General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIMO the denial of Sweden to guarantee Assange that he will not be sent to the US is enough to
justify his refusal to go to Sweden.
If this was really about rape charges they could issue such a guarantee. It wouldn't cost them anything. That they aren't doing it IMO proves with near certainty that there is more to the extradition request than rape charges.
Thanks Ecuador for doing what is right.
I should add that I can't see how anyone who is paying attention can deny that the persecution is political. I suspect that most people who complain that Assange is "avoiding to face charges" are simply opposed to what Wikileaks does and would like to see Assange taken in by the US.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Swagman
(1,934 posts)toward the alleged victims and perpetuated this matter for over two years.
If they truly care about alleged rape victims they would do what my friend who is a detective who investigates sex crimes does (and sometimes the details are sickening)..he ensures the victim's suffering is not perpetuated for one second more than necessary.
Investigators could have traveled the short trip to London 2 years ago- as investigators routinely do all over the world and in Sweden- and interviewed Assange.
One country has acted honorably : Ecuador.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Why is this so hard to grasp?
The police conduct an investigation, take statements and gather evidence. The investigation is then reviewed by the prosecutor. Then and only then is the accused brought in for an interview. That is when the prosecutor presents the results of the investigation and gets a statement from the accused. Then and only then can the prosecutor formally press charges and take the accused into custody if required.
The prosecutor will not interview him in London because she cannot arrest him there. Assange's lawyer was told that after Assange's interview he was going to be placed in custody - that is why he skipped town. To avoid a Swedish jail cell.
although I am fascinated that a suspect's lawyer is informed ahead of an interview that their client will be arrested.
So that is how Swedish justice 'works'?
hack89
(39,181 posts)You can deny the lawyer's own words if you wish - it doesn't change reality.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)For questioning!
She can arrest him anywhere she wants. It doesn't matter anyway, Assange has agreed to go to Sweden for questioning at any time. As long as the Swedes agree to NOT extradite him to the US. They've refused.
Or conversely, the US can say they won't extradite him. They've also refused.
hack89
(39,181 posts)You think he would do that?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Or do you think he's going to wrassle a pack of cops and escape? I don't think Assange is some kind of special forces guy - if he's arrested, they're going to cuff him and take him away.
hack89
(39,181 posts)the Swedish police don't have arrest power in Britain - that is why the British police have to enforce the Interpol warrant.
So the notion that it is not a big deal for the interview to take place in London is BS - Assange insisted on it precisely because he can't be arrested.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Again, of course the UK police can and do arrest people all the time.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Assange has ignored every legal warrant presented. He is ignoring the British High Court's extradition ruling.
And you really expect me to believe that if only the Swedish prosecutor would hop on a plane to London then he would willingly surrender to Swedish legal authority. Give me a fucking break. He is desperately trying everything he can do to avoid jail.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And with the risk of being disappeared or tortured or given "extra judicial" justice, as the US has amply demonstrated, its a fair request.
US plans to extradite Assange
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
EXCLUSIVE
August 18, 2012
Philip Dorling
AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.
This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.
The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.
The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html
hack89
(39,181 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Source: Sydney Morning Herald
EXCLUSIVE
August 18, 2012
Philip Dorling
AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.
This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.
The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.
The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html
hack89
(39,181 posts)nowhere does it document the US saying they plan to extradite Assange. It is about the opinions of Australian diplomats on what America might possibly do.
As US is hell bent on secrecy and generally expected just to lie when they officially state something, we have only second hand sources to draw conclusions about real US intentions. Australian diplomat cables to aussie gov are as reliable sources as you can get in this matter, especially when they confirm what has been gained also from other sources.
tama
(9,137 posts)"If you want to interview me, come here, or at least give guarantees that I don't end up in US torture chamber."
On the other hand, Sweden and Britain and US are not in position to demand anything from Ecuador.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Because he can sit in the Ecuadorian embassy for as long as they will have him and neither Sweden nor the UK can do a thing about it.
hack89
(39,181 posts)somehow I think the notion of Assange sitting in a small room for years does not bother the Swedes that much. Especially considering that he may actually be acquitted if he went to trial.
I was about to say the same thing. As long as he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, they can't touch him.
I don't know whether the man is guilty or not - the only people that know that are Assange and the two women. What I do know is that he has every right to be afraid that he will not get a fair trial, or a fair sentence.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Why doesn't everyone just kow-tow to the will of the authorities as defined by you? What a wonderful world this will be!
hack89
(39,181 posts)he is going to sit in that embassy until he dies or surrenders. He has no legal leg to stand on.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)free to continue his work, living in luxury, rather than the way he used to live when he had to live a nomadic life because of his exposures of corrupt dictatorships who were not happy with him at all.
He was on the run ever since Wikileaks began exposing corruption in governments like Mubarak's, Ben Ali's (he's currently supported by Tunisia's new President who has expressed his gratitude to him for Wikileaks' Tunisian Corrupt Regime exposures). He is a Human Rights activist himself, having been jailed and persecuted by the Ben Ami regime. As he said, he understands Assanges 'predicament' very well.
The legal leg that allows him to reside in the Embassy are International Laws.
hack89
(39,181 posts)what he does not have is a legal means out of his predicament - he stays in the embassy or he goes to Sweden. Ecuadorian asylum does not give him free passage to Ecuador.
You do understand that he is not living in luxury?
The fugitive has just a sunlamp, a running machine and internet connection in the threadbare room inside the ground-floor apartment in Knightsbridge.
The curtains are almost always closed to prevent people looking in. And a short walk down the worn corridor he can find a small water dispenser.
Without sunlight or fresh air, friends fear that he is slowly verging towards depression. Only recently has a blow-up bed been swapped for a proper mattress.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189749/Threadbare-room-inside-Ecuadorian-embassy-Julian-Assange-hiding.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
And no, he is not continuing his work. By giving him asylum, Ecuador assumes responsibilities for his actions in the embassy. There is no way Ecuador will allow him to run Wikileaks from the embassy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I prefer his attorneys' description without the DM's enhancements.
The Ecuadorian Govt can and have indicated they may bring this issue, Britain's refusal to respect their right to grant asylum to Assange, to the International Courts. So yes, there are other legal avenues. Britain doesn't rule the world. Ecuador NOT Assange has rights under International law.
However I suspect that neither Correa nor Assange actually want him to leave the Embassy. There he is visited regularly by his attorneys and other friends and relatives if he wishes. It would be much more difficult for them were he in Ecuador.
Now that Britain has been slapped down for its outrageous threat to storm the embassy and have informed Ecuador that this will not happen, he is much better off staying there.
In other cases of asylum seekers, they have remained in embassies for years until a change in the political landscape, very likely here also, ended their need for asylum.
hack89
(39,181 posts)international law is also pretty clear that Ecuador is now responsible for what Assange does while in the embassy.
Assange is neutralized - the US is very happy about this.
You are wrong about asylum. Diplomatic asylum is not the same as political asylum. It is not recognized in international law. The UK is not legally required by international law to recognize Assange's asylum.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)He is doing exactly what he wants, and the British Govt played right into his hands.
Iow, he just got the attention of the whole world giving the British Govt a black eye, although he didn't force them into their ridiculous threats.
One of the more intelligent and now former members of the State Dept, P.J. Crowley in remarks that seemed to be giving advice to Assange, stated that there is split in the US Govt regarding their pursuit of Assange. The more sensible, mostly Democrats like Conyers, but within the State Dept also, oppose this phony effort to charge him under the Espionage Act, as it makes the US Govt look as bad as the British Govt now looks and only gathers support for Assange.
His remarks on Assange's comments accusing the US of being on a witch hunt against him, were basically to say Assange probably should not have said that, as it appears because of the conflict in the US Govt, they are backing away from trying to come up with charges against him. Assange's remarks, he said, might anger them to the point of proceeding.
He has become an international figure widely viewed around the world as a target of the Western Colonial states who is being persecuted for his work with Wikileaks, and the more they go after him, the more popular he becomes. P.J. Crowley is correct. He was correct about the treatment of Manning also having a very negative effect on the US.
This is how he is working on Wikileaks. He may also be writing a memoir which he is free to do.
But neutralized he is not.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Go back and read the OAS statement. It says nothing about Assange himself.
They have given Ecuador partial support and nothing more.
Ecuador called for the Organization of American States vote saying the UK had threatened to storm the embassy.
But the resolution was reworded after the UK insisted it had made no threat.
The BBC's Kim Ghattas said the resolution expressed solidarity with Ecuador but, despite a strong plea from Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, there was no reference to any threat against his country's embassy in London.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19377110
All they were concerned about were the alleged threats to storm the embassy. The fact that the OAS accepted Britain's word and weakened the statement despite Ecuador's pleas tells me that this issue is not going to fire up South America. Especially as time goes on and the matter fades from the front page.
Why do you think the OAS refuse to comment on Assange and voice an opinion on whether or not he should be extradited to Sweden?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)since it is obvious where you stand on these issues.
This was a real live chess game played by the Latin American nation of Ecuador and Wikileaks against the old colonial Empire which was successfully check-mated.
And Assange was a main player in a game they started but so far are losing.
Next move? We'll see, they probably should rethink their strategy. All this part of the game did was get him and Wikileaks even more support than they already had.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Ecuador doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. That is why there is no international outcry in support of them. Ecuador has no leverage - Assange sitting in a dingy embassy for years is not a victory. Assange will not be going to Ecuador.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)you think foreign law enforcement officers can come to America and arrest someone just because there is an Interpol Red Notice?
Can you show a single case of that happening?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Here's one recent story about the Icelandic bankers....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12688072
hack89
(39,181 posts)he was placed on bail waiting the results of the extradition hearing. After 2 years he was ordered to be returned to Sweden. He jumped bail and fled to the embassy.
So don't tell me that the Swedish prosecutor could have come to London and just like that Assange would give up his fight and returned to Sweden.
hlthe2b
(113,868 posts)him in London. Given the very complicated circumstances, the refusal to even go that far to demonstrate the accusations and pending charges were valid seems to underscore this as a political prosecution/persecution. I don't take rape accusations lightly--at all. But given all the circumstances, this is anything but a unquestioned and above board investigation for sexual assault/rape.
hack89
(39,181 posts)the Swedes cannot arrest Assange in London - he is insisting on the interview in London to avoid arrest.
He is trying to game the system and the Swedes are refusing to play.
hlthe2b
(113,868 posts)At least demonstrate that there is some validity behind this process and it is not purely political. Something that most people who are following it question highly, I'd be willing to bet.
The Brits are willing to extradict even without Swedish arrest warrants, apparently. So, your point seems totally moot.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Posted: 2012-03-22 21:11, last updated: 2012-07-25 07:07
Murder Suspect questioned in Serbia
Vaksalagatan. Swedish police and prosecutors are now questioning the 21-year-old man from Uppsala, which is being held in Belgrade on suspicion of murdering a 26-year-old in an apartment on Vaksalagatan Christmas.
Links
READ MORE: Continued hearings after murder
READ MORE: arrested for accessory to murder
READ MORE: Murder suspect arrested in Belgrade
READ MORE: 21-year-old arrested for the murder of Vaksalagatan
Two other men have been arrested in Uppsala, on suspicion of aggravated protective of crime.
Investigators have visited the prison in Belgrade, where the man is being held. According to reports, decisions about extradition of 21-year old was taken within 1-2 months.
Serbia. Not even an EU country. Got anything else you want to pretend to know about?
hack89
(39,181 posts)Assange was going to be arrested - they can't arrest him in Britain.
Just like your example, all they can do is request extradition. Which they did. Assange was then arrested by the British and given bail until the extradition hearing was over. He was ordered extradited.
What should have happened was that Assange surrender to the British authorities who would then put him on a plane to Sweden.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)"The prosecutor will not interview him in London because she cannot arrest him there. " Your words.
You have been proved flat out wrong. A) as you concede, Assange is already under arrest, detained at Sweden's request, and Britain will certainly comply with an extradition request. B) There is no bar whatever to Swedish authorities interviewing him outside Sweden, neither in the UK, nor in Ecuador's embassy, nor in a fetid Serbian pisshole, nor in a box with a fox, for the purposes of determining whether or not to charge him, and then take him away.
Sweden has been invited to interview Assange by his lawyers, and even by Ecuador. The prosecutor would not interview him in London - but it clearly was for some reason other than required Swedish legal procedure.
hack89
(39,181 posts)are you really saying that the only reason Assange fought against extradition for two years is because of the location of the interview? That if the interview was held in London and the Swedes charged him he would have dropped his fight and gone along willingly? Give me a fucking break.
He has fought arrest every inch of the way.
Britain has complied with an extradition request - Assange blew them off.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)with the best of them.
I'll take your hysterical accusations and preposterous hypotheticals as a concession speech.
hack89
(39,181 posts)if they had conducted the interview in London? Really?
I know you are a fanboi but damn - there is a serious detachment from reality here.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)he will do anything to avoid a jail cell.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...to "investigate" after they'd reached the conclusion that there was no case to answer.
Because Sweden has a history of allowing the US extrajudicial access to foreign nationals on its soil.
One complainant was a professional CIA shit stirrer And the other would be her own worst enemy in court.
The US has long indicated that it wishes to arrest and interview Assange WRT Bradly Manning and his leaking of diplomatic cables.
Because the whole thing is a politically motivated farce.
All he wants is a solid assurance that he won't end up in US custody.
hack89
(39,181 posts)He is not special in the eyes of the law. He doesn't get to dictate terms to the government of Sweden.
Now he is truly fucked. He can go to jail for breaking British law.
So he will sit in that embassy until he dies or he surrenders. Which is ok - he is impotent and harmless now.
tama
(9,137 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)and what is the punishment for it, thanks.
hack89
(39,181 posts)http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/julian_p_assange/index.html
I doubt the would jail him again - they would simply put him on a plane to Sweden.
reorg
(3,317 posts)and what is the punishment for this crime?
hack89
(39,181 posts)not sure what the punishment would be beyond going back to jail until he was extradited. I doubt the Brits want him hanging around for a trial.
Why is this important in your eyes?
reorg
(3,317 posts)that you tend to use the plural form (prosecutors, arrest warrants) even if there is but one subject or object and make up laws that don't exist, to give your arguments more weight, I suppose.
Americans often think that fleeing from punishment or arrest is an offense in itself, carrying additional punishment when the escapee is apprehended and this may indeed be so in the US. In Europe, however, this is usually not the case. You don't "break the law" if you escape, because it is seen as a natural human impulse to avoid confinement. There may be exceptions and I was hoping you could enlighten me on whether the UK is one, but apparently you were just engaging in your usual hyperbole.
hack89
(39,181 posts)1. Criminal contempt of court for violating his bail conditions
2. Escape
Don't forget that US Law is based on British Law - every state in the Union has a law recognizing British common law. Not every European country is a common law country.
tama
(9,137 posts)The whole thing has been a legal farce from the beginning. Sadly legal farces mean personal tragedies.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I think you need to start reading more about this case before making any more proclamations. He surrendered and was jailed in isolation for ten days in a British jail, later released on bail put up for him by such well known individuals as Michael Moore, Jemima Khan, John Pilger among others, but under very restrictive conditions including reporting daily to the police and wearing an ankle bracelet.
Did you forget these facts or were you never aware of them?
hack89
(39,181 posts)My last comment refers to what should have happened after he lost his extradition hearing.
I know he had surrendered previously - he had jumped bail when he entered the embassy, remember?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people such as Naomi Wolf to Legal experts from Latin America to Australia, to whistle-blowers and journalists and political dissidents across the globe, he did precisely the right thing as his freedom and even more concerning, his life are definitely in danger.
When elected officials of a country as powerful as this call for the assassination of a journalist such as Assange, a country that now has a reputation of assassinating even its own citizens, and when one of this country's most notorious criminal operatives, Karl Rove, is deeply embedded in the Government of Sweden, a country which has already shamed itself by rendering two human beings on behalf of the US to Egypt for torture, to even consider trusting either of these two governments to care about his human rights or the rule of law could only be described as massively foolish. And like him or hate him, he is no fool.
He did exactly the right thing. We were all hoping, that is those of us who for ten years now have watched the decline of this country regarding the rule of law and human rights, that this is what he would do. Kudos to Ecuador for standing up for freedom of speech and democracy. For teaching the hypocritical Western nations who mouth off about 'democracy' while violating human rights all over the globe, what democracy looks like.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)
Matariki
(18,775 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I wish we could book mark posts.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)You claim interview is before arrest and prosecution, so why not go ahead and interview him?
Sweden interviewed a murder suspect in Serbia a short while ago, I see no reason this case can't be treated similarly.
hack89
(39,181 posts)he did so to avoid arrest. Do you really expect me to believe that after fighting extradition for two years that he was going to surrender following an interview in London?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)He left Sweden after waiting around 5 weeks and being told he could leave.
However, nothing stands in the way of him being interviewed now, at the embassy.
And nothing is preventing him from going to Sweden for interview, trial, whatever, except a guarantee he wont be handed over to the US. Seems quite simple, if this is merely about standing trial on rape charges.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:52 PM - Edit history (1)
the lawyer was notified on 22 Sept 2010 to bring Assange in for an interview on the 28th. Assange left Sweden on the 27th.
hack89
(39,181 posts)His lawyer was told on the 22nd of September 2010 that Assange was to be interviewed on the 28th - Assange left Sweden on the 27th.
Assange is being disingenuous as hell - he knows he can't be arrested as long as he stays out of Sweden.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for Assange to leave. His lawyer was handling over 200 other cases. The Prosecutor, AFTER having given consent for him to leave, then sent his Lawyer, NOT Assange, emails which his lawyer did not see right away and so did not tell his client. The prosecutor could have picked up the phone when she did not get a response, OR she could have had Assange detained. Oddly she did neither of those things. She waited until the day everyone knew he was leaving, let him, THEN on that same day, secretly issued an arrest warrant.
In the view of many people, she is at fault. After more than four weeks of daily calls asking for an interview, then being told to leave, she makes her move. You could almost think she wanted him to leave so she could issue that arrest warrant.
I have never, ever seen such an incompetent prosecution. When a prosecutor WANTS to speak to a witness, as she herself had repeatedly said UP TO that point, they should speak to them as early in the case as possible. She refuse to do that.
If she is this incapable of doing her job, she should have quit, especially after four weeks of refusing to talk to him. But then, if she had interviewed him, she would have had to file charges, and as anyone who has read the 'evidence' knows, that is probably the last thing she wanted to do. Her antics are disgraceful.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:11 AM - Edit history (4)
you do understand that communications are usually between the lawyer and the prosecutor? For obvious reasons no good lawyer wants his client talking directly with the police or the prosecutors.
She took over the case on September 1st - she notified the lawyer three weeks later about the interview.
I am astounded how you refuse to understand how different the Swedish system is. They do not have a common law legal system like America. In America, the accused is charged early in the process and then after a lengthy investigation goes to court. In Sweden there is a lengthy investigation and the accuse is then charged just before the trial.
This interview is NOT a witness interview. It's purpose is to present the government's case to the accused so charges can be filed.
It is disingenuous on your part to point to a prosecutor doing exactly what Swedish law says she must and saying she is incompetent because that is not how it would happen in America.
He left Sweden the night before his interview. He knew he was going to be arrested. You can twist it all you want.
tama
(9,137 posts)with very similar system to Sweden (we were occupied by Sweden for centuries) so I know how Swedish system works. And how wrong it is.
Ecuador's responsible and humane decision rightly shows that the it is the Swedish system that stands accused and condemned - besides US, UK and Australia. Swedish national ego whines and cries a lot when it's old international reputation facade is crumbling, but facts remain: it's US puppet accomplish to kidnapping and torture, in numerous human rights violations, condemned by UN and several EU legal authorities.
Indefinite incarceration in Swedish jail cell without any access to outer world is human right violation and nobody should accept such practice.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I can respect that.
tama
(9,137 posts)and no fear of being turned into US custody.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I doubt for a moment that they are going to allow Wikileaks to be run from the Ecuadorian embassy. They would be held responsible for any acts taken from behind the shield of diplomatic immunity.
tama
(9,137 posts)and lazy on facts. That's not new. 
Assange has continued his journalistic work from the Embassy and has been invited by Correa to keep on doing it, in expressis verbis e.g. to reveal corruption in Ecuador. Of course Wikileaks per se is not run from the embassy, as it is independent collective work now dispersed all over the net.
I get the impression that you are prejudging all governments according to the standards and expectations you hold US gov to, but not everyone in this world is as evil as your gov.
hack89
(39,181 posts)is going to have Assange reveal corruption in Ecuador? Pull the other one!
tama
(9,137 posts)while you have been told what really happened by many DUers. AFAIK Correa didn't jail any journalist, he pressed charges against libel, won the case in court and then pardoned the criminals according to his presidential powers. The editors have not spent any time in jail but have been free all the time, unlike what would happen to Assange in Sweden and happened in Britain. I very much agree with the libel case - freedom of expression does not mean that filthy liers should have absolute freedom to keep on lying - and with the pardon, as there is no reason to make any personal vendetta against bankster tool mediamen, however wrong and corrupt they are. Just strip them from power to keep on spreading cancerous lies and then forget them and let them continue their lives as they want.
What Correa said about Assange revealing corruption in Ecuador is just a direct quote from what he said when he was on Assange's TV show.
Has it ever crossed your mind that you can also stop lying, you are not obligated to be keep on lying all your life?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The food is great, he has visitors every day, the staff treats him great and finally he has time to work on Wikileaks, which she says he is totally dedicated to.
For someone who spent his life without having a home, on the run from brutal dictatorships exposed by Wikileaks, never staying in one place more than a few nights for years, this is pure luxury for him. Not to mention his supporters. You can tell a lot about someone by who is supporting them and who is not. Assange is supported by some of the world's most respected people such as Ellsberg, Chomsky, Michael Moore, Naomi Wolf and whole long list of world renowned figures, some of very prominent. And now we learn, the entire continent of South America.
And he's hated by the far right. That tells me I made the correct decision. Never want to be found, even accidently on the side of Dick Cheney eg.
hack89
(39,181 posts)by providing him asylum in their embassy, the Ecuadorians are responsible for his actions. Letting Assange break the law would be a gross violation of diplomatic law. Besides - every intelligence service in Britain is watching and listening. It is much easier when you know exactly where your target is.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I love your posts, I really do.
I'll take her word over yours, if you don't mind though.
hack89
(39,181 posts)he needs all the prayers he can get at the moment.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)any time over the past two years, what is your point?
The prosecutor has not said she will not interview him in London because she could not arrest him there, that I know of. And if she did, that is a lie. Assange was already arrested in London on behalf of the Swedish Government and would be again, if the Swedish Government asked them to.
But what she actually had been claiming was that she could not interview him in London because of 'legal impediments'. That has turned out to also be a lie, since Sweden has done this before and there were no legal impediments. Now that that has been debunked, her latest answer as to why she will not move this case forward was 'Swedish Law is confusing'.
hack89
(39,181 posts)The point of the interview was to arrest Assange - why interview him in London when he was already fighting extradition and you know he would not have willingly returned to Sweden?
Nobody could expect that Assange would ignore a court order and flee the British authorities once his extradition fight failed - could they?
Did you expect Assange to jump bail and flee?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You just said it. That they wanted to arrest him.
Now please explain exactly why Sweden wanted to arrest him? Is it standard procedure in any Democracy to plot to arrest a witness in an investigation in advance of a decision that there even is a case.? You wouldn't get many witnesses to talk to investigators if all of them faced arrest would you?
Being that there are no charges, there isn't even a case, just an investigation. So, what would they be anticipating arresting him for?? What if he has exculpatory information? We KNOW he does have exculpatory evidence btw because before it was erased from the Internet the whole world was able to see it.
So they have pre-determined what he has to say, the whole 'we want to talk to him re our investigation' is just a ploy to try to get him to Sweden after all. Imagine that, as if we all didn't know this from the beginning.
So now you are admitting that he definitely had something to fear. Sweden, claiming to be conducting an investigation, isn't doing that after all. They plan to arrest him. That is why they want him in Sweden. Maybe they could render him to one the US's favorite Dictatorships, as they did before. Uzbekistan gets paid well by us, they might be willing to oblige now that we've lost some of our torturing friends.
Thank you, it took all these posts to finally get that admission.
hack89
(39,181 posts)we are not talking about the US system. The interview we are talking about takes place when the investigation is finished. It is to afford the accused to see the evidence against him. It is the final step before arrest. The Swedish prosecutors told Assange's lawyers that there was sufficient evidence to arrest him. That is why he ran.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Why, when he was in Sweden, asking them to speak to him, did they refuse to do so?
Sweden does not arrest witnesses btw. He is a witness until they file charges against him. The threat to arrest him is a threat to his freedom and right to a fair trial.
Look, the world is now demanding, either charge him or stop playing this game, as a vast majority of intelligent people around the planet is not buying what they are selling and Sweden is losing any respect it had around the world for its stupid, ridiculous claims that they simply are paralyzed when it comes to filing charges against a suspect. Pure nonsense, you need to stop trying to get anyone to believe it.
hack89
(39,181 posts)they can't arrest him in a foreign country.
Quite distorting the meaning of this interview. It's only purpose is to present the government's case to him before they arrest him. It is not to get a statement from him. It is not to gather more evidence.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)this backwards. IF and as the world knows, this is a huge big IF, they have a credible case against someone, they file those charges in court and then issue an arrest warrant. They had that chance when he was questioned two years ago in Sweden. They've had it for two years since then but continue to refuse to talk to him.
Show me one other situation where there are no charges filed, someone is wanted for questioning, makes themselves available, has already been questioned, has always been available and ends up in an international situation like this with so, many, many excuses, which grow weaker by the day, as to why he has still not been charged.
Either they have a case or they don't. The world is asking them to either charge him, or stop these abuses. It's really very simple. Had they charged him it would have been far more difficult for Ecuador to have granted him asylum eg. But even knowing that, they could not file their case because they have none.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)he lost. He jumped bail.
So after all that do you really expect me.to believe that if the Swedish prosecutor interviewed him in London and decided to arrest him that Assange would have willingly surrendered? No - he would have still fought it tooth and nail. He will do anything to avoid arrest and you know it.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and if he resists arrest, he'll be tased and cuffed like everyone else.
This isn't rocket science. Cops arrest uncooperative people every day. They're even (gasp) specially trained in that.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Because he jumped bail and is avoiding arrest. Don't you agree that he has done everything he can do to avoid arrest?
Should he surrender if the Swedes come to London to interview him? Is that your position? Good.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)That's not my position and you know it. Now that Assange has been granted asylum, Sweden's ability to arrest him just got infinitely harder than it was for the past two years while he was under house arrest. They did not do so when it would have been possible which says a lot about their case. They want him to go to Sweden, without a non-extradion agreement.
hack89
(39,181 posts)that is why they issued an international arrest warrant. The Brits arrested him. The Swedes requested extradition. Assange was on bail for two years while he fought extradition. He jumped bail and fled to the embassy when he lost his legal fight.
You are really confused on the legal issues if you think that Swedish police have the powers of arrest outside of Sweden. They had to extradite Assange once he was in a foreign country. Which they did.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
hack89
(39,181 posts)
1monster
(11,045 posts)to interview him. (After all, he dosen't have to say anything of substance at all when questioned. He could even lie because in the end, this is all he said/she said/she said.) Evidence is evidence -- and since at least one witness, and I believe both, said they never wanted to have him charged with rape, the case is extremely weak.
You just keep repeating the same tired old arguments over and over and over in the face of the facts that others have given you. You aren't convincing anyone. You're just making people wonder what your stake is in this.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Assange skipped town that night.
Pure coincidence I am sure.
1monster
(11,045 posts)Assange was interviewed and told he was free to leave Sweden. He was some time gone from Sweden before they reinstated the investigation.
But you just keep repeating the lie over and over again. Some will start to believe it's true. But it won't work with me and others who followed this case closely.
hack89
(39,181 posts)and has been posted here several times.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
dendrobium
(90 posts)There is nothing that will sway people from their belief that Assange is a hero being hunted in a complex scheme to extradite him to Sweden where somehow he will be then be sent to the United States to be imprisoned for leaking all those juicy diplomatic cables. If the United States wants him, i would have thought it would be easy to get him directly from the United Kingdom.
Instead we get scathing analysis of the Swedish legal system as if it is in any way similar to a common law system. Even more disappointing is the dismissal of the alleged victims of Assange. I cannot believe on DU people are arguing that it cannot be rape because the alleged victim had previously consented to sex. Or that it is just about a broken condom. I do not know if Assange is guilty but I respect the rule of law and he fought his extradition through the courts and lost. He must go to Sweden and face the charges there. Everything else is speculation and conspiracy theory.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Interviewed suspects on foreign soil. There is no reason not to do so now. And, if they are serious about bringi.g Assange to swedish soil for trial, all theu have to do is guarantee not to turn him over to the US. This is also easy.
Exception - If Sweden merely wants Assange to rendition him to US, the situation becomes murky. US can't file extradition without legitimate charges. US charges won't be legitimate because they won't be filed in civilian court... US certainly can't afford to have Assange tried in civilian court because of issues with evidence, witnesses, openess, right to appeal, etc. So US is going to just imprison Assange with no trial, or a kangaroo court military trial. UK won't participate in rendition. Sweden has history of complicity with US in extraordinary rendition and torture. That is why the desire to get Assange on Swedish soil ; not for a sexual misconduct trial, but for renditioning him on behalf of US. US will simply disappear him.
hack89
(39,181 posts)that is the issue - Assange fled Sweden to avoid arrest.
The Swedish prosecutor told Assange's lawyer that they wanted to interview Assange and that he was going to be taken into custody. Assange left Sweden that night.
So why should Sweden grant Assange any concessions at all? He is standing there thumbing his nose at them.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Assange waited around in Sweden for 5 weeks and was told he could leave. There would be no charges. Then the US became involved, and the case reopened with a new wingnut prosecutor. The extradition from UK was filed then. Assange fought this, which is why he was under house arrest, prior to asylum in Ecuadorean embassy.
If not for US involvement, there would be no Swedish charges. US wants to get Assange outside US legal system, because US case would be laughed out of civilian court. UK won't participate in rendition. Sweden has and will. This is why the effort to get Assange on Swedish soil, by any pretext... its to extrajudicial kidnap and detain him.
hack89
(39,181 posts)he testified in British court that he was notified that the prosecutor wanted to interview Assange and that Assange would be taken into custody. That was before Assange left Sweden.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)You've been told several times, yet you still spew falsehoods. Assange was told he could leave Sweden. There were no charges at that time. Case was reopened by a new prosecutor, with US behind the curtain, only AFTER Assange travelled to UK.
hack89
(39,181 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
xchrom
(108,903 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
cali
(114,904 posts)just because someone disagrees with me-or you- doesn't de facto make them an "apologist". And that's true in this case too.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
cali
(114,904 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)when he warned America (in the 1950s!) to beware the military industrial complex - corporations, companies, professional mercenary contractors, Department of Defense, CIA etc. all of of the organizations that "profit" from war.
tama
(9,137 posts)but never seen that acronymed before...
Aerows
(39,961 posts)tells me that this isn't about rape charges at all. If they get a hold of Assange, he will never be released alive.
As soon as the Swedes get him he would be turned over to the CIA for rendition/torture/Gitmo/disappearance or "suicide." The best he could hope for is what happened to Bradley Manning.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)condemned everywhere. These tactics of smear campaigns are no longer working among the people.
Looking at the comment sections of every Utube video on Ecuador's decision and every article today, nearly 90% are in support of it, many people urging boycotts of Sweden and organizing tourism to Ecuador. I think I would like to go there now also.
It's been an amazing day, amazing to see that people are no longer fooled by these charades they play. The lies about Iraq, the lack of accountability for war criminals, people see with their own eyes, the total hypocrisy.
And the more the Western nations bully other countries, like Ecuador today, the more people eyes are opening.
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)I made 4 trips to U.K. I enjoyed them and planned to return.
No more.
tama
(9,137 posts)I remember the time before Bush war against Iraq, many people were taking governments and their lies quite seriously and generally believing them. Not so today. Many little boys - Assange is just one among many - have yelled that Emperor has no clothes. And people have rubbed they eyes and said that darn, the kid is right, emperor is bloody naked and not a pleasure to look at.
Of course there will always be also people who won't believe their own eyes but what Authorities tell them to see and do.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)At long last, transparency. 
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)There are also raging misandrists and, as you pointed out, people who have no actual clue what is going on.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)"Freedom is great and everything as long as you don't challenge anyone with real power. Hey, did I tell you I went to KFC instead of Chick-Fil-A for lunch today? That's how much of a rebel I am!"
cali
(114,904 posts)but I don't believe he should be shipped off to the U.S. via Sweden, and I think that it reeks as a set up. That doesn't mean I find the guy admirable. I don't. I just believe he's being railroaded. You don't have to like him to stand up for him.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I would like to see the case settled in court. However, as long as Sweden will not guarantee that they won't extradite him, that cannot happen. No one who committed sexual assault/rape (depending on the legal definitions) should face punishment for anything other than their crime(s), just as no criminal should face rape in addition to their punishment (US jails, I'm looking at you.) As it is, we don't know whether Assange is guilty of the charges against him, because it is not right to risk having him face rendition/torture/gitmo/what have you in order to find out. It's a travesty of the Swedish judicial system that they deny the accusers their day in court just because the Swedish government is too obedient of the US. Assange is right to refuse to go to Sweden, but I hope that one day this will be resolved properly.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Not sure why some think you are a MIC apologist if the slightest bad thing is said about him, or a hero worshiper if you think he is being railroaded. Only black and white. I think the guy has very few positive character traits. At the same time he is absolutely getting screwed for rubbing egg in the face of the elite powers of the world.
These matters should not be judged on personal opinions on personal characters, which are basically matters of taste.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Myself included.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)The US has not revealed what its case against Assange might be. Until it does, Sweden cannot realistically say it will never agree to extradition to the US. You can't give a blanket pardon to someone before seeing evidence.
This is first and foremost a problem caused by Obama's government, I'm afraid to say. If they made a statement saying they will never seek his extradition, it would simplify the whole matter.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In the Pentagon Papers case, the SCOTUS ruled that publishing classified that was leaked to you is protected by the first amendment.
Assange hasn't broken any US laws.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)claiming "National Security". Its a railroad job, with no media reporting, no ability to cross examine witnesses, or even to see the evidence against him. Most important, its out of the jurisdiction of appeals courts, who would likely rule in his favor using Ellsburg as a precedent.
The US's motives are quite clear, and they aren't honorable.
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)Ford did it for Nixon.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)However as he has been interviewed and investigated already in Sweden and cleared by the Chief Prosecutor one would have to be wary of the 'second bite of the cherry' especially as the matter has been re-ignited by a right-wing prosecutor.
I know of no country that demands a 'suspect' present themselves especially across borders for re-questioning.
To re-iterate about my detective friend who investigates sex assaults , he spends a large amount of time tracking down suspects, often fruitlessly. That is his job.
yet the Swedes have delayed the a matter for 2 years by refusing to do what every other investigator does..travel to London to interview their suspect and if the alleged victims (who want no charges) are for real they have delayed closure.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He'd be able to break any US law he felt like as long as he remained in Sweden. Because the US would be unable to extradite him if the prosecutors promised not to.
How DARE the Swedes follow their laws!!!
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Hes not a US citizen, nor is he on US soil. He is not subject to US law.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)accused Assange of treason.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)On TV yesterday...can't remember what channel...when they were talking about Assage 'trying to avoid treason charges'. WTF? 1 - he's not an American 2 - he was not on US soil. The stoopid...it burns.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Steals a nice pile of money from people in the US. US has jurisdiction because it uses US banks.
Normally, he would be charged with a crime from the US, and the US would seek to extradite him. That avenue would be closed if the Swedes promise to never, ever extradite him.
I don't believe Assange is specifically planning any such activity, but there's no guarantee he won't break US law after arriving in Sweden.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)and US presidents have a history of breaking US laws and getting away with it.
Or perhaps you were out of the country from 2000 t0 2008.
The anti-Assange DUers have a laundry list of reasons of why he should go to Sweden,
jeff47
(26,549 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)should be more important than law to all of us.
There is simple test. Ask if a state or gov is acting in the way you would wish and teach your child to act.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)You think you rule the world.
OK, only some of us think that way.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)First, let me say I am one of those who has and continues to smell a rat somewhere in this whole extradition debacle. However, those who are in favor of the extradition, are not merely right wing trolls. Some have a very real, and very personal connection with the crime. Rape is a deeply personal issue for many people, victims, and families of victims for example. I believe some on our side of the aisle who support the effort to extradite are reacting emotionally, and that is absolutely understandable.
Something else. I read an article where the Swedish Foreign Minister summoned the Ambassador to Ecuador and in short registered the displeasure with Ecuador's action. Interesting isn't it? The ink wasn't dry on the press reports of the decision, and Sweden was demanding an explanation. I say it's interesting because Diplomacy is usually an effort to slow things down, give time to all the participants to consider. Summons and demands are usually counterproductive to that effort.
Despite it being OUR White House, and OUR CIA. I still don't trust them. There is just too many Intelligence groups, and too many people doing whatever they feel like in the name of Homeland Security to ever be trusted.
redgreenandblue
(2,125 posts)However in this particular case I think such a response is counter productive. One has to look at the big picture.
Moreover, as far as I understand the women initially did not accuse Assange of rape, but rather went to the police to see whether they can force him to get tested for STDs. The rape charge resulted from how the Swedish system responded to this.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)Swedish law but 'sexual misconduct' which is a lesser charge. These things are important.
So far I have read DUers call him a 'narcissistic fool', 'refusing to take a DNA test (??)' , 'avoding rape charges' and many more completely irrelevant and false claims.
It's a worry.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)It is under this wider definition of the word that police wish to question Assange. Police reports state that the allegations against Assange center around claims by two Swedish women who say that on separate occasions each had consented to have sex with Assange, but that sometime during or after the encounter, he engaged in sexual behavior against their will. According to the Swedish branch of Interpol, a recent arrest warrant for Assange states that the rape accusation stems from a sexual encounter in which the woman "was asleep and in a helpless state."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2037078,00.html
It's not formal charges yet, but a Swedish district court issued their version of an arrest warrant, which was confirmed by a higher court, for questioning on the specific allegations.
whistler162
(11,155 posts), you know wink wink nudge nudge, the woman's fault that poor Mr Assange is being hassled by the mean Swede's!
Ah the good old pre-60's when it was the woman's fault.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)so uhh yeh you know where you can shove your wink-wink when you imply that people think these women deserved it, mkay sport.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)as i posted in another thread after having read the article the Assange supporter used to argue the very same thing as you are now
Det är helt fel att vi skulle vara rädda för Assange och därför inte velat anmäla, säger kvinnan, han är inte våldsam och jag känner mig inte hotad av honom.
I båda fallen har det handlar om frivillig sex till en början som i ett senare skede övergått i övergrepp.
Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne. Vi står fullt ut för uppgifterna, säger kvinnan till Aftonbladet.
*
Its totally wrong that we would be afraid of Assange and therefore not wanting charges, says the woman, he is not violent and i don't feel endangered by him
In both cases its about voluntary sex initially that later became abuse
the second woman wanted to report rape. i gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her. we stand by the information,says the woman to aftonbladet
and looking a few sections up under the heading 'Anser sig utsatt för sexövergrepp/
Considers herself the victim of sexual abuse' we can read that the woman in her 30s considers herself the victim of sexual abuse or molestation but not rape, but another woman(between 20-30) contacted her and told her a similar but worse story
the full article in swedish: www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
frylock
(34,825 posts)many of the comments from swedish readers call out the writer on his slant. come join the discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021153644
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)on what they had said.
So how come it was good enough to supposedly defend Assange(by omitting important parts of statements to twist its meaning 180%) yet once the truth is revealed of what was actually written then its 'a right-wing swedish publication with an obvious bias'?
and the article posted in the other thread is a different one by another writer so i'd say they are not really comparable. One is an opinion of the person writing it, the other is an interview with one of the women
frylock
(34,825 posts)feel free to read through the reader comments on that article to get a feel for how swedish citizens call the writer out on his hit piece. go on ahead.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)that the second piece that you linked to(the opinion) is way way way out of line and not worth the bytes it takes online(or the ink it cost on paper.)
that doesn't invalidate the interview tho
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)its editorial policy is social-democratic
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)refuse to believe them. And using rape for political purposes as in this case, is a vile way to diminish the real issue of rape.
Eg, the same people screaming over these bogus charges, have had nothing to say about the actual and proven rapes and sodomy and torture and murder of Iraqi women.
In fact we are told to just 'move on' from those crimes, and are vilified often for even mentioning them. Having seen interviews with a few of those women, the few willing to even speak about it, it is heart-breaking to see our government refuse to even allow them to sue to try to get some justice.
So until this country takes those barbaric crimes against Iraqi and Afghan women by our own military and military contractors, their phony outrage over this is simply not believed around the world.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)the only article where I've seen one of the women interviewed she said that she considers herself a victim of sexual abuse/molestation but not rape, while the other woman wanted to report rape.
If i have to go by something I'll go by the woman's interview as well as their lawyer over what somebody on a forum claims.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)and by all indications they are being exploited as a pretext for handing Assange over to the US. So... which party(s) have actually victimized the women? A non-violent geek with a broken rubber, or three powerful countries exploiting the women to persue a person who's a political liability?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)This is not about just 'a broken rubber'. It appals me to see DUers try to reduce allegations of sexual assault and rape to that.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I can't post links using a phone. However, note the alleged charges aren't for rape, they are for sexual misconduct. I don't know the exact details of Swedish law, but that appears to be a lesser crime than aggravated rape, or rape, much as petty theft is a lesser crime than armed robbery or forcible theft. Would the UK be threatening to invade an embassy over an alleged petty thief?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)and, for that matter, my post that you replied to, just above.
Comparing rape, or sexual assault, to petty theft? Jesus, stop digging the hole you're in.
No, I have not seen references saying the woman denies that she was asleep. You can give me the numbers of the replies with a thread title.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Rape was compared to forcible theft (as in strong arm robbery). The comparison to petty theft were the charges of sexual misconduct... ie: a crime of a lesser nature.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)30-åriga kvinnan: Jag utsattes för övergrepp
Berättar om anklagelserna mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)they bragged about sleeping with Assange! The Swedes initially dropped the whole affair, only reviving it after Wikileaks exposed the war crimes video of US troops in Iraq.
Welcome to DU!
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)30-åriga kvinnan: Jag utsattes för övergrepp
Berättar om anklagelserna mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
Swagman
(1,934 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)
the reports of rape were made public by Sweden's right wing tabloid, a violation of Sweden's laws btw which was supposed to be investigated but never was, she refused to speak to the police again.
There are public statements from the women saying there was no rape and he was no threat to them.
This is why there are no charges. The women are being exploited and real rape is being diminished by using it as a political ploy.
Also the lawyer who inserted himself into the case on behalf of the women believes that all men should pay a 'rape tax' even if they are not themselves guilty of anything, but are responsible for what other men do. There are some pretty wacko people who have been used in this obvious set up.
Not to mention that just months before this all happened, Wikileaks obtained a CIA document discussing how to silence Assange and settling on smearing him by accusing him of rape. It was published on their website.
Karl Rove is a good friend of Sweden's current Republican Prime Minister, and of Sweden's Foreign Minister. He was a political adviser in Sweden in 2010. This smacks of a Rovian plot to bring down a political opponent as many observers have said.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)Sweden does not have president, it has king (descendant of Napoleons general Count Bernadotte). They don't have Republican party, the major RW party is called Moderata. You are referring to Swedish Prime Minister and FM of the RW Moderate party. 
Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask, superior of prosecutor Ny, according to Wikipedia "earned a high school diploma in Akron, Ohio, United States, in 1974" and "She has received much criticism in her role as a Minister of Justice, most notably for her part in the FRA law as well as her proposal to send lavender-colored envelopes to suspected purchasers of sexual services, with the head of the Swedish Bar Association Anne Ramberg calling the latter "a non acceptable outlook on mankind. It is a return to medieval times"."
More on Ask and others:
http://blog.brokep.com/2012/07/13/sweden-is-a-small-pond-with-a-few-big-fish/
- referring among other thing succesfull cooperation behind the scenes with US against Pirate Bay and Pirate Party; highly relevant also in relation to Assange not only because that information comes from Wikileaks cable.
http://justice4assange.com/Political-Interference.html
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I know they do not have a Republican Party, but their PM has been called the Ronald Reagan of Sweden and my use of the terms 'republican and right wing' were to draw attention to the fact that Sweden is not the liberal paradise most Americans believe it to be.
I do appreciate the facts though. Americans do not get much information on other countries and as a result can only judge them by what is familiar to us. I know eg, that European Conservatives are very different to US Conservatives.
However, anyone, regardless of where they are, who hires Karl Rove as a political adviser, knowing what is known about him, fits the description of 'Republican' and not in a good way, in this country.
Interesting links. I have read also about the women's attorney, who appears to have some pretty radical views himself on eg, something called a 'Man Tax'.
This I have read before also:
One of the most controversial politicians in the history of Sweden. Countless scandals and still is not kicked out of the government. A company he’s been a board member of is being investigated for genocide, he changes his story about his involvement every now and then. He’s also a personal friend of Karl Rove and he’s suspected of being the one with the connections to the US in the latest Wikileaks-cable talking about The Pirate Bay.
There is a lot more to this than we know. Interesting about the views of these politicians on Internet Freedom also. Thank you, I am going to go read more from your links. Will edit my comment to correct the errors.
tama
(9,137 posts)but cannot be sure that all potential readers would do so.
As for my background, I've been following Swedish system closely for decades especially in relation to War Against Drugs. It was a swell and groovy place in 60s, where it got its liberal rep from, but everything changed in 70s and it's now hysterical collectively insane de facto totalitarian police state that persecutes speakers of truth. Among many others, needless to say and very sadly.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)30-åriga kvinnan: Jag utsattes för övergrepp
Berättar om anklagelserna mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)discussed in the media, and to many people who have actually read what is available, this is why the Prosecutor has never filed charges. As soon as she does, she will lose control of the evidence, evidence they are refusing to hand over to the defense still. But the defense finally did get to see some of it, confirming the actual facts which were known, the women's own words (going to be hard to explain them plotting to 'make money by ruining his reputation eg') the witnesses all show that there is no case here and it will never hold up in a court of law.
Which is why it has never been filed. The first prosecutor got it right.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)In #93 (the post to which I was responding), you say
The women both said there was no rape.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1150393
But then I confront you with a news story to the contrary in my reply #237
"The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1166377
And your reaction is to accuse the woman of lying in your response #238
Yes, she lied about her friend. Thanks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1166434
This illustrates quite clearly why we don't try ordinary criminal complaints in the press or on message boards: otherwise, the popular folk would always go scot-free and the unpopular folk would always swing from lamp-posts. I don't know the man or the women, and I don't know whether or not the press reports are accurate. It's an ordinary criminal complaint in Sweden; the Swedish warrant prevailed in open court; and the shifty-eyed forked-tongue double-standards of some Assange supporters will not help resolve the case fairly
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)emphatically did NOT want to 'report rape'. There is no getting away from that, not just because of her own words, and actions, but the testimony of witnesses.
Not only did she not want to report it, she was so upset when it was reporting in the tabloids, she refused to talk to the police for the second scheduled interview. The woman quoted by you, changed her story three times in the course of a few months. When asked how he is going to deal with the contradictory testimony, their lawyer becomes very defensive but will not explain these very noticeable changes over the months.
And this is why no charges have been filed. The first prosecutor was correct. She saw the most important evidence, before anyone had a chance to tamper with it, and dismissed it.
tama
(9,137 posts)Sweden is having its international reputation tarnished by this case, as it surfaces many things that Sweden would like keep hidden and forgotten and makes them look generally bad and ridiculous. But they can't get over they supremacist national pride and acting like supremacist idiots. That. They. Really. Are.
Fact implied by the asylum decision, Ecuador's progressive government does not consider Sweden a safe country and respectful of basic human rights and freedom of expression. And rightly so.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)
a while back about a wealthy banking family in Sweden that needs a favor from Eric Holder. Assange could be the trade off. I'll see if I can find it again.
Funny.... that article seems to have disappeared. Google just can't find it. 
Robb
(39,665 posts)Why haven't the British forked him over to the nearest black helicopter rendition squad?
ananda
(35,093 posts).. to send Assange to the USA to be disappeared.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Assange hasn't broken any US laws. The SCOTUS ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that publishing classified that was leaked to you is protected by the first amendment. So he can't be extradited to the US because he hasn't broken any US laws.
If you're concerned about something extra-judicial, then why would we wait for Sweden? The UK is much more friendly to us and would happily comply.
yodermon
(6,153 posts)Why can he only be shipped to the US from *Sweden* ?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)for the US so it makes sense for the US to use the tools they know. Since Wikileaks exposed Sweden's role in the illegal war crimes, there's a motivation there as well in regards to Assange.
Secondly, the US makes up its own laws when it comes to people they don't like. They make someone an "enemy combatant" and exercise extra-judicial justice such as Gitmo, Padilla, Awlaki (and his teenage son!), rendition and more. The US can and does "extradite" people ALL the time when they want, a grand jury is working on whatever bullshit "law" they're going to apply to Assange as we speak.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's not "spamming" to give an opinion, any other than you are spamming with yet another allegation that Julian is supposed to be immune from all legal process.
And it is true that there is no US law for him to be accused on, so that explains the lack of extradition from the UK.
There's no bigger danger in being in Sweden, so he should face the music on the non-charges and quit trying to get attention by creating drama.
Hell now he has had more attention for his personal issues on this board than has actually been given to whatever he leaked.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)The UK has supported the US in various wars. Not sure if Sweden has.
What does Sweden have to gain at all? I think they are just doing their normal process and having to deal with this idiot who thinks he can gain attention by claiming to be persecuted.
If he were being persecuted, he'd be charged with murder or put on a terrorist list.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)One of prosecutors in this case signed off on rendition of person to Egypt to be tortured, when he was a govt justice official. "Rape" charges are merely a pretext to get Assange on Swedish soil, where he can be "disappeared".
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'm very skeptical of that.
He "disappears" from the headlines and so does something like run to the Ecuadorian embassy.
Neither the US nor Sweden nor any other nation is going to "disappear" him. In fact by this time, given his history, if he's ever "missing" the first one I'm going to suspect is he himself. Hiding out so that everyone can wonder where he is and blame the big "conspiracy" against him.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Source: Sydney Morning Herald
EXCLUSIVE
August 18, 2012
Philip Dorling
AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.
This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.
The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.
The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html
treestar
(82,383 posts)We've done nothing to pursue him. Why would we wait for Sweden?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)with the US.
The US has a grand jury working on the charges right now. There's evidence of the US's work on extraditing Assange for 18 months.
I'm happy to have a good faith conversation with anyone on DU but clearly you are not. Instead of wasting even one more second typing anything else out I'm going to simply refer you to previous posts.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
EXCLUSIVE
August 18, 2012
Philip Dorling
AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.
This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.
The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.
The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html
treestar
(82,383 posts)Isn't that sort of legalistic? If we are going to disappear him, why isn't it done already?
You seriously contend that only Sweden would turn him over to us?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Sweden's already had the fight over rendition, they've already done it. Their government is being advised by Karl Rove. I think the US believes it has a stronger partner in rendition with the Swedes than the UK (which has never participated in it, not even during the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles).
The CIA has a tendency to go back and use the same "assets" that have been successful in the past. Cameron's in such a terrible position in the UK anyway as well, he'd never agree to it.
Beyond the UK and Sweden, I'm absolutely sure a ton of countries would participate in an extra-judicial extradition but the Latin American countries wouldn't. I presume that's why Assange chose a place like Ecuador (besides its president Correa likes Assange and Ecuador is a fantastic oceanfront gem).
Swagman
(1,934 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)him with espionage. Several high profile US Officials have called for his death, members of Congress eg and a former, Vice Presidential candidate. Joe Biden called him a terrorist. We all know what being designated a terrorist now means in the US.
The US has made clear he is viewed by them as an enemy of the state, which is utterly ridiculous unless Journalism is now a terrorist act.
Britain, the US and Sweden have disgraced themselves in this case. Britain's actions yesterday have shocked people around the world.
To put a red alert out or someone whose 'crime' is journalism while Gadaffi eg while suspected of terrorism only had an orange alert on him, demonstrates how ludicrous this whole thing is. The US should extricate itself from this debacle, start prosecuting the War Crimes revealed by Wikileaks and aplogize to the world for their behavior here. Or suffer the condemnation of the world as is happening. All they are doing is making him an even bigger hero and turning the US into an International pariah.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If the grand jury indicts, isn't that part of our process?
And if so, why doesn't he face up to it? It's his chance to make grand speeches about our alleged offenses against the world.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So what is the crime? Sarah Palin says it's 'treason'. Of course he's not a citizen, but it's Palin. And she's not the only one. Biden has called him a terrorist eg. Republican Reps have called for the death penalty.
Leaked info says the Grand Jury is to try to get an indictment for espionage so Palin is apparently on the right track as far as the Government's intentions.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Very conveniently forgot that they do that for the US.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)closely tied to those disgusting Bush II programs than Sweden ever was.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)then the UK can finally work openly to do the US' disgusting dirty work.
Got it. Because one thing's for sure, nobody will ever know the "whole story" about the sordid shit without "somebody" like Assange ensuring that the truth gets out (until the truth tellers and whistleblowers and leakers are all shut down same as him. Something you seem to be okay with promoting.)
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)unless more of the truth gets out, any way it has to.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)They won't do that because extradition is the only reason they want him in the first place. This really isn't very complicated.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You are claiming that we want to extradite Assange. And that our best way of doing that is via Sweden. Not the UK, our absolutely closest ally.
This makes utterly no sense. If the US wanted to extradite, the UK would stick a gift bow on Assange's head and put him on a plane. Sweden might actually read the extradition request.
Also, there's the small matter of Assange not breaking any US laws, so there's no grounds for extradition.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)if the reason they claim to want him has nothing whatsoever to do with extradition. If it's such a simple case and there's no grounds for extradition, why can't they give him that simple assurance?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No western nation will agree to a blanket block on extradition to any other western nation. To do so is to issue a pardon on behalf of another country.
Which, IMO, is why Assange is asking for it. He knows it won't be granted, so it gives him a fig leaf to hide behind while attempting to run from the charges in Sweden.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Any country can decide when and where they'll extradite, even with countries with which they have an agreement. In fact, it's common practice to NOT extradite to the U.S. when the person is facing a capital charge. So, there's no merit to what you said.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's common to refuse extradition to the US until the prosecutors promise not to seek the death penalty.
Since the alternative is life in prison, also known as the very slow death penalty, it is routine for the prosecutors to agree to not seek the death penalty.
But that's not a blanket refusal to extradite for any reason. That's what Assange is asking for.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)You said that Western countries cannot provide blanket immunity from extradition, but that's exactly what they do when a case would result in the DP. Sweden has so many ways they could handle this without Assange needing to fear retaliation from the U.S.. That they're not handling this in any of those ways shows their true intentions.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Theoretically:
Assange goes to Sweden, and then runs a carding operation and steals piles of cash from people in the US.
Normally, the US would seek extradition in order to try someone for that. But Sweden wouldn't be able to extradite him, because they promised not to.
I don't think Assange is about to do that, but it's not a good idea for the prosecutors to take that chance.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Assange stands trial. If convicted, he's imprisoned in Sweden and hardly in a position to run a card racket or commit any crime. If he is not convicted, he is set free and expelled from the country. Your arguement is lame.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He wasn't convicted, so Sweden has no grounds with which to expel him.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Sweden is under no obligation to let him stay in their country. They can expell him minutes after finding him not guilty, if that's the case.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Why does Assange board a plane for New York upon being expelled?
Did he get lost in the airport? Was his ticket hard to read? Is he really, really dumb?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Hes trying to avoid that. If Sweden was to try, acquit, and expell him, he could go where ever he wants, just cant remain in Sweden. I guess he'd go to Ecuador, but who knows?
Edit: Although if he went to NY, that would be an interesting but risky ploy. Once hes on US soil, hes under umbrella of US civilian courts, not military court or tribunal. My guess is a prosecution of him would get laughed out of civilian court, so I suspect US wouldn't allow him to enter. They'd rather intelligence grab him on foreign soil, with no civilian court oversight.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We're talking about danger from the US.
You bring up Assange being cleared, and then expelled from Sweden.
Why is his expulsion relevant if it doesn't mean anything about going to the US?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Then they don't have to deal with possibility of handing him over to US. Whatever country he goes to then has the problem. This makes a guarrantee not to do so possible, which is the only roadblock getting him in Swedish court on rape charges.
Of course, if Sweden isn't willing to make the guarantee, then there's strong indication they aren't so much interested in a rape prosecution as they are in cooperating with US in extraordinary rendition, outside of US civilian court oversight.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)i mean, if he is gonna be 'vanished' from Sweden by extraordinary means then such a promise is empty isn't it?
If you think they want to hand over Assange to the US illegally(thus extraordinary means) are you telling me you'd take their word for it if they say 'we won't extradite Assange'?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I imagine it could be enforced by civilian court under contract law.
If he were extraordinarily renditioned with no agreement in place, the US could do what they like with no court oversight. That the crux of the problem. If he's lucky, he would face a military court or tribunal where he is at least appointed a lawyer. At worst, he could be indefinitely detained (even tortured), and denied access to the legal system where he could challenge his detention.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Bizarre post.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And the US can't file for extradition from UK because US charges would be laughed out of civilian court.
OTOH, Sweden has been complicit with US in extraordinary rendition and torture. Its the US pulling the strings here. US wants Assange in Sweden so they can bypass US civilian courts and formal extradition process, and simply silence Assange by indefinite detention at an undisclosed facility outside oversight and jurisdiction of US civilian courts. There is also a possibility of torture, if the US seeks info from Assange about his data dump.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Any other person in similar circumstances could not make such demands of Sweden.
Why is it political? Just because this guy leaked some documents does not mean he is an angel who never violates the law in any other way?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)If it's so out of the question that Sweden would extradite Assange to the U.S., why won't they say they won't do that? Of course, I don't expect to get anything approaching a rational answer, but I figured I'd try.
treestar
(82,383 posts)This guy is asking for special treatment because he leaked US classified documents. I can see not wanting to reward that with special treatment.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Your line of logic is astoundingly ludicrous. In similar cases, the people don't need to worry about being extradited, so they wouldn't even ask. Can you point me to any of these "similar cases" where the person requested not to be extradited to the U.S.? I'm sure you'll be extremely forthcoming. When you say "This guy is asking for special treatment because he leaked US classified documents." it seems like you're admitting that his presence in Sweden is requested NOT because of any rape charges, but is rather political. Of course, I'm sure you don't see it that way. Either way, the MIC is lucky to have such an obedient cheerleader.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Common sense says there are such cases.
How do you know what they intend?
What is it about Julian that he can turn intelligent people into conspiracy theorists? Why does he not just face up to our charges then? Turn himself in, so he can prove himself righteous, publicly, in our courts.
Which he would do, since he loves the attention. He knows we aren't going to to anything to him. Probably finds that frustrating.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I said nothing about extradition to Sweden. I was talking about Sweden not agreeing to not extradite Assange to the U.S. If their sole intention was to question him regarding the alleged rapes, then they'd surely provide him with that assurance. That they won't provide him that makes it clear as to what they're after for any person with more than a few functioning brain cells.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If they have to make such a deal, it could set precedent. In a future case, someone charged with say rape or robbery in Spain for example, could try to play Spain and Sweden off each other to face only the lesser charges. The Swedes are not required to change their system just for this guy, because he thinks he's above the law in so many ways.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)This doesn't set a precedent or standard, this does nothing to remove even a bit of Sweden's sovereignty. And they wouldn't have to change their system at all. They claim that they want him for reasons that has nothing to do with extradition, there's no reason they can't give him that assurance and there's no reason giving him that means they'd have to do it again in the future. That claim is utterly ridiculous.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)Were there specific pending extradition charges from the US, he *might* be able to get assurances about those specific charges, but he's asking for a blanket "no extradition" promise. No country concerned with it's international diplomacy (especially toward the 800 lb gorilla that is the US) is going to agree to such terms, even if they were inclined to.
Which brings us to...
Assange has fled both the Swedish justice system, and the British attempts to honor their extradition request. Why should they extend special considerations to someone who has treated their courts with nothing but contempt?
Personally, I think that everyone that sees the big bad hand of the US in all of this is falling for Assange's PR. If the US intended to legally extradite him, they would have already set the process in motion, and could do it just as easily from the UK as Sweden. (Plus, they would have to have to charge him with something that the UK or Swedish courts would accept). If they want to illegally grab him under some sort of BS War on Terror justification then they don't need all this charade, and again, probably already have done so. I know the last few decades have taught us that the US is willing and capable of pulling some shady shit in the name of national security, but this really looks like a case of a fugitive from a legitimate criminal investigation using his notoriety to evade justice.
tama
(9,137 posts)There is a grand jury (in area where lots of national security people live) that is assumed to be working on Assange and Wikipedia. But it works behind closed doors and we cant say for sure what when who, anything specific. To my knowledge Assange has never been to US, so normally there could be hardly be any grounds for any criminal procedure against Assange in a US court, but of course US thinks it can go Guantanamo over anyone considered terrorist (as Biden called Assange) because of TWAT. Laws and justice really don't matter, as people into national security have been able to do their stuff with impunity for ages now. Rule of law does not apply to them. That's the general background against also Assange's situation needs be looked at. If Swedish official really were less interested in personal vendetta against Assange than getting the case solved and of the table in normal manner, some sort of deal could be made for sure. But Sweden is not.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)is simply being obtuse. I'm amazed that there are so many here at DU who are willing to act as stooges for the MIC. It's kind of sickening.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Maybe those who seem willing to act as MIC stooges, are in fact MIC stooges.
frylock
(34,825 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It is not unreasonable to also assume the presence of "Pentagon Pete" or "NSA Nate", though obviously their presence is less overt and more sophisticated than the typical freeper troll.
frylock
(34,825 posts) HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts) 
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Academi Adam (previously known as Blackwater Bob).
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)would dictate that maybe, just maybe Assange is actually wanted for rape and sexual abuse/molestation, and not the vast conspiracy some of his supporters are weaving.
frylock
(34,825 posts)claim they weren't raped. but perhaps you know more than they do.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)the second woman believes she was raped and filed charges as such.
I'm basing that on the interview of one of the women as well as their lawyer
Swagman
(1,934 posts)I am quite distressed that some DUers are simply blinding themselves to the reality of what is happening.
It's as thought he last ten years never happened and I find it frightening.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)I found my sea legs after the health care "reform" debacle, the pass on torture, the wink at Constitution shredding, the double down on the Afghan slaughterhouse...
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I completely agree. If there are this many here on this site who have been snowed, its extremely distressing. I've never been on DU as much as I have in the past 3 days in some kind of vain effort to actually have a conversation with them but the willfull and deliberate lack of conversation about this is stunning (almost as stunning as the threat to invade the Ecuadorean embassy).
Some of it just has to be trolls ("I believe the women who say they were raped!1111!!"
Some of it though is pure insanity ("The Swedes could only interview him in Sweden"
Really wild.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)creds because they might criticize President Obama. Very authoritarian mindset. And yes, I find it frightening.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)Do you believe that a person under extradition order has some right, to demand that everyone promise never under any circumstances to extradite him ever again, before the person complies with the extradition order
EOTE
(13,409 posts)But if a country is claiming to want someone for one reason and won't agree not to extradite a person for a completely different reason, it's fairly obvious what they want in the first place. Obvious to anyone with a few functioning brain cells.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)they are not covered by allowing the accused to set the terms of extradition, but by establishing restrictions on subsequent actions that can be undertaken by the state requesting the extradition
EOTE
(13,409 posts)He's not currently wanted for extradition, so asking that Sweden not extradite him to the U.S. would be a no-brainer. The fact that they won't agree to that makes it pretty damned obvious what they're after.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)The Swedes disagree, and the UK disagrees.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And why thinking people don't criticize him for staying away. Assange knows he has the ability to set conditions, I don't see anyone physically forcing Assange to return to Sweden, do you? This is why, apparently, why the MIC apologists have been lambasting him 24/7. So, thanks for doing your part.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)never under any circumstances to extradite him ever again, before the person complies with the extradition order
And your argument for this strange rule is simply: anyone who disagrees with you is an apologist for the Military-Industrial Complex
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)This is where the hide a thread function becomes useful.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)There is clearly a double game being played by Sweden in this entire mess. Sweden was complicit in the Chimpleton's rendition policies, as has been thoroughly detailed by other DUers, and this is more of the same.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Also, this is a matter of she said, he said. Since there was no-one else there and the sex had originally been consensual we don't know who is telling the truth. It really seems like trumped up charges to me considering the victim really doesn't want to go through with it or so it was reported. Also, he's not avoiding facing charges. It's well documented that he will immediately face charges if Sweden agrees not to extradite him to the USA. This they refuse to do. Also, there was some information going around DU that Karl Rove is involved. If this is true, then the whole mess is really suspect.
atreides1
(16,799 posts)He'll probably be in Sweden long enough to change planes...
redqueen
(115,186 posts)struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)In fact, as the court duly noted, one of Julian's own witnesses flat-out told the court there was no way Julian could be sent on to the US
Nobody of sound mind wants to hear the same debunked bullshit over and over again
Res judicata
tama
(9,137 posts)that there is no life outside court does not speak of sound mind.
Facts stand despite your denial:
- US-Sweden mutual extradition treaty contains easiest and most available legal channel
- Sweden has officially refused guarantees against extradition to US
- US criminal prosecution against Assange has been latest confirmed by Australian diplomatic cables.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing ... If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued ..."
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons
Mr Assange had opportunity to bring such matters to the UK courts for review. The courts have ruled against him. Res judicata
tama
(9,137 posts)that there is no life outside courts does not speak for sound mind. In other words, all that legalese is obviously dangerous to mental health. You get caught in nitpicking about legal semantics and forget sense of proportion and the view of the big picture, together with sense of basic humanity.
Res wake the fuck up
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)decision will go down in history as an example of one of the worst based as it was on lies from the Prosecution.
In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing
When top public officials, including both a former VP Candidate and US Governor, a sitting Senator, several members of Congress and the current VP designate someone a terrorist and/or call for that person's assassination, (well it's not torture I suppose), top public officials in a country whose reputation is well known for its treatment of people designated by them as 'terrorists' I think that.'s sufficient evidence that the person IS in danger of torture or assassination.
Makes you wonder what it would take for Britain's courts to do its job of protecting political targets of political retaliation, from harm. .
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to Egypt for torture!
You can talk about laws all day long, but we know just how much respect the Western nations now have the law, see War Criminals, Wall Street Criminals.
Btw what do you think of the fact that NO ONE, the Brits, the US, the Swedes, Australia, is demanding the arrest of the War Criminals exposed in the leaked documents by Wikileaks?
Do you consider torture to be a serious crime btw?? Maybe you don't, so just asking for verification as a shocking number of Americans do not view it as a crime anymore.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)slapped hard by the international community for doing so: substantial damages were finally awarded
It's unclear to me why anyone thinks that event, over a decade ago, has any significance on the Assange extradition, although comments on this board suggest some people think it proves Sweden has a worse record than the UK with regard to rendition in the Bush II era
In fact, we may simply know more about Sweden because Sweden has a much more transparent government than the UK. The UK under Blair was a very close ally of Bush II and supported much of the "War of Terror"
A very unfortunate fact about the UK is that government actions can be hidden behind the Official Secrets Act. A number of people, including members of Parliament, have been attempting for years, with only slight success, to discover to what extent the UK cooperated with Bush II's illegal rendition programs. The original official story was that there was no connection; then the UK admitted to allowing two (!) flights to refuel at Diego Garcia; later, having originally denied it, the UK admitted it had allowed rendition flights to us UK airspace; stone-walling continues
Here are some links:
Kenyans allege British involvement in rendition and torture in Uganda
Claims by two Muslims accused of role in bomb attack during 2010 World Cup date from after coalition came to power
Ian Cobain
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 April 2012 17.34 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/24/kenyans-allege-british-involvement-rendition
CIA wins fight to keep MPs in dark on rendition
Court keeps UK role secret – as No 10 calls for police to question Labour ministers
Cahal Milmo
Nigel Morris
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cia-wins-fight-to-keep-mps-in-dark-on-rendition-7631357.html
Wednesday 11 April 2012
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Holy euphemism.
Anyhow, I'm sure the UK sucks too with regards to rendition. Too many countries kiss the US's ass because they've seen what happens when they don't. At any rate, it's funny how you cherry pick crap from each post and find totally irrelevant information. Good on you, keep wasting your time with minutiae.
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)The Human Rights Committee decision stated that Sweden “has not shown that the diplomatic assurances procured were in fact sufficient in the present case to eliminate the risk of ill-treatment to a level consistent” with the ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
“The committee found that diplomatic promises did nothing to protect al-Zari from torture,” said Cartner. “Western governments need to wake up to the fact that they can’t trust promises of humane treatment from countries that routinely practice torture” ...
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
The Swedes should have known better than to rely on Egyptian assurances, given Egypt's record: it was a mistake that had severe consequences for the men handed over, and for that reason alone it should not be minimized. But the disgraceful fact remains, that although Sweden made this mistake in late 2001, only a few months after 9/11, many other European governments cooperated substantially in criminal renditions of the Bush era over an extended period: details are often harder to come by, than in the Swedish case, because most countries are not as transparent as Sweden
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
avebury
(11,196 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't know why you think it's acceptable for a sovereign state to abrogate its treaty obligations to another sovereign state in one particular instance. Sweden and the US have an extradition treaty, which stipulates which offences are extraditable and which are not. Among those that are not are political crimes. If Assange is properly charged with a crime under US law relating to his disclosure of classified US materials via Wikileaks, and a warrant is issued, Sweden has the right under the treaty to ajudge it a "political" crime and refuse extradition. Which is highly likely as Assange is not a US citizen and Wikileaks' servers were not hosted in the US. But a blanket statement or promise by Sweden that they will not extradite under any circumstances? That would undermine the fabric of international diplomacy and the basis of existing treaties. It's a fantastically stupid thing to suggest.
