UK police descend on Assange's embassy refuge
Source: The Age, Australia
BREAKING NEWS: Police are massing outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is holed up after seeking political asylum.
WikiLeaks tweeted this morning that police in two large vans had arrived ‘‘to surround the Ecuadorian embassy in London’’ about midnight, local time.
Fairfax Media correspondent Karen Kissane reports from outside the embassy that a police custody van is parked 20 metres from the front door and three Metropolitan Police tactical support group members, normally assigned to public order duties, are at the entrance to the building.
Kissane says WikiLeaks supporters gathered there say five police have entered the building housing the embassy. However, it is unclear if they have entered the embassy itself.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/uk-police-descend-on-assanges-embassy-refuge-20120816-249pe.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)And asholes, against international law and would be enraged if this happened to one of their embassies.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Even during military war, the Brits have never taken this step. After participating in how many other military actions against Argentina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ireland (hell even the Irish embassy stayed open and unmolested) blah, blah, blah... where "undiplomatic" actions at those embassies were certainly being carried out like spying and illegal weapons purchases, the Brits have never taken this action against another embassy since that 1987 Act was passed.
They simply allow the diplomats to leave if there's any questions, unmolested, with the diplomatic status intact of the embassy.
This stinks to high heaven and anyone whose paying attention should be stunned that the Brits are willing to go to this level for this man. Unprecedented.
randome
(34,845 posts)If justice means anything, it applies equally to everyone. I know that's not how it works in the real world but that's the theory.
Britain should be willing to do this for any wanted criminal. Just because he's Assange does not mean he is above the law. Although obviously he thought he was.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)spying, whistleblowing and international war crimes.
Britain has NEVER done this for anyone - even those who most likely participated in monstrous crimes, real war crimes, against the UK let alone someone whose "accused" of a broken condom like Assange.
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't know what kind of pressure is being used to bring this matter to a close but I seriously doubt that it's a conspiracy to get revenge on Assange after two years of letting him roam free.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)And then all the appeals were exhausted, he tried to hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.
My point remains -in those 2 years, if the U.K. was going to somehow do our bidding, why did they not do so? Why didn't the CIA take him out and make it look like an accident?
Assange is simply afraid to face rape charges, which is what likely awaits him in Sweden.
Even allowing for 'hero' status, some heroes are flawed. I think Assange is flawed as a human being.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)get him to the US where he's to be tortured and disappeared.
Your persistent and deliberate refusal to actually examine the MANY US statements on Assange, and how they want him in custody and how they would orchestrate international machinations to get him into custody, are duly noted.
Clearly Assange's poison pill is so toxic that not even the CIA was instructed to take out Assange. He's already stated numerous times he has information so damaging to the PTB that in the event of his untimely demise, it would be released.
The "charges" are so laughably ridiculous that only naive innocents believe them. Noted.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's a bluff. If he has incriminating evidence and he is such a noble individual, then print it for all to see.
He's got nothin'!
Response to randome (Reply #54)
Post removed
randome
(34,845 posts)As I've often said: I don't care about being right or wrong. I just want to see the truth.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It never does any good and you wind up getting shit all over yourself.
Just sayin'
tama
(9,137 posts)
Myth busted:
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)you know?
Your positions on issues such as this are very interesting, especially considering the evidence, mountains of it actually, in this case that this man was set up after he revealed he had information on a major bank.
Are you actually seriously condoning the British Government behaving in a manner that could only be expected from a third world dictatorship? Have we sunk so low regarding the rule of law in this country that even on a Democratic forum there is anyone who could possibly not know the implications of such an action?
randome
(34,845 posts)Nothing has happened. Last night was a panic on the part of die-hard hero worshipers of Assange. If the embassy is raided -and I doubt it will be- it will be part of a lawful process.
That does not mean I have unwavering faith in either the U.K. or the the justice system in general. But to claim this is some end-of-the-world situation does not seem justified to me.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as its own power diminished around the world.
Can you explain why the UK refused to hand Pinochet over to the Spanish Court on charges of genocide?
randome
(34,845 posts)And then his attorneys were able to claim medical reasons for dropping the charges.
Assange will no doubt try the same if he is arrested outside the embassy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of a case, was protected by the British Courts. Sure, he was too sick to stand trial! That never stopped the prosecution of Nazis or other dictators who tried to make the same claims. But poor, poor Pinochet, who did so much for the Western Powers by suppressing his own people, murdering and torturing and disappearing them, poor guy.
No need for justice for the victims here, thousands of them. And what happened to his Swiss bank accounts btw? Any effort by the US to prevent him from having access to that money? I don't really know. But there sure has been a huge effort to interfere with the funding of an International News Organization! 
randome
(34,845 posts)But, as I said, Assange is doing the same thing Pinochet did, using every legal means possible to avoid extradition.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)many, many, times, yet you seem to still ask the same questions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
I understand the need to phrase declamatory questions about justice, but I suggest that there comes a time when one's ignorance of the legal process undermines one's rhetoric.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)spoke to the Swedish police, remained in Sweden for five weeks to be available to speak to the prosecutors and the police if necessary, and was told by the Swedish prosecutor he was free to go.
Also just as many times I have asked why the Swedish Prosecutor has consistently refused to speak to Assange in London, and why they lied claiming there were 'legal impediments' a claim now proven to be false?
Why all the lies, why all the delays? Why not simply charge him IF they have evidence?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Why you keep ignoring this fact is a mystery. If those allegations can be proven in a court of law, why do they remain nothing but a list quickly cobbled together after pressure from Assanges lawyers, and dumped into the public domain, but never filed where it would matter, in a court of law. As of now they are generally viewed as nothing but a smear campaign. This could be resolved by formally charging him.
Don't worry, Marianne Nye cannot answer that question either.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)are? Ok....you go with that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)formally charged in a court of law in Sweden. Was any evidence of these allegations, witnesses such as the women eg, ever presented in any court in Sweden?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)It's all spelled out very clearly in there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Maybe you can enlighten us on what 'all spelled out' means?
Here are the facts.
No charges have ever been filed against Assange. Not one.
Assange, contrary to distorted 'news' from the US MSM, did speak to the Swedish Police and did make himself available to the Swedish prosecutors, IN Sweden and in Britain. The Swedish prosecutors lied when defending their reasons for refusing to speak to him in Britain, by claiming 'legal impediments'. There are no such legal impediments as has been proven since then.
There never was any need for a warrant, since Assange was always available to speak to the prosecution. The prosecution had no right other than the phony reason they claimed to the court, to demand he return to Sweden, UNLESS they were willing to file charges against him. Which they refuse to do.
The reason they have not filed charges in two years is simple, they have no case.
Both women left on the record the fact that there was not any 'rape' or any 'threat' from Assange, one of them so outraged over the police's claims that she refused to speak to the police again.
There is a mountain of exculpatory evidence from the early stages of this sham online, captured by many bloggers before it was erased.
The women are being exploited for political purposes by a lawyer who has long had a reputation of being a complete lunatic. Just last week he was asked to comment on why no charges have been filed, and why the evidence conflicts with his claims. His response was defensive and angry and a refusal to respond.
This is a sham and everyone knows it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)nt
reorg
(3,317 posts)Perhaps you can direct us to comparable investigations, anywhere in the world, thanks.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I don't criticize progressive countries that truly promote and enforce gender equality.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)would like to tell me which act described is NOT a sexual offence...
Even if you think Assange didn't DO any of these acts, they are still CRIMES!!!!
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
Again...I'm waiting for an Assange supporter to tell me which one of these acts isn't a sexual offence....
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You should take this to the GD thread on male privilege.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the apologias routinely posted for 'leftists' such as Assange, Strauss-Kahn, and Polanski.
randome
(34,845 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I think the victims are being told to "take one for the team" because Assange enjoys privileges he may not be entitled to.
randome
(34,845 posts)Not multi-tasking well this morning!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Thank-you for allowing me to clarify (a lot of times people aren't given a chance).
Arazi
(6,829 posts)And actually, Sweden had pretty much dropped the charges but then they were resurrected only after Wikileaks exposed the Iraqi war crimes by the US. Mark Stephens, Assange’s lead lawyer in London states that ‘a senior political figure’ worked to have the case reopened.
Assange's position is that political interference in the case is confirmed by the decision of the Swedish prosecutors to drop the initial arrest warrant and to downgrade the investigation to one of ‘molestation’, a minor offense. Those decisions were reversed in late August when the chief state prosecutor, Marianne Ny, overruling a subordinate prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finne, restored the original allegations, saying that rape was the appropriate charge for the evidence on file with the prosecutors.
Sweden's refusal to agree that they won't extradite Assange to the US if he returned to Sweden for questioning underscores that this isn't really about what happened in Sweden but is really about Wikileaks and the US.
As with most sexual encounters this is a "he said, she said" situation so I'm not going to comment on the accuracy of what you've posted, but Sweden's reversal on the charges, their refusal to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to the US, the timing of it all - looks pretty transparently trumped up against Assange.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is an outstanding warrant. There is an extradition order. Assange has delayed this for 2 years. 'Charges' do not carry the same meaning in Sweden as they do here. He is wanted for questioning and for a DNA/HIV test.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)when it exposes their crimes.
Ecuador gets to be a hero to the other Latin American countries for giving the west a bloody nose.
There are LOTS of reasons for this.
randome
(34,845 posts)The fact that diplomats are not as honest as some suppose? Man, I can see why that warrants an international conspiracy! As for the rest of the world, we already knew that.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Himself, apparently; and now they want a DNA sample to look for wikileakage.
randome
(34,845 posts)
Arazi
(6,829 posts)those are powerful weapons and I'm sure has more.
This is way beyond honest diplomatic cables.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)rape
And covering for it is defined as corruption.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)Sweden has already said they will extradite Assange if he lands in Sweden. That's in the news.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Synonomous with "Taking a morning-after pill with your Midol and STFU!"
Arazi
(6,829 posts)I thought you were asking why Ecuador would go to the extent it has in order to protect Assange. I thought I answered that.
What exactly are you looking for?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I can prove my principles by demanding Assange return to Sweden.
You claim to want to end crime and the corruption of the rule of law. Can you prove your principles?
Arazi
(6,829 posts)by the US, the UK and other powerful international corporations.
The UK has taken unprecedented actions to suddenly find its moral backbone on this particular "criminal"? Laughable on the face of it especially in light of the many, many international bad actors the British have protected and saved from extradition over the past decades.
Its funny that the "rule of law" only seems to apply to Assange's case but not to war crimes by the US.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)the corruption of the rule of law to avoid prosecution of crimes by you and the rest of the Assange apologists and it damages everything you claim to want. Assange is not the prosecutor; any criminal evidence will survive him but the credibility of your pretend cause will not.
What you say is so true!! He tweaked their noses and that pissed them off!! Hell hath no fury like politicians made to look a fool.
The only thing he is guilty of,is exposing the truth. can you imagine what would have happened to woodward and bernstein if watergate happened in todays political climate?
tama
(9,137 posts)That's what asylum means, protecting a non-citizen from the rest of the world.
And as for DNA/HIV test, after these years, it should be quite clear that Assange didn't give child or STD to either of these women... 
randome
(34,845 posts)But I believe some have a long incubation period. I'm sure that's the case for certain forms of HIV.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)There was a warrant and extradition order for 2 years?
Seriously, one has to be entirely, deliberately ignorant to remain oblivious to the fact that these 'rape' allegations were retracted years ago.... making the persecution of Assange a clear case of political retaliation.
randome
(34,845 posts)The extradition hearing was held December 2010. Are you saying that it hasn't quite been 2 years yet? You got me!
The issue is not even rape. It's Assange's refusal to be questioned and submit to a DNA test. See other posts in this thread for the exact listing of allegations.
It is not all clear as you want to believe.
The conspiracy you want so fervently to believe in consists of:
U.K. government
U.S. government
Swedish government
Australia
Swedish prosecutors
The 2 Swedish women
The U.K. appeals process (for 2 years)
Interpol
That's quite a list, wouldn't you say? So the plan was to have Assange flee to the U.K. where he could drag out the appeals process for two years and then be extradited to Sweden so he could be extradited to the U.S.
All for 'proving' to the world that diplomats cannot always be trusted.
Seriously, how has the world changed because of Assange? Why are they out to 'get him'?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)I'm not sure which "allegations" you think are in dispute. Here's a timeline from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
Is it the events between August 20 and September 1? Where Sweden drops the charges and then reinstates them? That's all documented in there.
Is it that Sweden is refusing to provide guarantees that they won't extradite Assange to the US? That's in the news all over the DU LBN forum.
Not sure exactly what you're looking for.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How long was Assange within arm's reach of UK police? The UK is supposed to be the "lapdog" of the US. Geez that excuse is getting old.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)She's also said in interviews that she doesn't fear Assange or consider him violent. Presumably she is still a party to the suit but her statements (and behavior post-"crime"
are entirely inconsistent with being raped. She's not even in Sweden anymore as far as I know. It will be interesting if the US forces her to be dragged back for testimony in a case she's never wanted to be participatory in.
You don't see anything fishy here?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)it is not true? I mean, being a criminal defense attorney myself, I can assure you that if an alleged victim recanted her statement, then I would lead off every court proceeding with that fact.
Do you have an interview with any of the alleged victims? Any direct evidence presented by Mr. Assange's counsel that backs up what you claim about the victims?
The only thing I see 'fishy' here is Mr. Assange's behavior.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)
not know by whom, and released into the public domain with not a shred of evidence to back them up.
IF there is any truth to them, the place to have dropped them off would have been in Swedish court, rather than on the Internet.
1) Charges = Filed in court with evidence to back them up.
2) Allegations = Anyone can toss them out onto the internet requiring zero evidence to back them up.
Why has the Swedish Prosecution chosen the #2 rather than #1 option with no indication they will ever back them up in a court of law?
reorg
(3,317 posts)on similar cases in Sweden, where lack of condom use has led to rape allegations, thanks.
And how on earth did "gender equality" get into this, LOL?
hack89
(39,171 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)Please provide us, since, as you suggest, comparable activities have not led to rape prosecutions elsewhere, with selected examples from Sweden.
Didn't you offer to educate us ("How many times ..." on the law in Sweden?
Please do, one single case example will suffice.
Where was whose "sexual integrity" violated by not using a condomn, leading to charges of rape which automatically trigger arrest? Thanks for your kind help, in case it transpires, LOL.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The fact that he did all that while foregoing a condom is just icing on the cake.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
Do you think any of these acts should be legal?
reorg
(3,317 posts)The summary under point 1, as ridiculous as it is, doesn't include an allegation of "forced violence sex", only '"restricting freedom of movement". It is the judge's/prosecution's interpretation of Ardin's statement that when she was reaching for a condom Assange allegedly tried to stop her getting it. Then, she stated, Assange was asking what she was doing and after she explained it he put the condom on.
Any cases in the US or Sweden where similar circumstances have led to rape allegations? Guess not.
The other woman, according to her own words, was not sleeping, just "half asleep". Her actual complaint is not the early morning sex, only that a condom wasn't used.
Any similar cases leading to allegations of rape you know of, to enlighten us witless non-experts on Swedish law?
randome
(34,845 posts)It's not 'rape' until a trial. Assange is trying to avoid that as much as possible.
reorg
(3,317 posts)and whether or not it comes to a trial has nothing to do with it.
BTW, have you ever heard that not using a condom may lead to allegations of rape?
I'm trying to find out, asking all the experts here, to no avail. Nobody can come up with a case example. I wonder why.
randome
(34,845 posts)So why do you continue to ask about it? Assange is wanted for questioning. Case closed! Why did he leave Sweden the day before questioning and then refuse to return? Why has he fought this for two years? Why, if Sweden wanted to turn him over to the U.S., did they not do so for 5 weeks?
reorg
(3,317 posts)about your discovery. Because if none of the accusations qualify as rape, he cannot be extradited due to the EAP (without examining the evidence in detail).
But I can spare you the effort because you are wrong, as usual. Have you ever been on the side of truth in these discussions on Wikileaks and Assange? Never mind, rhetorical question.
p 21
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)over something so picayune, then? If he's "just wanted for questioning" why didn't the UK just say, "Shrug, if he ever shows up back in Sweden, have at him." Going nuclear because he didn't submit to questioning seems a trifle disproportionate, no?
It might even make a reasonable person ask if there are other undisclosed reasons - and then speculate about what those might be.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Part of the allegations are that sex was only consented to with condom use but that Assange proceeded to have sex without a condom and without her knowledge that the condom was not being used. Other allegations include that he forcibly held down one of the women and forced sex upon her, that he pressed his naked and erect penis against one of the women when it was not consented to and that he forced sex on one of the women while she was asleep. In what civilized country are these actions NOT classified as sexual assault or rape?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
pgs. 21-23
I don't know of any civilized country where consent to sex means "anything goes" especially when only certain acts are previously consented to or sex is only consented to with condom use. Suppose I consent to sex with a man and explicitly tell him that I will only consent to vaginal sex yet during the sex he forcibly subjects me to anal sex. Have I been sexually assaulted and in some jurisdictions raped? Yes. Suppose that I consent to sex and during the sex for whatever reason I want it to stop... maybe I suddenly feel ill or it is painful or whatever. I tell him to stop and he refuses and continues. Have I been raped? Yes. Because consent can be withdrawn at ANY time. And suppose - as in the allegations by one of the complainants against Assange - that I only consent to sex with condom use but during the act he secretly removes the condom without my knowledge and continues to have sex with me while I am unaware that the condom is not being used - have I been sexually assaulted? YES. And these are good things, which is why civilized countries define consent this way.
For some reason fans of Assange seem to believe that there are no legitimate allegations and even have been claiming since the start that Sweden had some ridiculous law that made sex without condom use was rape and that was all the allegations amounted to. I well remember all the sniggering about the craziness of that and the refusal to believe that it wasn't what the alleged crimes were nor was there any such bizzaro law. Apparently, some are still woefully misinformed.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Why won't the Swedish Prosecutors talk to Assange again?
And what are they going to do about the women having denied those charges? Could that be why there are no charges maybe?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
The court found that the prosecution had moved beyond suspicion, into prosecution:
Can you document that the victims denied the charges???? Victims don't set charges. They testify to behavior.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)seen this and wonder why, if there is any basis to them, there have been no charges filed after two years, and why it took so long even to force them to produce these allegations?
Any idea why no charges have been filed?
The prosecutor was asked that question by an actual journalist last week and she was unable to answer. Maybe you can??
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)list of allegations. But where are the charges? As of now, Assange has been charged with nothing!
hack89
(39,171 posts)in Sweden the suspect has a face to face interview with the prosecutor before charges are filed.
Until Assange meets with the prosecutors they cannot charge him with a crime.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
Now read pages 7 and 8 where Assange's lawyer admits that the prosecutor told him that they wanted to interview Assange.
It is very clear what happened - the prosecutor talked to the lawyer, the lawyer talked to Assange, and Assange skipped town.
As for the women, it is not their choice as to whether to charge Assange. They went to the police and made official statements. In those statements they detailed acts that the prosecutor felt broke Swedish law. The women have not retracted their statements.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)while he made himself available to her for five weeks in Sweden before she told him he could leave?
You also refuse to answer the question as to why she has refused to interview him for two years in London and lied about the reasons why??
Do you realize that you are proving what everyone has been saying all along? . The reasons the Prosecutors have refused to interview Assange, he has ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE for interviews, is because IF they do, then they will be forced to file charges. And they have no case.
Thank you for finally getting to the point, however inadvertently.
It would not matter whether the lawyer talked to Assange after Assange was told by the prosecutor they did not need to speak to him. He did not 'skip' anything. He went to Britain where he was always available, two hours from where the prosecutor is.
Is this so hard for you to understand??? He went to BRITAIN where he was available to the prosecutors for the past two years. NOTHING prevented them from interviewing him. They have done this before, interviewed 'witnesses' which is all Assange is at this point, in foreign countries.
Now, please stick to the facts of this case and not the spin. Answer this question if you can: Why has Marianne Nye refused to interview Assange for two years especially since she claims she needs that interview to file charges?
She was asked this question again last week. She still cannot answer it satisfactorily. Perhaps you can defend her because she sure isn't doing a very good job of defending herself.
hack89
(39,171 posts)are you saying the warrant is invalid and he could ignore it? Isn't the real truth that when it was clear that he was going to be arrested and jailed he ran?
Nye is the prosecutor - she doesn't go to the accused. The accused comes to her. For one reason, she does not have the power of arrest outside of Sweden. The interview is the final step before charges are filed. Which is why Assange refuses to talk to her in Sweden - he fears arrest.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to the prosecutor for the past two years. I'm asking you why a prosecutor who was sincerely interested in filing charges against someone who she believes and has evidence to prove, committed a crime consistently refused to conduct that interview?
You are unable to answer that question, and neither is she.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if it is decided to charge him.
What is the point of interviewing him in London? If he refuses to return to Sweden for an interview, do you think he will return to Sweden if they decide to press charges?
You refuse to accept that this "interview" is more than just a sit down do get Assange's views. It is the last step in a formal process that must be completed before he can be arrested. He knows that - which is why he is determined to stay in a place where Sweden can't arrest him.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)outcome. You do it to build your case. He was in Sweden for five weeks before he left, making himself available to her.
Why did she refuse to interview him while he was in Sweden? This argument you are trying to make fails to address the fact that he WAS IN SWEDEN and she refused to speak to him IN SWEDEN.
If that's all you've got, I rest my case.
hack89
(39,171 posts)skip town and ignore an arrest warrant?
You really want to hang your hat on that? He can ignore an arrest warrant because the prosecutor waited five weeks?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)You are seeing conspiracies everywhere because that's what you are looking for.
No one needs to justify every little bit of doubt you can find. What Assange needs to do is surrender to extradition. He left Sweden the day before he was scheduled to be questioned by Ms. Nye, the prosecutor who took over the case.
tama
(9,137 posts)As the threat of US criminal prosecution of Assange - what you have called conspiracy fantasy and worse - has now been verified by Australian diplomatic cables, are you ready to admit having been wrong in light of this new evidence?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Why is this so hard to grasp?
The police conduct an investigation, take statements and gather evidence. The investigation is then reviewed by the prosecutor. Then and only then is the accused brought in for an interview. That is when the prosecutor presents the results of the investigation and gets a statement from the accused. Then and only then can the prosecutor formally press charges and take the accused into custody if required.
I think five weeks is a reasonable amount of time to conduct and thoroughly review a high profile rape investigation.
tama
(9,137 posts)by European officials, and the British judge going "cosmopolitan" in his interpretations in favour of Sweden is just one narrow point of view.
It is clear that Assange talked with Swedish officials (which interview was immediately leaked to tabloids by Swedish police), the original prosecutor practically dropped the case and sad Assange was free to go. Then Marianne Ny walked over the original prosecutor and took over the case. For political reasons.
tama
(9,137 posts)is legal ground for arrest warrant and incarceration, for up to couple weeks incommunicado in Sweden, four days in Finland ("tutkintavankeus" - literally 'investigative incarceration') and can be furthered by court decision. Investigation of allegations and suspicions is NOT a criminal charge, which is what prosecutor presents to a court.
hack89
(39,171 posts)skipping town the night before the prosecutor plans to arrest you is not the best way to prove your innocence.
tama
(9,137 posts)and demanding that innocence should be proven.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and he is out of the country the next day, it is hard to call that a coincidence - but of course you will try.
tama
(9,137 posts)But I just found out that Ms. Montgomery who made that claim was defending Pinochet against extradition by Spain.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that Assange's Swedish lawyer fucked up. In which ways and how exactly I cannot know based on the material available.
Anyway there was at least more than two weeks between Ny's decision to reopen the case and attempts to organise interview with Assange (some time after 15th September). Meanwhile Assange had applied for residence permit in Sweden which was denied 18th September, no reasons given.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the point is that once the interview was scheduled he ran. If it was scheduled earlier he would have simply skipped town earlier.
tama
(9,137 posts)but presenting unfounded allegations as facts. I don't know of what Assange was informed and how and when during those days, and you don't either. The source you are referring to says that Assange had left day earlier before the new warrant was mentioned first time.
As for the 2 or 3 weeks, Swedish law requires that Assange should have been interviewed ASAP after Ny reopened the case on 1st September. The first verifiable indication of attempt to arrange interview by Ny is AFAIK from 25th. There has been claim that the interview was not arranged because a police officer that Ny wanted there was on sick leave.
Also, to make myself clear, I don't care if Assange was warned by his lawyer of second arrest warrant and decided to leave country for that reason, but support his decision even in that case. The chance of extradition and plan of US prosecution (now verified by Australian diplomatic cables) was already then becoming very plausible, and as said, first responsibility of a revolutionary is not to be a martyr but not to get caught.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)..and the fact that the UK are (once again) doing the bidding of their US masters is disgraceful...
