London Police threatens to storm Ecuador's Embassy

[BleAivano]

The Police in London threatens to storm Ecuador's embassy unless they hand over
Julian Assange.

WikiLeaks founder have taken his refugee inside the Ecuador embassy since
he have requested asylum in Ecuador. It is believed that he will be granted one
and a statement will be made today at 13.00 UK time.

Julian Assange have been wanted by the Swedish prosecution since about two years
since he is (falsely) suspected for a rape.

He is not convicted and he is not prosecuted and the Swedish prosecution have
refused to question Assange during all this time.

A short summary:

JA comes to Sweden meets two women
Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén.

JA is invited to Sofia's apartment and they agree to have sex during the night.
The morning after Sofia went out to buy breakfast for them and then served JA breakfast on the bed.

A little while later JA was accused of rape. The case was first closed but later re-opened by another
prosecutor. JA then went to the police and was questioned once.

The only evidence is an unused condom that that SW claims that JA used that night.

Then the prosecutor didn't question him any further.
JA then wanted to leave the country and asked if they needed to question him any further.
The answer was no and JA left the country. However as soon as he left the country
he was put up on Interpol's list of wanted by the Swedish prosecutor.

JA later walked into a Police station in London and was arrested.

After several negotiations in British court the supreme court in the UK decided that he should
be handed over to Swedish prosecution. After this JA took refugee in the Ecuador embassy.

JA fears (rightly imo) that if he is transferred to Sweden
they will not bother to open a prosecution but instead hand him over to
the USA where he will be "prosecuted" in the same way as Bradley Manning.

Why go as a far as storming an Embassy to arrest someone who
isn't even prosecuted? Would they have done the same if the suspect would
have been an average Joe?

Reuters Live Stream (http://reuters.livestation.com/demo/)
occupynewsnetwork on USTREAM: Julian assange Ecuador embassy. (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork)
Britain threatens embassy raid for Assange - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Britain-threatens-embassy-raid-for-Assange-3791949.php)
BBC News - Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623)
BBC News - Timeline: sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341)
BBC News - Why Julian Assange turned to Ecuador for help (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18518464)
BBC News - Q&A: Julian Assange and asylum (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18521881)

[BleAivano]

more fuel to the fire;

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray posted this article this morning. His website - Pastebin.com (http://pastebin.com/s98KhnYD)


Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray posted this article this morning. His website went down shortly after.
I copied the article from a google cache in case that too disappeared for some reason. - @dbcoopa.

[Mark]

(One would imagine) you can't just storm an embassy, it's not part of the UK and British police have no jurisdiction there.

[Rollo]

(One would imagine) you can't just storm an embassy, it's not part of the UK and British police have no jurisdiction there.

It is part of the UK.

Embassies are not the sovereign territory of the country that occupies the premises but only registered offices under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The confusion arises from Article 22.

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

Linky:
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

...the more you know

[Rollo]

How are they going to get Assange out of the building? Out the Ecuador.
How are they going to get Assange out of the UK? By Secret Cable.

Coat please :D

[BDunnell]

Whatever happens, it's a travesty. It's a travesty if the two women have a genuine case against Assange and are denied justice by his remaining in the embassy building. It's a travesty if he has in some way been set up. And it's a travesty if the embassy gets 'stormed'. After all, that would set a dangerous precedent. Remember how thousands of East Germans sought refuge inside West German embassies in Warsaw Pact countries before the Berlin Wall fell, because they knew them to be safe havens? Imagine the outrage that would have followed if they had been forcibly removed.

[BleAivano]

Whatever happens, it's a travesty. It's a travesty if the two women have a genuine case against Assange and are denied justice by his remaining in the embassy building. It's a travesty if he has in some way been set up. And it's a travesty if the embassy gets 'stormed'. After all, that would set a dangerous precedent. Remember how thousands of East Germans sought refuge inside West German embassies in Warsaw Pact countries before the Berlin Wall fell, because they knew them to be safe havens? Imagine the outrage that would have followed if they had been forcibly removed.


I can agree IF there is a case. However the first prosecutor said directly to the women that there were nothing
in their story that could lead to a prosecution. So the case was closed.

Then a new prosecutor came in, Marianne Ny, who re-opened the case but since that
have not done anything more then saying that she can't go to London since its illegal to question someone
in another country. Obviously it is not and the prosecutor herself cannot show where it says that it is illegal.
As late as a few years ago.

A Swedish prosecutor went to Germany to Interrogate Christine Schürrer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Sch%C3%BCrrer) since she
was a suspect for a double murder. Assange has also said that he wouldn't mind being questioned but that
he did not want to go to Sweden in fear of being extradited to the USA (see Bradley Manning).

If Marianne Ny was so eager in questioning Assange why haven't she gone to London then
so that she could either close the case or prosecute Assange. But she refuses.

The question is also why so much effort is made to this case.
They would never have done it if the suspect had been someone else.

Add to that the statement of Craig Murray (post #2) and it becomes more clear why the
prosecution is so eager in getting him here and not so eager to question him in London.



on a side note the women's lawyer Claes Borgström was involved with a person named
Thomas Quick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Quick#Confessions_and_subsequent_withdrawal s) a man convicted for 8 murders. Claes Borgström was the defence attorney in that case.
Recent digging in the matter revealed that Quick most likely have not committed any of those murders.

[ioan]

How the F' can you storm an embassy in the 21 century?
Whatever happened to the Vienna treaty?
Are we talking about the same country that just hosted the Olympic Games and bragged and boasted about the Olympic spirit = fairness?! Did it roll over in front of it's big brother?

Where will this USA crap influence end?
I guess that next Assange shall move over to the Chinese or Russian Embassy, I bet the UK police will never even dream about raiding any of those two.

How is it possible that a European country, UK or Sweden, can even think about turning over a person to the USA where the death penalty can be pronounced or even worse torture by government agents is not illegal?!

Modern society totally lost it's compass. :\

[janvanvurpa]

Whatever happens, it's a travesty. It's a travesty if the two women have a genuine case against Assange and are denied justice by his remaining in the embassy building. It's a travesty if he has in some way been set up. And it's a travesty if the embassy gets 'stormed'. After all, that would set a dangerous precedent. Remember how thousands of East Germans sought refuge inside West German embassies in Warsaw Pact countries before the Berlin Wall fell, because they knew them to be safe havens? Imagine the outrage that would have followed if they had been forcibly removed.


Read the women's reports again.. That is what it all pivots on. Now, I don't know how to describe the culture of Sweden but let's just say there is a modern veneer lightly draped over a strict Calvinst foundation, and regret and guilt are always just below the surface. Superficially life is much better in the years since I left in 1980, especially after the arrival of lots of Chileno and Argentino political refugees who could counterbalance the perennial "Oh should I, or shouldn't I? Do I like him, does he like me? I don't know what I want to do...(sigh)" which was the overwhelming and maddening norm.
That hand wringing and uncertainty and changing the mind after the fact is all pervasive there and is one reason I chose not to live there because it's maddening.

The 2 wimmins say they willing went home with assange and played bouncy bouncy willingly, and only much later decided they didn't like it.......therefore "they felt violated"...

He may be a creep from many reports, but going home with a creep and deciding much later that you didn't enjoy the boffing you got should not be a crime---in any normal functioning adult world.
Sweden is not however a normal functioning adult world.

(note: the much vaunted "liberated view" regarding matters intimate in my not so limited experience is not a liberated view, I found German and French and English (up Norf) and and Spanish and oh dear Finnish and Israeli wimmins much much more "liberated' (sweet bleedin Jezuz it was fun!). The Swedes tend very strongly to binge drink. Very low total annual consumption of alcohol, but very concentrated when they do....I say their "liberated" reputation comes from them drinking themselves senseless and simply going home with any male left standing, seriously..and then of course regretting and feeling ashamed later. Of course this is my own first hand experience and comparitive to other places with other cultures, but hey what do I know? But agreed the whole mess is a travesty, and the current crisis is a nightmare)
This is what I seriously believe happened to the poor bastid unused to the local way of the world.

[BleAivano]

more to read: Helene Bergman: The Assange Case goes to JO,the Swedish Ombudsmen for Justice (http://khelenebergman.blogspot.se/2012/08/the-assange-case-goes-to-jothe-swedish.html)

[Malbec]

After all, that would set a dangerous precedent. Remember how thousands of East Germans sought refuge inside West German embassies in Warsaw Pact countries before the Berlin Wall fell, because they knew them to be safe havens? Imagine the outrage that would have followed if they had been forcibly removed.

This is the biggest issue at stake here and is a massive error by the FCO IMO. I'm sure they are right that the Vienna treaty can be suspended or disregarded in certain situations but I believe that the scenarios envisaged were along the lines of a massive terrorist outrage being coordinated from within an embassy rather than a situation where someone has claimed asylum within one.

If the FCO's interpretation of the Vienna treaty is used worldwide we shouldn't complain if North Korea or China decides to raid the British or American embassies because some dissident has claimed asylum. This is a dangerous precedent to set and Assange simply isn't worth it.

[janvanvurpa]

more to read: Helene Bergman: The Assange Case goes to JO,the Swedish Ombudsmen for Justice (http://khelenebergman.blogspot.se/2012/08/the-assange-case-goes-to-jothe-swedish.html)


yeah, good ol JO. My dealings with JO were like most dealings with Swedish bureaucracy: totally and utterly useless and in screaming contrast to their stated mission.
I just re-read the specific charges and the crucial point is while the sex with the 2 wimmins was consensual, but he didn't wrap his wiener up in an old inner-tube and the wimmins intent was to force Assange to take an HIV test.
All this to force him to take a HIV test..
The enormity of the stupidity of the Swedish authorities continuing their nonsense more than 2 years after is unimaginable when, if the stupid wimmins were so worried and fearful, maybe sometime in the intervening years THEY could take an HIV test so they can get back to their normal fretful level of fear of everything different.

[Malbec]

How is it possible that a European country, UK or Sweden, can even think about turning over a person to the USA where the death penalty can be pronounced or even worse torture by government agents is not illegal?!

This is where the conspiracy theory about Assange gets derailed.

The idea that the US is getting Assange deported to Sweden so it would be easier for them to have him extradited again to the US is ridiculous. It is far far easier for the US to have someone deported from the UK than just about anywhere else in the world. The US doesn't even have to reveal the accusations levelled against that person and the evidence against them has only to be shown to the home secretary. Babar Ahmed and the three Natwest executives who are fighting or tried to fight extradition demonstrate this perfectly.

I'm sure Assange knows this, he has had very good legal advice paid for by his supporters. This is why I'm afraid I simply don't buy the reasons he has given for fighting extradition to Sweden.

Now Janvanpurna's portrayal of Swedish society and their attitudes towards rape is something I agree with and its quite probable that Assange used his fame to get his end away without realising the consequences. The fact is though that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it and he should face his prosecutors in a court of law.

[janvanvurpa]

From Bleviano's link:
The comments:


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2FOdC1RMWGM/T1-VjekkXxI/AAAAAAAAAF0/_7gTen_ptuM/s45/curse.jpg
GalaxyCurse (http://www.blogger.com/profile/16886182299893579876)3 augusti 2012 00:21 (http://khelenebergman.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-assange-case-goes-to-jothe-swedish.html?showComment=1343978507700#c6621521522 459403355)
Då detta är ett politiskt mål, precis som t.ex The Pirate Bay målet, så har jag svårt att se vad en politiskt tillsatt justitieombudsman bryr sig om att göra.

(Translation; Since this is a political case (goal) precisely like for example The Pirate Bay case, so have I difficult to see what a politically appointed Justice Ombudsman (will) bother themselves to do.)

Svara
[/*:m:3pq3cmy2]
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ds9_5tLnYb0/S2UzNXdT39I/AAAAAAAAACc/rIzeWr6ohLk/S45/008_8c.jpg
valens (http://www.blogger.com/profile/04310775648294151567)4 augusti 2012 08:44 (http://khelenebergman.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-assange-case-goes-to-jothe-swedish.html?showComment=1344095055555#c2853198363 975316062)
Case to the Swedish Ombudsman for Justice?
Is this some kind of joke?

As long as in Sweden the Swedish Ombudsman for Justice (JO) agreed that a former prosecutor who has decided in a dispute between some private people, may notwithstanding act as a court judge involving the same opponents in the same dispute, we cannot be trusted anymore in this so-called Swedish Ombudsman for Justice, in the Swedish low and order unfortunately.
These are cases for the European Court. Of course the rights according to the European Convention have been violated!

The most interesting is that involved law firm is precisely the same… “Borgström&Bodström”!

(See Swedish JO case no. 4782-2010 subversively changed/added again to case no.5960-2010)

[/*:m:3pq3cmy2]


Doesn't see very welcome news to those who know the system.

[BDunnell]

I just re-read the specific charges and the crucial point is while the sex with the 2 wimmins was consensual, but he didn't wrap his wiener up in an old inner-tube and the wimmins intent was to force Assange to take an HIV test.

As far as I know, the lack of a condom is not mentioned anywhere in the European (as opposed to Swedish) arrest warrant, which is surely the important one in terms of his extradition from the UK to Sweden.

[BDunnell]

This is where the conspiracy theory about Assange gets derailed.

The idea that the US is getting Assange deported to Sweden so it would be easier for them to have him extradited again to the US is ridiculous. It is far far easier for the US to have someone deported from the UK than just about anywhere else in the world. The US doesn't even have to reveal the accusations levelled against that person and the evidence against them has only to be shown to the home secretary. Babar Ahmed and the three Natwest executives who are fighting or tried to fight extradition demonstrate this perfectly.

I'm sure Assange knows this, he has had very good legal advice paid for by his supporters. This is why I'm afraid I simply don't buy the reasons he has given for fighting extradition to Sweden.

I would tend to agree with you, but this article presents quite a reasonable counter-argument:

Julian Assange's right to asylum | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum)


The fact is though that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it and he should face his prosecutors in a court of law.

I don't see how this can be achieved without his leaving the embassy, and thus being extradited to the US on charges far more trumped-up than the rape ones. It has, as I said before, become an impossible situation.

[BDunnell]

This is the biggest issue at stake here and is a massive error by the FCO IMO. I'm sure they are right that the Vienna treaty can be suspended or disregarded in certain situations but I believe that the scenarios envisaged were along the lines of a massive terrorist outrage being coordinated from within an embassy rather than a situation where someone has claimed asylum within one.

If the FCO's interpretation of the Vienna treaty is used worldwide we shouldn't complain if North Korea or China decides to raid the British or American embassies because some dissident has claimed asylum. This is a dangerous precedent to set and Assange simply isn't worth it.

Exactly.

[BDunnell]

How the F' can you storm an embassy in the 21 century?
Whatever happened to the Vienna treaty?
Are we talking about the same country that just hosted the Olympic Games and bragged and boasted about the Olympic spirit = fairness?! Did it roll over in front of it's big brother?

Where will this USA crap influence end?
I guess that next Assange shall move over to the Chinese or Russian Embassy, I bet the UK police will never even dream about raiding any of those two.

How is it possible that a European country, UK or Sweden, can even think about turning over a person to the USA where the death penalty can be pronounced or even worse torture by government agents is not illegal?!

Modern society totally lost it's compass. :\

The UK hasn't actually done anything yet! I suspect it won't, either, now the letter has been revealed. The precedent would be just too dangerous.

[BleAivano]

Malbec from what i understand Sweden and USA have signed some sort ofagreement (http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf) about the lending
of arrested people. the USA and UK does not have this type of agreement.

Also 8 years ago two Egyptian asylum seekers were extradite from Sweden to Egypt with the help of CIA.
These two were later tortured in Egypt during interrogation and sentenced to long prison sentences by a military tribunal.

Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery)

[janvanvurpa]

This is where the conspiracy theory about Assange gets derailed.

The idea that the US is getting Assange deported to Sweden so it would be easier for them to have him extradited again to the US is ridiculous. It is far far easier for the US to have someone deported from the UK than just about anywhere else in the world. The US doesn't even have to reveal the accusations levelled against that person and the evidence against them has only to be shown to the home secretary. Babar Ahmed and the three Natwest executives who are fighting or tried to fight extradition demonstrate this perfectly.

But the difference is in the basic presumptions of law in the English Speaking countries versus those which law descended directly from old Church Law as in the case in one way or another in all the rest of Europe all the way past the Urals.
English law, and it's descendants concentrate on the exact letter of the law, and a presumption as ancient as the old Angles and Sachens on the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof place on the accuser. Those systems descended from church law have at their center the intention of redemption of the accused, the "return to the fold" of those who have wander astray--and an implict presumption that we are all guilty of some transgression, the only question is what transgression (see further Kafka "I am accused of a crime which i do not know as they will not tell me", cf the inquisition and the so called Moscow Show trials forcing confessions so that the accused can be burned or shot with a clear conscious.)

In the link to the life-time serious feminist journalist she has a quote from one of the accusers:

the woman A's words from the detention memorandum in the case Assange echoed inside me.

As she says:
"I was proud as shít, to get the world’s coolest man in bed and living in my apartment."



Swedish Police, proscecutors and the whole system is notorious for mainly monumental inaction, endless utredningar (vi ska reda ut detta----investigations---vi shall figure out this...one day) , and then occasionally vendetta like fixation on some notable person, and routinely violate Svenska Grundlagen and their own administrative rules on what seems like mere whim---and then after the whim, to prosecute, will fight with all the power of their position..

You see in the details of the accusation that they played bouncie bouncie on some date in mid August, the women were gossiping or bragging and were surprised to hear they they both had boffed him and both mentioned he hadn't used a condom, only then did they decide to talk to the Polis..and then same day a warrant was issued AND the Stockholm evening tabloid Expressen splashed headlines of the accusations--same day---.
Then when it was "kicked upstairs" another prosecutor review the protocol and decided there were no grounds for charges and the warrant was cancelled. THEN somebody squawked and a yet different prosecutor decided (to make political hay peut'etre)
This is not how a sane legal system works




I'm sure Assange knows this, he has had very good legal advice paid for by his supporters. This is why I'm afraid I simply don't buy the reasons he has given for fighting extradition to Sweden.

Now Janvanpurna's portrayal of Swedish society and their attitudes towards rape is something I agree with and its quite probable that Assange used his fame to get his end away without realising the consequences. The fact is though that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it and he should face his prosecutors in a court of law.


I imagine he has been advised that extradition from Sweden can be done at the merest whim of any low level bureaucrat on unknowable grounds however flimsy or legally weak, where in England there must be some sort of established procedure, and reasonable grounds of a serious felony having been committed...or so they say...

So i do not agree that he should face his prosecutors in a court IN SWEDEN as their legal system is a farce..

I have actually had dealings with the system, and at the advice of a good cop Gunnar Holm, studied the book on Swedish law and comparative law they he suggested (I was the victim of serious theft (my race motorcycle--the entire reason for living there---and the Police did nothing, so I tracked down the gang, gathered evidence, phone numbers, work numbers, confessions etc and then I was run in to the District Police HQ and I was grilled and when I directly asked why I was hauled in the Detective Superintendent said "I think you're trying to make us look bad" so i answer.."Oh I would never, you're doing far too good a job at that yourselves" and later dealt with JO using internal Police documents supplied to me by Holm showing the gross incompetence and clear shirking of responsibilities of the Police patrol that actually laid hands on the stolen bike and decided to ignore the pleadings of the 2 guys that had caught the thieves to secure the bike. The "Incident report read "called to scene at 21.20. probably stolen motorcycle. No blocking traffic. No action taken" Holm was appalled, and became advisor/protector.. official channels denied they had ever seen or been called---even after presenting them with copies on official forms of the incident report...And they followed me...seriously no conspiracy BS, you know in a very small town the unmarked Volvo 245s with 2 burly guys sitting for long time isn't normal so I'd walk over say Hi! and even asked once if they wanted coffee.
JO was a JO-ke. And all I wanted was an equivalent KTM 250

The system is insane...if there is ever justice in Sweden it is mere coincident.

[janvanvurpa]

Malbec from what i understand Sweden and USA have signed some sort ofagreement (http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf) about the lending
of arrested people. the USA and UK does not have this type of agreement.

Also 8 years ago two Egyptian asylum seekers were extradite from Sweden to Egypt with the help of CIA.
These two were later tortured in Egypt during interrogation and sentenced to long prison sentences by a military tribunal.

Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery)

The Police have been for more than 100 years an isolated and incredibly inbred segment of the society in Sweden and is acknowledged by all to be out of touch with the society--and conservative--imagine that. The Swedish Secret Police SÄPO has a well documented history of extra-legal actions in violation of law and with cooperation with US Intelligence Agencies with the excuse of neccessity because of the threat of the "fiendet från Öster" the Enemy from the East and I don't think they meant Finland. They tend to be ultra-rightists and have documented undue influence with the Polis.

All this has been well established. that's one thing good about the obsessive/compulsive nature of the people there, some reporters just keep digging.

[ioan]

The UK hasn't actually done anything yet! I suspect it won't, either, now the letter has been revealed. The precedent would be just too dangerous.

The fact that they even thought about it is bad enough in today's already tense world.

[Malbec]

Malbec from what i understand Sweden and USA have signed some sort ofagreement (http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf) about the lending
of arrested people. the USA and UK does not have this type of agreement.

Also 8 years ago two Egyptian asylum seekers were extradite from Sweden to Egypt with the help of CIA.
These two were later tortured in Egypt during interrogation and sentenced to long prison sentences by a military tribunal.

Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery)

No, the UK and USA do not have that kind of agreement, it is far more powerful than that and is weighted more heavily in favour of the US. It was introduced in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and is one way, ie the same does not apply for British requests to extradite from the US.

It does not matter whether the person has been arrested, the US can request the British to arrest the person on their behalf. It does not matter whether the charges the US wants them to face are legal in the UK nor if the UK has already found them innocent of the same charges. The defendant does not need to be informed of the charges. The evidence only has to be presented to the home secretary and does not require a judicial review. It also does not matter whether the punishment the person may receive at the hands of the US judicial system are way in excess of that considered fair here, which is a consideration for extradition to other countries.

Which is why I raised several examples, Babar Ahmed, the Natwest executives and several computer hackers, all of whom have been extradited to the US or are facing extradition.

Extradition Act 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003)

You raise the case of two Egyptians extradited by Sweden via the US to Egypt who were tortured. So what? Do you think Britain hasn't done worse? Haven't you heard of the case of the Libyan rebel leader who it turns out MI6 captured and extradited to Libya so Gaddafi's forces could torture him? Britain went in fully for extraordinary rendition, both in terms of capturing and handling/extraditing prisoners.

The idea that it would be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden rather than the UK is laughable. Please don't persist in this myth.

[Malbec]

I would tend to agree with you, but this article presents quite a reasonable counter-argument:

Julian Assange's right to asylum | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum)

This article does not compare the Swedish extradition treaty with the US with that of the British, and the type of justice he'd receive in the US is not directly relevant as it will be the same whether he went from the UK or Sweden.

I fully agree that Sweden's record in extradition is by no means perfect but that ignores the rather incredible arrangements our country has with the US which beggar belief in its one sidedness and lack of transparency.


I don't see how this can be achieved without his leaving the embassy, and thus being extradited to the US on charges far more trumped-up than the rape ones. It has, as I said before, become an impossible situation.

This is my point, during the period Assange was essentially free to roam around London the US could have applied for extradition. This didn't happen despite the legal mechanisms being in place. That the Americans haven't pressed for it should tell you a lot, that Assange is claiming the danger of being extradited to the US is why he is opposing deportation to Sweden should tell you even more...

[BDunnell]

The fact that they even thought about it is bad enough in today's already tense world.

'They'? It could very well have been an ill-advised individual. Far be it for me to stick up for a British government I disagree with politically, but I find it hard to believe entering a foreign embassy was ever official policy.

[ioan]

'They'? It could very well have been an ill-advised individual. Far be it for me to stick up for a British government I disagree with politically, but I find it hard to believe entering a foreign embassy was ever official policy.

I very much doubt that such actions are left to be decided by a single individual.

[BDunnell]

This article does not compare the Swedish extradition treaty with the US with that of the British, and the type of justice he'd receive in the US is not directly relevant as it will be the same whether he went from the UK or Sweden.

I fully agree that Sweden's record in extradition is by no means perfect but that ignores the rather incredible arrangements our country has with the US which beggar belief in its one sidedness and lack of transparency.

Yes, I agree.



This is my point, during the period Assange was essentially free to roam around London the US could have applied for extradition. This didn't happen despite the legal mechanisms being in place. That the Americans haven't pressed for it should tell you a lot, that Assange is claiming the danger of being extradited to the US is why he is opposing deportation to Sweden should tell you even more...

Well, it might. We don't know anything much about the rape allegations.

Clouding the discussion still further, of course, are the views of those in the eyes of whom Assange can do no wrong — David Icke-style conspiracy theorists in training, almost.

[Rollo]

That the Americans haven't pressed for it should tell you a lot, that Assange is claiming the danger of being extradited to the US is why he is opposing deportation to Sweden should tell you even more...

It tells me that the UK doesn't really want this mess on its doorstep. It's all much nicer if Assange is arrested in Sweden, because then the British Govt. can go about its merry way and pretend that the whole thing never happened.

I suspect that Assange wouldn't even see a court in Sweden anyway. He'd be arrested and simply dumped in Gitmo, maybe to be tortured and because Assange is an Australian citizen, the Australian Govt. would continue to say nothing about it as they had done with David Hicks.
That little message on the inside front cover of Australian passports about the Australian Govt rendering assistance to people in distress and danger is pretty well much completely useless.

[BDunnell]

It tells me that the UK doesn't really want this mess on its doorstep. It's all much nicer if Assange is arrested in Sweden, because then the British Govt. can go about its merry way and pretend that the whole thing never happened.

Not certain about that. I think it's gone too far for that to be an option any longer.

[janvanvurpa]

If anybody is interested, hereäs a link to detailed accounting of the whole mess.
Anna Ardin, Ms W, Julian Assange och Åklagarmyndigheten « Aktivarum (http://aktivarum.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/anna-ardin-ms-w-julian-assange-och-aklagarmyndigheten/)

It's in Swedish but there are online translators...
The link provided points out that the warrant for arrest was issued by a "watch" or "duty" procecutor after getting a phone call from a cop, and the same day releae to the press broke the Grundlag ÅM --Åklagarmyndighet ---Prosecutor authority is supposed to enforce regarding protecting the identity of the accused.
Good first move: -brake the law.

[BleAivano]

i would like to remind you that when the charges first came in.

Assange did cooperate with the first prosecutor and willingly met her for questioning.
However she closed the case since >>no crime had been committed.<<

Shortly after Marianne Ny (prosecutor) re-opened the case despite that the only new evidence that
had come in, is a broken unused condom (no DNA was found on it so it could not have been used).
Assange was still in Sweden and again made himself available to questioning by the prosecution.

However they were not interested in question him. For one month the prosecution
did not do anything. There was one interrogation scheduled by it was cancelled by the
prosecution side. NO more efforts were made from the prosecution side to interrogate Assange.

After that month Assange got tired of waiting and asked if they needed to question him any more.
The prosecutor said no they did not need that. Assange then asked if he could leave the country
which the the prosecutor granted him the right to do.

Now this is where things start to get suspicious. As i said the prosecutor granted Assange to leave
the country. However as soon as he does that he is put up on interpol's red notice list over wanted persons,
Assange was wanted for questioning.

The prosecutors only comment so far is that its important that as soon as possible,
Assange must get to Sweden so that she can question him.

The questions are then.
.


Why did the prosecutor question him during the extra month that he stayed in Sweden? [/*:m:1u8ci93z]
Why did she not prosecute Assange while he was in Sweden? [/*:m:1u8ci93z]
Why did she say that he could leave the country if she wanted to question him? [/*:m:1u8ci93z]
Why re-open a case when no new evidence, expect an unused condom, have come in? [/*:m:1u8ci93z]
Why is the prosecution side not interested in questioning him? [/*:m:1u8ci93z]

Also don't forget that the Swedish prime himself committed a crime live on public when saying
that Assange should come here and take his punishment.

In Sweden the prime minister has in no way the right to make such a statement about an individual case,
especially not when the suspect is not convicted and not even prosecuted. Its called ministerstyre. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre)
And what happened with the whole thing of the Presumption of innocence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence)? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence)

[BleAivano]

One more thing. in Sweden we have two degrees os suspicion. Skäligen and Sannolika.

JA was first considered Skäligen (the lower degree) but this was later changed to "på Sannolika skäl (higher degree)."
just so that Martianne Ny could put out a EAW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant). Despite that there still were no crime that had been committed.

For the second higher degree, a witness or a technical evidence is required. In this case neither exists.

[Malbec]

I very much doubt that such actions are left to be decided by a single individual.

There was no action though. Nor was a threat made to raid the embassy.

A letter was written to the Ecuadorian embassy which the recipient chose to publicise. We do not know at what level the decision was made to write that letter but it stated two clear facts, that Britain has the right to suspend the diplomatic immunity of their embassy and also that Britain has a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden. It was not an ultimatum nor was a specific action ever threatened if the Ecuadorians didn't comply, therefore it was not a statement of policy. I don't see why such a letter would necessarily require political approval. The failure of either DC or William Hague to escalate this problem despite the media's best attempts to stir up a crisis back up that threatening to raid the embassy is not part of British government policy.

One has to wonder though why noone has questioned whether it is right for Assange to claim asylum or for Ecuador to give it. Assange is not facing prosecution for his beliefs, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. He's being asked to face criminal charges (regardless of whether one agrees with the Swedish definition of rape). Since when has it become the norm for people to claim asylum to escape inconvenient criminal charges?

[Malbec]

It tells me that the UK doesn't really want this mess on its doorstep. It's all much nicer if Assange is arrested in Sweden, because then the British Govt. can go about its merry way and pretend that the whole thing never happened.

That would be a serious policy reversal by the UK then.

Sadly history shows that Britain is more than willing to hand over its own citizens to the US or transfer them to a third state such as Pakistan where attitudes towards things like torture are more relaxed so that interrogation can be outsourced. The British have even sent their own MI5/6 staff to those torture sessions so they could get the information first hand, although of course they wouldn't actually lay their own hands on the prisoners.

If Britain has decided to make an exception for Assange, a non-British national, then it would be extending him a courtesy it doesn't give to its own nationals....

[schmenke]

The Police in London threatens to storm Ecuador's embassy unless they hand over
Julian Assange...

I thought a local constabulary had no jurisdiction in foreign matters at all :?:

[ioan]

There was no action though.

Luckily.


Nor was a threat made to raid the embassy.

They just tried to intimidate them, how nice.



A letter was written to the Ecuadorian embassy which the recipient chose to publicise. We do not know at what level the decision was made to write that letter ...

And at what level do you think that an official letter is written to the attention a foreign country's Embassy? At a very high level, which makes this case rather serious.


...but it stated two clear facts, that Britain has the right to suspend the diplomatic immunity of their embassy...

Under conditions which are not met in this case.



...and also that Britain has a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden.

Which is none of Ecuador's business and a situation in which GB put itself in.

And none of the above warrant the writing and sending of that letter.



It was not an ultimatum nor was a specific action ever threatened if the Ecuadorians didn't comply, therefore it was not a statement of policy.

Wait a second, stop there. You think that sending an official letter to a foreign country's Embassy where you tell them that you have the right to suspend the Embassy's diplomatic immunity is not a highly offensive action?!
This is something which is done only in extreme cases like war between two countries!
Don't even try to play it down, because from a diplomatic point of view that letter is an enormous faux pas!


I don't see why such a letter would necessarily require political approval.

That's because you didn't grasp the gravity of the act. Cause you think that only size matters. Well, nope, Ecuador has the same rights as any other country to have an inviolable Embassy.


The failure of either DC or William Hague to escalate this problem despite the media's best attempts to stir up a crisis back up that threatening to raid the embassy is not part of British government policy.

There is no failure to escalate it, due to the size of the cock up this is being clarified out of the public view. This kind of monumental crap is something no one wants out in public, certainly not after improving UK's image due to the hosting of the Olympic Games. Things will slowly transpire though, just wait and see.


One has to wonder though why noone has questioned whether it is right for Assange to claim asylum or for Ecuador to give it.

There's a bunch of people doing it, in the media and in various blogs. Wouldn't call them noone.



Assange is not facing prosecution for his beliefs, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. He's being asked to face criminal charges (regardless of whether one agrees with the Swedish definition of rape). Since when has it become the norm for people to claim asylum to escape inconvenient criminal charges?

Assange has been called a terrorist by US officials and some of them asked for lifetime imprisonment for him, even though he wasn't even yet officially charged. That looks to me like a Country who is bullying an individual. I guess that disregard to human rights doesn't bother you as you didn't even bother to mention this side of the story.

[donKey jote]

And it's a travesty if the embassy gets 'stormed'. After all, that would set a dangerous precedent.
Well the both the Iranian revolution and the taliban have already done it, so it's not really a precedent :p
Heck not even China storms Embassies, so the UK won't either. They'll just declare it a Non-Embassy before going in.

[ioan]

That would be a serious policy reversal by the UK then.

Sadly history shows that Britain is more than willing to hand over its own citizens to the US or transfer them to a third state such as Pakistan where attitudes towards things like torture are more relaxed so that interrogation can be outsourced. The British have even sent their own MI5/6 staff to those torture sessions so they could get the information first hand, although of course they wouldn't actually lay their own hands on the prisoners.

If Britain has decided to make an exception for Assange, a non-British national, then it would be extending him a courtesy it doesn't give to its own nationals....

The UK doesn't give a damn about Assange as it doesn't give a damn about any individual, and this is the same for most countries on Earth. However the image that the UK is trying to keep in the world is what is important and in the eyes of the world a case like that of Assange is so much more visible than that of many unknown individuals that have been extradited in the past without even a thought.

[donKey jote]

How the F' can you storm an embassy in the 21 century?
you "relieve" it of it's diplomatic status before going in ;)

How is it possible that a European country, UK or Sweden, can even think about turning over a person to the USA where the death penalty can be pronounced or even worse torture by government agents is not illegal?!
one word:
poodle :andrea:

[ioan]

you "relieve" it of it's diplomatic status before going in ;)


Not even needed, because the UK police is the one supposed to be in charge of keeping them safe. :\



one word:
poodle :andrea:

Yep, we live in a world full of poodles!

[Malbec]

And at what level do you think that an official letter is written to the attention a foreign country's Embassy? At a very high level, which makes this case rather serious.

Actually not at a very high level at all, especially one merely explaining Britain's legal position. The amount of offical correspondence between any embassy and its host government is massive, you'd have to be extremely naive to believe that even a small proportion of this reaches ministerial review before being sent.


Under conditions which are not met in this case.

In this case I'm inclined to agree.


Which is none of Ecuador's business and a situation in which GB put itself in.

Incorrect.

Ecuador specifically made it its own business by granting asylum to prevent Assange being deported from the UK to Sweden. How you can say that they aren't involved is beyond me.


Wait a second, stop there. You think that sending an official letter to a foreign country's Embassy where you tell them that you have the right to suspend the Embassy's diplomatic immunity is not a highly offensive action?!
This is something which is done only in extreme cases like war between two countries!
Don't even try to play it down, because from a diplomatic point of view that letter is an enormous faux pas!

Yes its a faux pas.

However reminding someone that you have the right to suspend diplomatic immunity is not quite the same as threatening to do so. The difference is probably too subtle for you to grasp but it is there.


That's because you didn't grasp the gravity of the act. Cause you think that only size matters. Well, nope, Ecuador has the same rights as any other country to have an inviolable Embassy.

When did Britain threaten to raid the embassy? Whats the timescale Britain gave Ecuador to hand over Assange? Remind me...


There is no failure to escalate it, due to the size of the cock up this is being clarified out of the public view. This kind of monumental crap is something no one wants out in public, certainly not after improving UK's image due to the hosting of the Olympic Games. Things will slowly transpire though, just wait and see.

Be consistent.

First you say Britain is threatening Ecuador, now you're claiming that Britain isn't threatening them because it doesn't want a PR disaster, which is it to be?


Assange has been called a terrorist by US officials and some of them asked for lifetime imprisonment for him, even though he wasn't even yet officially charged. That looks to me like a Country who is bullying an individual. I guess that disregard to human rights doesn't bother you as you didn't even bother to mention this side of the story.

Yeah thats right.

America is bullying Assange. Thats why they haven't even asked for him to be extradited from the UK.

This is the inconvenient fact that people like you continually ignore and which I've gone over above.

If the US wanted Assange all they had to do was ask the UK to hand him over. Under the extradition treaty 2003 I explained above Assange wouldn't have had the chance to resist (unlike the Swedish extradition request). He'd be have been deported in a flash. Why are the Americans waiting for Assange to be moved to a country where its much much harder to have him extradited to the US? Because they love a legal challenge?

[Malbec]

Well the both the Iranian revolution and the taliban have already done it, so it's not really a precedent :p
Heck not even China storms Embassies, so the UK won't either. They'll just declare it a Non-Embassy before going in.

When it comes to storming embassies we did it first and we did it in style....

Iranian Embassy siege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_embassy_siege)

The Iranians and the Taliban are rank amateurs in comparison.

[donKey jote]

When it comes to storming embassies we did it first and we did it in style....
yes, I'm aware of that episode. Didn't it justify the current law allowing removal of diplomatic status? ... to be used in extreme cases like this one, with executed hostages being thrown out windows?
Not quite similar to the prior taking of US hostages in Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Hostage_Crisis), but yes, you did it in style :up:

[D-Type]

I think there's more to this than meets the eye. The British government wouldn't get involved in such a big way with a deportation because of a Swedish rape allegation. Despite various allegations, Britain is not "America's poodle" so they wouldn't take major action at the request of the USA. however, they would take action if Assange's wiki leaks had somehow harmed British nationals or British interests.

Having said that, we now have to think how diplomacy works. The formal communications to Ecuador stating that under certain circumstances they might revoke the embassy's diplomatic privelege and to say that they might forcefully remove Assange does not necessarily mean that Britain would actually do so, it is more a means of letting the government of Ecuador know that they take a dim view of granting him asylum. In reality, the rights or wrongs of the Swedish allegation are totally irrelevant.

[ioan]

Actually not at a very high level at all, especially one merely explaining Britain's legal position. The amount of offical correspondence between any embassy and its host government is massive, you'd have to be extremely naive to believe that even a small proportion of this reaches ministerial review before being sent.

Maybe they have low level correspondence about the electricity bill and other similar however they certainly will not send them a letter telling them that they can suspend their Embassy's immunity without consulting with higher levels. If however they did so then the cock up is even bigger then first thought.



Incorrect.

Ecuador specifically made it its own business by granting asylum to prevent Assange being deported from the UK to Sweden. How you can say that they aren't involved is beyond me.

Maybe English is not your first language, it isn't mine either so I'll reformulate: what exactly has Ecuador to do with UK's decision and as such self imposed obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden?!



However reminding someone that you have the right to suspend diplomatic immunity is not quite the same as threatening to do so. The difference is probably too subtle for you to grasp but it is there.

So why the need to remind them and why now when there are no bases for it? Big colonialist regime bullying small ex colony country?!
As for your rubbish, there is no subtle difference in this case, maybe you forgot to read between the line. This is a high diplomatic affront up there with declaring the whole Embassy representatives as persona non grata and sending them home to Ecuador, for no real reason obviously.



When did Britain threaten to raid the embassy? Whats the timescale Britain gave Ecuador to hand over Assange? Remind me...


Who said they did raid the embassy? Or are you reading between the lines now? Please be consistent.



Be consistent.

First you say Britain is threatening Ecuador, now you're claiming that Britain isn't threatening them because it doesn't want a PR disaster, which is it to be?


Definitely it must be the English. Where did I say that 'Britain isn't threatening them because it doesn't want a PR disaster'. Again reading between the lines?
I just said that whatever is happening Britain is keeping it behind closed doors, now that Ecuador chose to blow the whistle on their first intimidation move.




America is bullying Assange. Thats why they haven't even asked for him to be extradited from the UK.

This is the inconvenient fact that people like you continually ignore and which I've gone over above.

So the fact that highest level US officials named him a terrorist and ask for lifetime imprisonment is not bullying?!
Are you joking or did you really mean it?



If the US wanted Assange all they had to do was ask the UK to hand him over. Under the extradition treaty 2003 I explained above Assange wouldn't have had the chance to resist (unlike the Swedish extradition request). He'd be have been deported in a flash. Why are the Americans waiting for Assange to be moved to a country where its much much harder to have him extradited to the US? Because they love a legal challenge?

Maybe neither the US nor the UK want to have their hands dirty and want first to have Sweden convict Assange for rape so that the world doesn't see him as a martyr anymore, then they will ask for him to be extradited to the US while portraying him as an already convicted criminal.
And who says that it is much harder to have him extradited from Sweden? According to all public information Sweden extradites people even to dictatorial regimes like Libya and Egypt were in the past.

Anyway, the crux of the thread is that in the 21st century UK has sent the Ecuador's Embassy in London a letter to remind them that they can suspend their diplomatic immunity for virtually doing nothing wrong as per international law. The reasons for which this idiotic move has been made are rather obscure and are nicely smearing your country now when they were basking in the Olympic lights. Well done.

[janvanvurpa]

Ioan, the insane Right wing exrtRemists paRty leadeRs have not just called for extRadition, they have used code words that theiR fanatical "CornseRvative base" undeRstands well. They have called foR him to "be hunted down like Osama" and "tRied foR High TReason". Since they are mostly personal cowards, and almost none have any respect for laws (or contracts), they wil not talk like humans, its always veiled, ominous allusions. They advocate murdering him short and simple.. They do this and then go to their churches with perfectly clear consciousness because the know the one and only God, which ever one that is, is on their side, so if their God wills it, it's alright.

I really should say more but I think you can figure out which party it is.

The Moderator above wrote:

The formal communications to Ecuador stating that under certain circumstances they might revoke the embassy's diplomatic privelege and to say that they might forcefully remove Assange does not necessarily mean that Britain would actually do so, it is more a means of letting the government of Ecuador know that they take a dim view of granting him asylum. In reality, the rights or wrongs of the Swedish allegation are totally irrelevant.

Come on be real, it was a thinly tarted up threat and everybody can see it.
And your logic at the bottom implies
It doesn't matter what regime where ever with or without a legal system, if any bureaucrat anywhere in the world for whatever reason wants to get theri hands on a person in Britain, the system, the place, the consequences are all totally irrelevant. All a bureaucrat needs to to is snap their fingers and britain will jump to with the full force of the Government and whatever forces needed..

Nice place to live. I call this place Fortress America™.. If you logic is true, maybe you should move to rename your formerly fair Isles "Festung GrossBritanien"" oder was?

[janvanvurpa]

Hmmm, the executive branch, which has control over all diplomatic functions, is controlled by a Democratic President, a Democratic Secretary of State, and a Democratic Department of Justice Secretary. I didn't know you thought them so despicable. I'm really surprised. Are you a closet right winger?

Of course not. Right-wing/conservatism is a mental illness, a mild form of paranoia and mild to great megalomania, and acute authoritarian behavior. I am none of those thing. The entire political spectrum has been distorted in USA. Bubba Clinto and Barak are far to the right of traditional Righties figures like Nixon or even Willard Romneys old dad....

The moral cowards making the code word threats of death and execution were all, well you know who they are and what letter is by their names.

[janvanvurpa]

. It is refreshing to find many here beating up on the Brits and Swedes for dumb government actions instead of just the US. I guess we're not the only ones with idiots in positions of power.

No it's normal for normal people to be appalled at the idiocy of bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats are bureaucrats, same everywhere, and totally interchangeable...and their brains damaged or brains atrophied, who can say.

But what you purposely pretending to ignore is the it was R who where calling for "Hunt him down like Osama" and "Try him for Treason were not mindless bureaucrats, it was Republican Congressmen and Senators..

[Zico]

Interesting article-

'Once your leader has been compared to a Bond villain, you might as well go all the way, right? A few months back, Wikileaks released a giant file that's been referred to as the "thermonuclear" option, should the organization's existence be threatened: A huge compendium of some of the most damaging secrets Wikileaks has collected, protected with an intense brand of secure encryption--for use as insurance. With Assange now in police custody on sex crimes charges, the "poison pill" is on everyone's mind.

The pill in question is a 1.4GB file, circulated by BitTorrent. It's been downloaded tens of thousands of times, no mean feat for what, at the moment, is a giant file with absolutely no use whatsoever. It's waiting on the hard drives of curious Torrenters, Wikileaks supporters, and (you can bet) government agents worldwide, awaiting the password that'll open the file to all. Although no one is sure of its contents, the file is speculated to contain the full, un-redacted documents collected by the organization to date (including, some are guessing, new documents on Guantanamo Bay or regarding the financial crisis). It has yet to be cracked, at least not publicly, though there is a hefty amount of activity from those trying, at least a little, to break into it before Assange releases the key.'

Cont... - How Secure Is Julian Assange's "Thermonuclear" Insurance File? | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-12/how-secure-julian-assanges-thermonuclear-insurance-file)



Im guessing JA's 1.5GB AES encrypted insurance file doesn't really offer him that much protection if he feels the need to also seek political asylum. ;)

[ioan]

I guess we're not the only ones with idiots in positions of power.

Nope, it's a globalized phenomenon.

[ioan]

Interesting article-

'Once your leader has been compared to a Bond villain, you might as well go all the way, right? A few months back, Wikileaks released a giant file that's been referred to as the "thermonuclear" option, should the organization's existence be threatened: A huge compendium of some of the most damaging secrets Wikileaks has collected, protected with an intense brand of secure encryption--for use as insurance. With Assange now in police custody on sex crimes charges, the "poison pill" is on everyone's mind.

The pill in question is a 1.4GB file, circulated by BitTorrent. It's been downloaded tens of thousands of times, no mean feat for what, at the moment, is a giant file with absolutely no use whatsoever. It's waiting on the hard drives of curious Torrenters, Wikileaks supporters, and (you can bet) government agents worldwide, awaiting the password that'll open the file to all. Although no one is sure of its contents, the file is speculated to contain the full, un-redacted documents collected by the organization to date (including, some are guessing, new documents on Guantanamo Bay or regarding the financial crisis). It has yet to be cracked, at least not publicly, though there is a hefty amount of activity from those trying, at least a little, to break into it before Assange releases the key.'

Cont... - How Secure Is Julian Assange's "Thermonuclear" Insurance File? | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-12/how-secure-julian-assanges-thermonuclear-insurance-file)



Im guessing JA's 1.5GB AES encrypted insurance file doesn't really offer him that much protection if he feels the need to also seek political asylum. ;)

If there is info about most of the powerful governments out there then it is of little use as they will not bother to point fingers to each other and the small ones no one cares about anyway as they are in the back pocket of one or the other of the big guys.

The only chance for that file to be of influence is if the masses get it and react in an unprecedented way since the French revolution, which will also not happen with the dumbed down masses of today.

[Malbec]

Maybe English is not your first language, it isn't mine either so I'll reformulate: what exactly has Ecuador to do with UK's decision and as such self imposed obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden?!

You have an utterly bizarre understanding of international relations.

If a country that you have an extradition agreement with (UK and Sweden) asks you to extradite a person you are obliged to do so if you believe the request meets the agreed criteria. Britain didn't SELF IMPOSE the obligation to extradite Assange.... The UK gave Assange the legal right to challenge the extradition. Or do you think Britain should have disregarded some of its treaty obligations but not others because of what you believe?


Who said they did raid the embassy? Or are you reading between the lines now? Please be consistent.

Errr read what I said again. You keep saying that Britain has threatened to raid the embassy, that this is a clear part of British policy. I asked you to clarify how this can be so, what is the timeframe for Britain to raid the embassy if Ecuador doesn't comply.


And who says that it is much harder to have him extradited from Sweden? According to all public information Sweden extradites people even to dictatorial regimes like Libya and Egypt were in the past.

How many times do I have to repeat the British Extradition treaty 2003 signed with the US? Google it and tell me that its harder to extradite to America from Sweden than Britain with a straight face.

Woah, Sweden extradited some people to Egypt (not Libya, get your facts right). Britain has of course never extradited people to places like that, never! Really? How naive are you?

[Malbec]

It doesn't matter what regime where ever with or without a legal system, if any bureaucrat anywhere in the world for whatever reason wants to get theri hands on a person in Britain, the system, the place, the consequences are all totally irrelevant. All a bureaucrat needs to to is snap their fingers and britain will jump to with the full force of the Government and whatever forces needed..

No not any bureaucrat anywhere in the world, merely the US government.

But the fact that many people still cling to this "Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden because the Yanks will get their mitts on him if he does" theory indicates that they are ignorant of our very special extradition agreement with the US.

[ioan]

You have an utterly bizarre understanding of international relations.

And you have a bizarre understanding of a country's rights in international relations.



If a country that you have an extradition agreement with (UK and Sweden) asks you to extradite a person you are obliged to do so if you believe the request meets the agreed criteria.

So does the request meet the criteria? Not sure about that.



Britain didn't SELF IMPOSE the obligation to extradite Assange.... The UK gave Assange the legal right to challenge the extradition. Or do you think Britain should have disregarded some of its treaty obligations but not others because of what you believe?

So the criteria to be extradited to the Sweden have been met? On what basis then?



Errr read what I said again. You keep saying that Britain has threatened to raid the embassy, that this is a clear part of British policy. I asked you to clarify how this can be so, what is the timeframe for Britain to raid the embassy if Ecuador doesn't comply.

There is nothing to re-read, you've lost the plot on this one.



How many times do I have to repeat the British Extradition treaty 2003 signed with the US? Google it and tell me that its harder to extradite to America from Sweden than Britain with a straight face.

So what are the conditions to have someone extradited from Sweden to the US?
You base your point on knowing only one half of the equation.




Woah, Sweden extradited some people to Egypt (not Libya, get your facts right). Britain has of course never extradited people to places like that, never! Really? How naive are you?

You're right it was the UK who extradited people to Libya, my mistake. So both are equally crap given that they extradited people into the clutches of dictators, yet the UK is sitting on it's high horse and condemning Ecuador for considering Assange's request. How fair.

[BleAivano]

more to read:


Daily Press Briefing - August 16, 2012 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm#ECUADOR)
US in pursuit of Assange, cables reveal (http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz23pSCtwru)
WikiLeaks Stratfor Emails: A Secret Indictment Against Julian Assange? | Michael Hastings | Politics News | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228)
Julian Assange asylum: Ecuador is right to stand up to the US | Mark Weisbrot | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador)
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/assanges-extradition-would-damage-the-us-relationship/story-fn558imw-1226452865507)
Ecuador Defies UK/US Pressure, Gives Assange Asylum (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=8709)
'Not even in Cold War (http://rt.com/news/assange-asylum-cold-war-883/)
Svenska journalister ljuger om Assange | Debatt | svt.se (http://debatt.svt.se/2012/08/17/svenska-journalister-ljuger-om-assange/)
The Global Intelligence Files - List of Releases (http://wikileaks.org/Stratfor-Emails-US-Has-Issued.html)
Interpol drops 'red notice' for dissident Benny Wenda; case was mainly 'political' - World News (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/06/13144025-interpol-drops-red-notice-for-dissident-benny-wenda-case-was-mainly-political?lite)

[Malbec]

So the criteria to be extradited to the Sweden have been met? On what basis then?

On the basis of two high court reviews in the UK, one of them an appeal by Assange with a full review of the evidence presented against Assange by a democratic European state and also a consideration of the likely punishment he'd receive there and whether they are broadly in line with that for a similar crime committed here. In essence he's had three reviews of the evidence against him for rape, once in Sweden by their judicial service and twice in the UK. If you have evidence showing that the rape allegations are totally false and trumped up stop wasting time on this forum and present it.

Essentially by saying that Britain brought this upon itself by voluntarily agreeing to extradite him (which is not the case) you're arguing that Britain should flout an international treaty, yet in the same breath you're attacking Britain for threatening to violate the Vienna agreement. I'm surprised you have to have this obvious contradiction pointed out to you.

Do you realise the implications of what you're saying?


So what are the conditions to have someone extradited from Sweden to the US?
You base your point on knowing only one half of the equation.

Read my posts before in this thread and that by bleivano.

Also do your own research ioan. You're not alone in being ignorant of the laws I refer to.

[BleAivano]

Annie Machon: The Assange Witch Hunt (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/annie-machon/the-assange-witch-hunt_b_1790851.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)

[janvanvurpa]

No not any bureaucrat anywhere in the world, merely the US government.

But the fact that many people still cling to this "Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden because the Yanks will get their mitts on him if he does" theory indicates that they are ignorant of our very special extradition agreement with the US.

I was responding to "Starters" comment
"In reality, the rights or wrongs of the Swedish allegation are totally irrelevant."

Like him or not, it seems Ah Sang---I love it that it's corrupted Cantonese---is a pretty astute person. If he is an astute person then in his brief stay in Sweden he will likely discovered something is screwy there, and if he is astute, then certainly in his contact with the Polis and ÅM he will have concluded what took me, being somewhat slower 5-6years there to discover, that there are many mildly menatlly ill or retarded people in the Polis and ÅklagarMydigheter and wants to avoid all all costs having his fate in the hands of mentally mal-developed, or simply stupid people.

Malbec, I don't know exactly how to convey this as you're a serious guy and although I am also, as I say ''I don't get paid enough to act serious''. I was an immigrant to Sweden. Work in industry as a machinist and later as welder, and of course mechanic. I moved there alone at 17 and of course even I knew that at 17 you should just shut up and keep your eyes open cause one doesn't know sheeeeut. But by late 20s I had become as subsumed into the society as much I ever was going to be (married, working, voting, etc) and came to the conclusion that (really) something was slightly askew with "everything". Now if "everything" is screwy, I reckoned it came from a basic early "logic" factor which then affected 'everything" subsequently.

And "everything" was slightly off. And amazingly consistent, everything was amazingly consistent...officially
Of course the locals also know that some things are flat screwy--for example a lawyer was caught speeding in his big BMW at over 200km/hr and argued down his penalty to a mere couple crowns by arguing that the big BMW car was perfectly safe at 200+ and that anyway there had been a lot of stress in his life and finally that he was sorry---this prompted letters to the editors of "Expressen" wondering broadly sarcastic but straight face "Is there a table somewhere showing just what fines a plasterer driving a 1.6 escort will get for...or a shopkeeper in a Volvo wagon with a 2.1 will be fined for...or a optician in a Saab...
Consistent talk, everything official totally and inexplicably random.
we lowly workers figured, only half in jest, that those on the other side of the desks and windows of city, county, state, stores, shops, businesses, were all somehow to a greater or lesser degree "otherwise unemployable" so we concluded "well it's better than them being on the dole or hanging around drunk in parks, or in rubber rooms."
In short many, specially those who had been socialised elesewhere, concluded Sweden was "an insane asylum with no doors, but instead, borders" Like an "alternate universe"..

It is interesting to note that some think tank on Stanford University in California (another alternate universe!!) maintained something they called "Democracy watch" of some such...In the I think the early 80s Sweden was removed from their list of democratic countries. They said--to the effect, it's been a while--"While all the mechanisms of a Democratic, free state are present including the right to unhindered travel, and a reasonably free press, a legal code guaranteeing liberties "an impenetrable bureaucracy and a random and unpredictable appeals sytem" effectively strips the citizen of the rights superficially present"

In my dealings with the police---as a victim---the JO, ordinary town or county bureaucrats in say housing, or health, many seemed seriously simply stupid and random..
We used to do a thing when calling any official office: if you got an answer you didn't like, hang up, wait a second call again and get a different voice on the phone, and do this until you got an acceptable answer and THEN get the name and the extension number. It worked.

This could be silly speculation but perhaps Ah-sang saw in his encounters with the authorities that they were idiots and for all he knows he could be charged with ANYTHING and be sentenced to ANYTHING ( I have seen it argued by legal "Experts" why it is reasonable to jail tax cheats for 8 years and first time murderers for just 5: A murderer kills one person only and usually never repeats the offense, a tax cheat cheats the whole country and the thoughts that led to cheating on tax, if allowed to go lightly punished, can destroy the entire society" totally at the whim of which ever fool was at the desk that day.

That's crazy talk. yet the person was employed by the government as a prosecutor.

Ah Sang didn't wrap his wiener, and in the words of one writer in the Swedish investigative blog wrote "And, as Assang did not upon waking immediately go on bended knee and beg the girl to marry him after their one night stand, then logically, 4 days later, it must have been rape."

This MIGHT be what Assange is fighting extradition for...

[D-Type]

Writing as a member of this forum and not as a moderator.

There may be some substance in what you say regarding the system in Sweden. I ahve no reason to doubt it.

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 repeat: this posting has nothing to do with my holding the role of moderator on the History forum.

[BleAivano]

Malbec, the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny says that she urgently have to get Assange to Sweden so question Him
Yet still she haven't done any effort in questioning him for two years now, despite that he offered himself to being questioned,
both when he was in Sweden and during his time in London. Marianne Ny refuses? Why?

I am pretty sure that Marianne Ny knows that she have to close the case after questioning but why is she and the UK
so very keen on getting him to Sweden when the EAW cause is questioning?

Also one of the two women, that visited the police to ask if they could force Assange to do a HIV test,
have still not signed the questioning protocol, she has changed her name and gone underground out of reach.
Why do you think she does not want to cooperate with the police and the prosecutor?
Simply because there is no case and the prosecutor knows it. So why is she still want him so badly?

Marianny Ny have also been involved in other cases before where she have taken cases to court without any kind of evidences.

AS JV says above Swedish media are not objective in anyway. They are the one that should do all the WikiLeaks digging.
They are the ones that should thoroughly and objectively take a deep dig regarding the case against Assange, the politicians and etc.
But do they? Nope they have decided already from the beginning that Assange is guilty no matter the outcome of this mess.

Swedish media is also hard controlled by their owners, the majority of the media is right wing affiliated which is why
people like the prime minister and the minister of foreign affairs. The latter one have lots of dirty buissnes going on but do media care? nope.
One of the women involved also have allot of connections/friends in media. Those people tend to protect each other.

http://justice4assange.com/Media-climate-in-Sweden.html


All this for just a questioning which the prosecutor refuses to do and therefore can't either prosecute him or close the case.

[BleAivano]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. government on Friday refused to recognize the diplomatic asylum that Ecuador granted
to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as the Organization of American States (OAS) is considering convening a meeting on the issue.

"The United States (http://search.news.cn/language/search.jspa?id=en&t1=0&t=1&ss=&btn=0&ct=Syria&n1=United+States&np=content) is not a party to the 1954 OAS Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognize the concept of diplomatic
asylum as a matter of international law," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland in a statement.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-08/18/c_131792840.htm



If they have no interest in Assange (according to themselves (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm#ECUADOR)) why do they bother to have a meeting
in which they decide that they do not acknowledge Assange's asylum?

[Dave B]

It's telling that Assange isn't so much worried about facing his accusers in Sweden, but justifiably concerned that the USA will get involved and incarcerate him, almost certainly illegally, for leaking confidential information. Bradley Manning's been in prison for what, two years now? He hasn't had a trial yet, and therefore is innocent until proven guilty, yet he languishes in jail without the chance to have his case heard. And that's nothing compared to some of the Guantanamo Bay residents.

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?

[Dave B]

"The United States (http://search.news.cn/language/search.jspa?id=en&t1=0&t=1&ss=&btn=0&ct=Syria&n1=United+States&np=content) is not a party to the 1954 OAS Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognize the concept of diplomatic
asylum as a matter of international law," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland in a statement.

I'm sure someone will be along before too long to also say the USA doesn't recognise the authority of the UN. Maybe said person could fly over to London and storm the embassy with his illegally held firearms which he has a right to carry :p

[janvanvurpa]

It's telling that Assange isn't so much worried about facing his accusers in Sweden, but justifiably concerned that the USA will get involved and incarcerate him, almost certainly illegally, for leaking confidential information. Bradley Manning's been in prison for what, two years now? He hasn't had a trial yet, and therefore is innocent until proven guilty, yet he languishes in jail without the chance to have his case heard. And that's nothing compared to some of the Guantanamo Bay residents.

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?

Wha! Why the outrage to even think of it!!! (borrowing a phrase used ad nauseaum by memebers of this forum before The War Against Terror was going to save the world from nuke-u-loor weapons of mass distraction) Make the whole gawd-dayum place into a glass parking lot! The next smoking gun you see might be a mushroom cloud!
So you're either for Freedom, or with the terr'ists.
Might Makes right.
Corporations are people too..

(How was that? Passable imitation? You gotta say it with a sneer and with an extremely nasalized voice)

[BleAivano]

It's telling that Assange isn't so much worried about facing his accusers in Sweden, but justifiably concerned that the USA will get involved and incarcerate him, almost certainly illegally, for leaking confidential information. Bradley Manning's been in prison for what, two years now? He hasn't had a trial yet, and therefore is innocent until proven guilty, yet he languishes in jail without the chance to have his case heard. And that's nothing compared to some of the Guantanamo Bay residents.

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?

They wouldn't have to worry if it was Iran. Since in that case Uncle Sam would make something up as an excuse to invade Iran.
China would me more problematic though.

[Rollo]

The US Bill of Rights doesn't apply to a citizen not of the United States and certainly if they're not even on US soil.
Since as we found during the Hick's case that the US doesn't recognize the UDHR, I guess asking these sorts of questions are irrelevant.

[janvanvurpa]

IUnfortunately, we've now had successive Presidents who, I guess, have never read our constitution - first Bush and now Obama.

At least George had a good excuse...he couldn't.

[janvanvurpa]

They wouldn't have to worry if it was Iran. Since in that case Uncle Sam would make something up as an excuse to invade Iran.
China would me more problematic though.
Hej pojken I am as anti-imperialist as any clear thinking man, so you know I am no fan of America's endless wars all over the world, but it seems it has finally dawned on many that we cannot afford to keep the war machine going when they actually are on operations and pour billions into big "Defense" contractor hands.. All reports are that the US war machine is worn out.

So little chance of any further invasions to bring Freedom™ and Democracy™ for American corporations to any more countries.

For a while (until the Republicans can invent some new threat). If we listen to the Republican new advertisements made by the 501(c) "special interest groups" supporting Willard Romney for President, they seem to believe that they're going to be shooting their fellow citizens pretty soon. Even as mentalt lat o slö they are, they probably won't think they can go somewhere else in the world to kill people when there is so many godless liberals here they need to kill. :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

It's telling that Assange isn't so much worried about facing his accusers in Sweden, but justifiably concerned that the USA will get involved and incarcerate him, almost certainly illegally, for leaking confidential information.

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.

[BDunnell]

True of course, which raises the question of why the US government would wish to prosecute, off shore of course, a non citizen who did nothing on US territory and whose only "crime" consisted of publishing things which someone else leaked? Makes me embarrassed for the air brains in our government.

Well, quite. And to do so now would attract such enormous attention and criticism that it would be deeply unwise. It is difficult, without any firm evidence either way, to come to a hard and fast judgment as to whether the rape accusations are in some way politically motivated; however, the same could not be said of any attempt by the US to put Assange on trial.

[BDunnell]

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?

Well, there is one very good reason, in that Assange was perfectly entitled to go and seek protection at a foreign embassy. As to what exchanges have taken place since then between him and the Ecuadorians, we don't know, but whether or not he decided to ask for asylum, or whether they suggested it to him, doesn't strike me as being especially significant. Now he's there, there he can — and has every right to, whether one likes it or not — remain.


Now consider the British government perspective. Why is Britain so concerned that it is exerting diplomatic pressure on Ecuador?

I'm not sure Britain is especially concerned. Yes, that letter was sent to the Ecuadorians, but I'm sure this must now be seen as a big mistake, and it's very unlikely that the 'threat' to enter the embassy will be carried through.

[BDunnell]

I don't see why such a letter would necessarily require political approval. The failure of either DC or William Hague to escalate this problem despite the media's best attempts to stir up a crisis back up that threatening to raid the embassy is not part of British government policy.

Say what you like about William Hague, but he's far from stupid. I should imagine — and would hope — that he was decidedly aggrieved when the letter was made public and he saw the contents. I can't think that he would have been privy to them prior to that.



One has to wonder though why noone has questioned whether it is right for Assange to claim asylum or for Ecuador to give it. Assange is not facing prosecution for his beliefs, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. He's being asked to face criminal charges (regardless of whether one agrees with the Swedish definition of rape). Since when has it become the norm for people to claim asylum to escape inconvenient criminal charges?

I can only assume that, since being in the embassy, he has managed somehow to convince the Ecuadorian authorities that he is the victim of political persecution. There is little other explanation.

[BDunnell]

The UK doesn't give a damn about Assange as it doesn't give a damn about any individual, and this is the same for most countries on Earth. However the image that the UK is trying to keep in the world is what is important and in the eyes of the world a case like that of Assange is so much more visible than that of many unknown individuals that have been extradited in the past without even a thought.

What is the point you are trying to make here? Despite the media frenzy, I don't think most people in the UK care especially what happens to Assange; therefore, any questions of 'public image' go out of the window.

[BDunnell]

Maybe they have low level correspondence about the electricity bill and other similar however they certainly will not send them a letter telling them that they can suspend their Embassy's immunity without consulting with higher levels. If however they did so then the cock up is even bigger then first thought.

Are you privy to the details, ioan? Otherwise, why the certainty?



So why the need to remind them and why now when there are no bases for it? Big colonialist regime bullying small ex colony country?!
As for your rubbish, there is no subtle difference in this case, maybe you forgot to read between the line. This is a high diplomatic affront up there with declaring the whole Embassy representatives as persona non grata and sending them home to Ecuador, for no real reason obviously.

Something which has never been threatened by a government minister, and has certainly not been followed through to any degree. Why get so worked up about it? Were it likely to happen, it would be worthy of your level of concern, but it's not going to, so it isn't.



And who says that it is much harder to have him extradited from Sweden? According to all public information Sweden extradites people even to dictatorial regimes like Libya and Egypt were in the past.

No, this is the case according to some sources, not 'all'. There is a significant difference.

[BDunnell]

And you have a bizarre understanding of a country's rights in international relations.

You're right it was the UK who extradited people to Libya, my mistake. So both are equally crap given that they extradited people into the clutches of dictators, yet the UK is sitting on it's high horse and condemning Ecuador for considering Assange's request. How fair.

ioan, I would find your attempts to discuss matters of international relations rather easier to stomach if you hadn't once, some time ago, sought to defend the reasons why Nicolai Ceaucescu was given a British honour, of which he was subsequently stripped. Given that your view as previously expressed was that Britain was fully justified in honouring Ceaucescu, forgive me, therefore, if I take your contributions on this topic with a pinch of salt.

[BDunnell]

On the basis of two high court reviews in the UK, one of them an appeal by Assange with a full review of the evidence presented against Assange by a democratic European state and also a consideration of the likely punishment he'd receive there and whether they are broadly in line with that for a similar crime committed here. In essence he's had three reviews of the evidence against him for rape, once in Sweden by their judicial service and twice in the UK. If you have evidence showing that the rape allegations are totally false and trumped up stop wasting time on this forum and present it.

Essentially by saying that Britain brought this upon itself by voluntarily agreeing to extradite him (which is not the case) you're arguing that Britain should flout an international treaty, yet in the same breath you're attacking Britain for threatening to violate the Vienna agreement. I'm surprised you have to have this obvious contradiction pointed out to you.

I'm not.

[BleAivano]

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.

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 (http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml)

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 (http://interpol.int/News-and-media/News-media-releases/2012/PR065).

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tfQcZAKyY4)
Julian Assange like a hi-tech terrorist, says Joe Biden | Media | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden)
Biden Makes Case For Assange As A 'High-Tech Terrorist' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/19/joe-biden-wikileaks-assange-high-tech-terrorist_n_798838.html)
Joe Biden Falsely Labels Julian Assange a High Tech Terrorist (http://www.politicususa.com/biden-assange-terrorist.html)
Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist' (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/joe-biden-calls-julian-assange-a-hitech-terrorist-20101220-1923y.html)
Assange is a 'hi-tech terrorist', says Biden - Americas - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/assange-is-a-hitech-terrorist-says-biden-2164988.html)

[ioan]

I wouldn't be very happy about it. I'm also not happy that my government conducts some of it's business that way. IMO it's a complete violation of our bill of rights. Unfortunately, we've now had successive Presidents who, I guess, have never read our constitution - first Bush and now Obama.

And it will not get any better, sadly.

[ioan]

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.

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

[ioan]

What is the point you are trying to make here? Despite the media frenzy, I don't think most people in the UK care especially what happens to Assange; therefore, any questions of 'public image' go out of the window.

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!

[ioan]

ioan, I would find your attempts to discuss matters of international relations rather easier to stomach if you hadn't once, some time ago, sought to defend the reasons why Nicolai Ceaucescu was given a British honour, of which he was subsequently stripped. Given that your view as previously expressed was that Britain was fully justified in honouring Ceaucescu, forgive me, therefore, if I take your contributions on this topic with a pinch of salt.

We discussed that long enough back then, and I see you understood bugger all of it.

[ioan]

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 (http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml)

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 (http://interpol.int/News-and-media/News-media-releases/2012/PR065).

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tfQcZAKyY4)
Julian Assange like a hi-tech terrorist, says Joe Biden | Media | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden)
Biden Makes Case For Assange As A 'High-Tech Terrorist' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/19/joe-biden-wikileaks-assange-high-tech-terrorist_n_798838.html)
Joe Biden Falsely Labels Julian Assange a High Tech Terrorist (http://www.politicususa.com/biden-assange-terrorist.html)
Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist' (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/joe-biden-calls-julian-assange-a-hitech-terrorist-20101220-1923y.html)
Assange is a 'hi-tech terrorist', says Biden - Americas - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/assange-is-a-hitech-terrorist-says-biden-2164988.html)

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

[BDunnell]

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?

[BDunnell]

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?

[BDunnell]

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?

[Malbec]

If they have no interest in Assange (according to themselves (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm#ECUADOR)) 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.

[Malbec]

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.

[Malbec]

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?

[Malbec]

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.

[Malbec]

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.

[BDunnell]

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.

[BDunnell]

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.

[BDunnell]

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.

[janvanvurpa]

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?

[janvanvurpa]

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''.

[ioan]

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?

[ioan]

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.

[ioan]

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.

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

OAS :: Member States : Permanent Representatives (http://www.oas.org/en/member_states/authorities.asp)

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.

[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.

[ioan]

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.

[ioan]

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

Exactly.

[ioan]

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.

And what are the criminal charges that Assange is facing on British soil?

[ioan]

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.

Really? Care to explain it to us how can consented sex be called rape? As you know it all I also look forward to see the wording of the law that you are talking about and on which you base your claim.

[ioan]

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?

Assange works for Putin?
Any proof that you might show us to such ludicrous claims or did you use some kind of circular logic to get to that conclusion?

[Malbec]

Assange works for Putin?
Any proof that you might show us to such ludicrous claims or did you use some kind of circular logic to get to that conclusion?

Ludicrous? Really?

Assange works for Russia Today TV. Thats how he got to interview the president of Ecuador and asked him if he could claim asylum there.

Russia Today TV is funded by the Russian state. Guess who is head of state there?

[ioan]

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

All of this has been in the open for 2 years now and both women have made it clear that they had consented sex with Assange.
An example of many:

Assange et "l'affaire du préservatif" - Europe1.fr - International (http://www.europe1.fr/International/Assange-et-l-affaire-du-preservatif-328317/)

Sorry for the French article but I wanted to cite from a news agency that is not English, nor Swedish for the sake of objectivity.

[ioan]

Ludicrous? Really?

Assange works for Russia Today TV. Thats how he got to interview the president of Ecuador and asked him if he could claim asylum there.

Russia Today TV is funded by the Russian state. Guess who is head of state there?

Your proof is puerile. Just the circular logic as I thought that it will be.
There's a bunch of people working for Russia Today but that doesn't mean their are working for Putin any more than working for a US news agency would mean that said people work for Obama, or worked for Bush years ago.

Next you will tell us that WikiLeaks is also Putin sponsored and thus you feel they a are a threat to your freedom! :rolleyes:

[Malbec]

Really? Care to explain it to us how can consented sex be called rape? As you know it all I also look forward to see the wording of the law that you are talking about and on which you base your claim.

You might find my explanation difficult because it isn't black and white.

Depending on the country a woman can retract the consent she gave, or it can be recognised that she wasn't able to give informed consent because her thought processes were impaired even though she said yes.

A woman drunk out of her mind might be able to say 'yes' to sex but a court may or may not recognise that as consent depending on the circumstances.

In some countries a woman may retract her consent if it turns out she was seduced under false pretences even if she was fully up for it at the time. You may recall that in Israel a woman who slept with a guy she met only ten minutes before had him successfully jailed for rape. Even though she admitted she started the whole affair she claimed she only did so because she thought he was Jewish. Afterwards she found he was Arab and therefore retracted her consent.

From what I understand the accusation made by the Swedish girls falls in the second group, they retracted their consent since they found out new information after they'd been in bed with him which would have altered their decision to sleep with him.

I don't particularly agree with that interpretation of rape law but the fact is that in at least Sweden and Israel those interpretations exist with legal precedents set.

Anything else?

[Malbec]

Your proof is puerile.
There's a bunch of people working for Russia Today but that doesn't mean their are working for Putin any more than working for a US news agency would mean that said people work for Obama, or worked for Bush years ago.

Surely you cannot be this ignorant.

There is no US federally owned news agency. Russia Today is meanwhile state owned and funded and its news line closely follows Russian government guidelines. It is as close to a Russian government mouthpiece as you can get. I'm sorry that this is inconvenient for you.

[ioan]

You might find my explanation difficult because it isn't black and white.

Depending on the country a woman can retract the consent she gave, or it can be recognised that she wasn't able to give informed consent because her thought processes were impaired even though she said yes.

A woman drunk out of her mind might be able to say 'yes' to sex but a court may or may not recognise that as consent depending on the circumstances.

In some countries a woman may retract her consent if it turns out she was seduced under false pretences even if she was fully up for it at the time. You may recall that in Israel a woman who slept with a guy she met only ten minutes before had him successfully jailed for rape. Even though she admitted she started the whole affair she claimed she only did so because she thought he was Jewish. Afterwards she found he was Arab and therefore retracted her consent.

From what I understand the accusation made by the Swedish girls falls in the second group, they retracted their consent since they found out new information after they'd been in bed with him which would have altered their decision to sleep with him.

I don't particularly agree with that interpretation of rape law but the fact is that in at least Sweden and Israel those interpretations exist with legal precedents set.

Anything else?

The funniest part of it being that none of the women retracted any consent, they just wanted an STD test.
Two prosecutors decided there is nothing about rape in this case, until a 3rd is trying to turn it into a case of rape but didn't yet cause she ain't got he proof nor the balls, pun intended, to leave Sweden to question Assange.


Just a small excerpt from the article that I mentioned above:
Assange et "l'affaire du préservatif" - Europe1.fr - International (http://www.europe1.fr/International/Assange-et-l-affaire-du-preservatif-328317/)



Une magistrate militante

L&#8217]Pour deux premiers procureurs, les faits ne justifient pas la qualification de viol, mais uniquement de "sexe par surprise", un délit passible en Suède de 5.000 couronnes, soit 546 euros. Mais pour une troisième, Marianne Ny, cela ne fait aucun doute. Car la magistrate milite pour une réforme des lois suédoises sur le viol, et notamment l’extension au refus de porter un préservatif.[/B]

C’est sur cette base que Marianne Ny a relancé l’enquête pour viol et agression sexuelle et lancé un mandat d’arrêt international sur ces qualifications. Qui font peser sur Julian Assange une peine potentielle de quatre ans de prison.

The bolded part explains what the case is according to Swedish law and that according to the first 2 prosecutors it amounts to a fine of 546 Euros in the worst case. It also explains that Mrs. Ny has been pushing to change the law such that not using a condom would be considered rape, however this was not the case at the time when the article was written and as such it wouldn't apply to Assange's case.

So in 1 post I gave you more info about the case and about what the law says in Sweden then you were able to give me despite all your claims to know the laws.
Cheers!

[ioan]

Surely you cannot be this ignorant.

Ofcourse not, but it looks like you can be.

[Malbec]

The funniest part of it being that none of the women retracted any consent, they just wanted an STD test.
Two prosecutors decided there is nothing about rape in this case, until a 3rd is trying to turn it into a case of rape but didn't yet cause she ain't got he proof nor the balls, pun intended, to leave Sweden to question Assange.


Just a small excerpt from the article that I mentioned above:
Assange et "l'affaire du préservatif" - Europe1.fr - International (http://www.europe1.fr/International/Assange-et-l-affaire-du-preservatif-328317/)

The bolded part explains what the case is according to Swedish law and that according to the first 2 prosecutors it amounts to a fine of 546 Euros in the worst case. It also explains that Mrs. Ny has been pushing to change the law such that not using a condom would be considered rape, however this was not the case at the time when the article was written and as such it wouldn't apply to Assange's case.

So in 1 post I gave you more info about the case and about what the law says in Sweden then you were able to give me despite all your claims to know the laws.
Cheers!

The initial complaint by the two women was indeed regarding an HIV test. The current Swedish investigation is about far more complicated and serious rape allegations than that. Don't you think if Assange could have fobbed off this entire situation with an HIV test he'd have already submitted to it?

[Malbec]

And what are the criminal charges that Assange is facing on British soil?

Actually the sentence you're quoting means foreign powers giving asylum on British soil, not crimes committed on British soil.

However by leaving the UK technically by claiming asylum at an embassy he broke the terms of his bail and while that isn't on its own a crime the police are then obliged to arrest him for any hearings he has to attend.

[janvanvurpa]

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

OAS :: Member States : Permanent Representatives (http://www.oas.org/en/member_states/authorities.asp)

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.


Oi! Muchachito (or are you a muchachita?) My cousins and brothers just South of the Rio Grande are also considered North Americanos..it's called Estado Unidos de Mexico, sounds similar to Estados Unidos de America..That is why I sometimes say "United Statesians" because my countrymen forget that we're neighbors.

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Belize, Panama are called Central Americanos, and then 10km from where my dear mamsita grew up is the Colombian border, and that's were---to those who live or come from there ---South America starts.

Claro?

EDIT Starter beat me to it---I am making lunch for my little niñas Annoushka and Ninotchka

[BDunnell]

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

The extent to which you feel able to comment with certainty on a matter about which you have merely read a few articles on the internet is remarkable.

[BDunnell]

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.

So, because Inspector Ioan has investigated and found Assange not guilty on the grounds that some online sources say he's not, the case should not be bothered with? Any other high-profile rape cases you feel should also be dropped, or just this one?

[BDunnell]

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.

Yes, I do believe that my attitude to this is perfectly acceptable, in that I tend to believe that rape allegations should be investigated, and that conspiracy theorists be dismissed. Leaving aside the rape case, I am somewhat equivocal towards Wikileaks. I do not believe it poses a particular danger to anyone, and I am much in favour of much greater official openness. However, nor is it worth creating a huge fuss over. Assange strikes me as very much a self-proclaimed champion of openness — his statements regarding respectable sections of the British media who have dared to be even slightly critical of him and his organisation border on the paranoid and bizarre, as you would know if you had read anything about Assange that doesn't fit in with your pre-ordained views — and much of what Wikileaks has released is little more than gossip and tittle-tattle. If people wish to see him as some sort of deity, that's up to them, but those who refuse to join in shouldn't be accused of being against freedom of speech.

[BDunnell]

The initial complaint by the two women was indeed regarding an HIV test. The current Swedish investigation is about far more complicated and serious rape allegations than that. Don't you think if Assange could have fobbed off this entire situation with an HIV test he'd have already submitted to it?

Exactly. Cue the sound of some furious Googling in ioan's house as he seeks to find some more 'proof'. If I had such confidence in such evidence, I would present it to the authorities rather than disseminating it to other people on an internet forum.

[ioan]

The initial complaint by the two women was indeed regarding an HIV test. The current Swedish investigation is about far more complicated and serious rape allegations than that. Don't you think if Assange could have fobbed off this entire situation with an HIV test he'd have already submitted to it?

So you hose to ignore the part about what the first two prosecutors said about the case!
Thanks for showing that you are totally partial against Assange, and implicitly Putin! :D

[ioan]

Exactly. Cue the sound of some furious Googling in ioan's house as he seeks to find some more 'proof'. If I had such confidence in such evidence, I would present it to the authorities rather than disseminating it to other people on an internet forum.

I am yet to see any of you or malbec give us some details such as I did. You just keep blowing warm air and ideas made up from some circular logic, typical of you.

[ioan]

The initial complaint by the two women was indeed regarding an HIV test. The current Swedish investigation is about far more complicated and serious rape allegations than that. Don't you think if Assange could have fobbed off this entire situation with an HIV test he'd have already submitted to it?

Sorry, my mistake.

[ioan]

Actually the sentence you're quoting means foreign powers giving asylum on British soil, not crimes committed on British soil.

However by leaving the UK technically by claiming asylum at an embassy he broke the terms of his bail and while that isn't on its own a crime the police are then obliged to arrest him for any hearings he has to attend.

Good luck arresting him without braking the international law, now that he has got diplomatic asylum. We'll see if the UK is better or worse then China when it comes to respecting people's rights.

[ioan]

Oi! Muchachito (or are you a muchachita?) My cousins and brothers just South of the Rio Grande are also considered North Americanos..it's called Estado Unidos de Mexico, sounds similar to Estados Unidos de America..That is why I sometimes say "United Statesians" because my countrymen forget that we're neighbors.

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Belize, Panama are called Central Americanos, and then 10km from where my dear mamsita grew up is the Colombian border, and that's were---to those who live or come from there ---South America starts.

Claro?

EDIT Starter beat me to it---I am making lunch for my little niñas Annoushka and Ninotchka

Sure, just that there is no Central American continent, only North and South.

[BDunnell]

Good luck arresting him without braking the international law, now that he has got diplomatic asylum. We'll see if the UK is better or worse then China when it comes to respecting people's rights.

Why do you think he deserves to be granted asylum over and above anyone else who turns up at an embassy while facing criminal prosecution?

[ioan]

Yes, I do believe that my attitude to this is perfectly acceptable, in that I tend to believe that rape allegations should be investigated, and that conspiracy theorists be dismissed.

Then maybe you want to ask the Swedish Police and prosecutors why didn't they investigate while Assange was in Sweden, for a full month.

[ioan]

Why do you think he deserves to be granted asylum over and above anyone else who turns up at an embassy while facing criminal prosecution?

I hate repeating myself so I'll kindly ask you to re-read the thread.
On a side not most important in this case is that Ecuador decided that he had the right to be granted asylum.
A couple of years ago there was an article about the US telling the Swiss that they shouldn't consider granting Assange asylum. Funny how the US always makes sure things do not go a democratic way and other countries shall do as they say. Looking forward to you saying that they are right!

[BDunnell]

I am yet to see any of you or malbec give us some details such as I did. You just keep blowing warm air and ideas made up from some circular logic, typical of you.

This was a thread devoid of insults between those posting in it until you came along, it ought to be noted. If you believe Assange to be someone worthy of such a fuss, so be it, but don't expect everyone to agree; beyond that, don't expect those of us who think this way to take accusations of being against freedom of speech just because we may be critical of him. It's as if you and others see Assange as its ultimate defender. I have news for you — he really isn't. What he is is a supreme self-publicist, and, in my view, an increasingly deluded one.

[BDunnell]

Then maybe you want to ask the Swedish Police and prosecutors why didn't they investigate while Assange was in Sweden, for a full month.

It is a reasonable question. But I don't see it as evidence of anything, other than maybe incompetence, until further evidence — as opposed to the odd web link — is presented to the contrary. Sorry to be old-fashioned in wanting facts rather than heresay or guesswork.

[BDunnell]

On a side not most important in this case is that Ecuador decided that he had the right to be granted asylum.

Well, in the 1980s various countries decided that they had the right to give diplomatic passports to members of various terrorist organisations. It was, essentially, their prerogative so to do. Would you accept that on similar grounds?

[BDunnell]

A couple of years ago there was an article about the US telling the Swiss that they shouldn't consider granting Assange asylum. Funny how the US always makes sure things do not go a democratic way and other countries shall do as they say. Looking forward to you saying that they are right!

Ah, yes, of course — I criticise Assange, therefore I must be supportive of all the US government does. That's pretty much your line of reasoning here.

[BDunnell]

I assume those here who are desperate to support Assange have no problem with one of his accusers being named on live television, as has just happened in the UK? Freedom of speech and all that?

[janvanvurpa]

I assume those here who are desperate to support Assange have no problem with one of his accusers being named on live television, as has just happened in the UK? Freedom of speech and all that?

Is your complaint about Anna ardinäs name being made public directed at the Police or ÅM or the Swedish tabloids?

I'm not interested in the person Assange, but rather the way the idiotic and seriously illegal way the Swedish Police and Åklagarmyndigheten has screwed with the process..
Seriously doen't it bother you to know that the wimmin called to ask if there was a way to get HIM to take a STD test (no word if they thought maybe they themselves could take an STD test--its free and easy and confidential, Nooooooo! They call the Polis to see if the Cops can force HIM to. Logic at it's most polished) and instantly an arrest warrant is issued?
AND it's splashed in the most popular evening paper in the Country-----in violation of Swedish law which explicitly says that the mere accusation is has such potential to damage reputations that the accused has a right to privacy-----until they have completed their ''utredning''.. Of course most officials never complete the process..

Warrant issued, dropped, cursory efforts to question, and then a Europe wide warrant ''to question''..

I have no idea what those idiots are up to but I do see one individual getting railroaded around by State power, charterer assassination, idle chit chat amongst acquaintances labeled ''witnesses''..

Rum, the entire thing rum, just like every time I've ever seen the workings of the Polis and ÅM...
They make the Keystone Cops look like a gruelling well oil relentless machine.

Have you ever seen the clips from that wonderful little movie made by Josef Fares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Fares)?

It took perhaps an immigrant to see more clearly than locals the real truth about life in a small Swedish town and it is the best rendering of what I knew from the 8 years of travelling from one end of that long skinny country.
Search You Tube ''Kopps''..




And Polis and even the PM saying he should come and ''take his punishment''. doesnät that bother you..

[ioan]

This was a thread devoid of insults between those posting in it until you came along, it ought to be noted.

Get of your high horse and re read it, malbesc started the veild 'a propos'. Oh, and you are just a bully and a troll as you failed to bring anything to the discussion but personal comments towards me and non founded accusations towards Assange.

[ioan]

Is your complaint about Anna ardinäs name being made public directed at the Police or ÅM or the Swedish tabloids?

I'm not interested in the person Assange, but rather the way the idiotic and seriously illegal way the Swedish Police and Åklagarmyndigheten has screwed with the process..
Seriously doen't it bother you to know that the wimmin called to ask if there was a way to get HIM to take a STD test (no word if they thought maybe they themselves could take an STD test--its free and easy and confidential, Nooooooo! They call the Polis to see if the Cops can force HIM to. Logic at it's most polished) and instantly an arrest warrant is issued?
AND it's splashed in the most popular evening paper in the Country-----in violation of Swedish law which explicitly says that the mere accusation is has such potential to damage reputations that the accused has a right to privacy-----until they have completed their ''utredning''.. Of course most officials never complete the process..

Warrant issued, dropped, cursory efforts to question, and then a Europe wide warrant ''to question''..

I have no idea what those idiots are up to but I do see one individual getting railroaded around by State power, charterer assassination, idle chit chat amongst acquaintances labeled ''witnesses''..

Rum, the entire thing rum, just like every time I've ever seen the workings of the Polis and ÅM...
They make the Keystone Cops look like a gruelling well oil relentless machine.

Have you ever seen the clips from that wonderful little movie made by Josef Fares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Fares)?

It took perhaps an immigrant to see more clearly than locals the real truth about life in a small Swedish town and it is the best rendering of what I knew from the 8 years of travelling from one end of that long skinny country.
Search You Tube ''Kopps''..




And Polis and even the PM saying he should come and ''take his punishment''. doesnät that bother you..


It is obviously a farce and if BDunnell thinks that Mrs Ny is in it for the truth and justice then he's totally lost cause she's using this case just to make herself a name.

I am more curious to know why BDunell and malbec want Assange behind bars with his reputation destroyed? Why do they feel threatened by someone who wants to make our society more transparent and denounces some of the worst human rights infringements? Is it the fear of a change, in better, taking over?!

[ioan]

Ah, yes, of course — I criticise Assange, therefore I must be supportive of all the US government does. That's pretty much your line of reasoning here.

And you are slowly proving me right, unless you deny it, which you didn't do.

[ioan]

It is a reasonable question. But I don't see it as evidence of anything, other than maybe incompetence, until further evidence — as opposed to the odd web link — is presented to the contrary. Sorry to be old-fashioned in wanting facts rather than heresay or guesswork.

That's the problem, it is a proof of people doing a very bad job and I wouldn't want either to put myself in the hands of people who are doing a crap job when it is about going to jail if they make a total mess of it.
But then again you see only what you want and you never think how nice it would be if you would be chased around Europe instead of Assange based on unfounded allegations.
The system is obviously sick yet everyone bothers with the symptoms instead of trying to analyze what causes this situation.

[Malbec]

I am more curious to know why BDunell and malbec want Assange behind bars with his reputation destroyed?

Assange's reputation is already destroyed but not because of this rape allegation, more to do with his rather fragile ego and inability to deal with any sort of criticism.

However I have a quaint notion where I do think that modern civilised society relies on criminal acts being investigated and prosecuted regardless of who the accused may be. I don't care if the accused is the devil or Jesus Christ himself, they should all be equal before the law.

What surprises me is how trivial you think rape is.

[Malbec]

That's the problem, it is a proof of people doing a very bad job and I wouldn't want either to put myself in the hands of people who are doing a crap job when it is about going to jail if they make a total mess of it.

If the charges are that flimsy (which is doubtful since its passed a high court and supreme court review in the UK) then he'll have no trouble whatsoever proving his innocence in court. Why doesn't he? With the eyes of the world on them the Swedes are not going to do anything dodgy.

[donKey jote]

someone who wants to make our society more transparent
Assange isn't quite the Mr Transparency you seem to think he is, and as for Correa et al... :laugh:

[D-Type]

Can somebody explain to me why Ecuador, of all countries, should offer help to Assaye? Surely it has nothing to do with their view on the Swedish laws of rape or how they enforce them.

(Again I'm posting as a forum member and not as a moderator)

[ioan]

Assange's reputation is already destroyed but not because of this rape allegation, more to do with his rather fragile ego and inability to deal with any sort of criticism.

However I have a quaint notion where I do think that modern civilised society relies on criminal acts being investigated and prosecuted regardless of who the accused may be. I don't care if the accused is the devil or Jesus Christ himself, they should all be equal before the law.

What surprises me is how trivial you think rape is.

Rape is not trivial, when there is rape, which in this case isn't. So...

[ioan]

Assange isn't quite the Mr Transparency you seem to think he is, and as for Correa et al... :laugh:

He put more info about governments wrongdoings in front of us then anyone else to date, so he's the best we've got.
It's a good start and has to be supported not spit on.

People born in western 'democracies' seem to bow to the Patriot Act an similar freedom limiting rules.
People born in dictatorships are not willing to go back to dictatorship.
The conclusion is that people who got democratic rights since their birth are unable to appreciate those rights. Rather sad!

[ioan]

If the charges are that flimsy (which is doubtful since its passed a high court and supreme court review in the UK) then he'll have no trouble whatsoever proving his innocence in court. Why doesn't he? With the eyes of the world on them the Swedes are not going to do anything dodgy.

Maybe it means that the UK court is not much better either? Or is that out of question because it's the UK?

[BDunnell]

He put more info about governments wrongdoings in front of us then anyone else to date, so he's the best we've got.
It's a good start and has to be supported not spit on.

People born in western 'democracies' seem to bow to the Patriot Act an similar freedom limiting rules.
People born in dictatorships are not willing to go back to dictatorship.
The conclusion is that people who got democratic rights since their birth are unable to appreciate those rights. Rather sad!

For starters, ioan, try reading what Assange sent to the British magazine 'Private Eye', a publication renowned for its investigative exposes, when it (legitimately) criticised him. His ramblings were those of a deeply paranoid, egotistical man, and certainly not one I believe ought to be held up as some sort of messiah when it comes to freedom of speech. He is in no sense 'the best we've got' — what you mean is 'He's the best I've heard of'.

[BDunnell]

Rape is not trivial, when there is rape, which in this case isn't. So...

ioan, again I ask — how do you know? The case has not been properly investigated. Your 'investigations' consist of reading a few articles and nothing more.

[BDunnell]

But then again you see only what you want

Do you have the slightest notion as to why statements like that make you appear at best foolish and at worst laughable?

[BDunnell]

I am more curious to know why BDunell and malbec want Assange behind bars with his reputation destroyed? Why do they feel threatened by someone who wants to make our society more transparent and denounces some of the worst human rights infringements? Is it the fear of a change, in better, taking over?!

ioan, find any comment of mine in this thread where I have said I want him behind bars. You won't be able to, because nowhere have I said that. Stop putting words into my mouth. What I have said is that I believe the rape allegations should be properly investigated by the relevant authorities, and that I don't subscribe to the worship of Assange that one sees in some quarters. For you to think that this equates to me wishing to see him jailed is just about the most idiotic statement you have ever made on these forums, and one for which I feel you should apologise.

[BDunnell]

And Polis and even the PM saying he should come and ''take his punishment''. doesnät that bother you..

Not especially, no, because I'm not a conspiracy theorist. No matter what one's views are on the sexual assault laws in Sweden, I also find your attitude rather troubling — where do you draw the line in terms of what should and shouldn't be investigated by the Swedish police?

[janvanvurpa]

If the charges are that flimsy (which is doubtful since its passed a high court and supreme court review in the UK) then he'll have no trouble whatsoever proving his innocence in court. Why doesn't he? With the eyes of the world on them the Swedes are not going to do anything dodgy.

Malbec. slow down, you are ahead of the facts. Currently or since whenever, there ARE NO CHARGES. The Europe wide arrest warrant by the seemingly insane Procecutor is for questioning.. and, as we have seen, that alone can mean indefinite detention while the idiot Polis and ÅM putter around jerking off, gossipping and being generally like they are:useless.

Malbec, you know that in modern academic world in anthropology especially cultural anthropology, there is huge emphasis for the anthropologist to go and submerge themselves thoroughly in the culture they are studying for a number of reasons, one being minimizing the disturbing effect of an ''authority'' questioning the others, another being to have an insight of the social situation in which the subjects are submerged themselves. I am familiar with this process not from studying anthropology rather from the long beautiful, crazy 3 year love affair I had with a pretty professor of Anthropology here----now in Canada. It was a very deep relationship in every way including helping her edit, read papers from students and even reading books she was anticipating using in her classes and discussing their appropriateness--or not.,. At one point she asked when we were talking about some aspect of her work,, ''How do you do it?'', I asked ''do what?''
She said ''You seem to have the ability to simultaneously think and see a very broad view and same time focus and explain an extremely narrow, detail view, seemingly without effort, something I took years of study to develop the skill''
I said that comes from having been ''the other'' for a whole life including here in the US.

The point of that above is that sometimes one cannot begin to understand an isolated action in a foreign cultural in an isolated way and from only translations or analysis of others words who are also unversed in all things of a particular foreign culture.

I am saying in this context that Sweden is a very very odd place once you get to know it. There are the familiar institutions we are used in in civilised countries, and they do a very good job at some things, but there are truly odd beliefs at odds with reality and with logic at it is know in Western Europe. We see it in the way their courts have politically appointed laymen acting as judges with virtually no training (a simple brochure and a few hour lecture on law), and now in reviewing this thing on Swedish language sources (newspapers, blogs, investigative journalism in print or on Swedish TV) I see that a trend clearly determinable when i was there has grown and mutated and has made the whole place even crazier. That thing is a confluence of extreme ''radical feminism'' when combined with the small population and the Parliamentary system there..
In other words the role one narrow group can have on a society when that one group, highly narrowly academic and theoretical, can get funding from political parties, and get INTO the parties and influence policy, and thus law. Particularly in a generally apathetic populace...
Add to that the rise in bizarre religious beliefs in the lat 30 years there, and the accompanying belief in large invisible forces.

I don't know if I can find the links but I looked at roughly 30 minus of a 2 hour documentary on radical feminist conspiracy theory mongers....and listened to totally insane ''leaders'' of a large nationwide NGO and city bureaucrats describe with a totally straight face virtually verbatim boilerplate stories we heard here 20 years ago about "widespread pervasive kidnapping and murder of thousands of women into sexual slavery by satanists cults who will kidnap young women and impregnate them, and upon birth, force brainwashed children into committing ritual murder of the newborn---then they wipe their minds clean and discard them on the street. We're talking high government officials, industry leaders, well known public figures" blah blah.
Same words-except language as we heard here in the infamous childcare cases the religious mania overtones were more overt .

Links don't help you understand because they are in Swedish so you must either believe people with local experience such as BlevAino (eller va fan han heter egentligen)( hördu va fan är namnet din?) who is Swedish and ex-residents like me, or make guesses from afar...

I have no idea why the Swedish authorities are making such a big deal of what was just a lousy fawk, as the women said themselves. Only after gossiping about how "no fun' it was did they decide to ask the police about forcing Assange to get a test, the prosecutor, who was not there, decided for them, that it MIGHT be a question of sex against their wishes..

Sweden, like USa, suffers from the idea that you can never do anything wrong and if you don't like the outcome of something you yourself chose to do, then it must be somebody elses' fault...
And add to that what is locally called "förmyndarattityd'' which would be ''minders (those that mind the morals) attitude'' or ''authorities know whats best for you'' and you have these absurd actions..

Am much as you want to jump on Ioan, the observation was made that the Chief prosecutor Ny is probably making political hay is probably as important as anything else. The radical feminists are an active and vocal political force and all the parties have to accommodate them. And their blanket statements they make such as ''All men do violence against all women'' are discussed seriously despite, to any un-indoctrinated person who has not been raised in the rarefied atmosphere of Swedish domestic politics, that statement is patently absurd.

And I don't think the English legal eagles doing a cursory review of the extradition papers are going to think that their counterparts in Sweden are insane or idiots, both of which have a very high chance of being the case. It is very doubtful that they did any more than make sure the forms were correctly filled in; it is not their ambit to question the insanity of the society which filed the request to arrest ANYBODY for mere "helping the Police with their inquiries".

Remember that I immigrated there to learn a trade: motorsports. I had a very positive prejudice before arriving and for a few years after i was working there.
All the things I do for work and for hobby or relaxation, the nature, the weather, the lay of the land all are very much more common and to my liking that here in Fortress America™. But after 8 years I left because by then I had to conclude that in the most simple way, the place was nuts. The way single academics could generate 'reports" that with little review could be come law was insane.. Good intentions sometimes but insane in application. No enough time to detail examples but thats how it is.

[janvanvurpa]

Not especially, no, because I'm not a conspiracy theorist. No matter what one's views are on the sexual assault laws in Sweden, I also find your attitude rather troubling — where do you draw the line in terms of what should and shouldn't be investigated by the Swedish police?

Had the women said that they were forced or coerced into sex agianst their will, have at it, but they thelselves said it was 'cool' to get "the worlds coolest guy into my bed"..

And as they said "he was a lousy fawk" and only later decided they were worried about possible STD..... that is not the basis to charge anybody with a violent crime---and expend such effort...

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I just know how stupid the Polis and the legal system is from deep personal experience living and working there for 8 years..

Just an example of how random and whimsical encounters with the law can be:
In Sweden they are all convinced that English are all slightly retarded. Jokes are plentiful. Not severely retarded as they all believe Norwegians are but mildly. There;s even a joke about a "Swede trapped in an Englishman's body" who after a board meets and assesses his medical and psychological needs, and approves an operation to remove randomly 10% of his brain so he can be a happy Englishman. Tellingly--as the local beliefs of their medical system go---an gross error is made and when the bandages are removed the man sits up and speaks Norwegian--and the doctors are all shocked and see the mistake "Instead of taking out 10% and making him an Englishman, we only left 10% in and made him into a Norwegian!!!"

Knowing this any encounter with police I had from simple parking or driving up closed roads or speeding or immigration, I always would speak in my best imitation of the characters like seen on Monty Python and lay on absurdly overdone accent and act in accordance to their prejudice: dumb and not understanding and stupidly cheerful.
Never got a ticket, never had anything happen, they almost always would get frustrated and eventually turn helpful, obviously a mixture of pity for the poor idiot and just wanting to get rid of what would be more problems than just blowing off whatever offense i had done..
Friends could not believe the crazy stuff i could get away with (including driving up a one way street in my Austin 1100 and when stopped pointing o the back of the sing and saying 'Oi! 'ow am I 'spossed to see wha' 'hat sign says there Guv'nor if I'm coming from this direction, eh? You need to turn your signs around so an innocent motorist can see 'em! (smiling like an idiot the whole time) They would turn purple and eventually say "OK just go, don't do that again".
Worked even 20 years later.

All encounters with the Polis can have totally random outcomes all depending on the particular cop.. no consistancy, no logic.
Totally random.
Remember I am not commenting on actual sexual violence, or coercion, I am trying to convey a sense of the society and their legal system's just simply bizarreness.


Imagine though that in one of your encounters you're not in tip top form, and a bad lay (just that once, honest honey this has never happened before!) , just a miscalculation of what your partner wants or expects could be re-cast as rape not by the unhappy partner, but some bureaucrat--who presumably was not there but knows better than you and the partner.
Imagine that is all I'm suggesting..

That is not condoning violence or minimising 'boorish" behaviour an ANYBODY's part.

[Malbec]

Malbec. slow down, you are ahead of the facts. Currently or since whenever, there ARE NO CHARGES. The Europe wide arrest warrant by the seemingly insane Procecutor is for questioning.. and, as we have seen, that alone can mean indefinite detention while the idiot Polis and ÅM putter around jerking off, gossipping and being generally like they are:useless.

Malbec, you know that in modern academic world in anthropology especially cultural anthropology, there is huge emphasis for the anthropologist to go and submerge themselves thoroughly in the culture they are studying for a number of reasons, one being minimizing the disturbing effect of an ''authority'' questioning the others, another being to have an insight of the social situation in which the subjects are submerged themselves. I am familiar with this process not from studying anthropology rather from the long beautiful, crazy 3 year love affair I had with a pretty professor of Anthropology here----now in Canada. It was a very deep relationship in every way including helping her edit, read papers from students and even reading books she was anticipating using in her classes and discussing their appropriateness--or not.,. At one point she asked when we were talking about some aspect of her work,, ''How do you do it?'', I asked ''do what?''
She said ''You seem to have the ability to simultaneously think and see a very broad view and same time focus and explain an extremely narrow, detail view, seemingly without effort, something I took years of study to develop the skill''
I said that comes from having been ''the other'' for a whole life including here in the US.

The point of that above is that sometimes one cannot begin to understand an isolated action in a foreign cultural in an isolated way and from only translations or analysis of others words who are also unversed in all things of a particular foreign culture.

I am saying in this context that Sweden is a very very odd place once you get to know it. There are the familiar institutions we are used in in civilised countries, and they do a very good job at some things, but there are truly odd beliefs at odds with reality and with logic at it is know in Western Europe. We see it in the way their courts have politically appointed laymen acting as judges with virtually no training (a simple brochure and a few hour lecture on law), and now in reviewing this thing on Swedish language sources (newspapers, blogs, investigative journalism in print or on Swedish TV) I see that a trend clearly determinable when i was there has grown and mutated and has made the whole place even crazier. That thing is a confluence of extreme ''radical feminism'' when combined with the small population and the Parliamentary system there..
In other words the role one narrow group can have on a society when that one group, highly narrowly academic and theoretical, can get funding from political parties, and get INTO the parties and influence policy, and thus law. Particularly in a generally apathetic populace...
Add to that the rise in bizarre religious beliefs in the lat 30 years there, and the accompanying belief in large invisible forces.

I don't know if I can find the links but I looked at roughly 30 minus of a 2 hour documentary on radical feminist conspiracy theory mongers....and listened to totally insane ''leaders'' of a large nationwide NGO and city bureaucrats describe with a totally straight face virtually verbatim boilerplate stories we heard here 20 years ago about "widespread pervasive kidnapping and murder of thousands of women into sexual slavery by satanists cults who will kidnap young women and impregnate them, and upon birth, force brainwashed children into committing ritual murder of the newborn---then they wipe their minds clean and discard them on the street. We're talking high government officials, industry leaders, well known public figures" blah blah.
Same words-except language as we heard here in the infamous childcare cases the religious mania overtones were more overt .

Links don't help you understand because they are in Swedish so you must either believe people with local experience such as BlevAino (eller va fan han heter egentligen)( hördu va fan är namnet din?) who is Swedish and ex-residents like me, or make guesses from afar...

I have no idea why the Swedish authorities are making such a big deal of what was just a lousy fawk, as the women said themselves. Only after gossiping about how "no fun' it was did they decide to ask the police about forcing Assange to get a test, the prosecutor, who was not there, decided for them, that it MIGHT be a question of sex against their wishes..

Sweden, like USa, suffers from the idea that you can never do anything wrong and if you don't like the outcome of something you yourself chose to do, then it must be somebody elses' fault...
And add to that what is locally called "förmyndarattityd'' which would be ''minders (those that mind the morals) attitude'' or ''authorities know whats best for you'' and you have these absurd actions..

Am much as you want to jump on Ioan, the observation was made that the Chief prosecutor Ny is probably making political hay is probably as important as anything else. The radical feminists are an active and vocal political force and all the parties have to accommodate them. And their blanket statements they make such as ''All men do violence against all women'' are discussed seriously despite, to any un-indoctrinated person who has not been raised in the rarefied atmosphere of Swedish domestic politics, that statement is patently absurd.

And I don't think the English legal eagles doing a cursory review of the extradition papers are going to think that their counterparts in Sweden are insane or idiots, both of which have a very high chance of being the case. It is very doubtful that they did any more than make sure the forms were correctly filled in; it is not their ambit to question the insanity of the society which filed the request to arrest ANYBODY for mere "helping the Police with their inquiries".

Remember that I immigrated there to learn a trade: motorsports. I had a very positive prejudice before arriving and for a few years after i was working there.
All the things I do for work and for hobby or relaxation, the nature, the weather, the lay of the land all are very much more common and to my liking that here in Fortress America™. But after 8 years I left because by then I had to conclude that in the most simple way, the place was nuts. The way single academics could generate 'reports" that with little review could be come law was insane.. Good intentions sometimes but insane in application. No enough time to detail examples but thats how it is.

Janvanpurna I know you're on a mission to tell us how bizarre Swedish society is and how untrustworthy its judicial system is. None of what you say contradicts what friends of mine have told me about the country but I hesitate to extend personal anecdotal evidence to cover the whole country and governing system.

Regarding this single case I have not claimed to be an expert on Swedish law but I do believe that Assange's nocturnal activities would likely not have been illegal in most other EU states. However I do also believe that ignorance of the law should not excuse breaking it regardless of how petty or plain stupid they may be.

My posts on this thread have also been from the British perspective. Regardless of what happened in Sweden and the petty politics or the activities of an ambitious career prosecutor Britain cannot disregard a criminal extradition request from a fellow democratic EU state. Britain cannot cherrypick between requests from states that people like you view as being dodgy. Two reviews have found that Swedish prosecutors have a case Assange should answer. In the UK we have an independent judiciary. If you believe this process is flawed how else should the decision to extradite have been made?

Another factor that has not been touched on is the fact that asylum has been given in order to escape a potential criminal prosecution. Have you thought about the bigger picture here? Why not rob a bank in Canada then claim asylum in the Iranian or Syrian embassy knowing they'd be happy to take you on to embarrass the US or Canada? Don't you think that this act in itself is a flagrant abuse of the rights of asylum by both parties?

Finally I do view the way in which the two women have been belittled by Assange's supporters and also threatened to the extent that at least one has gone into hiding as frankly disgusting. One would have thought they were the criminal party.

[BDunnell]

Just an example of how random and whimsical encounters with the law can be:
In Sweden they are all convinced that English are all slightly retarded.

With a statement such as that, specifically your use of 'all', your comments lose a certain amount of credibility in my eyes.

[BDunnell]

Janvanpurna I know you're on a mission to tell us how bizarre Swedish society is and how untrustworthy its judicial system is. None of what you say contradicts what friends of mine have told me about the country but I hesitate to extend personal anecdotal evidence to cover the whole country and governing system.

Regarding this single case I have not claimed to be an expert on Swedish law but I do believe that Assange's nocturnal activities would likely not have been illegal in most other EU states. However I do also believe that ignorance of the law should not excuse breaking it regardless of how petty or plain stupid they may be.

My posts on this thread have also been from the British perspective. Regardless of what happened in Sweden and the petty politics or the activities of an ambitious career prosecutor Britain cannot disregard a criminal extradition request from a fellow democratic EU state. Britain cannot cherrypick between requests from states that people like you view as being dodgy. Two reviews have found that Swedish prosecutors have a case Assange should answer. In the UK we have an independent judiciary. If you believe this process is flawed how else should the decision to extradite have been made?

Another factor that has not been touched on is the fact that asylum has been given in order to escape a potential criminal prosecution. Have you thought about the bigger picture here? Why not rob a bank in Canada then claim asylum in the Iranian or Syrian embassy knowing they'd be happy to take you on to embarrass the US or Canada? Don't you think that this act in itself is a flagrant abuse of the rights of asylum by both parties?

Finally I do view the way in which the two women have been belittled by Assange's supporters and also threatened to the extent that at least one has gone into hiding as frankly disgusting. One would have thought they were the criminal party.

A voice of reason. Thank you. The sole thing I'd add is that the behaviour of Assange's own supporters towards those who have merely raised criticisms of him, mostly very mild, is similarly disgraceful. Many should grow up and realise that he is not our sole guarantor of freedom of speech.

[janvanvurpa]

With a statement such as that, specifically your use of 'all', your comments lose a certain amount of credibility in my eyes.

In is only my, and numerous of my friends from other nations i knew and work with observation after years of conversations, reading, TV, films etc. Of course its absurd.. Even one friend, an Australian there for the same reasons as I, noticed it. He was baffled as he reckoned Ozzies were famous for drinking and barbies and lager louts (he himself passed out at his birthday party and was only found when the patient line of guys waiting to get into the loo finally tried the handle and we found he was wedged between the door---which opened inwards and the throne itself----and after a couple of big guys pushed hard enough we managed to only half roll him over---I saved the day since I work extremely well under extreme pressure, and trust me that beer creates extreme pressure--when I came up with a brilliant plan to have the big guys push hard on the door, I'd shove my arm in with a ice cold beer and try to pour it on his face to wake him---and it worked. Later he said "What the Fawk, the jump all over Poms they all say they're all mildly retarded, but I can pass out drunk as a skunk, and what do they say "Oh autralians are cool?" The point is there is an amazing homogeneity of what people say and evidently believe.

Example: Every single Swede I ever spoke with between 1970-1989 would say virtually verbatim about a certain green substance that is popular to smoke in some places. They'd say "That's stuff is far worse than heroin. Maybe 10 times worse. One puff and you're addicted for life."
Of course that is nonsense, but across all the social classes, ages, occupations I encountered, including 3-4 nurses, they said it in the same way, and only one, a close friend ever asking "do you know what it's like?"

More even than USA, it seems the Swedes tend to talk and think in almost binary way: good or bad, black or white.

But of course that's only an opinion based on living and working there for years.

[janvanvurpa]

A voice of reason. Thank you. The sole thing I'd add is that the behaviour of Assange's own supporters towards those who have merely raised criticisms of him, mostly very mild, is similarly disgraceful. Many should grow up and realise that he is not our sole guarantor of freedom of speech.


Don't be shy. Who are you referring to? Somebody here?

[BDunnell]

Don't be shy. Who are you referring to? Somebody here?

Not just here, but there are good examples of it in this thread, certainly.

[Mark]

The UK made a big mistake when they hinted that they could 'storm' the embassy. Any chances of this getting a resolution went out of the window right then.

[BDunnell]

The UK made a big mistake when they hinted that they could 'storm' the embassy. Any chances of this getting a resolution went out of the window right then.

I must say, I'm not sure about that — to me, it's a side issue. Even if that letter hadn't been sent, do we think Assange would have left for Sweden by now? I don't think he would.

[Rollo]

Another factor that has not been touched on is the fact that asylum has been given in order to escape a potential criminal prosecution. Have you thought about the bigger picture here? Why not rob a bank in Canada then claim asylum in the Iranian or Syrian embassy knowing they'd be happy to take you on to embarrass the US or Canada? Don't you think that this act in itself is a flagrant abuse of the rights of asylum by both parties?


Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ecuador-urges-britain-to-retract-assange-arrest-threat/story-e6frg6so-1226456007727)
Assange claims Sweden plans to hand him over to the United States, where he fears prosecution over WikiLeaks's release of a vast cache of of confidential US government files.

I seriously doubt whether Assange would ever see trial in Sweden or the United States. David Hicks was allowed to rot in Gitmo before any charges were brought for three whole years.

Washington, meanwhile, has said it has had nothing to do with efforts by Britain to extradite Assange to Sweden, and today denied Assange's "wild assertions" it had launched a witch-hunt for him.

Washinton doesn't need to " launch a witch-hunt for him". They know exactly where he is. Britain has refused to grant him safe passage out of the country, Sweden has promised to prosecute him, Australia has formally said that it is not their business and the United States have a non-justice system that belongs back in the Roman Empire.

As far as I'm concerned, the governments of four countries here are all a load of four-letter expletives. Assange himself is a creep and a cad; and may or may not have broken US Law y accepting information.
There is not one single party in this whole mess who I don't have contempt for. What I do know is that justice will not be done (whatever it may be) and that if I go travelling and happen to fall foul of government officials irrespective of whether I've broken the law or not, I can rest assured that I would not receive justice either.

Sod the bloody lot!

[ioan]

ioan, find any comment of mine in this thread where I have said I want him behind bars. You won't be able to, because nowhere have I said that. Stop putting words into my mouth.

You want the guy to be judged when there isn't a charge against him. Much better indeed.

[ioan]

Malbec. slow down, you are ahead of the facts. Currently or since whenever, there ARE NO CHARGES.

Exactly, but this won't stop malbec and BDunell from wanting him judged, for they already did condemn him for a rape that didn't happen.

[ioan]

For starters, ioan, try reading what Assange sent to the British magazine 'Private Eye', a publication renowned for its investigative exposes, when it (legitimately) criticised him. His ramblings were those of a deeply paranoid, egotistical man, and certainly not one I believe ought to be held up as some sort of messiah when it comes to freedom of speech. He is in no sense 'the best we've got' — what you mean is 'He's the best I've heard of'.

No one said he's perfect, I said that he did more for transparency then anyone else up to date. Or did I miss any prince on a white horse who gave us so much information about governments infringing the laws?

[BDunnell]

No one said he's perfect, I said that he did more for transparency then anyone else up to date.

Again, ioan, I say that he is only the best one of whom you are aware. If you wish to go into more details, please provide statistical information showing why Assange categorically ranks ahead of all other sources. I'm afraid I don't call dumping a load of information on the internet (I generalise, but not by an awful lot) anywhere near as impressive as the sort of proper investigative journalism that is carried out by reputable sources of such material.

[ioan]

Don't be shy. Who are you referring to? Somebody here?

He's referring to me but he's having difficulties admitting it.

[ioan]

Again, ioan, I say that he is only the best one of whom you are aware. If you wish to go into more details, please provide statistical information showing why Assange categorically ranks ahead of all other sources. I'm afraid I don't call dumping a load of information on the internet (I generalise, but not by an awful lot) anywhere near as impressive as the sort of proper investigative journalism that is carried out by reputable sources of such material.

There isn't anyone who did what Assange did with WikiLeaks, so what exactly do you want from me?
What about you provide something, whatever? In this whole thread you provided no info at all, nothing, nada, zero, zilch, nichts! You just kept asking for Assange to be trialed while there is no charge on him as of now.
We'll continue the discussion when you bring more than hot air to this thread. Then I will know that your posts are more than just provocations.

[BDunnell]

He's referring to me but he's having difficulties admitting it.

I felt it better to phrase it more politely than just naming names.

[ioan]

I felt it better to phrase it more politely than just naming names.

Much appreciated, even if it wasn't really needed as I can live with it easily.

[BDunnell]

Much appreciated, even if it wasn't really needed as I can live with it easily.

There are those to whom I wouldn't extend such a courtesy!

[ioan]

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ecuador-urges-britain-to-retract-assange-arrest-threat/story-e6frg6so-1226456007727)
Assange claims Sweden plans to hand him over to the United States, where he fears prosecution over WikiLeaks's release of a vast cache of of confidential US government files.

I seriously doubt whether Assange would ever see trial in Sweden or the United States. David Hicks was allowed to rot in Gitmo before any charges were brought for three whole years.

Washington, meanwhile, has said it has had nothing to do with efforts by Britain to extradite Assange to Sweden, and today denied Assange's "wild assertions" it had launched a witch-hunt for him.

Washinton doesn't need to " launch a witch-hunt for him". They know exactly where he is. Britain has refused to grant him safe passage out of the country, Sweden has promised to prosecute him, Australia has formally said that it is not their business and the United States have a non-justice system that belongs back in the Roman Empire.

As far as I'm concerned, the governments of four countries here are all a load of four-letter expletives. Assange himself is a creep and a cad; and may or may not have broken US Law y accepting information.
There is not one single party in this whole mess who I don't have contempt for. What I do know is that justice will not be done (whatever it may be) and that if I go travelling and happen to fall foul of government officials irrespective of whether I've broken the law or not, I can rest assured that I would not receive justice either.

Sod the bloody lot!

Another example of US justice that no one should ever get:

California man still in prison two years after conviction overturned | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/california-man-still-prison-two-years-conviction-overturned-182018161.html)




In response, a federal magistrate ruled that Larsen had been denied constitutionally protected rights to a fair trial and ordered him released immediately. However, the California Office of the Attorney General appealed that decision, saying Larsen neglected to file a federal habeas action within a one-year deadline.

"A federal habeas petition filed even one day late is untimely and must be dismissed," according to the appeal.

Stanford Law School professor Robert Weisberg told the L.A. Times he believes the attorney general's office is making an example out of Larsen's case in order to prevent an "onslaught" of similar claims from other prisoners. What they're saying is, this guy had his chances. At a certain point the music has to stop, and a case just has to be closed," Weisberg told the paper. "We're afraid that lots of people who were not unjustly convicted are going to be encouraged to frame their case as the injustice of the century."



Which means that an innocent man has spent 13 years in prison, and is being kept in prison for 2 years since he has been pronounced innocent just to make an example out of it!

I do not want anyone to have this kind of justice and can fully understand anyone who tries to never get in front of this kind of justice system.
Make of it what you wish.

[BDunnell]

I do not want anyone to have this kind of justice and can fully understand anyone who tries to never get in front of this kind of justice system.
Make of it what you wish.

I agree with you, but, I repeat, no-one in this thread has done so. It takes a very skewed view of anyone's comments to even suggest that interpretation.

[ioan]

At least we agree on something.
As of now I am rather sure we have exhausted this topic and until any further news/changes about this case we would only keep attacking each other over what we already discussed, so let's call it a day for now.

[BleAivano]

Since 2000, Sweden have had 6 requests from the USA to extradite persons.

In two of the cases the wanted person could not be found and in the four other cases the wanted person were extradited.
Assange: "Sweden has accepted every single demand" | SvD (http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svenska-dagbladets-fact-check-assange_6717619.svd)

IN the UK the laws regarding extradite is much stricter and and the opinion against it is much stronger.
In the UK the matter is handled by a special court while in Sweden its a political decision, taken by UD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_for_Foreign_Affairs_%28Sweden%29).


Then there is the case with the Egyptians who were extradited back to Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery) with the help of the CIA.
The two Egyptian were then tortured in the Egyptian prison.


Some more to read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/wikileaks-and-the-global-future-of-free-speech.html?_r=2
George Galloway wades into Julian Assange row (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/20/george-galloway-julian-assange-rape)
George Galloway defends Julian Assange claim | Media | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/21/george-galloway-julian-assange-rape-claim?newsfeed=true)
Why WikiLeaks' Julian Assange might prefer Sweden | Media | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/09/deborah-orr-julian-assange-wikileaks?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)
Julian Assange supporter Craig Murray names alleged sex attack victim on Newsnight | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191463/Julian-Assange-supporter-Craig-Murray-names-alleged-sex-attack-victim-Newsnight.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
Obama till allierade: Grip Wikileaks grundare - Nyheter / Utrikes (http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/utrikes/443406-obama-till-allierade-grip-wikileaks-grundare)
http://www.dn.se/debatt/assange-fick-klartecken-att-lamna-sverige

[Knock-on]

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread just as I don't bother posting on cc any more but do have a strong opinion on this case.

It is a political football. The media release a stupid rumour that the british will storm an embassy over this? What nonsense. This is not the murder of a Policewoman but a lot of posturing.

JA has done a lot of good for freedom of speech and uncloaked some dirty little secrets along the way. I also think he is a naive fool that is as adept at keeping it zipped as Prince Harry. Is it a crime to be a randy bugger. Hope not or I'm in for a stretch!

This was all about getting a book in him and extraditing the idiot to America.

Try him in a Sweedish court and then let's hear the evidence but with a cast iron guarantee he will return to the UK.

The rest is bollox

[Knock-on]

Rollo my friend. We both know we will be screwed wherever we go. Yo for the hat and me for Vopob. I'm in Moscow today so can't say any more for fear of extradition to Belarus!

[Knock-on]

Rollo my friend. We both know we will be screwed wherever we go. Yo for the hat and me for Vopob. I'm in Moscow today so can't say any more for fear of extradition to Belarus!

[ioan]

Rollo my friend. We both know we will be screwed wherever we go. Yo for the hat and me for Vopob. I'm in Moscow today so can't say any more for fear of extradition to Belarus!

Just make sure you do not sing in a church over there. And do not bite any police women no matter how tasty she looks! ;)

[Knock-on]

Now funny you should say that because I haven't visited a Church yet but..... Mmmmmmm

[ioan]

Now funny you should say that because I haven't visited a Church yet but..... Mmmmmmm

:o Did you already bite a police women?! ;)

[BDunnell]

This was all about getting a book in him and extraditing the idiot to America.

In that case, why wasn't he extradited to America when the opportunity to do so was easy?

[Knock-on]

Boring? I wouldn't like to face the American judicial system. I always considered America a friend but now she worries me.

The world has changed and America has retreated to a cave.

[Malbec]

In that case, why wasn't he extradited to America when the opportunity to do so was easy?

If this thread has shown anything, it is that people have no idea what you're talking about. I'm surprised so few Brits know or care about the British extradition agreements with the US given what a travesty it is.

[BDunnell]

If this thread has shown anything, it is that people have no idea what you're talking about.

Or choose to ignore it because this fact doesn't suit their point of view.

[BleAivano]

Take a look at this photo:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/25/article-0-14B189E2000005DC-786_634x412.jpg

If the women to left had been raped 48 hours earlier would she then pose on a photo together with the man who "raped" her?

Is this the photo that could clear Assange? Grinning after a meal of meatballs and schnapps, WikiLeaks boss and woman who says he sexually assaulted her 48 hours earlier | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193641/Is-photo-clear-Assange-Grinning-meal-meatballs-schnapps-WikiLeaks-boss-woman-says-sexually-assaulted-48-hours-earlier.html)

[janvanvurpa]

Take a look at this photo:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/25/article-0-14B189E2000005DC-786_634x412.jpg

If the women to left had been raped 48 hours earlier would she then pose on a photo together with the man who "raped" her?

Is this the photo that could clear Assange? Grinning after a meal of meatballs and schnapps, WikiLeaks boss and woman who says he sexually assaulted her 48 hours earlier | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193641/Is-photo-clear-Assange-Grinning-meal-meatballs-schnapps-WikiLeaks-boss-woman-says-sexually-assaulted-48-hours-earlier.html)

Ingen smajl från honom.
kanske det var hon som hade sin vilja med stakars Ås-sängen.

[Knock-on]

I think most rational people have serious reservations about the validity of these accusations and are dubious of the women's motives.

However, there is still a case to answer if only to expose the injustice and get to the facts. If Assange is guilty then throw the book at him but if these charges are spurious and malicious, then international pressure must be brought on Sweden to prosecute those responsible wherever that trail Leeds; and I have a sneeky suspicion where that might lead.

However, this case must not be used as a foil to package Assange off to some dark American gulag. Afaik he has not broken any laws outside of the US and this attempt to curtail freedom of speech must be robustly rebuffed by every democratic country. Hell, this is the UK and Sweden we're talking about here, not Tibet!

[BDunnell]

I think most rational people have serious reservations about the validity of these accusations and are dubious of the women's motives.

However, there is still a case to answer if only to expose the injustice and get to the facts. If Assange is guilty then throw the book at him but if these charges are spurious and malicious, then international pressure must be brought on Sweden to prosecute those responsible wherever that trail Leeds; and I have a sneeky suspicion where that might lead.

However, this case must not be used as a foil to package Assange off to some dark American gulag. Afaik he has not broken any laws outside of the US and this attempt to curtail freedom of speech must be robustly rebuffed by every democratic country. Hell, this is the UK and Sweden we're talking about here, not Tibet!

Those are all very fair points. I would add, though, that there's no actual evidence that the case is being used to pack him off to the US — just conjecture. And, still, I would query why the UK didn't just extradite him to the US when the opportunity would have been easy. No-one is able to provide a sensible reason.

[D-Type]

Ingen smajl från honom.
kanske det var hon som hade sin vilja med stakars Ås-sängen.
Please translate.
Posting in Swedish is pointless as you are probably the only person who understands what you are saying!

[D-Type]

Please translate.
Posting in Swedish is pointless as you are probably the only person who understands what you are saying!

Oh I forgot - posting as a forum member and not as a moderator.

[janvanvurpa]

Please translate.
Posting in Swedish is pointless as you are probably the only person who understands what you are saying!


There are many who here understand Swedish plenty of Swedes here, lots of Norwegians and its a minor unimportant variation, all the Finns read Swedish perfectly well and , especially the the guy that posted the photo that the response was directed to since heäs Swedish, and a rally fan it seems...It was as 'useful' as all the other comments here: all are useless.

But he is Swedish, all the important things about the whole affair occurred in Sweden and all the documents and motivations and drama are all in Swedish...

It says ''No smile from him. (it) Can happen it was her that had her way with poor Donkey-bed.''
Ås short for åsna like ass in the donkey or mule sense of the word and sängen is the bed. The definite article 'the' goes oat the end of the word in all the Northern languages: the indefinite article such as a, or an, goes in front as in English. Just having fun with his name which gets all Frenchified with the soft g when its supposed to be a twist on the common Cantonese 'Ah Sang' which is 'Mr. Sang'

Google did a pretty OK job if you had tried it:

No smileys from him.
Perhaps it was she who had his will with stackars Donkey-bed.

They got smile (the English diphthong 'i' as in smile is rendered 'aj' in Swedish so using the slang English smile becomes smajl.
But they missed 'sin' (like 'sein' or in this case 'seinen' en Allemande ) and were too rigid with stackars which is like pobrecito, ou pauve.

You don't delight in playing-joking around in languages, do you?

[BDunnell]

You don't delight in playing-joking around in languages, do you?

I often do, but prefer it when it doesn't render a discussion partially incomprehensible.

[janvanvurpa]

Those are all very fair points. I would add, though, that there's no actual evidence that the case is being used to pack him off to the US — just conjecture. And, still, I would query why the UK didn't just extradite him to the US when the opportunity would have been easy. No-one is able to provide a sensible reason.


There is no sense in any of this whole thing, but the British, and Ecuadorean stuff is all side drama, the real illogical is where it usually is in any dealing at any level with any branch of government in Sweden: the official side.

It is worth noting that 1 Jan 1974 the concept and statutes for 'fel i tjänst är avaskaffat' or 'wrong-error in service was eliminated'.. Clear as can be anybody 'i tjänst' in service, can not do wrong..
That is of course so absurd as to be insane, but there you have it..But I lived there, I read it, it was discussed, it became the law..
No sense at all.
Over 80% of those untrained political appointees that sit as 3 of the 4 people on the courts of the first instance in Sweden belive that if the proceutors fail to present compelling enough evidence to convict a person on the charges they were accused of---which were there any sense and had they either brains or legal training that would be the end of it----they they can still convict a person of a lesser charge of their own ---at that late point---choosing.

That is beyond a joke, it is a travesty of justice.
Conclusion: there is no justice in Sweden, especially at the hands of amateur political appointees untrained in Law.

[janvanvurpa]

I often do, but prefer it when it doesn't render a discussion partially incomprehensible.

Jokes often require a little pause.. Is your German at a near native level??
I would have thought somebody with "flowing' English and German would have it easy with all the Northern languages.. Being well versed in English a la Anglais, and in Swedish was my foot in the door to German.. Well more than my foot, it was about mid chest im schlamm for me.

Ever read Nabokov (linking in a very tenuous way to this subject of hanky-panky gone wrong)?

[BDunnell]

Jokes often require a little pause.. Is your German at a near native level??
I would have thought somebody with "flowing' English and German would have it easy with all the Northern languages..

My German is reasonable, but I'm afraid sentences like 'It is worth noting that 1 Jan 1974 the concept and statutes for 'fel i tjänst är avaskaffat' or 'wrong-error in service was eliminated'.. Clear as can be anybody 'i tjänst' in service, can not do wrong..' don't really encourage me to read your posts in depth.

[janvanvurpa]

My German is reasonable, but I'm afraid sentences like 'It is worth noting that 1 Jan 1974 the concept and statutes for 'fel i tjänst är avaskaffat' or 'wrong-error in service was eliminated'.. Clear as can be anybody 'i tjänst' in service, can not do wrong..' don't really encourage me to read your posts in depth.

What the fawk is your problem? You sometimes seem to write like a human being, then you become a crappy imitation of an wannbe upper class English twit?


If that is unclear, , instead of your harumph-ing dismissal ask, for clarification like a human being.

I will try to clarify it so if clear enough for you because i am such a nice and patient guy.

It is worth noting---for those that care to understand how utterly insane the entire country is--for those who can not otherwise comprehend that in 1 Jan 1974 the law was changed in Sweden so that no government employee in any capacity could do anything wrong in the course of their duties.

So when a surgeon chops off the leg of an old woman in the hospital for the flu, no problems
Or last week or so, a nurse throws into the garbage the "good" kidneys there to get planted in some poor bastid, oh well, like whatever.
Women call to see if the Police can force somebody to take an STD test, and the Polis release the person they wish to have tested's name--violating the law, no problem.
The Police on their own issue a warrant and name the accused---in violation of the law which references the damage to a persons reputation that even accusation can do---no problem.

They change their mind and withdraw the arrest warrant---no problem.
Somebody else decides to re-issue a warrant for arrest for questioning---no problem..
They can do no wrong while in their official position..
Clear enough?

You might do better with languages and comprehension if you were not so rigid in what you have plenty of time and opportunity to read....and so ready to so haughtily dismiss.

[ioan]

Calm down guys no need to get hot under the collar for so little.
On this one I agree with BDunnell, even if I am fluent in both English and German (plus Romanian, Hungarian, French and Italian) to me Swedish is still Chinese.
If we are to have a discussion I would also like to keep the posting in English.
Thanks and cheers.

[BDunnell]

Calm down guys no need to get hot under the collar for so little.
On this one I agree with BDunnell, even if I am fluent in both English and German (plus Romanian, Hungarian, French and Italian) to me Swedish is still Chinese.
If we are to have a discussion I would also like to keep the posting in English.
Thanks and cheers.

Thank you ioan.

[janvanvurpa]

Thank you ioan.


Harumph--harumph!

Harumph.

[pino]

Thread cleaned, please keep it that way thank you.

janvanvurpa make sure you only use English language or your posts will be deleted !

[janvanvurpa]

Thread cleaned, please keep it that way thank you.

janvanvurpa make sure you only use English language or your posts will be deleted !

OK let me get this straight since I don't understand the complaining.
I make a post illustrating for the "masses" who have no detailed personal experience with the truly bizarre Swedish so called "Justice" system. I refer to a law passed and that law had a name, I cannot refer to the law's name or title and give the English?

And I cannot make a simple one line joke to a fellow chit chat contributor referring to the photo he posted making a little harmless joke in his own language?

If this forum did not have the very odd 30 minute limit on editing a post, when the complains poured in and the riot was about to break out I could have clarified whatever was unclear since it was important enough for some to complain about, but alas, I cannot..

What do we do if we don't have a precise English word for a concept? We use an awful lot of borrowed French and Latin in English, so I presume those are forbidden too, so We should limit our word to those of with Angle and Saxon roots? :uhoh:

I cannot imagine you and the complainers being so rigid and demanding of ALL dialog to everybody in a normal conversation in a public place like say after a rally or race where people are randomly throw together..should be only in English or you'll eradicate the words, including the clarification to somebody's complaints.

[BDunnell]

OK let me get this straight since I don't understand the complaining.
I make a post illustrating for the "masses" who have no detailed personal experience with the truly bizarre Swedish so called "Justice" system.

One which, I hasten to add, included the comment 'there is no justice in Sweden', suggesting to me that those of us lacking the personal experience you mention take your remarks on the subject with a pinch of salt, rather than as gospel — no matter which language they are posted in.

[D-Type]

OK let me get this straight since I don't understand the complaining.
I make a post illustrating for the "masses" who have no detailed personal experience with the truly bizarre Swedish so called "Justice" system. I refer to a law passed and that law had a name, I cannot refer to the law's name or title and give the English?

And I cannot make a simple one line joke to a fellow chit chat contributor referring to the photo he posted making a little harmless joke in his own language?

If this forum did not have the very odd 30 minute limit on editing a post, when the complains poured in and the riot was about to break out I could have clarified whatever was unclear since it was important enough for some to complain about, but alas, I cannot..

What do we do if we don't have a precise English word for a concept? We use an awful lot of borrowed French and Latin in English, so I presume those are forbidden too, so We should limit our word to those of with Angle and Saxon roots? :uhoh:

I cannot imagine you and the complainers being so rigid and demanding of ALL dialog to everybody in a normal conversation in a public place like say after a rally or race where people are randomly throw together..should be only in English or you'll eradicate the words, including the clarification to somebody's complaints.
Stop acting so self-righteous. You were out of order and a moderator acted. Full stop.

[janvanvurpa]

One which, I hasten to add, included the comment 'there is no justice in Sweden', suggesting to me that those of us lacking the personal experience you mention take your remarks on the subject with a pinch of salt, rather than as gospel — no matter which language they are posted in.

Well of course that depends upon your ideas about justice.
Some suggest:
Justice is a concept of moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) rightness based on ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics), rationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality), law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law), natural law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), or equity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28law%29). It is also the act of being just and/or fair.

Some say:
justice (n.) (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=justice&allowed_in_frame=0) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice)mid-12c., "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment;" also "quality of being fair and just," from O.Fr. justice "justice, legal rights, jurisdiction" (11c.), from L. iustitia "righteousness, equity," from iustus "upright, just" (see just (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=just&allowed_in_frame=0) (adj.)). The Old French word had widespread senses, including "uprightness, equity, vindication of right, court of justice, judge." The word began to be used in English c.1200 as a title for a judicial officer. Meaning "right order, equity" is late 14c. Justice of the peace first attested early 14c. In the Mercian hymns, L. iustitia is glossed by O.E. rehtwisnisse. To do justice to (someone or something) "render fully and fairly showing due appreciation" is from 1670s.

Smrat man named Plato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato), said he "doesn't know what justice is but he knows what justice is not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice)."

Once all city, county, state employees are absolved a priori of any repercussions for any act during working hours, the mechanism of the government may grind on, but nobody can be rationally sure of equitable treatment and that in many cultures is a cornerstone of justice...

And I doubt any honest man would be able to call the completely random occasional application of State prosecutorial power in isolated instances in open violations of the basic laws the very authorities are charged with enforcing as a definition of justice.

My remarks are obviously my experience in life and study in the subject...never intended to be "Gospel'..
But being based on experience with the system, and study about the system, conversations within the system, however dismissive you wish to be, but they should still weigh considerably higher in the scales of righteousness that some person far away, who has never been near the system, never been inside the system in question, and who must rely on sloppy translations or interpretations of partisan publications to form decidedly second hand opinions...
Not much grounds to be so dismissive regardless of how restrained you write it.

Harumph. :rolleyes:

[janvanvurpa]

Stop acting so self-righteous. You were out of order and a moderator acted. Full stop.

Self righteous!?? Your English friend is acting a right prig of self righteousness and you're not complaining about that.

Look you guys have some extremely selectibve criteria for your official complaining.
I wrote a one line thing to Bleviano, a one line mild joke.
You guys really have to act like prigs over that?

I ask again, do your rush around at any other social gathering going "Hello Hello , whas all this then? I dint get that, Speak English or we'll shut you up!!!"

Would you?
Get real.

Moderators, moderate thyselves, for nothing is here immoderate but thee.

[Knock-on]

This is an English speaking forum. It's in the rules. Put up and stop being pompous.

Back to the thread as I can feel bandwidth being wasted ;)

Any news so far on JA or confirmation from Sweeden that he won't be shipped off? Surely that's all that's needed to sort this out.

[Malbec]

Any news so far on JA or confirmation from Sweeden that he won't be shipped off?

How can a country promise not to extradite an individual when no request has even been received from the US, and hence the details of such an extradition request are not available?

And why is it that you believe he's being extradited to Sweden and then to the US when it is far far easier to extradite from the UK to the US?

[Knock-on]

There are many reasons why he will not be extradited from the uk to us.

First, he has committed no offence here while an alleged offence on Sweedish sovereign soil has been made.

Second, public outcry would be more in the Uk and a more robust defence mounted lasting many years (see 'third') below.

In the Uk, the Us would have to satisfy the courts, high court and international court of human rights that the rendition is not politically motivated. The only way I can see if doing that is to claim An offence relating to electronic data misuse such as hacking as in a recent us extradition request but as Assange hasn't committed the actual offence, this may be shaky.

Third and most important. The Us and Sweden have a cosy little arrangement in place for the temporary extradition for trial in the Us when a prisoner is awaiting trial in Sweden. This is not a formal extradition and does not need to go through a formal extradition process. In theory Seeden should get permission from the Uk first but as its not a formal extradition, they may not bother too much. Assange will then be extradited to the Us, tried, convicted and serve out a sentence that could last him to the next life. After this sentence, he will be released back to Sweden to face the original charges.

There are a few other reasons but I think this gives enough reason why the Us want him in Sweden. Apparently there is a sealed extradition request in place since 2010 waiting to be enacted as soon as he hits Sweedish custody but of course I have no proof.

With all that in mind, would you fight extradition to Sweden if you were Assange? There is a perfectly adequate mechanism in place for Assange to answer the questions posed by Sweden in the Uk under existing EU law but in this case, they choose not to take it up. Why?

I have no love for the man but I acknowledge the impact wiki leaks has made. Overall I think it is positive to have facts to make up our own minds rather than believe or trust Governments and the Media.

I also think this extradition and alleged offences are wrong and a disgrace. I wish people would look past the media a bit more and be subjective.

[Malbec]

First, he has committed no offence here while an alleged offence on Sweedish sovereign soil has been made.

That he has not committed crimes here is irrelevant. Extradition by definition is for crimes committed elsewhere where another government wants to try the individual concerned.


In the Uk, the Us would have to satisfy the courts, high court and international court of human rights that the rendition is not politically motivated. The only way I can see if doing that is to claim An offence relating to electronic data misuse such as hacking as in a recent us extradition request but as Assange hasn't committed the actual offence, this may be shaky.

Its very sweet that you believe this to be true, however I draw your attention to the extradition treaty 2003 between the UK and US.

Political motivation is not a consideration for extradition which is for criminal purposes only. Extradition and rendition are two entirely different processes and should not be confused with each other. If Assange was to have been rendered you and I would not have heard about it at all until his tortured body was found somewhere in Pakistan or Jordan. Extraordinary rendition is illegal for any purpose and is not performed in the public eye and is thus not applicable in this case. Therefore what you wrote has no basis in reality.

BTW the European court of human rights (there is no international one) covers Sweden as much as it does the UK. Both being EU members and all.


Third and most important. The Us and Sweden have a cosy little arrangement in place for the temporary extradition for trial in the Us when a prisoner is awaiting trial in Sweden. This is not a formal extradition and does not need to go through a formal extradition process. In theory Seeden should get permission from the Uk first but as its not a formal extradition, they may not bother too much. Assange will then be extradited to the Us, tried, convicted and serve out a sentence that could last him to the next life. After this sentence, he will be released back to Sweden to face the original charges.

See above. Look up the 2003 extradition treaty between the UK and US. It puts the 'cosy little arrangement' between the US and Sweden into perspective. Essentially you have no rights in the UK if the US wants you. Most Brits don't know or care about it, after all its only our rights that are affected so who cares right?

[Knock-on]

That he has committed no crime here IS relevant because of the reasons I stated later. Don't do an Ioan and skew one sentence taken out of context with the rest of my points.

I'm surprised you brought the contentious 2003 bill with all the negative publicity and subsequant reviews it's had. Rather strengthens my second point and your last point again highlights my 3rd. The case of Gary McKinnon being a prima facia example. Arrested in 2002, extradition proceedings started in 2005, judicial review by the Lords and probably won't be extradited on human rights grounds because of the risk of suicide.

That's far more like a proper extradition proceeding than the Sweedish back door method.

By the way, look up the word rendition if you don't know it's meaning instead of looking like a pollock. Rendition (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_(law))

I NEVER mentioned extraordinary rendition.

Lastly, I take your point about European Court of Human Rights. Slip of the finger on my part. Very long day yesterday with no sleep.

[Malbec]

That he has committed no crime here IS relevant because of the reasons I stated later. Don't do an Ioan and skew one sentence taken out of context with the rest of my points.

Sorry I've re-read your post and I still don't see the significance of his not having committed a crime here.

It doesn't affect his extradition to Sweden. It would not affect his extradition to the US either from the UK nor Sweden. I don't know where Assange was when he released his wikileaks material but neither does that matter. If I commit a crime in Germany but against France (like hacking into the French government) and then run away to Italy afterwards, the French are perfectly within their rights to ask the Italians to arrest and extradite me despite me not having committed a crime at all on Italian soil.


I'm surprised you brought the contentious 2003 bill with all the negative publicity and subsequant reviews it's had. Rather strengthens my second point and your last point again highlights my 3rd. The case of Gary McKinnon being a prima facia example. Arrested in 2002, extradition proceedings started in 2005, judicial review by the Lords and probably won't be extradited on human rights grounds because of the risk of suicide.

That's far more like a proper extradition proceeding than the Swedish back door method.

You chose a case where the only defence against extradition was the subject's Asperger's syndrome and the effect trial in the US might have on him. Assange has no such problem.

Also while you are quick to knock Sweden's agreement with the US, you forget to mention the ban on extradition within Swedish law for non-criminal offences, ie political causes etc, nor that the extradition treaty with the US is quite limited and is unlikely to cover post-9/11 related American legislation nor that as an EU member Assange will be able to refer his case again (as with the UK) to the European court of human rights.


By the way, look up the word rendition if you don't know it's meaning instead of looking like a pollock. Rendition (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_(law))

I NEVER mentioned extraordinary rendition..

My mistake. I'm aware of the meaning of the word rendition, however in this thread people have made no attempt whatsoever to differentiate extraordinary rendition from what is happening with Assange. I assumed your use of the word was the same.

[janvanvurpa]

That he has not committed crimes here is irrelevant. Extradition by definition is for crimes committed elsewhere where another government wants to try the individual concerned.




And yet Ny says she only wants to question him, he is not indicted, not charged with a crime..
Oh. Dear.


Its very sweet that you believe this to be true, however I draw your attention to the extradition treaty 2003 between the UK and US.

Political motivation is not a consideration for extradition which is for criminal purposes only. Extradition and rendition are two entirely different processes and should not be confused with each other. If Assange was to have been rendered you and I would not have heard about it at all until his tortured body was found somewhere in Pakistan or Jordan. Extraordinary rendition is illegal for any purpose and is not performed in the public eye and is thus not applicable in this case. Therefore what you wrote has no basis in reality.

And all the discussion of extradition all just because some mere bureaucrat in some office wants to talk to the guy about a bad lay, that has a basis in what.

I wasn't aware that Nations should force people under clear threat of violence to the person any citizen anywhere whenever a bureaucrat has the whim to talk about a couple of women who didn't have enough fun on their voluntary one night stand.

Is this thread only about legal speculation of what your English courts or laws are about, or about the events leading to the poor bastid being persued?

[Knock-on]

(bangs head)

The reason he has not been extradited from the uk is that it would take years of the Us trying to prove this is not a political rendition through every court in Europe. That was the question you asked and with the temporary extradition arrangement between the Us and Sweeden, it would be much easier.

If he had committed a crime here, the process is simplified by him being in custody and not holed up in an Embassy.

Is that clearer?

Btw, when I say crime, I
mean alleged crime.

[BleAivano]

(bangs head)

The reason he has not been extradited from the uk is that it would take years of the Us trying to prove this is not a political rendition through every court in Europe. That was the question you asked and with the temporary extradition arrangement between the Us and Sweeden, it would be much easier.

If he had committed a crime here, the process is simplified by him being in custody and not holed up in an Embassy.

Is that clearer?

Btw, when I say crime, I
mean alleged crime.

I have some additional info (that i already have explained)

While in Sweden, the decision is taken by the ministry of foreign affairs. Usually in secret since court decisions is not required.
They have several times the past 10-12 accepted requests for extradition from the USA.

[Malbec]

(bangs head)

The reason he has not been extradited from the uk is that it would take years of the Us trying to prove this is not a political rendition through every court in Europe. That was the question you asked and with the temporary extradition arrangement between the Us and Sweeden, it would be much easier.

Because Britain doesn't have a temporary extradition agreement with the US right?

Read article 14 of the 2003 UK/US extradition treaty.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.pdf

Its titled 'Temporary and deferred surrender'.

So why are you banging your head? Oh and are you trying to suggest also that Sweden isn't covered by the European court of human rights? I haven't heard why you think Assange wouldn't be able to appeal there.


If he had committed a crime here, the process is simplified by him being in custody and not holed up in an Embassy.

You do realise that he spent something like a year holed up in a cottage in Norfolk as part of the bail conditions right? The process might be slightly easier if he'd been in prison but not significantly so, and only then that would only affect the logistics. Under the extradition treaty 2003 the US can request the UK to arrest the person if they are not in custody.

[Malbec]

And yet Ny says she only wants to question him, he is not indicted, not charged with a crime..
Oh. Dear.

You're right, I should keep talking about charges rather than charges as he's wanted for questioning rather than to be tried.


And all the discussion of extradition all just because some mere bureaucrat in some office wants to talk to the guy about a bad lay, that has a basis in what.

I wasn't aware that Nations should force people under clear threat of violence to the person any citizen anywhere whenever a bureaucrat has the whim to talk about a couple of women who didn't have enough fun on their voluntary one night stand.

Is this thread only about legal speculation of what your English courts or laws are about, or about the events leading to the poor bastid being persued?

I think I've already answered before what I think of the charges and what I also think of the need to ensure the correct process is followed. My opinions haven't changed.

[Knock-on]

It is because of Article 14 that they want to get him to Sweeden. You keep saying why they don't extradite him from the Uk and I keep saying its because no alleged offence has been committed here and then you post what I'm going on about. If I knew how to do a confused smilie on a freaking iPhone I would be posting them!!!

Come on Malbec, you know why he's being packaged up for Sweden. It's like arguing against Tamb ;)

[Malbec]

It is because of Article 14 that they want to get him to Sweeden. You keep saying why they don't extradite him from the Uk and I keep saying its because no alleged offence has been committed here and then you post what I'm going on about. If I knew how to do a confused smilie on a freaking iPhone I would be posting them!!!


But what you're saying genuinely doesn't make sense.

I still don't see why it matters that he hasn't committed an offence in the UK. You say its because he'd already be in custody but so what? He was already limited to a cottage in Norfolk under police observation as part of his bail.

Why wasn't he arrested in Sweden and extradited when he stayed there for over a month after the accusations were initially made?

Another thing, when the Americans want an extradition they don't bother to make it secret. Why in this case have they been all 'hush hush' and not bothered to make any formal extradition request to anyone? The extradition treaty between the US and the UK/Sweden both require formal applications from the US judiciary but nothing has taken place to even charge Assange with anything there. Any secret request for extradition would fail at the first hurdle for not fulfilling basic extradition treaty requirements unless you want to start talking about extraordinary rendition.

Am I supposed to just understand because its obvious there's a conspiracy? Sorry but I forgot to wear my tin foil hat today.

[BDunnell]

The reason he has not been extradited from the uk is that it would take years of the Us trying to prove this is not a political rendition through every court in Europe.

So, according to your reasoning (it is far from fact — after all, you have presumably not been privy to the discussions) do they really want him or not?


(bangs head)
If he had committed a crime here, the process is simplified by him being in custody and not holed up in an Embassy.

How does this, and your earlier theory regarding the current US-UK extradition arrangements, work in the case of Richard O'Dwyer, who committed no crime in the UK yet was extradited to the US to face trial?

[BDunnell]

I still don't see why it matters that he hasn't committed an offence in the UK. You say its because he'd already be in custody but so what? He was already limited to a cottage in Norfolk under police observation as part of his bail.

A location from which, as far as I know, he could have been extradited.



Another thing, when the Americans want an extradition they don't bother to make it secret. Why in this case have they been all 'hush hush' and not bothered to make any formal extradition request to anyone? The extradition treaty between the US and the UK/Sweden both require formal applications from the US judiciary but nothing has taken place to even charge Assange with anything there. Any secret request for extradition would fail at the first hurdle for not fulfilling basic extradition treaty requirements unless you want to start talking about extraordinary rendition.

Exactly.



Am I supposed to just understand because its obvious there's a conspiracy? Sorry but I forgot to wear my tin foil hat today.

It does seem that way, especially since (a) the reasons given have not applied in certain other high-profile cases, eg that of Richard O'Dwyer I mentioned above, in which there were no special circumstances, and (b) there is no hard and fast evidence that the US actually wants Assange. Why, now, would they? Given that Wikileaks today basically consists of Assange holed up in an embassy and a load of blinkered acolytes protesting outside and on Twitter, the best thing the US could do is just to ignore his increasingly deranged rantings and, when the process relating to the Swedish authorities is done with, show no further interest in him. And, given their apparent lack of desperation to get hold of him, there seems to be some degree of suggestion that this is how things will play out.

It could be added, incidentally, that the same forum member who here is defending Julian Assange some years ago seriously suggested on here that Clare Short be prosecuted for treason merely for suggesting that the UK government had bugged the UN.

[Knock-on]

:yawn:

You are arguing semantics and towing a party line.

An interesting angle:

We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited | Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange)

This is a political case about someone that has upset the machine. Get him to Sweden safely and released after if no charges are substantiated but dont use a politial smokescreen to get him into a Country where he will be persecuted and prosocuted for political reasons.

[BDunnell]

Agree. It is completely political. If he were not not responsible for wickieleaks, we wouldn't be talking about it and a case never would have been brought. And shame on the US government for going after him.

Going after him? They have made no attempt to get him!

[Malbec]

(b) there is no hard and fast evidence that the US actually wants Assange. Why, now, would they?

Lets not forget that this is the US judiciary and intelligence system which has honed tracking down individuals and getting hold of them anywhere in the world using fair means and foul into a fine art since 9/11. If they really wanted him he wouldn't have lasted five hours in Stockholm let alone five weeks.

Anyway the US have got their hands on the guy who really caused the damage, someone not mentioned either by his supporters or by Assange himself, bizarre and ungrateful IMO given how much he has suffered since. Bradley Manning.

[BDunnell]

Anyway the US have got their hands on the guy who really caused the damage, someone not mentioned either by his supporters or by Assange himself, bizarre and ungrateful IMO given how much he has suffered since. Bradley Manning.

A disgrace in itself, and worth commenting on as such, because — unlike with Assange — something has actually happened to him.

[BDunnell]

:yawn:

You are arguing semantics and towing a party line.

Whose 'party line', exactly? As far as I'm aware, these are my own views, but don't let me prevent you claiming otherwise.



This is a political case about someone that has upset the machine. Get him to Sweden safely and released after if no charges are substantiated but dont use a politial smokescreen to get him into a Country where he will be persecuted and prosocuted for political reasons.

If there was any evidence that this was about to happen, I'd agree with you, but there isn't. And still you seem unable to provide a decent answer to the question as to why the US didn't come to get Assange when they had ample opportunity.

[BDunnell]

Officially? No. You might want to have a chat with some of those detained in various prisons around the world about US under the table dealings.

That's as maybe, but in this case, high-profile as it has been from the start, I would prefer to be presented with some evidence of this. Nothing credible has even been suggested — it's just a notion, 'because this is what always happens'. Some imaginations have become over-active in relation to Assange.

[Knock-on]

Ben. I have stated on here too many times why I believe they want him in Sweden. If you don't agree then fine, but please don't claim I haven't posted a detailed reasoning as to why I believe they don't want to start rendition process in the UK and prefer Sweden.

Very poor :(

[Malbec]

You might want to have a chat with some of those detained in various prisons around the world about US under the table dealings.

Exactly. Did you ask them how they got to be where they are?

As I posted earlier these guys got caught by a finely honed intelligence and judicial system that have perfected their technique since 9/11 and know every trick in the book. They only need to know where someone is for a few minutes before they take the decision to grab him using whatever technique is appropriate, legal if possible but illegal if required.

So starter why do you think the US has manifestly failed to even bother trying to get Assange? Those prisoners you mention show how damn good America is at getting hold of people so why is Assange an exception? He didn't exactly make things difficult for anyone to find him did he.

[Malbec]

If you don't agree then fine, but please don't claim I haven't posted a detailed reasoning as to why I believe they don't want to start rendition process in the UK and prefer Sweden.

I respect your detailed reasoning but what is difficult to respect is your refusal to address the gaping holes in your logic whilst 'banging your head' or 'yawning'. It would be more interesting if you developed your theories rather than mock anyone who questions them.

[ioan]

Anyway the US have got their hands on the guy who really caused the damage, someone not mentioned either by his supporters or by Assange himself, bizarre and ungrateful IMO given how much he has suffered since. Bradley Manning.

That's not true, I could use a stronger word.
Bradley Manning and his poor handling by the US has been mentioned even in this thread, so stop talking nonsense.

And Assange himself spoke about Manning's case during his Ecuadorean Embassy speech:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-statement-ecuadorean-embassy-video

My conclusion is that you don't know what you are talking about when commenting in this thread.

[Knock-on]

What 'gaping holes'? I have pointed out why it is preferable to extradite him from Sweden rather than the Uk. It's because of the time it would take, public opinion and that an alleged crime has been committed on Sweedish soil. I can see no gaps, just an inability to accept these facts on your part. Not only this but you see things that aren't there and claim things don't exist when they do.
I dont know what more I can do for you. You're beyond my ability to effectively communicate with.

[Malbec]

I can see no gaps, just an inability to accept these facts on your part. Not only this but you see things that aren't there and claim things don't exist when they do.

What you posted aren't facts, they are opinions which have been contested by observers of what is happening (not just me). When I question them you merely mock instead of addressing my points. Very poor form on your part I'm afraid.

Now since this is in danger of getting purely personal I'm signing out of this thread.

[airshifter]

Lets not forget that this is the US judiciary and intelligence system which has honed tracking down individuals and getting hold of them anywhere in the world using fair means and foul into a fine art since 9/11. If they really wanted him he wouldn't have lasted five hours in Stockholm let alone five weeks.

Anyway the US have got their hands on the guy who really caused the damage, someone not mentioned either by his supporters or by Assange himself, bizarre and ungrateful IMO given how much he has suffered since. Bradley Manning.

We hunted down and killed Bin Laden, and dozens involved in terror plots years prior to 9/11. If the US really wanted Assange, he'd already be in the US IMO. If the US wanted him dead, he'd probably be dead.

Regardless of how people view him, Manning is screwed. I seriously doubt if any country will cut any legal slack to anyone releasing classified information. On those counts alone he'll be lucky if he rots in jail for life.

[ioan]

We hunted down and killed Bin Laden, and dozens involved in terror plots years prior to 9/11. If the US really wanted Assange, he'd already be in the US IMO. If the US wanted him dead, he'd probably be dead.

Well, you missed the point, once again.
While Osama Bin Laden had a negative image in the world, that of a criminal and terrorist, in Assange's case it is the other way around, so the US can't just hunt him down and shoot him to close the case. We'll see what happens after the US elections.

[BDunnell]

Well, you missed the point, once again.
While Osama Bin Laden had a negative image in the world, that of a criminal and terrorist, in Assange's case it is the other way around, so the US can't just hunt him down and shoot him to close the case. We'll see what happens after the US elections.

And, once again, you overestimate Assange's significance, or the extent to which he is idolised around the world.

[Knock-on]

I think you might underestimate it Ben. Even 4 days ago I was still hearing about it in Moscow. When the only words you understand on the radio are "Julian Assange" it sort of stands out.

When was he granted Assylum? That's pretty good pull.

[ioan]

And, once again, you overestimate Assange's significance, or the extent to which he is idolised around the world.

Not everyone shares your views, luckily.

[BDunnell]

Not everyone shares your views, luckily.

Why 'luckily', ioan? He is, as I have said many times, far from being our only defender of freedom of speech. He is a deeply strange individual, utterly paranoid about criticism even when it emanates from proper investigative sources (as opposed to organisations that dump loads of documents on the internet) such as 'Private Eye' magazine, his correspondence to which consisted of, frankly, lunatic ravings. I have no desire to see Assange imprisoned for anything he hasn't done, nor anything relating to the activities of Wikileaks, in the latter case because they are of so little importance as to be fairly forgettable. But, equally, I would in no way place him on any sort of pedestal. You seem to have a difficulty with any viewpoint that falls between the two.

[BDunnell]

I think you might underestimate it Ben. Even 4 days ago I was still hearing about it in Moscow. When the only words you understand on the radio are "Julian Assange" it sort of stands out.

He is the best-known campaigner on these issues (if he can be described as such), I grant you. But I don't think many people care hugely about the outcome, save for not wishing a miscarriage of justice to be carried out, either in relation to the rape case or Wikileaks. The trouble is that Assange attracts such levels of paranoia amongst his supporters that they see huge international conspiracies in everything relating to him, which is exactly what he wants to happen, because he is a supreme egotist.

[BDunnell]

Here is an article worth reading on the part of anyone genuinely interested in the Assange case(s) from a balanced perspective, which I would suggest discounts the vast majority of contributors to this thread thus far:

New Statesman - The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/assange-and-legal-myths)

[Knock-on]

I read his first article where your balanced Author got ripped apart for a shoddy, one sided assassination attempt. This one is an attempt at back peddling and while he pays scant consideration to a few counter arguments, he dismisses them out of hand.

Why does he think that his is the only voice of reason in this matter and everyone with a different opinion is some sort of Zombie?

Hardly balanced if you ask me and I suggest you read some of the replies which I notice disprove some of the Authors facts and selective quoting.

[BDunnell]

I read his first article where your balanced Author got ripped apart for a shoddy, one sided assassination attempt. This one is an attempt at back peddling and while he pays scant consideration to a few counter arguments, he dismisses them out of hand.

Why does he think that his is the only voice of reason in this matter and everyone with a different opinion is some sort of Zombie?

Hardly balanced if you ask me and I suggest you read some of the replies which I notice disprove some of the Authors facts and selective quoting.

Much like Malbec earlier, I am starting to find your attempts to debate the issue increasingly irritating. Your own stance on it is as imbalanced as it gets — and, in any case, the fact (not opinion — fact) that, some years ago, you advocated that Clare Short be tried for treason on the grounds that she suggested that the UK had bugged the UN makes me take your protestations on issues relating to freedom of speech less than seriously. Yes, I have a long memory.

[Knock-on]

Really, I don't remember stating it quite like that but am happy to be proved wrong if you can provide the post.

Much like Malbec, you tire when your stance is questioned. I see why you like the Author you quoted.

Your memory is also less complete than you claim, you have only to read my first few posts on this thread to see that I am fully in favour of Assange facing a full and fair trial to answer these allegations. My reservation stems from a strong suspicion that this case is either politically or revenge motivated. Personally my opinion on the man is less complimentary than you might think.

Still, take your ball and go home. If this is your idea of debate, the thread would be better served without you.

[Malbec]

I think you might underestimate it Ben. Even 4 days ago I was still hearing about it in Moscow. When the only words you understand on the radio are "Julian Assange" it sort of stands out.

When was he granted Assylum? That's pretty good pull.

I find this argument that the USA isn't trying to extradite Assange from the UK because its worried about the PR backlash laughable.

I seem to remember back in 2003 the USA went a bit further than filing an extradition treaty, it invaded an independent country on questionable legal grounds and certainly against global public opinion whether measured on the street or at UN level. Yet the same country is supposed to be terrified of filing a mere extradition treaty.

Oh dear.

[edit] just remembered I'd checked out of this thread. Oh dear.

[ioan]

Why 'luckily', ioan? He is, as I have said many times, far from being our only defender of freedom of speech. He is a deeply strange individual, utterly paranoid about criticism even when it emanates from proper investigative sources (as opposed to organisations that dump loads of documents on the internet) such as 'Private Eye' magazine, his correspondence to which consisted of, frankly, lunatic ravings. I have no desire to see Assange imprisoned for anything he hasn't done, nor anything relating to the activities of Wikileaks, in the latter case because they are of so little importance as to be fairly forgettable. But, equally, I would in no way place him on any sort of pedestal. You seem to have a difficulty with any viewpoint that falls between the two.

You're sure your view falls between the two? Cause I do not think so.

[BDunnell]

You're sure your view falls between the two? Cause I do not think so.

I do, and, with respect, I think I know my own opinions better than you.

[BDunnell]

Really, I don't remember stating it quite like that but am happy to be proved wrong if you can provide the post.

That version of the forum doesn't exist any longer, as far as I know, otherwise I would do just that. You made exactly the comment I remember, believe me.



Your memory is also less complete than you claim, you have only to read my first few posts on this thread to see that I am fully in favour of Assange facing a full and fair trial to answer these allegations. My reservation stems from a strong suspicion that this case is either politically or revenge motivated. Personally my opinion on the man is less complimentary than you might think.

I too have no desire to see trials taking place on such a basis, but I believe the threat of same relating to Assange is much less serious than you seem to.

As for the rest of your remarks — well, I think you're already aware from previous discussions of the regard in which I hold your views on many matters political.

[BleAivano]

:yawn:

You are arguing semantics and towing a party line.

An interesting angle:

We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited | Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange)

This is a political case about someone that has upset the machine. Get him to Sweden safely and released after if no charges are substantiated but dont use a politial smokescreen to get him into a Country where he will be persecuted and prosocuted for political reasons.

Yeah i agree. JA/WL revealed that the Swedish Ipred law and the pirate bay raid/trial was "ordered" by the Usa. Link 1 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101226/00231112409/swedish-officials-complained-to-us-that-hollywood-pushed-ipred-anti-piracy-law-did-more-harm-than-good.shtml), Link 2 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101207/14495212169/leaked-state-department-cable-shows-behind-scenes-us-embassy-involvement-swedish-copyright-issues.shtml)
Perhaps "just" a "coincident"? Of course not.

[Knock-on]

Malbec, I have never stated the US is worried about the publicity backlash but that there would be a major backlash in the UK if he was extradited from here to the US which could necessitate a delay of many years and is why it is easier to get him from Sweden under a temporary extradition to the US. I thought I had made that clear.

As for the other point you mentioned, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Knock-on]

Ben, sto getting your knickers in a twist. Take a chill pill and come back when the tunnel vision has abated. You don't have to agree with my views but lets take each thread on its merits and not your preconception of my views eh?

[ioan]

I do, and, with respect, I think I know my own opinions better than you.

Mr Perfection has spoken. :\

[Knock-on]

Some people here are very liberal in their views and as long as you agree with those views ;)