HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 8 Big Problems with Swede...

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:02 PM

8 Big Problems with Sweden's "Case" Against Assange--(for those interested)


Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against Assange
by Naomi Wolf

Now that Andrew Kreig, of the Justice Integrity Project, has confirmed Karl Rove’s role as an advisor to the Swedish government in its prosecution of Julian Assange on sexual misconduct charges, it is important that we note the many glaring aberrations in the handling of Assange’s case by the authorities in Sweden.

Dr. Brian Palmer, a social anthropologist at Uppsala University, explained on Kreig’s radio show last month that Karl Rove has been working directly as an advisor to the governing Moderate Party. Kreig also reported, in Connecticut Watchdog, that the Assange accusers’ lawyer is a partner in the law firm Borgström and Bodström, whose other name partner, Thomas Bodström, is a former Swedish Minister of Justice. In that office, Bodström helped approve a 2001 CIA rendition request to Sweden, to allow the CIA to fly two asylum-seekers from Sweden to Egypt, where they were tortured. This background compels us to review the case against Assange with extreme care.

Based on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters, I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case. New details from the Swedish police make this quite clear. Their transcript of the complaints against Assange is strikingly unlike the dozens of such transcripts that I have read throughout the years as an advocate for victims of sex crimes.

Specifically, there are eight ways in which this transcript is unusual:

1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.

2) Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.

3) Police never take testimony from former boyfriends.

4) Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer.

5) A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.

6) A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.

7) A rape victim is never encouraged to make any kind of contact with her assailant and she may never use police to compel her alleged assailant to take medical tests.

8) Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so.


More of the explanation of the "8" at:

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/

230 replies, 99555 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 230 replies Author Time Post
Reply 8 Big Problems with Sweden's "Case" Against Assange--(for those interested) (Original post)
KoKo Aug 2012 OP
xchrom Aug 2012 #1
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #2
LAGC Aug 2012 #3
randome Aug 2012 #6
LAGC Aug 2012 #12
randome Aug 2012 #48
2pooped2pop Aug 2012 #201
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #97
Hissyspit Aug 2012 #171
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #15
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #20
xchrom Aug 2012 #30
truedelphi Aug 2012 #33
BlueMTexpat Aug 2012 #49
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #53
girl gone mad Aug 2012 #100
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #101
girl gone mad Aug 2012 #108
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #69
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #94
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #111
zeemike Aug 2012 #72
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #98
zeemike Aug 2012 #139
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #196
zeemike Aug 2012 #206
hifiguy Aug 2012 #75
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #87
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #129
jeff47 Aug 2012 #125
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #151
jeff47 Aug 2012 #160
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #165
jeff47 Aug 2012 #177
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #187
The Doctor. Aug 2012 #220
jeff47 Aug 2012 #227
The Doctor. Aug 2012 #228
jeff47 Aug 2012 #229
cprise Oct 2012 #230
hifiguy Aug 2012 #158
jeff47 Aug 2012 #162
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #168
jeff47 Aug 2012 #172
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #188
hifiguy Aug 2012 #174
jeff47 Aug 2012 #185
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #189
Marrah_G Aug 2012 #89
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #104
Marrah_G Aug 2012 #115
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #90
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #102
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #112
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #121
The Doctor. Aug 2012 #219
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #221
The Doctor. Aug 2012 #223
xtraxritical Aug 2012 #150
KoKo Aug 2012 #96
movonne Aug 2012 #4
tsuki Aug 2012 #54
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #66
panader0 Aug 2012 #5
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #92
hifiguy Aug 2012 #7
truedelphi Aug 2012 #29
ozsea1 Aug 2012 #35
AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #52
CabCurious Aug 2012 #8
Hissyspit Aug 2012 #16
CabCurious Aug 2012 #22
xchrom Aug 2012 #31
uponit7771 Aug 2012 #55
hack89 Aug 2012 #138
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #146
hack89 Aug 2012 #156
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #161
hack89 Aug 2012 #179
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #191
hack89 Aug 2012 #199
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #203
hack89 Aug 2012 #204
xtraxritical Aug 2012 #163
hack89 Aug 2012 #182
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #37
CabCurious Aug 2012 #43
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #57
unc70 Aug 2012 #83
jeff47 Aug 2012 #127
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #141
jeff47 Aug 2012 #145
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #149
jeff47 Aug 2012 #153
Hissyspit Aug 2012 #159
jeff47 Aug 2012 #164
Hissyspit Aug 2012 #176
jeff47 Aug 2012 #180
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #192
Hissyspit Aug 2012 #147
jeff47 Aug 2012 #152
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #157
hifiguy Aug 2012 #166
jeff47 Aug 2012 #169
jeff47 Aug 2012 #167
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #170
jeff47 Aug 2012 #173
DeSwiss Aug 2012 #39
frylock Aug 2012 #73
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #126
librechik Aug 2012 #216
randome Aug 2012 #9
KoKo Aug 2012 #17
CabCurious Aug 2012 #27
frylock Aug 2012 #74
ljm2002 Aug 2012 #10
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #11
CabCurious Aug 2012 #23
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #41
CabCurious Aug 2012 #47
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #61
Nevernose Aug 2012 #56
Marrah_G Aug 2012 #91
uponit7771 Aug 2012 #13
FarCenter Aug 2012 #14
Poll_Blind Aug 2012 #19
CabCurious Aug 2012 #24
FarCenter Aug 2012 #70
frylock Aug 2012 #77
truedelphi Aug 2012 #42
AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #62
Robb Aug 2012 #18
CabCurious Aug 2012 #25
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #82
KoKo Aug 2012 #113
KoKo Aug 2012 #114
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #195
TorchTheWitch Aug 2012 #205
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #218
Post removed Aug 2012 #32
Hissyspit Aug 2012 #65
DeSwiss Aug 2012 #78
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #99
frylock Aug 2012 #81
whatchamacallit Aug 2012 #118
Poll_Blind Aug 2012 #21
CabCurious Aug 2012 #26
The Magistrate Aug 2012 #36
Uncle Joe Aug 2012 #51
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #44
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #64
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #67
lumberjack_jeff Aug 2012 #207
Marrah_G Aug 2012 #93
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #107
Marrah_G Aug 2012 #116
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #123
Marrah_G Aug 2012 #124
TorchTheWitch Aug 2012 #202
treestar Aug 2012 #40
CabCurious Aug 2012 #45
truedelphi Aug 2012 #50
uponit7771 Aug 2012 #58
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #105
Dont call me Shirley Aug 2012 #28
Uncle Joe Aug 2012 #34
treestar Aug 2012 #38
CabCurious Aug 2012 #46
uponit7771 Aug 2012 #59
truebrit71 Aug 2012 #84
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #109
treestar Aug 2012 #117
Daemonaquila Aug 2012 #60
hifiguy Aug 2012 #79
nandru Aug 2012 #63
girl gone mad Aug 2012 #106
DemocratsForProgress Aug 2012 #122
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #68
KoKo Aug 2012 #95
frylock Aug 2012 #71
Egalitarian Thug Aug 2012 #76
hifiguy Aug 2012 #80
99Forever Aug 2012 #85
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #86
KoKo Aug 2012 #88
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #110
morningfog Aug 2012 #103
KoKo Aug 2012 #119
TheKentuckian Aug 2012 #135
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #120
djean111 Aug 2012 #128
jeff47 Aug 2012 #130
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #131
jeff47 Aug 2012 #134
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #200
jeff47 Aug 2012 #208
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #213
jeff47 Aug 2012 #215
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #217
Poll_Blind Aug 2012 #132
jeff47 Aug 2012 #133
Poll_Blind Aug 2012 #136
jeff47 Aug 2012 #142
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #140
jeff47 Aug 2012 #143
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #144
jeff47 Aug 2012 #148
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #154
jeff47 Aug 2012 #155
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #175
Hissyspit Aug 2012 #178
jeff47 Aug 2012 #184
Hissyspit Aug 2012 #186
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #194
jeff47 Aug 2012 #210
jeff47 Aug 2012 #183
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #193
jeff47 Aug 2012 #211
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #214
jeff47 Aug 2012 #225
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #222
jeff47 Aug 2012 #224
djean111 Aug 2012 #198
jeff47 Aug 2012 #209
Kalidurga Aug 2012 #137
DemocratsForProgress Aug 2012 #197
WillyT Aug 2012 #181
unblock Aug 2012 #190
Zorra Aug 2012 #212
orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #226

Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:05 PM

1. du rec. nt

this is the kind of stuff they hope the public pays no attention to -- you can sling around 'rape' or 'child molestor' -- certain crimes -- and they never wash off regardless of whether there was any crime.

it's a great political tool for some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:11 PM

2. ... The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange

and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt" ...


10 days in Sweden
Nick Davies
Friday 17 December 2010 16.30 EST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:17 PM

3. You seem to be fixated on Assange for some reason.

Too bad he was just granted asylum by Ecuador this morning.

Must really chap your ass that he won't be extradited to America to face any charges any time soon.

Damn those whistle-blowers anyhow...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:20 PM

6. What 'whistle' did he blow?

 

He proved what? That diplomats are unreliable? My God, the powers that be are truly shaking in their boots!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:38 PM

12. Those diplomatic cables were a very small part of the Wikileaks collection.

He had dirt on all sorts on various shady corporations and the MIC.

The "Collateral Murder" video alone was priceless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:23 PM

48. And the 'collateral murder' video resulted in what? Who was damaged by it?

 

People from the previous administration? And if you know about this 'dirt' he revealed, why not reveal it to us now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 09:33 AM

201. Rove's involved

 

There is some really damaging shit in there somewhere. They really really don't want the war criminals to be proven out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:51 PM

97. Lol, there you go again. He blew the whistle on the Iceland Bank leading to the arrest

a few crooked banksters. He blew the whistle on Scientology. He blew the whistle on Kenya's corrupt dictatorship helping to topple a brutal regime.

He blew the whistle on the Indian Government's 'pay for votes' scam which nearly toppled that government and resulted in some serious reflections on that country's claims of democracy.

Shall I go on? But what really got him in trouble with the worlds most powerful country, was his revelations that he had information on the Big Banks. It was after that in the summer of 2010, that the CIA's predictions of 'getting him by smearing him with charges of rape' (a document obtained by Wikileaks btw) became a reality.

Not to mention what the Embassy Cables have and continue to reveal about how governments do the people's business, such as protecting War Criminals, Dictators, such as Uzbekistan's Karamov, Bahrain's royal family which while suspected before, is now confirmed.

But it was the info on the Big Banks they had to stop him from leaking, and so far, with the help of Berg, who stole and destroyed that material, they have succeeded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:10 PM

171. There have been many, many revelations, and the diplomatic cables were only one of many releases.

You are repeating the "There's nothing new here" talking point of the DC pundits who usually made the statement before having any idea whether there was anything in the latest release or not.

Daniel Ellsberg says he is a whistleblower. I'll go with his opinion over yours, thanks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/daniel-ellsberg-wikileaks_n_797801.html

Daniel Ellsberg Defends Julian Assange, Bradley Manning
MATTHEW BARAKAT 12/16/10 04:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON — The man who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War defended both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the Army private suspected of providing the site with thousands of sensitive government documents.

Daniel Ellsberg said Thursday that Wikileaks' disclosure of government secrets on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and thousands of diplomatic cables was "exactly the right thing" to do.

"I think they provided a very valuable service," Ellsberg said, also referring to man suspected of leaking the documents, Pvt. Bradley Manning. "To call them terrorists is not only mistaken, it's absurd."

Ellsberg said he frequently hears people praise his 1971 leak of the Pentagon's secret history of the Vietnam War while condemning the WikiLeaks disclosures. The 79-year-old former military analyst rejected that argument, calling Manning a "brother" who, if he indeed provided the documents to WikiLeaks, committed "a very admirable act."

And he said the government is wrong to pursue criminal charges against Assange, comparing him to New York Times and Washington Post journalists who have published information from classified documents.

"Anybody who believes Julian Assange can be distinguished from The New York Times ... is on a fool's errand," Ellsberg said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:57 PM

15. I am grown too weary of the endless dishonest shit Assange supporters spew, because

to win progressive political fights, we need careful analyses based on accurate information, and that is difficult to obtain -- it requires a habit of fact-checking and clear-headed reasoning

Assange is a manipulative attention-whore, interested in money and in controlling people. That, in itself, of course, would not prevent him from doing some good, and perhaps he has done some, though it is quite likely he has also worked some harm. Nor do Assange's bad character traits prove him guilty of the Swedish allegation: that is, after all, a matter the Swedish system would resolve much more fairly than a swarm of talking heads

But the manipulations have effects. By indulging the paranoid hallucinatory theories of Precious Julian & His Faithful Followers, we undermine both the habit of getting material details right and the habit of understanding matters by thinking them through

I have never taken a stand on whether or not Assange committed any crime against the US for which he might be prosecuted: that would depend on exactly what he did. Nothing that I know to date gives me cause to believe Assange has committed any crime against the US for which he might be prosecuted. And I have never expressed a view that Assange should be extradited to the US. Neither is there any US extradition request in this regard

However, I do take a stand on the extradition to Sweden: Assange lost his case in the UK courts and decided not to appeal further; under law, the UK should hand him to Sweden. I have no opinion whatsoever on the Swedish allegations: perhaps Assange would be promptly cleared. It is not entirely obvious why he is hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy, if the Swedish allegations are without merit, but perhaps he simply cannot control his urges to manipulate situations for attention. I do not need to resolve the matter myself: the Swedish system can do that fairly

I do find it grossly inappropriate to try the Swedish allegations in the press and on public message boards. The paranoid hallucinatory theories are wearing thin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:27 PM

20. The Swedes have already proven themselves an unfair partner in the allegations and charges

 

against Assange.

The women didn't want these charges, they don't believe Assange is violent, nor do they fear him. The Swedes initially dropped any charges, only reviving them after Wikileaks published evidence of US war crimes. With Karl Rove's close alliance with the Swedish government there's even more questions about the Swede's impartiality in this matter.

Personally, I find it entirely appropriate to discuss the issues regarding journalists, whistleblowers, justice, and leaks - in fact, I believe its imperative for responsible citizens of a republic to discuss them. Attempts to silence conversation on these important topics is the real cause for alarm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:08 PM

30. SAYS FUCKING YOU. you don't decide how the fucking rest of us get to see this.

get over your self.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:13 PM

33. Assange didn't make any money - that's all been taken away from him.

And I am sure he is clever enough that he knew back when the project was in its inception, that should any step of the Wikileaks project fail, he'd be right where he is.


However, and this is pertinent to any discussion about Wikileaks - every single day of every single week, our Big News Media gives up poop on a stick.

So if you' re the sort of viewer that wants to know about Lindsey Lohan, you can Tune in for film tonight at eleven. Believe it or not - in July in California, we ahd a bigger fire than the one reported on in Colorado - but our local news stations don't have the money from the parent company to send reporters three hours down the road from their headquarters to report on such a story!

The fact of the matter remains that the need for Wikileaks existence would never have come about IF the major Main$tream media had been doing its job. But it hasn't. Not for several decades.

Why is it that Dan Ellsberg supports Julian?


Because Ellsberg was able to survive and avoid imprisonment precisely because back in the early seventies, The New York Times and 27 other major news organzations were all still heavily invested in reporting news. Today ZERO news organizations, except for websites like RT, and Colbert, Stewart and Rolling Stone magazine, have any interest in doing anything but sensationalism on the topics about which Wikileaks gave us both the big picture and the tiny details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:24 PM

49. So long as KKKarl Rove has ANY part in this, that's enough for me.

Name just one thing that Rove has been involved with that has boded well for other people's freedoms.

Just. One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #49)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:29 PM

53. There's not the slightest evidence Rove has anything to do with this matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #53)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:59 PM

100. These are the words of a man who has nothing to do with the matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #100)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:07 PM

101. All claims reduce to Rove advising a candidate for the September 2010 election,

on the basis of which elaborate conspiracies theories are cultivated

I don't know myself whether Rove did or did not advise for the September 2010 election, but let's stipulate arguendo that he did that

It proves nothing. You see? It's not evidence of anything related to the warrant for Assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #101)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:26 PM

108. Ahh.. those shifting goal posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:09 PM

69. The Naomi Wolf article points to a Rove-role in the case against Assange.

Do you have evidence to suggest that is a lie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #69)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:29 PM

94. Hallucinating events, then asking if the hallucinations can be disproved, is not a reliable method

for political analysis

Rove may have visited Sweden before the September 2010 election, to advise Reinfeldt. On that factual basis, an elaborate conspiracy theory is laid out

Anyone conducting war, on the basis of such demented thinking, would be demolished in the first battles. Similarly -- politics being somewhat like war conducted by other means -- anyone hoping to develop a political movement, on the basis of such demented thinking, will find himself wallowing hopelessly through a swamp, while his opponents stroll easily towards victory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #94)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:29 PM

111. Um, that is not the only Rove connection in Sweden btw. Wikileaks was promising to reveal

some pretty damning leaks about Bildt and Rove also. No CT there as Bildt himself responded on his own blog, denying that he had been working secretly with the US since the '70s without the knowledge of the Swedish government and its people. He did not deny however, that 'Rove was an old friend of his'..

Too many Rove connections in this case to be ignored, and they are not being ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:22 PM

72. I am astounded at this really

That anyone way over here could know this;
"Assuage is a manipulative attention-whore, interested in money and in controlling people"
But that is the official government meme...he is not only a leak er of their secrets but an all around asshole...something I wold expect them to say if they are the ones that are manipulating things and seek to control people.
They hate and fear people that tell their secrets, and I am sure they will get him one way or the other because they know we can be convinced...well most of us....that he is the bad guy not them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #72)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:53 PM

98. Why should we suspect these unpleasant things about dear! precious! Julian? Hmmm


Who has Julian Assange screwed over the most thoroughly?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021127596

Wikileaks and Money
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021101026

How Wikileaks lost the support of the free speech advocate Index on Censorship
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021077034

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #98)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:27 PM

139. Do you know any of these things to be true yourself?

I have lived long enough to know that if they really want to get someone they can come up with all kinds of shit to put out....I will not be fooled by taking even legitimate sounding stories from the media without a grain of salt.
But the one thing I am sure of is that they want to get him at all costs cause he exposed some pretty evil shit going on in Iraq and Afghanistan....and the American public still has not heard mush about it...not nearly as much as you hear about Assuage.

But I knew when they released that video of the gunship killing that reporter and those with him some shit would come down for that....it not only showed how indiscriminate the killing was but that the many of the people involved got a thrill out of it..

He will be punished and tortured and then perhaps they will kill him...but they will get even because that is what evil does for a living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #139)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:07 AM

196. When in doubt, see what conclusions are supported by multiple independent lines of evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #196)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:31 AM

206. You mean like the conclusions of WMDs in Iraq?

And the ones that told us that JFK RFK and MLK were all killed by lone gunmen?...and that we were winning the war in Viet Nam?
And that tax cuts for the rich would trickle down?...and dozens of other conclusions that were supported by multiple independent lines of evidence?
He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past...and the media is completely controlled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:31 PM

75. As noted elsewhere, the Ecuadorians offered to

 

send Assange to Sweden if the Swedes would guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US. The Swedes refused to make that guarantee. That tells you everything that needs to be known. The US is behind all of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #75)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:09 PM

87. The Swedish authorities prevailed in the UK courts on the warrant. Ecuador was no party to that suit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #87)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:29 PM

129. And the UK courts were wrong. It happens, it certainly has happened in British courts

before. There was no need for a warrant as Assange was always available to the prosecution. The Swedish authorities lied when they claimed there were 'legal impediments to speaking to Assange in London. Those false claims have now been debunked. The Swedish prosecutor has been asked, as recently as last week, to explain her behavior in this case, in light of the debunking of these claims. Her response was to say that 'Swedish Law is Confusing'. No, it is not confusing, it is really very clear. She needs to remove herself from this case as she is clearly at the very least, incompetent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #75)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:20 PM

125. Here's the problem with your theory

He hasn't broken US law.

It's illegal for people with a security clearance to release classified material. People who get a clearance waive their first amendment rights and agree to keep secret stuff secret. Which is why Manning is on trial.

But Assange doesn't have a clearance. He has signed no rights away.

He can publish any classified that falls in his lap. Just like all the media outlets that re-published the various Wikileaks documents have not been charged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #125)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:54 PM

151. There's a secret grand jury empaneled already on Assange

 

So exactly what the charges are, nobody knows since it's secret.

But that it exists is not a secret. http://www.thenation.com/article/169209/fate-julian-assange#




Another sign is the existence of a secret grand jury that has been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to investigate WikiLeaks. Assange told Democracy Now! that seven WikiLeaks staffers and volunteers have been subjected to this investigation. Google and Twitter have been issued subpoenas ordering the companies to turn over private data on users believed to be affiliated or connected to WikiLeaks, and the organization suspects that Facebook has also been issued similar subpoenas. The US government has subpoenaed WikiLeaks’s domain registrar, Dynadot, for server data. The government has subpoenaed Sonic.net for the private e-mails of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, who has been detained multiple times at airports by federal agents who have questioned him about his links to WikiLeaks.

Justice Department spokesperson Dean Boyd said in late June, “There continues to be an investigation into the WikiLeaks matter.” Also, in a June motion hearing in the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, it was revealed that the FBI has a 42,135-page investigative file into WikiLeaks. Only 8,741 of the pages are allegedly relevant to Manning’s case. That means more than 30,000 of the other pages likely involve evidence the US government has on Assange and WikiLeaks staffers or volunteers. It is hard to imagine that this investigative file would be put together if the US government did not plan to prosecute someone. Not to mention, Manning is charged with “aiding the enemy” and military prosecutors have established in court that the “enemy” is Al Qaeda.

Finally, the political climate in the United States is ripe for an Assange extradition. Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, has renewed her call for Assange to be tried for “espionage.” Congress members have mounted a bipartisan offensive against “leaks” by President Barack Obama’s administration on Obama’s “kill list,” cyber warfare against Iran and a CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation in Yemen. The Obama administration has indicted an unprecedented number of people under the Espionage Act for “leaking” or whistleblowing. And, House Republicans have expressed support for jailing journalists if they don’t comply with a political witch hunt for “leakers.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #151)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:00 PM

160. You don't have to cut-n-paste the same reply to all of my posts

What would be nice is if you actually answer the relevant question.

What law did Assange break?

How come no media that re-published Wikileaks's material have been charged under the same law? If it's illegal for Assange, it's illegal for them too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #160)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:06 PM

165. Would be nice if you actually READ any of the replies then so nobody had to spam a thread

 

in order to get your attention.

The grand jury is secret. If you have the inside line on the proceedings and the charges that are being considered, please go ahead and post it. That the US has empaneled such a grand jury is enough evidence to me that they are going to try for trumped up charges. You do know we still have some hundreds of prisoners in Gitmo being held without charge? The US has proven itself to be a bad actor when it comes to respecting the law and has also proven it makes up its own laws.

The media hasn't been targeted (as far as we know, perhaps they're also falling within the purview of the grand jury) but I assume Assange holds a special place because he set up the pipelines for leaks and whistleblowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #165)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:14 PM

177. The grand jury is irrelevant.

I don't care what law the grand jury thinks was broken.

I want you to tell me what law you think was broken, and why it only applies to Assange and no other media.

I assume Assange holds a special place because he set up the pipelines for leaks and whistleblowers.

No, he didn't set up crap. Other people set up said "pipelines". Assange took the credit.

and if you think Assange is the only way someone can leak information, I've got some wonderful beachfont property in Iowa to sell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #177)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:35 PM

187. It doesn't matter what law I think Assange has broken. I know he hasn't broken any

 

But the US will make it up for him. He'll be labelled an enemy combatant or something ridiculous.

What I think doesn't matter since clearly the US is a rogue actor when it comes to extra judicial actions. I am dead cert the US will find a law to apply to Assange just as they have with extra judicial killings of Americans, the legal hellhole that's Gitmo and a ton of other bullshit they've pulled in regards to whoever they care to designate a prisoner.

They have a grand jury that's doing it as we speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #177)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:22 PM

220. Are you not understanding this on purpose?

 


'Jeff', just because he didn't break any law does not mean the US DoJ will not charge him with breaking one. Assange will not be tried in civilian court.

Are you entirely naïve?

Or are you something less innocuous?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #220)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:18 PM

227. No, I think you are.

You are claiming it would be easier for the US to get Assange from Sweden than the UK, while using a non-judicial process.

Fundamentally, that's the problem with Assange's story. The UK absolutely would hand him over to the US - look at how much trouble the UK is causing trying to send Assange to Sweden, and their relationship with Sweden is nothing like their relationship with the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #227)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:43 PM

228. One must be ignorant of the Human Rights Act of 1998

 

in order to maintain that ' The UK absolutely would hand him over to the US'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #228)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:29 PM

229. So now you're arguing that Sweden isn't a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights?

Seriously? Next are you going to argue that British people just don't do that sort of thing but those filthy Swedes always do?

Look, one can do good at one part of one's life, and do bad elsewhere.

JFK did a whole lot of cheating on Jackie.
FDR committed voter fraud by hiding his medical condition.
LBJ did all sorts of horrific shit in Vietnam while passing most of the Great Society and lots of good civil rights legislation.

The fact that you like what Assange [strike]did[/strike] took credit for in regards to Wikileaks doesn't mean he always behaves as a saint. The guy's human. And the smokescreen he's tossing around just doesn't make any sense. He thinks the US is out to get him, so he hangs out in Australia and the UK? He can't be both a brilliant mastermind that created Wikileaks and that mindbogglingly stupid. If you really think the US is out to get you, you get the fuck away from our best friends.

And, FYI, if you're gonna set up a honeypot to catch him, you're gonna have an infinitely better story than what's coming out of Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #227)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 09:16 AM

230. There is a growing movement against extradition to the US

within the UK because people there have become aware of how one-sided the extradition treaty is.

They just refused extradition for Gary McKinnon. There was a lot of trouble over that case, too.

The UK government would not be caught dead with Karl Rove as one of its advisors, either.

OTOH, Sweden's "Ronald Reagan of Europe" would not agree to forgo extradition for Assange's work at Wikileaks and the government conveniently refuses to recognize a threat from the US while extensively abusing due process (and going to excessive lengths for what they claim is a minor penalty). Anyone would be stupid indeed to walk into that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #125)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:58 PM

158. That assumes that this country retains any respect whatsoever

 

for the norms and rules of international law. A very dubious assumption. For some years now the US has de facto operated on the principle that if you violate a US law anywhere in the world you can be arrested and imprisoned under US law even if you never set foot in the US. This is an outgrowth of the imbecilic "war on drugs" as well as its mentally challenged twin the "war on terror." It's an insane assumption, but who is going to stop it. Assange can be declared an "enemy combatant" or some such and be disappeared forever without ever seeing a lawyer. And Manning isn't on trial. He's still being held in solitary in conditions which amount to torture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #158)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:03 PM

162. No, Manning is on trial.

His trial started several months ago. They're going through pre-trial motions.

And again, extradition requires breaking a law. You can't extradite "because I said so". So which law did Assange break, and why have no media that re-published Wikileak's material been charged under that law?

As for rendition, reports are it was abandoned during W's administration. Shockingly enough, it turns out torturing people doesn't yield good intelligence. Who knew?!

If you're going to use rendition as a threat to Assange, you should supply some evidence that it has started again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #162)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:08 PM

168. LOL!! If you really believe the US wouldn't break laws, even rendition a person, even now

 

then I have some bridges for sale....

Truth is, we passed the low bar of legality long, long ago....

Oh man, that's a good laugh. Just what I needed. Good night

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #168)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:10 PM

172. You can't extradite someone "because I said so".

You have to state which law was broken.

So which law was broken?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #172)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:37 PM

188. The US and the CIA have been doing that for DECADES!!

 

Of course they can! They do it all the time. I don't think Assange has broken any laws so I couldn't even begin to tell you what the US is going to select for him but I'm sure it will be a doozy - something along the lines of an enemy combatant or something.

The grand jury is already working on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #162)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:12 PM

174. The CIA and military intelligence can do any fucking thing they want.

 

If you think any law applies to them, you're just wrong or naive. They could have you killed on the main street of your hometown at high noon for no particular reason at all and no one would ever be the wiser. These agencies once took out a President of the United States in full public view. No president can even try to stop them anymore, even if he wished to, without meeting the same fate as Kennedy did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #174)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:27 PM

185. Then they'd do what they want from the UK

There's no reason for them to wait for Sweden. In fact, it would be easier for them to do what they want from the UK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #185)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:38 PM

189. Sweden's a partner in their CIA renditions. Already a precedent there.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:16 PM

89. If you don't want to see other people's views on the matter...

Then

A) Don't click on threads on the topic, since this is a message board

or

B) Ignore those people whom you are weary of


There is a difference between giving your own opinion and telling others that they shouldn't be giving theirs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #89)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:13 PM

104. I entered to this thread at post #2 with a quote from the Wikileaks Stockholm coordinator,

to the effect that this was not some CIA set-up but a matter best handled by the police

Post #3 accused me of wanting Assange extradited to America

I do regret that you did not enjoy my retort to that bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #104)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:16 PM

115. Sorry so much fighting here today

I got annoyed

but dinner is finally ready and tastes pretty good... so all is well in the world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:18 PM

90. Way to impugn the motives of thousands of DUers.

I'm surprised you have friends at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:11 PM

102. ... and the horse you rode in on.

 

I'm very happy we're upsetting you that much, mouthpiece.

Way to go everybody, keep it up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #102)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:37 PM

112. Quelle horreur! How dare I have no opinion on the Swedish allegations!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #112)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:52 PM

121. No, you can have any opinion you want.

 

As can we. Fair is fair, yes? But I do get a kick out of your fake umbrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:12 PM

219. You post a great deal of unsupported opinion while the 'dishonest' Assange supporters

 

seem to post facts. You have nothing but derision and insults with no basis in reality.

You are entirely ignorant of the actual situation, and apparently deliberately determined to remain so.

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #219)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:32 PM

221. The sexual allegations are best tried in Sweden, not by conspiracy theorists around the world:

... The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt" ...

10 days in Sweden
Nick Davies
Friday 17 December 2010 16.30 EST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #221)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 08:25 PM

223. The opinions of the ignorant

 

Are worthless.

There is no 'conspiracy theory'. What we have is conspiratorial fact.

The reasons, explanations, and facts supporting the obvious scenario where the US is looking to extradite Assange from Sweden have been presented ad-nauseum. Your deliberate ignorance of those makes your opinion on this issue utterly worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:52 PM

150. How's he going to get to Ecuador, in a diplomatic pouch? Just saying, nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:49 PM

96. I think you missed the "Guardian's Posts" about the two women.

Do your OWN RESEARCH. I read it way back...i'm not going to feed you.

What you don't realize or you've not had your OWN "Life Experience" with friends selling you out for reward seems to say (perhaps) you've led and "Insular Life" and don't understand how Friends and (Sadly) even FAMILY would sell you out if you ever get "high profile enough, internationally) to get MSM Coverage!

So Julian and his Partner on Wiki-Leaks have falling out. The other partner starts to UNDERMINE Julian.......

Some of us who have lived long on this EARTH have had similar experiences...

Just Saying... Take some time out to think about this. You are a long-time DU'er Poster like I am..and that's why I'm asking you to LOOK FURTHER....DIG FURTHER!

Peace!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:18 PM

4. If this is the only charges (rape) why should they give him

over to the US..something really stinks about this case...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to movonne (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:29 PM

54. There are no rape charges. There are no charges whatsoever.

The Swedes want to question him.

Now, there are charges against the Icelandic Banker who crashed the Icelandic economy, and an extradition request. They are being ignored by the British.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tsuki (Reply #54)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:52 PM

66. Oh no, I've been assured that the Brits ALWAYS zealously honor extradition requests

 

Several here on DU are insistent the Brits are absolutely steadfast in their allegiance to seeing justice done, shipping "criminals" like Assange (whose wanted for questioning in Sweden only) off tout suite!

Icelandic bankers who crash global economies aren't NEARLY on the same level of criminality as Assange doncha know.... Not a BIT of hypocrisy here!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:19 PM

5. Karl Rove??

When was he ever interested in justice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:19 PM

92. Figures his slime trail would be discovered in the Assange persecution. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:21 PM

7. Naomi Wolf has far more credibility with me

 

than any of the DUers attacking Assange. I know who presents the more persuasive case. The involvement of KKKarl in this pretty much seals the deal that this is a witch hunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:05 PM

29. + 1. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:14 PM

35. Plus 1

They know him personally? That he's a manipulative attention seeking whore??

Project much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:28 PM

52. You are tarnishing the reputation of the KKK by associating it with Karl.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:21 PM

8. He ran away from the investigation and then lied about it being over

Let him defend himself in court. Respect these women.

I'm so sick of people defending him...

He has done nothing but exploit real whistle blowers and TRADE on information entrusted to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:01 PM

16. He did not "run away from the investigation."

He is resisting what he apparently sees as an attempt to have him extradited to the U.S.

I'm sorry you are sick, but many DUers are naturally suspicious of government manipulation of law and procedure for unjustified & corrupt reasons.

http://notesonwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/15251907983/assange-extradition-fact-sheet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:00 PM

22. It's incoherent nonsense. And hes, he ran away before the investigation was finished.

Anybody who honestly believes that Sweden is more allied with the USA than the UK is a complete tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:10 PM

31. um the interview was finished -- they reopened.

he has made repeated offers to the swedish prosecutor to be interviewed - the swedish prosecutor has turned them down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:30 PM

55. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:16 PM

138. He was told he was going to be interviewed and possibly arrested - he skipped town that night

he made offers to be interviewed in London - where the prosecutor has no power to arrest him. He refuses to go to Sweden because he fears arrest.

This is not an equal relationship - accused criminals don't get to make demands to prosecutors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #138)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:47 PM

146. There are no charges. He's offered to go to Sweden anyway and answer questions in Sweden

 

as long as they promise not to extradite him to the US.

Seeing as how Sweden has participated in illegal CIA rendition flights (that Wikileaks exposed), it appears to be a reasonable request that Assange isn't also renditioned.

I repeat, there are no charges. This is an international incident being provoked over bringing a guy in for questioning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #146)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:58 PM

156. Once again - there can be no charges until after the interview

that is how the Swedish system works.

The police conduct an investigation, take statements and gather evidence. The investigation is then reviewed by the prosecutor. Then and only then is the accused brought in for an interview. That is when the prosecutor presents the results of the investigation and gets a statement from the accused. Then and only then can the prosecutor formally press charges and take the accused into custody if required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #156)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:02 PM

161. An interview to which he's agreed.

 

Sweden's record of past treachery however indicates that this interview however may not be innocent. A non extradition treaty would solve all issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #161)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:15 PM

179. The interview is not voluntary.

he has no choice. Why do you think Sweden issued an arrest warrant when he skipped town?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #179)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:39 PM

191. Because the US pressured them. No interpol warrant has EVER been issued for questioning solely

 

on rape ALLEGATIONS (not charges) that are being brought by a state, not even the women themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #191)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:59 AM

199. There are presently 160 Interpol Red Notices for "sex crimes"

I don't think that bar is set as high as you think.

And once again - you know damn well that Sweden cannot charge Assange without first conducting the interview he is desperately avoiding. The Swedes told his lawyer that he was going to be taken into custody after he was interviewed - that's why he skipped town. It is much stronger than just allegations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #199)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:11 AM

203. He's wanted for questioning. Period. He's not a criminal, he's not been charged nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #203)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:16 AM

204. He cannot legally be charged until after the interview. You know this.

he is avoiding the last formal step before arrest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #138)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:03 PM

163. Why not? I've done it myself, demanded a jury trial and they backed down alot.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #163)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:19 PM

182. But you have to have a plan B when they call your bluff.

Assange has no leverage - not after 2 years. He will either spend the rest of his days in a cramped embassy room or go to Sweden to face justice. There are no other options for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:15 PM

37. Sweden's our ally in covert CIA rendition. They've got blood on their hands

 

as guilty as the US. Assange exposes all of it and gets them all equally furious.

This is about Wikileaks exposing war crimes and dirty operations by the MIC and western governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #37)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:20 PM

43. Yes... because the USA is closer to Sweden than the UK (so laughable)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #43)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:31 PM

57. Its not a contest, nor is it "either or". Sweden, like the US and the UK, is culpable of war crimes

 

that have been exposed by Wikileaks.

But nice try at a false equivalence...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #43)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:52 PM

83. Welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:26 PM

127. Yeah, there's a minor problem with that theory

He hasn't broken US law.

So what, specifically would he be extradited for?

Leaking classified is illegal, which is why Manning is on trial. Publishing classified that was leaked to you is not illegal. This was explicitly established in the Supreme Court case regarding the Pentagon Papers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #127)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:30 PM

141. Don't forget Sweden assisted the US in CIA rendition flights

 

(which Wikileaks exposed) so they're not above illegal actions when it comes to renditioning someone for the US.

Regardless, the Ecuadoreans also believe Assange is to be extradited from Sweden. Its in their own asylum declaration today.

You can read it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021145434

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #141)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:46 PM

145. Ecuador can say whatever they like, but he still has to have broken US law.

To extradite him, he has to have broken a US law. So which one did he break?

As for rendition, you'd have to show that's still going on before it should be taken seriously as a threat to Assange. According to what's leaked, rendition was a failure in regards to producing useful intelligence and was abandoned back during W's administration. Who knew that torture results in bad information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #145)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:52 PM

149. Ecuador isn't participating in an international incident like this because there's no evidence

 

Unless you think small third world country's are the usual players in massive international stakes for no reason at all.

The grand jury empaneled in the Assange case is just that, secret. But there's no doubt of its existence.

"Another sign is the existence of a secret grand jury that has been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to investigate WikiLeaks. Assange told Democracy Now! that seven WikiLeaks staffers and volunteers have been subjected to this investigation. Google and Twitter have been issued subpoenas ordering the companies to turn over private data on users believed to be affiliated or connected to WikiLeaks, and the organization suspects that Facebook has also been issued similar subpoenas. The US government has subpoenaed WikiLeaks’s domain registrar, Dynadot, for server data. The government has subpoenaed Sonic.net for the private e-mails of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, who has been detained multiple times at airports by federal agents who have questioned him about his links to WikiLeaks.

Justice Department spokesperson Dean Boyd said in late June, “There continues to be an investigation into the WikiLeaks matter.” Also, in a June motion hearing in the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, it was revealed that the FBI has a 42,135-page investigative file into WikiLeaks. Only 8,741 of the pages are allegedly relevant to Manning’s case. That means more than 30,000 of the other pages likely involve evidence the US government has on Assange and WikiLeaks staffers or volunteers. It is hard to imagine that this investigative file would be put together if the US government did not plan to prosecute someone. Not to mention, Manning is charged with “aiding the enemy” and military prosecutors have established in court that the “enemy” is Al Qaeda.

Finally, the political climate in the United States is ripe for an Assange extradition. Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, has renewed her call for Assange to be tried for “espionage.” Congress members have mounted a bipartisan offensive against “leaks” by President Barack Obama’s administration on Obama’s “kill list,” cyber warfare against Iran and a CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation in Yemen. The Obama administration has indicted an unprecedented number of people under the Espionage Act for “leaking” or whistleblowing. And, House Republicans have expressed support for jailing journalists if they don’t comply with a political witch hunt for “leakers.” "

http://www.thenation.com/article/169209/fate-julian-assange#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #149)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:56 PM

153. I'm not asking what Ecuador's crappy lawyers think.

I'm asking what law Assange broke so that he can be extradited.

The fact that they fail to identify such a law in their opinion is evidence of pretty crappy lawyering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #145)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:59 PM

159. Renditions ended?

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/as-rendition-controversy-reemerges-obama-admin-policies-murky

"Under Obama Administration, Renditions—and Secrecy Around Them—Continue
by Marian Wang

ProPublica, Sept. 6, 2011, 2:33 p.m.

New documents in recent days have brought up several new details about the shadowy practice of snatching terrorism suspects from one country and rendering them into the custody of another. As we noted last week, several documents on rendition emerged as part of an obscure court case in the state of New York. Others were discovered by Human Rights Watch in Libya.

Of course, it's been known for years that the Bush administration practiced (and on several occasions, botched) rendition.

What's less appreciated: While the Obama administration has tried to distance itself from the some of the harshest counterterrorism techniques, it has also said that at least some forms of renditions will continue."

MORE




Which connects to this issue:

Temporary surrender - under the US-Sweden Extradition Treaty

It is not clear how Sweden might respond to any US request for his temporary surrender to the US, if American charges were laid against him on arrival in Sweden. The present conservative Swedish Government has a history of acceding to all US rendition requests during the War on Terror. - Tony Kevin, retired Australian diplomat

Most of the attention regarding Julian Assange’s possible extradition to the US has focused on the EU agreements that are meant to prevent onward extradition - namely that the UK Home Office would have to consent to his onward extradition. Little or no attention has been given in Europe to the temporary surrender (sometimes called ’conditional release’, see the Panama example below) mechanism that Sweden established bilaterally with the United States in their 1984 treaty (TIAS 10812):

VI. If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:

b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.

Temporary surrender has been incorporated into the EU-US Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance agreements entered into in February 2010. The Council of the EU’s handbook explains temporary surrender in the following manner:

(Temporary surrender) facilitates the orderly and efficient prosecution of a person sought in two jurisdictions by allowing the temporary transfer of the person to the Requesting State for prosecution, when that person is subject to proceedings (either prosecution or service of a sentence) in the Requested State. The transfer is subject to conditions agreed to in advance of the transfer. - Council of the European Union - Handbook on the practical application of the EU-U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition Agreements (p. 15)

The US has put what appears to be an expedient de facto extradition in place that effectively sidesteps traditional extradition safeguards. The background for this mechanism is to combat serious crimes - typically drug trafficking, terrorism, and so on - and it has implemented such innovative mechanisms with several strong allies.

One of the strategic allies that has implemented these types of mechanisms in the context of drug trafficking, is Panama: a recently released US embassy cable described the "conditional release" regime:

use of Conditional Release, under which the GOP [Government of Panama] releases to the US a suspect already under arrest in Panama on other charges. Under this procedure, the suspect is "lent" to the US for prosecution on the condition that they will be returned for prosecution in Panama at the end of their sentence. This procedure is much faster than a formal extradition, and has proven so successful, that DEA sometimes designs operations to bring suspects to Panama so they can be arrested in Panama and turned over to US authorities quickly. - US Embassy Panama Cable, 2008

The Conditional Release mechanism appears indistinguishable from the temporary surrender mechanism, apart from the fact that in conditional release the suspect will serve his/her sentence in the US before returning to the requested state (in the case above, Panama), while in temporary surrender the US would have to negotiate with Sweden at what point Julian Assange would be returned to the requested state for prosecution/serving a sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #159)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:05 PM

164. So you didn't read the second sentence in your own back-up material?

It is not clear how Sweden might respond to any US request for his temporary surrender to the US, if American charges were laid against him on arrival in Sweden.


What law has he broken? Gotta break a law for there to be "American charges".

Why have no other media been charged under this same law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #164)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:13 PM

176. Yes, I did.

What's your point?

Actually I don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #176)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:17 PM

180. My point is it's a lovely conspiracy theory

But to advance to something real you have to actually have something you can charge Assange with.

And you have to be able to explain why only Assange can be charged under that law and no other media. Espionage Act would apply to them too, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #180)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:42 PM

192. No. The US has proven they DON'T have to have anything real to charge him with

 

They have performed extra judicial actions under the most unbelievable "laws" at all.

The grand jury is hard at work creating it as we speak.

Assange hasn't broken any laws but that doens't matter to the US government. They'll find a law and bring him in if they can get their hands on him. Padilla and a whole host of guys at Gitmo prove the US can grab and disappear anyone they want. Extra judicial killings indicate they can make up whatever law they want too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #127)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:47 PM

147. Um, there is apparently a grand jury indictment against him.

We just went through a whole decade of a U.S. administration making up shit about the law, and performing rendition of innocent persons, and it didn't stop them, and they mostly got away with it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html

OPINION December 7, 2010
Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act
Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.


By DIANNE FEINSTEIN

MORE AT LINK


http://wlcentral.org/node/2683

"False: There is no evidence of a U.S. threat to Julian Assange.

Many people try to trivialize Julian Assange's concerns because an indictment has yet to be made public, but the evidence of U.S. legal action against WikiLeaks and its founder is overwhelming.

A Grand Jury into WikiLeaks has been active in Alexandria, Virginia since September of 2010. Grand Juries are a secret process which determine whether a criminal indictment will be issued. People such as David House, founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network, have received subpoenas requesting their testimony before the Grand Jury. Because the Grand Jury is still active, an indictment cannot be made public.

Despite this, an email from the intelligence company Stratfor states that there is currently a sealed indictment against Julian Assange. In an interview with L'Espresso, Mr Assange said, "We already had three sources of information (on the indictment) before the information coming from the Stratfor emails."

Other subpoenas have been issued outside of the Grand Jury as well. There is an ongoing legal case involving the U.S. Department of Justice requesting that Twitter hand over records of WikiLeaks volunteers Jacob Appelbaum, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, and Rop Gonggrijp. The information requested by the subpoeana includes: "mailing addresses and billing information known for the user, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, all known email accounts, as well as the 'means and source of payment,' including banking records and credit cards".

Furthermore, multiple supporters of WikiLeaks and friends of Julian Assange have been stopped and interrogated at U.S. airports. This includes Jacob Appelbaum, David House, and, most recently, Jérémie Zimmermann and Smári McCarthy. Both Mr Appelbaum and Mr House have had electronic possessions seized, while Mr Zimmermann and Mr McCarthy have been asked to become informers for the U.S."

MORE AT LINK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #147)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:55 PM

152. And that would be an indictment under what law?

Again, the SCOTUS ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that publishing classified that was leaked to you is protected by the first amendment.

And if we assume there is an indictment, then why have no other media that re-published Wikileaks material been charged? If it was illegal for Assange to publish, it would be illegal for them too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #152)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:58 PM

157. I too can't wait to see exactly what law the US is going to pull out its ass for this

 

I'm sure it will be a good one though.

I'm guessing no other media outlets are being punished because the witch hunt is against Assange since he's the one whose set up the pipelines for the distribution of leaks and whistleblowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #157)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:07 PM

166. He will be designated an "enemy combatant" or some other such happy horseshit

 

if the US ever gets its hands on him and will be either disappeared, renditioned for torture, shipped to Gitmo or will "commit suicide." If you don't think so you are only deluding yourself. And no president can stop this anymore even if he wanted to unless he wants to get JFK'd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #166)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:09 PM

169. If that was true, we'd do that while he was in the UK.

There's no reason to wait for Sweden in your scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #157)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:08 PM

167. Then Assange has nothing to fear from charges.

If Assange is the only one charged with a crime, he's got a fantastic defense. If it was a crime, the US has to charge other media. If the US doesn't charge any other media, they are not applying the law equally and charges against Assange have to be dismissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #167)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:10 PM

170. LOL!! He'll be charged as an enemy combatant or something ridiculous

 

The US has NEVER applied the law equally when it comes to whistleblowers. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #170)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:12 PM

173. Exactly which whistleblowers have been _not_ charged? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:17 PM

39. B.S. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:25 PM

73. charges will need to be brought up in order for a trial to proceed..

are you at all familiar with the judicial system?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:24 PM

126. Julian Assange was interviewed by the Swedish police. He remained in Sweden

for five weeks making himself available to the prosecution. The prosecution declined to interview him telling eventually he was free to leave. He did not flee anywhere, he went to Britain making himself available to the prosecution for questioning, which they refused to do.

Whistle-blowers today came out in support of Assange, along with journalists. So clearly they do not agree with you. Daniel Ellsberg is a supporter of Assange, among other famous whistleblowers.

The women in this case are being exploited but not by Assange. Both denied there was any rape one refusing to talk to the police after these false allegations were made.

Women's groups have come out to condemn this exploitation of women and in support of Assange.

I think you need to get your facts straight. Not one of the statements you just made have any connection to the facts of this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:07 PM

216. are you still around?

let them bring charges. Not Kangaroo convictions, as you prefer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:22 PM

9. Nothing has been 'confirmed' about Rove's role. It is an insinuation.

 

And unless this 'expert' has personal knowledge of how Sweden conducts cases like these, his opinion is not enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #9)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:08 PM

17. "PM's Biographer Sees Rove Influence In Swedish Politics"

PM's Biographer Sees Rove Influence In Swedish Politics
By Andrew Kreig
Twitter
inShare

By Andrew Kreig / Director's Blog

Dr. Brian Palmer of Uppsala University in Sweden provided an illuminating interview on the Jan.13 edition of my Washington Update radio show regarding the influence of Karl Rove on Swedish politics as an advisor to the governing Moderate Party. Sweden is leading a global manhunt to question WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange on claims of sex misconduct filed by a politically connected lawyer at the same time the United States has launched an investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks volunteers for possession of secret diplomatic cables. Palmer described why he co-authored a Swedish-language book about political parties were attracting voters, “George W. Reinfeldt: The art of making a political extreme makeover.” The book describes how Sweden’s political right, including Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, were creating an image of moderation, much as did U.S. President George W. Bush during his 2000 campaign.

The interview with my co-host Scott Draughon may be heard worldwide by archive via the My Technology Lawyer Radio Network. Earlier in the week, I published evidence that Swedish sex probes of Assange and United States spy probes are suspect. One column published by Connecticut Watchdog was headlined, “Partner at Firm Counseling Assange's Accusers Helped the CIA In Rendition for Torture.” I amplify these comments Jan. 16 on the Connecticut Watchdog News Hour at 6 p.m. (ET), a video show available globally.

Palmer and his co-author and Per-Anders Forstorp wrote a 2008 newspaper column describing a visit by Rove to Sweden that year. They said the trip’s purpose was to help conservatives reconfigure their public image in ways predicted by George Orwell and implemented successfully, in Palmer’s view, by President Bush. “The method was the same as previously used by Bush and now John McCain: taking advantage of workers' anger against the elites,” they wrote.” If there were a prize named the George Orwell Award for linguistic innovations, Reinfeldt would be an obvious winner.”

Palmer, a social anthropologist, is a lecturer in the Department of Theology at Uppsala University in Stockholm, and was recently the Torgny Segerstedt Guest Professor at the University of Gothenburg. In 2002, he was voted Harvard University's best lecturer following the high enrollment for his course on moral courage and personal engagement. His study of Reinfeldt was published by Karneval, with the title the "George W. Reinfeldt: konsten att göra en politisk extreme makeover.” Palmer edited "Global Values 101” (Beacon), a book based on his Harvard courses and carrying a five-star reader rating on Amazon.com. He has also been a summer host on Swedish Radio. Details are on his blog. This week's interview followed one the previous week with Dr. Roland P. Martinsson, executive director of the Timbro Media Institute in Sweden.

More with video at......

http://www.justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=237:professor-links-rove-to-swedish-politics-&catid=44&Itemid=28

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:04 PM

27. So... now Rove controls foreign CIA plants? Good grief...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #27)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:29 PM

74. is "good grief" the crux of your argument?

feel free to rebut using your expertise and knowledge of the subject matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:24 PM

10. Thanks for this...

...it is good information to counter the slew of accusers here on DU who take the leaked transcripts (which were never read back to the women themselves) as the gospel truth in this matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:24 PM

11. the pretense that this is about rape is just hysterical. also hysterical the DU posters who

 

pretend they're outraged, yes !!!outraged!!! about assange's treatment of women.

keep selling that soap, boys and girls...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:00 PM

23. He's a creep and I believe those two progressive women.

Shame on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:17 PM

41. those "progressive women" -- with intelligence connections. shame on you back.

 

besides, i never knew that being anti-rape was only in effect if the victims were "progressive".

dogwhistles abound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:23 PM

47. Yes... keep bashing these women and pretending the UK isn't the USA's top ally

The arguments are so insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #47)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:37 PM

61. as i said in another post, it's really disgusting that those pursuing right-wing ends cynically

 

use human rights as a cover.

The women say he didn't rape them. Whose arguments are insane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:30 PM

56. Here's what one had to say:

One of two women involved told Aftonbladet in an interview published today that she had never intended Assange to be charged with rape. She was quoted as saying: “It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.”

Speaking anonymously, she said each had had voluntary relations with Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:18 PM

91. How do you know they are progressives?

I have yet to see them talking about their political views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:38 PM

13. 23yrs of international reporting on rape laws and MIC involvement = I'll lean Assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:52 PM

14. Anna Ardin was a CIA "honeytrap"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:13 PM

19. If not, she has had one of the weirdest lives of anyone I've read about. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:01 PM

24. Because the USA needed that... and because Sweden is more aligned with USA than the UK?

These arguments are so... incoherent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:16 PM

70. Consider the timeline -- either it was preplanned or the women were later induced or coerced.

 

It is three days between when he has sex with Anna Arding and Sofia Wilen. Then three days more until they go to the police. Given at least Ardin's history, she may have been subject to blackmail as a result of previous activities.

20 August 2010
The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Julian Assange. Karin Rosander, head of communications, says there are two separate allegations - one of rape and one of molestation.

Both women reportedly say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual.

Wikileaks quotes Mr Assange as saying the accusations are "without basis" and that their appearance "at this moment is deeply disturbing". A later message on the Wikileaks Twitter feed says the group has been warned to expect "dirty tricks".

18 August 2010
Mr Assange applies for a residence permit to live and work in Sweden. He hopes to create a base for Wikileaks there, because of the country's laws protecting whistle-blowers.

17 August 2010
Mr Assange reportedly has sex with a woman he met at the seminar on 14 August, identified as "Miss W".

Some time between 17 and 20 August, "Miss W" and "Miss A" - the woman who arranged his speaking trip - are in contact and apparently share with a journalist the concerns they have about aspects of their respective sexual encounters with Mr Assange.

14 August 2010
"Miss A" and Mr Assange attend a seminar by the Social Democrats' Brotherhood Movement on "War and the role of media", at which the Wikileaks founder is the key speaker. The two reportedly have sex that night.

11 August 2010
Julian Assange arrives in Sweden on a speaking trip partly arranged by "Miss A", a member of the Christian Association of Social Democrats. He has not met "Miss A" before but reports suggest they have arranged in advance that he can stay in her apartment while she is out of town for a few days.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:33 PM

77. These arguments are so... incoherent.

no fucking shit? what's your obsession with who likes who better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:19 PM

42. Ding Ding Ding - we have a winner.

Not only is she that, our news media is now very much a part of the CIA. The spooks have succeeded in their operation mockingbird, which started over three decades ago and has consumed almost every "legit" news station we watch on TV.

If the News Media was still delivering news, Assange would not be in this situation. For one thing, a legitimate media would help him make his case, just as the New York Times and 27 other news organizations did in helping Ellsberg with his Pentagon Papers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #42)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:45 PM

62. Officially, of course, they say that Operation Mockingbird has been discontinued.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:12 PM

18. High octane rape apologia.

Assange fanboys practically swoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:02 PM

25. It's disgusting, isn't it?

All for a creep who exploits real whistle blowers and then peddles their intel for his own glory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #25)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:39 PM

82. This forum has a lot of people like me who are information-starved.

Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:03 AM - Edit history (1)

We feel that the media feeds us lie after lie after lie. And some of us are really sure that feeling is correct because we read the foreign press, a little history once in a while and are aware of what is going on in the world.

In other words, this is not a website for Fox-news-addicts who believe everything they hear.

Naomi Wolf's article is just one piece that we will fit into the puzzle of the story of Assange.

We are grateful to Assange for confirming our suspicions that much of the information that our government (of the people, by the people, for the people, remember?) labels "secret" is either gossip that is silly or fact that is embarrassing to our bureaucrats and elected officials. Most of it should not be secret in the first place. We need to know it if we are to participate as citizens who vote intelligently.

We like Assange not because he has a wonderful personality or even because we approve some of his conduct or techniques but because his releases gave us insight into what goes on behind the scenes. It provides an alternative to faux-news and the tepid, watered-down information and funny, nostalgic, sentimental and sensational stories we are drip-fed moment by moment in our so-called news media.

I for one come to DU because we almost never have to fend through the jungle of Hollywood scandals and fabricated news stories that dominate our media.

Don't worry. Aspersions on Assange's character are not relevant to most of us. And so far the allegations don't seem sufficiently horrible to justify the cost of all the court hearings and extradition, etc. It's really fishy for that reason. It just does not pass the cost/benefit smell test.

The fundamental problem with efforts to discredit Assange is that through years of experience, we have learned not to trust the "news" we get from the media including the "news" about Assange himself. In general, the news is painted with a national security (and what that is is determined by a clique of very strange people it seems) and corporate brush and not with the stark light of reality.

So, we will make up our own minds about Assange based on a broader view than merely the shocking stories about how he actually had sex with a willing partner without a condom. Horrors! It's bad. But bad happens.

It's not as if he were hiding multiple killings and attacks on armed civilians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #82)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:42 PM

113. Agree! Make up our "Own Minds" from the information we read from diverse

Sites! That's how we remain "informed" in today's "Spin/Corprate" Media.....

We dig info out from many sources.......but, alas...most don't have the time or the ability given what's gone on since that "Stolen Election" of 2000.

What you say deserves a read!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #82)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:50 PM

114. "Good Read" ......"J.D".........need more!

I can't say more than that...It's excellent........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #82)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:05 AM

195. Replying to my own post #82, in the last sentence I meant to type "unarmed civilians."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #82)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:21 AM

205. maybe you should be looking at actual facts and testimony from courts and stuff

As long as you're looking for info to make up your own mind. For some reason, it is still being said that Assange merely had sex with a willing partner without a condom. Sorry, but for a couple of years now the actual allegations have been provided, and that ain't one of them. The allegation concerning the condom was that the woman alleged she only consented to sex if a condom was used but without her knowledge or revised consent Assange did not use one. This is an allegation that is a matter of consent and adds up to sexual assault, which the British court agreed with Sweden about. Do you honestly believe that consenting to sex means that one has consented to ANYTHING the person wants to do to them or can have unprotected sex with them if they want to when consent was only given so long as certain stipulations concerning the sex were abided by? Because that is the allegation concerning the condom, which has been known for two years now by anyone honestly paying attention to this case.

The following is the allegations against Assange by the two women...

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 (name given) 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 (name given) 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 (name given) 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 (name given) 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.


The first three charges are sexual assault while the fourth is rape. This is agreed to by the judge in this ruling who further states that such allegations would also amount to the same charges in both England and Wales. Which one of these charges do you find to be nothing but "Horrors! It's bad. But bad happens" and aren't allegations of the legitimate crimes they are in Sweden, Britain, the US, and pretty much every civilized country in the world?

Here's an idea... why don't you read the whole document so that you can have some actual real information for your information-starved mind on which to base your opinions other than erroneous articles from journalists with agendas of their own?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #205)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:37 PM

218. Sorry. I've read a lot of legal documents in my life. That is legalese.

Those are allegations. If Sweden were really serious about these charges they would agree not to extradite Assange to the US on espionage charges.

I have also seen information that contradicts these statements.

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.

That is a "he said, she said" allegation and is very difficult to prove in court.

Basically, it boils down to whether he or she is more credible or on another level to whom the court wants to find more credible.

While rape is a horrible crime, it is, sadly, all too difficult to prove in many cases.

I understand that the conduct alleged occurred in the home and in the bed of the woman who is now claiming to have been raped.

That makes the claim of rape a little harder to prove although rape it may have been.

But these charges may very well be a transparent pretext for luring Assange into a country from which he could be extradited to a kangaroo trial.

I believe in human rights, and also in freedom of information and freedom of access to the truth. And something smells with regard to all of these issues in the Assange case. Is he just an unpleasant, inconvenient personage rather than some sort of spy or subversive? I am inclined to think so.

So you see, it is a question of values. I place the value of human rights very, very high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #18)


Response to Robb (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:50 PM

65. Nonsense. You know damn well it's more complicated than that.

See post #21: "There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety."

@ethicalgirl: As a rape survivor I'd like to point out calling #Assange supporters rape apologists is offensive. This is about US detention w/out trial.


Ad hominem, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:33 PM

78. I just hate when people spout crappola.....

 

...that they try and pass off as highfalutin indignation, when if fact it's best use would be as fertilizer.

Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called “sex by surprise” or “unexpected sex.” link


- Don't bother with your fully anticipated half-assed reply. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #78)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:59 PM

99. ... The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged

to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. They include “sexual molestation” and, in one case, rape ...
The Supreme Court
Easter Term
<2012> UKSC 22
On appeal from: <2011> EWHC Admin 2849
JUDGMENT
Assange (Appellant) v The Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:36 PM

81. you karl rove fanboys are every bit as amusing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:28 PM

118. Was someone raped?

Must have missed that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:52 PM

21. Katrin Axelsson from the European organization Women Against Rape had this to say:

Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape allegations (Report, 8 December). Women in Sweden don't fare better than we do in Britain when it comes to rape. Though Sweden has the highest per capita number of reported rapes in Europe and these have quadrupled in the last 20 years, conviction rates have decreased. On 23 April 2010 Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs-Posten that "up to 90% of all reported rapes never get to court. In 2006 six people were convicted of rape though almost 4,000 people were reported". They endorsed Amnesty International's call for an independent inquiry to examine the rape cases that had been closed and the quality of the original investigations.

Assange, who it seems has no criminal convictions, was refused bail in England despite sureties of more than £120,000. Yet bail following rape allegations is routine. For two years we have been supporting a woman who suffered rape and domestic violence from a man previously convicted after attempting to murder an ex-partner and her children – he was granted bail while police investigated.

There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don't take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst.

Katrin Axelsson
Women Against Rape


http://www.womenagainstrape.net/inthemedia/women-question-unusual-zeal-pursuing-julian-assang

Good points, also published in The Guardian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:03 PM

26. Sweden isn't pursuing the rape charges with much zeal at all. But his defenders sure are zealous...

In fact, there aren't any charges. They are waiting for him to return JUST TO CONTINUE AN INVESTIGATION.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:14 PM

36. Damn, Son, You A Busy Little Beaver, You Are....

Nigh on twenty posts a day since the third of the month. Are they all this kind of shit-stirring?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #36)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:27 PM

51. But whiffing on recommendations,

there must not be much to like here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:20 PM

44. Sweden just has to agree to NOT extradite Assange to the US

 

Sweden could just agree to that and Assange would go back for questioning.

Of course they refuse to do that, which indicates this isn't about whatever crime may have happened in Sweden but is really about the US's desire to get its hands on Assange (Sweden's partner in CIA rendition crimes which Wikileaks so cleverly exposed).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #44)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:50 PM

64. Sweden's done playing his games. He skipped out of country while authorities

in September 2010 were negotiating with his lawyer for an interview. He agreed to return for an interview in October 2010 and didn't. Then he jumped bail in the UK. Sweden has no reason to negotiate with him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #64)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:57 PM

67. Oh yes, because international diplomatic incidents in London are FAR more preferable

 

than an agreement to end this nonsense with a non extradition agreement. Heavens, why should Sweden "negotiate"? Instead lets play a game of overturning centuries of diplomatic law and precedent over this instead.... hmm?

He agreed to return for an interview before Sweden went ahead and changed their minds about the charges. Sweden hasn't been a fair and impartial actor in this mess. Besides, they're complicit in war crimes as well (CIA rendition flights that Wikileaks exposed) - why should Assange trust anything the Swedish government may assure him of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:36 AM

207. +1000 n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:20 PM

93. Did you join DU just to talk about Wikileaks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #93)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:25 PM

107. It sure looks like it.

 

On the list of things that make you go "Hmmmm...."

In the words of Mark Twain, "Tell me where a man gets his corn pone from, and I'll tell you what his opinions are." I'll leave it to the readers to deconstruct the source of the corn pone in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #107)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:19 PM

116. only if...

You tell me what the heck corn pone is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #116)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:11 PM

123. It's southern term for a type of corn bread.

 

In this context it means "money" in the same way we use the slang term "bread".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #123)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:16 PM

124. Ohhhhh

I love corn bread... and money

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #93)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:04 AM

202. why not?

I joined initially to talk about and read about Wes Clark running for president but stayed for other reasons. Seems normal to me for people to join for a specific reason. Call me crazy, but I'm not seeing any problem with that, and I'm willing to bet that must of us came to DU for one specific reason or another and stayed for more reasons. What brought you to DU, and should anyone be looking at it as some kind of problem?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:17 PM

40. I would hope Sweden pursues all rape cases with zeal

this is a no-go

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #40)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:21 PM

45. Me too. Contrary to "opinions" they've been rather apathetic on this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:26 PM

50. And it is interesting to note that the latest novel

From the Swedish writers that gave the world "The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo" is the story about the tremendous amount of sex trafficking inside Sweden. The book details a fictionalized account of the lives of Eastern European young women who find themselves locked up inside a pimps apartment after being kidnapped.

It is every bit as good as the first two novels were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:31 PM

58. THIS ENDS IT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:20 PM

105. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:04 PM

28. Just figures KKKarl is in the thick of this.

I hope the obama admin is not cooperating with that little puffy-faced piggy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:13 PM

34. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, KoKo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:16 PM

38. So get a Swedish lawyer and defend

If it's such a bad case, then go for acquittal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #38)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:22 PM

46. Assange ran before the investigation was even complete...

Then hides in the UK and pretends that the UK isn't USA's closest ally. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #46)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:32 PM

59. They closed the investigations then reopened them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #46)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:58 PM

84. Let's see 1) no, 2) no and 3) no

 

1) He was told he was free to leave, so he did.
2) He didn't hide he was held under house arrest without charge.
3) The UK is the USA's bitch and does what it's told...For further confirmation please see the actions of Blair, Anthony.


lol indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #84)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:26 PM

109. Doesn't that add up to a "Hell, no"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #46)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:19 PM

117. Yeah the whole thing about how the evil Swedes will send him to the evil USA

makes no sense since the UK could have sent him all this time. The US hasn't even made an effort to get its evil clutches into him, apparently!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:35 PM

60. I'm not sure that any of this matters.

 

It's quite likely that the charges were a setup to make it easier to get him into custody and ship him off to the U.S. Like as not, the Swedes would just ship him off due to an extradition treaty rather than keeping him there for prosecution. Once in U.S. hands, he'll never see the light of day again - he'll just wind up in a hole next to Bradley Manning's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #60)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:34 PM

79. Either that or he will be suicided.

 

Anyone who thinks that the ultimate string-puller in this affair is not located in the US is deluding only themself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:48 PM

63. Thanks

Thanks so much for posting Naomi Klein's excellent article. It's a little surprising to see such strong resistance to Assange's work on a progressive blog. There are many of us old timers out here who survived the Nixon years and know exactly what the rape charges are likely about. And I say that as a feminist. Thanks again KoKo, much appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nandru (Reply #63)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:24 PM

106. This board was infiltrated long ago.

Most of the regular posters have moved on. Not too many liberals left here. Try Reddit or Firedoglake.

edit: spelling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nandru (Reply #63)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:55 PM

122. Wolf, not Klein. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:06 PM

68. I would add to this point

5) A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.

No attorney–and certainly no high-powered attorney– would want to represent two women claiming to have been victimized by the same man, for the reasons above: the second woman’s testimony could be weaker than the other one’s, thus lessening the lawyer’s chances of success.

There also is a danger that the judge may well object to the potential cross-contamination of the women’s stories.

Again, the only reason why a lawyer would thus weaken his own clients’ cases us that s/he does not expect the case to come to trial.

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/

My comment: Anyway, in the US, an attorney could only represent two defendants if he got a waiver of the conflict of interest should one arise. A conflict of interest could arise, for example, if one client makes a claim that renders the claim of the other client quite unbelievable so it would be wise for the attorney to get that waiver from the outset seems to me.

Also, an attorney in the US and in the UK I believe owes a client an absolute obligation of confidentiality and loyalty. These duties can be waived by the client (sometimes must be in writing) and are defined in laws and stringent ethical codes. And attorneys who violate them can find themselves in quite a pickle. Not worth it. Not at all.

It's possible to get waivers from clients that permit these obligations to be relaxed, but the conduct of the Swedish prosecutors and courts in this respect would not be recommended and probably not common in the US.

Swedish legal conventions and standards to protect human rights may be lower than ours, but I doubt it. This is quite shocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #68)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:43 PM

95. And then there's Karl ROVE in his new role: Link/Article

Rove’s Swedish Connections: Controversy & The Facts
By Andrew Kreig
Twitter
inShare

By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli (Exceprted from his blog Feb. 13):

Naomi Wolf's guest-article in my "Professors Blogg" – which mentioned (among other matters) Karl Rove’s potential involvement in the Swedish political crusade against Assange – had a huge impact among Swedish blog-readers. The site Bloggosfär picked her column Feb. 12 to be its top-recommended reading on the Julian Assange theme. Knuff.se also cited the article in its front page that day. Yet some in the Swedish media deny the article’s implication that Rove might be relevant to the Assange case, or even to Sweden’s governing Moderate Party. That confirms the characterization by Assange’s lawyers about disregard by Swedish media for objectivity and fair play in this sensitive case. "Professors Blogg" replied to this political threat by republishing the initial controversial column by Andrew Kreig that Wolf cited. Also, we provide Kreig’s updated analysis on Rove. It describes past and current developments, leading right to yesterday, Feb. 12. The author Andrew Kreig is prominent human-rights defender. His second gästblogg is a new update of his article on Rove. This update is being published for the first time in "Professors Blogg."

MUCH MORE...and WORTH THE READ ...if you are interested in the details and not a naysayer troll.

http://www.justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=260:roves-swedish-connections-the-controversy-a-the-facts&catid=44&Itemid=28

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:21 PM

71. and boom goes the dynamite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:32 PM

76. I don't understand why this obvious persecution is defended by so many here. K&R n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #76)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:35 PM

80. I have been trying to understand that myself.

 

It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #76)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:06 PM

85. A very good question, indeed.

Defending dirty government tricks turns my stomach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #76)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:08 PM

86. What's green and used as a substitute for grass on playing fields? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #76)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:16 PM

88. It might be a lot of "New DU'ers" don't know the background & some Oldies...well.....

One would have to have been here for awhile to get what Assange is going through in "context," with other situations we Dems here have seen since 2001.

Also, there is the "Spin from both Dems & Repugs" on the issue of Assange.

Prosecuting Assange and Manning makes Obama seem TOUGH...more like Bush II which brings Repugs over to "OUR SIDE." And Prosecuting Assange and Manning makes the REPUGS feel like the NEO-CONS that BUSH II gave Free Grange Feeding Rights to....meaning we should vote for ROMNEY/RYAN.

Everybody wins by Trashing Assange/Manning.

I'm not one who believes that this is what "I was told growing up.." that AMERICA is ABOUT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #76)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:27 PM

110. Mark Twain said something about the source of a man's corn pone

 

influencing his opinions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:12 PM

103. 9) Sexual assault accusations (not charges even) never result in international arrest warrants.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #103)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:30 PM

119. Good Point...International Powers don't go for the Sexual ...

they go for the Commidities, Pipelines,or WMD or Nukes that a country has that gets in the way of folks who want that wealth and and if a person is promoting sexual...it's "Honey Trap" or other nefarious stuff.

Assange was a "Whistle Blower" ......and we know that after the "Pentagon Papers" that "WB's" are no longer accepted as part of "American Culture/Democracy."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #103)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:55 PM

135. Takes damn near Weird Willard level lying or bordering on Gohmert level stupidity

to buy for a nanosecond that this makes any arguable sense other than high level shenanigans.

I really don't believe the vast majority pushing this crap believe it either, which makes my ideas of their motives on the issue quite distasteful.

Hell, they had the guy on lock down for a good stretch and told him he was free to go without charges at the start and the deal has become more questionable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:45 PM

120. The anti-Assange BS is sickening.

The fact that Sweden refuses to guarantee that Assange will not be renditioned to the US is proof enough that they are going to give him to the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #120)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:29 PM

128. Yes.

 

Really, the anti-Assange harpies don't see any sort of odd dissonance with this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #120)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:29 PM

130. What, exactly, would he be extradited for?

Leaking classified is illegal. That's why Manning is on trial.

Publishing classified that was leaked to you is not illegal. This was explicitly established in the Supreme Court case regarding the Pentagon Papers.

So what, exactly, would Assange be extradited for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #130)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:34 PM

131. That's pretty much what he didn't want to wait around to find out.

 

AFAICT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #131)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:39 PM

134. You're free to speculate.

You can't extradite someone "just because". A law has to be broken. So which one did he break?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #134)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 09:23 AM

200. You can't render someone "just because" either...

 

We're talking about governments here, not rational, law-abiding individuals. No laws need to be broken for governments to act in their own self-interest. This is a game of power and self-preservation, not the rule of law.

The idea that laws apply to governments is a convenient fiction used by governments to create "useful idiots" that will cover for them in public. If the law is in their favour they trumpet their obedience to it. When it's not, they go silent and act anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #200)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:52 PM

208. If they were going to use rendition, they'd do it from the UK.

The UK is much more friendly to the US than Sweden. So if you're going extra-judicial, you'd do so from the UK. There's no reason to wait for Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #208)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:01 PM

213. They don't want to use rendition in this case - the target is too much of a public figure..

 

I used rendition simply as an example of how governments act outside the law if it suits their purposes, not to imply that they'd do it to Assange.

Here it looks like they wanted to maneuver him into a legal trap - fix him in place - so they could make subsequent events (i.e. his vacation at Quantico) look above-board. Assange rumbled their game and is now in full E&E mode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #213)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:04 PM

215. Then they have to have a law broken for extradition

And no law has been broken.

And if you're going to "fix him in place", you're going to do so in the UK, where your maneuvers are going to be much easier.

There's still no reason to wait for Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #215)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:11 PM

217. There was no way to fix him in place in the UK

 

He hadn't broken any laws there. Sweden was crucial to the plan, and getting him extradited back to Sweden was their best option. When Assange refused to cooperate and ran, they ran out of low-cost options. So now they're talking about de-certifying an embassy. All over an extradition to face questions about not being a considerate lover???? Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #130)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:37 PM

132. Presumably, violating the Espionage Act [18 U.S.C. 793(e)]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #132)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:38 PM

133. And this is exactly the statue that the SCOTUS says does not apply.

So what, exactly, would he be extradited for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #133)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:58 PM

136. So, you going to provide a citation for that assertion or....(?)

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #136)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:30 PM

142. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Also known as the Pentagon Papers case.

There's also the fact that all the media that re-published what Wikileaks published have not faced legal consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #130)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:27 PM

140. Evidently Ecuador has sufficient information that leads them to believe the US is going to extradite

 

Its in their own declaration of the asylum grant today.

3) That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger his safety, integrity, and even his life;

4) That, despite Ecuador’s diplomatic efforts, countries which have been asked togive adequate safeguards for the protection and safety for the life of Mr. Assange have refused to facilitate them;

5) That Ecuadorian authorities are certain of the possibility that Mr. Assange could be extradited to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity;

6) That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights;


You can read the whole thing here:
More: http://wikileaks-press.org/press-conference-with-foreign-minister-ricardo-patino-aroca-ecuador-grants-asylum-to-julian-assange-english-translation/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #140)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:32 PM

143. Ecuador can declare the moon landing a hoax. Doesn't mean it's true.

So what, exactly, would he be extradited for?

And if the law was broken, how come none of the other media that re-published Wikileaks have faced legal consequences? If Assange broke the law, so did they.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #143)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:43 PM

144. Oh, yes, Ecuador is participating in a major international scandal over a HOAX?

 

Do you hear yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #144)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:48 PM

148. Again, their claim requires breaking US law. You continue to fail

to identify which law was broken.

So which law was broken so that Assange can be extradited?

And why have no other media been charged under that same law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #148)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:57 PM

154. There's a secret grand jury empaneled already on Assange is exactly that, secret.

 

But that it exists is not so secret. I'm guessing no other media have been charged since they aren't the target of a bogus witch hunt like Assange.

http://www.thenation.com/article/169209/fate-julian-assange#

Another sign is the existence of a secret grand jury that has been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to investigate WikiLeaks. Assange told Democracy Now! that seven WikiLeaks staffers and volunteers have been subjected to this investigation. Google and Twitter have been issued subpoenas ordering the companies to turn over private data on users believed to be affiliated or connected to WikiLeaks, and the organization suspects that Facebook has also been issued similar subpoenas. The US government has subpoenaed WikiLeaks’s domain registrar, Dynadot, for server data. The government has subpoenaed Sonic.net for the private e-mails of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, who has been detained multiple times at airports by federal agents who have questioned him about his links to WikiLeaks.

Justice Department spokesperson Dean Boyd said in late June, “There continues to be an investigation into the WikiLeaks matter.” Also, in a June motion hearing in the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, it was revealed that the FBI has a 42,135-page investigative file into WikiLeaks. Only 8,741 of the pages are allegedly relevant to Manning’s case. That means more than 30,000 of the other pages likely involve evidence the US government has on Assange and WikiLeaks staffers or volunteers. It is hard to imagine that this investigative file would be put together if the US government did not plan to prosecute someone. Not to mention, Manning is charged with “aiding the enemy” and military prosecutors have established in court that the “enemy” is Al Qaeda.

Finally, the political climate in the United States is ripe for an Assange extradition. Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, has renewed her call for Assange to be tried for “espionage.” Congress members have mounted a bipartisan offensive against “leaks” by President Barack Obama’s administration on Obama’s “kill list,” cyber warfare against Iran and a CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation in Yemen. The Obama administration has indicted an unprecedented number of people under the Espionage Act for “leaking” or whistleblowing. And, House Republicans have expressed support for jailing journalists if they don’t comply with a political witch hunt for “leakers.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #154)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:58 PM

155. I'll just cut-n-paste since you continue to fail

to identify which law was broken.

So which law was broken so that Assange can be extradited?

And why have no other media been charged under that same law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #155)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:13 PM

175. LOL!! He'll be charged as an enemy combatant or something ridiculous

 

The secret grand jury is just that, secret but I wouldn't let little piddly things like "laws" get in the way of a good US temper tantrum. It certainly hasn't before when they've murdered US citizens by drone, even US teenagers who have had no chance of justice as just one example

No other media has been charged because they have not set up a highly effective pipeline for whistleblowers and leakers.

Good night. Its obvious you aren't even listening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #175)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:14 PM

178. Yeah, it's not worth the trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #178)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:20 PM

184. Yes, it's so bothersome when people ask questions.

Much better to just assume the worst. It's so much less effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #184)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:29 PM

186. No, it's bothersome when people ignore answers

and get things factually wrong and act seemingly deliberately naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #186)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:47 PM

194. I'm off for the night. Good luck

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #186)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:56 PM

210. So you're being bothersome?

Or does that rule only count for other people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #175)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:19 PM

183. You can't charge someone as an "enemy combatant" during an extradition.

So if you're going to argue Sweden will extradite him to the US, you have to actually have a law broken.

If you are going to argue the US would use something like rendition, you'd have to explain why we aren't doing that right now. The UK is much friendlier to the US than Sweden.

So what law was broken? Why has no one else been charged? And if you're claiming extra-judicial, why wait for Sweden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #183)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:46 PM

193. Sweden HAS done this before, with the US. Renditioned someone without any charges

 

Of course, saying that 100x won't make a dent here....They have a precedent with Sweden so why not?

The US will make up a law and charge him, like they have with hundreds of others at Gitmo, and the ones like Padilla... they are operating as a rogue state in this. As far as the US goes, if they want you, they'll find a "law" that you have "broken" and "charge you"....

The grand jury is working on doing that right now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #193)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:57 PM

211. And you keep ignoring that there's no reason to wait for Sweden

If you're going to use rendition, there's absolutely no reason to wait for him to go to Sweden. Just take him from the UK, they'd ship him over with a gift bow stuck on his head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #211)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:04 PM

214. He's far too much of a public figure for rendition to have been an option.

 

The worldwide firestorm if they snatched him would be very damaging. The Yanks probably thought they had a fool-proof stitch-up under way, but Assange spotted them and ran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #214)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 08:55 PM

225. By seeking extradition from Sweden?

Do you even bother listening to your own arguments?

The absolute worst possible sentence in Sweden is 6 years. That's not a "stitch-up". Especially when your followers will happily swallow everything you claim about political persecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #211)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:48 PM

222. Answered 10x. If the Brits wouldn't do it during Iraq and Afghanistan wars, they won't for Assange

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #222)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 08:53 PM

224. If you believe they didn't do it then

I've got some some bridges to sell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #130)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 06:54 AM

198. If there was nothing to be extradited for,

 

then why did Sweden refuse to guarantee Assange would not be extradited?
And the argument that Assange has broken no law, so he is in no danger, is extremely and almost hilariously naive. Or specious.
Disingenuous comes to mind.
As I recall, Interpol was not brought in to grab Roman Polanski - who was actually convicted of much worse, and ran before sentencing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #198)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:54 PM

209. Because guaranteeing no extradition is the same as issuing a pardon

for another country's laws.

And the argument that Assange has broken no law, so he is in no danger, is extremely and almost hilariously naive. Or specious.

If they're going extradition, a law has to be broken. No law has been broken.

If they're going extra-judicial, there's no reason to wait for Sweden. They'd just take him from the UK, since the UK is extremely friendly with the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:05 PM

137. The whole situation stinks...

if you dare say it could be a set up, then you are labeled pro-rape or worse. It is almost as if no woman has ever lied about rape. In this case it is even worse than that, people other than the women involved are calling rape. I don't know if they were or not. I wasn't there. But, the situation is suspicious and that should be enough to question if charges should even be brought.

On the other hand I am not comfortable saying that nothing happened and minimizing what could have been mistreatment of women. If they said that they didn't want to have sex without a condom and were coerced or tricked that is very serious. I just don't think in most cases a government would ask for extradition on these kinds of allegations, so again this is suspicious to me. It doesn't mean nothing happened. I think that it is actually a bit disingenuous to not be skeptical about both sides.

It is the classical he said she and she said situation. So I am not taking sides. I think both sides have valid points. But, the side screaming that one side is pro-rape needs to settle down and at least get that there it is a valid concern that these allegations have been trumped up over politics. And the other side needs to understand that the allegations might be at least somewhat true. Either way the fighting over this is a bit strange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #137)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:51 AM

197. Good post, Kalidurga!

Unfortunately, it will probably be overlooked as there seem to be a lot of chest-beating look-at-me posts sucking up most of the oxygen in this "discussion", something that seems to happen often as soon as the name "Assange" is invoked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:18 PM

181. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

 




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:38 PM

190. "Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer"?

i don't understand this one (point #4).

this is really the same point as #5, which i understand better, particularly because they throw in the word "typically", so it's not an inappropriate absolute, even though it's right after the word "never".


anyway, if two alleged victims choose to be represented by the same lawyer, does the prosecutor have any ability to "never let" that happen? i mean, would a prosecutor really say "i'm going to drop the case if you don't get separate lawyers", because that seems to me the only real way he could try to prevent it.



fwiw, i think the whole case against assange stinks of political prosecution, but i just don't understand this one point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:58 PM

212. Great post! We need to keep this high profile and high pressure. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:03 PM

226. Kkkarl is a war criminal , that figures

 

NWO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread