Chris Hayes on Julian Assange from Today's Show

[KoKo]

I hope this link works...if not go to the link at bottom for excerpts of Parts 1-3 of Chris Hayes interesting Panel and Discussion on Assange. Hayes got really bad feedback on his Assange Segment on Twitter..so the link might not be still working from MSNBC

-----------


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46979738

How Coverage of Julian Assange Provokes Liberal Outrage
By: Kevin Gosztola Saturday August 18, 2012 5:16 pm

TweetTweet224
digg stumbleupon

Most liberals in the United States seem to prefer ignoring what is happening with WikiLeaks, particularly its founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange. Either they are totally repulsed by Assange as an individual, they do not consider WikiLeaks to have provided a valuable service by releasing previously classified documents, the way the United States government is pursuing WikiLeaks founders, owners, managers, staffers and others connected doesn’t bother them or the story at this point is so complicated that they do not have the patience to sort out all the details to figure out the truth.

These various viewpoints inevitably lead to a contention that the era of WikiLeaks is over and, perhaps, the organization never really mattered that much at all. Such views are not surprising given the way that the US press has covered or failed to cover developments in the story of Assange, Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, and the media organization. Should WikiLeaks even enjoy First Amendment protection? That is a question for people who do not think Assange is a journalist or that WikiLeaks is a media organization. The dispute over this question is a result of those pundits and commentators in the US media that feel threatened by what WikiLeaks represents. And all of this can combine to form a general disgust toward seeing shows cover issues surrounding Assange, Manning or WikiLeaks.

Chris Hayes, host of the MSNBC show, “Up,” covered Ecuador’s decision to grant Assange asylum this morning. From the outset, Hayes made his view on the situation clear saying, “It’s hard for me to figure out where I am on all of this because there seems to be a lot of conflicting facts.” He said the facts around the alleged sexual assault—why Sweden claims it wants to extradite him from the United Kingdom—are complicated.

[Here are the segments "Up" did on Assange: Segment 1 | Segment 2 | Segment 3]

Hayes continued, “Assange himself as a figure seems complicated and in some senses a frustrating, maddening figure; also admirable in certain ways. The key thing here is when you look at what happened—how did we get here? He hasn’t even been charged with a crime. He is wanted for questioning in connection” to “serious allegations.”

More at.......

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/08/18/how-coverage-of-julian-assange-provokes-liberal-outrage/

[NYC_SKP]

1. When I have to pay 15% just to "true up" an underpayment for one year....

Then, yes, to find out that he paid 13% or less TOTAL, or even possibly NOTHING AT ALL....

Well, it makes me want to see serious life changing consequences for him and all like him.

[KoKo]

2. NYC_SKP

Did you reply to a different post than you intended? Do you mean Romney or Assange?

[NYC_SKP]

4. Hahahaha! Why, yes!

I'll leave it as a reminder and a kick to your OP!

[KoKo]

8. No Problem..we all have these "lapses" from time to time............

's

[Swagman]

3. I thought it was just me and I must be going mad

I've rarely seen a case like this where many are able to isolate parts of the Assange affair and not see the whole.

It's been illuminating to watch the denigration of Assange as though his persona is actually important.

If there ever was a case of 'shoot the messenger' this is one and he was often being shot by the good guys.

It's frightened me.

[KoKo]

9. It's frightening to ME that this stuff against Assange is going on!

I was "schooled" to believe that our SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WORKED!

We were a BEACON OF LIGHT TO THE WORLD.

Sadly.....all my hopes were dashed and I'm now some kind of "Loner/Pervert" that is a CT!

And....I don't even OWN A GUN...NOR WOULD I EVER WANT TO OWN ONE!

So.....I'm COOKED!

[Cleita]

20. It seems we are losing our innocence.

Our system of government worked until it became corrupted by greed and military prowess.

[KoKo]

27. yes..it's been going downhill for awhile now...

for us older folks we are thinking we might be dead before thinks get back to liveable for our neices, nephews, kids, family...anyone.

[Iggy]

36. THANK YOU Harry Truman

per: Gore Vidal.

Vidal frequently pointed out Truman decided to keep the MIC going after WW II.. and of course
there was the prescient warning from General Eisenhower.

BTW, today is President Clinton's birthday.. the only POTUS in recent history to start to reign in
the obscene "defense" budget... then Smirky got in.. and cost shot right back up to absurd
level.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. More Americans failing to understand the Swedish legal process.

Sweden has a civil law system. The accused is not charged until fairly late in the process. Under the Swedish justice system, the accused is interrogated before a magistrate prior to preferment of charges. This is equivalent to an arraignment in common law countries. The UK High Court found that the European Arrest Warrant was valid because there was a prosecution against Assange, and that the progress of the case was equivalent to his having been charged under common law.

[movonne]

6. If anyone thinks this is really about rape they don't know

the facts...how many here believes that Manning got a fair shot...this is what will happen to Assange if Sweden get their hands on him...he said that he would return to Sweden if they would guarantee they would not sent him to the US...

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. And more people unacquainted with logic

a) Manning was a serving soldier who violated his oath. Under military law he's subject to the death penalty. If he's only facing 25 years he's very lucky. He is in no sense a whistleblower; the sheer volume of information he released makes it impossible for him to have had any idea what all of it was about.

b) if the US wanted Assange it would be easier for them to extradite him from the UK; he's been in the UK nearly 2 years, the US has made no attempt at any such extradition. I don't really inderstand the bizarre notion people have that the charges against Assange constitute some elaborate pretext for conveying him to CIA torturers, honestly. Anyone who actually thinks it's more likely that Assange would be handed into US custody by Sweden than the UK, when the UK would have to sign off on his extradition to the US from Sweden, is living in a paranoid fantasy land.

[Gregorian]

10. Under normal circumstances these things would be important.

But in light of the things Wikileaks uncovered, it makes it difficult for the US to has this out in public.

[KoKo]

11. No Offense: "Spider Jerusalem" for your DU Handle...but USA is Waiting Like Spider

to get Julian Assange to make an EXAMPLE of HIM!

If we forget that then we are not competent to function on a site that calls itself, "Democratic Underground" these days.

I've been on "DU" since 2001.....I can't believe that we have folks here who are not SUPPORTING ASSANGE!

But, then.......all is "DIFFERENT" these days.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Which is why he's being extradited to Sweden on rape charges.

Because it's really quite hard for the US to extradite someone from the UK

Independence of thought, shocker. (And I've been here since 2001; this is my second account, I gave up the old one because I wanted a name change in the days before there was a name change amnesty.)

[KoKo]

21. "Spider" ...then both of us since 2001 and we are now at WAR with Each Other....

Must have been different reasons both of us joined way back then. For ME it was Stolen Election 2000.

For "You" what was it? At that time?

We seem on opposite sides now......I wonder why?

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. Because I'm capable of nuanced thought? Possibly?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1162577

[KoKo]

34. lol's.. I've never been accused of not being "nuanced" and apparently, neither have you..

So let's just say that both of us are Intelligent people capable of reading many different sources and coming to our own conclusions. And that we (after all these years) are in a different place in our evolution of thought at this time.

It's hardly worth fighting about since your link just went back to what I had already answered.

Peace! We just will never agree on anything, apparently ...even though we both came here...(I thought) fighting for our Democracy after Stolen Election of 2000. But, then, I don't remember ever interacting with you during all these years...so maybe we differed from the beginning in our signing up for DU way back then. If we always differed then there's nothing lost. We are both still fighting for our "core principles." We can disagree and be fine with it, since we have nothing in common but the "D" in our voting.

Peace to You.......

KoKo

[lightcameron]

17. Supporting Assange is some kind of litmus test now for posting here, or for being a Democrat?

Hmmm. That's a new one. Do we all get to make up our own tests for others?

[The Doctor.]

31. No, lightcameron. It is not a 'litmus test'.

But if people can't be bothered to understand what is actually happening in the pursuit to shut down a whistleblower by powerful interests, and with an abundance of evidence demonstrating that this has nothing to do with rape allegations, then they really don't have the critical thinking ability to know why what's wrong and what needs to be addressed to make progress towards a more transparent and civilized future.

IOW: If you can't see the problems, then you can't be part of the solution.

[KoKo]

37. It's possible people are so overwhelmed with news they aren't up to speed on Assange Issues...

but...that they immediately decided either it was a National Security or Women's Rape Issue is whats so sad and disturbing about it...

As you point out:

"IOW: If you can't see the problems, then you can't be part of the solution."

But an uninformed America is the worse for it..because not everyone can read 24/7 and our MSM doesn't encourage folks to find other sources.

[mythology]

54. That's rather simplistic thinking at best.

People can actually see the same underlying issue and come to different conclusions and not be stupid for coming to a different conclusion than you did. Although I'd guess you had your conclusion and look for your evidence based on how poorly you react to others having a different opinion than you do.

[The Doctor.]

55. Ummm.... wow.

No, two people cannot 'see the same underlying issue' and then not see the same underlying issue.

You can either see it or not.

I choose to live in reality, which takes effort, diligence, and critical thought. Those who do not employ such do not live in reality.

Take teabaggers, for example. They have absolutely no clue how government works or about the principles of social philosophy, but if I were to tell them they were stupid, no matter how well I explained a simple reality that they did not wish to confront, they would, well.... pretty much say the same thing you did.

I've seen it many times: "You're just saying I'm ignorant because I have a different opinion!"

"No...", I reply, "I'm calling you ignorant because you say you don't want government running your medicare, and you refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that Medicare is a social program run by the government and paid for by your taxes. So not only are you ignorant, but you're pretty stupid too."

"Name calling is all you have!", they reply. Then I shake my head wondering if I've hit the bottom of the 'stupid pool'.

You see, there are many types of opinions. The problem that some people have is the belief that 'all opinions are valid'.

That, of course, is bullshit.

I deal with well-founded opinions. I tend not to even have an opinion until I've studied the issue long enough to see that there is a lionshare of facts and reason on one side while the other deals more with obfuscation than with facts. Climate change is a good example. It is my well-founded 'opinion' that humans have caused catastrophic changes to the composition of the atmosphere which is now causing inexorable changes in the global climate.

If you don't agree with my 'opinion', then you've left little doubt that you either have no where near the understanding of the issue that I do (IOW: you're ignorant), you have absorbed a fair deal of the provably false information bought and paid for by big industries to brainwash you, or you are being outright dishonest.

Sometimes a difference of opinion shows that one party is more informed than the other.

This is the case with Julian Assange. Anyone who believes that Assange is hiding from a possible rape charge that he would be highly unlikely to be found guilty of is simply ignorant of the larger body of facts and reason that make it clear this has nothing to do with rape.

[Cha]

13. I'm out here in

the ethers reading your posts, Spider Jerusalem, and they're appreciated by someone who doesn't really think of Assange and Bradley as heroes.

[KoKo]

14. Cha....I'm asking. Why do you think Assange and Manning have so much support

from Liberal Democrats if we don't see them as heroes for exposing truth and that we see them as Whistleblowers being trashed for their efforts to expose what went on under Bush/Cheney.

Why are some of us here because we believe this is a "Constitutional Issue" ...and you who are a good long time DU'er seeming to think that some of us on the Dem side are working against Dem Principles.

Can you explain where you are coming from in your views?

[Cha]

22. Yes, KoKo, I have a different opinion on this..

I know I'm in the minority here and that's okay.

Bradley Manning broke his military oath..dumping classified information that he wasn't even aware of all that it contained. He's in prison as a result..do not feel sorry for him.

And, Julian Assange is grandstanding at the Ecourdorian Embassy over the US' Witchunt on wikileaks..

"5 Myths That Have Helped Make Assange a Hero"

"Myth 1. Assange could be extradited to the United States"

"Assange has not been charged with any crime by the U.S., and the U.S. ambassador to Australia (Assange's homeland) has already stated that the U.S. has no plans to charge him, while the Swedish foreign minister has also confirmed that Assange will not be extradited. The First Amendment provides very broad protections for free speech, which includes military secrets. Since the infamous Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court has established that, with very narrow exceptions, the media has freedom to reprint leaked secrets. This does not protect those who do the leaking itself, which is why the government can bring down the house on Bradley Manning but not on Assange.

Assange is still wanted for questioning by Sweden, and for violating British bail law, against the will of supporters who helped pay for his bail. By evading questioning, he has broken Swedish law as well."

More Myths..
http://www.policymic.com/articles/13088/julian-assange-wikileaks-embassy-standoff-5-myths-that-have-helped-make-assange-a-hero

Just have to disagree.

[KoKo]

23. Thanks Cha...but, you are NOW the Majority on DU and those of us who post info & links

from people who would have been lauded and applauded on DU in the "Old Days of Bush II" are now attacked.

Yes, we do disagree. I feel sad it's come to this. But, it will be a SPLIT in the party somewhere out there in future times...

Anyway, Peace to You!

Regards,
KoKo

[lightcameron]

16. Excellent post.

[HooptieWagon]

45. Wrong! The US can't extradite him from UK, or Sweden, or anywhere else.,

Extradition is a process handled through civil courts. The US has to prove they have a prosecutable case in civil court. The US can't do so. First, since Assange isn't a US citizen nor was on US soil, the US has a problem with jurisdiction. Second, SCOTUS decision doesn't allow a journalist to be prosecuted for publishing whistle-blower provided information. Third, a civil trial requires evidence and witnesses to be present, public, and open to examination. The US won't do this, citing "national security". Fourth, a civil trial has the possibility of appeal, which US would lose.
The US needs to get their hands on Assange outside of legal means, by rendition. UK has refused to aid US in rendition. Sweden has cooperated with US in rendition (and torture). Hence, the desire to get Assange off UK soil and on Swedish soil, by any pretext. Its right in front of our fucking eyes, if people would just open them.

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. I find this to be nonsensical and absurd and paranoid.

Sweden refused more recently to allow rendition flights through their country, and their refusal created a diplomatic row. This was revealed in one of the leaked cables published by Wikileaks, in fact.

http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military

[HooptieWagon]

49. They have in the past.

Assange isn't a US citizen. He committed no crime on US soil. US can't legally extradite him. So they will use extra-legal means to detain him. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

[KoKo]

18. "Spider" I think this goes beyond your good description of Legalize...just saying/n/t

[The Doctor.]

25. Are you being deliberately ignorant?

There are more than enough facts for any thinking person to admit that this is not about rape at all.

I think you've been told that prosecutors already dismissed Assange after he DID make himself available for questioning.

You've ignored it.

I think you've been told that the rape case wasn't re-opened until after the leak of the intel by Wikileaks.

You ignored that.

I believe you've been told that right after Assange's hearing on extradition, SoS Clinton made an unprecedented trip to Sweden, about which Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said: “We will warmly welcome Secretary Clinton to Stockholm next Sunday. First bilateral visit to Sweden by a US SecState for a very long time.”

You've either ignored that, or have dismissed it in order to cling to your laughable position.

I'm pretty sure you've been told that Assange offered to go to Sweden IF the Swedes guarantee non-extradition to the US, which has international precedent, but for a reason you can't rationally explain, they refused to grant such a guarantee.

Naturally, as that one fact right there puts the silver bullet through the silly notion that this is only about the rape allegations, you've chosen to ignore that as well.

Or the fact that Assange has invited the Swedes to come to the Ecuadoran embassy to interview him, another scenario with precedent, yet they insist that it MUST be done in Sweden where they will not guarantee non-extradition to the US, it is Blatantly Obvious to anyone with two working brain cells what is going on here.

But you are ignoring that as well.

Since you're presumably not a moron, the only conclusion we can reach over your insistence that this is about rape, is that you are deliberately ignorant in order to maintain your negative view of Assange.

I find this more reprehensible than mere stupidity. So why do you do it?

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. No, but I think you're apparently being deliberately ignorant

why go through the charade of extraditing Assange first to Sweden and THEN to the US? Why not extradite him from the UK? The UK is America's closest ally. Her Majesty's Government has shown a willingness and readiness to extradite suspects in the past. Look up Gary McKinnon and then tell me you think they wouldn't extradite Assange. And the Swedes can't offer to not extradite; there's no basis, legally, for abrogating their responsibilities under the extradition treaty in one particular instance, should the US present a properly executed warrant seeking extradition. The US/Sweden extradition treaty in any case bars extradition of persons wanted for political crimes.

And Assange is being disingenuous when he says he's invited the Swedes to interview him in the Ecuadorean embassy. He is not wanted for questioning in the sense of "being interviewed by police". He is wanted for interrogation before a magistrate, prior to being charged and tried. This is equivalent to an arraignment in common law countries (of which Sweden is not one).

I can only presume that you're deliberately ignorant in order to maintain your negative and paranoid view of the US government?

[KoKo]

28. Putting it Plainly! After the Wars after 9/11 would you trust any of these countries

to PLAY FAIR with Julian Assange? No...he's considered a TERRORIST.

How many BANKSTERS ARE IN JAIL for BRINGING DOWN WESTERN ECONOMY? HUH?

Sorry for shouting at you... I should have just done the "Bold" but, I didn't have time to be so Internet Correct/

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. I'm not sure what Sweden had to do with any of that

and I linked you to my opinions on Assange Wikileaks, et al elsewhere; I am really quite sorry if you are troubled by nuance.

[KoKo]

30. Surely you've seen the Articles about Sweden Renditioning Captives for Bush/Rove?

and Rove's involvement in "advising the Swedish Government" during the time of Assange's troubles there?

It's been posted here....it's out there on Google...I've posted it recently.

Rove/Rendition/Sweden...and read back to what they did during WWII to deal with Hilter..and how the were complicit. Read Kevin Philips books or any history of WWII.

Sweden sounds good in today's propaganda news....but, check out their history.

Maybe you are young and don't know..but, search...read!

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. I've seen one instance of extraordinary rendition in 2001.

I've seen other reports that Sweden later blocked any rendition flights (in 2006), which led to a minor diplomatic crisis with the US.

And I think it's frankly paranoid to think there's any need for an elaborate charade involving extradition to Sweden for the US to get Assange. The UK would hand him over if asked, probably. Look at the case of Gary McKinnon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

Now really, is it rational to think that if the US wanted Assange that badly, they couldn't extradite him from the UK?

[KoKo]

39. UK has harder extradition laws than Sweden. Remember they kept Pinochet.......

and others from extradition.

[The Doctor.]

33. There is no longer any question of your ignorance, because I KNOW this has been explained to you.

The US would have to give reason to extradite. Those reasons come with the possibility of incarceration without due process, torture, and the death penalty.

The UK cannot extradite under such circumstances. Sweden can. Mckinnon is still in the UK and one of the reasons is that there is no guarantee that that doing so would be compatible with the Human Rights Act of 1998. Something that the release of Assange to the US would clearly be in violation of.

This is at least the second time this has been explained to you.


I am not ignorant of the US's penchant for torturing and indefinitely detaining people without charges. Why are you?

It is clear who is ignorant of what here.

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. The US would have to give reason to extradite to Sweden as well

and no, Sweden can't. Sweden will not extradite anyone facing the death penalty. Nor will any EU country. The Human Rights Act 1998 a/k/a the European Convention on Human Rights is law in Sweden as well. Were you not aware of this? You're making nonsensical arguments. It's clearly not me who's ignorant here.

[The Doctor.]

47. We have an arrangement with Sweden.

Not with the UK.

The proof is so glaringly obvious, it's quite plain you've decided to hold a ludicrous position that has virtually no support.

Explain why Sweden refuses to give a guarantee NOT to extradite Assange, when it would cost them NOTHING to do so and get them the interview they want on Swedish soil.

Please. If your explanation doesn't make me laugh my ass off, I'll try taking you seriously. Until then, your DoJ talking points don't hold air.... or water.... or anything.

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. "An arrangement".

You are very probably referring to "temporary and deferred surrender". Which is a provision in the US extradition treaty with the UK as well.

Temporary and Deferred Surrender
1. If the extradition request is granted for a person who is being proceeded against
or is serving a sentence in the Requested State, the Requested State may temporarily
surrender the person sought to the Requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. If
the Requested State requests, the Requesting State shall keep the person so surrendered in custody and shall return that person to the Requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the States.
2. The Requested State may postpone the extradition proceedings against a person
who is being prosecuted or who is serving a sentence in that State. The postponement may continue until the prosecution of the person sought has been concluded or until such person has served any sentence imposed.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jun/uk-usa-extradition-treaty.pdf

And I've already told you why Sweden hasn't given a guarantee not to extradite Assange. Because the simple fact is that they can't do so without derogation of their commitments under the existing treaty. Making a singular exception for Assange should he be sought for extradition to the US undermines the framework of international law and cooperation and sets a bad precedent, and being bound by treaty obligations they can't refuse in advance (although in the event, should Assange's extradition be sought, it can be denied on the grounds that he is wanted for a political offence). You seem to have some extreme difficulty in being able to comprehend the fact that I can simultaneously think Assange should answer the criminal charges in Sweden and also that the US has no right or reason to demand his extradition.

[The Doctor.]

51. You were poorly informed about Mckinnon.

You were obviously unaware that he is still on UK soil for the very reason (among others) I've stated that the Brits can't hand over Assange.

You helped my prove that point with Mckinnon's example. Thank you for that.

As for the derogation of their commitments; Fine, but it suggests the supposition that such a request will be made, and unless you come from a place of ignorance as it has seemed so far, then you are aware that such a request is already in place. The problem with your point is that Sweden MOST CERTAINLY CAN guarantee non-extradition of Assange per Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Being a party to the Convention, Sweden can state that any request by the US for custody of Assange related to espionage, release of classified information, or anything else the US might charge him with will be denied due to the likelihood that Assange could face torture and death.

So WHY again will Sweden not offer such a guarantee? I think Clinton's visit might shed some light on that.

Now here's the part where I get to laugh: "undermines the framework of international law and cooperation and sets a bad precedent"

.... So.... the Brits have threatened to raid a foreign embassy in order to get Assange. Now that the pretense for 'upholding international law' is apparently to be violated by at least one party, where Sweden can still stand on that flimsy pretext and Britain cannot, can you give us some precedent for raiding an embassy to extradite someone wanted on relatively minor allegations where virtually no evidence exits?

I'd LOVE to hear that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. I live in the UK. I'm aware he's still here.

However I'm also quite aware that he's wanted for extradition and likely to be extradited should his appeal fail (I would imagine the case gets more media coverage here than in the US).

And there's no need to issue such a guarantee because the US/Sweden extradition treaty already contains a provision disallowing extradition for political crimes. Which the release of classified material by a non-US national outside the US would clearly qualify as.

[The Doctor.]

53. Then his was a poor choice of example.

If the point is moot, and there is no fear of Sweden extraditing Assange to the US, then what, exactly, is stopping them from issuing a guarantee?

You have just made the case that Sweden has NO reason NOT to issue a guarantee. So why won't they?

[KoKo]

38. I think you didn't take time to read Poster "Doctor" comments though...

You just shot back a remark. Just saying.....

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. I took the time to read.

And to respond to what's relevant. The only relevant things being: a) Sweden cannot offer guarantees to not extradite to the US if presented with a legitimate warrant for extradition without abrogating their treaty obligations (but under the same treaty there's no extradition for "political crimes&quot ; and b) Assange isn't "wanted for questioning", he's wanted for what corresponds to arraignment in a common law system.

[KoKo]

42. Well...then all I can say to you...If I was Assange...I would fear for my life

with Interpol and Stephen King and Joe Lieberman and the whole USA Resources after me.

I couldn't come to any other conclusion and I'd be happy to have a One Room in the Equadorian Embassy and have to wash in the "Visitor Washroom" because it would either that or being in Bradley Manning's situation or worse.

That's all I have to say reading everything from all angles about Assange's reasoning. And, knowing what we did in Gitmo and are still doing in reditions and drone attacks with our power across the Globe.

[lightcameron]

15. This kid needs to do his research.

He hasn’t even been charged with a crime. He is wanted for questioning in connection” to “serious allegations.”

Under Swedish law, you are not charged until you are questioned, and even then it will probably be later in the process. Certainly that's not how it's done in the US or the UK, but that's how it's done in Sweden, like it or not, so that's why he "hasn't even been charged with a crime" yet.

[KoKo]

19. BUT...the WORLD MEDIA of the "Paid for Access" have a huge Disinfo Campaign

against him? NO?

[HooptieWagon]

50. Paid or not, there's a huge disinfo campaign going on.

But of course there are no astroturfers, propagandists, and Psy-Ops on DU. And they get offended when you call them such.

[xchrom]

41. He was 'questioned' - he was let go -

Then some one else changed that.

That's fucked up right there - & not trust worthy.

They didn't have magically new info -

[KoKo]

43. You are correct...and I could find link...but I'd do work and no one would believe

if they even bothered to read.

[xchrom]

44. It's ok koko - they know.

It's 1 of those twists - like the Swedish prosecutor could - has been offered - numerous times to 'interview' assange - but hasn't done it.

The Swedish government simply doesn't act very 'concerned' about the victims - who don't want to press rape charges in this case.