Assange to UN: 'It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks'

[CHIMO]

Source: RT

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has called on the United States to move from words to actions, and put an end to its persecution of WikiLeaks, its people and its sources. He made the statement during an address to a panel of UN delegates.
Addressing the representatives of the United Nations' member countries, the WikiLeaks founder spoke of the difference between words and actions, praising US President Barack Obama for his words.
"We commend and agree with the words that peace can be achieved… But the time for words has run out. It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks, our people and our sources."
Assange was highly critical of US involvement in the Arab Spring, denouncing Obama as audacious for exploiting it. He added that it is "disrespectful of the dead" to claim that the US has supported forces of change.


Read more: http://rt.com/news/assange-addresses-un-human-rights-069/

[24601]

1. He should fly to Washington and make his case in person.

[rhett o rick]

2. And your point is??? nm

[sabrina 1]

6. ???

He has made his point. The world in general appears to agree with his point. Why would he fly to a country where Elected officials have called for his assassination?

His point is btw, that a free press is the only way to ensure democracy and that whistle-blowers should be protected not persecuted. Wikileaks has protected the hundreds of whistle-blowers who made it possible for them to expose corrupt governments and private corporations for over six years now.

[hack89]

13. Why do you think the world agrees with him?

a handful of Latin American countries using Assange to bash Britain is not the "world".

[ronnie624]

19. The actual people of the world as opposed to their governments,

Last edited Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:24 AM - Edit history (1)

probably agree with just about everything Assange said in his speech. Global opinion polls show a deep distrust of the UK and the U.S. and their motives for the things they do in the world, like encouraging and facilitating conflict in other countries, and supporting dictators at the expense of the people.

[link:http://pewresearch.org/topics/globalattitudesforeignaffairs/|

[hack89]

20. And you know this how?

I suspect that just like in America, the vast majority of people don't care about Assange. Most have no clue who he is.

[ronnie624]

22. The information I linked to is how I know.

Opinion polls show conclusively that people throughout the world are in complete agreement Assange's criticisms of the excesses and injustices perpetrated by the U.S. government, and that people benefit by having them revealed. Whether or not people are familiar with Assange is irrelevant to whether or not they agree with the content of his speech.


(I fixed my link. Oops.)

[hack89]

27. Yet Pew released a report saying the opposite

at least regarding American public opinion. It actually appears to be the only Wikileaks specific poll they have issued.

[JackRiddler]

157. So "the world" is actually "American public opinion"?

Thanks for clarifying the fundaments of your thought, once again.

Oh, and good work. You may be a self-appointed foot-soldier in dispensing slime against Assange, but your output here has been prodigious. The results you're citing are no doubt slightly influenced by the busy work of hundreds like you.

[hack89]

159. Just pointing out that the only Pew report on Wikileaks

was done in America.

There is nothing by them to indicate wide spread global support for Wikileaks.

I support Wikileaks. I don't support Assange due to his frantic efforts to avoid answering his accusers in Sweden. I think that accusations of rape are a serious issue.

[struggle4progress]

3. Translation: "I really really need to distract everybody from those Swedish allegations!"

[wtmusic]

5. The Swedish BS is the distraction

or have they decided to prosecute our SOS for ordering ID theft at the UN?

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/28/hillary-clinton-ordered-diplomats-to-steal-un-officials-credit-card-numbers/

[sabrina 1]

7. Lol, you mean the allegations that have fallen apart, as we all predicted they would.

Anyone familiar with this case, I mean the persecution of Wikileaks, knew the facts of these allegations long ago. Now the world knows and they know why the Swedish Prosecutors have failed and stalled and lied about why, after two years going on three, they have refused to file any charges against Assange.

Never was a case. The first prosecutor got it right. This is a political persecution and now we see what so many have been denying, that the US desperately wants to silence Wikileaks, a multi-award-winning International News Organizations.

I kind of feel a little sad for you, you so desperately tried to make him guilty of something. I'm glad to see you have stopped making some of the false allegations you originally made, at least that is progress. But we tried to tell you, there never was a case. The puppets in Sweden were just trying to help their puppet masters in the US by dragging this phony case out for so long. But it has failed, a majority of the world's people know what is going on and the more they go after him, the more support he gets.

[hack89]

14. You know they have to interview Assange before they can indict him.

the Swedish system is not the same as the American. You have been shown this time and time again.

[sabrina 1]

35. I thought this point had been made clear here multiple times already. In fact I believe

I explained to you personally, very patiently, why that nonsense was debunked long ago, the claim that Swedish prosecutors could not interview someone outside of Sweden.

So, here we go one more time. We KNOW that Swedish law requires an interview with a suspect before filing charges. I hope you got that, we KNOW this.

Now try to follow carefully. Assange should have been interviewed according to all the rules relating to cases of sexual assault, even by the Prosecutor's own rules, immediately after she got the case. Assange remained in Sweden for three weeks making himself available for that interview.

Are you still following? Despite these rules, for some unknown reason this Prosecutor refused to follow her OWN rules,(which she gave lectures on btw, that it is critical to interview all witnesses immediately after a case comes to their attention), and turned down the opportunity to interview him each time he requested it. Finally on Sept 15 she told him he was free to leave Sweden.

THIS WAS OUTRAGEOUS! No serious prosecutor would have:

1) Delayed that interview even for a day and
2) Then told the 'suspect' he was free to leave without interviewing him.

Why did she take these egregiously wrong steps? That is the question everyone wants an answer to.

It was at the very least, Prosecutorial misconduct and at the most, something far more sinister.

Are you still following along because I am getting tired of presenting the facts of this case to people who appear unwilling to acknowledge them?

Next, the Prosecutor contacted Assange's lawyer by email, no phone call. He testified he did not see those emails, understandable since he had over 200 clients at the time.

Regardless, there was no problem fixing this as Assange offered to return to Sweden in October. Once again unbelievably, the Prosecutor refused to accept that offer.

Still with me?

Claims were then made, false claims, that in order to interview a suspect, the suspect must be in Sweden. THIS WAS FALSE!


There is not now, nor was there ever, any legal impediment to the Prosecutor interviewing Assange in London.

Did I say that clearly enough? I will repeat it:

]There is not now, nor was there ever, any legal impediment to the Prosecutor interviewing Assange in London!

Okay, so now you know. The Prosecutor has done everything she could to try to avoid interviewing Assange thereby making it impossible to file charges under Swedish law.

Why would she NOT want to file charges? Well this has been obvious to those who actually followed the case from the beginning.

She DID NOT WANT TO, because the 'evidence' would have to finally have been handed over to the Defense and it would have been made public, showing there never was a case!!

1) She has one woman who refused to sign the statement prepared by the police claiming 'rape'. She REFUSED TO SIGN IT, BECAUSE AS SHE SAID, IT WAS NOT TRUE.

2)She has the other woman who has changed her story three times so far, but worse, who tampered with forensic evidence, or who presented 'evidence' that someone else tampered with and made a false claim that this was relative to the claims she made.

That part of the case fell apart as soon as the DNA testing came back, several months ago.

3)She has to deal with text messages between the women plotting to 'make money' by 'destroying' his reputation and admitting to 'going to the tabloids' to do so.

4)And then there are the witness' testimony AND Assange's own police interview in which he denies the allegations unequivocally.

And there is much more. None of it good for the prosecution. But they have known all this from the beginning.

To recap, here is the problem. IF they file the case, then they MUST hand over all that exculpatory evidence to the Defense. Why have they refused to do this for so long? Because as soon as the Defense has it it will be made public.

The prosecutor has held on to the evidence and refused to allow the defense even to make copies of it. BECAUSE IT BLOWS THEIR CASE AWAY. And because people are going to be in big trouble, or should be legally, for their role in this scam.

So the longer she can avoid filing charges, the longer she can keep Assange tied up and smeared, although that part is not working. And that is really the purpose of all of this, as most sentient people on this planet know.

I apologize to everyone else for shouting, but this gets old, the pretense that someone who has been in these threads so often, claiming to still not have any of the facts of this case.

The case is not falling apart, it never was a case from day one. The original prosecutor did the right thing. She dismissed it.

I hope there are legal ramifications for the prosecutorial misconduct in this case and for the attorney who has a political agenda and who is responsible for re-opening this non-case for political purposes. I am glad the world is watching or they might have gotten away with all of this.

[hack89]

36. Lets look at real facts and not opinions

From the transcripts of the British High Court

1. The proceedings in Sweden are at the preliminary investigation stage. The preliminary
investigation does not come to an end until evidence is served on Mr Assange or his lawyer and
there is an interrogation of Mr Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. Thereafter
there is a decision as to charge. If charged the trial is likely to take place shortly thereafter.

2. In Sweden, a person interrogated for rape is normally detained and held incommunicado during
the process. These decisions are taken by a court.

and

B. The aim of the EAW

5. Julian Assange’s surrender is sought in order that he may be subject to criminal proceedings.

6. A domestic warrant for the respondent’s arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court
of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused
with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the
criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary
investigation”. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and
has been interrogated.

8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying
material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all
evidence can be presented at trial. Once the decision to indict has been made, an indictment is
filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence
within two weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can therefore be seen that
the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

You really need to read the entire document - it blows your arguments to shreds.

[sabrina 1]

40. Now maybe you can back and read my post which is filled with facts.

I am not going to waste anymore time on this as it is clear you have little interest in facts.

That document has nothing to do with the ACTIONS of the prosecutor, who putting it simply, has refused to take the step outlined in the document, that would have made it possible for her to complete the process.

She refuse over and over again and is still refusing, to take that step.

THAT behavior is not covered in that document. What to do when a Prosecutor refuses to abide by the law and do what she needs to do to file her case.

I know you don't want to believe the facts, I merely post them for others who might not be familiar with them.

You can post that document as often as you like, it DOES NOT EXPLAIN, in fact it emphasizes the lack of compliance of the Prosecutor, for going on three years now, with Swedish law.

[hack89]

41. That step she needs to take is to interview Assange

in a location such that he can be taken into custody if indicted. That's what you want to avoid - she is not going to interview him if she does not have the ability to arrest him and take him into custody. What would be the point of that?

You really think that if interviewed in London, Assange would surrender if indicted?

[sabrina 1]

43. Wrong! Because he already HAS BEEN ARRESTED. That was a lie. It is still a lie.

It has been done multiple times before. There is NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT to this prosecutor interviewing Assange in London or anywhere else. NONE!

The EU has an agreement among member states that if one of them needs to arrest a suspect, that arrest will be facilitated by the state in which the suspect happens to be and s/he will be handed over the authorities of the prosecuting state.

The EAW proves you wrong, as it was already implemented by Sweden and honored by Britain. Again, there is nothing stopping this prosecutor from doing her job, yet for going on three years, she has refused to do it.

Again, there is NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT to taking the step that would have made it possible for the Prosecutor to file her case.

[hack89]

45. He was not arrested by Swedish authorities

yes he was arrested. Yes Sweden said they wanted him in custody. Yes he fought it tooth and nail. Yes he jumped bail when he lost.

Why do you think this makes Assange the hero here?

[sabrina 1]

53. Still refusing to accept facts. He took advantage of the law, and rightly so, especially

since we now he was RIGHT. We now know his safety concerns regarding the US were absolutely valid. He was fighting for his freedom and perhaps, considering our current policies of killing without charges or trial, 'enemies of the state'.

Sweden does not have to arrest someone in a member state, that state does it for them, as they did in this case.

And you still have not explained who for two long years going on three, the Swedish Prosecutor is still refusing to take the step needed to file her case. You have done a great job of trying to ignore that most important fact.

Hero? If he is viewed as a hero, and apparently he is around the world, it is only because anyone who is persecuted by super powers always ends up being viewed as a hero.

If you don't want the world to view him that way, then stop supporting the egregious, criminal persecution of a journalist because it is you and people like you, who are making him a hero.

[hack89]

46. Not making much sense here

The EU has an agreement among member states that if one of them needs to arrest a suspect, that arrest will be facilitated by the state in which the suspect happens to be and s/he will be handed over the authorities of the prosecuting state.

Yet Assange was never handed over to Swedish authorities was he? Because he fought extradition tooth and nail. And when he lost and the UK planned to exercise their legal obligations under EU treaty, he ran.

[sabrina 1]

51. Sigh! Because he appealed the request for extradition

Had he not done that, he would have been handed over immediately. Maybe you don't like due process, but I'm very fond of it myself, especially in a case like this which was suspect from the beginning.

Meantime, he was held by the British authorities FOR Sweden in accordance with the EU agreement among member states. He was jailed, then released on bond, restricted from movement without notifying the court.

That Sweden refused to take the necessary step to file their case, is not the fault of the Brits or of Assange. Throughout this entire process they refused to do that. That is the main problem for them now. They simply have run out of excuses.

Sweden got what they wanted, because of that agreement. And he was right to fear the US, as we now know. As a designated 'Enemy of the State' he is now in mortal danger of being treated like Al Queda members under our current, shocking and egregious laws which gives one person the right to kill anyone designated as an enemy of the state.

I guess you doubted that also, but now there is no doubt. What an embarrassment to this democracy. To designate an award winning journalist an 'enemy of the state'. This will go down in history as one of the worst abuses of Bush's policies as feared by most of us when they were first implemented. But right now, that does not make Assange any safer than Awlaki was.

[hack89]

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

kind of pokes a hole in your theory.

[sabrina 1]

56. ??? What has that got to with anything. They did and he was arrested.

It pokes holes in YOUR theory. Because since he WAS arrested, since he has been available for going on three years for an interview but the Swedish Prosecutor has not followed up on that ruling, explain now WHY the Swedish Prosecutor, who got everything she wanted, as you just pointed out, up to and including an arrest, dropped the ball regarding filing charges?

Why has she not filed charges? Why has she refused to take the necessary step to go forward with this case?

That is the answer I would like to hear from you.

[hack89]

58. Not by SWEDISH authorities.

the prosecutor intends to indict him - he has to be interviewed first.

[sabrina 1]

63. Why has the Swedish Prosecutor refused to interview Assange when there never was

a single legal, or any other, impediment to her doing so for going on three years now?

Lol 'she intends to' .When? Ten years, twenty years, a century from now?

Thanks, this has been fun. All your arguments to try to defend this prosecutor have been totally debunked.

To be fair to you, you have failed to defend her for her refusal to do her job because there is no defense.

I sympathize, I would hate to be in the position of trying to defend the indefensible myself.

[hack89]

64. Because he refused to recognize her authority to take him into physical custody.

He thought his name would merit him special treatment and she rightfully decided to show him how wrong he was.

When he fled Sweden the night before his scheduled interview with the prosecutor, he blew his chance of special treatment. He is going to learn that pissing off an entire legal system was a huge mistake.

[sabrina 1]

67. Why did the prosecutor refuse to speak to Assange who has been available both in

Sweden and in London for going on three years, which would have made it possible for her to file charges against him?

I am asking as you well know and are struggling hard to avoid answering, about the actions of the PROSECUTOR. Assange had no influence over her actions.

She refused to speak to him for going on three years. You have failed to explain why considering there never was any impediment to here doing so.

So once again, why is there no case as of today, filed against Assange?

Why has the prosecutor refused to take advantage of all the rulings in her favor and the availability of Assange both in Sweden and in London, and do what she needed to do to file her case?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that question. In fact the whole world is waiting.

[hack89]

68. Because she doesn't need to. She has all she needs to arrest him.

as he will eventually find out.

[sabrina 1]

71. Why has she not filed a case against Assange? You are now contradicting yourself

completely. You have claimed all along that the reason she has not filed a case is because Assange needed to be in Sweden. When all your arguments were debunked, you went back on everything you argued before, and are now claiming 'she doesn't need to'. So it was NOT Assange standing in her way of completing the final step in order to file her case.

You are now saying 'she does not need to file a case'??? Really? I don't think you understand Law, let alone Swedish law.

He was already arrested, you keep forgetting that fact. He did not flee, he turned himself in.

But now it appears that the Prosecutor issuing that warrant, may have been an abuse of the EAW.

Did you know that legal experts are now questioning her use of the EAW since she HAD NOT FILED A CASE and that the EAW is only meant to be used to arrest someone against whom CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED?

And we are back to what you now claim is 'not important'. No Charges have ever been filed in this case, so what did she base that EAW on?

[hack89]

74. She has what she needs to arrest him. Once in Swedish custody he will be interviewed and indicted.

it is not that hard.

The EAW is simple - the Swedish Appeals Court looked at her evidence and decided there was sufficient grounds to issue a domestic arrest warrant. That domestic arrest warrant was turned into the EAW.

As for those "legal experts" that questioned the use of the EAW - their arguments were blown away in British court. That is why the British High Court said he could be extradited - because his extradition was legal and met both UK and EU requirements.

You need to stop presenting the losing legal arguments - perhaps taking time to read the High Court's transcript would be a good start. Every one of your issues has lost in court - every one.

[hack89]

55. You have avoided this question several times - lets try again

do you think that if the Swedish prosecutor came to London to interview Assange and then decided to indict Assange, would Assange have surrendered to Swedish authorities?

[sabrina 1]

57. No, it is YOU have avoided the real question here. The Swedish Prosecutor, as you now

admit, did NOT interview Assange in London. But IF she had, he would not have had any choice as to whether to 'surrender' or not. The exact same thing that would have happened in Sweden would have happened in London.

So again, the question you refuse to answer. Why has the Swedish Prosecutor refused to speak to Assange for going on three years?

Why do YOU have to ask 'but what if'? Why don't we know, why did she not interview him? Your very question only highlights the neglect of the Swedish Prosecutor to do her job, IF she had a case.

[hack89]

59. So Assange would have voluntarily gone to Sweden? You really believe that? nt

[sabrina 1]

60. Why did the Swedish Prosecutor fail to take the necessary step to

file her case against Assange for going on three years now, when there was NOTHING standing in the way of her doing so?

[hack89]

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

[sabrina 1]

65. Why has the Swedish Prosecutor refused to take the necessary step to file

charges against Assange for going on three years now?

Either answer the question, or don't. It doesn't matter to me how hard you try to avoid it.

The fact is there is no case, no charges, despite the Prosecutor, as you so helpfully have pointed out (thank you btw) getting every ruling in her favor.

Despite all that, the complicity of every court, facilitating her to do what she should have done, she still could not bring herself to take the final step and even went so far as to try to deceive the public into believing there was any impediment to her doing so, when in fact there never was.

There is no case, it fell apart on the first night after which, having reviewed the evidence, it was correctly dismissed by the origianal prosecutor.

[hack89]

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

That's what happens when you flee an arrest warrant. Once you decide to become a fugitive from justice you loose your leverage.

[sabrina 1]

69. Wait!! You have just contradicted yourself and have blown away the major

excuse of the anti-Wikileaks contingency rather than answer the very simple question I asked.

So now, you are claiming that everything you argued before, was just BS and that the prosecutor simply doesn't want to actually file charges, and that is why she refused to speak to him for going on three years, when he was available both in Sweden and in London, and still is btw.

We knew that. She didn't want to file the case because then it would be apparent to the public, as she would have had to make the 'evidence' available to the Defense, that she has no case.

He did not flee the arrest warrant, btw, he turned himself in to the London Police.

Thank you for finally admitting, however reluctantly, everything you have tried so hard to deny, and acknowledging, 'the prosecutor simply didn't feel like filing her case'.

Well, we knew that. I am happy this conversation resulted in your finally acknowledging her egregious behavior also.

[hack89]

72. No - she wants to file charges. But on her terms.

She is not going to give Assange special treatment. It is very simple - she has Assange by the balls and he knows it. The second he steps out of that embassy he will be on a plane to Sweden. Where prosecutor Nye will greet him with a big smile as they finally sit down for his interview. Revenge is always best serve cold.

You have no grounds to be happy. This is not going to end well for Assange. You can fixate on this interview issue but it doesn't change a thing. She has the complete backing of the Swedish legal system - they think she is doing her job just fine and that is the only opinion that matters.

