Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Assange to UN: 'It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks' [View all]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)67. Why did the prosecutor refuse to speak to Assange who has been available both in
Sweden and in London for going on three years, which would have made it possible for her to file charges against him?
I am asking as you well know and are struggling hard to avoid answering, about the actions of the PROSECUTOR. Assange had no influence over her actions.
She refused to speak to him for going on three years. You have failed to explain why considering there never was any impediment to here doing so.
So once again, why is there no case as of today, filed against Assange?
Why has the prosecutor refused to take advantage of all the rulings in her favor and the availability of Assange both in Sweden and in London, and do what she needed to do to file her case?
I'm still waiting for an answer to that question. In fact the whole world is waiting.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
178 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Assange to UN: 'It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks' [View all]
CHIMO
Sep 2012
OP
Translation: "I really really need to distract everybody from those Swedish allegations!"
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#3
Lol, you mean the allegations that have fallen apart, as we all predicted they would.
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#7
I thought this point had been made clear here multiple times already. In fact I believe
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#35
Wrong! Because he already HAS BEEN ARRESTED. That was a lie. It is still a lie.
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#43
Still refusing to accept facts. He took advantage of the law, and rightly so, especially
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#53
The Swedish courts said that there was valid cause to arrest Assange without an interview.
hack89
Sep 2012
#54
Why has the Swedish Prosecutor refused to interview Assange when there never was
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#63
Because he refused to recognize her authority to take him into physical custody.
hack89
Sep 2012
#64
Why did the prosecutor refuse to speak to Assange who has been available both in
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#67
Why has she not filed a case against Assange? You are now contradicting yourself
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#71
She has what she needs to arrest him. Once in Swedish custody he will be interviewed and indicted.
hack89
Sep 2012
#74
No, it is YOU have avoided the real question here. The Swedish Prosecutor, as you now
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#57
Um, that is not how the law works. On the whims of a prosecutor. You are now completly
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#75
The entire Swedish legal system has not been in charge of this case, because NO
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#84
Except for the Swedish appeals court that issued the domestic arrest warrant for rape you mean?
hack89
Sep 2012
#88
But since you said that Assange would have never surrendered to Swedish authorities
hack89
Sep 2012
#89
'If' 'if', the law is not based on 'what ifs'. The Swedish Prosecutor failed to file charges
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#92
Is it her fault that he jumped bail in the UK and is now a fugitive from justice?
hack89
Sep 2012
#94
Again, the Swedish Prosecutor refused to do her job when this case was handed to her.
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#96
Why did the Swedish Prosecutor not speak to Assange while he was in Sweden for
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#100
Read the High Court's transcript - the Swedish legal witnesses explain it better than me. nt
hack89
Sep 2012
#102
Assange will find out how credible she is when that cell door shuts behind him. nt
hack89
Sep 2012
#103
Still can't answer the question. Why did she fail to lock that cell door when she
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#105
He has been arrested. What is it that you do not get about this case, or rather, that you
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#110
I don't ignore testimony from Swedish legal experts. I have read the opinions of this
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#120
My arguments have never been presented in court. Motions were presented, no case
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#80
All of those issues were addressed by the British High Court. It is time you read the transcript. nt
hack89
Sep 2012
#83
The British High Court did NOT rule on this case. What are you talking about?
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#85
Every argument you have made about the interview and the prosecutor doing her job
hack89
Sep 2012
#91
Lol, no, it was the anti-Wikileaks contingency who were fixated on the interview. Now
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#95
Except they were not debunked. What I said has been confirmed by Swedish legal experts
hack89
Sep 2012
#97
So 'they' convinced Assange to fight extradition, and then, appeal for two years, all because 'they'
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#150
Thank you for you posts. I think her failure to conduct this case in a professional manner
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#178
Fugitives don't get to dictate to prosecutors. That is how the world really works.
hack89
Sep 2012
#61
He was never a fugitive, he was in Sweden asking to speak to her, then in London
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#77
He did not flee Sweden, he was told by the Prosecutor on Sept 15 that he was free to
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#82
And none of that has anything to do with Assange who was told by the prosecutor,
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#112
As I said, signs someone has lost the debate, when they resort to non-facts,
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#133
Because the Court does not investigate a crime, they accept the documents presented
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#44
They expected her to do her job, she did not. But you still have not explained
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#113
Resorting to 'Swedish Experts' some of whom were brought there by the Prosecution
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#122
Lol, have you run out of excuses? The prosecutor ran out of options two years ago. She was out
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#138
And you still refuse to even try to answer the question as to why a Prosecutor
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#163
Assange must think there's a credible Swedish case against him, or he wouldn't have jumped bail
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#15
Assange, of course, didn't argue that "US-conspiracy-against-me" in UK court, because
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#23
So, why should we take any Wikileaks-related remarks in the Stratfor emails seriously?
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#34
I provided several links and cogent argument: you retort with personal remarks
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#129
I think you should read or watch or something so that your posts come from an informed place
xiamiam
Sep 2012
#25
Your author, "Israel Shamir", is a known anti-Semite and holocaust denier, who is a close friend
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#131
How does Assange's boinking of a Swedish woman and her dubious accusation of rape
wtmusic
Sep 2012
#135
Lol, you are funny. Speaking of 'jumping'. Maybe you can explain what someone else
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#141
And once again you jumped right over the question. Not surprising, it was what I expected.
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#147
It would be nice to see the actual declassified documents, rather than Dorling's interpretation
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#16
Scoop has a link to pdf of the actual FOIA release: it doesn't seem to show what Dorling claims:
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#18
The military will, no doubt, exercise some diligence to ensure that no personnel repeat the stunt
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#124
... In a statement the Guardian rejected the accusations from Wikileaks, explaining
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#137
The Der Spiegel article is worth a read, but you clearly didn't bother to read it
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#144
Thank you, this truly is Orwellian and very scary. But it proves Assange was correct
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#148
His complaint of "having been detained for 659 days without charge" brought tears to my eyes!
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#24
It's evidence, at least, that the dude is a self-absorbed blowhard and careless with his words
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#128
No cigar for you: "I speak to you today as a free man, because despite having been detained
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#121
But once again, you attempt to distract from the facts. Was his claim correct or not?
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#149
Nobody else ever counts time spent out on bail as time in detention, nor does anyone else
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#151
Wrong, he has been detained under house arrest for two years, required to report
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#152
excellent speech. freedom of speech and press are the foundations of a democracy
xiamiam
Sep 2012
#21
if sunlight is the best disinfectant then he should stop hiding from it neh? nt
Bodhi BloodWave
Sep 2012
#93
if that's the extent of your understanding of events surrounding Assange's persecution...
mike_c
Sep 2012
#145
Assange should've focused on corporate leaks more than US government leaks. nt
Comrade_McKenzie
Sep 2012
#39
So it wasn't a good idea for TuniLeaks ( works in partnership with Wikileaks) to
Luminous Animal
Sep 2012
#73
RT is one of the best news outlets available here in the US. Their coverage of foreign
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#160
Yes, one woman has accused him of raping her and is going through with the prosecution.
joshcryer
Sep 2012
#170
Still trying I see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you still insist
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#174