Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Julian Assange bids to sue Julia Gillard for defamation over WikiLeaks comments [View all]azureblue
(2,122 posts)Is failure to use or using a broken condom. In Sweden, this is a finable offense at worst, something on the order of about $150. This law was written to reduce the spread of STDs.
Here's the layout:
The original prosecutor dropped the charges for lack of evidence- it was basically one person's word against another, over a charge of not using or using a broken condom.
Then that prosecutor's decision was overruled and another prosecutor charged Assange with this crime.
Assange, before he left Sweden, offered to come talk, but they said it was not necessary. So Assange travels to England.
Note that, if Sweden wanted him so bad for questioning, tehy would have stopped him from leaving the country and detained him right there. But they did not.
Then, recalling that all this - the charges, etc., is not the basis for extradition. Sweden wants him there for "questioning".
OK. Let's move to:
While at the embassy, both Assange and the Ecuadorians offered to interview by CCTV, something that is done on a regular basis in Europe, but Sweden refused. Why? Assange is certainly not the first person to be interviewed for court matters, and certainly, considering the level of offense, this should have been done and his testimony taken.
Note that, at this stage of the game, it is still a matter of one person's word against another, again, of condom misuse.
So England's massive over reaction, is very suspect, along with Sweden's parsing of words when asked if they would allow US extradition from Sweden.
Further, it is a violation of international treaty to arrest a person traveling under protection of an embassy on the way from the embassy out of the country, especially, ESPECIALLY, where no crime has been committed- remember- Sweden claims it wants Assange there for "questioning". But England has said they will arrest Assange if he tries to leave England for Ecuador.
The US's decision to call Assange a terrorist, is without foundation. The report showed there is no proof that the leaks caused any loss of life of any US citizen, or breached any information that can be used against the government in war time, or that would be considered "spying". What is in the leaks is proof of US misdeeds and the US using its power to further US corporate interests abroad, and it includes names and dates and relationships that the US does not want to come to light.
So the chain is this: Get Assange out of England to Sweden, where the Swedes will give him up to the US and call it a technicality, then he will be brought to the US to be tried as a spy / terrorist.
Back to topic, since the PM has prejudicially labeled Assange, and that statement was used against him, even though it had no basis in fact or law, then she is now liable, under English and Aussie law. And the courts in both countries take a very dim view of this sort of thing - there are plenty of tabloids who have been successfully sued over far less matters. And, as we have already seen, the courts will stay on it until all parties have been ferreted out. His goal is obvious: it isn't the money - it's the deposition. His lawyers plan to make her explain herself in a court of law, which, if she is honest, will expose the US as being the instigator in all of this. So watch as the US will step up and back her up, or try to concoct more charges against Assange.