HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » In With Assange

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 04:57 AM

In With Assange

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/in-with-assange/story-e6frg8h6-1226472526277

Phillip Adams - The Weekend Australian Magazine

...

Four Corners <Australia's longest running investigative journalism television program> got the Swedish story about right. Swedish policing and investigative procedures are a shambles - and, leaving aside the risks of being extradited to the US, Julian is right to doubt the readiness or willingness of the Swedish authorities to give him a fair treatment. The way the enquiry was mishandled should make the Swedes feel ashamed. As ashamed as Gillard's government should feel over its gutless performance in regard to Julian and WikiLeaks - with talk of treason and legal proceedings where clearly no crime had been committed. Rather the opposite: WikiLeaks has revealed the crimes of governments.

Not that grovelling to the US over "national security" issues is new. Think of David Hicks at Guantanamo - and the Howard government's complicity in the extraordinary rendition and torture of Mamdouh Habib.

Assange has already endured years of incarceration over sexual allegations that smack of the spurious - with critics chanting "rape", wilfully ignorant of the facts revealed by Four Corners. Sweden is a sideshow. The major issue is the war on WikiLeaks, and the prospects of Assange joining Bradley Manning in some US hell-hole are well founded.

Having been abandoned by his own country, Assange is now trapped in a South American embassy to avoid being handed over to our North American friends. His personal isolation is echoed in the plight of WikiLeaks itself - with what Julian calls "economic censorship" enforced by the US, by having credit card companies cut off the flow of donations. If you'd like to help, let me know - there are still ways and means. Email me at PhillipAdams1@bigpond.com.au.
I'll put you in touch.

48 replies, 5159 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 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply In With Assange (Original post)
AntiFascist Sep 2012 OP
pnwmom Sep 2012 #1
Swagman Sep 2012 #2
pnwmom Sep 2012 #5
tama Sep 2012 #7
Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2012 #29
tama Sep 2012 #30
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #32
Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2012 #35
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #36
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #31
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #3
cpwm17 Sep 2012 #25
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #28
midnight Sep 2012 #38
The Traveler Sep 2012 #4
pnwmom Sep 2012 #6
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #9
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #12
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #14
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #15
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #26
reorg Sep 2012 #27
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #10
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #11
pnwmom Sep 2012 #42
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #43
pnwmom Sep 2012 #44
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #45
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #13
esmeralda Sep 2012 #40
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #41
xchrom Sep 2012 #8
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #16
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #17
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #18
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #19
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #20
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #21
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #22
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #23
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #24
esmeralda Sep 2012 #39
esmeralda Sep 2012 #33
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #34
esmeralda Sep 2012 #37
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #46
tama Sep 2012 #47
esmeralda Sep 2012 #48

Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:00 AM

1. We have an extradition agreement with Britain. So if we were going to extradite,

why would we wait till he'd been extradited to Sweden -- in which case we'd need approval from both the UK and Sweden to extradite him here?

And what specific laws could we charge a non-citizen like Assange with disobeying? Charles Rangel says there are no such laws, and I believe him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:10 AM

2. as the article ponts out-the rules mean little as David Hicks who spent

5 years at Gitmo and Mamoud Habib who spent 3 , found out. Plus all the others there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:46 AM

5. If we were going to extradite him, why didn't we do it from the UK?

It's crazy to think we'd have to do it in such roundabout way -- getting Sweden to extradite him first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:07 AM

7. Repeating that old question

 

don't make it any better.

Or do you honestly claim that you have never seen it answered in the zillions of Assange threads?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 05:36 PM

29. there have been no valid answer that i've seen to the question nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 05:47 PM

30. How many have you seen

 

and why do you consider them not valid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 08:16 PM

32. The point that I have been arguing elsewhere...

is that the US is not prepared yet to request extradition because the case is not far enough along. The Assange case is closely tied to the Manning case which won't go to trial until 2013. The case is extraordinarily secretive and the government has been getting stuck in preventing documents from even being released to the defense. The investigation of Assange centers on how closely he was working with Manning and whether he had knowledge that release of the documents would harm US national security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 05:17 PM

35. the us preperation tho is more or less irrelevant

If he had returned to Sweden rather then fought it in the UK courts for 2 years(and lost every step on the way) then he would have been presented with the case and one of 3 things would have happened

1: it was decided that there was not enough evidence and he would be let free(most unlikely option since the prosecutor has stated that unless his explanations et al for the evidence is quite good then files will be charged)

2: there was enough evidence et al for charges and a trial, he would then have to wait the short time until the trial and once trial commenced and was finished he might have been cleared anyhow and be free to go

3: Identically to number 2 but he is found guilty and put in jail, in this instance if we were to fast forward til today then there would have been extremely good chances that Assange would already have been a free man again some months ago

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #35)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

36. If you read the news reports from 2 years ago...

the US climate was much more hostile toward Assange. When the secret cables were released by Wikileaks people appeared on Fox News, etc, calling for Assange's assassination. The Swedish system itself can be very secretive and if he was moved to Sweden at that time he could have been locked up indefinitely, possibly with no explanation forthcoming.

The Obama administration admits that as time goes on, the odds of Assange being prosecuted are diminishing. Therefore, it is in his best interest to wait this out as long as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:40 PM

31. David Hicks wasn't extradited from anywhere. He was imprisoned by US military in Afghanistan in 2001

Like much of the rest of the Bush "war on terror," the capture may have made no sense, and it may have been driven by political pressure on the military to return captives as proof that we were doing something in Afghanistan

But it sheds no light whatsoever on a sex assault case in Sweden a decade a later

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:11 AM

3. I believe Rangel also...

but Assange did defy the State Dept's request to not publish secret cables and this pissed off some politicos enough to call for his prosecution. At that time, the AG Eric Holder was confident that they could build a case against him. According to reports, which I can only seem to find from Australian sources, FOIA documents show that Australian diplomats have been cooperating in an investigation against Assange where he allegedly conspired with Bradley Manning in acts of directed espionage. (Australia may also consider these acts treasonous against their government, since Assange is an Australian citizen):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1340776

On edit: I should point out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html

Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith <former CIA general counsel> said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:35 AM

25. Assange isn't a US citizen or on US soil

He's not subject to US law. It also doesn't appear that he even broke any US laws if he were on US soil.

Some Islamic countries have laws against blasphemy. The US has free speech. Their laws don't apply to US citizens. Some in the US have the same arrogance that some fundie Muslims have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #25)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:54 PM

28. I don't know if physically being on US soil is necessary...

especially in the age of the Patriot Act where cybersecurity is such a concern.

The main roadblock would be demonstrating that Assange had foreknowledge that release of the information would cause harm to US national security. Israeli lobbyists were indicted in 2005 for charges related to espionage, but the judge dropped the case because such foreknowledge could not be demonstrated:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

In 2005, two pro-Israel lobbyists associated with Aipac, an Israeli interest group, were indicted and accused of obtaining government information and spreading it to colleagues, journalists and Israeli diplomats. But prosecutors dropped the charges after a judge ruled they would have to prove the pair knew distributing the information would hurt the US.

In Mr Assange's case, lawyer Baruch Weiss, who represented the pro-Israel lobbyists, noted in a Washington Post article that Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #28)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:25 PM

38. Interesting thought about the patriot act... Does this act make lawlessness the norm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:17 AM

4. I think you are being naive

Sweden has delivered folk into the rendition pipeline before. Congresscritters have called for his assassination. And in case you haven't noticed lately, the concepts of due process, the right to expression of grievance, etc. have all been rather eroded over the past 11 years.

Nope. They have to make an example of Assange. Can't have people divulging what really goes on ...

Think about it another way. If this is just a question of some vague, contestable, sexual conduct charges ... why would Britain have even mentioned the possibility of raiding an embassy? Clearly, the importance the Brits attach to the matter go beyond the scope of the surface agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Traveler (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:48 AM

6. If we were set on extradition, why didn't we extradite him from Britain

in the many months before he took refuge in the embassy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:00 AM

9. There are several reasons....

Sweden is a smaller country that might be persuaded more easily, and that has cooperated with the US in the past involving illegal rendition.

Some have pointed out that Karl Rove is working with a Swedish contact on these matters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/rove-suspected-in-swedish_b_798737.html

"This all has Karl's signature," a reliable political source told me a week and a half ago in encouraging our Justice Integrity Project to investigate Rove's Swedish connection. "He must be very happy. He's right back in the middle of it. He's making himself valuable to his new friends, seeing the U.S. government doing just what he'd like ─ and screwing his opponents big-time."

WikiLeaks created a problem for Sweden and its prime minister, at left above, by revealing a 2008 cable disclosing that its executive branch asked American officials to keep intelligence-gathering "informal" to avoid required Parliamentary scrutiny. That secret was among the 251,000 U.S. cables obtained by WikiLeaks and relayed to the New York Times and four other media partners. They have so far reported about 1,300 of the secret cables after trying for months to vet them through U.S. authorities.


Also, the Assange-Wikileaks espionage/cybersecurity case is based on an alleged conspiracy with Bradley Manning, so it is tied in with that case as well, which is taking a long time to prosecute due its complexity. The strategy may be to keep Assange in Swedish prison on exaggerated rape charges until the US decides what to do. As long as the US declares that he won't receive the death penalty, there seems to be nothing preventing Sweden and the UK from going ahead with extradition to the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:59 AM

12. Because maybe the Obama administration is trying to avoid bringing charges until after the election?

It would look like wagging the dog, like trying to appear tough if they did it now. And a lot of Obama voters would question why the charges were brought. So -- politics.

I have heard conflicting reports about whether a federal grand jury has been called.

Also, I have wondered why the decision in the Manning trial has not been made. Do they lack evidence? Are the torture issues a problem?

They probably can't affirm accusations against Assange without evidence from Manning or at least used in the Manning case. You have a military court as well as possibly a civil court involved.

I think there would have to be charges in the US against Assange before he could be extradited here.

It's therefore advantageous for the US to get Assange locked away in Sweden (yes, Sweden can hold someone without bail prior to trial) just to buy time until charges can be brought.

A theory -- nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:05 AM

14. It's 2 years since the accusations were first made

and nearly 2 years since Assange went to Britain (and Wikileaks published the State Dept memos, at around the same time). Are you saying that they thought, in Nov 2010, "we've got an election coming in 2 years time - better wait until after that"?

Sweden cannot hold someone without bail indefinitely. Indeed, that is a reason why formal charges against him have not been brought yet - because once they formally charge him (at which point they can hold him without bail), they have to start the court case within 2 weeks. So they have not formally charged him while he's in another country from which they can't guarantee getting him back within 2 weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #14)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:52 PM

15. The Manning trial won't even start until 2013...


court proceedings are shrouded in so much secrecy that the media has lodged complaints, even claiming that the military court is acting unconstitutionally:

http://thetruthisnow.com/headlines/media-outcry-as-bradley-mannings-trial-is-surrounded-in-secrecy/

The government is having trouble releasing documents to the defense team, and those that are released are heavily redacted.

http://newsroom-magazine.com/2012/law/in-manning-case-defense-says-military-redaction-of-documents-denies-defendant-expeditious-trial/

Obviously the relevant information is so secretive that the government is tripping up just trying to deal with it in the Manning trial, never mind that there is an election coming up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:01 AM

26. Yes. I do think that the government is quite worried that the Manning/Assange matter

will become a controversy that distracts from Obama's campaign.

I also think that they have to convict Manning or someone else of something before they can indict Assange.

I view Assange as a journalist. We have a number of other journalists who publish information from anonymous sources, some of whom provide classified information. Judy Miller was apparently getting quite a feed from sources who picked and chose what they gave her. A lot of it was propaganda that supported the adminsitration.

Assange is different because he published information whether it supported an administration or not. Remember, Assange did not just publish American documents. He published all sorts of stuff, most of which was of no interest to Americans.

So, I do think the US government would want to wait until around the election or after it. I also suspect that we may get a different decision on the shale gas pipeline after the election. That is another decision that has been put off indefinitely and could be decided definitively at a politically more propitious time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:03 AM

27. regarding the THE SWEDISH CODE OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

- where can I find the provisions you refer to?

1. "once they formally charge him (at which point they can hold him without bail)"
2. "once they formally charge him ... they have to start the court case within 2 weeks"

I just read what appear to be the relevant chapters in the THE SWEDISH CODE OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, Chapters 19-48: http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf

re 1.: Nowhere can I find any confirmation for your claim that they cannot hold him without bail before he is formally charged.

From what I CAN find, it would appear that prosecutors have the power to arrest a suspect, provided they have "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" whenever they deem necessary DURING and even before they initiate a preliminary investigation, especially if the suspect "does not reside in the Realm and there is a reasonable risk that he will avoid legal proceedings or a penalty by fleeing the country" (Chapter 24, DETENTION AND ARREST, Section 1, 2, 5; p. 131 f)

That is, in fact, what they already did two years ago, and what the European Arrest Warrant is based on. Pretrial detention during the preliminary investigation for the purpose of interviewing Assange.

How long can they hold him before they decide to prosecute? "Indefinitely" certainly not, but for quite a while, provided a court confirms (every two weeks) there is a flight risk.

There is no maximum period of pre-trial detention in Sweden. However, if no legal action has been taken within 14 days, a new remand hearing is required. In 2010 there were approximately 1,700 pre-trial detainees in Sweden, who made up 24% of the total prison population. http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/DetentionWithoutTrialFullReport.pdf


re 2.: Nowhere can I find confirmation for your claim that they have to start the court case within 2 weeks after being formally charged, either.

In Chapter 45, INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, Section 14 (p. 248) there are two different provisions for time limits:

... If the defendant is under arrest or in detention, the main hearing shall be held within one week from the date of the institution of the prosecution unless, as a result of a measure stated in Section 11 or 12 or another circumstance, a longer postponement is necessary.


If a travel prohibition has been imposed upon the defendant, the main hearing shall be held within one month from the date of the institution of the prosecution unless, as a result of a measure stated in Sections 11 and 12 or another circumstance, a longer postponement is necessary.


What are, other than "another circumstance", possible reasons for postponement?

Section 11 says:

The court may direct the prosecutor to complete the preliminary investigation or, if no preliminary investigation has been held, to conduct one.

and Section 12:

If required in order to assure that all evidence shall be available at the main hearing in an uninterrupted sequence, orders shall be issued without delay for obtaining expert opinions, production of written evidence, or objects for viewing or inspection, or for taking any other preparatory measure.


The court can also dismiss the case, BTW, once the prosecution is initiated by filing with the court a written application for a summons against the person to be charged:

Chapter 45, INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, Section 8:

The summons application shall be dismissed if the court finds it plain that the person initiating the prosecution is not authorized to prosecute for the offence or that the case, by reason of any other procedural impediment, cannot be heard and determined.


Not to mention the possibility of a trial in absentia, which may not be preferable for either party, but does not appear to be impossible in Sweden. Will post the respective chapters and sections, if required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Traveler (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:10 AM

10. Britain cooperated with the US on secret rendition too

but the thing was that, in all cases, for Sweden or the UK, it was secret - done to people that the media had never heard of, without the family and friends of the person realising it was happening until the person was outside the country. There was no chance for lawyers to intervene, use writs of habeas corpus or the equivalent, and so on.

Assange's case, in the full light of the media circus, is not comparable. It has to go through a legal process, in Sweden or the UK. And the UK's legal protections against extradition to the US are pretty weak. Probably weaker than Sweden's. It's a red herring to pretend that Assange is going to disappear once in Sweden and then turn up in the USA without explanation or public process.

Why is Britain pursuing this? Because we have clear legal obligations to Sweden, who are fellow EU members. One of the accusations is rape. Which politician wants to tell the world that they don't think an accusation of rape should be listened to, even though the British legal system has had multiple hearings determining that it should be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:22 AM

11. The UK has no interest in keeping Assange in the UK...

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

they have already humiliated themselves before the OAS and they probably view him as a hot potato that they would rather not have to deal with. The US has not yet called for his extradition to the US because investigators are probably not far enough along in the investigation (see above). The Obama administration is also split on the "wisdom of prosecuting Assange".

On edit: Also Assange's case is intimately tied to Bradley Manning's case, which is not being conducted in the "sunlight of the media circus", but rather has been shrouded in secrecy, see my post above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:30 PM

42. You keep saying, based on pure speculation, that the US hasn't called for extradition

because they're not far along enough in an investigation. That is not a fact that you can prove with facts. The only facts that can be proven are that Manning is still under investigation, and that the Australians and Assange and his lawyers, etc. are suspicious (or say they're suspicious) that Assange may be prosecuted, too.

Even your statement that the Obama administration is "split" on the wisdom of an Assange prosecution supports the likelihood that they WON'T be prosecuted, no matter what grandstanding the Rethugs are doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #42)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:15 PM

43. I will take the Obama Admin's word for it...

that the likelihood of prosecution may be decreasing as time goes on (according to Reuters), but that does NOT mean that will definitely not prosecute unless they say they are not. Would you agree that if they should happen to decide to prosecute that it would then likely mean that they would call for his extradition to the US? If not, how else are they going to prosecute?

Also, the reason there are few facts available is because the Grand Jury proceedings related to Assange are kept so secret. Could it be that the government feels uncomfortable that they are going after someone who claims to only be a journalist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:00 PM

44. Grand jury proceedings are ALWAYS secret. This isn't something special related

to how special Assange thinks he is.

Yes, in the very unlikely event the US decides to prosecute, they would then need to extradite him. But Sweden has laws preventing the extradition of political prisoners, so Assange would be better off there than in the UK. .. except for the little matter of the rape allegations he doesn't want to deal with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #44)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:28 PM

45. How "special Assange thinks he is" is not at issue...

the fact is that the Assange investigation is closely tied to the evidence related to the Manning trial, and the Manning proceedings have been strongly criticized for being overly secretive:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/24/bradley-manning-military-trial-wikileaks

Coalition says WikiLeaks suspect's trial is being conducted amid far more secrecy than the alleged 9/11 plotters in Guantanamo


Sweden is criticized for its harsh treatment of pre-trial suspects. In Assange's case he would be kept in detention, possibly up to a year, with no communication with anyone other than his lawyer. Obviously the US would prefer that he be detained in Sweden under these circumstances.

At least we agree that prosecution in the US would mean that he would need to extradited to the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:02 AM

13. Please see my post No. 12.

The US has not filed charges against Assange yet.

Holding Assange in a Swedish jail until after the election and after the completion of the Manning trial may be reasons. Just a theory.

The US may be biding time and wants Assange somewhere secure -- like in a Swedish jail -- while it bides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Traveler (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:35 PM

40. serial offender

I don't know how real the plans of storming the Embassy were, or exaggerated by the media. After all, it hasn't happened.
One thing I do recognise is that Assange is abusing the plight for political asylum when all he is wanted for is questioning over sexual misconduct.
From the authorities' point of view they are treating the case as a potential serial offender investigation and if you read the allegations, they are not vague. The request to use a condom is a simple yes or no question. They way he acted must have been both intimidating and confusing to the plaintiffs. Confused and intimidated (traumatised?) victims don't always act like they are even aware of the offence that has been committed against them. Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

Esmeralda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:55 AM

41. I dont follow your argument. Because the US didnt extradite him from Britain they wont ever?

Therefore what?

I am seriously curious why some here seem so determined to railroad Assange. With little actual facts know, they want to trust our government that has lied to us time and time again. My default position is to go with the whistle blower until proven otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:42 AM

8. du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:07 PM

16. "Assange has already endured years of incarceration" is yet another Assangist hallucination





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:15 PM

17. If he is such a privileged socialite...

it's interesting that the indiginous people of Australia are supporting him and even honoring him with a Aboriginal passport:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/diplomacy/120915/julian-assange-given-aboriginal-passport-australia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:30 PM

18. The "aborginal passport" is a publicity stunt and fundraiser by the ISJA, which is

a very small and only irregularly active group with Green connections

We know that they are very small and only irregularly active from their webpage, the sole content of which is the announcement "2003-7 Newsletters now online" -- http://www.isja.org.au/

We know that this is a publicity stunt and fundraiser from the press release: "... To the very large number of others wishing to receive a passport you will each need to sign the pledge that allows you to show respect to the true sovereign owners of the Aboriginal nations and to not allow the parliaments of Australia any legitimacy from the theft of Aboriginal lands. Personal details will be given to those filling out the passports, the placement of a passport-sized photo and $10 to help in covering costs. Then you will receive your own passport to use as you travel through the sovereign Aboriginal nations ..." -- http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/52227

Yes, now that Julian Assange has his "passport," wouldn't you like to get one, too?

More links and details here:
Assange gets an Aboriginal passport
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021351130

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:47 PM

19. Nice to see...

that you are supporting their "struggle for progress". Most non-profit groups need some way of raising funds. Particularly Wikileaks, after the credit cards cut them off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:54 PM

20. You're welcome to provide further information about the groups involved if you have such

I tried to research the story some; I provided a number of links; and I gave you my best guess based on what I learned

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:16 PM

21. If you can show that the ISJA is corrupt...

then I'll question their motives, otherwise their cause seems righteous enough for me. Has it occured to you that maybe the reason they have been so inactive in previous years has been due to lack of funding in a poor economy?

From your linked post at greenleft.org:

“The receiving of the Aboriginal passports is not intended to make its holders complacent. Rather, it’s an active commitment to respect and protect the land spanning the entire continent as well as a commitment to changing the current conditions. This includes speaking out and acting against the unabated murder of Indigenous people in various Australian institutions, as well as the continual theft of Aboriginal land by large corporations with the protection of the Australian government.

“Also, the passport ceremony is not intended to be a feel-good event. As migrants that have come to live and be privileged by a colonial occupation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands, we believe that it is our duty to respect the people, the stories and the land, if we chose to continue living here.”

All involved in this event see it as being of great significance towards a real multicultural and pluralistic reconciliation.

The first step on a long, long journey of mutual respect and social justice for all in this country. Including our asylum seekers, refugees, migrants and non-Aborigines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:59 PM

22. I didn't say "corrupt" -- I said "publicity stunt"

Was this "aboriginal passport" offered by some assembly of Australian aborigines to Julian Assange -- the great friend and protector of the original nations! -- in gratitude for his international efforts on behalf of indigenous peoples everywhere? No, it was offered by Ray Jackson on behalf of his small and only-irregularly-active group ISJA

BTW did you notice that John Shipton, in his comments, reminded everyone that Assange is still planning to run for an Australian Senate seat next year?

Pub-li-ci-ty stunt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #22)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:24 PM

23. I think the larger point is that...

Assange actually enjoys a significant amount of support from his home country, including left-leaning politicians. The sad fact is that, as of 2009, there is NO aboriginal representation in the Australian federal government:

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/rp/2008-09/09rp23.pdf

If Assange happened to win a Senate seat he might then pay back the Aborigines in a positive way.

Publicity stunt? I don't have a problem if it leads to the greater good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:22 AM

24. One point is: "Assange has already endured years of incarceration" is an Assangist hallucination

Another point is: Assange is not really known for his defense of aboriginal peoples
A third point is: the "aboriginal passport" is a fabrication of ISJA, used here as a fundraising gimmick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:29 AM

39. converted

I normally don't reply to posts I agree with, it's like preaching to the converted. But it gives me hope if read well informed opinions that may help to uncover the truth.

Esmeralda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 04:02 PM

33. Therapy

Have you still not got it?
Assange has a narcissistic personality which has him believe he has to impregnate every woman he sleeps with with his superior sperm, even if it is against a woman's will. Read the leaked police report again and again until it sinks in. There is nothing political in it, except that the US would probably be quite happy to see him banged up in a Swedish jail.
Whatever you call his crime (I'm no legal expert), physically restraining a woman to stop her from reaching her condoms and initiating sex with another woman whilst she was asleep, knowing she would not tolerate unprotected sex in her waking state, is intimidating to say the least. What gets me most, is the fact that Assange doesn't even consider his own risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Does he believe he is immune to infection, can walk on water etc.?
The man needs therapy.
All of this is taking up a lot of taxpayers' money and becoming more embarrassing, costly and tedious by the second. And it has all damaged the original cause of Wikileaks.

Esmeralda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to esmeralda (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 05:07 PM

34. yet she went back for more...

from what I read (and I really have no interest in investigating further that aspect of this situation) they were groupies and borderline stalkers. Who needs therapy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:55 PM

37. more therapy

I'm sure these women have learnt their lesson. It's not all gold that glistens. They have however offered their hospitality in many ways and Assange has abused all of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to esmeralda (Reply #37)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 04:22 PM

46. Whether or not Assange lives up to some deranged ideal of virtuosity...

is completely sidetracking the issue. These women were deranged.

He may very well end up facing justice in Sweden. It's the judicial proceedings in the US that are a much larger issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #46)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:22 PM

47. BTW

 

what's the DU policy and procedure on sock puppet suspicions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #46)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 06:31 PM

48. Hero worship

As far as the women - and I fear also his supporters- are concerned, hero worship is always a dodgy game but the US has not asked for his extradition, only some right wingers have spouted their mouths off. Who is America's biggest ally? Sweden or the UK?
Even some of his supporters who put up bail money feel betrayed now.

Time will tell.

Esmeralda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread