore and other progressives will reconsider this support. The left should not be backing a man or an organization that is so clearly inimical to American security interests and to so many progressive values. Assange’s actions as head of WikiLeaks should install him in the annals of infamy, not offer him hero-worship.

Jon Cowan is Co-Founder and President of Third Way; Matt Bennett and Nancy Hale are Co-Founders and Vice Presidents of Third Way.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #149)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:08 PM

150. 'Once again'? I thought it was my own idea.

Ah, well, nothing new under the sun, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #150)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:16 PM

156. Really? Oh, why no, not at all! Just check out this 2 yr old thread from struggle4progress!

Shockingly enough, struggle4progress has been using it, and the Julian Assange sexual assault attack as well, for years!

Enough with the Julian Assange hero worship (WW4 Report ...

Hero worship has been used in threads as a strawman term to be associated with Assange, by, shockingly enough, some of the same DU posters for years

And, goodness me, here's another surprise! You yourself have posted in some of those anti-Assange threads where the term hero worship has been used in the past!

And look, here's you actually even using the meme yourself in a past thread!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021247709#post9

I really gotta hand it to the Third Way ~ they really know how to keep pushin' those anti-progressive propaganda memes on the internet. Admirable persistence. Very consistent in their methods of subterfuge

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."—George W. Bush

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #156)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:49 PM

157. Oh, my God. I am found out!

Look, it's one thing to have a difference of opinion in the case of Assange. But why do these threads always need to descend into personal vindictive? I really don't care if I'm right to peg Assange as a narcissist. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

But you seem to want to be right. There's the difference between us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #157)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:48 PM

159. It's nothing personal. I even call out my oldest, closest friends when they are trying to bullshit

me, or bullshit themselves. And I fully expect them to do the same for me.

We tend to keep all open, real, and transparent. Especially with regard to our motivations behind what we do.

If you are looking for the real difference between us, that's it right there.

It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to be right, and everything to do with being real.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #159)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:15 PM

160. I get you.

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't put much stock in motivations, though. Just the facts.

Your enemies will never tell you when you're wrong. Neither will mine. In that respect, we are all best friends on DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:32 AM

138. It is totally disgusting to use an alleged sexual assault as a vehicle for attacking an

individual when your primary motivations for attacking that individual are clearly politically motivated and obviously have little or nothing to do with alleged sexual assault whatsoever.


And gosh, s4p, the absence of your opinions in the numerous recent rape threads is very noticeable.

Shocking, to say the least, in light of the fact that you have been posting about an alleged sexual assault day after day, week after week, month after month.

If you so fervently wish to see Julian Assange punished for his "crimes" against the Military Industrial Complex, why don't you just come out and say it, rather than use rape allegations as a pathetic, and very unhealthy, strawman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:24 PM

146. I could not agree more. But isn't standard to use Women and Rape to try to emotionally

manipulate them into going along with crimes against humanity and ignoring the crimes of Wall Street?

Thankfully I think MOST women are smarter than that. I remember when I saw the CIA memo Wikileaks posted on their site, discussing how to 'take down Assange'. It made me sick frankly. They discussed various possibilities and then settled on 'smearing him with a sexual scandal'.

Women are used by men in this way, in their wars etc. You get a real understanding of where people stand when something like this happens.

Not to mention how these kinds of tactics adversely affect real issues facing women which come to think of it, may a secondary goal of the deviants who control these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #146)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:25 PM

152. Using sexual assault as subterfuge is thoroughly revolting, whether it is used by posters

on an internet message board, a conservative organization comprised of corporatists, or by the Military Industrial Complex.

It's just so wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #152)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:12 PM

155. Yes, and that CIA memo shows that elements in our own government

are more than willing to do it. To use women for their own political purposes. But thankfully women's organizations have demonstrated they are not happy with this at all so I guess they are learning, we are not all as stupid as they had hoped, easily manipulated by them. It gives me hope!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:22 PM

140. Kick...

'cause this thread is all kinds of awesome.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #140)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:29 PM

141. Shore and it is, me matey!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #140)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:25 PM

147. Yes it is, and you contributed so much to it yourself.

I hear people are truly impressed with your contributions, so here's another kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #147)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:37 PM

148. Go back to watching Law and Order, sabrina. You're out of your depth...

&feature=related

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #148)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:32 PM

153. As FDR said, and I have to say I have always judged myself the same way, about those who

hated him: 'I welcome their hatred'. You can tell as much about people by who opposes them as you can by their friends.

You have given me more credibility here than all those with whom I generally agree.

So I thank you from the bottom of my heart Sid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #153)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:51 PM

158. I don't think anyone on this thread hates Assange. Or you or anyone else.

Well, perhaps I should only speak for myself but 'hate' does not seem to be the impulse for posts on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #148)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:46 PM

162. Now Sid...you realize that's "borderline" for an Alert...but, some of us feel it's

better to let the "Call Outs" stand because it reveals more about the Original Poster than a "DUAlert" would ever do.

So...carry on.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #162)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:04 PM

164. If you think it's worth an alert...

then alert on it.

Otherwise, allow me to laugh my ass off at the passive-aggressive 'that's alertable, but I'm not going to alert' nonsense.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #164)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:30 PM

186. Actually you don't know what passive-aggressive means.

Posting a rofl smilie while scowling bitterly in front of an old computer in a poorly lit room in your mother's basement -THAT's passive aggressiveness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #186)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:06 PM

190. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #162)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:28 PM

166. Yes, but I wouldn't alert on these gems. It's revealing to see a man who rarely posts anything

about issues, most of his contributions from my observations are snide attacks against the left on DU, tell a 'little woman' to go watch TV as she doesn't have the brains to do anything else.

A lot gets revealed in these threads. What's always interesting about men who have problems with women speaking about issues they themselves appear to know nothing about, is that they think we care about their opinions. This is the 21st Century, women have come a long way. We don't care. We laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #166)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:51 PM

179. True..some things are not worthy of alert...it's better to read the thread and have

Compassion for our "fellow travelers" hoping that one day....down the road...they might decice to engage in productive conversation with us ...as their views might morph given the information coming out day by day that would make them wonder about their stance and views on these important issues.

I won't give up HOPE for them to read and re-read and finally understand what we are trying to discuss. AND...DISCUSSION is the ISSUE! Not "hard lines drawn in sand"...but REAL BACK AND FORTH.

Just WISHING.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #179)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:52 PM

180. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #180)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:52 PM

182. It's Okay Sid...I still believe that your persona is not what it appears...

BUT...of course you consider me one of those "Lefty Fools" who just want to reach out to "Welfare Queens" to give away the Country of AMERICA that you believed in.

I believe there's something about you that you don't want to reveal. I like to dig...I think you are something different from your persona here on Du....or .......YOU ARE EVIL.

I will always FIGHT against THE EVIL. But, if you are disabled and have nothing left in life but to be the DU Curmudgeon...then I realize you need compassion...and can't we all do with MUCH MORE of Compassion.

Peace to you ...I've done my best to understand you...can't do anymore with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #182)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:23 PM

184. I don't particularly care what you do or don't believe about me...

which is why I find your theorizing so hilarious.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #184)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:26 PM

185. 'Evil', Sid. It's what's for breakfast!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #185)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:31 PM

187. Might have to photoshop my avatar...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:06 PM

154. Assange will go to Sweden: diplomats

December 4, 2012 - 8:36PM
Philip Dorling

... It is thought that the transparency group's dwindling financial support will ''sooner or later dry up'' leaving Assange ''irrelevant and with little alternative other than to leave Ecuador's embassy''.
Advertisement

''This is slowly playing itself out, over months, maybe more than a year, but there's only one likely outcome - extradition to Sweden,'' a diplomatic source said last week.

One security official claimed WikiLeaks' ''inner group'' now comprised only ''four to six people, including Assange'' and that its website was ''running on empty'' financially.

''WikiLeaks doesn't have an electronic drop box any more; they haven't published anything of any great consequence for many months. There's just a Twitter feed. This phenomenon has run its course,'' he said ...

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/assange-will-go-to-sweden-diplomats-20121204-2atbh.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #154)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:20 PM

165. Lol, I love these predictions. But thanks for reminding me, it's time for another donation

to Wikileaks. He's got some pretty wealthy supporters also, some of the most progressive people who actually support a free and independent media.

Such wishful thinking from the Corporate propagandists. The Australian Govt under its current leaders has lost any credibility on this matter. They keep trying with their complicit press but each time they publish something like this, it either gets Assange and/or Wikileaks a new Journalism Award and more donations.

Shameful the treasonous role they have played in this. To work to suppress Journalism that no one has disputed published only facts, by a so-called democratic government, no wonder the people are so outraged with their lap dog government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #154)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:18 PM

171. Australian FOIA Docs confirm Assange "the enemy" In US counter-espionage investigation


(SFP, why did you leave out this revelation at the end of the article that you just posted?0

--------
The Australian government has repeatedly denied knowledge of any US intention to charge Assange or seek his extradition. But Australian diplomatic cables released to Fairfax Media under freedom-of-information laws over the past 18 months confirmed the continuation of an ''unprecedented'' US Justice Department espionage investigation targeting Assange and WikiLeaks.

Further cables released under FOI this week show Australian diplomats urgently contacted the Pentagon following Fairfax Media reports in September that WikiLeaks and its supporters had been labelled as ''the enemy'' in a US counter-espionage investigation.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/assange-will-go-to-sweden-diplomats-20121204-2atbh.html#ixzz2E8yPC7iD


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/assange-will-go-to-sweden-diplomats-20121204-2atbh.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #171)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:28 PM

173. DU has exhaustively combed over September Assangist claims that

the US has officially labelled Assange and/or Wikileaks an "enemy"; that turned out to be the usual Assangist misrepresentations

But if you wish to support the claim, feel free to produce some evidence: let's see the FOI documents, for example

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #173)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:48 AM

174. A separate release of FOI Docs confirmed by Dept. of Foreign Affairs (AUS) confirmed:

The Australian diplomatic reports canvassed the possibility that the US may eventually seek Mr Assange's extradition on conspiracy or information-theft-related offences to avoid extradition problems arising from the nature of espionage as a political offence and the free-speech protections in the US constitution.

Mr Assange is scheduled this morning to speak by video link to a meeting on his asylum case on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting will be attended by Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino.

In a separate FOI decision yesterday, the Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the release of Australian diplomatic cables about WikiLeaks and Mr Assange had been the subject of extensive consultation with the US.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html#ixzz2EBTXxGuz

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #174)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:23 AM

175. Again, we need to see the FOI documents themselves, to know what they say


the release of Australian diplomatic cables about WikiLeaks and Mr Assange had been the subject of extensive consultation with the US just isn't very informative

Almost nothing can be deduced from the simple fact that the US and Australia discussed the Wikileaks releases -- the US (say) might have discussed with Australia the possible compromise of Australian intelligence assets by the Wikileaks release of US embassy cables, or the discussions might have covered any number of other topics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:49 AM

176. Why won't Sweden agree not to send him to US?

And why can't Swedish authorities question him while he is in UK?

Since there are easy solutions for Sweden which don't put Assange at risk of being sent to a US Gulag, I assume Sweden's real intention is to turn Assange over to the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cicada (Reply #176)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:00 AM

177. UK courts have found Sweden wants Assange in order to prosecute him for rape


The UK courts have determined that Sweden did not want Assange for "questioning" in the English sense of the word but wants him delivered to Sweden so that the Swedish authorities could begin prosecution for various alleged crimes, including rape, in accordance with Swedish legal procedure

There is a Swedish arrest warrant for Assange, that predates the European Arrest Warrant: this is because the Swedes plan to prosecute Assange for rape and other sexual misconduct

I suppose you're welcome to try to get everyone to change their understandings of extradition, so that "the court has determined the subject should be extradited to country X for prosecution" means "country X may interview the subject by videolink" -- but that's not what anyone currently means

Swedish prosecutions are currently conducted in Sweden, where the Swedish justice system provides useful amenities, such as Swedish courtrooms and Swedish prosecutors and Swedish defense attorneys and Swedish judges and other Swedish auxiliaries, to which the Swedish justice system has become accustomed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #177)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:32 PM

181. I read the 99 page PDF Release...It's quite interesting..but the thread is dead

and you've been successful in that no one wants to read more because we all work so hard that no one has that much time to get into the "Weeds" of all of this in these times.

So...you've been very successful in your efforts...but the PDF File is there...if anyone wants to dig into it...and it's an interesting read that SUPPORTS ASSANGE...and not like you've put out there.

Just saying if anyone has the time to spend..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #181)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:08 PM

183. Assange lost in court again and again, at every level. He lost at Belmarsh,

he next lost on appeal, and then he lost on appeal to the high court, which afterwards gave him further leave to argue against part of the high court decision, a matter which he lost again. Finally the high court gave him a fortnight to appeal to Strasbourg -- instead of which he jumped bail to hide in the embassy

The Belmarsh magistrate's findings are extraordinarily informative, insofar as they debunk one claim after another made by Assange and his followers, for example,:

(1) The claim that Assange left Sweden with permission was thoroughly discredited: Assange left Sweden after his lawyer was informed Assange was about to be arrested and while the Swedish prosecutors were attempting to schedule further contact with him -- and Assange's lawyer was caught misinforming the court on this point

(2) Assange and his lawyer never argued in court that Assange could be sent from Sweden to the US and could then be tortured or killed: the only evidence provided on this point was provided by one of Assange's own witnesses, who said explicitly that forward extradition to the US from Sweden was a political impossibility

(3) The claim that behavior, alleged of Assange in Sweden, would not be criminal in the UK, was explicitly considered by the magistrate, who concluded that Assange's alleged behavior would definitely qualify as rape in the UK

(4) The claim that the Swedish prosecutors "only want Assange for questioning" was shown to be a misrepresentation, based on differences between UK and Swedish procedure: Belmarsh concluded that Assange is wanted in Sweden so that the Swedes can prosecute him for sexual crimes, including rape

Unfortunately, Assange and his supporters have continued to make these claims, long after being refuted in open court


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #183)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:55 PM

188. You didn't read the PDF File..start with #50..and move along....

USA wants him FOR TRIAL....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cicada (Reply #176)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:14 AM

178. No court system will guarantee anything to someone wanted for questioning and/or arrest.

If they did, then any suspect would be able to set his/her own conditions for questioning. That's not how a court system in the Western world works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #178)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:02 PM

189. USA wants him to corroborate Bradley Manning in Prison 'til he Dies or Tried for Treason

The both are interconnected.

Whistle Blowers highest amongst Obama Admins Prosecutions. Where are the Wall Street Bankers who brought down our Financial System who are have been prosecuted.

You might site Bernie Madoff...but that was Ponzi Scheme and NOT the REAL People who Crashed our System ...through Hooking folks on Credit Cards, doing Faulty Loans to people ignorant in the latest Financial Schemes who were hawked on by Media like "Flip this House" and they guy who told folks to BUY REAL ESTATE AND FLIP it who is now under indictment.

Yet Wall Street going back to Reagan and Greenspan get's a PASS except for that Guy Madoff who swindled a bunch of Investors...who went down and even his son "Offed Himself!"

Dig Deep and read like the rest of us here posting have done.

It's an AMERICAN TRAGEDY...that repercussed all over with so many involved in the GRAND PONZI or the GREENSPAN FAKE OUT!

Edited for cleaning up obvious typos...more are still there..posting in haste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #189)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:11 PM

191. Even if you accept that as true, Assange has been through 5 appeals levels.

Every single one of them says he needs to return to Sweden.

And I maintain there is a difference between leaking sensitive data and whistleblowing. Obama is our Commander-In-Chief. He cannot abide leakers. No way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #191)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:17 PM

192. "Obama is our Commander-In-Chief". He cannot abide leakers. No way.

That's quite revealing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread