HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » IMO the denial of Sweden ...

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:48 AM

IMO the denial of Sweden to guarantee Assange that he will not be sent to the US is enough to

justify his refusal to go to Sweden.

If this was really about rape charges they could issue such a guarantee. It wouldn't cost them anything. That they aren't doing it IMO proves with near certainty that there is more to the extradition request than rape charges.

Thanks Ecuador for doing what is right.

I should add that I can't see how anyone who is paying attention can deny that the persecution is political. I suspect that most people who complain that Assange is "avoiding to face charges" are simply opposed to what Wikileaks does and would like to see Assange taken in by the US.

283 replies, 87409 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 283 replies Author Time Post
Reply IMO the denial of Sweden to guarantee Assange that he will not be sent to the US is enough to (Original post)
redgreenandblue Aug 2012 OP
Swagman Aug 2012 #1
hack89 Aug 2012 #22
Swagman Aug 2012 #26
hack89 Aug 2012 #27
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #39
hack89 Aug 2012 #48
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #51
hack89 Aug 2012 #52
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #57
hack89 Aug 2012 #64
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #67
hack89 Aug 2012 #71
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #72
hack89 Aug 2012 #74
tama Aug 2012 #143
tama Aug 2012 #129
hack89 Aug 2012 #135
Aerows Aug 2012 #191
hack89 Aug 2012 #195
Aerows Aug 2012 #190
JackRiddler Aug 2012 #255
hack89 Aug 2012 #258
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #274
hack89 Aug 2012 #275
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #276
hack89 Aug 2012 #277
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #278
hack89 Aug 2012 #279
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #280
hack89 Aug 2012 #281
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #282
hack89 Aug 2012 #283
hack89 Aug 2012 #55
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #59
hack89 Aug 2012 #68
hlthe2b Aug 2012 #53
hack89 Aug 2012 #58
hlthe2b Aug 2012 #61
kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #69
hack89 Aug 2012 #73
kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #79
hack89 Aug 2012 #81
kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #91
hack89 Aug 2012 #94
kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #96
hack89 Aug 2012 #99
robinlynne Aug 2012 #147
TheMadMonk Aug 2012 #98
hack89 Aug 2012 #102
tama Aug 2012 #112
reorg Aug 2012 #197
hack89 Aug 2012 #198
reorg Aug 2012 #201
hack89 Aug 2012 #205
reorg Aug 2012 #210
hack89 Aug 2012 #211
tama Aug 2012 #113
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #159
hack89 Aug 2012 #162
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #166
malokvale77 Aug 2012 #200
Matariki Aug 2012 #208
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #263
Luminous Animal Aug 2012 #126
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #254
hack89 Aug 2012 #257
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #260
hack89 Aug 2012 #261
hack89 Aug 2012 #262
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #264
hack89 Aug 2012 #265
tama Aug 2012 #105
hack89 Aug 2012 #106
tama Aug 2012 #111
hack89 Aug 2012 #128
tama Aug 2012 #136
hack89 Aug 2012 #141
tama Aug 2012 #146
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #219
hack89 Aug 2012 #221
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #222
hack89 Aug 2012 #224
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #160
hack89 Aug 2012 #163
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #167
hack89 Aug 2012 #170
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #171
hack89 Aug 2012 #172
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #173
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #174
hack89 Aug 2012 #175
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #176
hack89 Aug 2012 #181
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #182
hack89 Aug 2012 #185
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #189
hack89 Aug 2012 #192
1monster Aug 2012 #203
hack89 Aug 2012 #207
1monster Aug 2012 #215
hack89 Aug 2012 #216
dendrobium Aug 2012 #168
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #179
hack89 Aug 2012 #180
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #194
hack89 Aug 2012 #196
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #199
hack89 Aug 2012 #206
cali Aug 2012 #2
xchrom Aug 2012 #3
villager Aug 2012 #4
cali Aug 2012 #7
villager Aug 2012 #82
cali Aug 2012 #84
villager Aug 2012 #86
Egalitarian Thug Aug 2012 #108
tama Aug 2012 #144
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #157
tama Aug 2012 #158
Aerows Aug 2012 #5
hifiguy Aug 2012 #63
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #6
jerseyjack Aug 2012 #13
tama Aug 2012 #119
magical thyme Aug 2012 #8
The Doctor. Aug 2012 #9
nxylas Aug 2012 #10
cali Aug 2012 #14
KitSileya Aug 2012 #32
NCTraveler Aug 2012 #70
tama Aug 2012 #120
LadyHawkAZ Aug 2012 #137
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #11
Swagman Aug 2012 #18
jeff47 Aug 2012 #30
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #35
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #43
jerseyjack Aug 2012 #12
Swagman Aug 2012 #16
jeff47 Aug 2012 #29
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #45
Swagman Aug 2012 #87
laundry_queen Aug 2012 #107
jeff47 Aug 2012 #114
Swagman Aug 2012 #85
jeff47 Aug 2012 #115
tama Aug 2012 #142
cpwm17 Aug 2012 #145
Savannahmann Aug 2012 #15
redgreenandblue Aug 2012 #17
Swagman Aug 2012 #19
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #21
whistler162 Aug 2012 #24
Swagman Aug 2012 #89
frylock Aug 2012 #116
Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #223
frylock Aug 2012 #230
Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #231
frylock Aug 2012 #233
Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #242
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #248
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #133
Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #266
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #101
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #124
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #127
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #131
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #139
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #235
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #34
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #236
Swagman Aug 2012 #88
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #93
kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #95
tama Aug 2012 #109
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #121
tama Aug 2012 #140
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #237
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #238
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #240
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #241
tama Aug 2012 #138
malokvale77 Aug 2012 #20
Robb Aug 2012 #23
ananda Aug 2012 #25
jeff47 Aug 2012 #28
yodermon Aug 2012 #31
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #33
treestar Aug 2012 #38
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #42
treestar Aug 2012 #44
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #47
treestar Aug 2012 #54
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #49
treestar Aug 2012 #56
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #65
treestar Aug 2012 #150
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #154
Swagman Aug 2012 #90
treestar Aug 2012 #151
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #97
treestar Aug 2012 #152
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #155
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #177
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #183
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #184
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #186
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #187
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #193
EOTE Aug 2012 #40
jeff47 Aug 2012 #213
EOTE Aug 2012 #226
jeff47 Aug 2012 #229
EOTE Aug 2012 #232
jeff47 Aug 2012 #252
EOTE Aug 2012 #256
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #46
jeff47 Aug 2012 #117
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #125
jeff47 Aug 2012 #212
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #218
jeff47 Aug 2012 #220
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #234
jeff47 Aug 2012 #251
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #253
Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #267
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #273
JackRiddler Aug 2012 #259
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #188
treestar Aug 2012 #36
EOTE Aug 2012 #66
treestar Aug 2012 #75
EOTE Aug 2012 #80
treestar Aug 2012 #153
EOTE Aug 2012 #164
treestar Aug 2012 #165
EOTE Aug 2012 #228
cemaphonic Aug 2012 #148
tama Aug 2012 #204
EOTE Aug 2012 #37
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #50
frylock Aug 2012 #118
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #123
frylock Aug 2012 #130
HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #134
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #149
Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #268
frylock Aug 2012 #271
Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #272
Swagman Aug 2012 #92
kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #100
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #103
Puglover Aug 2012 #270
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #178
EOTE Aug 2012 #225
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #227
EOTE Aug 2012 #245
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #246
EOTE Aug 2012 #249
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #250
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #41
progressivebydesign Aug 2012 #60
Cleita Aug 2012 #77
hifiguy Aug 2012 #62
Cleita Aug 2012 #76
atreides1 Aug 2012 #78
redqueen Aug 2012 #83
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #104
tama Aug 2012 #110
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #122
tama Aug 2012 #132
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #156
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #169
laundry_queen Aug 2012 #202
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #239
laundry_queen Aug 2012 #243
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #244
laundry_queen Aug 2012 #247
Matariki Aug 2012 #209
WillyT Aug 2012 #161
avebury Aug 2012 #214
Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #217
CabCurious Aug 2012 #269

Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:54 AM

1. if the allegations were true then Sweden has acted in the most disgusting manner

toward the alleged victims and perpetuated this matter for over two years.

If they truly care about alleged rape victims they would do what my friend who is a detective who investigates sex crimes does (and sometimes the details are sickening)..he ensures the victim's suffering is not perpetuated for one second more than necessary.

Investigators could have traveled the short trip to London 2 years ago- as investigators routinely do all over the world and in Sweden- and interviewed Assange.

One country has acted honorably : Ecuador.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 08:18 AM

22. How many times do you have to be told how the Swedish system works?

Why is this so hard to grasp?

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.

The prosecutor will not interview him in London because she cannot arrest him there. Assange's lawyer was told that after Assange's interview he was going to be placed in custody - that is why he skipped town. To avoid a Swedish jail cell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 09:36 AM

26. dream on.

although I am fascinated that a suspect's lawyer is informed ahead of an interview that their client will be arrested.

So that is how Swedish justice 'works'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 09:56 AM

27. Lawyers negotiate the arrest of their clients all the time.

You can deny the lawyer's own words if you wish - it doesn't change reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:31 AM

39. She can arrest him there - there's an unprecedented Interpol arrest warrant for questioning!

 

For questioning!

She can arrest him anywhere she wants. It doesn't matter anyway, Assange has agreed to go to Sweden for questioning at any time. As long as the Swedes agree to NOT extradite him to the US. They've refused.

Or conversely, the US can say they won't extradite him. They've also refused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #39)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:58 AM

48. If she was to arrest him in London would Assange surrender and go back to Sweden?

You think he would do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #48)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:02 AM

51. I'm sure he'd have no choice unless he found a way to suicide himself

 

Or do you think he's going to wrassle a pack of cops and escape? I don't think Assange is some kind of special forces guy - if he's arrested, they're going to cuff him and take him away.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #51)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:08 AM

52. Too bad she cannot arrest him in London.

the Swedish police don't have arrest power in Britain - that is why the British police have to enforce the Interpol warrant.

So the notion that it is not a big deal for the interview to take place in London is BS - Assange insisted on it precisely because he can't be arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #52)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:11 AM

57. The British police just recently arrested 11 Icelandic bankers on Interpol arrest warrants

 

Again, of course the UK police can and do arrest people all the time.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #57)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:20 AM

64. Yes - and those bankers will go through a extradition hearing like Assange

Assange has ignored every legal warrant presented. He is ignoring the British High Court's extradition ruling.

And you really expect me to believe that if only the Swedish prosecutor would hop on a plane to London then he would willingly surrender to Swedish legal authority. Give me a fucking break. He is desperately trying everything he can do to avoid jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #64)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:25 AM

67. Sure he will, Sweden just has to give him an assurance they won't extradite him to the US. Simple

 

And with the risk of being disappeared or tortured or given "extra judicial" justice, as the US has amply demonstrated, its a fair request.


US plans to extradite Assange

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

EXCLUSIVE
August 18, 2012
Philip Dorling

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.

This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #67)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:27 AM

71. He is not in the position to demand anything. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #71)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:29 AM

72. US intends to extradite Assange, cables show

 

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

EXCLUSIVE
August 18, 2012
Philip Dorling

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.

This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #72)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:39 AM

74. Did you actually read that article?

nowhere does it document the US saying they plan to extradite Assange. It is about the opinions of Australian diplomats on what America might possibly do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #74)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:10 PM

143. Obviously

 

As US is hell bent on secrecy and generally expected just to lie when they officially state something, we have only second hand sources to draw conclusions about real US intentions. Australian diplomat cables to aussie gov are as reliable sources as you can get in this matter, especially when they confirm what has been gained also from other sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #71)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:23 PM

129. Obviously he is

 

"If you want to interview me, come here, or at least give guarantees that I don't end up in US torture chamber."

On the other hand, Sweden and Britain and US are not in position to demand anything from Ecuador.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #129)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:36 PM

135. I meant he is not in the position to make demands that will be met. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #135)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:17 PM

191. He is if they want to interview him

 

Because he can sit in the Ecuadorian embassy for as long as they will have him and neither Sweden nor the UK can do a thing about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #191)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:23 PM

195. Did you see how small the embassy is?

somehow I think the notion of Assange sitting in a small room for years does not bother the Swedes that much. Especially considering that he may actually be acquitted if he went to trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #129)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:16 PM

190. Exactly

 

I was about to say the same thing. As long as he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, they can't touch him.

I don't know whether the man is guilty or not - the only people that know that are Assange and the two women. What I do know is that he has every right to be afraid that he will not get a fair trial, or a fair sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #71)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 06:40 PM

255. Yes he is, and I expect that annoys you.

 

Why doesn't everyone just kow-tow to the will of the authorities as defined by you? What a wonderful world this will be!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #255)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:15 PM

258. How?

he is going to sit in that embassy until he dies or surrenders. He has no legal leg to stand on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #258)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:52 PM

274. Apparently he does have a legal leg to stand on or he wouldn't be sitting in the Embassy

free to continue his work, living in luxury, rather than the way he used to live when he had to live a nomadic life because of his exposures of corrupt dictatorships who were not happy with him at all.

He was on the run ever since Wikileaks began exposing corruption in governments like Mubarak's, Ben Ali's (he's currently supported by Tunisia's new President who has expressed his gratitude to him for Wikileaks' Tunisian Corrupt Regime exposures). He is a Human Rights activist himself, having been jailed and persecuted by the Ben Ami regime. As he said, he understands Assanges 'predicament' very well.

The legal leg that allows him to reside in the Embassy are International Laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #274)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 08:10 PM

275. Didn't I just say that he will stay in the embassy?

what he does not have is a legal means out of his predicament - he stays in the embassy or he goes to Sweden. Ecuadorian asylum does not give him free passage to Ecuador.

You do understand that he is not living in luxury?

Wikileaks rebel Julian Assange remained holed up in a stuffy room at the Ecuadorian embassy today surrounded by dozens of police officers waiting to pounce.

The fugitive has just a sunlamp, a running machine and internet connection in the threadbare room inside the ground-floor apartment in Knightsbridge.

The curtains are almost always closed to prevent people looking in. And a short walk down the worn corridor he can find a small water dispenser.

Without sunlight or fresh air, friends fear that he is slowly verging towards depression. Only recently has a blow-up bed been swapped for a proper mattress.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189749/Threadbare-room-inside-Ecuadorian-embassy-Julian-Assange-hiding.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

And no, he is not continuing his work. By giving him asylum, Ecuador assumes responsibilities for his actions in the embassy. There is no way Ecuador will allow him to run Wikileaks from the embassy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #275)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 09:38 PM

276. Lol, the Daily Mail!

I prefer his attorneys' description without the DM's enhancements.

The Ecuadorian Govt can and have indicated they may bring this issue, Britain's refusal to respect their right to grant asylum to Assange, to the International Courts. So yes, there are other legal avenues. Britain doesn't rule the world. Ecuador NOT Assange has rights under International law.

However I suspect that neither Correa nor Assange actually want him to leave the Embassy. There he is visited regularly by his attorneys and other friends and relatives if he wishes. It would be much more difficult for them were he in Ecuador.

Now that Britain has been slapped down for its outrageous threat to storm the embassy and have informed Ecuador that this will not happen, he is much better off staying there.

In other cases of asylum seekers, they have remained in embassies for years until a change in the political landscape, very likely here also, ended their need for asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #276)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 09:51 PM

277. Do you understand that he cannot run Wikileaks from the embassy?

international law is also pretty clear that Ecuador is now responsible for what Assange does while in the embassy.

Assange is neutralized - the US is very happy about this.

You are wrong about asylum. Diplomatic asylum is not the same as political asylum. It is not recognized in international law. The UK is not legally required by international law to recognize Assange's asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #277)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 10:20 PM

278. Neutralized? He just got the support of the entire continent of South America,

He is doing exactly what he wants, and the British Govt played right into his hands.

Iow, he just got the attention of the whole world giving the British Govt a black eye, although he didn't force them into their ridiculous threats.

One of the more intelligent and now former members of the State Dept, P.J. Crowley in remarks that seemed to be giving advice to Assange, stated that there is split in the US Govt regarding their pursuit of Assange. The more sensible, mostly Democrats like Conyers, but within the State Dept also, oppose this phony effort to charge him under the Espionage Act, as it makes the US Govt look as bad as the British Govt now looks and only gathers support for Assange.

His remarks on Assange's comments accusing the US of being on a witch hunt against him, were basically to say Assange probably should not have said that, as it appears because of the conflict in the US Govt, they are backing away from trying to come up with charges against him. Assange's remarks, he said, might anger them to the point of proceeding.

He has become an international figure widely viewed around the world as a target of the Western Colonial states who is being persecuted for his work with Wikileaks, and the more they go after him, the more popular he becomes. P.J. Crowley is correct. He was correct about the treatment of Manning also having a very negative effect on the US.

This is how he is working on Wikileaks. He may also be writing a memoir which he is free to do.

But neutralized he is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #278)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:55 AM

279. No - Assange did not get the support of the entire continent of South America

Go back and read the OAS statement. It says nothing about Assange himself.

They have given Ecuador partial support and nothing more.

Foreign ministers from the American continent have passed a motion backing the "inviolability of diplomatic missions" amid the row between the UK and Ecuador over Julian Assange.

Ecuador called for the Organization of American States vote saying the UK had threatened to storm the embassy.

But the resolution was reworded after the UK insisted it had made no threat.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas said the resolution expressed solidarity with Ecuador but, despite a strong plea from Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, there was no reference to any threat against his country's embassy in London.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19377110

All they were concerned about were the alleged threats to storm the embassy. The fact that the OAS accepted Britain's word and weakened the statement despite Ecuador's pleas tells me that this issue is not going to fire up South America. Especially as time goes on and the matter fades from the front page.

Why do you think the OAS refuse to comment on Assange and voice an opinion on whether or not he should be extradited to Sweden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #279)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:47 PM

280. I give up. If you cannot understand what happened here, I don't have time to waste

since it is obvious where you stand on these issues.

This was a real live chess game played by the Latin American nation of Ecuador and Wikileaks against the old colonial Empire which was successfully check-mated.

And Assange was a main player in a game they started but so far are losing.

Next move? We'll see, they probably should rethink their strategy. All this part of the game did was get him and Wikileaks even more support than they already had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #280)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:53 PM

281. Painting oneself into a corner is a funny definition of checkmate

Ecuador doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. That is why there is no international outcry in support of them. Ecuador has no leverage - Assange sitting in a dingy embassy for years is not a victory. Assange will not be going to Ecuador.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #281)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:06 PM

282. You're free to stop painting yourself into a corner anytime you choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #282)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:12 PM

283. How do you think this will end? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #39)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:10 AM

55. No she can't.

you think foreign law enforcement officers can come to America and arrest someone just because there is an Interpol Red Notice?

Can you show a single case of that happening?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #55)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:15 AM

59. Yes, the UK police do this all the time

 

Here's one recent story about the Icelandic bankers....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12688072

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #59)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:26 AM

68. The British police did arrest Assange once and were preparing to arrest him again

he was placed on bail waiting the results of the extradition hearing. After 2 years he was ordered to be returned to Sweden. He jumped bail and fled to the embassy.

So don't tell me that the Swedish prosecutor could have come to London and just like that Assange would give up his fight and returned to Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:09 AM

53. I see nothing in your comments that preclude or even defend the Swedish prosecutor from interviewing

him in London. Given the very complicated circumstances, the refusal to even go that far to demonstrate the accusations and pending charges were valid seems to underscore this as a political prosecution/persecution. I don't take rape accusations lightly--at all. But given all the circumstances, this is anything but a unquestioned and above board investigation for sexual assault/rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #53)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:12 AM

58. Because the interview is the final step before charges and arrest

the Swedes cannot arrest Assange in London - he is insisting on the interview in London to avoid arrest.

He is trying to game the system and the Swedes are refusing to play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:16 AM

61. The Brits have already agreed to extradict him. There is no reason NOT to interview him in London.

At least demonstrate that there is some validity behind this process and it is not purely political. Something that most people who are following it question highly, I'd be willing to bet.

The Brits are willing to extradict even without Swedish arrest warrants, apparently. So, your point seems totally moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:27 AM

69. FAIL: Sweden interviews suspects in OTHER countries:

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unt.se%2Fuppsala%2Fmordmisstankt-forhord-i-serbien-1701566.aspx%23.T-tO934j_Nw.twitter

Posted: 2012-03-22 21:11, last updated: 2012-07-25 07:07

Murder Suspect questioned in Serbia

Vaksalagatan. Swedish police and prosecutors are now questioning the 21-year-old man from Uppsala, which is being held in Belgrade on suspicion of murdering a 26-year-old in an apartment on Vaksalagatan Christmas.
Links
READ MORE: Continued hearings after murder
READ MORE: arrested for accessory to murder
READ MORE: Murder suspect arrested in Belgrade
READ MORE: 21-year-old arrested for the murder of Vaksalagatan

Two other men have been arrested in Uppsala, on suspicion of aggravated protective of crime.
Investigators have visited the prison in Belgrade, where the man is being held. According to reports, decisions about extradition of 21-year old was taken within 1-2 months.

Serbia. Not even an EU country. Got anything else you want to pretend to know about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #69)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:35 AM

73. The point being argued is that the Swedes can't arrest someone in a foreign country

Assange was going to be arrested - they can't arrest him in Britain.

Just like your example, all they can do is request extradition. Which they did. Assange was then arrested by the British and given bail until the extradition hearing was over. He was ordered extradited.

What should have happened was that Assange surrender to the British authorities who would then put him on a plane to Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 12:18 PM

79. Your "point" is bullshit. You don't have one anymore.

"The prosecutor will not interview him in London because she cannot arrest him there. " Your words.

You have been proved flat out wrong. A) as you concede, Assange is already under arrest, detained at Sweden's request, and Britain will certainly comply with an extradition request. B) There is no bar whatever to Swedish authorities interviewing him outside Sweden, neither in the UK, nor in Ecuador's embassy, nor in a fetid Serbian pisshole, nor in a box with a fox, for the purposes of determining whether or not to charge him, and then take him away.

Sweden has been invited to interview Assange by his lawyers, and even by Ecuador. The prosecutor would not interview him in London - but it clearly was for some reason other than required Swedish legal procedure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #79)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 12:39 PM

81. Why should they participate in a farce?

are you really saying that the only reason Assange fought against extradition for two years is because of the location of the interview? That if the interview was held in London and the Swedes charged him he would have dropped his fight and gone along willingly? Give me a fucking break.

He has fought arrest every inch of the way.

Britain has complied with an extradition request - Assange blew them off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:15 PM

91. In defeat, you flail about wildly

with the best of them.

I'll take your hysterical accusations and preposterous hypotheticals as a concession speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #91)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:19 PM

94. So you honestly believe that Assange would have surrendered to Swedish authorities

if they had conducted the interview in London? Really?

I know you are a fanboi but damn - there is a serious detachment from reality here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #94)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:23 PM

96. You do not disappoint me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #96)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:30 PM

99. But you won't answer - because you know what Assange would have done.

he will do anything to avoid a jail cell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #96)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:48 PM

147. go kenny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:25 PM

98. Because they CREATED the farce when prosecutors were ORDERED...

 

...to "investigate" after they'd reached the conclusion that there was no case to answer.

Because Sweden has a history of allowing the US extrajudicial access to foreign nationals on its soil.

One complainant was a professional CIA shit stirrer And the other would be her own worst enemy in court.

The US has long indicated that it wishes to arrest and interview Assange WRT Bradly Manning and his leaking of diplomatic cables.

Because the whole thing is a politically motivated farce.

All he wants is a solid assurance that he won't end up in US custody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #98)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:34 PM

102. He does not deserve special consideration

He is not special in the eyes of the law. He doesn't get to dictate terms to the government of Sweden.

Now he is truly fucked. He can go to jail for breaking British law.

So he will sit in that embassy until he dies or he surrenders. Which is ok - he is impotent and harmless now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #102)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:42 PM

112. Wishfull thinking from your part, obviously n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #102)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:27 PM

197. which particular British law has he broken

and what is the punishment for it, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #197)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:34 PM

198. You are aware that he had been arrested in Britain and was under house arrest?

In December 2010, Mr. Assange was arrested in Britain on a Swedish warrant issued in connection with the alleged sex offenses. He was at first denied bail, but a week later was granted bail of $315,000 and placed under house arrest at the country mansion of a wealthy friend.


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/julian_p_assange/index.html

I doubt the would jail him again - they would simply put him on a plane to Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #198)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 08:27 PM

201. Yes, I am aware of that. Which particular British law has he broken

and what is the punishment for this crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #201)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:48 AM

205. Ecsaping from confinment, fleeing justice and violating bail conditions

not sure what the punishment would be beyond going back to jail until he was extradited. I doubt the Brits want him hanging around for a trial.

Why is this important in your eyes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #205)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:12 PM

210. it is not important but typical

that you tend to use the plural form (prosecutors, arrest warrants) even if there is but one subject or object and make up laws that don't exist, to give your arguments more weight, I suppose.

Americans often think that fleeing from punishment or arrest is an offense in itself, carrying additional punishment when the escapee is apprehended and this may indeed be so in the US. In Europe, however, this is usually not the case. You don't "break the law" if you escape, because it is seen as a natural human impulse to avoid confinement. There may be exceptions and I was hoping you could enlighten me on whether the UK is one, but apparently you were just engaging in your usual hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #210)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:48 PM

211. He has potentially committed two "Offences against the administration of public justice"

1. Criminal contempt of court for violating his bail conditions

2. Escape

Don't forget that US Law is based on British Law - every state in the Union has a law recognizing British common law. Not every European country is a common law country.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:45 PM

113. Not "should"

 

The whole thing has been a legal farce from the beginning. Sadly legal farces mean personal tragedies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:46 PM

159. Assange did surrender to the British Authorities.

I think you need to start reading more about this case before making any more proclamations. He surrendered and was jailed in isolation for ten days in a British jail, later released on bail put up for him by such well known individuals as Michael Moore, Jemima Khan, John Pilger among others, but under very restrictive conditions including reporting daily to the police and wearing an ankle bracelet.

Did you forget these facts or were you never aware of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #159)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 06:14 AM

162. Please actually read my posts before answering them

My last comment refers to what should have happened after he lost his extradition hearing.

What should have happened was that Assange surrender to the British authorities who would then put him on a plane to Sweden.


I know he had surrendered previously - he had jumped bail when he entered the embassy, remember?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #162)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 01:29 PM

166. He sought asylum in the Ecuadoran Embassy and in the expert opinions of

people such as Naomi Wolf to Legal experts from Latin America to Australia, to whistle-blowers and journalists and political dissidents across the globe, he did precisely the right thing as his freedom and even more concerning, his life are definitely in danger.

When elected officials of a country as powerful as this call for the assassination of a journalist such as Assange, a country that now has a reputation of assassinating even its own citizens, and when one of this country's most notorious criminal operatives, Karl Rove, is deeply embedded in the Government of Sweden, a country which has already shamed itself by rendering two human beings on behalf of the US to Egypt for torture, to even consider trusting either of these two governments to care about his human rights or the rule of law could only be described as massively foolish. And like him or hate him, he is no fool.

He did exactly the right thing. We were all hoping, that is those of us who for ten years now have watched the decline of this country regarding the rule of law and human rights, that this is what he would do. Kudos to Ecuador for standing up for freedom of speech and democracy. For teaching the hypocritical Western nations who mouth off about 'democracy' while violating human rights all over the globe, what democracy looks like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #166)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 08:02 PM

200. Spot on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #166)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:00 PM

208. Bravo. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #166)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:07 PM

263. Yep, that's about the size of it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #69)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:18 PM

126. Thank you. I knew this info was out there but I didn't have time to look for it.

I wish we could book mark posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 06:35 PM

254. So why don't they go ahead and interview him?

 

You claim interview is before arrest and prosecution, so why not go ahead and interview him?
Sweden interviewed a murder suspect in Serbia a short while ago, I see no reason this case can't be treated similarly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #254)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:13 PM

257. Assange fled Sweden the day before he was to be interviewed.

he did so to avoid arrest. Do you really expect me to believe that after fighting extradition for two years that he was going to surrender following an interview in London?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #257)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:06 PM

260. Hmmm... Not at all the story.

 

He left Sweden after waiting around 5 weeks and being told he could leave.

However, nothing stands in the way of him being interviewed now, at the embassy.
And nothing is preventing him from going to Sweden for interview, trial, whatever, except a guarantee he wont be handed over to the US. Seems quite simple, if this is merely about standing trial on rape charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #260)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:18 PM

261. That is what his lawyer said under oath in a British court.

Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:52 PM - Edit history (1)

the lawyer was notified on 22 Sept 2010 to bring Assange in for an interview on the 28th. Assange left Sweden on the 27th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #260)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:48 PM

262. Here is the real truth.

His lawyer was told on the 22nd of September 2010 that Assange was to be interviewed on the 28th - Assange left Sweden on the 27th.

Assange is being disingenuous as hell - he knows he can't be arrested as long as he stays out of Sweden.

In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #262)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:28 AM

264. His lawyer had asked for an interview for weeks and was refused. He was then told it was okay

for Assange to leave. His lawyer was handling over 200 other cases. The Prosecutor, AFTER having given consent for him to leave, then sent his Lawyer, NOT Assange, emails which his lawyer did not see right away and so did not tell his client. The prosecutor could have picked up the phone when she did not get a response, OR she could have had Assange detained. Oddly she did neither of those things. She waited until the day everyone knew he was leaving, let him, THEN on that same day, secretly issued an arrest warrant.

In the view of many people, she is at fault. After more than four weeks of daily calls asking for an interview, then being told to leave, she makes her move. You could almost think she wanted him to leave so she could issue that arrest warrant.

I have never, ever seen such an incompetent prosecution. When a prosecutor WANTS to speak to a witness, as she herself had repeatedly said UP TO that point, they should speak to them as early in the case as possible. She refuse to do that.

If she is this incapable of doing her job, she should have quit, especially after four weeks of refusing to talk to him. But then, if she had interviewed him, she would have had to file charges, and as anyone who has read the 'evidence' knows, that is probably the last thing she wanted to do. Her antics are disgraceful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #264)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:53 AM

265. The lawyer(and thus Assange) knew seven days in advance of Assange's interview.

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:11 AM - Edit history (4)

you do understand that communications are usually between the lawyer and the prosecutor? For obvious reasons no good lawyer wants his client talking directly with the police or the prosecutors.

She took over the case on September 1st - she notified the lawyer three weeks later about the interview.

I am astounded how you refuse to understand how different the Swedish system is. They do not have a common law legal system like America. In America, the accused is charged early in the process and then after a lengthy investigation goes to court. In Sweden there is a lengthy investigation and the accuse is then charged just before the trial.

This interview is NOT a witness interview. It's purpose is to present the government's case to the accused so charges can be filed.

It is disingenuous on your part to point to a prosecutor doing exactly what Swedish law says she must and saying she is incompetent because that is not how it would happen in America.

He left Sweden the night before his interview. He knew he was going to be arrested. You can twist it all you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:51 PM

105. I live in country next to Sweden

 

with very similar system to Sweden (we were occupied by Sweden for centuries) so I know how Swedish system works. And how wrong it is.

Ecuador's responsible and humane decision rightly shows that the it is the Swedish system that stands accused and condemned - besides US, UK and Australia. Swedish national ego whines and cries a lot when it's old international reputation facade is crumbling, but facts remain: it's US puppet accomplish to kidnapping and torture, in numerous human rights violations, condemned by UN and several EU legal authorities.

Indefinite incarceration in Swedish jail cell without any access to outer world is human right violation and nobody should accept such practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #105)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:58 PM

106. So Assange willingly choose indefinite incarceration in the Ecuadorian embassy.

I can respect that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #106)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:40 PM

111. At least there he has computer access

 

and no fear of being turned into US custody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #111)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:22 PM

128. I suspect that Ecuador has put strict limits on his activities

I doubt for a moment that they are going to allow Wikileaks to be run from the Ecuadorian embassy. They would be held responsible for any acts taken from behind the shield of diplomatic immunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #128)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:38 PM

136. You are big on suspecting and making innuendo

 

and lazy on facts. That's not new.

Assange has continued his journalistic work from the Embassy and has been invited by Correa to keep on doing it, in expressis verbis e.g. to reveal corruption in Ecuador. Of course Wikileaks per se is not run from the embassy, as it is independent collective work now dispersed all over the net.

I get the impression that you are prejudging all governments according to the standards and expectations you hold US gov to, but not everyone in this world is as evil as your gov.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #136)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:59 PM

141. So Correa, the president who jails journalists for daring to criticize him

is going to have Assange reveal corruption in Ecuador? Pull the other one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #141)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:27 PM

146. Again just misinformation

 

while you have been told what really happened by many DUers. AFAIK Correa didn't jail any journalist, he pressed charges against libel, won the case in court and then pardoned the criminals according to his presidential powers. The editors have not spent any time in jail but have been free all the time, unlike what would happen to Assange in Sweden and happened in Britain. I very much agree with the libel case - freedom of expression does not mean that filthy liers should have absolute freedom to keep on lying - and with the pardon, as there is no reason to make any personal vendetta against bankster tool mediamen, however wrong and corrupt they are. Just strip them from power to keep on spreading cancerous lies and then forget them and let them continue their lives as they want.

What Correa said about Assange revealing corruption in Ecuador is just a direct quote from what he said when he was on Assange's TV show.

Has it ever crossed your mind that you can also stop lying, you are not obligated to be keep on lying all your life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #106)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:11 PM

219. He's having a great time according to his beautiful, female Australian legal advisor.

The food is great, he has visitors every day, the staff treats him great and finally he has time to work on Wikileaks, which she says he is totally dedicated to.

For someone who spent his life without having a home, on the run from brutal dictatorships exposed by Wikileaks, never staying in one place more than a few nights for years, this is pure luxury for him. Not to mention his supporters. You can tell a lot about someone by who is supporting them and who is not. Assange is supported by some of the world's most respected people such as Ellsberg, Chomsky, Michael Moore, Naomi Wolf and whole long list of world renowned figures, some of very prominent. And now we learn, the entire continent of South America.

And he's hated by the far right. That tells me I made the correct decision. Never want to be found, even accidently on the side of Dick Cheney eg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #219)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:19 PM

221. I doubt he is working on Wikileaks

by providing him asylum in their embassy, the Ecuadorians are responsible for his actions. Letting Assange break the law would be a gross violation of diplomatic law. Besides - every intelligence service in Britain is watching and listening. It is much easier when you know exactly where your target is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #221)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:29 PM

222. Being a journalist is breaking the law? Lol!

I love your posts, I really do.

I'll take her word over yours, if you don't mind though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #222)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:19 AM

224. You keep genuflecting in the direction of St Assange

he needs all the prayers he can get at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:58 PM

160. And since the police DID interview Assange and have been free to do so again

any time over the past two years, what is your point?

The prosecutor has not said she will not interview him in London because she could not arrest him there, that I know of. And if she did, that is a lie. Assange was already arrested in London on behalf of the Swedish Government and would be again, if the Swedish Government asked them to.

But what she actually had been claiming was that she could not interview him in London because of 'legal impediments'. That has turned out to also be a lie, since Sweden has done this before and there were no legal impediments. Now that that has been debunked, her latest answer as to why she will not move this case forward was 'Swedish Law is confusing'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #160)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 06:38 AM

163. The 'legal impediments' was Assange's extradition hearing

The point of the interview was to arrest Assange - why interview him in London when he was already fighting extradition and you know he would not have willingly returned to Sweden?

Nobody could expect that Assange would ignore a court order and flee the British authorities once his extradition fight failed - could they?

Did you expect Assange to jump bail and flee?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #163)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 02:03 PM

167. Well now you are proving HIS point, his reason for not being willing to trust them.

You just said it. That they wanted to arrest him.

Now please explain exactly why Sweden wanted to arrest him? Is it standard procedure in any Democracy to plot to arrest a witness in an investigation in advance of a decision that there even is a case.? You wouldn't get many witnesses to talk to investigators if all of them faced arrest would you?

Being that there are no charges, there isn't even a case, just an investigation. So, what would they be anticipating arresting him for?? What if he has exculpatory information? We KNOW he does have exculpatory evidence btw because before it was erased from the Internet the whole world was able to see it.

So they have pre-determined what he has to say, the whole 'we want to talk to him re our investigation' is just a ploy to try to get him to Sweden after all. Imagine that, as if we all didn't know this from the beginning.

So now you are admitting that he definitely had something to fear. Sweden, claiming to be conducting an investigation, isn't doing that after all. They plan to arrest him. That is why they want him in Sweden. Maybe they could render him to one the US's favorite Dictatorships, as they did before. Uzbekistan gets paid well by us, they might be willing to oblige now that we've lost some of our torturing friends.

Thank you, it took all these posts to finally get that admission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #167)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 02:35 PM

170. Once again - the Swedish system is not like America.

we are not talking about the US system. The interview we are talking about takes place when the investigation is finished. It is to afford the accused to see the evidence against him. It is the final step before arrest. The Swedish prosecutors told Assange's lawyers that there was sufficient evidence to arrest him. That is why he ran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #170)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 03:32 PM

171. Then why have the refused to accept his repeated invitations to speak to him?

Why, when he was in Sweden, asking them to speak to him, did they refuse to do so?

Sweden does not arrest witnesses btw. He is a witness until they file charges against him. The threat to arrest him is a threat to his freedom and right to a fair trial.

Look, the world is now demanding, either charge him or stop playing this game, as a vast majority of intelligent people around the planet is not buying what they are selling and Sweden is losing any respect it had around the world for its stupid, ridiculous claims that they simply are paralyzed when it comes to filing charges against a suspect. Pure nonsense, you need to stop trying to get anyone to believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #171)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 04:01 PM

172. They can't charge him until he is interviewed. He is a suspect, not a witness.

they can't arrest him in a foreign country.

Quite distorting the meaning of this interview. It's only purpose is to present the government's case to him before they arrest him. It is not to get a statement from him. It is not to gather more evidence.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #172)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 05:19 PM

173. What utter bs. Of course they can charge him and THEN arrest him. You have

this backwards. IF and as the world knows, this is a huge big IF, they have a credible case against someone, they file those charges in court and then issue an arrest warrant. They had that chance when he was questioned two years ago in Sweden. They've had it for two years since then but continue to refuse to talk to him.

Show me one other situation where there are no charges filed, someone is wanted for questioning, makes themselves available, has already been questioned, has always been available and ends up in an international situation like this with so, many, many excuses, which grow weaker by the day, as to why he has still not been charged.

Either they have a case or they don't. The world is asking them to either charge him, or stop these abuses. It's really very simple. Had they charged him it would have been far more difficult for Ecuador to have granted him asylum eg. But even knowing that, they could not file their case because they have none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #172)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 05:22 PM

174. And has been demonstrated to you over and over, they can arrest him in the UK. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #174)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 05:50 PM

175. They did. There was an extradition hearing

he lost. He jumped bail.

So after all that do you really expect me.to believe that if the Swedish prosecutor interviewed him in London and decided to arrest him that Assange would have willingly surrendered? No - he would have still fought it tooth and nail. He will do anything to avoid arrest and you know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #175)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 06:16 PM

176. Then why pray tell do you say over and over that "they can't arrest him"? They can

 

and if he resists arrest, he'll be tased and cuffed like everyone else.

This isn't rocket science. Cops arrest uncooperative people every day. They're even (gasp) specially trained in that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #176)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 06:53 PM

181. So you support the British entering the embassy and arresting him?

Because he jumped bail and is avoiding arrest. Don't you agree that he has done everything he can do to avoid arrest?

Should he surrender if the Swedes come to London to interview him? Is that your position? Good.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #181)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 06:58 PM

182. I absolutely do NOT support violating the sovereignty of a foreign embassy

 

That's not my position and you know it. Now that Assange has been granted asylum, Sweden's ability to arrest him just got infinitely harder than it was for the past two years while he was under house arrest. They did not do so when it would have been possible which says a lot about their case. They want him to go to Sweden, without a non-extradion agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #182)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:05 PM

185. The Swedes could not have arrested him in London

that is why they issued an international arrest warrant. The Brits arrested him. The Swedes requested extradition. Assange was on bail for two years while he fought extradition. He jumped bail and fled to the embassy when he lost his legal fight.

You are really confused on the legal issues if you think that Swedish police have the powers of arrest outside of Sweden. They had to extradite Assange once he was in a foreign country. Which they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #185)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:11 PM

189. Oh, its just arrest, "in general"....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #189)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:21 PM

192. So you think the Swedish police have arrest powers in Britain? Really? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #172)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 08:44 PM

203. That is so much bs. If they believe there is sufficient evidence to arrest him, they don't need

to interview him. (After all, he dosen't have to say anything of substance at all when questioned. He could even lie because in the end, this is all he said/she said/she said.) Evidence is evidence -- and since at least one witness, and I believe both, said they never wanted to have him charged with rape, the case is extremely weak.

You just keep repeating the same tired old arguments over and over and over in the face of the facts that others have given you. You aren't convincing anyone. You're just making people wonder what your stake is in this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #203)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:51 AM

207. The Swedes told his lawyer he was to be interviewed and most likey arrested

Assange skipped town that night.

Pure coincidence I am sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #207)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 08:49 PM

215. As has been pointed out by others here, and I remember this myself,

Assange was interviewed and told he was free to leave Sweden. He was some time gone from Sweden before they reinstated the investigation.

But you just keep repeating the lie over and over again. Some will start to believe it's true. But it won't work with me and others who followed this case closely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #215)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 08:58 PM

216. His lawyer testified to this in a British court - it is a matter of public record

and has been posted here several times.


In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 02:04 PM

168. I think this is a lost cause hack89

There is nothing that will sway people from their belief that Assange is a hero being hunted in a complex scheme to extradite him to Sweden where somehow he will be then be sent to the United States to be imprisoned for leaking all those juicy diplomatic cables. If the United States wants him, i would have thought it would be easy to get him directly from the United Kingdom.

Instead we get scathing analysis of the Swedish legal system as if it is in any way similar to a common law system. Even more disappointing is the dismissal of the alleged victims of Assange. I cannot believe on DU people are arguing that it cannot be rape because the alleged victim had previously consented to sex. Or that it is just about a broken condom. I do not know if Assange is guilty but I respect the rule of law and he fought his extradition through the courts and lost. He must go to Sweden and face the charges there. Everything else is speculation and conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 06:44 PM

179. Sweden has done so before

 

Interviewed suspects on foreign soil. There is no reason not to do so now. And, if they are serious about bringi.g Assange to swedish soil for trial, all theu have to do is guarantee not to turn him over to the US. This is also easy.
Exception - If Sweden merely wants Assange to rendition him to US, the situation becomes murky. US can't file extradition without legitimate charges. US charges won't be legitimate because they won't be filed in civilian court... US certainly can't afford to have Assange tried in civilian court because of issues with evidence, witnesses, openess, right to appeal, etc. So US is going to just imprison Assange with no trial, or a kangaroo court military trial. UK won't participate in rendition. Sweden has history of complicity with US in extraordinary rendition and torture. That is why the desire to get Assange on Swedish soil ; not for a sexual misconduct trial, but for renditioning him on behalf of US. US will simply disappear him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #179)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 06:48 PM

180. But they cannot arrest suspects on foreign soil.

that is the issue - Assange fled Sweden to avoid arrest.

The Swedish prosecutor told Assange's lawyer that they wanted to interview Assange and that he was going to be taken into custody. Assange left Sweden that night.

So why should Sweden grant Assange any concessions at all? He is standing there thumbing his nose at them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #180)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:22 PM

194. Wow, are you ever misinformed!

 

Assange waited around in Sweden for 5 weeks and was told he could leave. There would be no charges. Then the US became involved, and the case reopened with a new wingnut prosecutor. The extradition from UK was filed then. Assange fought this, which is why he was under house arrest, prior to asylum in Ecuadorean embassy.

If not for US involvement, there would be no Swedish charges. US wants to get Assange outside US legal system, because US case would be laughed out of civilian court. UK won't participate in rendition. Sweden has and will. This is why the effort to get Assange on Swedish soil, by any pretext... its to extrajudicial kidnap and detain him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #194)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:26 PM

196. You might want to talk to Assange's lawyer - he would disagree with you.

he testified in British court that he was notified that the prosecutor wanted to interview Assange and that Assange would be taken into custody. That was before Assange left Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #180)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:47 PM

199. No he did not.

 

You've been told several times, yet you still spew falsehoods. Assange was told he could leave Sweden. There were no charges at that time. Case was reopened by a new prosecutor, with US behind the curtain, only AFTER Assange travelled to UK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #199)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:50 AM

206. So why did his Swedish lawyer testify otherwise? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:56 AM

2. yep. mine too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:58 AM

3. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:01 AM

4. Of course. But expect the dutiful MIC apologists here to say otherwise.

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:18 AM

7. I get so sick of the stupid applications of that label

 

just because someone disagrees with me-or you- doesn't de facto make them an "apologist". And that's true in this case too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 12:43 PM

82. there are lots of ways to internalize a narrative provided by society's owners

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #82)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:00 PM

84. lol. jargon cracks me up.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #84)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:04 PM

86. Like "lol" in internet posts?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:21 PM

108. It's not the disagreement, it's the apologies and situational ethics. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:11 PM

144. Been outta loop, what's MIC short for? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #144)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 06:47 PM

157. Military Industrial Complex. Its something Eisenhower first put into common usage

 

when he warned America (in the 1950s!) to beware the military industrial complex - corporations, companies, professional mercenary contractors, Department of Defense, CIA etc. all of of the organizations that "profit" from war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #157)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:11 PM

158. Thanks, shouldda known

 

but never seen that acronymed before...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:07 AM

5. That right there

 

tells me that this isn't about rape charges at all. If they get a hold of Assange, he will never be released alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:20 AM

63. Exactly.

 

As soon as the Swedes get him he would be turned over to the CIA for rendition/torture/Gitmo/disappearance or "suicide." The best he could hope for is what happened to Bradley Manning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:14 AM

6. Ecuador is being commended now all over the world. The Brits and Sweden are being

condemned everywhere. These tactics of smear campaigns are no longer working among the people.

Looking at the comment sections of every Utube video on Ecuador's decision and every article today, nearly 90% are in support of it, many people urging boycotts of Sweden and organizing tourism to Ecuador. I think I would like to go there now also.

It's been an amazing day, amazing to see that people are no longer fooled by these charades they play. The lies about Iraq, the lack of accountability for war criminals, people see with their own eyes, the total hypocrisy.

And the more the Western nations bully other countries, like Ecuador today, the more people eyes are opening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:35 AM

13. --- also need a boycott of U.K.

 

I made 4 trips to U.K. I enjoyed them and planned to return.

No more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:54 PM

119. Yeah, there is big difference

 

I remember the time before Bush war against Iraq, many people were taking governments and their lies quite seriously and generally believing them. Not so today. Many little boys - Assange is just one among many - have yelled that Emperor has no clothes. And people have rubbed they eyes and said that darn, the kid is right, emperor is bloody naked and not a pleasure to look at.

Of course there will always be also people who won't believe their own eyes but what Authorities tell them to see and do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 06:56 AM

8. +1B. Blatant political persecution. Disgusting.

 

At long last, transparency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 06:56 AM

9. Not all of the Assange-haters are RW trolls.

 


There are also raging misandrists and, as you pointed out, people who have no actual clue what is going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:20 AM

10. And milquetoast centrists

"Freedom is great and everything as long as you don't challenge anyone with real power. Hey, did I tell you I went to KFC instead of Chick-Fil-A for lunch today? That's how much of a rebel I am!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:40 AM

14. well, I find him repugnant

 

but I don't believe he should be shipped off to the U.S. via Sweden, and I think that it reeks as a set up. That doesn't mean I find the guy admirable. I don't. I just believe he's being railroaded. You don't have to like him to stand up for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:21 AM

32. While I don't go so far as to think him repugnant,

I would like to see the case settled in court. However, as long as Sweden will not guarantee that they won't extradite him, that cannot happen. No one who committed sexual assault/rape (depending on the legal definitions) should face punishment for anything other than their crime(s), just as no criminal should face rape in addition to their punishment (US jails, I'm looking at you.) As it is, we don't know whether Assange is guilty of the charges against him, because it is not right to risk having him face rendition/torture/gitmo/what have you in order to find out. It's a travesty of the Swedish judicial system that they deny the accusers their day in court just because the Swedish government is too obedient of the US. Assange is right to refuse to go to Sweden, but I hope that one day this will be resolved properly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:27 AM

70. That is how I feel about him and the situation as a whole.

 

Not sure why some think you are a MIC apologist if the slightest bad thing is said about him, or a hero worshiper if you think he is being railroaded. Only black and white. I think the guy has very few positive character traits. At the same time he is absolutely getting screwed for rubbing egg in the face of the elite powers of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:56 PM

120. Yup

 

These matters should not be judged on personal opinions on personal characters, which are basically matters of taste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:39 PM

137. I think this describes the feelings of a lot of people

Myself included.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:23 AM

11. That is primarily the US's fault

The US has not revealed what its case against Assange might be. Until it does, Sweden cannot realistically say it will never agree to extradition to the US. You can't give a blanket pardon to someone before seeing evidence.

This is first and foremost a problem caused by Obama's government, I'm afraid to say. If they made a statement saying they will never seek his extradition, it would simplify the whole matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:47 AM

18. that is true. And why don't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:07 AM

30. There's nothing to reveal.

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

Assange hasn't broken any US laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:28 AM

35. +1. Good point. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:44 AM

43. Yes! And no doubt the US wants a secret or military trial...

 

claiming "National Security". Its a railroad job, with no media reporting, no ability to cross examine witnesses, or even to see the evidence against him. Most important, its out of the jurisdiction of appeals courts, who would likely rule in his favor using Ellsburg as a precedent.
The US's motives are quite clear, and they aren't honorable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:33 AM

12. "--- You can't give a blanket pardon to someone before seeing the evidence..."

 

Ford did it for Nixon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:45 AM

16. he isn't asking for a 'pardon'.

However as he has been interviewed and investigated already in Sweden and cleared by the Chief Prosecutor one would have to be wary of the 'second bite of the cherry' especially as the matter has been re-ignited by a right-wing prosecutor.

I know of no country that demands a 'suspect' present themselves especially across borders for re-questioning.

To re-iterate about my detective friend who investigates sex assaults , he spends a large amount of time tracking down suspects, often fruitlessly. That is his job.

yet the Swedes have delayed the a matter for 2 years by refusing to do what every other investigator does..travel to London to interview their suspect and if the alleged victims (who want no charges) are for real they have delayed closure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:05 AM

29. Sure he is

He'd be able to break any US law he felt like as long as he remained in Sweden. Because the US would be unable to extradite him if the prosecutors promised not to.

yet the Swedes have delayed the a matter for 2 years by refusing to do what every other investigator does..travel to London to interview their suspect and if the alleged victims (who want no charges) are for real they have delayed closure.

How DARE the Swedes follow their laws!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:48 AM

45. Why shouldn't he be able to break US law?

 

Hes not a US citizen, nor is he on US soil. He is not subject to US law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:06 PM

87. a fact lost on some US politicians and media talking heads who have

accused Assange of treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #87)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:14 PM

107. I was totally fucking flabbergasted yesterday

On TV yesterday...can't remember what channel...when they were talking about Assage 'trying to avoid treason charges'. WTF? 1 - he's not an American 2 - he was not on US soil. The stoopid...it burns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:47 PM

114. Let's say he decides to increase his funding by running a carding scam.

Steals a nice pile of money from people in the US. US has jurisdiction because it uses US banks.

Normally, he would be charged with a crime from the US, and the US would seek to extradite him. That avenue would be closed if the Swedes promise to never, ever extradite him.

I don't believe Assange is specifically planning any such activity, but there's no guarantee he won't break US law after arriving in Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:04 PM

85. good to know you support a Swedish prosecutor who is a partner in a law firm advised by Karl Rove

and US presidents have a history of breaking US laws and getting away with it.

Or perhaps you were out of the country from 2000 t0 2008.

The anti-Assange DUers have a laundry list of reasons of why he should go to Sweden,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #85)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:47 PM

115. Good to know guilt by association is more important to you than the law. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #115)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:04 PM

142. Justice and conscience and empathy

 

should be more important than law to all of us.

There is simple test. Ask if a state or gov is acting in the way you would wish and teach your child to act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 04:26 PM

145. You silly Americans

 

You think you rule the world.

OK, only some of us think that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:40 AM

15. It is a little more complicated than that.

 

First, let me say I am one of those who has and continues to smell a rat somewhere in this whole extradition debacle. However, those who are in favor of the extradition, are not merely right wing trolls. Some have a very real, and very personal connection with the crime. Rape is a deeply personal issue for many people, victims, and families of victims for example. I believe some on our side of the aisle who support the effort to extradite are reacting emotionally, and that is absolutely understandable.

Something else. I read an article where the Swedish Foreign Minister summoned the Ambassador to Ecuador and in short registered the displeasure with Ecuador's action. Interesting isn't it? The ink wasn't dry on the press reports of the decision, and Sweden was demanding an explanation. I say it's interesting because Diplomacy is usually an effort to slow things down, give time to all the participants to consider. Summons and demands are usually counterproductive to that effort.

Despite it being OUR White House, and OUR CIA. I still don't trust them. There is just too many Intelligence groups, and too many people doing whatever they feel like in the name of Homeland Security to ever be trusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:46 AM

17. I accept the "emotional response" argument.

However in this particular case I think such a response is counter productive. One has to look at the big picture.

Moreover, as far as I understand the women initially did not accuse Assange of rape, but rather went to the police to see whether they can force him to get tested for STDs. The rape charge resulted from how the Swedish system responded to this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #17)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:52 AM

19. just a small correction-there are no charges nor would it be 'rape' under

Swedish law but 'sexual misconduct' which is a lesser charge. These things are important.

So far I have read DUers call him a 'narcissistic fool', 'refusing to take a DNA test (??)' , 'avoding rape charges' and many more completely irrelevant and false claims.

It's a worry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 08:07 AM

21. I think it would be rape, under Swedish law

And in 1998 and 2005, the definition of rape in Sweden was broadened to include, for instance, forcing sex through the threat of violence and having sex with a sleeping or unconscious woman.

It is under this wider definition of the word that police wish to question Assange. Police reports state that the allegations against Assange center around claims by two Swedish women who say that on separate occasions each had consented to have sex with Assange, but that sometime during or after the encounter, he engaged in sexual behavior against their will. According to the Swedish branch of Interpol, a recent arrest warrant for Assange states that the rape accusation stems from a sexual encounter in which the woman "was asleep and in a helpless state."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2037078,00.html


It's not formal charges yet, but a Swedish district court issued their version of an arrest warrant, which was confirmed by a higher court, for questioning on the specific allegations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 09:13 AM

24. Nah according to many on this site it was

, you know wink wink nudge nudge, the woman's fault that poor Mr Assange is being hassled by the mean Swede's!

Ah the good old pre-60's when it was the woman's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:09 PM

89. No it is an opportunist prosecutor using the women to get Assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:48 PM

116. yeh the funny thing is none of these women are claiming they were raped..

so uhh yeh you know where you can shove your wink-wink when you imply that people think these women deserved it, mkay sport.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #116)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:31 PM

223. your wrong on that

as i posted in another thread after having read the article the Assange supporter used to argue the very same thing as you are now

Det är helt fel att vi skulle vara rädda för Assange och därför inte velat anmäla, säger kvinnan, han är inte våldsam och jag känner mig inte hotad av honom.

I båda fallen har det handlar om frivillig sex till en början som i ett senare skede övergått i övergrepp.

Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne. Vi står fullt ut för uppgifterna, säger kvinnan till Aftonbladet.
*

Its totally wrong that we would be afraid of Assange and therefore not wanting charges, says the woman, he is not violent and i don't feel endangered by him

In both cases its about voluntary sex initially that later became abuse

the second woman wanted to report rape. i gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her. we stand by the information,says the woman to aftonbladet

and looking a few sections up under the heading 'Anser sig utsatt för sexövergrepp/
Considers herself the victim of sexual abuse' we can read that the woman in her 30s considers herself the victim of sexual abuse or molestation but not rape, but another woman(between 20-30) contacted her and told her a similar but worse story

the full article in swedish: www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #223)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:12 AM

230. that's a right-wing swedish publication with an obvious bias..

many of the comments from swedish readers call out the writer on his slant. come join the discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021153644

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #230)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:36 AM

231. one of your fellow assange supporters used the article to defend assange by making false claims

on what they had said.

So how come it was good enough to supposedly defend Assange(by omitting important parts of statements to twist its meaning 180%) yet once the truth is revealed of what was actually written then its 'a right-wing swedish publication with an obvious bias'?

and the article posted in the other thread is a different one by another writer so i'd say they are not really comparable. One is an opinion of the person writing it, the other is an interview with one of the women

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #231)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:15 PM

233. you'll have to take that up with my fellow assange supporter..

feel free to read through the reader comments on that article to get a feel for how swedish citizens call the writer out on his hit piece. go on ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #233)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 02:34 PM

242. oh i quite agree

that the second piece that you linked to(the opinion) is way way way out of line and not worth the bytes it takes online(or the ink it cost on paper.)

that doesn't invalidate the interview tho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #230)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 05:09 PM

248. Actually, it's one of the oldest swedish newspapers; it's owned by a labor federation; and

its editorial policy is social-democratic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:35 PM

133. Well, when women state clearly that they were not raped, I think it is insulting to

refuse to believe them. And using rape for political purposes as in this case, is a vile way to diminish the real issue of rape.

Eg, the same people screaming over these bogus charges, have had nothing to say about the actual and proven rapes and sodomy and torture and murder of Iraqi women.

In fact we are told to just 'move on' from those crimes, and are vilified often for even mentioning them. Having seen interviews with a few of those women, the few willing to even speak about it, it is heart-breaking to see our government refuse to even allow them to sue to try to get some justice.

So until this country takes those barbaric crimes against Iraqi and Afghan women by our own military and military contractors, their phony outrage over this is simply not believed around the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #133)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:21 AM

266. where exactly do they state that? n/t

the only article where I've seen one of the women interviewed she said that she considers herself a victim of sexual abuse/molestation but not rape, while the other woman wanted to report rape.

If i have to go by something I'll go by the woman's interview as well as their lawyer over what somebody on a forum claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:32 PM

101. Except the alleged victims themselves dont think it was rape,

 

and by all indications they are being exploited as a pretext for handing Assange over to the US. So... which party(s) have actually victimized the women? A non-violent geek with a broken rubber, or three powerful countries exploiting the women to persue a person who's a political liability?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #101)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:08 PM

124. Links for that, please

This is not about just 'a broken rubber'. It appals me to see DUers try to reduce allegations of sexual assault and rape to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #124)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:20 PM

127. Several links in the various threads.

 

I can't post links using a phone. However, note the alleged charges aren't for rape, they are for sexual misconduct. I don't know the exact details of Swedish law, but that appears to be a lesser crime than aggravated rape, or rape, much as petty theft is a lesser crime than armed robbery or forcible theft. Would the UK be threatening to invade an embassy over an alleged petty thief?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #127)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:25 PM

131. Note that one charge *is* for rape

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021143036

and, for that matter, my post that you replied to, just above.

Comparing rape, or sexual assault, to petty theft? Jesus, stop digging the hole you're in.

No, I have not seen references saying the woman denies that she was asleep. You can give me the numbers of the replies with a thread title.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #131)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:48 PM

139. You've misread.

 

Rape was compared to forcible theft (as in strong arm robbery). The comparison to petty theft were the charges of sexual misconduct... ie: a crime of a lesser nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:43 PM

235. "The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story"

– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne.
30-åriga kvinnan: Jag utsattes för övergrepp
Berättar om anklagelserna mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:27 AM

34. Except the women themselves aren't calling it "rape", nor did they want to press charges

 

they bragged about sleeping with Assange! The Swedes initially dropped the whole affair, only reviving it after Wikileaks exposed the war crimes video of US troops in Iraq.

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:46 PM

236. "The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story"

– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne.
30-åriga kvinnan: Jag utsattes för övergrepp
Berättar om anklagelserna mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:07 PM

88. and yet Sweden's actions have been an utter disgrace to genuine rape victims everywhere

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:17 PM

93. The women both said there was no rape. One of them was so upset when

Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)

the reports of rape were made public by Sweden's right wing tabloid, a violation of Sweden's laws btw which was supposed to be investigated but never was, she refused to speak to the police again.

There are public statements from the women saying there was no rape and he was no threat to them.

This is why there are no charges. The women are being exploited and real rape is being diminished by using it as a political ploy.

Also the lawyer who inserted himself into the case on behalf of the women believes that all men should pay a 'rape tax' even if they are not themselves guilty of anything, but are responsible for what other men do. There are some pretty wacko people who have been used in this obvious set up.

Not to mention that just months before this all happened, Wikileaks obtained a CIA document discussing how to silence Assange and settling on smearing him by accusing him of rape. It was published on their website.

Karl Rove is a good friend of Sweden's current Republican Prime Minister, and of Sweden's Foreign Minister. He was a political adviser in Sweden in 2010. This smacks of a Rovian plot to bring down a political opponent as many observers have said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #93)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:22 PM

95. This is indeed the "Godwin" of sex-criminology

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #93)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:29 PM

109. Minor corrections

 

Sweden does not have president, it has king (descendant of Napoleons general Count Bernadotte). They don't have Republican party, the major RW party is called Moderata. You are referring to Swedish Prime Minister and FM of the RW Moderate party.

Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask, superior of prosecutor Ny, according to Wikipedia "earned a high school diploma in Akron, Ohio, United States, in 1974" and "She has received much criticism in her role as a Minister of Justice, most notably for her part in the FRA law as well as her proposal to send lavender-colored envelopes to suspected purchasers of sexual services, with the head of the Swedish Bar Association Anne Ramberg calling the latter "a non acceptable outlook on mankind. It is a return to medieval times"."

More on Ask and others:
http://blog.brokep.com/2012/07/13/sweden-is-a-small-pond-with-a-few-big-fish/
- referring among other thing succesfull cooperation behind the scenes with US against Pirate Bay and Pirate Party; highly relevant also in relation to Assange not only because that information comes from Wikileaks cable.

http://justice4assange.com/Political-Interference.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #109)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:59 PM

121. Thank you, PM.

I know they do not have a Republican Party, but their PM has been called the Ronald Reagan of Sweden and my use of the terms 'republican and right wing' were to draw attention to the fact that Sweden is not the liberal paradise most Americans believe it to be.

I do appreciate the facts though. Americans do not get much information on other countries and as a result can only judge them by what is familiar to us. I know eg, that European Conservatives are very different to US Conservatives.

However, anyone, regardless of where they are, who hires Karl Rove as a political adviser, knowing what is known about him, fits the description of 'Republican' and not in a good way, in this country.

Interesting links. I have read also about the women's attorney, who appears to have some pretty radical views himself on eg, something called a 'Man Tax'.

This I have read before also:

Foreign Minister Carl Bildt

One of the most controversial politicians in the history of Sweden. Countless scandals and still is not kicked out of the government. A company he’s been a board member of is being investigated for genocide, he changes his story about his involvement every now and then. He’s also a personal friend of Karl Rove and he’s suspected of being the one with the connections to the US in the latest Wikileaks-cable talking about The Pirate Bay.


There is a lot more to this than we know. Interesting about the views of these politicians on Internet Freedom also. Thank you, I am going to go read more from your links. Will edit my comment to correct the errors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #121)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:49 PM

140. I understood what you hinted at by "Republican party"

 

but cannot be sure that all potential readers would do so.

As for my background, I've been following Swedish system closely for decades especially in relation to War Against Drugs. It was a swell and groovy place in 60s, where it got its liberal rep from, but everything changed in 70s and it's now hysterical collectively insane de facto totalitarian police state that persecutes speakers of truth. Among many others, needless to say and very sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #93)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:47 PM

237. "The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story"

– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne.
30-åriga kvinnan: Jag utsattes för övergrepp
Berättar om anklagelserna mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #237)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:58 PM

238. Yes, she lied about her friend. Thanks. So much exculpatory evidence never

discussed in the media, and to many people who have actually read what is available, this is why the Prosecutor has never filed charges. As soon as she does, she will lose control of the evidence, evidence they are refusing to hand over to the defense still. But the defense finally did get to see some of it, confirming the actual facts which were known, the women's own words (going to be hard to explain them plotting to 'make money by ruining his reputation eg') the witnesses all show that there is no case here and it will never hold up in a court of law.

Which is why it has never been filed. The first prosecutor got it right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #238)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:26 PM

240. If you think their testimony supports your view you believe them; otherwise you call them liars

In #93 (the post to which I was responding), you say
The women both said there was no rape.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1150393

But then I confront you with a news story to the contrary in my reply #237
"The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1166377

And your reaction is to accuse the woman of lying in your response #238
Yes, she lied about her friend. Thanks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1166434

This illustrates quite clearly why we don't try ordinary criminal complaints in the press or on message boards: otherwise, the popular folk would always go scot-free and the unpopular folk would always swing from lamp-posts. I don't know the man or the women, and I don't know whether or not the press reports are accurate. It's an ordinary criminal complaint in Sweden; the Swedish warrant prevailed in open court; and the shifty-eyed forked-tongue double-standards of some Assange supporters will not help resolve the case fairly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #240)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:45 PM

241. And you are still not posting the evidence that shows that the 'other woman'

emphatically did NOT want to 'report rape'. There is no getting away from that, not just because of her own words, and actions, but the testimony of witnesses.

Not only did she not want to report it, she was so upset when it was reporting in the tabloids, she refused to talk to the police for the second scheduled interview. The woman quoted by you, changed her story three times in the course of a few months. When asked how he is going to deal with the contradictory testimony, their lawyer becomes very defensive but will not explain these very noticeable changes over the months.

And this is why no charges have been filed. The first prosecutor was correct. She saw the most important evidence, before anyone had a chance to tamper with it, and dismissed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:46 PM

138. Nothing surprising

 

Sweden is having its international reputation tarnished by this case, as it surfaces many things that Sweden would like keep hidden and forgotten and makes them look generally bad and ridiculous. But they can't get over they supremacist national pride and acting like supremacist idiots. That. They. Really. Are.

Fact implied by the asylum decision, Ecuador's progressive government does not consider Sweden a safe country and respectful of basic human rights and freedom of expression. And rightly so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 07:55 AM

20. I read something...

Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)

a while back about a wealthy banking family in Sweden that needs a favor from Eric Holder. Assange could be the trade off. I'll see if I can find it again.

Funny.... that article seems to have disappeared. Google just can't find it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 08:26 AM

23. What guarantees did the UK offer when Assange turned himself in?

Why haven't the British forked him over to the nearest black helicopter rendition squad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 09:17 AM

25. The "rape" charge is just a trumped up excuse..

.. to send Assange to the USA to be disappeared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:02 AM

28. Why would he be sent to the US?

Assange hasn't broken any US laws. The SCOTUS ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that publishing classified that was leaked to you is protected by the first amendment. So he can't be extradited to the US because he hasn't broken any US laws.

If you're concerned about something extra-judicial, then why would we wait for Sweden? The UK is much more friendly to us and would happily comply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:16 AM

31. yeah, that's what bothers me about this whole narrative.

Why can he only be shipped to the US from *Sweden* ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:25 AM

33. For the 10th time since you keep spamming these threads, Sweden has a history of rendition

 

for the US so it makes sense for the US to use the tools they know. Since Wikileaks exposed Sweden's role in the illegal war crimes, there's a motivation there as well in regards to Assange.

Secondly, the US makes up its own laws when it comes to people they don't like. They make someone an "enemy combatant" and exercise extra-judicial justice such as Gitmo, Padilla, Awlaki (and his teenage son!), rendition and more. The US can and does "extradite" people ALL the time when they want, a grand jury is working on whatever bullshit "law" they're going to apply to Assange as we speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:31 AM

38. And the UK doesn't?

It's not "spamming" to give an opinion, any other than you are spamming with yet another allegation that Julian is supposed to be immune from all legal process.

And it is true that there is no US law for him to be accused on, so that explains the lack of extradition from the UK.

There's no bigger danger in being in Sweden, so he should face the music on the non-charges and quit trying to get attention by creating drama.

Hell now he has had more attention for his personal issues on this board than has actually been given to whatever he leaked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:34 AM

42. No. The UK has not been implicated in THAT particular war crime. But Sweden has nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #42)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:44 AM

44. What war crime?

The UK has supported the US in various wars. Not sure if Sweden has.

What does Sweden have to gain at all? I think they are just doing their normal process and having to deal with this idiot who thinks he can gain attention by claiming to be persecuted.

If he were being persecuted, he'd be charged with murder or put on a terrorist list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:58 AM

47. Sweden was complicit with US in previous cases of extraordinary rendition.

 

One of prosecutors in this case signed off on rendition of person to Egypt to be tortured, when he was a govt justice official. "Rape" charges are merely a pretext to get Assange on Swedish soil, where he can be "disappeared".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #47)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:09 AM

54. Do you really think he will ever "disappear?"

I'm very skeptical of that.

He "disappears" from the headlines and so does something like run to the Ecuadorian embassy.

Neither the US nor Sweden nor any other nation is going to "disappear" him. In fact by this time, given his history, if he's ever "missing" the first one I'm going to suspect is he himself. Hiding out so that everyone can wonder where he is and blame the big "conspiracy" against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:59 AM

49. Sweden also participated in Iraq and Afghanistan

 

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

EXCLUSIVE
August 18, 2012
Philip Dorling

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.

This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #49)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:10 AM

56. Then why hasn't the big, bad US done anything?

We've done nothing to pursue him. Why would we wait for Sweden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #56)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:22 AM

65. Last time I'm going to answer this. Sweden has a history of participating in illegal rendition

 

with the US.

The US has a grand jury working on the charges right now. There's evidence of the US's work on extraditing Assange for 18 months.

I'm happy to have a good faith conversation with anyone on DU but clearly you are not. Instead of wasting even one more second typing anything else out I'm going to simply refer you to previous posts.


Source: Sydney Morning Herald

EXCLUSIVE
August 18, 2012
Philip Dorling

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.

This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #65)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:45 PM

150. Why is there a grand jury?

Isn't that sort of legalistic? If we are going to disappear him, why isn't it done already?

You seriously contend that only Sweden would turn him over to us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #150)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:53 PM

154. To declare him a terrorist or an enemy combatat so they can disappear him

 

Sweden's already had the fight over rendition, they've already done it. Their government is being advised by Karl Rove. I think the US believes it has a stronger partner in rendition with the Swedes than the UK (which has never participated in it, not even during the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles).

The CIA has a tendency to go back and use the same "assets" that have been successful in the past. Cameron's in such a terrible position in the UK anyway as well, he'd never agree to it.

Beyond the UK and Sweden, I'm absolutely sure a ton of countries would participate in an extra-judicial extradition but the Latin American countries wouldn't. I presume that's why Assange chose a place like Ecuador (besides its president Correa likes Assange and Ecuador is a fantastic oceanfront gem).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #56)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:13 PM

90. please read this : "US intends to pursue Assange, (Aust Govt) cables show"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #90)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:46 PM

151. Any proof it would be outside the norms of American justice system?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #56)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:25 PM

97. The US is doing something. They have a Grand Jury seated looking into charging

him with espionage. Several high profile US Officials have called for his death, members of Congress eg and a former, Vice Presidential candidate. Joe Biden called him a terrorist. We all know what being designated a terrorist now means in the US.

The US has made clear he is viewed by them as an enemy of the state, which is utterly ridiculous unless Journalism is now a terrorist act.

Britain, the US and Sweden have disgraced themselves in this case. Britain's actions yesterday have shocked people around the world.

To put a red alert out or someone whose 'crime' is journalism while Gadaffi eg while suspected of terrorism only had an orange alert on him, demonstrates how ludicrous this whole thing is. The US should extricate itself from this debacle, start prosecuting the War Crimes revealed by Wikileaks and aplogize to the world for their behavior here. Or suffer the condemnation of the world as is happening. All they are doing is making him an even bigger hero and turning the US into an International pariah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #97)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:47 PM

152. Isn't a grand jury part of our legal system?

If the grand jury indicts, isn't that part of our process?

And if so, why doesn't he face up to it? It's his chance to make grand speeches about our alleged offenses against the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #152)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 06:25 PM

155. Only if there is some evidence of a crime. Journalism is not a crime.

So what is the crime? Sarah Palin says it's 'treason'. Of course he's not a citizen, but it's Palin. And she's not the only one. Biden has called him a terrorist eg. Republican Reps have called for the death penalty.

Leaked info says the Grand Jury is to try to get an indictment for espionage so Palin is apparently on the right track as far as the Government's intentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #33)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 06:20 PM

177. The UK extradites about 20 people/yr to the US, Sweden extradites about 1/yr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #177)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:00 PM

183. You conveniently forgot that Sweden illegal renditions people too.

 

Very conveniently forgot that they do that for the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #183)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:04 PM

184. When the whole sordid history of that era is written down, it will be clear that the UK was more

closely tied to those disgusting Bush II programs than Sweden ever was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #184)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:06 PM

186. You mean when Wikileaks exposes the UK like they did with Sweden's war crimes

 

then the UK can finally work openly to do the US' disgusting dirty work.

Got it. Because one thing's for sure, nobody will ever know the "whole story" about the sordid shit without "somebody" like Assange ensuring that the truth gets out (until the truth tellers and whistleblowers and leakers are all shut down same as him. Something you seem to be okay with promoting.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #186)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:08 PM

187. The 2001 Swedish case wasn't exposed by Wikileaks: the victims sued in court for damages and won

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #187)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:21 PM

193. Please by all means, avoid the point that we won't know the "whole sordid tale"

 

unless more of the truth gets out, any way it has to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:31 AM

40. Then why wouldn't Sweden agree to no extradition?

They won't do that because extradition is the only reason they want him in the first place. This really isn't very complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #40)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 08:14 PM

213. Take a minute to think about your arguement

You are claiming that we want to extradite Assange. And that our best way of doing that is via Sweden. Not the UK, our absolutely closest ally.

This makes utterly no sense. If the US wanted to extradite, the UK would stick a gift bow on Assange's head and put him on a plane. Sweden might actually read the extradition request.

Also, there's the small matter of Assange not breaking any US laws, so there's no grounds for extradition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #213)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:13 AM

226. What makes no sense is Sweden not agreeing not to extradite

if the reason they claim to want him has nothing whatsoever to do with extradition. If it's such a simple case and there's no grounds for extradition, why can't they give him that simple assurance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #226)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:08 AM

229. Such agreements are never made.

No western nation will agree to a blanket block on extradition to any other western nation. To do so is to issue a pardon on behalf of another country.

Which, IMO, is why Assange is asking for it. He knows it won't be granted, so it gives him a fig leaf to hide behind while attempting to run from the charges in Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #229)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:58 AM

232. That is simply not true.

Any country can decide when and where they'll extradite, even with countries with which they have an agreement. In fact, it's common practice to NOT extradite to the U.S. when the person is facing a capital charge. So, there's no merit to what you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #232)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 06:15 PM

252. You're only 1/8th right

It's common to refuse extradition to the US until the prosecutors promise not to seek the death penalty.

Since the alternative is life in prison, also known as the very slow death penalty, it is routine for the prosecutors to agree to not seek the death penalty.

But that's not a blanket refusal to extradite for any reason. That's what Assange is asking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #252)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 06:57 PM

256. By what incredibly strange math? Now you're simply picking nits.

You said that Western countries cannot provide blanket immunity from extradition, but that's exactly what they do when a case would result in the DP. Sweden has so many ways they could handle this without Assange needing to fear retaliation from the U.S.. That they're not handling this in any of those ways shows their true intentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:53 AM

46. Why won't Sweden promise not to send him to US?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #46)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:50 PM

117. Because it's the equivalent of issuing a pardon.

Theoretically:

Assange goes to Sweden, and then runs a carding operation and steals piles of cash from people in the US.

Normally, the US would seek extradition in order to try someone for that. But Sweden wouldn't be able to extradite him, because they promised not to.

I don't think Assange is about to do that, but it's not a good idea for the prosecutors to take that chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #117)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:10 PM

125. Oh. That's hogwash.

 

Assange stands trial. If convicted, he's imprisoned in Sweden and hardly in a position to run a card racket or commit any crime. If he is not convicted, he is set free and expelled from the country. Your arguement is lame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #125)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 08:12 PM

212. Under what grounds would he be expelled?

He wasn't convicted, so Sweden has no grounds with which to expel him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #212)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:09 PM

218. Hes not a Swedish citizen.

 

Sweden is under no obligation to let him stay in their country. They can expell him minutes after finding him not guilty, if that's the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #218)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:12 PM

220. Let's pretend that happens

Why does Assange board a plane for New York upon being expelled?

Did he get lost in the airport? Was his ticket hard to read? Is he really, really dumb?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #220)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:36 PM

234. Huh? Why would he go to NY?

 

Hes trying to avoid that. If Sweden was to try, acquit, and expell him, he could go where ever he wants, just cant remain in Sweden. I guess he'd go to Ecuador, but who knows?

Edit: Although if he went to NY, that would be an interesting but risky ploy. Once hes on US soil, hes under umbrella of US civilian courts, not military court or tribunal. My guess is a prosecution of him would get laughed out of civilian court, so I suspect US wouldn't allow him to enter. They'd rather intelligence grab him on foreign soil, with no civilian court oversight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #234)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 06:12 PM

251. So....why the hell were you talking about him being expelled 3 posts ago?

We're talking about danger from the US.

You bring up Assange being cleared, and then expelled from Sweden.

Why is his expulsion relevant if it doesn't mean anything about going to the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #251)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 06:24 PM

253. Because if Sweden expells him following legal procedings

 

Then they don't have to deal with possibility of handing him over to US. Whatever country he goes to then has the problem. This makes a guarrantee not to do so possible, which is the only roadblock getting him in Swedish court on rape charges.

Of course, if Sweden isn't willing to make the guarantee, then there's strong indication they aren't so much interested in a rape prosecution as they are in cooperating with US in extraordinary rendition, outside of US civilian court oversight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #253)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:31 AM

267. but if they wanted to aid the us with an 'extraordinary' rendition they'd just say 'sure we promise'

i mean, if he is gonna be 'vanished' from Sweden by extraordinary means then such a promise is empty isn't it?

If you think they want to hand over Assange to the US illegally(thus extraordinary means) are you telling me you'd take their word for it if they say 'we won't extradite Assange'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #267)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:50 AM

273. If there is an agreement with US authorities,

 

I imagine it could be enforced by civilian court under contract law.

If he were extraordinarily renditioned with no agreement in place, the US could do what they like with no court oversight. That the crux of the problem. If he's lucky, he would face a military court or tribunal where he is at least appointed a lawyer. At worst, he could be indefinitely detained (even tortured), and denied access to the legal system where he could challenge his detention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #117)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:46 PM

259. WTF?

 

Bizarre post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:10 PM

188. UK has refused to participate in rendition.

 

And the US can't file for extradition from UK because US charges would be laughed out of civilian court.
OTOH, Sweden has been complicit with US in extraordinary rendition and torture. Its the US pulling the strings here. US wants Assange in Sweden so they can bypass US civilian courts and formal extradition process, and simply silence Assange by indefinite detention at an undisclosed facility outside oversight and jurisdiction of US civilian courts. There is also a possibility of torture, if the US seeks info from Assange about his data dump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:29 AM

36. Then the UK would have extradited him

Any other person in similar circumstances could not make such demands of Sweden.

Why is it political? Just because this guy leaked some documents does not mean he is an angel who never violates the law in any other way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:25 AM

66. Simple question.

If it's so out of the question that Sweden would extradite Assange to the U.S., why won't they say they won't do that? Of course, I don't expect to get anything approaching a rational answer, but I figured I'd try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #66)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:51 AM

75. Because they don't routinely do that in similar cases

This guy is asking for special treatment because he leaked US classified documents. I can see not wanting to reward that with special treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #75)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 12:19 PM

80. Yeah, because they have no intention of doing so.

Your line of logic is astoundingly ludicrous. In similar cases, the people don't need to worry about being extradited, so they wouldn't even ask. Can you point me to any of these "similar cases" where the person requested not to be extradited to the U.S.? I'm sure you'll be extremely forthcoming. When you say "This guy is asking for special treatment because he leaked US classified documents." it seems like you're admitting that his presence in Sweden is requested NOT because of any rape charges, but is rather political. Of course, I'm sure you don't see it that way. Either way, the MIC is lucky to have such an obedient cheerleader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #80)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:49 PM

153. You mean no one has ever been extradited to Sweden before?

Common sense says there are such cases.

How do you know what they intend?

What is it about Julian that he can turn intelligent people into conspiracy theorists? Why does he not just face up to our charges then? Turn himself in, so he can prove himself righteous, publicly, in our courts.

Which he would do, since he loves the attention. He knows we aren't going to to anything to him. Probably finds that frustrating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #153)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:19 AM

164. Uhhh, you've completely missed the point.

I said nothing about extradition to Sweden. I was talking about Sweden not agreeing to not extradite Assange to the U.S. If their sole intention was to question him regarding the alleged rapes, then they'd surely provide him with that assurance. That they won't provide him that makes it clear as to what they're after for any person with more than a few functioning brain cells.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #164)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:22 AM

165. You're making your own set of standards that the Swedes have to follow here

If they have to make such a deal, it could set precedent. In a future case, someone charged with say rape or robbery in Spain for example, could try to play Spain and Sweden off each other to face only the lesser charges. The Swedes are not required to change their system just for this guy, because he thinks he's above the law in so many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #165)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:23 AM

228. You act as if Sweden would be forced to do this in the future, that's just plain ridiculous.

This doesn't set a precedent or standard, this does nothing to remove even a bit of Sweden's sovereignty. And they wouldn't have to change their system at all. They claim that they want him for reasons that has nothing to do with extradition, there's no reason they can't give him that assurance and there's no reason giving him that means they'd have to do it again in the future. That claim is utterly ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #66)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:17 PM

148. For one thing, he's asking for a blank check.

Were there specific pending extradition charges from the US, he *might* be able to get assurances about those specific charges, but he's asking for a blanket "no extradition" promise. No country concerned with it's international diplomacy (especially toward the 800 lb gorilla that is the US) is going to agree to such terms, even if they were inclined to.

Which brings us to...

Assange has fled both the Swedish justice system, and the British attempts to honor their extradition request. Why should they extend special considerations to someone who has treated their courts with nothing but contempt?

Personally, I think that everyone that sees the big bad hand of the US in all of this is falling for Assange's PR. If the US intended to legally extradite him, they would have already set the process in motion, and could do it just as easily from the UK as Sweden. (Plus, they would have to have to charge him with something that the UK or Swedish courts would accept). If they want to illegally grab him under some sort of BS War on Terror justification then they don't need all this charade, and again, probably already have done so. I know the last few decades have taught us that the US is willing and capable of pulling some shady shit in the name of national security, but this really looks like a case of a fugitive from a legitimate criminal investigation using his notoriety to evade justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cemaphonic (Reply #148)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 08:50 PM

204. That's the fun part of government secrecy

 

There is a grand jury (in area where lots of national security people live) that is assumed to be working on Assange and Wikipedia. But it works behind closed doors and we cant say for sure what when who, anything specific. To my knowledge Assange has never been to US, so normally there could be hardly be any grounds for any criminal procedure against Assange in a US court, but of course US thinks it can go Guantanamo over anyone considered terrorist (as Biden called Assange) because of TWAT. Laws and justice really don't matter, as people into national security have been able to do their stuff with impunity for ages now. Rule of law does not apply to them. That's the general background against also Assange's situation needs be looked at. If Swedish official really were less interested in personal vendetta against Assange than getting the case solved and of the table in normal manner, some sort of deal could be made for sure. But Sweden is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:30 AM

37. Anyone who claims not to understand this simple concept...

is simply being obtuse. I'm amazed that there are so many here at DU who are willing to act as stooges for the MIC. It's kind of sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:01 AM

50. It is quite simple.

 

Maybe those who seem willing to act as MIC stooges, are in fact MIC stooges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:51 PM

118. occam's razor and sich

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #118)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:05 PM

123. Yes. I think most DUers acknowledge "Agent Mike".

 

It is not unreasonable to also assume the presence of "Pentagon Pete" or "NSA Nate", though obviously their presence is less overt and more sophisticated than the typical freeper troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #123)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:24 PM

130. DoD Dave

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #130)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:36 PM

134. Or "Doood"...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #130)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:23 PM

149. Stratfor Steve

Academi Adam (previously known as Blackwater Bob).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #118)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:34 AM

268. occam's razor

would dictate that maybe, just maybe Assange is actually wanted for rape and sexual abuse/molestation, and not the vast conspiracy some of his supporters are weaving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #268)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:25 AM

271. i suppose that could be the case, aside from the inconvenient fact that the women..

claim they weren't raped. but perhaps you know more than they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #271)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:31 AM

272. one of the females thinks she was a victim of sexual abuse/molestation but not rape

the second woman believes she was raped and filed charges as such.

I'm basing that on the interview of one of the women as well as their lawyer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:16 PM

92. I've felt quite sick to my stomach all day after reading some comments

I am quite distressed that some DUers are simply blinding themselves to the reality of what is happening.

It's as thought he last ten years never happened and I find it frightening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #92)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:31 PM

100. A well founded nausea

I found my sea legs after the health care "reform" debacle, the pass on torture, the wink at Constitution shredding, the double down on the Afghan slaughterhouse...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #92)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:40 PM

103. "It's as thought he last ten years never happened and I find it frightening."

 

I completely agree. If there are this many here on this site who have been snowed, its extremely distressing. I've never been on DU as much as I have in the past 3 days in some kind of vain effort to actually have a conversation with them but the willfull and deliberate lack of conversation about this is stunning (almost as stunning as the threat to invade the Ecuadorean embassy).

Some of it just has to be trolls ("I believe the women who say they were raped!1111!!"

Some of it though is pure insanity ("The Swedes could only interview him in Sweden"

Really wild.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #103)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:48 AM

270. I think it's the same people who run around this website questioning other Democrats

creds because they might criticize President Obama. Very authoritarian mindset. And yes, I find it frightening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #37)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 06:23 PM

178. What general principle of international law are you claiming here?

Do you believe that a person under extradition order has some right, to demand that everyone promise never under any circumstances to extradite him ever again, before the person complies with the extradition order

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #178)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:12 AM

225. Of course there is no right.

But if a country is claiming to want someone for one reason and won't agree not to extradite a person for a completely different reason, it's fairly obvious what they want in the first place. Obvious to anyone with a few functioning brain cells.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #225)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:22 AM

227. Such possibilities, and similar possibilities, are already covered by existing treaties:

they are not covered by allowing the accused to set the terms of extradition, but by establishing restrictions on subsequent actions that can be undertaken by the state requesting the extradition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #227)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 03:54 PM

245. No one is asking that Assange be able to set the terms for extradition.

He's not currently wanted for extradition, so asking that Sweden not extradite him to the U.S. would be a no-brainer. The fact that they won't agree to that makes it pretty damned obvious what they're after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #245)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:40 PM

246. Assange thinks he can set conditions Sweden must meet, before he goes to Sweden

The Swedes disagree, and the UK disagrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #246)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 05:29 PM

249. No shit they disagree. That's why Assange isn't stupid enough to go to Sweden.

And why thinking people don't criticize him for staying away. Assange knows he has the ability to set conditions, I don't see anyone physically forcing Assange to return to Sweden, do you? This is why, apparently, why the MIC apologists have been lambasting him 24/7. So, thanks for doing your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #249)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 05:43 PM

250. So you DO believe a person under extradition order has some right, to demand that everyone promise

never under any circumstances to extradite him ever again, before the person complies with the extradition order

And your argument for this strange rule is simply: anyone who disagrees with you is an apologist for the Military-Industrial Complex

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:32 AM

41. +1. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:15 AM

60. Do we need 30 threads on this guy? majority of people don't care. Can we have an Assange Forum? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #60)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:58 AM

77. It's the DU way. Dozens of threads on one topic.

This is where the hide a thread function becomes useful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:17 AM

62. You have hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

There is clearly a double game being played by Sweden in this entire mess. Sweden was complicit in the Chimpleton's rendition policies, as has been thoroughly detailed by other DUers, and this is more of the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:56 AM

76. Yes, you are right.

Also, this is a matter of she said, he said. Since there was no-one else there and the sex had originally been consensual we don't know who is telling the truth. It really seems like trumped up charges to me considering the victim really doesn't want to go through with it or so it was reported. Also, he's not avoiding facing charges. It's well documented that he will immediately face charges if Sweden agrees not to extradite him to the USA. This they refuse to do. Also, there was some information going around DU that Karl Rove is involved. If this is true, then the whole mess is really suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 12:09 PM

78. It don't matter

He'll probably be in Sweden long enough to change planes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 12:46 PM

83. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:46 PM

104. dear! precious! Julian never argued in court that he was in danger of being sent on to the US

In fact, as the court duly noted, one of Julian's own witnesses flat-out told the court there was no way Julian could be sent on to the US

Nobody of sound mind wants to hear the same debunked bullshit over and over again

Res judicata

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #104)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:38 PM

110. Your implication

 

that there is no life outside court does not speak of sound mind.

Facts stand despite your denial:
- US-Sweden mutual extradition treaty contains easiest and most available legal channel
- Sweden has officially refused guarantees against extradition to US
- US criminal prosecution against Assange has been latest confirmed by Australian diplomatic cables.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #110)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:02 PM

122. "... There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to

Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing ... If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued ..."
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons


Mr Assange had opportunity to bring such matters to the UK courts for review. The courts have ruled against him. Res judicata

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #122)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:29 PM

132. Your implication

 

that there is no life outside courts does not speak for sound mind. In other words, all that legalese is obviously dangerous to mental health. You get caught in nitpicking about legal semantics and forget sense of proportion and the view of the big picture, together with sense of basic humanity.

Res wake the fuck up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #122)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 06:42 PM

156. That court made a terrible decision, which is not unusual for courts btw. But that

decision will go down in history as an example of one of the worst based as it was on lies from the Prosecution.

In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing


When top public officials, including both a former VP Candidate and US Governor, a sitting Senator, several members of Congress and the current VP designate someone a terrorist and/or call for that person's assassination, (well it's not torture I suppose), top public officials in a country whose reputation is well known for its treatment of people designated by them as 'terrorists' I think that.'s sufficient evidence that the person IS in danger of torture or assassination.

Makes you wonder what it would take for Britain's courts to do its job of protecting political targets of political retaliation, from harm. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #122)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 02:17 PM

169. Sure, just trust us says Sweden, the country that rendered two human beings

to Egypt for torture!

You can talk about laws all day long, but we know just how much respect the Western nations now have the law, see War Criminals, Wall Street Criminals.

Btw what do you think of the fact that NO ONE, the Brits, the US, the Swedes, Australia, is demanding the arrest of the War Criminals exposed in the leaked documents by Wikileaks?

Do you consider torture to be a serious crime btw?? Maybe you don't, so just asking for verification as a shocking number of Americans do not view it as a crime anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #169)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 08:31 PM

202. It's shocking the amount of DUers who do not view it as a crime anymore. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #202)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:09 PM

239. Sweden improperly transferred two prisoners to Egypt in 2001 and got

slapped hard by the international community for doing so: substantial damages were finally awarded

It's unclear to me why anyone thinks that event, over a decade ago, has any significance on the Assange extradition, although comments on this board suggest some people think it proves Sweden has a worse record than the UK with regard to rendition in the Bush II era

In fact, we may simply know more about Sweden because Sweden has a much more transparent government than the UK. The UK under Blair was a very close ally of Bush II and supported much of the "War of Terror"

A very unfortunate fact about the UK is that government actions can be hidden behind the Official Secrets Act. A number of people, including members of Parliament, have been attempting for years, with only slight success, to discover to what extent the UK cooperated with Bush II's illegal rendition programs. The original official story was that there was no connection; then the UK admitted to allowing two (!) flights to refuel at Diego Garcia; later, having originally denied it, the UK admitted it had allowed rendition flights to us UK airspace; stone-walling continues

Here are some links:

Kenyans allege British involvement in rendition and torture in Uganda
Claims by two Muslims accused of role in bomb attack during 2010 World Cup date from after coalition came to power
Ian Cobain
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 April 2012 17.34 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/24/kenyans-allege-british-involvement-rendition

CIA wins fight to keep MPs in dark on rendition
Court keeps UK role secret – as No 10 calls for police to question Labour ministers
Cahal Milmo
Nigel Morris
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cia-wins-fight-to-keep-mps-in-dark-on-rendition-7631357.html
Wednesday 11 April 2012

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #239)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 03:07 PM

243. Improperly transferred?

Holy euphemism.

Anyhow, I'm sure the UK sucks too with regards to rendition. Too many countries kiss the US's ass because they've seen what happens when they don't. At any rate, it's funny how you cherry pick crap from each post and find totally irrelevant information. Good on you, keep wasting your time with minutiae.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #243)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 03:32 PM

244. Here's the 2006 HRW summary: Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture Offer No Protection From Abuse

... To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt.

The Human Rights Committee decision stated that Sweden “has not shown that the diplomatic assurances procured were in fact sufficient in the present case to eliminate the risk of ill-treatment to a level consistent” with the ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

“The committee found that diplomatic promises did nothing to protect al-Zari from torture,” said Cartner. “Western governments need to wake up to the fact that they can’t trust promises of humane treatment from countries that routinely practice torture” ...

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition


The Swedes should have known better than to rely on Egyptian assurances, given Egypt's record: it was a mistake that had severe consequences for the men handed over, and for that reason alone it should not be minimized. But the disgraceful fact remains, that although Sweden made this mistake in late 2001, only a few months after 9/11, many other European governments cooperated substantially in criminal renditions of the Bush era over an extended period: details are often harder to come by, than in the Swedish case, because most countries are not as transparent as Sweden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #244)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:41 PM

247. Clearly you struggle with reading comprehension. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #169)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:05 PM

209. +1 - would love to see struggle4progress answer your post


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 08:00 PM

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

 






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 08:16 PM

214. Agreed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:04 PM

217. No, it really isn't

I don't know why you think it's acceptable for a sovereign state to abrogate its treaty obligations to another sovereign state in one particular instance. Sweden and the US have an extradition treaty, which stipulates which offences are extraditable and which are not. Among those that are not are political crimes. If Assange is properly charged with a crime under US law relating to his disclosure of classified US materials via Wikileaks, and a warrant is issued, Sweden has the right under the treaty to ajudge it a "political" crime and refuse extradition. Which is highly likely as Assange is not a US citizen and Wikileaks' servers were not hosted in the US. But a blanket statement or promise by Sweden that they will not extradite under any circumstances? That would undermine the fabric of international diplomacy and the basis of existing treaties. It's a fantastically stupid thing to suggest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:42 AM

269. So... Sweden should put aside treaties and international laws for this one man because?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread