Jump to content
Malkieri

Assange granted Ecuadorean Asylum

Recommended Posts

Here is 1 person who's life is over from wiki leaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

Jeezuz christ nice twist dude. So the US government locks a guy up with out trial for voluntarily leaking shit the military didn't want known and somehow it is Wikileaks fault?

 

In your world I suppose it's the chairs fault you tripped over it's leg so it should be burnt at the stake.

 

 

?

 

Cmon man, it's a platform for disseminating large amounts of confidential information.

 

It's like busting a child porn website saying I didn't take the pictures, I just willingly host them, Im innocent!

 

Hosting the information is aiding and abetting a criminal act.

 

 

And it's also revealing criminal acts, so which side is morally superior?

 

Posted Image

Edited by Director

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

er....there's no rape involved, he just r00ted them without a condom, and some time later, they decided that they didn't like it/him any more

I'm sorry Leonard, but they sound like whores to me

You mean a woman hid the rape and only reported it some time later?

 

Sounds like a classic case to me. Remember, most rapes go unreported.

 

Just look at all the kiddie fiddlers in the Chruch - only now are charges levelled against them, decades after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

er....there's no rape involved, he just r00ted them without a condom, and some time later, they decided that they didn't like it/him any more

I'm sorry Leonard, but they sound like whores to me

You mean a woman hid the rape and only reported it some time later?

 

Sounds like a classic case to me. Remember, most rapes go unreported.

 

Just look at all the kiddie fiddlers in the Chruch - only now are charges levelled against them, decades after the fact.

 

they reported it, originally the prosecution found there was insufficient evidence and charges were not laid. Then after the whole american leaks "strangely" the prosecution changed there minds

 

On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into allegations concerning Assange's behaviour in separate sexual encounters involving two different women.[231][232] Assange has described all the sexual encounters as consensual.[233][234] The arrest warrant was canceled on 21 August 2010 by one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne, as the investigation was downgraded to only cover lesser charges

Before the release of the cables

 

re-issued by Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny on 1 September 2010 who considered that the allegations could be classed as rape.[235] In December 2010, Assange, then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning.

After they were known about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you being so deliberately dense?

 

No charges have been laid. No charges have been laid. NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN LAID. You can't arrest and detain, let alone extradite someone for questioning. (Unless you're the USA, apparently)

 

The EAW has been issued under suspicious circumstances, to bring him to Sweden for QUESTIONING. If the court was confident it could successfully prosecute Assange, they would have laid charges. The fact they haven't makes the whole thing smell rotten. If there were any charges, Ecuador probably wouldn't have given him asylum, there'd be no reason to.

 

You can't try someone that hasn't been charged. You can't charge someone unless a prosecutor things you could win the case. There are no charges, there is no trial, the situation isn't as simple as you so desperately want it to be.

 

Dude,

 

Wrong

 

He's wanted for arrest. He's not wanted for questioning. Stop ranting like a madman.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's ignore your source for a minute, Michael, and assume it's unbiased.

 

From your link, Michael:

 

"According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of 'preliminary investigation'. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated."

 

and later

 

"Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute."

 

At the same time, the requirements of the EWA are that it is applied once someone HAS BEEN CHARGED.

Sweden signed up to the same international agreements as the rest of Europe in this regard, and therefore the decision in the UK looks like this:

 

*not a real quote "We are agreeing to send assage to Sweden, because although they are using an EWA inappropriately, we believe that in honouring it, we must err on the side of deferential to our European partners".

 

As for Sweden not extraditing Assange to face punishments that are illegal under Swedish law:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_...uhammad_al-Zery

 

"The most remarkable thing about the deportations was their elements of extrajudicial character. The security services of Sweden had recommended that the men's requests for refugee status be denied on security grounds. The administration had obtained a statement from a high-ranking Egyptian government official stating that the men would be treated humanely and in accordance with the Egyptian constitution. On this basis, the government decided on their immediate deportation. The two men were arrested on the street, in one case, and in a telephone booth while talking with his lawyer, in the other, and they were driven to the airport within a few hours, and given over to a numerous group of American and Egyptian personnel who flew them out of the country within minutes."

 

"This handling was later condemned and found illegal by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman. The United Nation's Human Rights Committee found the deportation of Alzery a breach of Sweden's obligations under the international treaties that Sweden has entered into. The primary ground was the obvious and well known risk of torture to which Alzery was exposed. The immediate execution of the deportation decision was also found to breach Sweden's obligation to ensure the deportation could be reviewed by the Human Rights Committee, especially since Alzery's lawyer had previously announced his determination to appeal any negative decision to the Committee. In Agiza's case, the UN Committee on Torture reached similar conclusions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After wading through 8 pages of what at points seemed like 10 year old's screaming at each other, I noticed a disturbing trend.

 

Most of the "String the rapist douchebag up by his nuts he's a(n alleged) fucking RAPIST" crowd were quoting or referencing tabloids, blogs, nazi propaganda and other 'less reputable' sources (not to mention a 'let me Google that for you' which I did not appreciate, especially seeing as it gave no real info). And a fucking weak reply from Leonid about using a phone in Moscow - Cant check it? Don't post.

 

On the other hand the "Wait a sec, something is fucking fishy with this whole shebang maybe we should make sure they're doing it by the book (oh wait, they are not)" people find themselves referencing the ABC, NYT, Wikipedia, News.com.au, SMH etc.

 

One of these passes the truthyness test, and the other does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After wading through 8 pages of what at points seemed like 10 year old's screaming at each other, I noticed a disturbing trend.

 

Most of the "String the rapist douchebag up by his nuts he's a(n alleged) fucking RAPIST" crowd were quoting or referencing tabloids, blogs, nazi propaganda and other 'less reputable' sources (not to mention a 'let me Google that for you' which I did not appreciate, especially seeing as it gave no real info). And a fucking weak reply from Leonid about using a phone in Moscow - Cant check it? Don't post.

 

On the other hand the "Wait a sec, something is fucking fishy with this whole shebang maybe we should make sure they're doing it by the book (oh wait, they are not)" people find themselves referencing the ABC, NYT, Wikipedia, News.com.au, SMH etc.

 

One of these passes the truthyness test, and the other does not.

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

 

 

er....there's no rape involved, he just r00ted them without a condom, and some time later, they decided that they didn't like it/him any more

I'm sorry Leonard, but they sound like whores to me

You mean a woman hid the rape and only reported it some time later?

 

Sounds like a classic case to me. Remember, most rapes go unreported.

 

Just look at all the kiddie fiddlers in the Chruch - only now are charges levelled against them, decades after the fact.

 

they reported it, originally the prosecution found there was insufficient evidence and charges were not laid. Then after the whole american leaks "strangely" the prosecution changed there minds

 

On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into allegations concerning Assange's behaviour in separate sexual encounters involving two different women.[231][232] Assange has described all the sexual encounters as consensual.[233][234] The arrest warrant was canceled on 21 August 2010 by one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne, as the investigation was downgraded to only cover lesser charges

Before the release of the cables

 

re-issued by Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny on 1 September 2010 who considered that the allegations could be classed as rape.[235] In December 2010, Assange, then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning.

After they were known about

 

Yeah I know about that.

 

So what? Our own DPPs in the States function exactly the same way... and they too sometimes reverse their decisions.

 

Spriggan, I asked once before and no-one answered. Are you going to be the one to stand up and tell two women that their alleged rape does not matter?

 

Edit: by States, I meant Australian states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

Does the same arrangement exist between the USA and the UK, as exists between the USA and Sweden?

 

This seemingly carte blanche "we ask you deliver" arrangement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

Does the same arrangement exist between the USA and the UK, as exists between the USA and Sweden?

 

This seemingly carte blanche "we ask you deliver" arrangement?

 

That's another concocted lie.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

 

It is much easier to extradite Assange out of England. Richard Dwyer can attest to that.

 

I asked before, and still no-one has answered... are you going to be the one who stands up and tells two women that their alleged rape is irrelevant and that St. Assange should escape all consequences of his alleged actions just because he is an editor of wikileaks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

Does the same arrangement exist between the USA and the UK, as exists between the USA and Sweden?

 

This seemingly carte blanche "we ask you deliver" arrangement?

 

That's another concocted lie.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

 

It is much easier to extradite Assange out of England. Richard Dwyer can attest to that.

 

I asked before, and still no-one has answered... are you going to be the one who stands up and tells two women that their alleged rape is irrelevant and that St. Assange should escape all consequences of his alleged actions just because he is an editor of wikileaks?

 

 

How about a mans life being worth more than a broken condom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing my point entirely. The original investigation showed there was insufficient evidence to charge him with rape, then after he told the world he would be leaking american documents that prosecutors boss strangely decides that ohh wait all of a sudden there are.

 

 

The arrest warrant was canceled on 21 August 2010 by one of Stockholm's Chief Prosecutors, Eva Finne, and the investigation was downgraded to only cover lesser allegations. Finné said in a statement to the press: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."[233] The warrant was subsequently re-issued by another Swedish Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny on 1 September 2010 who considered that the allegations could be classed as rape after all.[234]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

Does the same arrangement exist between the USA and the UK, as exists between the USA and Sweden?

 

This seemingly carte blanche "we ask you deliver" arrangement?

 

That's another concocted lie.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

 

It is much easier to extradite Assange out of England. Richard Dwyer can attest to that.

 

I asked before, and still no-one has answered... are you going to be the one who stands up and tells two women that their alleged rape is irrelevant and that St. Assange should escape all consequences of his alleged actions just because he is an editor of wikileaks?

 

 

How about a mans life being worth more than a broken condom?

 

Do let me know when that becomes a reality rather than an elaborate and improbable conspiracy concocted by his legal team.

 

Then I promise to give you an answer.

 

You are missing my point entirely. The original investigation showed there was insufficient evidence to charge him with rape, then after he told the world he would be leaking american documents that prosecutors boss strangely decides that ohh wait all of a sudden there are.

 

 

The arrest warrant was canceled on 21 August 2010 by one of Stockholm's Chief Prosecutors, Eva Finne, and the investigation was downgraded to only cover lesser allegations. Finné said in a statement to the press: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."[233] The warrant was subsequently re-issued by another Swedish Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny on 1 September 2010 who considered that the allegations could be classed as rape after all.[234]

Im not missing your point. You are alleging a conspiracy.

 

Im alleging coincidence and normal process. Have you any proof of conspiracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

Does the same arrangement exist between the USA and the UK, as exists between the USA and Sweden?

 

This seemingly carte blanche "we ask you deliver" arrangement?

 

That's another concocted lie.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

 

It is much easier to extradite Assange out of England. Richard Dwyer can attest to that.

 

I asked before, and still no-one has answered... are you going to be the one who stands up and tells two women that their alleged rape is irrelevant and that St. Assange should escape all consequences of his alleged actions just because he is an editor of wikileaks?

 

Actually, it's not a lie.

 

If he fears that the Swedish prosecutor is merely a cat’s paw for the US government, who will demand his extradition when he arrives in Sweden, he has to take account of Section 58 of our Extradition Act 2003: if the Swedes want to extradite him to the USA, they have to obtain the consent of the British Home Secretary first. That rule derives from Article 28 of the 2002 EU Council Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA), which binds the Swedish government. After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government.

Source (was mentioned in your previously linked article).

 

I don't like linking blogs, but it is written by a British criminal defence QC, so it's probably worth something.

 

So all the Swedes have to do is conduct the trial, then afterwards swing him over to the US without reference to the UK government. All they have to do is get a guarantee that the death penalty is off the table and that he'll be held in a state-side super-max or similar (i.e. not gitmo), and that'll deal with the inevitable human rights claims. Given Sweden's complacent history of extradition to the US or it's agencies (see Ahmed Agiza & Muhammed Al-Zery), I wouldn't be surprised if the US considered a Swedish extradition easier & more expedient.

 

On your (blatently false dilemma) point of Assange escaping justice, his Swedish, British and American defence attorneys are on the record saying they want to defend the case in Sweden. I, like any sane & reasonable person, would to see justice, either for the man's reputation or for the alleged victims, done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's ignore your source for a minute, Michael, and assume it's unbiased.

 

From your link, Michael:

 

"According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of 'preliminary investigation'. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated."

 

and later

 

"Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute."

 

At the same time, the requirements of the EWA are that it is applied once someone HAS BEEN CHARGED.

Sweden signed up to the same international agreements as the rest of Europe in this regard, and therefore the decision in the UK looks like this:

 

*not a real quote "We are agreeing to send assage to Sweden, because although they are using an EWA inappropriately, we believe that in honouring it, we must err on the side of deferential to our European partners".

 

As for Sweden not extraditing Assange to face punishments that are illegal under Swedish law:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_...uhammad_al-Zery

 

"The most remarkable thing about the deportations was their elements of extrajudicial character. The security services of Sweden had recommended that the men's requests for refugee status be denied on security grounds. The administration had obtained a statement from a high-ranking Egyptian government official stating that the men would be treated humanely and in accordance with the Egyptian constitution. On this basis, the government decided on their immediate deportation. The two men were arrested on the street, in one case, and in a telephone booth while talking with his lawyer, in the other, and they were driven to the airport within a few hours, and given over to a numerous group of American and Egyptian personnel who flew them out of the country within minutes."

 

"This handling was later condemned and found illegal by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman. The United Nation's Human Rights Committee found the deportation of Alzery a breach of Sweden's obligations under the international treaties that Sweden has entered into. The primary ground was the obvious and well known risk of torture to which Alzery was exposed. The immediate execution of the deportation decision was also found to breach Sweden's obligation to ensure the deportation could be reviewed by the Human Rights Committee, especially since Alzery's lawyer had previously announced his determination to appeal any negative decision to the Committee. In Agiza's case, the UN Committee on Torture reached similar conclusions."

 

Dude, serious?

 

Im quoting directly from the swedish high court judgement here the most relevant parts to why people believe that Assange should somehow be given a trial with a legal system from our country or America rather than the country he's believed to have raped and sexually assaulted multiple people in.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

 

SIMPLY

 

If you're suspected of committing a crime in Sweden you can be put in pre trial detention as part of the "preliminary investigation". The condition being that a trial has to be within two weeks.

 

These ARE the criminal proceedings in Sweden

 

The EAW was JUSTLY issued under the belief that there was "substantial and probable cause".

 

WTF don't you guys get about this?

 

 

 

 

Dude,

 

Wrong

 

He's wanted for arrest. He's not wanted for questioning. Stop ranting like a madman.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

LOOOOOOOOL

 

Edit: Translation: I had typed up a lengthy reply, but Tinny beat me to the punch. Yay atomic.

 

I thought "LOOOOOOOL" was your lengthy reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So like, Rape allegations aside, why are the US able to charge him or whatever the fuck they plan on doing when/if he gets extradited, did he break the law while he was in America? I honestly don't know much about Assange, but I would assume the US wouldn't be able to extradite him unless he was on US soil when he leaked the documents? Or is this just another Case of the US thinking they own and run the world?

 

Seriously can't wait til that fuckhole of a deadbeat country is wiped from existance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think about it like this.

 

Went to sweden.

 

Stayed at house of female - Sex

Went to work -------------------------------This is the day she tells police she was foced to have sex with him or what ever

Stayed at house with said woman - Sex -------But she fucked him again??? OK.

.

.

.Lots of wierd shit in the middle

.

Sweden puts up charges

Sweden takes away charges

Sweden puts him on the RED LIST at interpol for these sexual charges. (Not even gadhafi ended up on that list)

.

.

.

All this hokus pokus, whooptifuckendo for a guy who nailed a chick without a condom.

 

Conspiracy? Who gives a shit

Wierd as fuck - Indeed.

 

Bottom line:

International man hunt for a guy who had sex with a swedish woman without a condom - Oh and he posted TONS of top secret files on the net, but that's obviously not important, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, serious?

 

Im quoting directly from the swedish high court judgement here the most relevant parts to why people believe that Assange should somehow be given a trial with a legal system from our country or America rather than the country he's believed to have raped and sexually assaulted multiple people in.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

 

SIMPLY

 

If you're suspected of committing a crime in Sweden you can be put in pre trial detention as part of the "preliminary investigation". The condition being that a trial has to be within two weeks.

 

These ARE the criminal proceedings in Sweden

 

The EAW was JUSTLY issued under the belief that there was "substantial and probable cause".

 

WTF don't you guys get about this?

It's in my post.

An EAW is for extradition of a party CHARGED with an offense. That's a condition Sweden agreed to when they signed this EU agreement.

Whether that makes it workable with their current justice system's is entirely their problem, it shouldn't be the UKs.

 

Unfortunately, the laws are apparently written in such a way that the UK apparently feels the need to comply on the basis of appearing to comply with the spirit of the EU rules. As the high court judges in the UK have stated.

 

Swedish justice, while an interesting aside, is largely irrelevant. He wasn't in Sweden when the current investigation started. Therefore he needs to be deported. He's being deported under an EWA, a prerequisite of which is that someone has been charged.

Now stupid catch-all "comply in the spirit of this EU agreement" coercive agreements aside, if Sweden want to reserve the right not to charge AFTER extraditing Assange, it should be a case of "too bad, charge him first".

That is, after all the intent of the EWA.

 

Because according to the rules governing EWA extradition, the UK only has a say in what happens to Assange, while he is facing a charge.

As he will be extradited to Sweden without being charged, will the EWA agreement between Sweden and the UK give him any protection from extradition to the US? Letter of the law, no, because he's not facing a charge.

Or "better yet" they can make it look slightly more just, talk to him in Stockholm, not bring any charges to bear, and then extradite him to the US.

 

As I linked, Sweden is a country that has extradited/deported people who were attempting to appear in a extra-judicial manner before.

What does that mean? Assange may never get a chance to fight extradition to the US (or some other lackey state, or non-state such as gitmo) in a court in Sweden. And there is nothing the UK can do about that either, unless Sweden chooses to follow the "spirit" of the EWA as "equitably" as the UK is.

 

You want to talk about nonsense zombie "truths", Assange hasn't tried to avoid questioning. He offered to be questioned in Sweden, was told it wasn't necessary, and he asked for and was granted leave to exit the country. Likewise, he has offered to be questioned via video link or in person in the UK. While he lost the high court appeal in the UK, it was by a narrow margin, and almost effectively on the say so of the Swedish prosecutor that such questioning will hinder their justice system.

 

International man hunt for a guy who had sex with a swedish woman without a condom - Oh and he posted TONS of top secret files on the net, but that's obviously not important, is it?

Pretty much my perspective.

Add to this that the US is actively denying human rights to it's own citizens implicated in this "event", while still not having prosecuted any of it's personelle involved in illegal torture of suspects, or war crimes the evidence of which wikileaks revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, serious?

 

Im quoting directly from the swedish high court judgement here the most relevant parts to why people believe that Assange should somehow be given a trial with a legal system from our country or America rather than the country he's believed to have raped and sexually assaulted multiple people in.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

 

SIMPLY

 

If you're suspected of committing a crime in Sweden you can be put in pre trial detention as part of the "preliminary investigation". The condition being that a trial has to be within two weeks.

 

These ARE the criminal proceedings in Sweden

 

The EAW was JUSTLY issued under the belief that there was "substantial and probable cause".

 

WTF don't you guys get about this?

It's in my post.

An EAW is for extradition of a party CHARGED with an offense. That's a condition Sweden agreed to when they signed this EU agreement.

Whether that makes it workable with their current justice system's is entirely their problem, it shouldn't be the UKs.

 

Unfortunately, the laws are apparently written in such a way that the UK apparently feels the need to comply on the basis of appearing to comply with the spirit of the EU rules. As the high court judges in the UK have stated.

 

Swedish justice, while an interesting aside, is largely irrelevant. He wasn't in Sweden when the current investigation started. Therefore he needs to be deported. He's being deported under an EWA, a prerequisite of which is that someone has been charged.

Now stupid catch-all "comply in the spirit of this EU agreement" coercive agreements aside, if Sweden want to reserve the right not to charge AFTER extraditing Assange, it should be a case of "too bad, charge him first".

That is, after all the intent of the EWA.

 

Because according to the rules governing EWA extradition, the UK only has a say in what happens to Assange, while he is facing a charge.

As he will be extradited to Sweden without being charged, will the EWA agreement between Sweden and the UK give him any protection from extradition to the US? Letter of the law, no, because he's not facing a charge.

Or "better yet" they can make it look slightly more just, talk to him in Stockholm, not bring any charges to bear, and then extradite him to the US.

 

As I linked, Sweden is a country that has extradited/deported people who were attempting to appear in a extra-judicial manner before.

What does that mean? Assange may never get a chance to fight extradition to the US (or some other lackey state, or non-state such as gitmo) in a court in Sweden. And there is nothing the UK can do about that either, unless Sweden chooses to follow the "spirit" of the EWA as "equitably" as the UK is.

 

You want to talk about nonsense zombie "truths", Assange hasn't tried to avoid questioning. He offered to be questioned in Sweden, was told it wasn't necessary, and he asked for and was granted leave to exit the country. Likewise, he has offered to be questioned via video link or in person in the UK. While he lost the high court appeal in the UK, it was by a narrow margin, and almost effectively on the say so of the Swedish prosecutor that such questioning will hinder their justice system.

 

International man hunt for a guy who had sex with a swedish woman without a condom - Oh and he posted TONS of top secret files on the net, but that's obviously not important, is it?

Pretty much my perspective.

Add to this that the US is actively denying human rights to it's own citizens implicated in this "event", while still not having prosecuted any of it's personelle involved in illegal torture of suspects, or war crimes the evidence of which wikileaks revealed.

 

Ok I understand your point more clearly now.

 

You're saying that an EAW is only applicable after a person has been charged.

 

What I'm saying is that "pre trial detention" in Sweden IS being charged.

 

Swedish law isn't just an interesting aside as you put it, it's the law of the land that he is wanted in.

 

You call that suspicious and you might have every right to think it is. I also think its suspicious that he's decided to run instead of face extradition to Sweden, as If he was truly wanted in the US the UK would have shipped him off as soon as they were asked.

 

I think he realises that he's going to go to prison for rape and he's using a mythical extradition to the US to hide behind.

 

In the end though, you're an Assange symathiser and I'm the polar opposite. I dont know if we'll come to a mutual understanding over the internet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, I don't know how he could be surprised at any of this. He pissed on the biggest military power in the world and is now surprised they want his head?

 

In my opinion if you're going to create a website like WikiLeaks, you've got to be willing to make a martyr out of yourself should the US try to execute or detain you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think about it like this.

 

Went to sweden.

 

Stayed at house of female - Sex

Went to work -------------------------------This is the day she tells police she was foced to have sex with him or what ever

Stayed at house with said woman - Sex -------But she fucked him again??? OK.

.

.

.Lots of wierd shit in the middle

.

Sweden puts up charges

Sweden takes away charges

Sweden puts him on the RED LIST at interpol for these sexual charges. (Not even gadhafi ended up on that list)

.

.

.

All this hokus pokus, whooptifuckendo for a guy who nailed a chick without a condom.

 

Conspiracy? Who gives a shit

Wierd as fuck - Indeed.

 

Bottom line:

International man hunt for a guy who had sex with a swedish woman without a condom - Oh and he posted TONS of top secret files on the net, but that's obviously not important, is it?

 

First part is a bit mixed.

 

Assange stays at Girl #1 house, they have consensual sex, but at one point Assange roughly pins her arms above her head. Assange stays at Girl #1's house a few more days, and she organises a BBQ for him.

 

Assange has consensual sex with Girl #2 without a condom.

 

Girl #2 contacts Girl # 1, they go to a police station to see if they can force Assange to take an STD test.

 

Police misinterpret what is going on, leak to the papers that Assange is wanted for questioning over rape.

 

Charges are dismissed, Assange is cleared to leave Sweden for the UK.

 

 

I don't think Assange is completely guilt free, but it doesn't appear to be rape, and his association with Wikileaks has definitely influenced the way the authorities are dealing with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think about it like this.

 

Went to sweden.

 

Stayed at house of female - Sex

Went to work -------------------------------This is the day she tells police she was foced to have sex with him or what ever

Stayed at house with said woman - Sex -------But she fucked him again??? OK.

.

.

.Lots of wierd shit in the middle

.

Sweden puts up charges

Sweden takes away charges

Sweden puts him on the RED LIST at interpol for these sexual charges. (Not even gadhafi ended up on that list)

.

.

.

All this hokus pokus, whooptifuckendo for a guy who nailed a chick without a condom.

 

Conspiracy? Who gives a shit

Wierd as fuck - Indeed.

 

Bottom line:

International man hunt for a guy who had sex with a swedish woman without a condom - Oh and he posted TONS of top secret files on the net, but that's obviously not important, is it?

 

First part is a bit mixed.

 

Assange stays at Girl #1 house, they have consensual sex, but at one point Assange roughly pins her arms above her head. Assange stays at Girl #1's house a few more days, and she organises a BBQ for him.

 

Assange has consensual sex with Girl #2 without a condom.

 

Girl #2 contacts Girl # 1, they go to a police station to see if they can force Assange to take an STD test.

 

Police misinterpret what is going on, leak to the papers that Assange is wanted for questioning over rape.

 

Charges are dismissed, Assange is cleared to leave Sweden for the UK.

 

 

I don't think Assange is completely guilt free, but it doesn't appear to be rape, and his association with Wikileaks has definitely influenced the way the authorities are dealing with it.

 

Everyone has done something wrong. I'm not saying he's guilt free i'm just hinting at the fact that this whole thing has been blow up to a mega super duper case. So MEGA in fact that he gets on the Interpol red list. I mean that's reserved for extremely dangerous people.

 

With that being said, if it was just the single charge of sex without a condom i don't think sweden would mind if he was sent home to Australia and was banned from visiting Sweden for the next 50 years. Either way if he was going to serve jail time it would be in Australia not Sweden, why would the swedes use tax payers money to keep a resident of a country they have a partnership with??

Edited by smakme7757

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

Does the same arrangement exist between the USA and the UK, as exists between the USA and Sweden?

 

This seemingly carte blanche "we ask you deliver" arrangement?

 

That's another concocted lie.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

 

It is much easier to extradite Assange out of England. Richard Dwyer can attest to that.

 

I asked before, and still no-one has answered... are you going to be the one who stands up and tells two women that their alleged rape is irrelevant and that St. Assange should escape all consequences of his alleged actions just because he is an editor of wikileaks?

 

Actually, it's not a lie.

 

If he fears that the Swedish prosecutor is merely a cat’s paw for the US government, who will demand his extradition when he arrives in Sweden, he has to take account of Section 58 of our Extradition Act 2003: if the Swedes want to extradite him to the USA, they have to obtain the consent of the British Home Secretary first. That rule derives from Article 28 of the 2002 EU Council Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA), which binds the Swedish government. After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government.

Source (was mentioned in your previously linked article).

 

I don't like linking blogs, but it is written by a British criminal defence QC, so it's probably worth something.

 

So all the Swedes have to do is conduct the trial, then afterwards swing him over to the US without reference to the UK government. All they have to do is get a guarantee that the death penalty is off the table and that he'll be held in a state-side super-max or similar (i.e. not gitmo), and that'll deal with the inevitable human rights claims. Given Sweden's complacent history of extradition to the US or it's agencies (see Ahmed Agiza & Muhammed Al-Zery), I wouldn't be surprised if the US considered a Swedish extradition easier & more expedient.

 

On your (blatently false dilemma) point of Assange escaping justice, his Swedish, British and American defence attorneys are on the record saying they want to defend the case in Sweden. I, like any sane & reasonable person, would to see justice, either for the man's reputation or for the alleged victims, done.

 

So lets assume he's guilty of rape, and sits x amount of time in jail.

 

After that Sweden would be able to deport him on an extradition order to the United States. This makes Sweden the most insanely long route for the US to go through since they could have put in an extradition order to England already since its that damned easy.

 

This is why your stupid conspiracy theories make no sense. England has a history of deporting its own citizens to the United States! Sweden might have the same history.

 

Why would the US extradite out of Sweden when it can easier do so out of England?

 

And why should Assange not face his allegations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×