General Discussion

metalbot

(1,058 posts)

195. He's in clear violation of British law

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:02 PM

Aug 2012

He's in the Ecuadorian embassy because he does not want to be subject to British law, which if allowed to run it's course, would involved in him being extradited to Sweden. He's in violation of British law for failure to appear at his extradition hearing.

The only real way forward here for him is to go to Sweden and face charges if necessary. I don't believe that Sweden is going to support an extra-judicial extradition to US forces, especially given the high profile of this case. If the US had a case that would support judicial extradition, they'd have changed him and asked the UK for extradition.

I think the powers that be in the US government are laughing their asses off over him imprisoning himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is a far better detention result than they could possibly have hoped for in the US.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

321 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gotta Admit... I'm Pretty Baffled By The Split And Depth Of Feeling Re:The Assange/WikiLeaks Story [View all] WillyT Aug 2012 OP

I have a question aboutAssange Peregrine Aug 2012 #1

IMO, Assange manipulated Bradley and proved himself untrustworthy (again) CabCurious Aug 2012 #303

1968, male, and yes I side strongly with Assange. I agree with him that the US should teddy51 Aug 2012 #2

1971, Female, Assange malokvale77 Aug 2012 #3

I just think the law should be followed treestar Aug 2012 #4

You mean like Bush, Cheney, Romney etc. are above it? Live and Learn Aug 2012 #8

No, why should they be? treestar Aug 2012 #10

Fine, we will get to Julian as soon as the rest are tried then. nt Live and Learn Aug 2012 #29

I don't think it's going to happen that way. treestar Aug 2012 #73

yes, bush & cheney will never be prosecuted. they'll die in their comfy beds attended by their HiPointDem Aug 2012 #129

and to which law, specifically, are you referrring? niyad Aug 2012 #21

x2 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #31

International law/extradition law/Swedish law treestar Aug 2012 #74

again, WHICH law? to what CRIME are you referring? niyad Aug 2012 #107

He's in clear violation of British law metalbot Aug 2012 #195

and of what crimes HAS HE BEEN CHARGED in sweden, where all of this supposedly began? niyad Aug 2012 #200

firstly he can't be charged until the second interview is done Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #210

I don't care about laws that prevent transparency. nt Comrade_McKenzie Aug 2012 #52

So how are we to survive as a nation if all of our information has to be open to other countries treestar Aug 2012 #75

Just a coincidence tama Aug 2012 #236

What do you mean? treestar Aug 2012 #260

The way I see it tama Aug 2012 #264

Do you not realize that we have to have SOME national security? treestar Aug 2012 #283

Don't get me wrong tama Aug 2012 #284

Well now you've invoked the Nazis treestar Aug 2012 #292

As said tama Aug 2012 #293

Laws are sometimes wrong brush Aug 2012 #136

In your view, laws against rape and other sexual assaults are simply wrong? struggle4progress Aug 2012 #183

Huh? brush Aug 2012 #184

Assange is hiding in Quito's London embassy to escape legal process in Sweden on sex allegations struggle4progress Aug 2012 #186

Legal process brush Aug 2012 #204

Railroading? Hmmm. The Swedish complaints are over TWO years old now. struggle4progress Aug 2012 #245

Timing brush Aug 2012 #271

You believe that a man, who trades in other people's secrets, couldn't break the law himself? struggle4progress Aug 2012 #272

Get real brush Aug 2012 #285

You claim he's being railroaded, though the original arrest order was issued by a Swedish struggle4progress Aug 2012 #286

But, again, why does a foreign national like Assange have to follow US law JDPriestly Aug 2012 #140

He hasn't broken US law. jeff47 Aug 2012 #166

What happens to spies in other countries who receive stolen U.S. secrets? randome Aug 2012 #169

The real spies tama Aug 2012 #240

Good point. randome Aug 2012 #242

Also editors fall into category of "journalist" tama Aug 2012 #263

He's wanted in Sweden for arrest on a rape allegation, rape being against Swedish law struggle4progress Aug 2012 #246

+100. I agree. Skip Intro Aug 2012 #194

Political asylum is here for when the machinery of government is used unjustly. backscatter712 Aug 2012 #296

And you have proof Sweden is abusing justice? Seems that Assange is... CabCurious Aug 2012 #305

Sweden is just not known to have a legal system that is that unfair treestar Aug 2012 #315

Tell that to the two guys that Sweden helped the CIA rendition to Egypt for torture. backscatter712 Aug 2012 #316

Was that during the post 911 insanity? treestar Aug 2012 #320

He has no right to disregard Swedish charges and flee forever CabCurious Aug 2012 #304

1976, Female, Sides with Assange Live and Learn Aug 2012 #5

You are not the only one tama Aug 2012 #241

And once he's in Sweden and the charges come... we'll see how you feel CabCurious Aug 2012 #306

1993, female, sides with Assange laundry_queen Aug 2012 #6

Female and 30 years older sides with Assange riverbendviewgal Aug 2012 #12

1989, male, sides with Assange Joe Shlabotnik Aug 2012 #70

1986, Male, sides with rape victims...nt SidDithers Aug 2012 #7

I'm sorry but wasn't the accusation refusal to use a condom? Live and Learn Aug 2012 #13

No, the accusation is RAPE. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #34

This OP is not about the sex charges, rape or otherwise. Live and Learn Aug 2012 #58

Your post, to which I was responding, was about the charges Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #59

which is not what the women are saying, is it? niyad Aug 2012 #108

It is in fact what at least one of them has said. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #110

No. Sex after consentual sex isn't rape. Both women had invited him into their beds. leveymg Aug 2012 #113

You are very much mistaken. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #120

It's not rape. She consented on the same occasion to have sex with him. The sex was consensual leveymg Aug 2012 #145

Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #146

You don't know what you pretend to know. It was consensual sex on the same occasion. leveymg Aug 2012 #147

... Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #148

Falling asleep does not constitute "withdrawal of consent". Complete Bullshit. leveymg Aug 2012 #150

I'm quite aware, thanks Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #154

Really? metalbot Aug 2012 #197

are you arguing that Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #211

I'm saying that it isn't rape if the sex was consensual. leveymg Aug 2012 #214

can it be said to be the same occation tho Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #215

Yes, going to bed and having consensual intercourse clearly signals consent. leveymg Aug 2012 #219

he had consent for sex with condom Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #220

Until the definition of rape is changed, it isn't rape. It isn't ethical, but it isn't rape. eom leveymg Aug 2012 #222

That is absolutely rape gollygee Aug 2012 #224

There may be a civil breech of promise case here. Doesn't meet the standard for criminal rape. leveymg Aug 2012 #225

What is a redefinition of rape is your idea gollygee Aug 2012 #228

You have to look at all sides. The law protects both parties. leveymg Aug 2012 #235

Again, this is frightening gollygee Aug 2012 #253

You are not a jury so you do not decide. randome Aug 2012 #226

actually initiating sex with a sleeping person Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #229

unless you can show reasonable expectation of consent reorg Aug 2012 #232

where do you see a reasonable expectation of consent for unprotected sex Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #233

there is no such legal category as "unprotected sex" reorg Aug 2012 #238

As I said, there may be a civil case for breach of promise, but it isn't criminal leveymg Aug 2012 #239

please provide transcripts reorg Aug 2012 #248

It's not rape if consent was given on the same occasion. leveymg Aug 2012 #237

this is something i doubt we will ever agree on Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #244

I think our disagreement is limited to legal definitions. leveymg Aug 2012 #255

as spider jerusalem posted earlier in this thread Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #258

Please see my response to SJ. eom leveymg Aug 2012 #268

She tweeted that she was half-sleep tama Aug 2012 #247

actually reorg Aug 2012 #251

Does it matter to you that Assange denies these allegations? sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #312

I don't know what evidence exists Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #314

Well, you answered my question. You are not familiar with the case at all. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #318

Assange's own lawyer tho Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #319

No it does not gollygee Aug 2012 #223

Its a somewhat scary/frightening mindset isn't it? n/t Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #250

Are you kidding me? LadyHawkAZ Aug 2012 #290

Woah. gollygee Aug 2012 #174

And she didn't have complaints the next day or after tama Aug 2012 #243

No. The issue is that she did not give consent for him to penetrate pnwmom Aug 2012 #37

Still seems to be a Swedish issue and a Swedish law. Live and Learn Aug 2012 #61

Not a Swedish issue and Swedish law. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #64

Thanks for the recitation of US law. Lets talk about Swedish law: leveymg Aug 2012 #149

Answered in response to another post. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #151

Your interpretation is nonsense. Falling asleep does not constitute "withdrawal of consent" leveymg Aug 2012 #152

The US law I'm pointing to actually applies if consent has been given Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #155

By the plain-language, that only applies in CA if prior consent has not been given. leveymg Aug 2012 #157

... Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #161

Of course there's an allegation. eom leveymg Aug 2012 #162

Isn't that statute exactly a case where consent has been given? metalbot Aug 2012 #198

That part of the statute applies if consent was not given, someone falls asleep, and is assaulted. leveymg Aug 2012 #216

AA had given her flat for Assange to use tama Aug 2012 #249

True. And the Stockholm Wikileaks coordinator agrees with you. pnwmom Aug 2012 #83

She consented to sleep with him, and to have him penetrate her. That isn't rape. leveymg Aug 2012 #116

Ms. W. did NOT consent to penetration without a condom. pnwmom Aug 2012 #123

Even if true, how in the world would you prove these facts? JDPriestly Aug 2012 #141

That's true. I don't know what other evidence they have, pnwmom Aug 2012 #165

Actually it would LadyHawkAZ Aug 2012 #294

That is not clearly "rape." leveymg Aug 2012 #144

Wrong. She did NOT consent to having unprotected sexual intercourse, pnwmom Aug 2012 #164

Seriously? metalbot Aug 2012 #199

so what if its not against the law here, or is is suddenly only US law counts worldwide. loli phabay Aug 2012 #81

Actually, penetrating a woman while she's asleep is rape in the US too. n/t tammywammy Aug 2012 #88

yeah i know it is, but i was making the point that some people seem to think that swedish law dosent loli phabay Aug 2012 #93

After they have had consensual sex? leveymg Aug 2012 #115

Yes, a woman that is asleep or unconscious cannot consent to sex tammywammy Aug 2012 #117

She already had consensual sex with him in the same bed that evening. That is NOT rape. leveymg Aug 2012 #118

How is penetrating a woman while she's asleep NOT rape? tammywammy Aug 2012 #119

The answer is simple. ronnie624 Aug 2012 #138

yet she said it was Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #167

... The defence argues that the offences in the EAW are not extradition offences struggle4progress Aug 2012 #178

Do you honestly believe that the actions of Sweden, Britain and Ecuador are solely morningfog Aug 2012 #14

Sweden is a functioning democracy, where the courts are shielded from political pressure, and struggle4progress Aug 2012 #252

I side with rape victims as well, but that has NOTHING to do with this case niyad Aug 2012 #15

The Stockholm Wikileaks coordinator, a "close colleague" of Assange's, pnwmom Aug 2012 #39

The whole thing is so paranoid treestar Aug 2012 #79

It appears to be working for Assange, anyway. n/t pnwmom Aug 2012 #82

What rape victims? MNBrewer Aug 2012 #22

this victim? Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #38

You realize this has nothing to do with rape, right? GliderGuider Aug 2012 #287

I think you completely misunderstand and mischaracterise the issue Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #9

If you "find the accuser's stories to be credible and believable," do you have a link to first-hand AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #36

I've read the police interviews. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #41

Thank you for the information, but did you notice that the link does not lead to interviews in nine AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #60

Comes to the same thing. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #63

Your claim, "Whether it's a verbatim transcript or a summary is irrelevant" does not determine AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #65

The "protocol" is a précis of the interview, there are extant transcripts and/or recordings. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #68

Your belief is not controlling. A précis of an interview /= a transcript of an interview. AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #84

You appear to be going to absurdist lengths to deny the apparent evidence behind the Swedish warrant Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #91

Not at all. If you've been paying attention. AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #97

I trust that the Swedish police and prosecuting authority aren't going to be just making things up frylock Aug 2012 #172

I don't tama Aug 2012 #259

You shouldn't tama Aug 2012 #256

would my post 38 in this thread qualify? Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #43

#38 does not provide a link to first-hand account where stories from the "accuser" (or accusers) can AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #66

Here's the link to their only interview tammywammy Aug 2012 #69

A tabloid report of an interview? No thank you. AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #85

That "tabloid" hired Assange to be one of their columnists before these incidents happened. MADem Aug 2012 #128

If true, so what? And the obvious garish layout indicates that it is a tabloid as much as AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #177

It's not a case of "if true" -- it IS true. MADem Aug 2012 #188

It is a tabloid. AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #190

If it's a tabloid, it is a left wing tabloid that has been publishing for over a century. MADem Aug 2012 #191

It is a tabloid. AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #192

Whatever. It's a tabloid that hired Assange. MADem Aug 2012 #202

the link to the swedish news article would be Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #103

hahahaHA! fascisthunter Aug 2012 #310

As I pointed out a few days ago... randome Aug 2012 #313

1975, male, I stand with Assange. nt hifiguy Aug 2012 #11

1983, Male, Assange MNBrewer Aug 2012 #16

1987, female, torn gollygee Aug 2012 #17

Roman Polanski. randome Aug 2012 #25

Yeah, that's what's typical. gollygee Aug 2012 #26

Giles Corey AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #217

1978, Male, stands with Assange Canuckistanian Aug 2012 #18

1968, Male, Sides With Assange Jumping John Aug 2012 #19

1972, Female, sides with Assange redqueen Aug 2012 #20

Good of you to put that down. nt msanthrope Aug 2012 #208

How so? redqueen Aug 2012 #209

Have you researched this? randome Aug 2012 #221

Polanski? LadyHawkAZ Aug 2012 #282

1975, Female, Sides strongly with Assange and Wikileaks nt avebury Aug 2012 #23

There is enough of a kerfuffle to this sordid subject that your poll would be meaningless. randome Aug 2012 #24

Agree - there is not a binary picture here jberryhill Aug 2012 #35

+1 Assange is no Dreyfus, but the pressure from the US .gov is blatantly obvious. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #55

since i'm curious Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #212

You basically hit all of the issues, but if you started an OP... joshcryer Aug 2012 #80

And we would all -pro and con- be trolls and enemies of democracy. randome Aug 2012 #89

Freedom of press in Ecuador tama Aug 2012 #261

1981, Male, Hope Assange rots with Manning... Ben_Caxton Aug 2012 #27

Welcome to DU! Fumesucker Aug 2012 #48

You, Sir, Are No Ben Caxton LadyHawkAZ Aug 2012 #51

Probably not... Ben_Caxton Aug 2012 #71

LOL! I grok. LadyHawkAZ Aug 2012 #90

Welcome to DU! randome Aug 2012 #92

1989, female, side with Assange n/t TDale313 Aug 2012 #28

People are putting the date they graduated high school here, right? Not year born? gollygee Aug 2012 #30

Problem is I don't really side with either. Cleita Aug 2012 #32

HS graduation date is not a reliable indicator jberryhill Aug 2012 #33

+1. n/t pnwmom Aug 2012 #42

There are good explanations tama Aug 2012 #265

"basic editorial work" jberryhill Aug 2012 #269

That's a fully documented Wikileaks editorial tama Aug 2012 #273

A fully documented Wikileaks editorial? jberryhill Aug 2012 #275

All public info tama Aug 2012 #279

The point is... jberryhill Aug 2012 #280

1971, Female, Assange MgtPA Aug 2012 #40

1986 female, I support the ideas of JA, but I think the Swedish case should be tried. Care Acutely Aug 2012 #44

Irrelevent, irrelevent, not that simple. NashvilleLefty Aug 2012 #45

Can You Please Add Some More info In Your Profile? HangOnKids Aug 2012 #121

Why? nt NashvilleLefty Aug 2012 #122

1966, Female, Assange cr8tvlde Aug 2012 #46

1972, Male,Assange Spirochete Aug 2012 #47

2006, Male, Sides With Assange nt Comrade_McKenzie Aug 2012 #49

Really? You're 6? I'm very impressed and I like your way of thinking. lob1 Aug 2012 #134

I thought it was date we graduated high school gollygee Aug 2012 #179

After rereading the post, you're absolutely right and I was wrong. lob1 Aug 2012 #185

1989, Female, Assange LadyHawkAZ Aug 2012 #50

Willy T! Old enough to be your Mom, and side with both for various reasons, but more with Assange. freshwest Aug 2012 #53

Thanks for the time you took to post this.... KoKo Aug 2012 #109

1957 the year they found out about smoking and orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #54

1976, female, don't care about JA, the governments, phylny Aug 2012 #56

1977, female, taking no side at this point. LWolf Aug 2012 #57

Male, 1977, Government of Sweden brooklynite Aug 2012 #62

1968, Female, Assange antiquie Aug 2012 #67

1987, Male, Sides with Assange, and openness, and freedom, and ideals DisgustipatedinCA Aug 2012 #72

1980, male, government hfojvt Aug 2012 #76

Not seeing much Romney/Ryan love here.. Fumesucker Aug 2012 #104

you haven't seen a split on this? Tunkamerica Aug 2012 #203

I have not been reading the Assange threads hfojvt Aug 2012 #205

I guess the vocal minority is vocal Tunkamerica Aug 2012 #299

never (would have been '72), male, absolutely with Assange.... mike_c Aug 2012 #77

1980, female, sides with Assange and WikiLeaks. nt nc4bo Aug 2012 #78

1961, male, sides with Assange, Manning, and the right of the people to know about their government. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2012 #86

1966, Male, sides with Assange. nt Bonobo Aug 2012 #87

1969, female. I stand with Assange against a government witch hunt. Autumn Aug 2012 #94

1975 Female Sides ith Assange n/t KegCreekDem Aug 2012 #95

1982 female sides w/Assange n/t choie Aug 2012 #96

69, Assange. Warren Stupidity Aug 2012 #98

50s male - sides w/ Assange. Nt xchrom Aug 2012 #99

1980, female, Assange riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #100

1984 Assange and Manning are heroes mattvermont Aug 2012 #101

Ask Hillary what affect Assange has had. Loudly Aug 2012 #102

More difficult tama Aug 2012 #266

1983, Male, sides strongly with Julian Assange and Manning. Denninmi Aug 2012 #105

1994, female, side with Assange to a certain extent. Jennicut Aug 2012 #106

It's the same old right - left issue. Conservatives support the wealthy, and their authority, Zorra Aug 2012 #111

so where on the scale do i fit? Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #213

Wherever you are I'm right there with you. great white snark Aug 2012 #254

Progressives generally base their POV on facts, reason, logic and evidence. Zorra Aug 2012 #300

i have not seen much facts, reason, logic and evidence that he is being framed tho Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #307

Really? Try this: Zorra Aug 2012 #308

an interesting report i will admit, tho i will take most the information with a grain of salt Bodhi BloodWave Aug 2012 #309

1973, Female, Sides with Assange n/t Le Taz Hot Aug 2012 #112

1964, F, Assange. nt tsuki Aug 2012 #114

'58, male, Assange pscot Aug 2012 #124

1970, Female, sides with Assange Hatchling Aug 2012 #125

I'm ignoring it bluestateguy Aug 2012 #126

This is a problem at home unc70 Aug 2012 #132

1952 Male intaglio Aug 2012 #127

Graduated in '74 & strongly support Assange. Vidar Aug 2012 #130

Prefer to remain uncategorized, but I strongly side with Assange. snot Aug 2012 #131

1966, male, Assange unc70 Aug 2012 #133

1972, Female, Sides With Whistleblowers . Why Syzygy Aug 2012 #135

1977, Male, Sides emphatically with Assange and spits on the UK government - fucking coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #137

1983, Female, neither Kalidurga Aug 2012 #139

how would you know how intent the women are? TorchTheWitch Aug 2012 #193

There are good reasons to suspect tama Aug 2012 #267

1960, Female, Strong supporter of First Amendment Rights JDPriestly Aug 2012 #142

74, M, with Assange n/t calikid Aug 2012 #143

early 1990s and split BlueNinja Aug 2012 #153

Side with wikileaks NCTraveler Aug 2012 #156

The "Double Top Secret Everything" Is Iggy Aug 2012 #158

Also... Iggy Aug 2012 #159

Hey, we don't got no democracy, but we do have a truedelphi Aug 2012 #201

LOL... Iggy Aug 2012 #207

Yep, Her 16 million dollar mansion was described by SF Chronicle as truedelphi Aug 2012 #281

Well, her and Madeline Albright Iggy Aug 2012 #291

1967, Male, Side with Assange GliderGuider Aug 2012 #160

Male, 1971, Side with Asange 99Forever Aug 2012 #163

Could you ask if we like to kill puppies and kittens? It might be a little less biased. jeff47 Aug 2012 #168

I agree. AtomicKitten Aug 2012 #187

... randome Aug 2012 #189

1973, female, side with assange shanti Aug 2012 #170

1980/ male / Assange Go Vols Aug 2012 #171

1983, male, NON-AUTHORITARIAN, sides with assange frylock Aug 2012 #173

Well said. woo me with science Aug 2012 #270

I think most people accused of siding against Assange gollygee Aug 2012 #175

1988, Female, undecided Nine Aug 2012 #176

Obviously the Onion is in on the conspiracy then! randome Aug 2012 #180

This conspiracy has a lot of layers. Nine Aug 2012 #181

I hate polls, age and gender discrimination and the government propagandists just1voice Aug 2012 #182

1971, female, side with Assange. Nt roody Aug 2012 #196

I don't have all the facts, but the whole manhunt stinks to high heaven. Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #206

To answer your comment about the Pope, truedelphi Aug 2012 #297

Yeah, it was more a rhetorical question, but yeah. Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #298

1975, Male, Sides with Assange Octafish Aug 2012 #218

1960 Male sides with Assange. zeemike Aug 2012 #227

1987, male, both aikoaiko Aug 2012 #230

1983, Male, Sides With Assange qb Aug 2012 #231

There is a poll and a gap tama Aug 2012 #234

'56, female, Assange fadedrose Aug 2012 #257

Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #262

1950, Male, Assange Time for change Aug 2012 #274

1983, Female, sides with Assange janlyn Aug 2012 #276

1978, Male, Sides With Assange FiveGoodMen Aug 2012 #277

1974, female, would find for Assange 1monster Aug 2012 #278

This has nothing to do with rape or diplomatic cables. GliderGuider Aug 2012 #288

1988, male, Assange flobee1 Aug 2012 #289

1992, Male, Sides with Assange. n/t backscatter712 Aug 2012 #295

1979, female, sides with Assange (nt) Autumn Colors Aug 2012 #301

Cannot. Will NOT support running from sexual misconduct charges CabCurious Aug 2012 #302

1974 Male, side with Assange................But Pharaoh Aug 2012 #311

2004, Male, sides with Assange. Odin2005 Aug 2012 #317

Dear WillyT, antiquie Aug 2012 #321