Thread: London Police threatens to storm Ecuador's Embassy

Originally Posted by BleAivano

Do you have any sources to back up your claims?

Who initially claimed that there had been two rapes? The women? Nope only their attorney Claes Borgström.
One of the women Sofia Wilén have still not signed the police protocol that was established after her phone hearing.
If she have been raped why would she refuse to sign the testimony protocol?


Police protocols:
Assange in Sweden: The Police Protocol (Translated) | Rixstep Industry Watch

Then read my posts and all links that I have included in them and tell me if you still believe its a conspiracy?

Tell my the prosecutor refuses to question him during the 5 extra weeks he stayed in Sweden to allow
himself to be interrogated.

Tell me why the prosecutor said (after being asked by JA) that it was ok for him to leave the country.
Tell my why she, 4 hours before JA boarded his plane to Berlin, issued an European Arrest Warrant for him.

Do you consider it normal to issue an European Arrest Warrant for a person that is NOT prosecuted,
but only wanted for questioning. For a rape that never happened. Do you believe that this would have been
the case if the accused had been a regular person? Nope the case would have been dead and buried by now.


The the normal procedure when then accused is in another country, Swedish police or prosecutor goes to
that country to interrogate him or her.

Can you explain why the prosecutor says it illegal to question someone in another country?

The women themselves never claimed it to be rape.
Only Claes Borgström and the current prosecutor did, without evidence to back it up.

May i also remind you that the previous prosecutor Eva Finné made it very clear that from what the women told her,
no crime had been committed. Then the current prosecutor Marianne Ny reopened the case since one
of the women had handed in an unused* condom that she claimed that JA had used.
*No DNA was found on this condom.

JA and the women had sex most certainly but its was never a matter of rape but a matter of consensual sex.

Can you explain that fact that the USA who claims that they have no interest in Assange
but then a couple of days later they issue a statement where they say that they don't acknowledge his asylum?
Why do they need to say that? They are not interested in him (so they say).

Also remember this statement by vice president Joe Bidén.
Joe Biden: Assange a high-tech terrorist - YouTube
Julian Assange like a hi-tech terrorist, says Joe Biden | Media | The Guardian
Biden Makes Case For Assange As A 'High-Tech Terrorist'
Joe Biden Falsely Labels Julian Assange a High Tech Terrorist
Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist'
Assange is a 'hi-tech terrorist', says Biden - Americas - World - The Independent

Some people around here, in they minds, have already convicted Assage of rape. This I believe is rather telling.

Originally Posted by ioan

What rape, there was no rape there, it was consented sexual intercourse. As such there is bugger all to be worried about.

ioan, this statement beggars belief. Were you there? I assume not. Given this, how can you say that it was consensual?

Originally Posted by ioan

I wouldn't be surprised at all if people in most western countries would care about anything else but their next iPad, iPhone or sunglasses! You can make anything out of a bunch of ignorant who wouldn't say a thing about some of the laws their governments are imposing them, all they care about is comfort no matter the price!

I can't say I care all that much about what happens to Assange, so long as genuine justice is done. If it is, end of story, surely?

Originally Posted by ioan

Some people around here, in they minds, have already convicted Assage of rape. This I believe is rather telling.

Where has anyone said that, or anything approaching it?

Originally Posted by BleAivano

If they have no interest in Assange (according to themselves) why do they bother to have a meeting
in which they decide that they do not acknowledge Assange's asylum?

The OAS which your post refers to is not the USA. Its an association of mainly South American states that are arranging a meeting to discuss Ecuador's position. The US is not a member of the OAS and it is not involved in this meeting let along organising it.

Originally Posted by Dave B

Question for the Americans here: if (say) Iran or China arrested US citizens and held them in prison for years without trial, how would you react?

Iran has and continues to do so. The US reaction has been largely muted. Firstly they arrested three US citizens several years ago who may or may not have strayed into Iran from Iraqi Kurdistan. These three were eventually released after several years of incarceration without a formal trial process. Recently the Iranians have sentenced a former US marine to death for IIRC spying although they presented little evidence against him beyond being an American of Iranian origin (and there are plenty of those). If anything the USA's response to these cases has been extremely limited beyond State department condemnation. Yet if the conspiracy theorists are to be believed the US is looking for just any excuse to attack Iran, cause oil prices to skyrocket and plunge the US into a further depression. Go figure.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It's equally telling that his acolytes aren't at all worried about the rape accusations, and cannot see past their own conspiracy theories and their view of Assange as some kind of messiah of truth.

It doesn't help that Assange sounds so self assured about his being in the right.

I read his speech from yesterday and I had to laugh about his comment regarding Pussy Riot. If he identifies so strongly with them against persecution by the Russian state why does he work for Putin?

Originally Posted by D-Type

But this does not explain the interest and involvement of the British and Ecuador governments. I can see no reason for the Ecuador government to provide diplomatic protection to a man facing extradition to Sweden on a charge of rape. Did they invite him in and offer him protection? Did he ask for asylum? As a result of the Wikileaks affair, is he able to put pressure on the Ecuador government? Now consider the British government perspective. Why is Britain so concerned that it is exerting diplomatic pressure on Ecuador?

I believe Ecuador's offer to Assange has more to do with their own internal politics rather than the exact details of Assange's case, their president has fought allegations of muzzling free speech himself, is coming up to an election soon and standing up to a foreign power has been a useful tool for many a politician before him.

IIRC he interviewed Rafael Correa on Russia today a few months ago and had informal discussions with him regarding getting asylum at that stage.

Why is Britain concerned? It sets a dangerous precedent if foreign powers give asylum to people facing not political charges but straightforward criminal ones on British soil. That in itself could be interpreted as an abuse of the rights of asylum.

Originally Posted by Starter

Apparently the alleged victims did. It can't be consensual and rape at the same time.

Actually that depends very much on the wording of the law.

Originally Posted by Malbec

It doesn't help that Assange sounds so self assured about his being in the right.

Judging by some comments one reads from Assange supporters, they subscribe to the same view as expounded by a US President I presume most of them loathed: 'You're either with us or against us' — hence any mild comment about believing that the rape case should be properly investigated being met with absurd responses.

Originally Posted by Starter

Apparently the alleged victims did. It can't be consensual and rape at the same time.

The key word there is 'Apparently'. Neither you nor I know.

Originally Posted by Malbec

Why is Britain concerned? It sets a dangerous precedent if foreign powers give asylum to people facing not political charges but straightforward criminal ones on British soil. That in itself could be interpreted as an abuse of the rights of asylum.

Well, in that case, anyone could do the same.

Hej BleA, do you have link to the stuff above in correct language? I ask because in your links of Protokopllerna it says "Witness" in the translation.
I looked at a couple and they are not witnesses at all, in the sense we use it på engeslka dvs nån som har sett nånting själv.
In English law----and all the desended from it--- a witness must have diect first hand knowledge tex they actually SAW or HEARD, and that is all their testimony can be.. The first two ''witnesses'' report only what vafanheter tjejen told them..
In English law----and those descended from it, that is mere ''hearsay'' and while the cops will listen and act on hearsay in the investigative stage, hearsay is not admissible as ''evidence'' or ''proof'' of ANYTHING.

So just curious to read original föhörprotkolen.

oxo, undrade hur fan du hade så bra grep på va fan pågår därborta...du verkar vara svensk...och en rally fan..är det så?
Varför ingen svensk flagga i signaturen?

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The key word there is 'Apparently'. Neither you nor I know.

No, they said in their interview with the Polis it was consensual. Dinät you see the SMS text where the one cutina was bragging?

They say clearly that he was , well we don't know because we don't have the original words, and I don't trust most casual translations---nuance is lost often---but he was shall we say ''more focused '' than they were used to.
It was when one was talking girlie talk and comparing notes, the two had concerns about broken in the one case, and absent it the second, condom. They stated they called the Polis to see if the Polis could make Ah Sang take an STD test.
That was their stated intent..

The best take to really clarify this was the comment on the blog I BleA posted where one person said it bäst:
''Since Assang didn't jump to his knees in the morning and beg the girl to marry him after their one night stand, then it must be rape''.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

ioan, this statement beggars belief. Were you there? I assume not. Given this, how can you say that it was consensual?

If those 2 women said it was, how do you know it wasn't?

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I can't say I care all that much about what happens to Assange, so long as genuine justice is done. If it is, end of story, surely?

This whole story is not about Assange, it is about freedom of speech and transparency, but I see that you're all about that case of 'rape' and you won't bother with more important aspects that are going to influence our lives sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Malbec

The OAS which your post refers to is not the USA. Its an association of mainly South American states that are arranging a meeting to discuss Ecuador's position. The US is not a member of the OAS and it is not involved in this meeting let along organising it.

You're trying hard to hide the truth!
Here:

OAS :: Member States : Permanent Representatives

The US is a member of the OAS along with the other countries from the American continents, most of which are smaller countries from South American given that North America only counts 2 countries: the US and Canada.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Originally Posted by ioan

Some people around here, in they minds, have already convicted Assage of rape. This I believe is rather telling.

Where has anyone said that, or anything approaching it?

What part of in their minds (sorry for the spelling mistake, in the previous post) is difficult to get?
Anyway if you insist for an example your attitude is a good example, you pretty much keep beating the drum about some rape charges that aren't even there.

Originally Posted by Malbec

Iran has and continues to do so. The US reaction has been largely muted. Firstly they arrested three US citizens several years ago who may or may not have strayed into Iran from Iraqi Kurdistan. These three were eventually released after several years of incarceration without a formal trial process. Recently the Iranians have sentenced a former US marine to death for IIRC spying although they presented little evidence against him beyond being an American of Iranian origin (and there are plenty of those). If anything the USA's response to these cases has been extremely limited beyond State department condemnation. Yet if the conspiracy theorists are to be believed the US is looking for just any excuse to attack Iran, cause oil prices to skyrocket and plunge the US into a further depression. Go figure.

That sounds like what the US is doing, only that Iran does it on an infinitesimal scale compared to the US.