General Discussion

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)

154. To declare him a terrorist or an enemy combatat so they can disappear him

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:53 PM

Aug 2012

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).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

283 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

IMO the denial of Sweden to guarantee Assange that he will not be sent to the US is enough to [View all] redgreenandblue Aug 2012 OP

if the allegations were true then Sweden has acted in the most disgusting manner Swagman Aug 2012 #1

How many times do you have to be told how the Swedish system works? hack89 Aug 2012 #22

dream on. Swagman Aug 2012 #26

Lawyers negotiate the arrest of their clients all the time. hack89 Aug 2012 #27

She can arrest him there - there's an unprecedented Interpol arrest warrant for questioning! riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #39

If she was to arrest him in London would Assange surrender and go back to Sweden? hack89 Aug 2012 #48

I'm sure he'd have no choice unless he found a way to suicide himself riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #51

Too bad she cannot arrest him in London. hack89 Aug 2012 #52

The British police just recently arrested 11 Icelandic bankers on Interpol arrest warrants riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #57

Yes - and those bankers will go through a extradition hearing like Assange hack89 Aug 2012 #64

Sure he will, Sweden just has to give him an assurance they won't extradite him to the US. Simple riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #67

He is not in the position to demand anything. nt hack89 Aug 2012 #71

US intends to extradite Assange, cables show riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #72

Did you actually read that article? hack89 Aug 2012 #74

Obviously tama Aug 2012 #143

Obviously he is tama Aug 2012 #129

I meant he is not in the position to make demands that will be met. nt hack89 Aug 2012 #135

He is if they want to interview him Aerows Aug 2012 #191

Did you see how small the embassy is? hack89 Aug 2012 #195

Exactly Aerows Aug 2012 #190

Yes he is, and I expect that annoys you. JackRiddler Aug 2012 #255

How? hack89 Aug 2012 #258

Apparently he does have a legal leg to stand on or he wouldn't be sitting in the Embassy sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #274

Didn't I just say that he will stay in the embassy? hack89 Aug 2012 #275

Lol, the Daily Mail! sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #276

Do you understand that he cannot run Wikileaks from the embassy? hack89 Aug 2012 #277

Neutralized? He just got the support of the entire continent of South America, sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #278

No - Assange did not get the support of the entire continent of South America hack89 Aug 2012 #279

I give up. If you cannot understand what happened here, I don't have time to waste sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #280

Painting oneself into a corner is a funny definition of checkmate hack89 Aug 2012 #281

You're free to stop painting yourself into a corner anytime you choose. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #282

How do you think this will end? nt hack89 Aug 2012 #283

No she can't. hack89 Aug 2012 #55

Yes, the UK police do this all the time riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #59

The British police did arrest Assange once and were preparing to arrest him again hack89 Aug 2012 #68

I see nothing in your comments that preclude or even defend the Swedish prosecutor from interviewing hlthe2b Aug 2012 #53

Because the interview is the final step before charges and arrest hack89 Aug 2012 #58

The Brits have already agreed to extradict him. There is no reason NOT to interview him in London. hlthe2b Aug 2012 #61

FAIL: Sweden interviews suspects in OTHER countries: kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #69

The point being argued is that the Swedes can't arrest someone in a foreign country hack89 Aug 2012 #73

Your "point" is bullshit. You don't have one anymore. kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #79

Why should they participate in a farce? hack89 Aug 2012 #81

In defeat, you flail about wildly kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #91

So you honestly believe that Assange would have surrendered to Swedish authorities hack89 Aug 2012 #94

You do not disappoint me! kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #96

But you won't answer - because you know what Assange would have done. hack89 Aug 2012 #99

go kenny! robinlynne Aug 2012 #147

Because they CREATED the farce when prosecutors were ORDERED... TheMadMonk Aug 2012 #98

He does not deserve special consideration hack89 Aug 2012 #102

Wishfull thinking from your part, obviously n/t tama Aug 2012 #112

which particular British law has he broken reorg Aug 2012 #197

You are aware that he had been arrested in Britain and was under house arrest? hack89 Aug 2012 #198

Yes, I am aware of that. Which particular British law has he broken reorg Aug 2012 #201

Ecsaping from confinment, fleeing justice and violating bail conditions hack89 Aug 2012 #205

it is not important but typical reorg Aug 2012 #210

He has potentially committed two "Offences against the administration of public justice" hack89 Aug 2012 #211

Not "should" tama Aug 2012 #113

Assange did surrender to the British Authorities. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #159

Please actually read my posts before answering them hack89 Aug 2012 #162

He sought asylum in the Ecuadoran Embassy and in the expert opinions of sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #166

Spot on malokvale77 Aug 2012 #200

Bravo. Well said. Matariki Aug 2012 #208

Yep, that's about the size of it. GliderGuider Aug 2012 #263

Thank you. I knew this info was out there but I didn't have time to look for it. Luminous Animal Aug 2012 #126

So why don't they go ahead and interview him? HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #254

Assange fled Sweden the day before he was to be interviewed. hack89 Aug 2012 #257

Hmmm... Not at all the story. HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #260

That is what his lawyer said under oath in a British court. hack89 Aug 2012 #261

Here is the real truth. hack89 Aug 2012 #262

His lawyer had asked for an interview for weeks and was refused. He was then told it was okay sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #264

The lawyer(and thus Assange) knew seven days in advance of Assange's interview. hack89 Aug 2012 #265

I live in country next to Sweden tama Aug 2012 #105

So Assange willingly choose indefinite incarceration in the Ecuadorian embassy. hack89 Aug 2012 #106

At least there he has computer access tama Aug 2012 #111

I suspect that Ecuador has put strict limits on his activities hack89 Aug 2012 #128

You are big on suspecting and making innuendo tama Aug 2012 #136

So Correa, the president who jails journalists for daring to criticize him hack89 Aug 2012 #141

Again just misinformation tama Aug 2012 #146

He's having a great time according to his beautiful, female Australian legal advisor. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #219

I doubt he is working on Wikileaks hack89 Aug 2012 #221

Being a journalist is breaking the law? Lol! sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #222

You keep genuflecting in the direction of St Assange hack89 Aug 2012 #224

And since the police DID interview Assange and have been free to do so again sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #160

The 'legal impediments' was Assange's extradition hearing hack89 Aug 2012 #163

Well now you are proving HIS point, his reason for not being willing to trust them. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #167

Once again - the Swedish system is not like America. hack89 Aug 2012 #170

Then why have the refused to accept his repeated invitations to speak to him? sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #171

They can't charge him until he is interviewed. He is a suspect, not a witness. hack89 Aug 2012 #172

What utter bs. Of course they can charge him and THEN arrest him. You have sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #173

And has been demonstrated to you over and over, they can arrest him in the UK. nt riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #174

They did. There was an extradition hearing hack89 Aug 2012 #175

Then why pray tell do you say over and over that "they can't arrest him"? They can riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #176

So you support the British entering the embassy and arresting him? hack89 Aug 2012 #181

I absolutely do NOT support violating the sovereignty of a foreign embassy riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #182

The Swedes could not have arrested him in London hack89 Aug 2012 #185

Oh, its just arrest, "in general".... riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #189

So you think the Swedish police have arrest powers in Britain? Really? nt hack89 Aug 2012 #192

That is so much bs. If they believe there is sufficient evidence to arrest him, they don't need 1monster Aug 2012 #203

The Swedes told his lawyer he was to be interviewed and most likey arrested hack89 Aug 2012 #207

As has been pointed out by others here, and I remember this myself, 1monster Aug 2012 #215

His lawyer testified to this in a British court - it is a matter of public record hack89 Aug 2012 #216

I think this is a lost cause hack89 dendrobium Aug 2012 #168

Sweden has done so before HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #179

But they cannot arrest suspects on foreign soil. hack89 Aug 2012 #180

Wow, are you ever misinformed! HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #194

You might want to talk to Assange's lawyer - he would disagree with you. hack89 Aug 2012 #196

No he did not. HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #199

So why did his Swedish lawyer testify otherwise? nt hack89 Aug 2012 #206

yep. mine too. cali Aug 2012 #2

Du rec. Nt xchrom Aug 2012 #3

Of course. But expect the dutiful MIC apologists here to say otherwise. villager Aug 2012 #4

I get so sick of the stupid applications of that label cali Aug 2012 #7

there are lots of ways to internalize a narrative provided by society's owners villager Aug 2012 #82

lol. jargon cracks me up. cali Aug 2012 #84

Like "lol" in internet posts? villager Aug 2012 #86

It's not the disagreement, it's the apologies and situational ethics. n/t Egalitarian Thug Aug 2012 #108

Been outta loop, what's MIC short for? nt tama Aug 2012 #144

Military Industrial Complex. Its something Eisenhower first put into common usage riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #157

Thanks, shouldda known tama Aug 2012 #158

That right there Aerows Aug 2012 #5

Exactly. hifiguy Aug 2012 #63

Ecuador is being commended now all over the world. The Brits and Sweden are being sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #6

--- also need a boycott of U.K. jerseyjack Aug 2012 #13

Yeah, there is big difference tama Aug 2012 #119

+1B. Blatant political persecution. Disgusting. magical thyme Aug 2012 #8

Not all of the Assange-haters are RW trolls. The Doctor. Aug 2012 #9

And milquetoast centrists nxylas Aug 2012 #10

well, I find him repugnant cali Aug 2012 #14

While I don't go so far as to think him repugnant, KitSileya Aug 2012 #32

That is how I feel about him and the situation as a whole. NCTraveler Aug 2012 #70

Yup tama Aug 2012 #120

I think this describes the feelings of a lot of people LadyHawkAZ Aug 2012 #137

That is primarily the US's fault muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #11

that is true. And why don't they? Swagman Aug 2012 #18

There's nothing to reveal. jeff47 Aug 2012 #30

+1. Good point. nt riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #35

Yes! And no doubt the US wants a secret or military trial... HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #43

"--- You can't give a blanket pardon to someone before seeing the evidence..." jerseyjack Aug 2012 #12

he isn't asking for a 'pardon'. Swagman Aug 2012 #16

Sure he is jeff47 Aug 2012 #29

Why shouldn't he be able to break US law? HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #45

a fact lost on some US politicians and media talking heads who have Swagman Aug 2012 #87

I was totally fucking flabbergasted yesterday laundry_queen Aug 2012 #107

Let's say he decides to increase his funding by running a carding scam. jeff47 Aug 2012 #114

good to know you support a Swedish prosecutor who is a partner in a law firm advised by Karl Rove Swagman Aug 2012 #85

Good to know guilt by association is more important to you than the law. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2012 #115

Justice and conscience and empathy tama Aug 2012 #142

You silly Americans cpwm17 Aug 2012 #145

It is a little more complicated than that. Savannahmann Aug 2012 #15

I accept the "emotional response" argument. redgreenandblue Aug 2012 #17

just a small correction-there are no charges nor would it be 'rape' under Swagman Aug 2012 #19

I think it would be rape, under Swedish law muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #21

Nah according to many on this site it was whistler162 Aug 2012 #24

No it is an opportunist prosecutor using the women to get Assange Swagman Aug 2012 #89

yeh the funny thing is none of these women are claiming they were raped.. frylock Aug 2012 #116

your wrong on that Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #223

that's a right-wing swedish publication with an obvious bias.. frylock Aug 2012 #230

one of your fellow assange supporters used the article to defend assange by making false claims Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #231

you'll have to take that up with my fellow assange supporter.. frylock Aug 2012 #233

oh i quite agree Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #242

Actually, it's one of the oldest swedish newspapers; it's owned by a labor federation; and struggle4progress Aug 2012 #248

Well, when women state clearly that they were not raped, I think it is insulting to sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #133

where exactly do they state that? n/t Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #266

Except the alleged victims themselves dont think it was rape, HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #101

Links for that, please muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #124

Several links in the various threads. HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #127

Note that one charge *is* for rape muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #131

You've misread. HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #139

"The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story" struggle4progress Aug 2012 #235

Except the women themselves aren't calling it "rape", nor did they want to press charges riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #34

"The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story" struggle4progress Aug 2012 #236

and yet Sweden's actions have been an utter disgrace to genuine rape victims everywhere Swagman Aug 2012 #88

The women both said there was no rape. One of them was so upset when sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #93

This is indeed the "Godwin" of sex-criminology kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #95

Minor corrections tama Aug 2012 #109

Thank you, PM. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #121

I understood what you hinted at by "Republican party" tama Aug 2012 #140

"The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story" struggle4progress Aug 2012 #237

Yes, she lied about her friend. Thanks. So much exculpatory evidence never sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #238

If you think their testimony supports your view you believe them; otherwise you call them liars struggle4progress Aug 2012 #240

And you are still not posting the evidence that shows that the 'other woman' sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #241

Nothing surprising tama Aug 2012 #138

I read something... malokvale77 Aug 2012 #20

What guarantees did the UK offer when Assange turned himself in? Robb Aug 2012 #23

The "rape" charge is just a trumped up excuse.. ananda Aug 2012 #25

Why would he be sent to the US? jeff47 Aug 2012 #28

yeah, that's what bothers me about this whole narrative. yodermon Aug 2012 #31

For the 10th time since you keep spamming these threads, Sweden has a history of rendition riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #33

And the UK doesn't? treestar Aug 2012 #38

No. The UK has not been implicated in THAT particular war crime. But Sweden has nt riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #42

What war crime? treestar Aug 2012 #44

Sweden was complicit with US in previous cases of extraordinary rendition. HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #47

Do you really think he will ever "disappear?" treestar Aug 2012 #54

Sweden also participated in Iraq and Afghanistan riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #49

Then why hasn't the big, bad US done anything? treestar Aug 2012 #56

Last time I'm going to answer this. Sweden has a history of participating in illegal rendition riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #65

Why is there a grand jury? treestar Aug 2012 #150

To declare him a terrorist or an enemy combatat so they can disappear him riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #154

please read this : "US intends to pursue Assange, (Aust Govt) cables show" Swagman Aug 2012 #90

Any proof it would be outside the norms of American justice system? treestar Aug 2012 #151

The US is doing something. They have a Grand Jury seated looking into charging sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #97

Isn't a grand jury part of our legal system? treestar Aug 2012 #152

Only if there is some evidence of a crime. Journalism is not a crime. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #155

The UK extradites about 20 people/yr to the US, Sweden extradites about 1/yr struggle4progress Aug 2012 #177

You conveniently forgot that Sweden illegal renditions people too. riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #183

When the whole sordid history of that era is written down, it will be clear that the UK was more struggle4progress Aug 2012 #184

You mean when Wikileaks exposes the UK like they did with Sweden's war crimes riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #186

The 2001 Swedish case wasn't exposed by Wikileaks: the victims sued in court for damages and won struggle4progress Aug 2012 #187

Please by all means, avoid the point that we won't know the "whole sordid tale" riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #193

Then why wouldn't Sweden agree to no extradition? EOTE Aug 2012 #40

Take a minute to think about your arguement jeff47 Aug 2012 #213

What makes no sense is Sweden not agreeing not to extradite EOTE Aug 2012 #226

Such agreements are never made. jeff47 Aug 2012 #229

That is simply not true. EOTE Aug 2012 #232

You're only 1/8th right jeff47 Aug 2012 #252

By what incredibly strange math? Now you're simply picking nits. EOTE Aug 2012 #256

Why won't Sweden promise not to send him to US? HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #46

Because it's the equivalent of issuing a pardon. jeff47 Aug 2012 #117

Oh. That's hogwash. HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #125

Under what grounds would he be expelled? jeff47 Aug 2012 #212

Hes not a Swedish citizen. HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #218

Let's pretend that happens jeff47 Aug 2012 #220

Huh? Why would he go to NY? HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #234

So....why the hell were you talking about him being expelled 3 posts ago? jeff47 Aug 2012 #251

Because if Sweden expells him following legal procedings HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #253

but if they wanted to aid the us with an 'extraordinary' rendition they'd just say 'sure we promise' Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #267

If there is an agreement with US authorities, HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #273

WTF? JackRiddler Aug 2012 #259

UK has refused to participate in rendition. HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #188

Then the UK would have extradited him treestar Aug 2012 #36

Simple question. EOTE Aug 2012 #66

Because they don't routinely do that in similar cases treestar Aug 2012 #75

Yeah, because they have no intention of doing so. EOTE Aug 2012 #80

You mean no one has ever been extradited to Sweden before? treestar Aug 2012 #153

Uhhh, you've completely missed the point. EOTE Aug 2012 #164

You're making your own set of standards that the Swedes have to follow here treestar Aug 2012 #165

You act as if Sweden would be forced to do this in the future, that's just plain ridiculous. EOTE Aug 2012 #228

For one thing, he's asking for a blank check. cemaphonic Aug 2012 #148

That's the fun part of government secrecy tama Aug 2012 #204

Anyone who claims not to understand this simple concept... EOTE Aug 2012 #37

It is quite simple. HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #50

occam's razor and sich frylock Aug 2012 #118

Yes. I think most DUers acknowledge "Agent Mike". HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #123

DoD Dave frylock Aug 2012 #130

Or "Doood"... HooptieWagon Aug 2012 #134

Stratfor Steve backscatter712 Aug 2012 #149

occam's razor Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #268

i suppose that could be the case, aside from the inconvenient fact that the women.. frylock Aug 2012 #271

one of the females thinks she was a victim of sexual abuse/molestation but not rape Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #272

I've felt quite sick to my stomach all day after reading some comments Swagman Aug 2012 #92

A well founded nausea kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #100

"It's as thought he last ten years never happened and I find it frightening." riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #103

I think it's the same people who run around this website questioning other Democrats Puglover Aug 2012 #270

What general principle of international law are you claiming here? struggle4progress Aug 2012 #178

Of course there is no right. EOTE Aug 2012 #225

Such possibilities, and similar possibilities, are already covered by existing treaties: struggle4progress Aug 2012 #227

No one is asking that Assange be able to set the terms for extradition. EOTE Aug 2012 #245

Assange thinks he can set conditions Sweden must meet, before he goes to Sweden struggle4progress Aug 2012 #246

No shit they disagree. That's why Assange isn't stupid enough to go to Sweden. EOTE Aug 2012 #249

So you DO believe a person under extradition order has some right, to demand that everyone promise struggle4progress Aug 2012 #250

+1. nt riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #41

Do we need 30 threads on this guy? majority of people don't care. Can we have an Assange Forum? n/t progressivebydesign Aug 2012 #60

It's the DU way. Dozens of threads on one topic. Cleita Aug 2012 #77

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. hifiguy Aug 2012 #62

Yes, you are right. Cleita Aug 2012 #76

It don't matter atreides1 Aug 2012 #78

K&R redqueen Aug 2012 #83

dear! precious! Julian never argued in court that he was in danger of being sent on to the US struggle4progress Aug 2012 #104

Your implication tama Aug 2012 #110

"... There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to struggle4progress Aug 2012 #122

Your implication tama Aug 2012 #132

That court made a terrible decision, which is not unusual for courts btw. But that sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #156

Sure, just trust us says Sweden, the country that rendered two human beings sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #169

It's shocking the amount of DUers who do not view it as a crime anymore. nt laundry_queen Aug 2012 #202

Sweden improperly transferred two prisoners to Egypt in 2001 and got struggle4progress Aug 2012 #239

Improperly transferred? laundry_queen Aug 2012 #243

Here's the 2006 HRW summary: Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture Offer No Protection From Abuse struggle4progress Aug 2012 #244

Clearly you struggle with reading comprehension. nt laundry_queen Aug 2012 #247

+1 - would love to see struggle4progress answer your post Matariki Aug 2012 #209

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Aug 2012 #161

Agreed. nt avebury Aug 2012 #214

No, it really isn't Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #217

So... Sweden should put aside treaties and international laws for this one man because? CabCurious Aug 2012 #269