Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks' Assange Hopes To Exit London Embassy "Soon"
An anonymous reader writes Julian Assange has hosted a press conference in which he indicated he is soon about to leave the embassy of Ecuador in London. From the article: "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has spent over two years in Ecuador's London embassy to avoid a sex crimes inquiry in Sweden, said on Monday he planned to leave the building 'soon', but Britain signaled it would still arrest him if he tried. Assange made the surprise assertion during a news conference alongside Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino. But his spokesman played down the chances of an imminent departure, saying the British government would first need to revise its position and let him leave without arrest, something it has repeatedly refused to do.
Over here! Look at me! I'm still here!
Or is very soon about to, he has access to one of the top lawyers in the country (who also happens to date George Clooney) and wouldn't make this announcement if it could be easily repudiated. I guess this is his way of testing the waters, and calling the banners before he sets out...
I thought that embassy officials and their property had diplomatic immunity. (I remember stories about drugs being smuggled in diplomatic pouches.)
Suppose they drove a van into the embassy, Assange got in (or didn't get in), and they drove it out to an airport.
Wouldn't the van be covered by diplomatic immunity, and immune to being searched?
He is not scared of being put in jail in Sweden. He is shitting bricks over the thought of Sweden handing him over to the Americans.
I bet he could work out a deal with Sweden for time served.
If the Swedish charges against him were legitimate he could.
The people involved in common sex scandals aren't enemies of the most powerful state on Earth.
Except per Swedish and EU law tht would be illegal.
I dot know why you people keep bringing it up.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I almost want to believe he's deliberately teasing the authorities into increasing the surveillance around the embassy, at a time when that ongoing expense is causing angry murmurs the general public. That would be pretty clever.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Well, not yet. Move along.
Except per Swedish and EU law tht would be illegal. I dot know why you people keep bringing it up.
That doesn't mean it won't happen.
I don't think it will, but stranger things have happened and I understand his concern.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If the Swedish charges against him were legitimate he could.
Are you suggesting......it might not have been a legitimate rape?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If the Swedish charges against him were legitimate he could.
He has not ben charged as far as I know, there's only allegations. What's not legitimate about that?
Are you really so naive to think the law matters in a case like this?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Sweden? I the most powerful state on earth? Wow.
Sweden is part of the EU. It has to abide by EU rules. Extradition to the USA is rarely done from EU countries.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
If it didn't matter, he wouldn't be safe in an embassy either.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Sweden could drop their charges today.
He still skipped bail from a UK court. And it's arguable he's currently resisting arrest.
Game over. You will be arrested and convicted if you leave.
The fact that people conflate "arrest" and "charges" into one is also annoying. You "arrest" someone in order to stop them leaving until you can ascertain whether "charges" are necessary and what charges are suitable (if someone is killed and you arrest someone else for murder, you can't then release them because it actually turned out to be manslaughter, or GBH, or a theft, on their part - they are under arrest until the charges are determined, if any). Sure, you need a reason . But "because an EU nation asked for your detainment" is good enough in the law, and skipping bail is definitely good enough.
So apart from skipping bail, resisting arrest, and everything else, the charges in Sweden mean little at this point. And the UK, whether you think they are in collusion or not, have the right to enforce their law on their soil (and, no, the embassy is NOT Ecuadorian soil, don't make that "old wives' tale" mistake).
Even if the UK couldn't care less about Sweden's demands, they went through the proper channels, offered appeals, it went to the Supreme Court and he ran away from UK bail. Game over. We HAVE to arrest you the second you try to leave or every Tom, Dick and Harry will follow suit thinking it's a "get out of jail free card" to just resist arrest and skip bail.
I don't think anyone on the left (well, very few) would defend him if an arrangement could be made where he would just face the misogynistic charges. Sweden is a democratic country with a faire legal system, and I think most people would be happy to see Assange go through that system.
The problem is that the moment Assange steps on Swedish soil (or even outside the embassay) he's got a very good chance of being put on a one-way ticket to America to face much worse charges, in a court which is much less fair.
He cannot be arrested because there is no arrest warrant. The British, will probably hold him for questioning and then do the inevitable and release him. His solicitor, or in the U.S., that would be his lawyer, says the U.K. signed a international agreement not to extradite somebody who was not under arrest for a criminal offence, he is only wanted for questioning. Living in a room with diplomats for two years he must be absolutely desperate to have a wank.. Good luck Julian, wish you all the best salute! don't let the bastards grind you down. That is the human being of the future. Ready to die for freedom.
Right, because the extradition treaties between Sweden and the US are so much stronger than the ones between us and the UK?
Maybe he has a hot date and he needs to get to the pharmacy for some prescriptions?
No matter where you go, there you are.
If he were to be extradited, it would be by the UK.
I havent followed this circus too closely (nor am I an expert on extradition law) but I dont believe he has been charged in the US, however, so Im not clear how he would be extradited.
It was also illegal in the EU for poland to host a CIA torture site. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Its illegality is small comfort to those that suffered there. If not illegal, it was extremely uncouth for France, Spain, Portugal and Austria to collude in bringing down the Bolivian Presidential plane down to search it for Snowden. I get the impression that most western European countries seem to be quite happy to ignore their laws and customs if the US government asks/tells them to.
You cant get "time served" for time you spent in a safe house evading the law. It doesnt work that way.
I dont know about pigs, but I think I saw a strawman shooting across the room a minute ago...
There's law, and there's international diplomacy. If they yank him out of an embassy, every embassy is at risk of wanton search, and you can say goodbye to diplomatic immunity. If, at some point, Sweden extradites Assange to the US and there's a bit of outcry, they'll say "Oops, maybe we shouldn't have done that", and there will be no repercussions (except for Assange).
I haven't heard Sweden state that they will categorically not extradite him to the US, though.
Come on now, Sweden isnt THAT powerful...
Except per Swedish and EU law that would be illegal.
Only if he's charged with a capital crime. All the US has to do is take the death penalty out of the equation, and then it's legal.
You seem a little ignorant of recent history. Have you heard of America's rendition program? Have you heard of all the EU countries which participated? Here's a map to help:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
I'm pretty sure it's covered under the *nudge nudge* *wink wink* international protocol.
No, but really, I'm not entirely convinced of the US's dedication to smashing Snowden, myself, but I'm also familiar with the whole "international governance by fiat" that's been a favorite a favorite foreign policy of ours for at least a decade now.
I know almost nothing about cars. Allow me to provide a car analogy ....
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
No, you are wrong.
We (Sweden) have a separate agreement with the U.S. regarding this. That's why he's scared of being transported to the U.S. from Sweden.
The Swedes certainly are, or they would have issued a warrant for his arrest rather than for questioning.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
...is shitting bricks over the thought of Sweden handing him over to the Americans
...handing him over to the despotic occupiers of the US government. FTFY.
The US is totally off its constitutional rails.
Because it hasn't stopped it from happening in the past! DUH.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Good point. It could be possible to tamper with the embassy's water supply in such a way that the effects would only be felt by someone who *lives* there...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Just what we need, arrest first and ask questions later. Should they also shoot people first and ask questions later?
>the British government would first need to revise its position and let him leave without arrest, something it has repeatedly refused to do.
And assuming they can take Obama's dick out of they're mouth for long enough.
When there is proof of a crime then yes, that's how it is done. You don't seem to understand how this whole legal system thing works. Do you really think that cops never arrest people first and then ask questions? You might need to watch an episode or two of Law and Order, which, for all its inaccuracies, at least portrays that realistically.
Only in cases where people come up with non-sequiters as phenomenally stupid as yours.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
'nudge nudge' 'wink wink' would have simply put a bullet in his head over 2 years ago if they wanted to. The only person who cares about what Assange says at this point is himself. No intelligent person gives a shit what he says anymore, he's proven repeatedly that he's nothing more than an attention whore who twists things to promote his own personal agenda.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
If the Swedish charges against him were legitimate he could.
Are you suggesting......it might not have been a legitimate rape?
Under Swedish law, when you have sex with your girlfriend, you've raped her if you have a fling with a young chick afterwards.
You had sex with her under false pretenses: giving her the impression that she's your girlfriend now.
Sweden is a feminist paradise.
Oh no. An attention whore? Involved in politics? How unprecedented.
If the Swedish charges against him were legitimate he could.
He has not ben charged as far as I know, there's only allegations. What's not legitimate about that?
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but when his unnameable accuser turns out to have been on the payroll of a group funded by the Central Intelligence Agency, working in Cuba to "assist" the Cuban people develop democracy, I have to wonder.
Bullshit.
If he was going to be shipped to the US, England would have done it in the time they had the opportunity to do so well before he went into the embassy. You do realize there was plenty of time to do so right? No, oh thats right, you're just ignoring reality and using the tiny bits of silly things that you want to use to put assange on some silly pedestal.
If you really believe that he's afraid of Sweden shipping him to the US, you're an ignorant moron.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Right.
And the UK wouldn't have the same were Assange voluntarily stayed be his own will??
Reference link or your information is not correct
No, you are wrong.
We (Sweden) have a separate agreement with the U.S. regarding this. That's why he's scared of being transported to the U.S. from Sweden.
Yeah, but the guards handing him over are all beautiful naked blond women, right?
Exactly. That's how you know this isn't about that silly, trumped-up bullshit in Sweden.
It was not.
Swedish law is hilarious in this regard, because it is a feminazi paradise, sadly.
And worse yet, the instant anyone even wanted to go fully official with it, this supposed female just vanished in to the air.
But they are still going ahead with the case, even though it has literally 0 bases to stand on since the accuser stood down and walked away.
But, hey, rape, muh feminisms, etc.
Sweden, after America, is one of the last places I would ever want to live, despite the overall decent quality of life it has.
The stupid law system breaks the deal for me. (and I say this living in... the UK of all places)
If he were to be extradited, it would be by the UK.
I havent followed this circus too closely (nor am I an expert on extradition law) but I dont believe he has been charged in the US, however, so Im not clear how he would be extradited.
There have been rumors for years that there is a sealed indictment in the US, waiting to be unsealed at an appropriate opportunity and presented to an appropriate host country.
Regardless, even if charges were made, and a request was extended to Sweden, extradition from Sweden (EU) to the US would require yet another set of proceedings, where Assange would get the best legal representation available, all in public view.
I actually suspect the charges (of, essentially, rape) in Sweden are actually more serious to both Assange and his reputation. There is no way he comes out smelling sweet after such a "she said, he said" court case, regardless of the decision.
well, yeah, fedgov doesn't really want Assange dead (what good would it do?), let alone to the point of murdering someone under diplomatic protection in a foreign country. shit, we probably wouldn't even kill Osama bin Laden if he were under European protection (not that he would get it in the first place, but this is a hypothetical).
however, that doesn't mean Sweden wouldn't want to score some cheap brownie points by throwing Assange to the wolves, and we certainly wouldn't turn it down.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Thanks to Wikileaks we know that the US has been rendering people illegally from the EU. It's mostly been stopped now but I'm sure they would make an exception for someone like Assange.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And how many presidential candidates have sung about bombing Sweden or the UK in the campaigns?
Dumbfuck.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden
Don't really know why you think laws has anything to do with anything...
I see from the comments here that the governmental mission of character assassination of this fellow is largely complete and successful. Do you know Assange personally? Have you ever had dealings with him apart from seeing stories online and on TV about him? I don't and I haven't, and thus I don't pretend the biases against him that most people here seem to have been suckered into (nor do I have any bias toward him).
I don't find a coordinated corporate media campaign to ruin this guy unrealistic in the least, though.
http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf
The supplementary treaty between Sweden and U.S.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/25/the_brilliant_legal_calculus_behind_assanges_asylum_request
The legal calculus behind Assange's asylum request
And you also have this monster thread regarding this (in Swedish) with over 62000 comments!
https://www.flashback.org/t1275257
Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange eftersokt for valdtakt i Sverige
Except per Swedish and EU law that would be illegal.
I don't know why you people keep bringing it up.
Because Assange has said that if Britain and Sweden would put forth a good-faith promise not to extradite him he would happily travel to Sweden to face the molestation charges.
If what you are saying is true then I don't know why Glenn Greenwald (a former lawyer) and others would have put together a document detailing exactly how the two governments could make that promise,
This is why this is so crucial: if Sweden (and/or Britain) would provide some meaningful assurance that Assange would not be extradited to the US to face espionage charges for WikiLeaks' journalism, then the vast majority of asylum supporters (including me) would loudly demand that he immediately travel to Stockholm to confront those allegations; Assange himself has said he would do so. That gives the lie to the ugly slander that those who have expressed support for Ecuador's asylum decision are dismissive of the sex assault claims or do not care about seeing them resolved.
Speaking for myself, I have always said the same thing about those allegations in Sweden from the moment they emerged: they are serious and deserve legal resolution. It is not Assange or his supporters preventing that resolution, but the Swedish and British governments, which are strangely refusing even to negotiate as to how Assange's rights against unjust extradition and political persecution can be safeguarded along with the rights of the complainants to have their allegations addressed.
Of course, Greenwald and the Guardian might be lying but, at this point, I trust them much more than I trust British and Swedish governments.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
the big issue with EU countries is the federal death penalty is possible for treason and espionage. waive that and he could have a G-III all to himself, with just a few "friends" for a little chit-chat, for the ride to the US.
if it is up to Great Britain, Assange only leaves the embassy in a coffin. they're going to be standing there at the doors until the end of time. waiting. on alert. with cuffs. forever.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The UK won't extradite Assange unless the USA asks us to. Have you heard of any extradition requests form the USA yet? No, neither have I. Assange isn't afraidd of the Americans, he is afraid of the Swedish, specifically, he's not sure he will be found innocent of the rape charges.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Right, that's why the US didn't fly into Afghani airspace to get Bin Laden, because doing so without the consent of the Afghan government would have been illegal.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Assange may well not be around for much longer without access to sunlight or at least supplementing with vitamin D. The article says: "Asked about his health, Assange said anyone would be affected by spending two years in a building with no outside areas or direct sunlight, a complaint he has made several times before."
According to these, he probably needs on the order of 2000-5000 IU Vitamin D3 daily as supplements:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
He might need more for a while to catch up if he is already severely vitamin D deficient. The US RDA for vitamin D for most adults is about 5X-10X too low, so generally you don't get enough from food. Many indoor workers are vitamin D deficient these days, given we usually work, play, and commute inside something with windows that block UV-B radiation. Our carpets maybe won't fade from filtered sunlight, but our health will.
However, we don't know all the compounds that the human skin makes in response to sunlight. He might want to look into using special purpose UV-B lamps as well. Mercola talks about that:
http://articles.mercola.com/si...
There are some rare health conditions like sarcoidosis that make vitamin D supplements problematical, so if he has any special health issues like that, he should talk to a knowledgeable doctor before supplementing.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
As a matter of protocol, the Swedish goverment is not allowed to make any decisions on extradition before the extradition has been processed by the court system. Just like the supereme court can't rule on a case while the case is in a lower court.
Well, as much as the guy is a sleazebag, there is no real proof. That's why they want to ask questions before arresting him (or not, if his story convinces them the accusations are bullshit).
I dot know why you people keep bringing it up.
Because despite being illegal, Sewden has a record of handing people over to the CIA to be tortured. The fact that it's illegal will be cold comfort to those who so suffered.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you really believe that he's afraid of Sweden shipping him to the US, you're an ignorant moron.
As others have pointed out in this thread, Sweden has some additional extradition agreements wiht the US. Who's the ignorant moron, again?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Diplomatic status is granted by the host country, it is not automatic. What happens is a country says "We want this person to be our ambassador to you." The host country, if they are ok with that person, says "Ok we grant this person status as an ambassador and the immunity that comes with that." However there's no immunity, and related things (like an amount of time to leave the country) until then.
Immunity is not a one-way street. A country can't say "This person is a diplomat, you have to give them immunity."
Yes. That is what I originally wrote. Please try to keep up:
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yea, Im sure "nudge nudge wink wink" goes over well in international relations, especially when its picked up by every major news outlet.
But seriously: you're spouting trite nonsense.
I thought shooting people without even an intention to ask questions is a specialty of the land of the free?
In particular, there's an instance in which people were extracted from Sweden without any legal process, under US supervision, to Egypt, where they were almost certainly tortured.
To my knowledge, there's been no similar case in the UK.
Canada illegally* extradited Marc Emery to America for the minor crime of selling seeds. I'm sure Sweden would illegally extradite Assange.
*Canadian law only allows extraditing when the illegal act is roughly equivalently illegal in Canada including sentencing. 5 years in prison is not equal to the $100 fine he would have got here. Of course we have a law and order government so breaking the law to enforce it is fine.
Funny enough during the time he was in jail, his crime was legalized in Seattle where he was tried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Easier is more the word then stronger, someone posted the supplemental treaty that Sweden has with the USA up the page.
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Anna Ardin - she also wrote a blog about how put rape charges on a boyfriend who is not loyal... BEFORE this whole thing happened. So...
Because Assange has said that if Britain and Sweden would put forth a good-faith promise not to extradite him he would happily travel to Sweden to face the molestation charges.
Which Government on this planet is willing to negotiate with accused criminals in order to bring them to trial? It doesn't happen, not in Democracies or Dictatorships. The most you might get is "I'll surrender at the station tomorrow morning so you don't have to haul me out of my house in handcuffs." but even that isn't a sure thing.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, Assange was so terrified of those evil Swedes, those American puppets, that he was moving Wikileaks' base of operations there (after alienating the majority of his Iceland team) and applying for a residence permit there, right? That's why he called Sweden's laws and legal system his "shield" in multiple interviews, right? That's why Wikileaks leaked that in 2006 Sweden caused a major diplomatic rift with the US by outright disguising their special forces as airport workers to break into a CIA rendition flight to stop the US, right?
Funny how Sweden only became evil US lackeys after he was anklagad for rape.
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Oh come on now. Sweden should change their laws and override the separation of powers clause in their constitition because it's ASSANGE we're talking about. I mean, don't they know that he's just the AWESOMEST AWESOME that ever AWESOMED and everything revolves around him?
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Come on, he can easily run for public office on some Green/Islamic party ticket somewhere.
Wrong. Sweden *additionally* has restrictions in their extradition law banning extradition for intelligence and military crimes, beyond the general EU restrictions. Which is why they refused to hand over Edward Lee Howard (the most major CIA defector to the USSR) after only a very brief preliminary investigation; it's simply banned to extradite for such crimes. Think the US didn't really want Howard? Not to mention that the UK *also* has veto over any extradition, as the sending state under a EU surrender request , so he'd be *safer* in Sweden (it's an extra barrier). And here we're talking about the UK, the country that wouldn't even hand over Gary McKinnon, the most damaging hacker of US military systems on record, because "he has aspergers" (as if Julian I-Have-To-Wear-Specific-Jackets-To-Write-Specific-Documents Assange doesn't?). Think the US didn't really want McKinnon? And of course, the ECHR has veto power over every step of the way - the ECHR which is often considered the greatest refuge for people fleeing extradition on Earth, the same court body that goes so far in terms of protecting the rights of suspects and prisoners that it ruled that you can't ban UK prisoners who are in prison from voting or sex offenders serving time for their offenses from having access to (government paid) reproductive services.
And what praytell was the plan here? Instead of waiting until Julian, famous for being a globetrotter, goes to a trivially easy nation, let's insist on getting him in the nation that *he himself* chose as the most difficult? And then let's not have a single person even watch him to warn the Swedes when he leaves or warn the British when he jumps bail? And let's complicate the whole thing with competing local charges?
The conspiracy theory is so far into fantasyland that parents in Narnia could use it as a bedtime story for their kids. And Assange knows this. Whenever it's pointed out, he always changes the subject. He lost one of his biggest supporters this way, Jemima Khan, who posted a huge chunk of his bail, but now considers him a "new L. Ron Hubbard" because of his dodges on this issue.
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Assange Consented To Be Extradited, Says British Home Secretary
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
When will this myth die? From the official sworn statement of the Swedish prosecutor submitted to the British courts:
There is an EAW out for him. It lays out four charges: 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation, and 1x rape. The checkbox for rape is marked next to he rape charge (#4). Every level of the British court system has reviewed the warrant and reached the same conclusions: Everything he is charged with in Sweden would be their equivalent crimes in the UK (including rape), the warrant is legitimate, and he is wanted for the purposes of prosecution, not merely questioning.
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Straw men usually are.
Their description of Swedish rape law is to reality as fish are to bicycles. Sweden actually has some of the most lax, backward rape laws in Europe. For example, several years back there was a case where a teenage girl was gang raped by three men, but only the first could be charged because she had given up struggling after the being beaten into submission by the first and hadn't registered an objection to the other two.
What Assange is *actually* charged with, the rape charge (#4 on the EAW) is:
To put it quite plainly, he's charged with, when a girl who was paranoid about disease and pregnancy refused to have unprotected sex with him, he waited until she fell asleep and then started F*ing her unprotected. Which is F*ing rape, and the fact that people keep trying to pretend that it's not "real" rape, I find sickening.
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Perhaps some day, your descriptions of the case and Swedish law will come within a ballistic missile's range of the actuality. Until then, I won't be holding my breath.
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
If there was a *nudge nudge* *wink wink* international protocol, Kim Dotcom would be out of my country already.
Funny how Sweden only became evil US lackeys after he was anklagad for rape.
What's funny about that? The request to appear was made, then withdrawn, then made again after he had already left the country, having already volunteered to appear and having been declined. Now having let him go, they want him again?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The UK won't extradite Assange unless the USA asks us to. Have you heard of any extradition requests form the USA yet? No, neither have I. Assange isn't afraidd of the Americans, he is afraid of the Swedish, specifically, he's not sure he will be found innocent of the rape charges.
That might be true, but if so, that reasoning applies whether or not the charges are true.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Please, please go read the actual legal documents, and read up on the Swedish legal system. The questioning that he's wanted for is a phase of his due process that he is REQUIRED to be given under Swedish law.
Go read https://storify.com/anyapalmer... - an actual lawyer with actual understanding of how the process works explains why they "just want him for questioning."
A formal indictment happens late in the trial process in Sweden, because - and I know this may come as a surprise! - some places in the world do not work exactly as the US does, and your understanding of the legal process in the US may not actually map well to the legal process in Sweden.
Any argument that Assange is just wanted for questioning because the charges aren't really serious is tantamount to saying, "I don't believe Julian Assange should be granted the full course of due process under the law by Sweden." Which means you're either hoping he'll get freed on appeal due to a mistrial, or you think it's completely okay for Assange's due process to be violated, which means you should also be fine with Sweden giving him over to the US and violating his due process just a little more.
Either you are for Assange being given the full extent of his due process under the law (which means an in-person interview before being considered 'indicted', no matter how silly that may seem to you), or you are against it - in which case he should just be whisked away whenever is convenient for the US.
Does America actually care about what's illegal? Let's see if I can refresh your memory...
AMERICA.... FUCK YEAH!
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Oh yeah? Then why don't they just go into the embassy and get him?
Sure, because every petty crook is going to uproot his entire life and start over in a completely different country. That makes tons of sense!
No, you dumbass, Assange is holed up in the embassy precisely because he thinks being stuck there indefinitely (which isn't that different from a life sentence in prison) is better than the alternative.
Not to mention the fact that, unlike Assange, "every Tom, Dick and Harry" doesn't have a reason to seek asylum that the embassy officials would accept. I can just imagine the conversation:
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Mr. Assange needs to remain in a protected environment. I do not think the US government or someone acting t the request of the US government will be reasonable or fair with him. The US is infested with a lunatic right wing as well as a military establishment which simply has absurd beliefs as far as security is concerned. Mr. Assange has done no wrong and did all of us a huge service by getting a little bit of information to the public. If they can they will kill him or bury him in a prison under conditions designed to drive him insane.
He was never free to go; that's a myth spread by his attorney, who received an official condemnation by the Swedish Bar Association for lying about that in court as well as a major dressing down from the judge (he's lucky he didn't get hit with legal sanctions). There was never a time period where he was not under investigation, and when he fled the country, his attorney was actively pretending that Assange was getting ready to come in willingly (and then after he got to the UK, Hurtg continued stalling, pretending Assange was going to be coming immediately back). If you want to see all the nitty-gritty, you can read the Ny SMS logs, they've been released.
To go into more details about the early stages: AA and SW walked into a Stockholm police station and made the report, and were interviewed by two separate officers. As it was a weekend, the only available prosecutor, Eva Finne, took the case. There were a total of three initial investigating officers - Wassgren, Krans, and Gehlen. Wassgren and Gehlen felt, from the interviews, that Assange should be charged with five counts (2x molestatation, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x rape); Krans felt it should be 2x, 1x, 2x. News quickly broke that Assange was being investigated. This is supposed to be illegal, the name isn't supposed to be disclosed at this stage but Sweden has some crazy-strong whistleblower protection laws (part of the reason Assange was moving there in the first place), you can't even investigate to find out who made a leak, so it always happens when cases involve famous people. Finne quickly had a warrant issued for Assange's arrest for the two rapes - even though he had not at that point refused to cooperate. There was naturally a huge backlash, and Finne withdrew the warrant (thus dropping the rape charges), but kept the investigation open for the molestation and unlawful sexual coersion charges. It was during this time that Assange was interviewed; since the only investigations open referred to the lesser charges, that's all he was interviewed about. Meanwhile, the legal representative of the women, Claes Borgström, appealed the decision (Sweden has a police appeal board, which is frequently used for cases like this and isn't particularly unusual); the fact that Finne had dropped the rape charge concerning SW before SW's statement had even gotten into the computer system made it pretty obvious that the case hadn't gotten a fair hearing, and the board ruled in favor of the women. The case was thus transferred to the next prosecutor up, Marianne Ny. Ny reopened the investigation for all five counts, and tried to get Assange back in to interview him for the dropped charges. The team meanwhile did lots of followup interviews and forensics collection and testing. It was during this time that Assange fled to the UK. Ny spent over a month trying to get Assange to come back, continually reaching out to his attorney, even the day before she went into court to get a warrant for him. A judge approved the Swedish warrant (thus he was formally anklagad, the Swedish stage for trying to get a person into custody so that they can then be åtalad, which is the stage that leads to trial) and subsequently the EAW was issued. The original warrant was open for the full five counts. Assange appealed to the Svea Board of Appeals (Sweden has a strong defendents rights process, even though he was hiding from the law he was still able in absentia to appeal the investigation), and a full court hearing was held involving a full review of the evidence and testimony from Assange's attorneys. For the most part, he lost - one of the rape charges was dropped, but the other and all of the others were upheld, leaving a formal finding of probable cause of rape, molestation, and unlawful sexual coersion. Assange appealed to the Swedish Supreme Court. His appeal was rejected. He then moved through the appeals process in the British system, first the lower court, the high court, and the Supreme Court, alleging malicious p
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
As a matter of protocol, the Swedish goverment is not allowed to make any decisions on extradition before the extradition has been processed by the court system
No, but they're allowed to re-iterate the law. If it's illegal for them to extradite Assange, then they should be able to say that. If its legality needs to be determined by a court, then obviously there is a risk that they may extradite Assange, and his caution is warranted.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Except per Swedish and EU law tht would be illegal.
Why would that be illegal? I thought one country can accuse someone of a crime and request the extradition whenever it feels like it.
According to an article in The Guardian about European extraditions, there's a very low standard of proof of crime, there are very few protections for the accused, and the host company usually complies.
The Guardian gave a few dubious cases, for example of a Polish landlord getting someone extradited from the U.K. because of a dispute over rent.
I recall newspaper accounts at the time that Assange's lawyers had asked the Swedish government whether they would give him assurances that, if he returned to Sweden, he wouldn't be extradited, and the Swedes refused.
They also refused to take a statement in the UK, or to have a teleconference.
There was also the issue that the girl who fucked Assange wanted him to take an HIV test. He could have taken an HIV test in the UK if that's what they really wanted. If she had been infected with an STD, she could have found out in a blood test by now.
Perhaps his lamp put out mostly UV-A (which tans and burns) instead of UV-B which produces vitamin D? See my other posts in this thread on the difference. But too much of almost anything can be a bad thing.
As you say, it sounds like, short of being smuggled to another country in a diplomatic courier bag, Assange can't avoid facing charges if he leaves the embassy. I don't see what leverage by Ecuador could cause the UK to relent.
Of course, in "real life", people also may just make up stuff for various reasons:
http://www.detainedbyus.org/th...
"In an effort to capture enemy combatants during the War on Terror the United States implemented a bounty program offering monetary rewards for information on, or the surrender of, possible enemy combatants. The bounty system has been beneficial in bringing forward actionable information against enemy combatants because it has functioned as a strong motivator, but that may also have led to the detention of innocent civilians at both Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Airbase. Turning over individuals to U.S. troops was a lucrative business venture for bounty hunters, the Pakistani and Afghan governments, and civilian reward seekers who could convince the U.S. that the person they had captured or were making accusations against, was connected to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or another terrorist group."
Here is another article that mentions Vitamin D and Assange:
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
"It had been reported earlier that he is suffering from arrhythmia (abnormal heart beats), high blood pressure and other health problems associated with a lack of Vitamin D, after his not being exposed to sunlight for that length of time, and that he would need to leave the embassy to go to hospital."
Granted, it might be a "BS" excuse, as you suggest. Nonetheless, I still think it is possible he is not supplementing adequately given a too low RDA and also, perhaps, using the wrong UV sunlamps? There is so much misinformation out there about Vitamin D.
The good news is, more and more people in the UK are coming to understand the connection between Vitamin D deficiency and illness. Could it even contribute to some Middle Eastern (or US/UK) extremism? ... Dr John McGrath, international expert in schizophrenia based at the University of Queensland, Australia, says the evidence suggests that sun exposure in pregnancy and early life protects against schizophrenia and "raises the tantalising prospect that optimising vitamin D status during pregnancy may lead to the primary prevention of the disease". ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea...
"A deficiency in this crucial vitamin, thanks to our increasingly indoor lifestyles, is already blamed for the reappearance of rickets, the painful and deforming bone disease in children, in the UK. But gradually, evidence is emerging that links low vitamin D levels to a rise in a whole host of "modern" diseases, some of which were virtually unheard of in the pre-industrial era.
Could lack of vitamin D in pregnancy also explain autism? The latest evidence suggests that a low vitamin D level in the mother's body during pregnancy may induce her immune system to make antibodies which can damage the baby's brain, as well as causing certain genes to malfunction. Last month, Rhonda Patrick and Bruce Ames from the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, in California, published research findings that these genes normally make the chemical serotonin. Too little of this neurotransmitter is associated with abnormal social behaviour while too much in the digestive tract causes sensitivity to foods which may explain some autistic children's difficult eating habits.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
What Assange is *actually* charged with, the rape charge (#4 on the EAW) is:
There are a few other facts that made me doubt all of that. They're hard for me to find because the complaintant's name has been scrubbed from the news accounts so I can't do a Google search for her, but:
(1) Immediately after the supposed rape, she was tweeting that "Julian is FANTASTIC" and she still continued to have sex with him. If your boyfriend "rapes" you (and you're not into that), I would expect you to break up with him.
(2) She filed her complaint after she found out that Assange was also fucking a younger girl. She also had a blog on the subject of "Revenge", which she took down afterwards. On the blog she recommended getting revenge on boyfriends who cheated on you.
(3) This is conveniently for her a situation which happened in the bedroom and which nobody else can confirm. It's her word against his. Do you think it's possible that a man could be falsely convicted (with the help of a jealous ex-girlfriend who likes to get revenge)?
(4) What's the boundary between forcing yourself on an unwilling woman, and convincing an unwilling woman to be willing? She invited him to live with her, she was sleeping in the same bed with him, and she was fucking him up to then, after all.
(5) She was working in Cuba with an international "aid" group promoting Cuban "democracy" that received some funding from the CIA. I don't like to be conspiratorial, but why did somebody work for the CIA and then go to the other side to become Assange's escort?
To put it quite plainly, he's charged with, when a girl who was paranoid about disease and pregnancy refused to have unprotected sex with him, he waited until she fell asleep and then started F*ing her unprotected. Which is F*ing rape, and the fact that people keep trying to pretend that it's not "real" rape, I find sickening.
Yeah, that's what she said after consultation with her lawyers and the prosecutors to figure out how to write a complaint that would hold up in court. It might be true and it might not be. If I were on a jury and I saw the facts above, I would be left with a reasonable doubt.
You're outraged because you assume the story she told was true. Suppose the story wasn't true. Your outrage would be misplaced, wouldn't it?
It's mostly been stopped now but I'm sure they would make an exception for someone like Assange.
One thing - how is it exactly that you think the US would get hold of Assage while he is either under the protection of Ecuador and Britain and Sweden are waiting to take him into custody? Why do you think those major European nations would agree to it for such a high profile person when ordinary legal means are available? Rendition was used for people believed to be involved in terrorism, are you claiming that Assange is a terrorist instead of a "journalist"?
As is your custom you are "sure" about highly unlikely things .... just as long as American is smeared.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I haven't heard Sweden state that they will categorically not extradite him to the US, though.
The Swedish government has also not denied that they plan make him crown prince with a 1.000.000.000.000 SEK stipend, or that they will stick a rocket in his butt and shoot him into space to suffocate. The probability of all three isn't terribly different.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The last person you want running an organization that might draw negative attention from powerful entities is a guy who grew up (for a period, at least) in a white supremicist cult and then was pursued by them for years after he and his mother fled.
Assange might be paranoid and an ass, but the White Supremacist Cult which you describe is anything but that. Its a relatively harmless hippie type commune. Please do not to resort to falsehoods to bolster your case.
Tat Tvam Asi
'nudge nudge' 'wink wink' would have simply put a bullet in his head over 2 years ago if they wanted to. The only person who cares about what Assange says at this point is himself. No intelligent person gives a shit what he says anymore, he's proven repeatedly that he's nothing more than an attention whore who twists things to promote his own personal agenda.
if no one cares about Assange why is he still allowed to live in the Ecuadorian embassy?
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
You seem a little ignorant of recent history.
It's a common vice.
Have you heard of America's rendition program?
Yes, people suspected of being terrorists, associates of al Qaida, right? Assange doesn't make that cut as a "journalist." Or are you claiming that Assange is a terrorist?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If there was a *nudge nudge* *wink wink* international protocol, Kim Dotcom would be out of my country already.
There was a nudge nudge wink wink thats why there were FBI agent in New Zealand when his house was raided, thats why his house was raided, there reason he's still there is because the nudge nudge wink wink was published all over the Internet and media.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
I have a far more interesting question. How much money paid by taxpayers has the UK spend until know to keep the embassy "escorted" 24x7x365?
to Julian DotComDotAu and a quick, but dubious, rubber stamp to settle in NZ, he's packing his bags already!
I shouldn't have to point out that conspiracy theory forums have been largely right about US government surveillance and espionage activities..
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Actually it happens a lot, Jordan and the UK were involved in years of negotiations to get Abu Qatada extradited to Jordan and it involved Jordan making outright changes to their legal system to accomodate and ensure Qatada would not be held to trial with evidence obtained via torture.
After many tens of millions were spent on the case, and Qatada was extradited to Jordan with a guarantee of a fair trial, he was a few months ago found not guilty.
It's a prime example of a case whereby governments try to bypass fair trials to get the outcome they want but are thwarted by human rights law, only for the individual to be found to be innocent all along when they finally get the fair trial they deserve.
Sweden's actions are out of the ordinary in that they both insist the case is important enough to pursue and not be dropped, but not important enough to focus on public interest reduction of prosecution costs by either questioning Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy which is something Sweden has done in other cases, or to give him a legal guarantee of no onwards extradition to the US. These are both things that contrary to the lies floating round otherwise they can and have done previously in other cases.
In situations like this countries make one of two choices - they decide a case is worth pursuing and do everything in their power, such as the option of giving certain legal guarantees as in the Jordan-UK Abu Qatada case, or they decide the case isn't important enough to pursue and drop it. What is abnormal is to just have the costs continue to rack up indefinitely whilst there are many means available to stop that happening and to resolve the issue.
Perhaps it wont die because it's not actually a myth? What you quote, and state, states that the prosecution would like to pursue 4 specific charges, but there's the problem, all they're doing is saying they'd like to, they're not actually doing it.
The point is, that if they want to actually press charges then they should just do it. Yes, yes, I know the argument is that they can't because of a magical clause that prevents Sweden charging and trying in absentia. Oh wait, they can do exactly fucking that when it suits:
http://www.thelocal.se/2010052...
All the lies about Sweden having a "different" legal system that prevents them doing things that every other country in the world manages to do are exactly that, lies. Sweden can and does do things exactly like everyone else, they're just making an exception in lying about it in Assange's case.
Sure, and we took the same line with Abu Qatada - we watched his family 24/7, we held him in detention without trial, and we did this for 10 years whilst trying to send him to Jordan but requiring Jordan guarantee him a fair trial. We just had to spend millions trying to get him sent there and monitoring his family in the meantime, carrying out defacto punishments and restrictions on his freedom, because he "technically" skipped bail once or twice, we had to do this because he was accused by Jordan.
Luckily we finally were able to get Jordan to guarantee him a fair trial, we finally managed to ship him off after being good to our laws in restriction his freedoms for 10 years. This year Jordan was finally able to bring judgement on this man accused of terrorism and restricted in the UK for so long.
Oh, but turns out, in fair trial, he was found not guilty.
Seriously, UK law is completely broken on this sort of issue, the fact a person can be in and out of jail, can be constantly watched, can have his family tracked and pursued, all without charge because of accusations by a foreign nation only to be found to be not guilty all along is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Though it's also been the case in the past that people who skipped bail but are found not guilty or have had charges dropped do in fact have punishments for skipping bail dropped because they should never have been held on bail in the first place because they were never guilty of the crime.
So if Sweden did drop the charges, how Assange would be treated for skipping bail would be quite telling - there's no reason a judge couldn't accept his argument that he believed the charges were politically motivated and that in the fact of them being dropped he could be let go without further punishment. If they decide to pursue punishment for skipping bail in light of there being no case to answer though, that'd actually be quite unusual.
Diplomatic protocol. We signed an agreement that we'd ask the ambassador first in such a case.
And, never heard of Ronnie Biggs? Fled the country despite being a wanted man, lived 30+ years somewhere else, was wanted for arrest all that time. It's not the petty crooks you have to worry about.
And what he thinks, or the ambassador thinks, or the asylum case (Russian spies who kill people on UK soil and then try to fly via a Russian embassy? Real-world examples exists) is immaterial. You can't have selectively-enforced laws and even if you can you can't SHOW that you have selectively-enforced laws for such a major case.
The British court system has ruled him to be charged. Assange and his attorneys like to play word games between being anklagad and åtalad (see elsewhere in this article's comments for details), but the simple fact is, as far as Britain is concerned, he's charged.
And no, they're not "extrading people for questioning". From the official sworn statement of the Swedish prosecutor submitted to the British courts:
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
By all means, please point me to the part in Swedish law that overrules Sweden's constitution separation of powers clause and the extradition law's clearly spelled out order of proceedings which make it clear that the government isn't even allowed to give a nonbinding opinion until after the courts take up a case.
Yet strangely it didn't seem to bother him when he was outright trying to move to Sweden - he had nothing but praise to heap on Sweden and their legal system then. It was only after he was anklagad for rape that Sweden turned into an evil US lackey. And then he had no problem being in the UK out in the open, and talked about his respect for their legal system. That is, until he lost there, and they too became an evil US lackey. And now we're supposed to believe that both of his personally chosen countries, plus the ECHR, aren't enough?
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Huh? The guy in that article was already åtalad (indicted) and awaiting an appeal when he died. How is that supposed to be arguing in any way shape or form that you can åtala someone who's not in custody? Under Swedish law, once someone is åtalad, there's a time limit until they must be tried. A person is anklagad to get them into custody, then åtalad to bring them to trial. And the British court system has at every level ruled Assange to be in a state equivalent to charged under the British legal system. But do you somehow know more about Swedish and British law than the Swedish prosecutor, the Swedish judge who issued the warrant, the Svea Court of Appeals that found Assange (after a full court hearing and all evidence reviewed) as having probable cause for rape, the Swedish Supreme Court which refused Assange's appeal, the British Lower Court, the British High Court, and the British Supreme Court? If so, my apologies, SuperLawyer - please return to the Justice League immediately!
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Nobody has backed out of anything. Both women still have legal representation pushing the case forward. They've been trying to stay out of the public eye, but one made a remark on a blog half a year ago about how she was a victim of sex crimes and the perpetrator still hasn't been brought to justice and his fans keep making excuses for him. Does that sound like having "backed out of said accusations" to you?
No, it's not "his word against hers". The Svea Court of Appeals has found probable cause for rape, and the Supreme Court upheld it, does that sound like "his word against hers"?
Just what we know from what's leaked so far, which is just a fraction of the evidence: everyone whose close to SW has testified that she's had a lifelong paranoia about unprotected sex. Her former boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified that when they were together it was "unthinkable" to her, that not only did it never happen, but she even made him get STD tested before protected sex. As for the night in question, here's the leadup that neither Assange nor his legal team have issued any dispute to: that he and SW went home together, where they were making out and she repeatedly refused the unprotected sex that Assange sought. He reluctantly consented to protected sex at least once. Assange's attorney even described (while trying to claim that there was no rape) that his client was "pushing the boundaries of what she felt comfortable with", so there's no dispute to this, Assange's team admits to it. In the morning Assange sent her out to buy him breakfast. Here we have phone records, SMS records, and interviews with those talked to to back up SW's report, and no dispute registered from Assange's team: that she complained bitterly about how mad she was getting at Assange for repeatedly trying to F* her unprotected against her will and for bossing her around. In line she also ran into her brother, who described her as looking very upset when the conversation turned to Assange. She returned home with the food; they ate, and she fell asleep.
Now, that entire thing thusfar is not disputed by any party. What Assange's team claims happened next is that she was "half awake" and consented to unprotected sex (what she says, and told many people before going to the police station, is that she woke up to him doing it). Let's reiterate: the woman with an extreme lifelong paranoia about unprotected sex who was immediately before falling to sleep complaining to her friends about Assange trying to have unprotected sex with her and bossing her around, suddenly wakes up and says "Let's f*** without protection".
Is it any wonder the guy keeps losing legal cases?
I'm against violence in general, actual rape,
No, when you automatically believe everything you hear about a guy accused of rape because you like the guy and assume any charges against him are a giant conspiracy, and calls F*ing a person while they're a sleep in a manner they expressly prohibited "stuck his boner in a place that it shouldn't have been", an act that one can "hardly blame the person who did it" - you're nothing but an enabler.
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Once again, Assange fanboys go all out to dismiss the rape charge against him without even knowing enough about it to even keep the two women involved straight.
There are two women involved here: AA and SW (and no, their names haven't been scrubbed, but it's a sick testament to our society than rather than letting justice run its course, everyone wants to lead a personal witch hunt against the accusers, and I certainly won't help enable it). AA is the one who tweeted (but not what you said she tweeted) and who has been to cuba and wrote a blog (which doesn't say what you say it said). SW is a low-level museum worker who did none of the above. The rape charge only applies to SW. There are no rape charges concerning AA, only three lesser charges - 1x unlawful sexual coersion and 2x molestation.
The fact that you don't know even this most fundamental basic aspect of the case yet want to pontificate about it speaks volumes as to how much you are just willing to assume the innocence of Assange and that the women are just lying sluts trying to set up an innocent man. Which always happens with famous people and their fans. When you hear people talking about "rape culture", that's a very big part of it.
Now, let's correct your misrepresentation of the facts in detail.
1) There are no rape charges concerning AA. She described a series of unpleasant experiences, first to friends, later to police, involving the pinning of her down to try to force sex, her consent in exchange for the use of a condom which she feels he deliberately broke, and his repeated acts at later periods such as rubbing his naked genitals against him after she had told him no. She became so uncomfortable around him that she moved out of her own apartment to avoid him. The events therein form the basis of the unlawful sexual coersion and molestation charges. The tweet in question was not "Julian is FANTASTIC", it was "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people in the world". She was at a party full of political activists, one of the people there being Julian. At the same party, according to testimony collected by the police, she warned a friend about Julian.
2) She did not file a rape complaint. All of the testimony speaks to that she went to the police to support SW in her going to the police to report a rape by bringing up what Julian had done to her. Which is only what a person would expect. SW had already at that point, according to testimony, been telling friends and family that she'd been raped by Julian. SW's goal in going, however, was not prosecution but to try to force Julian to take an STD test. AA's blog (again, NOT SW, who the rape charge is about) entry was something she copied years ago from someone else about how to break an ex boyfriend up with his new girlfriend, and the first two rules basically sum up as "don't do it". And seriously, do you honestly think if millions of fanboys combed through everything you've ever written on the net that they couldn't find something to attack your character with?
3) See my reply to the post above yours, and pay particular attention to the fact that the Svea Court of Appeals has already reviewed all evidence in a full court hearing with testimony from Assange's attorneys and ruled against him, and the Swedish Supreme Court refused Assange's appeal.
4) How does a person "convince" a person of anything while they're asleep? Is Assange capable of doing Inception?
5) Again, you're talking about AA, not SW. The attacks against AA are the most ridiculous six degrees of separation thing I've seen in ages. It's something penned by Israel Shamir, a famously misogynistic and antisemitic author, as well as being the guy who's famous as being the person who gave unreleased Wikileaks information to the dictator of Belarus which he then used in a purge of political opponents (google "Israel Shamir" and "Belarus"). The argument he posted on Counterpunch basically goes like this: AA
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
Wrong, you're talking about charge 2 on the EAW, which is only a molestation charge, not rape. charge 4 on the EAW is the rape charge and concerns a different woman. All of the charges are:
Please follow the case better if you wish to comment about it.
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
I know each time the Assange story comes up you like to jump on it because the whole thing is personal for you (I haven't forgotten the last time you lost the plot on the issue, don't worry), but you seem to be making things up that aren't even there, which is a new low even for you. The story states very clearly that he was convicted in absentia, not simply that he was simply awaiting an appeal when he died, using Swedish translations of common words like "prosecute" doesn't add weight to your case by the way, it just makes you look even more desperate in your argument.
"And the British court system has at every level ruled Assange to be in a state equivalent to charged under the British legal system."
What the British court has ruled is that he can be extradited under the extremely lax checks of the European Arrest Warrant, something which is a major bone of contention in the UK and has been the target of much political preference for removal by MPs and precisely because it's such an utterly stupid piece of law in the first place. Pretending stupid law somehow adds weight to your overriding bias that Assange is a rapist is another example of your further highlighting the stupidity of your argument.
"But do you somehow know more about Swedish and British law..."
What I know is that not all these things are in agreement, so to try and stack them together to add weight to your argument is again, a further example of the weakness of your argument. I know for example that the prosecutor your refer to when stating her case in British court actually admitted that Assange could indeed be interviewed and charged here under the MLA framework (exactly like they did for this guy in Serbia: http://www.expressen.se/nyhete...), but simply insisted that she be able to do so in person in Sweden regardless.
What I also know is that whilst I may not be a professor of Swedish law, that professors of Swedish law also completely disagree with you, so your appeal to authority fallacy fails miserably in the face of a similar but opposite appeal to authority:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/a...
Another thing I know is that the British courts regularly get such human rights issues wrong, they spent 10 years restricting the liberties of Abu Qatada only for him to be found innocent when he finally got to Jordan, and there have been many other cases where British courts got such issues wrong. The idea you're pushing that they consistently get such issues right, and aren't ever swayed by politics is demonstrable false, again, as in the Abu Qatada case. The British justice system is imperfect and easily manipulated by politics, in fact, the whole reason we have a Supreme Court is because politicians wanted an overriding court with a politically appointed judge panel precisely so that politics could play a part in justice, which is yet one more thing that shows how utterly laughable your appeal to authority fallacy is in this respect.
So Rei, I think you should accept what you accepted last time this discussion came up, that this issue is one that is too personal for you, and that in Rei land a man accused is a man guilty is a man convicted is not how things should work in the real world. In the real world we like justice and due process, if that isn't being followed, which it isn't - because the Swedish prosecution are insisting on avoiding processes that could resolve this issue fairly and objectively, then there's a problem.
I really could not care if Assange is found guilty or not, I have no presumption of innocence unlike your presumption and insistence of guilt, I think there's a fair chance he may well be guilty all the same. I appreciate some of the things he has talked about and some of his goals, but that's by the by, I appreciated some of the things Rolf Harris did but it doesn't change the fact it's all overshadowed b
I realized that at one time rape victims were stigmatized merely for having sex outside of marriage, and for that reason their names were not published in newspapers.
However, today, that stigma applies just as much to the men who are accused of rape. I don't think there's any justification for keeping their names secret in a public case like this. They're in Sweden, not Afghanistan.
I can't figure out an account that refers to to the accusers as "AA" and "SW". I can't tell who is accusing Assange of what. I can't easily look them up on the Internet to check their credibility. The Wikipedia article refers to them as "a 26-year-old in Enköping and a 31-year-old in Stockholm." Which one is AA and which one is SW?
You have not given any sources for your claims. If you know of any sources that I can access on the Internet I'd be happy to read them. I give credibility to stories that give both sides, as in traditional journalism, rather than trying to make a case for one side.
Glenn Greewald's partner David Miranda was detained for "terrorism" just for carrying leaked Snowden documents. It is clearly not a wild leap to think they would charge someone as high profile as Assange with "terrorism."
Because the UK, nominally at least, doesn't extradite people to countries where the suspect could be tortured or executed. Whereas Sweden DGAF. And even if he's not extradited, it is perfectly reasonable to be reticent to subjecting one's self to Sweden's Star Chambers. Suspects can be held for long periods of time incommunicado on the whims of the prosecution.
When those governments are known for ignoring their own Constitutions in order to torture, imprison or even kill innocent people, dumbass.
Does your handler dock your pay when you trip over your own bullshit? You've spent years repeating the lie that the Swedish government is powerless to stop a court from extraditing suspects to other countries.
Forget going back years, you're contradicting yourself in the same thread:
What, not enough money in the budget to hire some smarter trolls, so you're the best they could come up with? You just laid out exactly how Sweden could promise Assange that they wouldn't extradite him for for any intelligence crimes Wikileaks may or may not have committed.
Nah, you're too busy being a paid witch-hunter of the accused. Who should have their names withheld by the press in the event that they are innocent...just ask the Duke Lacross guys.
What UK laws is he accused of violating on UK soil? You've got plenty of authoritarian mental gymnastics already, might as well keep going.
SKIPPING BAIL.
RESISTING ARREST.
The bail was with a UK court. The UK are seeking his arrests. It's UK police hung around the embassy waiting for him to come out and arrest him.
What part of that is difficult to understand?
Whether what we was originally in court for (which is now a legally-sound extradition to an EU country that we are legally bound to oblige after SEVERAL TIMES sending the Swedes back to dot their I's and cross their T's more correctly) he is innocent of or not, it doesn't matter. While there, under UK court bail, he fled against his bail conditions, and it currently knowingly resisting arrest.
Game over. Even if all the original allegations are definitively proved false. It's like running out of the police station after being arrested - whether what you were originally arrested for was committed by you or not, it's still illegal to do.
Oh, it's not at all hard to understand that you're a knee-jerk authoritarian ignoring the facts. Specifically, that Sweden has a recent history of turning over prisoners to the U.S. to be tortured. Which is why Ecuador offered Assange asylum.
So he's subject to arrest for avoiding arrest? Didn't think that piece of circular logic through, did you?
Charge of resisting arrest.
It's a charge. He did it, by his own admission. We can confidently charge him. The charge will, more than likely, make it through a court successfully given that he was - a) under arrest and then b) knowingly resisted it. Resisting arrest is an offence, like any other. However, notice that although he was arrested on the Swedish request, there has been no CHARGE whatsoever. He's being extradited for questioning. That's not a problem. You can do that. That's how the system works. Because an allied country asks you to detain someone (arrest them), it does not mean that that it's up to you to charge them yourself, or determine what Swedish charges he should face. You arrest them, you extradite them. Petty thief or war criminal.
However, the initial arrest would not necessarily have resulted in any charges whatsoever, especially if the Swedish case is so weak as people try to make out. And the UK, in case you haven't noticed, made Sweden go back SEVERAL TIMES to ensure their reasonable cause for wanting to question him was proper and above board and lawful.
You might absolutely hate it. But it's all above board. And if you make "resisting arrest" not a crime, then you have a lot more problems on your hands than some moron costing the UK millions of pounds JUST SO they can send him to Sweden at great expense, after taking through the UK courts at great expense and finding NOT A SINGLE legal get-out clause that means they aren't obligated to do just that.
To be honest, I'd be over the moon if we just charged him with the UK stuff and then the Swedish stuff all blew over immediately. It would prove what a overblown pillock he actually is, and that you don't escape UK law just because you disagree with it.
You don't like UK law, get it changed, or don't come to the UK. Don't come to the UK, break it, and then expect to get away scot-free. And if you're truly fleeing false charges in Sweden, get the fuck out of the UK. They are both in the EU, so the laws are pretty much identical.
Fuck the Swedish crap, you BROKE UK LAW. Quite clearly. In front of the world's press. And then cost the UK millions. Damn right, you should be arrested, charged and banged up for that.
If the UK has problems with Swedish law and their history, that's for the UK to decide. They did. The courts said there was no plausible reason not to hand him over. Several of them. Appeal, after appeal, after appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court. Call it conspiracy. Call it authoritarianism. But it was by the book and the lawyers funded by Mr Bail-me-out-and-I'll-flee couldn't find a single hole in it. In fact, as part of the EU, they don't even really get a choice. And if they did, they wouldn't be handing him over if there was a credible threat.
The UK has a LOT more to lose by fucking up than the Swedish do.
I don't give a shit about what Assange revealed, personally. I don't think it was even worth risking jail time for, and it certainly wasn't worth the media circus. And Snowden and even Manning did INFINITELY more at much more personal risk than Assange ever did.
I'm not an authoritarian, but I am a nut for legal-wranglings and doing things by the book and STILL WINNING over authority. I've personally sued several companies I've used in the past, when I could easily let it drop - there's always a way for someone "in the right" to get through the law system unscathed no matter what's threatened and it's actually entertaining to do. Assange had no case. If he'd gone to Sweden and ANYTHING had happened he'd have the biggest case in history on his hands - the kinds of things that start wars. But it was never going to be. And the legal wrangling stage, I thought he was an idiot to try, but I admired him for trying.
The second he skipped bail, all sympathy left. To hole up in an embassy for YEARS is just taking the piss. He's lost. It's game over. He'll go to jail in the UK no matter what happens in Sweden. He's lost legally, morally, and intellectually.
But, at the end of the day, he skipped bail and is resisting arrest. Game over.