Latest Breaking News

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

92. 'If' 'if', the law is not based on 'what ifs'. The Swedish Prosecutor failed to file charges

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:38 PM

Sep 2012

that is a fact. She failed to follow the law. She issued a warrant that is now in question based only on allegations, when it is supposed to be based on charges.

Assange did NOT refuse to go to Sweden in Oct. 2010. He did NOT refuse to speak to the Prosecutor for three weeks while he WAS in Sweden in 2010. There is no need to ask 'what if'. This case could have been and should have been dealt with in Sept/Oct of 2010. But it was not.

The Prosecutor had the opportunity to interview him AND arrest him while he was in Sweden, and later when he offered to return to Sweden in Oct.

She refused, and you have yet to explain that.

I and many of the women's organizations who have been watching this case, have never seen a Prosecutor refuse to immediately interview and arrest a suspect as soon as she was placed in charge of this case.

Everything that happened later, is irrelevant. She refused to do her job. And the question is 'why'?

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:

Assange to UN: 'It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks' [View all] CHIMO Sep 2012 OP

He should fly to Washington and make his case in person. 24601 Sep 2012 #1

And your point is??? nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #2

??? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #6

Why do you think the world agrees with him? hack89 Sep 2012 #13

The actual people of the world as opposed to their governments, ronnie624 Sep 2012 #19

And you know this how? hack89 Sep 2012 #20

The information I linked to is how I know. ronnie624 Sep 2012 #22

Yet Pew released a report saying the opposite hack89 Sep 2012 #27

So "the world" is actually "American public opinion"? JackRiddler Sep 2012 #157

Just pointing out that the only Pew report on Wikileaks hack89 Sep 2012 #159

Translation: "I really really need to distract everybody from those Swedish allegations!" struggle4progress Sep 2012 #3

The Swedish BS is the distraction wtmusic Sep 2012 #5

Lol, you mean the allegations that have fallen apart, as we all predicted they would. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #7

You know they have to interview Assange before they can indict him. hack89 Sep 2012 #14

I thought this point had been made clear here multiple times already. In fact I believe sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #35

Lets look at real facts and not opinions hack89 Sep 2012 #36

Now maybe you can back and read my post which is filled with facts. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #40

That step she needs to take is to interview Assange hack89 Sep 2012 #41

Wrong! Because he already HAS BEEN ARRESTED. That was a lie. It is still a lie. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #43

He was not arrested by Swedish authorities hack89 Sep 2012 #45

Still refusing to accept facts. He took advantage of the law, and rightly so, especially sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #53

Not making much sense here hack89 Sep 2012 #46

Sigh! Because he appealed the request for extradition sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #51

The Swedish courts said that there was valid cause to arrest Assange without an interview. hack89 Sep 2012 #54

??? What has that got to with anything. They did and he was arrested. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #56

Not by SWEDISH authorities. hack89 Sep 2012 #58

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

Because she doesn't need to. She has all she needs to arrest him. hack89 Sep 2012 #68

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

You have avoided this question several times - lets try again hack89 Sep 2012 #55

No, it is YOU have avoided the real question here. The Swedish Prosecutor, as you now sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #57

So Assange would have voluntarily gone to Sweden? You really believe that? nt hack89 Sep 2012 #59

Why did the Swedish Prosecutor fail to take the necessary step to sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #60

I'll take that as a no. You just answered your own question. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #62

Why has the Swedish Prosecutor refused to take the necessary step to file sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #65

Because she doesn't have to. She has all she needs to take him into custody. hack89 Sep 2012 #66

Wait!! You have just contradicted yourself and have blown away the major sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #69

No - she wants to file charges. But on her terms. hack89 Sep 2012 #72

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 appears to disagree with you. hack89 Sep 2012 #76

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

Swedish legal experts testifying under oath disagree with you. hack89 Sep 2012 #98

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

I read it long ago. It means nothing wrt to the non case against Assange. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #107

You just demonstrated that if you read it you didn't understand it. hack89 Sep 2012 #109

Why did she fail so spectacularly to do her duty in this case? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #111

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

Why do think that matters now? hack89 Sep 2012 #108

He has been arrested. What is it that you do not get about this case, or rather, that you sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #110

Yet she will win - so perhaps she didn't botch it after all hack89 Sep 2012 #115

I don't ignore testimony from Swedish legal experts. I have read the opinions of this sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #120

Yet I predict that things will turn out exactly has I have said hack89 Sep 2012 #126

Mmmm .... sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #136

And yet in the end Sweden will arrest and indict him. hack89 Sep 2012 #78

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

All of those issues were part of the extradition hearing hack89 Sep 2012 #87

The British Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a Swedish case. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #90

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

Not only were they debunked, you are now running away from your previous sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #99

No - there is a reason Assange lost his extradition fight hack89 Sep 2012 #101

You still have not answered the question. Why was there even a need for an sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #104

It is all moot now. hack89 Sep 2012 #106

The obvious answer reorg Sep 2012 #114

So 'they' convinced Assange to fight extradition, and then, appeal for two years, all because 'they' msanthrope Sep 2012 #150

the prosecutor made a reassuring move first reorg Sep 2012 #153

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 fled Sweden the night before his interview with the prosecutor. hack89 Sep 2012 #79

He did not flee Sweden, he was told by the Prosecutor on Sept 15 that he was free to sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #82

The lawyer's memory got much better under oath hack89 Sep 2012 #86

And none of that has anything to do with Assange who was told by the prosecutor, sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #112

You keep believing that if it gives you comfort. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #116

I'll leave 'belief' and crystal balls to you. I deal only with facts. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #117

Yet she is the one who will win. hack89 Sep 2012 #119

Well, now I know I won this debate. How? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #123

That "incompetent" prosecutor who "botched" the case will put his ass in jail hack89 Sep 2012 #127

As I said, signs someone has lost the debate, when they resort to non-facts, sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #133

If the prosecutor is breaking Swedish law then explain these facts hack89 Sep 2012 #42

Because the Court does not investigate a crime, they accept the documents presented sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #44

Except we are talking about a Swedish Appeal Court hack89 Sep 2012 #47

How long ago was that? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #50

Yet the Swedish Appeal Court disagrees with you hack89 Sep 2012 #52

They expected her to do her job, she did not. But you still have not explained sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #113

Saying it over and over again does not make you right. hack89 Sep 2012 #118

Resorting to 'Swedish Experts' some of whom were brought there by the Prosecution sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #122

It is time to move on - it's over hack89 Sep 2012 #125

Lol, have you run out of excuses? The prosecutor ran out of options two years ago. She was out sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #138

How can you say that? It is not like Assange is a free man. hack89 Sep 2012 #154

And you still refuse to even try to answer the question as to why a Prosecutor sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #163

And I fail to see the importance of this point. hack89 Sep 2012 #164

Assange must think there's a credible Swedish case against him, or he wouldn't have jumped bail struggle4progress Sep 2012 #15

How did you arrive at that conclusion? wtmusic Sep 2012 #17

Assange, of course, didn't argue that "US-conspiracy-against-me" in UK court, because struggle4progress Sep 2012 #23

Paranoid fantasies like the secret US indictment? wtmusic Sep 2012 #28

Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously struggle4progress Sep 2012 #32

Stratfor email hackers were tricked into using Feds' server struggle4progress Sep 2012 #33

So, why should we take any Wikileaks-related remarks in the Stratfor emails seriously? struggle4progress Sep 2012 #34

I seem to have touched a nerve. wtmusic Sep 2012 #37

I provided several links and cogent argument: you retort with personal remarks struggle4progress Sep 2012 #129

It ultimately becomes a case of judgement wtmusic Sep 2012 #134

Why does the US Government take Stratfor emails seriously? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #139

Driving the CIA crazy???? Did Jason Bourne fail? nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #30

I think you should read or watch or something so that your posts come from an informed place xiamiam Sep 2012 #25

More paranoia wtmusic Sep 2012 #31

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

Agreed statements of facts and issues struggle4progress Sep 2012 #146

And once again you jumped right over the question. Not surprising, it was what I expected. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #147

US officially considers Assange an "enemy of the state" JackRiddler Sep 2012 #4

This cannot be emphasized enough cprise Sep 2012 #9

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

Of course it shows exactly what Dorling claims. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #49

The military will, no doubt, exercise some diligence to ensure that no personnel repeat the stunt struggle4progress Sep 2012 #124

Really? reorg Sep 2012 #130

... In a statement the Guardian rejected the accusations from Wikileaks, explaining struggle4progress Sep 2012 #137

Yes, they even admit it openly reorg Sep 2012 #140

Thank you, it's hard work here on DU lately refuting the misinformation sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #143

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

Excellent speech! JDPriestly Sep 2012 #8

bull shit speach by a 1st class con artist krawhitham Sep 2012 #10

Can tell your well informed... Katashi_itto Sep 2012 #11

His complaint of "having been detained for 659 days without charge" brought tears to my eyes! struggle4progress Sep 2012 #24

Yep, that proves it. ronnie624 Sep 2012 #29

It's evidence, at least, that the dude is a self-absorbed blowhard and careless with his words struggle4progress Sep 2012 #128

The mention of 659 days was about Bradley Manning's detention. GliderGuider Sep 2012 #38

Except Manning was charged before he even left Iraq hack89 Sep 2012 #48

No cigar for you: "I speak to you today as a free man, because despite having been detained struggle4progress Sep 2012 #121

Oh well, carry on then. nt GliderGuider Sep 2012 #132

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

Guardian link here dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #12

excellent speech. freedom of speech and press are the foundations of a democracy xiamiam Sep 2012 #21

Assange speaks for me.... mike_c Sep 2012 #26

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

How come you know his exact location? JackRiddler Sep 2012 #156

Might want to look at the post i replied to neh? Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2012 #162

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

Why don't you send him some? JackRiddler Sep 2012 #165

He sure did manage to get the oar in during that speech. dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #70

I am unfamiliar with this figure of speech. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #158

Here ya go dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #161

Where are the Moscow files Assange? joshcryer Sep 2012 #81

Hand them to him. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #155

RT is one of the best news outlets available here in the US. Their coverage of foreign sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #160

Wikileaks has them, they announced they were going to release them. joshcryer Sep 2012 #166

What you're saying is certainly a possibility. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #167

I have no requirement for redaction or a thorough "read through." joshcryer Sep 2012 #169

Wikileaks's achievements are world-historical. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #171

too many falling for the demonization of Assange fascisthunter Sep 2012 #175

I don't dispute that. joshcryer Sep 2012 #176

What persecution? treestar Sep 2012 #142

Wasn't this guy a rapist? smileydcheese Sep 2012 #168

Yes, one woman has accused him of raping her and is going through with the prosecution. joshcryer Sep 2012 #170

No charges have been filed. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #172

Because Assange has to be interviewed before charges can be file. hack89 Sep 2012 #173

Still trying I see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you still insist sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #174

Yep, he skipped town the day before his interview. joshcryer Sep 2012 #177