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)After all, if the law is applied equally.
randome
(34,845 posts) 
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)It's absurd.
randome
(34,845 posts)Yes, I know, he went to Sweden for a short time but then skipped without the knowledge of his attorney.
This is all nonsense. There is no conspiracy involving the U.K., the U.S., Australia, Sweden, Swedish prosecutors and the women who initially sought redress -when the U.S. could take Assange out and make it look like an accident any time they want.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)your mis-use of language is dangerous
randome
(34,845 posts)...questioning him. Same thing, IMO.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)there is no law anywhere that prevents a free person from travelling.
randome
(34,845 posts)There would never have been a need for an extradition order if he had remained in Sweden.
You're right, he was a free man, then. He chose to leave so now we have this kerfuffle.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)the same courts who locked up the Birmingham Six for life while the Murdoch media demanded they be hanged.
Despite them being found innocent 12 years later.
Hope you are never tested on that faith.
randome
(34,845 posts)Looking at the facts in this case, that does not seem to be the case.
Assange says he has a 'poison pill' document dump. If he is so noble, why doesn't he print it for all the world to see?
Why did he not remain in Sweden for the rest of the questioning? Granted, he was under no obligation to do so but his leaving led to the extradition request and now this conflict with the embassy.
None of this was necessary. It is Assange's own actions that have led to this.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Assange is such a greater "criminal" over his purported broken condom than Pinochet....
Your hypocrisy is stunning.
randome
(34,845 posts)I am no hypocrite. Leaders of other countries -even former leaders- are held to a different standard than the rest of us.
They should not be.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Provide diplomatic protection for many YEARS.
Yup, just the same....
You are exposed as some kind of weird shill for the US' persecution of Wikileaks. Good luck with that. Disgusting and despicable.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)not on the other incident involving the sleeping woman.
a lot harder to excuse i guess
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and the allegations against him (as I recall, recanted by one of the accusers) are an insult to every woman, everywhere, who actually has been a victim of a real sex crime.
(written by somebody who really has been molested and really has been stalked by a registered sex offender and his gang of thugs and instructed by the police to get out of town because we cannot protect you.)
randome
(34,845 posts)Because he does not want to take the DNA test.
The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Not always, of course, but usually.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Or a broken condom? Oh, that's right. Never. Dna test, my ass. They want him for questioning and they refuse to go to England to do the questioning.
But continue on your crusade. You aren't impressing anybody. 
randome
(34,845 posts)And, hopefully, a little about human nature.
Right. They refuse to go to England for the questioning. Assange refuses to go to Sweden for questioning. Who should 'give' in this case? The government with a legal extradition order? Or Assange, who has been jerking the authorities around for more than 2 years?
My guess is that extradition orders are worthless if they aren't going to be enforced.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and his scheduled interview, and refused to return. Read pages 5,6,7 of the extradition findings...this includes testimony from Mr. Hurtig, Mr. Assange's lawyer.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
I will tell you from my criminal practice that when a suspect flees a jurisdiction, the suspect is no longer extended courtesies--in particular, one will be returned to the jurisdiction for questioning, as opposed to being questioned at one's leisure.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Why don't you tell us, from your criminal practice, how many times rape investigations have been launched because a condom broke or somebody didn't use one? Just one example, from anywhere in the world, even the US, thanks.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)My understanding of the translated charge documents that were leaked from his lawyers office is that he is charged with rape, 2 counts of molestation, and sexual coercion.
Specifically--
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
Are you honestly trying to suggest that these offences, if true, are not sexual crimes?
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)the conduct alleged would not amount to an offence against English law. The court must apply the “conduct
test” of double criminality. That means the court must consider whether the conduct alleged would amount to
an offence under English law as if it had occurred in this jurisdiction. The applicant must establish this
proposition to the criminal standard of proof. What must be proved is that the conduct, if it were established,
would constitute the extradition offence relied on here. Although detailed separate argument has been made
about each of the three offences, it amounts in essence to this: the description provided does not permit an
inference that there was a lack of consent by the complainant, nor that the respondent did not reasonably believe
the complainant to be consenting.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Look, it would be helpful if you read the whole thing and understood that the court laughed at the idea that ANY of these offenses were not offenses under British law, AND that they were not extradition offenses....
Read the bottom of page 22, if you won't read the whole thing.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)What's your point?
I read it all. I didn't see any laughing, and the bottom of page 22 convinces me of nothing.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)And actually, Sweden had pretty much dropped the charges but then they were resurrected only after Wikileaks exposed the Iraqi war crimes by the US. Mark Stephens, Assange’s lead lawyer in London states that ‘a senior political figure’ worked to have the case reopened.
Assange's position is that political interference in the case is confirmed by the decision of the Swedish prosecutors to drop the initial arrest warrant and to downgrade the investigation to one of ‘molestation’, a minor offense. Those decisions were reversed in late August when the chief state prosecutor, Marianne Ny, overruling a subordinate prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finne, restored the original allegations, saying that rape was the appropriate charge for the evidence on file with the prosecutors.
Sweden's refusal to agree that they won't extradite Assange to the US if he returned to Sweden for questioning underscores that this isn't really about what happened in Sweden but is really about Wikileaks and the US.
As with most sexual encounters this is a "he said, she said" situation so I'm not going to comment on the accuracy of what you've posted, but Sweden's reversal on the charges, their refusal to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to the US, the timing of it all - looks pretty transparently trumped up against Assange.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)I'm not sure which "allegations" you think are in dispute. Here's a timeline from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
Is it the events between August 20 and September 1? Where Sweden drops the charges and then reinstates them? That's all documented in there.
Is it that Sweden is refusing to provide guarantees that they won't extradite Assange to the US? That's in the news all over the DU LBN forum.
Not sure exactly what you're looking for.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)First: he is not being prosecuted, he is still being INVESTIGATED, and you claim to be a lawyer, LOL?
Second: the police interviews were (probably still are) publicly available and a lot of other information regarding the circumstances has been published.
Nobody with a modicum of knowledge about the case has ever denied that this is about condom use, in both instances. Both women have never claimed to have been forced to have sex, or that a "helpless state was exploited" to have sex - no, it was all about "the prerequisite that a condom be used".
To the somewhat informed reader this is even clear from your awkward quotes (the judge is clearly bending over backwards and swallowing all the shit he was fed by the prosecution):
"consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge" (meaning, the condom broke and Assange was somehow responsible whereas the woman was somehow not)
"aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her" (what is left out here is that the "helpless state" the woman was allegedly in was only mentioned by her to explain why she didn't notice a condom was missing - she never complained about his initiating sex while she was "HALF" asleep).
So, why do you refuse to provide comparable examples from your own practice? Or anywhere else in the world, for that matter? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.
Where is lack of condom use considered rape? Just ONE example, please! Thank you very much.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I have no doubt that this defendant is wanted for prosecution in Sweden. On the information before me I cannot say when or what step was taken that can fairly be described as the commencement of a prosecution. What I can say is that the boundary between suspicion and preliminary enquiries on the one hand, and prosecution on the other, has been crossed.
2) Police interviews? Can you cite an actual police interview as a primary source?
3) What are you disputing about the charges? I can't figure out what you think isn't a crime.
4) I would never speak about my actual clients. That's a violation of their privacy.
5) Had you read the court's opinion, you might have noted where the judge indicated that the acts discussed were also crimes in GB and Wales. Not just Sweden.
Are you seriously disputing that the acts described are crimes? Assuming Assange DIDN'T do the acts described, do you think that the acts described are NOT crimes???
reorg
(3,317 posts)"I cannot say when or what step was taken", bla bla bla. Obviously, he is not all that familiar with Swedish law. Somewhere else he even admits he doesn't know whether or not Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US! What a dolt.
I see you still refuse to cite an example where the lack of condom use was ever seen as grounds for suspicion of rape?
Could it be that you are unable to find one, your perhaps vast legal experience notwithstanding, LOL?
The current investigation is based on suspicions of the questioning police officer. The women puportedly just sought advice on how they could force Assange to take an AIDS test. They stated that they both had consensual sex with Assange and never claimed it was not consensual. However, both stated that at some point during sexual intercourse (only in one instance out of many, to be exact), they noticed that Assange did not have a condom on. That is why they wanted him to take an AIDS test. But how to force him if he didn't want to?
Trying to find a reason, the women expanded on their stories. As you will see from the published interviews if you bother to find them, it went kind of like that (summary, paraphrasing):
Case in point one: "He was over me with his entire body weight when I reached for the condoms but he was holding my hand, which gave me the impression he didn't want me to! Then, although he complied with my request for putting a condom on without further ado, I noticed after sex that the condom was broken! Could it have been just an accident? I don't know, but I suspect he did it on purpose!"
Can you cite an example of any case, anywhere in the world, where such a scenario or a similar one led to an allegation of rape, and an arrest warrant?
Case in point two: "He should have known I was a condom virgin, never done it without one. But, after having protected sex several times during the night, he initiated sex in the early morning hours when I was still half asleep. That's why I didn't notice at first he had no condom on this time! After discussing this shortly, I did not complain and continued having consensual sex with him, because, you know, it would have been too late for protection against STD at this point."
Can you cite an example of any case, anywhere in the world, where such a scenario or a similar one led to an allegation of rape, and an arrest warrant?
Thank you very much in advance (but I get the feeling I'll be waiting in vain ...)!
Yes, I am seriously disputing that these acts described are crimes, in case you didn't notice, as does anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the published facts.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)did them, then I really can't help you.
He's screwed then, isn't he?
reorg
(3,317 posts)- given your supposedly vast legal experience in the field -
where any comparable incidents have ever led to charges of rape, whether or not the accused perpetrated these acts as described or not? You can't help us, does that mean you finally admit there are none?
Assange was "screwed" the first day he was "arrested in absentia". He wanted to set up a new base in Sweden, with support from the Pirate Party, safe server space and media laws seemingly conducive to his efforts. Instead, they kicked him out for good within a very short period of time. It must have been a great disappointment for him. OTOH, I think he will find Ecuador to be a very agreeable place, much more interesting and pleasant than Sweden will ever be, in many ways.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)when she has not given consent to the act isn't a crime, then there's really no point in discussing it with you, is there?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)will find out more.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)He won't be going to Sweden because as Nathan Arizona told the Warthog From Hell, "This is nothin' but a g-ddamn screw job."
reorg
(3,317 posts)Nobody claims Assange was "holding down a woman and ejaculating into her"
EXCEPT YOU,
which fits quite nicely with all the other slimy word twisting and slander. Disgusting.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ejaculating into her. What the heck do you think they are describing? I mean, where do you think the DNA evidence came from?
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Can you read?
He allegedly was "restricting her freedom of movement" when he allegedly was "using violence". This is in reference to Ardin's claim that he tried to stop her from reaching for a condom. At this point, there was no "entering and ejaculating", as you so vividly fantasize - read your quote again, there is no mention of sex under point 1.
BTW, do you know of ANY cases in or outside of Sweden where such an allegation, "restricting her freedom of movement" in order to prevent her - she who actually initiated the consensual sex - from reaching for a condom has led to rape allegations? Still waiting, you see ... LOL.
Point two is in reference to the broken condom - although you wouldn't know it by the way this pathetic judge clumsily describes it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)Never trust any bloody lawyers... 
reorg
(3,317 posts)Even though the judge who formulated the summary you cited did his best to obfuscate and twist the facts, some semblance of truth remains. Your misrepresentations, OTOH, have no basis in reality whatsoever.
tama
(9,137 posts)You are imagining things.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)England is not Sweden's jurisdiction. That's why people that flee countries, states or counties where they are being investigated for a crime are always extradited back to the proper jurisdiction where the crime occurred. What case anywhere ever is there of a prosecutor going to interview a criminal suspect outside of their jurisdiction?
If there is any crusade it is unquestioningly that of the Assange fans that come up with the most senseless and ridiculous conspiracy theories to try to paint Assange as unjustly persecuted all just to get him in a round-about totally absurd and thoroughly unnecessary manner to the US to face what they believe are charges against him regarding Wikileaks though no such charges exist.
tama
(9,137 posts)is established EU practice that Sweden has done many times earlier.
As for the US persecution of Assange, it's been today verified by Australian diplomatic cables:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html
hack89
(39,171 posts)pure coincidence.
tama
(9,137 posts)The women never wanted to press charges, just went to police to ask if Assange could be forced to be tested for STD. When the police interpreted this as rape charge, the women didn't want to talk any more and refused to sign the interview. Assange did meet Swedish police for interview, the case was dropped and Swedish prosecutor gave Assange permission to leave country. After he left, the case was remade by Swedish officials and immediate warrant was issued (extremely extraordinary Interpole Red Label!!), even though Assange said he could come back in one month.
The document mentions precedent of Sweden's highly illegal conspiracy in CIA renditions and torture of two Swedish citizens, for which Sweden has been condemned by UN.
There is Right and Wrong, and in this issue you are taking side with the wrong side (US gov and those that jump when US gov tells them), pal.
snot
(10,538 posts)your time is probably better spent sharing facts with those less determined to obfuscate them.
These arguments come up every time an Assange thread appears, bec. there are a handful of people for whom Assange's refusal to deliver himself to Sweden eclipses all other facts and considerations. It's hard to ignore their arguments, but you can share an encyclopedia with them, and it never seems to have any effect. So be wary of letting them waste too much of your time.
For those interested, The Nation has a good, recent issue on some of the positive results from Wikileaks' revelations.
tama
(9,137 posts)As for the "handful of people", I see them as useful tools nominally on the "wrong side" but who in reality provoke to dig and share more information. Internet forums are not about 1 to 1 communication but public text that can have many readers besides the poster who gets the response. As in "I'm not really talking to your attention deprived ego and fear of speaking truth to the power, but to and from the collective (sub)consciousness..."
randome
(34,845 posts)It's more self-described 'breakthroughs' and amorphous cheering. I don't see that Assange's document dump has had any material impact on the world at large and so far I haven't seen anyone credibly claim that it has.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Its incredibly powerful - so powerful its got the western powers running scared. Furthermore the world has learned of the US's war crimes - that packs a lot of whallop internationally.
randome
(34,845 posts)But nothing -nada- about what Assange did that has materially affected anything. What 'wallop' are you talking about? Red faces in the deep bowels of the security apparatus? Please. The world has not changed because of Assange's document dump.
Tell me specifics of what he has done that warrants the kind of international conspiracy some want to believe in.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)I'm sorry if you refuse to consider those as powerful incentives to shut him down.
But clearly others feel differently since unprecedented international incidents are occurring around him as we speak.
randome
(34,845 posts)Nothing has changed. So why are they 'out to get him'?
tama
(9,137 posts)"National Security" has been threatened.
Several US ambassadors were expelled, I'm aware of at least from Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela. And as has been said many times, the documents had a major role in Arab Spring revolutions.
randome
(34,845 posts)Just amorphous suggestions of minor level diplomatic reshufflings. As for the Arab Spring, that was going to happen regardless, IMO. Anything Assange added to it was icing on the cake.
None of what you mentioned rises to a level that makes sense to get 'revenge' on Assange. Not to mention taking more than 2 years to do so.
This whole thing reeks, most certainly. But it reeks of Assange, the flawed hero. Not an international conspiracy to punish him for embarrassing some diplomats.
tama
(9,137 posts)The 'revenge' is allready established fact regardless of various impressions of the political impact of the Wikileaks so far - which concerns most importantly amorphous things like trust and confidence and goodwill that cannot be objectively measured, as well as prime example of new forms of investigative independent journalism (independent here meaning really independent, not representing corporate interests). Torture of Manning is established fact as are reaction from officials (including calls to assassinate Assange), as are financial embargo against Wikileaks, attempts to restrict access to published documents, threats that reading and discussing the cables will be ground for denying public office in US, etc.
The policy is clear, US etc. want public attention to concentrate on Assange and rape allegations instead of war criminals and torturers, to minimize to political effect of the publications and to prevent further leaks from whistleblowers.
randome
(34,845 posts)America has not taken an official position on Assange. Some mid-level hot-heads have made ill-considered remarks but that hardly rises to the level of 'policy'.
And you say a 'revenge' motive is already established without offering anything to support that.
What did Assange do to warrant this kind of international conspiracy? And why has it taken more than 2 years to corner him? I'm sorry, this becomes more ridiculous the longer it goes on.
I stand ready to be convinced otherwise. But so far, it appears to me that Assange is a flawed hero who needs to stop stonewalling.
tama
(9,137 posts)'Official position' is just words... and lies. US official position in words is that it's against torture and for freedom of expression. But how it acts is just the opposite. 'revenge' motive is your word, the real issue is gov secrecy vs. whistleblowing, freedom of expression and speaking truth to power. For which you give very little support. Again, in this relative world there is also the relation of right and wrong, on the right side are whistleblowers and authentic journalism of wikileaks etc. and on the wrong side are Murdoch, UK, US and Sweden and banksters. And you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I have provided you with information on the results of the publishing of facts by Wikileaks in various parts of the World. You appear to be impervious to such information for some reason.
What happened in India, eg, after the Wikileaks publications of proof of politicians buying votes in a special election in that country? Any idea?
What happened in China after Wikileaks released conversations between top officials there regarding internet access? Any idea?
How about Kenya? Surely you know what happened in Kenya after Wikileaks provided whistle-blowers the opportunity to reveal horrific details of the corruption of that dictatorship?
And Iceland, what happened to corrupt Bankers in Iceland after the publication by Wikileaks of inside information on the corruption that helped bring down their economy?
Nigeria? Any clues?
Tunisia?
I guess you haven't been keeping up with the unfolding and continuing results of the publication of facts about Governments all over the world by Wikileaks. It is tough to keep up, as each day more news emerges as a result of these revelations. The work of real journalists, for which they have received many awards.
As Correa said, 'keep releasing information on Ecuador, we have nothing to hide, but if there is evidence of corruption, the people have a right to know about it'.
I suggest you do some research before continuing to comment on a case that every comment you make demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge about.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Assange's lawyer was notified that Assange was going to be arrested and taken before the prosecutor the next day - Assange promptly skipped town.
The Swedish system is different - this "he's not even charged" argument simply ignores how the Swedish legal system works.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@ggreenwald: RT @justleft: UN Dec. 1967: granting asylum is a peaceful and humanitarian act that cannot be regarded as unfriendly by any other State. #wikileaks
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)When he skipped bail in the U.K.
There is an approved extradition order for him! The U.K. can't simply ignore a 'common' request from Sweden.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)get your priorities right.
randome
(34,845 posts)But leaders -even former leaders- of other countries are not held to the same standard as the rest of us.
They should be.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)and it was eventually medical grounds used as the reason for not doing it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/the_pinochet_file/232499.stm
Notice that Chile itself was against the extradition: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/459850.stm
I think 'medically unfit' was a convenient excuse to get out of a tricky situation for the UK government; but note that, before the minor strokes, the decisions were all to allow the extradition to proceed.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)but thankfully for the mass murderer he had a remarkable recovery the moment his plane landed in chile.
And what the hell does it matter what Chile wanted. It was Spain that issued the extradition order for the murder of Spanish citizens.
But hell, let;s not support Assange who is wanted for questioning only about a crime where the 'victims' have never said he raped them.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)No, it wasn't Alzheimers. Try googling it. What I quoted was news reports.
The court said the report should be released "in strict confidentiality" to the countries that are seeking to extradite him to face charges of torture and murder committed during his brutal 17-year rule.
The report was leaked to two right-wing newspapers in Spain, which today quoted it as saying that Pinochet has suffered brain damage and would have trouble understanding and answering questions at a trial, though it also concludes that he is physically capable of facing prosecution.
http://www.democracynow.org/2000/2/16/british_court_releases_medical_report_pinochet
And decisions like that continued:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/02/pinochet.chile
It took until 2005 before he was declared fit for trial: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4146303.stm
Swagman
(1,934 posts)I watched the press conference in London when Jack Straw said that Pinochet had the beginnings of dementia and it would cruel to persecute him. Dementia/Alzheimer's that vanished in Chile. As I was one of those who protested outside his Croydon house I took a personal interest in everything about the case.
You are the uninformed one who believes a net search is gospel.
Please do not translate a hate for Assange into Ad Hominem attacks on his supporters.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)is not 'ad hominem'. Your memory is faulty, if you claim it was called Alzheimer's. The record is clear, and not 'nonsense', as you inaccurately called it.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)judging from your amount of posts -however:
you ignore the fact I base my view on what Straw actually said. But he could have always been lying.
They were his words not mine. What eventually appears in an official report can always sound different.
now go away and bother and insult someone else.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I would have done the same thing, under the circumstances.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Thanks for the reply. Now I'll have to rummage google news again.
struggle4progress
(118,378 posts)John Hall
Wednesday 20 June 2012
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is subject to arrest after he breached his bail conditions while applying for political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy last night.
The High Court had granted the 40 year-old Australian £200,000 bail on the condition he stayed at a named address between the hours of 10pm and 8am, but the Metropolitan Police confirmed they were notified at 10.20pm last night that he had broken this agreement.
A police spokeswoman said: "He is now subject to arrest under the Bail Act for breach of these conditions…Officers are aware of his location at the Ecuador Embassy in Hans Crescent, London." ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-faces-arrest-for-breaching-bail-7869284.html
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on DU on this case as you have done on the Occupy movement.
He was interviewed by the Swedish police, he remained in Sweden available to the prosecutors for five weeks. He was told by the prosecutors he was free to leave. Almost on the day he left, not giving his attorneys time to contact him, they FLIP FLOPPED, almost as if it was trap which many people believe.
And of course with Karl Rove in the background, that possibility is even more likely.
The UK ignored an extradition order for PINOCHET to Spain on charges of GENOCIDE. If they could do that, they can certainly do it for an innocent man.
Britain has colluded with the US throughout this case as has Sweden. They have zero credibility anymore.
If they raid the Ecuadoran Embassy, every British Ambassador throughout South America will be sent home. Actually that might be a good thing. To end any connections with Western Imperial powers for once and for all. Isolate them until they learn some respect for the rule of law.
randome
(34,845 posts)The genius behind Romney and Ryan???
You have got to be kidding, right?
Don't forget to include Australia in your conspiracy theory. And the Swedish prosecutors. And the women who initially wanted redress.
They are out to get Assange because...why? What have been the consequences of his document dump? Anyone know?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)What are the charges against Julian Assange?
The consequences of his publishing the information provided for him by a source, have been in many cases very positive. So once again, it appears you are simply offering a very uninformed opinion.
Do you know what the documents revealed, eg, about India's government? Any idea of what they revealed about China? How about Nigeria? Or could it be you have no clue about the information revealed at all? Sure seems that way.
And you do know they revealed war crimes committed under the Bush administration here, something people on the Left wanted to see consequences for for a long time. Now there is proof. Why is no one investigating those crimes?
randome
(34,845 posts)And for the charges, see misanthrope's posts in this thread.
What consequences? Tell me, somebody! I've been asking for this since yesterday! What has changed because of Assange's document dump? Why are the powers that be out to get him? Because he caused red faces to appear in the basement of the security apparatus?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)before the scheduled September 28th interview when he was informed that he would have to give a DNA sample and could possibly be confined.
Regardless of what he may have told the media, the facts are that his Swedish lawyer testified differently.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
You might want to actually read the court proceedings.
Or...perhaps you could document your claims, using the extradition ruling?
reorg
(3,317 posts)maybe you should read the documents you quote yourself.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the standard of evidence required.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Assange while he was in Sweden. Nothing explains why, if the Prosecutor is confident that her evidence is strong, she has never filed charges in this case. She was interviewed last week and asked that question yet again. She still appears to be unable to explain it.
Assange DID speak to the police, he was in Sweden for five weeks after the initial tabloid reports (illegal in Sweden yet never prosecuted btw) of the women visit to the Police which was merely to ask a question regarding getting a test from someone if a condom was torn or not worn, then turned into 'rape charges' which the women have denied and those denials are on the record regardless of anything they may say in the future.
The report also does not answer the question of why Nye, the prosecutor has consistently refused to speak to Assange in London, two hours from Sweden and why they have lied about the reasons for that refusal.
I have read that report, and none of those questions are answered in the report.
A court ruling means little when lies and prevarications are part of the presentation to the court. You surely know this is not unusual in court proceedings..
Five weeks with no attempt to interview him. Two years since then and still refusing to interview him. Additionally lying about the reasons why and still no charges filed.
Sweden's judicial system has been thoroughly discredited by this case. I saw the women's own words online which were exculpatory at the beginning of this case, before they were erased. They erased them after it became obvious that those words of theirs regarding what actually happened, exonerated Assange.
There is however a record of those words, together with instant messages and of course witness reports from people they spoke to, all contradicting the allegations now being made. Everyone who has followed this case knows that this is why there have been no charges filed.
When one of the women was so outraged at the charges of rape by the police she refused to speak to them again, it's easy to see why no charges have been filed.
You continue to link to those findings and continue to refuse to explain why no attempt was made to interview him when every good prosecutor knows that you should do so as early in the case as possible. You also continue to refust to explain why they lied about not being able to interview him for the past two years in Britain.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)read them, that's your perogative.
But I cite actual evidence, presented in a court. You do not.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Assange for two years when he was two hours away and always available? It's not like he 'skipped' town and went somewhere where they could not reach him. He went to Britain and consistently invited them to interview him. They refused, initially lying about the reasons why. There were no legal impediments to them taking a two hour trip to meet with him.
So, since Nye can't seem to explain this, maybe you can?
randome
(34,845 posts)The extradition request was granted. Interpol is behind it. The U.K. government is behind it. Sweden is behind it. The entire U.K. appeals process for 2 years is behind it.
Now you're saying that the prosecutor is also in on it? The conspiracy grows!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)it is never the duty, yes even in other countries, of the accused to prove allegations against themselves, one way or the other.
Clearly these prosecutors are unable to meet that burden and this is why no charges have been filed so far.
The prosecutor has handled this case in a shameful manner. I have no idea what her motives are, whether she is merely incompetent or not. What we do know is she lied, or she allowed the lie to stand, that she could not interview Assange in London. That was untrue and totally discredits the prosecution at this point.
randome
(34,845 posts)Assange is wanted for questioning. He has now jumped bail so he IS in violation of U.K. laws. He has just compounded his problems. For what?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)case to a jury. Nye has no case as everyone familiar with the evidence knows. Which is why she has not filed any charges.
Assange has been available for two years for an interview, just two hours from her office. Yet she refuses to talk to him. I think most people know why.
I expect from past experience that you will probably ignore these facts. But facts they are and have been reported on and noted, and she has been asked about them, for a long time now. She appears to be unable to explain herself. Nor can anyone else.
randome
(34,845 posts)Charges are not filed until questioning is complete. Assange left the country the day before he was scheduled to be questioned. It doesn't matter that he stayed in Sweden and answered SOME questions. The authorities had more.
And if you think they were trying to keep him there so they could secretly extradite him, why drag it out for 5 weeks? Dragging it out for 5 weeks means...extradition? That doesn't make sense.
I mean, really, the conspiracy theories only go so far.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in a trumped up case they have no chance of winning.
They wanted him to leave Sweden so they could then issue a warrant claiming he had 'fled'. As soon as he did, the warrant was ready. However, since they could have questioned him Britain, most thinking people saw through that ploy and the prosecutor's only defense as of last week, was 'well, Swedish law is confusing'. She has no excuse, all her excuses have been debunked. She needs to either file charges or stop playing this totally transparent games. She looks like a scared rabbit in interviews, because she knows she is merely playing games and she knows we know.
randome
(34,845 posts)They wanted him to flee so they could bring him back and THEN extradite him. Your conspiracy theory gets wilder with each post.
They don't file charges until the investigation is complete. Assange left the day before he was scheduled to be interviewed. He allowed himself to be interviewed before that but he left before the new prosecutor was satisfied.
So you're saying he left because Sweden was about to extradite him but now they secretly wanted him to flee so that the U.K. could extradite him so that Sweden could extradite him.
Sounds like a new Star Wars sequel -confusing and disorienting.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I think I'll leave you to your creative misinterpretations for now. They do speak for themselves and require no further comment from me.
I will most definitely continue to correct any misstatements of the facts of this case no matter how many times it has to be done.
Btw, Ecuador is receiving accolades from all over the world for its courage in granting asylum to a Journalist who has been persecuted now for two years for simply publishing facts. The more they go after him, the more support he gets. Maybe it's time to rethink the failed strategies engaged in by the Swedish Authorities, and get down to the facts. FILE CHARGES and back them up with EVIDENCE. That is all people are asking for. Or drop this charade which is so transparent even former people who were on the fence, are now demanding that Sweden stop the games and either back up their claims, or drop them.
Why won't they do it?
randome
(34,845 posts)I was only trying to outline your thinking on why Sweden allowed Assange to run to the U.K. It doesn't make sense if they wanted to hand him over to the U.S.
This entire episode is one big kerfuffle! On that I'm sure we all agree!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the logical thing to do? But there would have to have been a case, evidence, an actual crime. To have gone forward with a prosecution and fail to get a conviction, which was highly likely, would have ended the issue once and for all. Secondly, the US has a problem trying to find a crime to charge Assange with. They are certainly working on it, but are receiving condemnation from all over the world for their pursuit of a news organization whose crime is apparently, practicing journalism.
What they really wanted, as was revealed in the CIA memo published by Wikileakas, and in the emails exposed by Anonymous from HB Gary, was to silence him. There is no creative speculation needed to come to that conclusion, we have actual evidence, in writing.
So that goal, smearing him, as expressed in the CIA memo, was accomplished by simply making allegations, as planned in the CIA memo and as seen in the HB Gary emails.
To have to actually prove any of these allegations, is a major problem for them so they continue to stall and to refuse to talk to him.
As I said, no speculation is needed. There is proof that this was the goal. And it is failing. Soon they will have to change these tactics as the British and US Governments are losing respect both in their own countries and around the world.
Ecuador eg, is justifiably angry at the threat by the British Government and plans to hold a summit of Latin American Governments to discuss the implications and what needs to be done about it. That could result in closing British Embassies and dismissing diplomats from several countries, unless there is an apology. A disaster for Britain.
That is why the British Official today backed away from the threat. It WAS an outrageous and very foolish thing to do and the reaction of the rest of the world has reflected that.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)She is not going to extend that courtesy to Mr. Assange, because she doesn't have to. She has that power.
And the UK agreed.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the initial claims that she was prevented from doing so by 'legal impediments' which was a lie.
We are getting somewhere. The Swedish authorities lied about why they 'could not interview him' until they were exposed as lying. Now they have lost any credibility for the claims that they are seriously interested in this case at all.
And that leaves the unanswered question, exactly what is their motive for this two year long charade?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)do with having no jurisdictional authority to arrest outside of Sweden.
But she simply doesn't have to dance to Mr. Assange's tune.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to the Prosecutor for five weeks after these allegations were made, yet she refused to interview him IN SWEDEN.
Why did she not interview while he was in Sweden??
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)he skipped on 9/27. That's what the court found, thanks to Hurtig's testimony (Hurtig being Assange's Swedish attorney.)
I think she let him twist, and then he ran, like an idiot.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)refused to interview him for those five weeks, the prosecutor decided they needed to talk to him.
He did not go far. He was two hours away. They continue to refuse to talk to him despite there being no legal impediments to do so, which was the original claim.
The goal posts shifted after it was proven that there are no legal impediments, to 'but we might want to arrest him'. They could do that in Britain during the interview if necessary. The Brits have shown their lap-dog willingness to do anything asked of them by the US, including lying about war and dragging the country in Bush's war.
You can keep coming up with excuses, but they do not answer the question. No charges filed, a refusal by the Swedish authorities to interview = no case.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You do know that this is where the alleged crimes/misdemeanors supposedly occurred don't you?
Scribbling out a list of unsupported allegations under pressure, for a British Court, to you is the same thing as filing actual charges in the court that has actual jurisdiction over this case? You are straying further and further from the reality of how the law works.
He is an innocent man against whom no charges have been filed.
Sorry they have let you down and made it difficult for you to defend them, but those are the facts. Watching Nye last week was like watching a rabbit cornered by a fox. She ended up claiming it was hard to explain because 'Swedish law is confusing' after failing to explain her behavior throughout these past two years. Maybe she needs to go back to law school.
randome
(34,845 posts)Then why did they not have Sweden interview Assange when he was under house arrest?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)but keeping this charade going keeps him from continuing his work, why on earth would they 'have Sweden' interview him? That would end the charade as they would then have no further excuses for not filing charges. Hard to file charges in a case where the supposed victims have stated they are not victims. But it does the job of having some people think that he actually was charged, or is guilty. Although fewer and fewer the longer they drag it out.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)His passport wasn't seized, there was no active warrant for him, and there were no laws or judges orders that prevented him from doing so. He talked to the police and prosecutors once, and they let him go. They wanted to talk to him again, so he left. In Sweden, as in the United States, it's not illegal to decline to speak with the police.
That's part of what stinks about this whole case. If Sweden truly believed that he had committed a crime, they can charge him in absentia and issue a criminal warrant for him. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so, and yet they haven't. No rape charges, no assault charges, no evasion charges.
Instead, Sweden has done all this simply so they can bring him back into the country and "ask him a few questions". Questions that he's already answered in his first interview, and that he's stated that he's more than willing to answer in Britain or anywhere else they want to meet him. Except in Sweden. Sweden has initiated this entire mess simply because they want him for "questioning".
Or, more accurately, so they can hand him over to the United States. That is, after all, why he hasn't been charged with anything. Under Swedish law, a person can't be extradited until any pending charges against them are resolved (in other words, other countries have to wait until the Swedish courts wrap up the Swedish charges). If the Swedes simply drop the charges and hand him over, they'll look like patsies for the USA. If they bring him back, question him, and release him, they can they immediately turn him over to the U.S.
Read my sig line.
randome
(34,845 posts)Interpol agreed with them. The U.K. government agreed with them. Two years of appeals processes agreed with them. Hell, even Australia agreed with them.
Assange is not the hero some want him to be. Or maybe he is in some manner but he is also flawed.
If the U.S. wanted Assange, why did they allow this process to continue for more than 2 years? That is stretching a conspiracy theory too far.
And again, I would like to know what consequences resulted from Assange's document dump? So far as I can see, the world did not change. So there does not appear to be the basis for organizing a vast international conspiracy against him.
The only thing Assange 'proved' was that diplomats are often liars. Awesome!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)nt
gmpierce
(97 posts)This is an incredibly stupid comment.
Britain should be willing to do what? Invade the sovereign territory of another country (which is what an embassy is)?
If whoever thinks they are in charge are actually insane enough to do this, A large number of countries are likely to break diplomatic relations with Britain.
And worse, there are counties who would regard it as a justification for a repeat of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)The U.K. economy, shored up temporarily by the Olympic "surge", is in the toilet. The austerity measures are the worst thing for the long-term prospects of the economy. He and many of his cronies are tied up in the Rupert Murdoch scandal. So he is looking for a way to appear masculine and forceful. I suggest he will have a great roll in the hay with the misses or mistress tonight over this one.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)Inviolability guarantees the sanctity of diplomatic and consular premises.
While it does not place premises above the law, anybody who remains on diplomatic or consular premises can take refuge from the law.
(snip)
Under the Act where premises are misused, their diplomatic or consular status may be lost, together with all concomitant rights, (including inviolability).
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/the-inviolability-diplomatic-and-consular-premises
The last paragraph would be the major point, but since when can a person, not charged with any crime, not seek refuge in a foreign embassy? You'd think that there would need to be a much stronger case to justify revoking any country's diplomatic status.
I think it proves conclusively that Britain has a vested interest in Assange.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)skipping bail as well as avoiding extradition to Sweden(2 breaches of UK laws I'd assume)
There is also the matter of being wanted for fleeing Sweden the day before he was to be questioned and have a dna sample taken in regards to the rape accusations against him
I think those 3 would qualify under 'charged with any crime'.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
glinda
(14,807 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Lot of confusion there as to what's going on...
"Against International Law.." is what those gathered outside in Support of Assange are saying.
There's a "yellow tape, police line" that can't be crossed.
Asking why are the police there if they are not there to arrest Assange... Police won't answer.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They are there for crowd control, I suspect.
Perhaps they're not arresting Assange, but persuading Ecuador to give him a shove so they can do it as he leaves the protection of the Embassy.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)There are public spaces in the building as well.
I have been watching the livestream for some time now. The cops left.
No idea if they were "coordinating" or what. News media has conflicting reports out now.
NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/world/americas/ecuador-says-britain-threatened-to-enter-embassy-to-get-assange.html
CARACAS, Venezuela — The government of Ecuador is prepared to allow Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, to remain in its embassy in London indefinitely under a type of humanitarian protection, a government official said in Quito Wednesday night. Mr. Assange has been holed up in the embassy for two months seeking asylum.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
Will be really fascinating to see if the Brits push the diplomatic envelope with this. Amazing to watch. I'm wondering now if they are going to position the police in the "non Ecuador" parts of the building to try to nab him as he traverses the building to leave.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)the UK has become a US lackey.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That didn't happen, though. There were crowd control police inside the vans...probably napping.
MADem
(135,425 posts)tomorrow by the Ecuadoran government on the asylum request.
It's supposed to happen at one tomorrow (UK time). The announcement, I mean.
I would guess the decision has already been made.
What the decision is, is anyone's guess. No one is "storming" or raiding. There are 20 people outside, milling about. A couple of drunks.
There were a few cops in there for awhile, then they left. There are a few vans with cops in the vans, who are standing by for crowd control should needs must.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)
cal04
(41,505 posts)Waiting for a statement about asylum in Equador
another link
http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2012/08/will-brits-storm-embassy-for-assange.html
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)All this time and money spent on getting this narcissistic fool to face the music in Sweden.
What a waste.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)But I don't think they did.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)You would think the US would be as adamant about getting criminals to justice but allows known terrorist to live here in Florida.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)I'm trying to figure who would make them act like idiots.
One guy doesn't seem to warrant this type behavior unless they are doing it to be a lapdog for someone else.
Not like they haven't done that before.
MADem
(135,425 posts)European community associate.
Ecuador has offered the guy a 'humanitarian' accommodation that appears to fall SHORT of "asylum." In other words, Assange can stay in the Embassy, but they're not going to whisk him away to Ecuador.
Now it's a waiting game. How long before he loses his mind, and decides to take his chances answering those charges in Sweden?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Who would of thought.
With this new focus on "crime fighting " who else should they track down and throw massive amounts of money and manpower to apprehend?
I say jaywalkers.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Please. Those Swedes apparently don't think they're equivalent...but damn, you really showed off your butt with that post...
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)But I was thinking of jaywalking during rush hour. That deserves a militant response if I ever seen one.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)The "rape" is invented.
MADem
(135,425 posts)attest to the truth of that remark--and neither can you.
Apparently, there's DNA evidence.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1.On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
Tell us...which acts do you think were "invented."
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...he still hasn't been charged because the Swedish prosecutor hasn't filed them...because she needs to "question him" even though he was IN Sweden, MET prosecutors, and they told him it was okay to leave...
Again, we are talking about creating a MASSIVE diplomatic crisis over a guy that is wanted for questioning about some charges that HAVEN'T BEEN FILED YET...
Never in the history of international diplomatic history has so much effort been put into getting an arrest warrant served...
Swagman
(1,934 posts)struggle4progress
(118,378 posts)in their response
The Ecuadorians would get plenty of notice, and the UK would move towards more serious action by gradually escalating their language in public and taking baby steps
The UK will regard the whole thing as a bloody inconvenience, to be avoided if possible -- but perhaps unavoidable because of the issues it raises about enforcement of UK court decisions in the UK and about the UK's ability to honor its treaty obligation with Sweden
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)not an embassy, it would be a violation of International Law for them to revoke Ecuador's charter.
The Brits refused to extradite Pinochet, who was charged with genocide, to Spain to stand trial for his crimes despite the charges against him.
Please explain to us how anyone can justify these actions against an innocent man who has never been charged with any crime, please??
randome
(34,845 posts)He has refused the DNA test, correct? He has claimed he has 'poison pill' documents to release. If he was such a noble individual, why not release these all-important documents to the world?
I understand people want to believe in heroes. But in the real world, heroes are often flawed. Assange is one such flawed individual.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)are pointed out you bring up another furphy like 'narcissitic fool'
he did not refuse a DNA test..he was never asked for one. The two ladies went to the police to ask how they get him to have one. Nothing more and nothing less.
A right wing prosecutor is promoting the charges that the ladies do not want.
You are a very frightening individual because your hate for an anti-hero has no bounds.
and you make it up as you go along.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Read the testimony of his Swedish attorney on pages 5,6,7,--Assange knew of his scheduled interview on September 28th, had been advised by his attorney that a DNA sample would be taken, and fled on the 27th, refusing to come back.
This is the finding of fact of the court, based on the testimony of Assange's own lawyer.
Do you have a cite to testimony that proves otherwise???? I advise you to read the court decision...it's not on the Wikileaks site for a reason.
randome
(34,845 posts)With two 15-year-old girls, etc. on my hands, I don't have the time to do all that I should.
On edit: Um, those 15-year-olds are my daughters, in case anyone found the previous sentence to be a little vague.
reorg
(3,317 posts)this is what the document you cite says:
I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard:
...
9. Mr Hurtig says he was unable to make direct contact with his client between Ms Ny asking for a interview on 21 st or 22nd September and 29th September. By this time he says he client was no longer in Sweden. An interview was offered by the defence on 10th October onwards, but that was said by Ms Ny to be too far away. ...
13. I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source, that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21st – 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. ...
pp 9-10
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
So, the court did NOT find that Assange knew of his scheduled interview on September 28th, although it speculates that he might have. The court does NOT find that Assange had been advised by his attorney that a DNA sample would be taken, and the court does NOT find that he "fled" on the 27th.
Why are you making up stuff that you believe sounds somehow detrimental to Assange?
Even though the court did not make the findings you claim, maybe one reason Assange DID leave Sweden at this point in time was in fact that he assumed the prosecutors would not let go and proceed on the trumped up "suspicions" to further feed the campaign of slime and slander. That would have been a very reasonable assumption, given what had happened in the prior weeks, no matter what he did or didn't know about scheduled interview dates.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It may NOT be an accurate one....but since Assange was too chickenshit to get on the stand to refute it, THAT'S WHAT THE COURT IS GOING WITH, based on the lengthy testimony of Mr. Hurtig on pages 5, 6, and 7.
Do you understand that that "reasonable assumption" is all the court needed? Unrefuted by Mr. Assange?
It is reasonable to assume that Mr. Assange fled before his interview. That is a finding of fact that the court made in rendering its decision, at the proper standard of evidence required.
You do realize that your quote begins with "Summary of facts found?"
*** Edited to add--I think you are confused as to the standard of evidence required. It is not BRD.
reorg
(3,317 posts)As to "standard of evidence", what the hell are you talking about? The court made a summary of facts found and explicitly stated that is NOT a fact what you have repeatedly claimed:
"he did refuse a DNA test--the court found it as a matter of fact"; "Assange knew of his scheduled interview on September 28th, had been advised by his attorney that a DNA sample would be taken, and fled on the 27th, refusing to come back."
"Refuse a DNA test", LOL - can't you come up with a better imaginary reason for his "flight"?
Assange probably had the good sense to realize in time that these clowns were going through with the trumped up allegations, uh, sorry, as of yet that would be merely "SUSPICIONS". Good enough for slime and slander, though.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)might want to acquaint yourself with that legal term before attempting legal analysis.
Yes. The court came to the "reasonable" conclusion that Mr. Assange did indeed flee ahead of his scheduled interview and DNA test.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Your claim that an assumption becomes fact doesn't make it so.
I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard:
...
9. Mr Hurtig says he was unable to make direct contact with his client between Ms Ny asking for a interview on 21 st or 22nd September and 29th September. By this time he says he client was no longer in Sweden. An interview was offered by the defence on 10th October onwards, but that was said by Ms Ny to be too far away. ...
13. I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source, that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21st – 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. ...
pp 9-10
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
So, the court did NOT find that Assange knew of his scheduled interview on September 28th, although it speculates that he might have. The court does NOT find that Assange had been advised by his attorney that a DNA sample would be taken, and the court does NOT find that he "fled" on the 27th.
Why are you making up stuff?
randome
(34,845 posts)No matter where it leads.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts) Matilda
(6,384 posts)Hague said Iran had "committed a grave breach" of the Vienna convention, which demands the protection of diplomats and diplomatic premises under all circumstances. He added: "We hold the Iranian government responsible for its failure to take adequate measures to protect our embassy as it is required to do.
"I spoke to the Iranian foreign minister this afternoon to protest in the strongest terms about these events and to demand immediate steps to ensure the safety of our staff in both embassy compounds."
The White House also issued a strong protest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/iranian-students-storm-british-embassy
One rule for Britain and another for everybody else.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@wikileaks: UK police have penetrated interior fire escape and foyer of Ecuador embassy building (but not yet the embassy, proper).
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)whilke i pick my jaw up from the floor...
steve2470
(37,457 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)Good grief.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)who sought refuge in the U.S. Embassy in Budapest for fifteen years. Even the Soviets didn't dare try to invade the Embassy.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,345 posts)MrBrooks2
(8 posts)Oh you crazy Brits and your quasi-police state.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)You know what they say about those who live in glass houses...
mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)Ecuador will have to respond.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Hell, they will have to do that just to keep the population from over running it.
ronwelldobbs
(28 posts)and all Brits forcefully and immediately expelled from Ecuador.
Fuck the UK and all of their Prisoners of Her "Majesty" that support this travesty.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Assange has exposed exactly how treacherous we are. The palpable anger in the Latin American countries over their manhandling by us is enormous.
I would stipulate that it would be more than just Quito tomorrow if this really is an "invasion" of the Ecuadorean embassy. There will be massive blowback from many states who have just as much to loathe (and fear) from this kind of activity.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Just my truthiness detector saying it does.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Matilda
(6,384 posts)n/t
randome
(34,845 posts)And the Swedish prosecutors. And the women who initially sought redress.
That's a lot of moving parts for a conspiracy theory!
And don't forget the two years the U.K. allowed Assange to remain in the country. If the U.K. is our whore, we should demand our money back!
steve2470
(37,457 posts)QUITO/LONDON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - The diplomatic standoff over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange escalated on Wednesday after Britain threatened to raid Ecuador's embassy in London if Quito did not hand over Assange, who has been taking refuge there for two months.
The Ecuadorean government said such an action would be considered a "hostile and intolerable act" as well as a violation of its sovereignty.
"Under British law we can give them a week's notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," a Foreign Office spokesman said.
"But that decision has not yet been taken. We are not going to do this overnight. We want to stress that we want a diplomatically agreeable solution."
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)No, it can't be Wikileaks.
If you expose the criminality of our government officials this is what happens to you.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)and it's an international incident.
Shamefully some DUers support this.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)Britain refuses to extradite one to it's ally Spain yet allows the murderer of the other to waltz free back to an enemy Libya
1monster
(11,012 posts)to never buck the system our overlords have put into place. Do so, and you too, will be destroyed.
randome
(34,845 posts)Please. The CIA could take Assange out in a moment and make it look like an accident.
1monster
(11,012 posts)ankle bracelet, and has had his movements restricted. It's pretty clear to me that they never intended to let him go. It's all been a game of cat and mouse.
If you think differently, then maybe you are the one who is naive?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)NOBODY would EVER suspect Assange didn't die of natural causes...
Are you really this naive?
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Obama murdered US citizens in a Arab country - not by accident nor trying to make it look like it, but launching missiles to London, Embassy of Ecuador, would be wee bit different... and then they couldn't then torture Assange like they torture Manning.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)for other examples)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
dsteve01
(312 posts)My blog on Assange!
Out of date again, Darn!
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)One... the UK is not the whore of the US. Seriously. Honestly. No. They have an interest in Assange in Britain and in other Nations because he has proven dangerous to them as well as to the US. Dangerous in what way? Well... to put it simply, he reveals damning truths that they really don't want us to know about. No, believe it or not, he's actually done this. He may be prepared to continue doing it.
There is undoubtedly more information contained in what Assange has available than what has been released up to now. Could some of it, perhaps, be rather earth shattering even for a powerful Nation's government? I wonder...
Rape allegations, I think, must in every case be taken seriously. I am uneasy about this... but I also realize that it is the perfect way to tarnish such a man's reputation - and paint criticism and skepticism over whatever else he may have to say or to share. Were it more believable, perhaps others would suggest he had eaten children, sodomized cute little puppies, or tortured bunny rabbits with whips and chains.
Nonetheless, I do believe he needs to face the music in Sweden - stand before the court with the world watching. It's pretty damn hard to fool virtually everyone.
To some extent, I admire what Assange has done in revealing the truth. America is one of the most ignorant Nations on the planet! Particularly when it comes to what we know of our own government and it's actions. Who knows what the ultimate outcome of the released information will be... it could prove disastrous or beneficial. Not having an accurate crystal ball, I can't say for sure.
If he was not prepared to be a martyr, he should not have taken such a dangerous road. Men, women - and even children, have been killed (and worse) for far, far less. I am not saying he should submit to injustice or make himself a victim, but that he should have been well aware of the risks - and better prepared for them.
If he does have some kind of damning evidence preventing his "accidental and untimely demise"... well, he does not seem very confident that it will be enough.
Ultimately, I'm not sure what to think... but the way the Brits are handling this... reeks. Someone is nervous about something, someone all too likely to be rich and powerful. For now, all we can do is wait and see.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)"...but the way the Brits are handling this... reeks. Someone is nervous about something, someone all too likely to be rich and powerful."
For the rest, I don't believe has done much more than embarrass a couple of powerful nations, most particularly of course, the U.S. Some things that Wikileaks posted we probably didn't really need to know, but some things we did (such as the gunning down of civilians in Iraq by U.S. forces, in what seemed to them almost like a game).
His sexual history in Sweden isn't very pretty, but there are a lot of question marks about it, such as the delay in reporting the alleged offences, the withdrawal and then reinstatement of the allegations, and the fact that the first prosecutor declined to pursue it. It does make you wonder what pressure the Swedes were under to pick it up and run with it again.
But most of all is the truly horrifying threat of the British government to invade the Embassy - I still find it hard to understand just what they think they are doing. In fact, when it comes to the inexplicable, it's right up there with Tony Blair leading his country to the invasion of Iraq.
Oh, wait ... that was in lockstep with the U.S.too, wasn't it?
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)What the hell are they thinking? Invading an Embassy... or even threatening to... all for Assange? Somehow, I don't think it's all about the rape allegations and sending him back to Sweden.
I am thinking that he must have something that makes someone, or some group or government... want him very badly. I wonder... what does he have that could cause this kind of eruption? What could he do with it in South America? I've got a bad feeling about this.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)It appears that Britain and the US will both ignore the rule of law, and do anything to get their hands on Assange. Run Julian, run!
Matilda
(6,384 posts)that they know, or suspect, that Assange has information not yet released which will really put the cat among the pigeons.
Because with what we know at the moment, it's really too over-the-top for words.
subject
(118 posts)whore maybe a bit brusque.
Zorro
(15,749 posts)watch for an EU embargo of Ecuadorean bananas.
tama
(9,137 posts)breaking diplomatic ties with UK and sending British ambassadors and other staff home while closing the British embassies, not to mention what that would mean for the representatives and interests of City, BP, etc. as persona non grata in Latin America...
Zorro
(15,749 posts)The OAS isn't so enamoured with Assange that they would express their solidarity with Ecuador's position by risking their export trade with the UK, the EU, or the US. They need those markets.
tama
(9,137 posts)- Wikileaks had a great impact in Latin America, making what they de facto allready knew about US "diplomacy" officially public and lots of head of states, not just Correa, have expressed sympathy with Wikileaks and Assange;
- Latin America has been less than enthousiastic about making "free trade" deals with US or EU (well aware how NAFTA has destroyed Mexico) and developing local cooperation, as well as opposing US-EU neoliberal neocolonialism in WTO and other economic forums;
- Latin America is basically exporting their natural resources against funny munny financial "goods", which of course is not in their interest in the long term, except in the fantasy lalaland of neoliberal fundies
- IMF and World Bank raped Latin America for couple decades but have now been kicked out from there, IMF is now forced to devour and destroying it's old own second pillar of political power, Europe...
... basic assumptions behind your claim haven't got much credit.
Zorro
(15,749 posts)Ecuador would have some serious economic problems if events escalated to the point where trade sanctions are imposed. You're naive if you think otherwise, and naive if you think most or all of the Latin American countries are in solidarity behind Correa's decision.
Correa is showing his hypocrisy in granting asylum to Assange, considering he rammed legislation through the Ecuadorean congress giving him the legal ability to sue reporters if he feels he's being "slandered" (i.e. criticized). He would not hesitate to take action against any reporter that released sensitive Ecuadorean government documents a la Assange.
tama
(9,137 posts)But as far as facts go, Ecuador has bought back 91% of it's debt to EU at 35% of nominal value; Ecuador has closed US military base in Ecuador; Ecuador has expelled a US Ambassador. And if I understand correctly, Ecuador is already calling for a OAS meeting because of British intimidation attempts.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Response to Matilda (Original post)
Post removed
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Seems like quite an over-reaction, considering they let Pinocet go free... whoever is pulling the strings must really be worried about something getting out. Beware of plane rides.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Consider... if another Nation threatened one of our Embassies, how would we react? The US would almost definitely consider it an act of war if it was invaded. Threatening it might alone be enough.
While Britain probably isn't in danger of being invaded or obliterated in retaliation... they are risking a great deal of international good will - and right after the Olympics, when they have just gained so much. South America isn't by any means without power of their own, either. If Correa could organize something, perhaps with the assistance of people like Chavez... well, things could get ugly fairly quickly. South America with more reason to hate the Brits - and probably the US, because whether we're connected or not (I suspect we are, somehow), we will be blamed.
I can see funding becoming more readily available for various terrorist groups that really don't like us very much. Possibly even weaponry of a more sophisticated sort. We could turn the war on terror into a war on our own soil.
Probably far fetched, I'm probably leaping to conclusions that are very unlikely. Why though, would England go this far? I can think of no reason other than a fear of what Assange might know, what he might be able to prove.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It would seem perfectly reasonable for them to raid it with troops, and hold British diplomats hostage for a violation of sovereignty and international diplomatic law. And if the US is even remotely tied to UK's action, that puts our embassies and diplomats at risk. A risk like that indicates this isn't about an alleged rape.
Berlin Expat
(950 posts)what I do; if I were Ecuador, I would have my special forces storm the U.K. Embassy in Quito in retaliation, seize the Embassy workers, and throw them in prison. They would be released once the British government sends Mr. Assange, unharmed and unmolested, to Ecuador.
But then again, I enjoy playing hardball, so that's just me.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Thats fo sho...
Matilda
(6,384 posts)to think hard about granting asylum to Assange.
But it is still completely inappropriate and way over-the-top and does Britain no credit.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Years of Established Diplomatic Precedent.
WTF? I hope the Ecuadorean military razes the British embassy in Quito to the ground and imprisons all of its inhabitants forthwith.
Fuck the Brits. They have 3 centuries of genocide, imperialism and all-round wankerism to answer for.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)"DON ROTHWELL: So it does apply in very extreme circumstances where that immunity can be revoked, but we've hardly seen that the situation of Mr Assange does reach that level.
TIMOTHY MCDONALD: Does it make it clear within the legislation that a very high bar, I guess, threat to life and limb would have to be at stake for this process to come into effect?
DON ROTHWELL: Well the legislation refers to considerations of national security but the other grounds wouldn't seem to have any relevance. So national security is clearly a fairly high threat, it would clearly be associated with terrorist related type incidents.
But once again, Mr Assange's situation does not seem to have reached that level."
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3569084.htm
Wish I could copy and paste more of this interview from Australia's ABC, but reading it through, it seems pretty clear that legal experts think the British actions are unjustified in every respect. Whatever anyone thinks of Assange, it really is an inappropriate action for the Cameron government to act in the way it has.
What is at stake that they are willing to completely tarnish their reputation?
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)They would however be restricted in what they could achieve. Live footage from this morning here in the UK shows hardly anyone about.
corksean
(475 posts)
Vidar
(18,335 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How many times did he appear in UK courts inside UK government buildings surrounded by UK law enforcement personnel?
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)[The] phenomena of social networking through the internet and mobile phones constrains Swedish authorities from augmenting the evidence against Assange because it would look even less credible in the face of tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wilén boasting of their respective conquests after the “crimes”.
In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape.
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How novel.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I am just saying that these women are trivializing the idea of rape. They weaken their case by having thrown him a party afterwards and tweeting to brag about sleeping with him.
I don't think either was raped and if they had called for my help, I would have told them they had destroyed their own credibility with their actions subsequent to the alleged "rape." I think in both cases, the sex was consensual. Until it wasn't. But I am fuzzy on the timeframe. If you decide that consensual sex has become non-consensual, you need to go to the police immediately afterwards to file a report if you expect to be taken seriously. You don't throw a party for the alleged "rapist" and tweet about your conquests, then file a complaint. It's like "one night stand remorse." You wish you hadn't slept with him. Especially after you find out he slept with another woman. I am not sure this is enough motive to prosecute him for rape.
And it seems that both women and Assange were willing partners. I am not sure what you mean by your comment. Are you saying they did not want to have sexual relations with this man? Did either struggle or express an objection? Did they even file a report that day? No they waited a week. I think the whole charge is trumped up to discredit Assange.
So, no evidence of a crime. Circumstantial evidence suggesting the women were not upset with Assange after the alleged "rape." "He said. She said." Weak case. Unless you want to frame the man for some "other reasons."
I don't approve of crying "rape" for any "other reasons."
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)When was physical resistance required for the definition of rape?
And yes, from the details provided by msanthrope the allegations do include expressed denial on the part of the victims and force on Assange's part.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)<snip>
One of two women involved told Aftonbladet in an interview published today that she had never intended Assange to be charged with rape. She was quoted as saying: "It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him."
Speaking anonymously, she said each had had voluntary relations with Assange: "The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women."
Sources close to the woman said that issues arose during the relationships about Assange's willingness to use condoms.
<snip>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/22/wikileaks-julian-assange-sweden
You are right. Physical resistance is not a required of a rape victim, but one would expect the alleged victim to actually believe she was "raped." The woman says he was not violent and she didn't feel threatened. Like I said, the case is very weak. I am being honest.
Really horrible rapes happen to women everyday. Often, no one is prosecuted. I don't think what happened here was rape. It is being used by a cynical government who will go to any ends to punish and discredit Assange.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)She didn't say she wasn't raped; she said she didn't intend Assange to be charged with rape. And according to msanthrope this is not part of the court record so it is of dubious value.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)As for your assertion that she didn't say she wasn't raped, I guess that's so. But she did say he wasn't violent and she didn't feel threatened.
I don't like to see rape trivialized into some coy parlour blackmail game.
hlthe2b
(102,410 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)My guess is that the US had a honey trap and extradition deal worked out with Sweden, but it fell apart due to the original prosecutor's reluctance and then Assange walking away.
The US wanted to maneuver Assange back into position for extradition from Sweden, but wanted to do it through the legal system so they didn't implicate Britain. So the Yanks made a firm deal with the Brits to help with corralling him and ensuring his extradition back to Sweden.
When Assange decided to go for asylum, the US was furious that Britain had dropped the ball on making sure Assange stayed accessible within the legal system.
So now the US is putting pressure on the UK, who in turn is trying to pressure Ecuador, who have responded with a hearty fuck you.
Who knows if this is anything close to what actually happened, but IMHO it fits the sequence of publicly visible events.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Obama got a longtime feminist and progressive to spread her crotch open for money so as to frame a man who made available video from an incident that occurred during a republican administration.
So who ya votin' for this year?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)He's a realist - as a President he can't afford to be anything but. He's probably against murder too, but that hasn't kept the drones on the ground or the OBL hit team out of Pakistan. Realists do a lot of things that look like ethical violations to outsiders.
As I said, I don't know if it really went down like that, but I can see the CIA cooking it up with the Swedes and presenting it as the best option for putting Assange into a come-along. And I can easily see BO saying something like "OK do it, but don't give me any damn details."
Of course this is all speculation...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How ironic.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)What, you don't think such covert deals are commonplace? Why do you think the CIA and Mossad (to pick two entirely random examples) have such a bad rep? Did the "extraordinary rendition" reports tell you nothing?
Oh, and when two governments enter into a secret deal it's not called a "conspiracy". Not by gentlemen, anyway.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And that we actually have evidence.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Yes, I think Assange is a hero who threatened somebody very dark. Feel free to hold your own opinion. Neither of our opinions make a bit of difference to anyone who matters. Shrug.
Oh, evidence? The first order of business for a plan like this would be to make sure there's evidence. There ain't nothing sacred about evidence. Ask anyone who's ever gone to jail for a baggie of weed the police "found" in their car. And there's that narsty little phrase "throwdown gun". There are a million ways of making sure the necessary evidence is available. A honey trap begins with the creation of evidence very similar to what Assange faces right now.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)"doth protest too much" in it's role in the dirty-deeds.
BTW: THERE is no crime by an individual unless he's been convicted. And the only thing we know for sure, is that he has not been convicted of anything, other than insult and injury to the power to keep secrets of the real crimes of state.
That doesn't make Assange a hero. It makes him an obvious target for this sort of thing.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Assange was in the UK for 2 years. He made multiple appearances in court. He walked the streets. At anytime he could have been black-bagged or simply arrested and extradited to the US.
This is just a sad fiction to get a hero-rapist off the hook at the expense of President Obama.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I doubt that even the CIA and MI6 would simply snatch him off a London street. It's not like he's an actual terrorist. But, someone wants to punish him, in the worst way possible while maintaining the facade of law.
The case against him stinks. If it smells like baloney, looks like baloney, you can wrap it up however you want. But, we're not going to eat it.
tama
(9,137 posts)OK, so you are taking sides with President Obama (just another Wall Street Boy, war criminal, torturer and murderer in the long line of "realists" against a "hero-rapist" journalist...
From my anarchist point of view making state into religion (nationalism) is worst kind of religion.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)and has concluded that Assange has a genuine fear of being reptariated to GITMO.
After weeks of private negotiations to ensure he will not be removed from Sweden (and you must have missed the fact that Assange has agreed to go to Sweden if the government will guarantee he is not removed elsewhere-which they refuse to guarantee) the government of Ecuador at the risk of alienating very powerful friends, has concluded Assange's fear is genuine and that he will end up in GITMO.
But you may know something they do not. If so please divulge..
PS : it's a quaint notion you put forward : that one of the world's most public figures has not been snatched off the streets (unlike the 100s of non-entites that were and ended up in Cuba) and therefore is safe.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Yeah, I do as a matter of fact.
Here's what I know:
The guy on the left is President of the United States and he has conducted himself in such a way over the years -- decades even -- as to make absurd any and all allegations that he is part of some deep, dark, nefarious plot to kidnap poor, innocent rapists to be put in Gitmo.
In fact, I'm so confident that Obama is not a part of these silly conspiracy theories I'm actually willing to vote for the guy!
Unless you know something I do not.
tama
(9,137 posts)What's your take on torture of Manning, assassination of US citizens (not to mention other nationalities), Quantanamo still there, escalation of War in Afganistan, protection of Wall Street interests, protection of Bushistas from any kind of criminal investigation, Homeland organized persecution and brutality against occupy movement, etc? Obama is not central figure in the system and bears no responsibility for wrongs of US gov?
Take a look in the mirror, your logic is that you like the guy, so he can do no wrong; you are pro US gov so it can do no wrong? And anyone critical of US gov must be just as character assassination programs paint them to be?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It is possible to demand fair treatment of prisoners without excusing rape.
Unless one's mind is too narrow to hold more than 1 thought at a time.
tama
(9,137 posts)Nobady is excusing rape here. As for the Swedish allegations of sexual misconduct by mr. Assange, it is extremely weak, so weak that it was dropped by the 1st prosecutor.
The basis behind the political asylum for mr. Assange is not rape or anything else that happened in Sweden, but US criminal persecution of Assange because of his journalistic work. Now verified by Australian diplomatic cables.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)For some strange reason you need to believe that Assange is already guilty of a crime he has not been prosecuted for nor even charged for.
Again, the issue here are not the stupid Swedish allegations, but US criminal persecution of journalists behind Wikileaks and prevention of that. And in this issue you are either in deep denial and/or taking sides with criminal government whose criminality is not really in doubt by anyone.
I'm inclined to call you a war criminal by guilt of association as long as you slander Assange as being rapist.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Whinging about a "rape" that never happened and implying that Assange supporters are rape supporters.
There is simply no justification for what's happening here. Threatening to destroy a pillar of international diplomacy over these misdeeds is like using a nuclear weapon to swat a housefly. Under any realistic scenario the UK would have just said, "Shrug, not our problem." He must be some housefly...
Why are you so adamant about this?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Women join at their own risk.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Sorry, but ... bullshit. There is no such message. That's just a smear of yours.
If you want an actual message from Progressives (sic) it's that we are implacably opposed to governments that claim to act in our name persecuting people who break their code of silence.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I've watched in befuddlement over the years as one excuse after another has been offered for inexcusable exploitation of women -- some of them underaged, some of them deadly -- in cases like Roman Polanski, Strauss-Kahn, JFK, etc.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Is the British response to Assange's behaviour in any way proportionate, appropriate or comprehensible?
On edit: I mean, if we are actually in possession of all the facts. Of course if there are things the Brits aren't telling the international press, their behaviour might become completely understandable if we were to find out what those things are. Still not defensible, mind you, but perhaps understandable...
A lot of us are skeptical of the idea that he's running scared because he doesn't want to face allegations of being an inconsiderate lover.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)the 2 years of open court extradition hearings?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)A lot of us are quite skeptical of the idea that he's fighting so hard and running scared because he doesn't want to face allegations of being an inconsiderate lover.
Even if those allegations turned into charges after questioning, the penalty wouldn't warrant either what he's done in terms of fighting the extradition, or what the UK has done to international diplomacy. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. Unless, of course the recently-revealed Aussie diplomatic cables are the tip of a much larger iceberg of truth - an iceberg that Assange has seen on his radar and is maneuvering like hell to avoid. The British actions give that argument quite a bit of weight.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)politics trumps.
The only person who forced a diplomatic situation over this is the same person who is wanted for questioning for physically forcing himself on unconsenting women. If the potential penalty is not that big a deal then that just further proves Assange is grandstanding.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)and he thinks the Swedish issue is just a pretext, a decoy for the real threat.
That's the sticking point. If there was no reason to fear American interference, I might agree with you. Given the Australian diplomatic cables, I think Assange's fears are justified and that he's being rationally cautious rather than grandstanding.
It comes down to whether one thinks the potential American threat to his freedom is credible. I do.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)This is a classic stitch-up of a man who represents either a real or imagined threat to American secret interests. The only way that his fighting of extradition and subsequent flight to the Ecuadorian embassy make any sense at all is in that context. He figured out what game was being played on him, and is doing everything he can to avoid winding up in a bag - while the the Americans tell the world how utterly legal and reasonable it all is.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Or another possibility is he's a rapist and he knows it and he's using his celebrity status to play people for chumps and they don't mind because they have their own agenda. How else does one account for the fact that people like Polanski et al can be pedophiles, rapists and outright killers and still get a hero's welcome so long as they give the right speech?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)How does his flight to the embassy and the subsequent UK reaction make any sense at all in that context?
It's a stitch-up from start to finish, but he managed to queer it with one desperate move. Claiming political asylum is not a casual act, and getting it takes more than just a nice little story. The UK and Ecuadorian reactions alone indicate that this is much bigger than Assange being a grandstanding, inconsiderate lover.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Assange is conscious of his guilt and the UK isn't going to let 2 years of public proceedings be flouted by a bail-jumping alleged rapist playing the public for chumps. Guilty people run. Cops pursue. Some guilty people try to make public spectacles but they're still guilty. Assange's behavior is wholly consistent with this very common occurance.
Nothing about any of this is surprising except for how some people claiming to be progressives tell women to just lie down and try to relax. Don't struggle; it'll soon be over. Are you still joining us for the rally next weekend?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)every problem looks like a nail.
Have fun at the rally.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)
The two women never accused Assange of rape, or of any form of sexual assault. When they discovered, days after the events, that he had had sex with both of them, they decided to go to the police and request that he be forced to take a test for possible STDs. That's all.
Perhaps they weren't aware that Assange's actions constituted sexual assault in Sweden, and that would explain why at least one of the women wanted to withdraw the charges, but it was too late. The police had taken charge, and it was out of the women's hands.
Assange is not a rapist, not by any stretch of the imagination.
And obviouisly the women didn't think so, because they both remained on friendly terms with him, socialised with him, and one even cooked him dinner after the event. Not the actions of women who feel they've been violated. They just wanted to make sure they weren't going to contract an STD.
And just perhaps, there was a touch of jealousy behind it?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Lots of hard heads around herefind you guilty without even being charged. 
Londoncalling
(66 posts)embassy....I would have thought if it was a serious consideration to raid an embassy, surely David Cameron would have come back from his holiday, because if the raid did happen, the British press would slaughter him and his government, who are already loathed by even the right-wing press. It is not going to happen. Though despite the fact that Assange has been safe and free to walk the streets of London and live here at the tax payers expense, he broke the terms of his bail. And the British government is rightly pissed off. What is the British government supposed to do?
In two years he has not been handed over the US government, has not been threatened with extradition to the US, he not been mistreated or held in Belmarsh even...I think what will be really embarassing if it turns out the US are not interested. BTW if he is being
threatened by the CIA, why would Ecuador be any safer that the streets of London...I thought South American countries were full of CIA operatives. If the allegations in Sweden are dropped, then why would Assange be any safer from arrest if the US really want him. He is easily recognisable.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Guessing the crowd in Ecuador isn't as friendly as the one in the UK, because naturally, they'd be angry at what is happening in London. It is like telling them that they are 'lesser than.' Lots of anti-Obama rhetoric being voiced. Some very good conversations, right now a person in a red shirt wanting world peace and an end to hatred. I really feel sympatico with these kind of conversations even though it's a bit CT. This attempt to seize Assange may have gotten enough attention that the UK won't do anything outrageous now.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)He says Ecuador can make Assange a citizen while he's in the embassy and then a diplomat which would give him immunity to get out of the country. Also says that it is unlikely the UK will do anything resembling strong arm tactics.
He admits he is a 'layman' and suspects the UK has probably not decided what course to take. But that's quite a crowd out there right now.
That's the last I've seen at nearly 3 PM PST.
atreides1
(16,094 posts)Shawn Sullivan
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166068/Shawn-Sullivan-Americas-wanted-paedophile-wins-fight-stop-extradition-UK.html
Wanted by the US for sex crimes against children, extradition was denied...so what would be the difference?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)But the last interview I heard (upthread) also said that this arrest is at the EU's request, not as big a deal to the UK as some might think. Or the US. That this is the EU flexing its muscles, but that the UK doesn't have to go along with all of it. So there is the nature of the UK relationship to the EU that is being taken into account, too. Perhaps some economic pressure is being applied.
ikri
(1,127 posts)Britain won't extradite when the penalty for the crime in question is death, or life without the possibility of parole.
In the case of Shawn Sullivan, there was a threat that he'd be placed into a civil commitment programme where he could be held indefinitely without even requiring a conviction. Extraditing him under those terms would have been a breach of his human rights under European law. The government (not sure if was state or federal) was asked for guarantees that he wouldn't be placed in such a programme and as no guarantee was given the extradition request was turned down. If he was being extradited to a different state without such a programme he'd have been sitting in a US jail months ago.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)Excellent article from Australia's on-line website, Crikey. It's intelligent, measured, and well thought-through, and gives a good insight to the legalities involved in the diplomatic stand-off between Britain and Ecuador that we laymen can understand.
"The point is that one state’s neutral criminal procedure is a stitch-up from another point of view. Much of Ecuador’s thinking on the matter has no doubt been exercised by the fact that it has to establish that Assange faces persecution from his own country, i.e. Australia, rather than directly invoking the UK-US-Swedish conveyor belt. He would need to use former attorney-general Robert McClelland’s 2010 statement that the Australian government was looking for ways to see if Assange had broken any US laws at the time that Cablegate exploded?—?and combine that with the ample statements in the US concerning the desirability of his assassination.
The most smoking of all pistols in that respect was Vice-President Joe Biden’s statement that Assange was “a high-tech terrorist”. Given that?—?as The New York Times’ ”drone wars” articles established?—?the US regards the assassination of terrorists as legitimate action, Oz’s active failure to defend Assange, or to demand of Sweden that it officially announce that it would not extradite him to the US, might serve as sufficient pretext.
Before the release of the aide-memoire, Ecuador had a real problem with Assange’s request?—?since the difficulty of the “home-country” provisions would oblige it to somewhat thumb its nose at diplomatic practice. Now, however, the release of the UK note by foreign minister Ricardo Patino, has put the UK on the back foot, potentially invoking the solidarity not merely of South America, but of sections of what used to be called “the Third World”. The UK government was quick to squawk about official involvement by the Iranian government in the 2001 attack on their embassy by protesters. It might not be the only one burning in a few days."
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/16/assange-stand-off-a-debate-between-a-threat-and-a-right/
The last paragraph of the article is a hoot - but could it really happen?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”.
The embassy identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.
The released diplomatic cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high level US advice on “the direction and likely outcome of the investigation” and “reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange”.
Sounds to me like Julian has very good cause to be nervous about going back to Sweden to face trumped up "charges". This whole thing has been a stitch-up from the start.
tama
(9,137 posts)Also this:
"Briefings for both Senator Carr and Ms Gillard suggest that the Australian government has no in-principle objection to Assange's extradition to the US."
Ecuador did the right thing, based on correct assesment of available information.