[sabrina 1]

75. Um, that is not how the law works. On the whims of a prosecutor. You are now completly

back-tracking and claiming that she 'wants to' file charges, but you still cannot answer the question, 'why has she not spoken to Assange, in Sweden which she should have done immediately she was handed this case, then later in London, and again when he offered to return to Sweden in Oct?

Just answer that question please or admit that there is no excuse anymore for her failure to follow the law.

Here is how this case SHOULD have been handled:

1)Prosecutor gets the case, according to her own many lectures on this kind of case, she should immediately have interviewed the witnesses, but most importantly, the main suspect who was right there, offering to speak to her.

2) Had she not failed step one, she should then could have and should have filed charges and arrested him in Sweden. Failing that assuming he had left to go to London by then she should have moved to step 3

3) AFTER filing charges she should have issued a EAW.

Instead she skipped steps 1 and 2 and moved to issuing a warrant which is NOT supposed to be issued unless there are charges filed.

'She has him by the balls'?? Really? Three years later she still has not filed charges. And as more of the evidence is made public, her 'case' is falling apart in front of the whole world, which explains why she never filed charges in the first place.

You are floundering badly here, because the facts are not on your side. But I am happy to keep laying out the facts as long as you continue to back track, distort and/or refuse to answer the very simple question 'Why did the Swedish Prosecutor refuse to speak to Assange in Sweden and in London when there as Nothing standing in the way of her doing so'.

And 'not wanting to give Assange special treatment'?? That is what you have fallen back on now? It is NOT 'special treatment' to follow the law. And if you believe that a crime has been committed, you DO NOT GET PERSONAL, as you are claiming she is doing, and if you do, you should be fired from the case. This is about following the law, which this Prosecutor has failed to do.

You are only making her look worse than she already does, by claiming she refuses to follow the law for petty, personal reasons. I doubt she would appreciate that excuse, as it doesn't help her at all.

[hack89]

76. The entire Swedish legal system appears to disagree with you.

I think they know what they are doing.

I think you are clueless on the issue - which is what happens when you get all your Assange legal knowledge from fan boi sites.

[sabrina 1]

84. The entire Swedish legal system has not been in charge of this case, because NO

CHARGES have ever been filed, so the 'entire Swedish Legal System' has never had a chance to agree or disagree with me or anyone else.

And this is the fault of the Prosecutor who has failed to give them that chance, who has failed the women and failed Assange. She should be fired from this case and if it goes on any longer, she very well may be.

Swedish Legal experts, watching this drag on, have stated that IF it ever went to court, it would not result in a conviction. The failure of the prosecutor to follow the law, has destroyed this case if there ever was one.

[hack89]

88. Except for the Swedish appeals court that issued the domestic arrest warrant for rape you mean?

they apparently saw something in the prosecutor's evidence that you can't see.

[hack89]

89. But since you said that Assange would have never surrendered to Swedish authorities

even if he was interviewed in London and then indicted, how did the prosecutor fail the victims? Assange would have still denied them their day in court.

And at the moment it is Assange denying them their day in court - he lost his extradition hearing and jumped bail. Can't blame that on the prosecutor.

[sabrina 1]

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

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

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

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

She refused, and you have yet to explain that.

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

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

[hack89]

94. Is it her fault that he jumped bail in the UK and is now a fugitive from justice?

you need to read the High Court transcript - everything you just wrote was proven to be wrong. By Swedish legal experts called in for expert testimony. You are wrong.

You really need to read this.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

[sabrina 1]

96. Again, the Swedish Prosecutor refused to do her job when this case was handed to her.

She turned down his many requests to speak to her in Sweden, and later to return to Sweden where she could have and should have interviewed him and could easily have arrested him when it was her duty to do so. But she refused to do so, even going so far as to tell him he was free to leave.

She blew the case, many people think on purpose. Because the minute she files charges, the world gets to see what exactly she has as evidence, evidence she has refused to show even to the Defense. So long as she does not file charges, she can hide the evidence from the public.

You are refusing to answer the question again. This was a simple matter. Suspect is right there in your jurisdiction, he is asking to speak to you. YOU have emphasized over and over again how important it is to speak to suspects as quickly as possible yet, you go against your own beliefs and refuse to interview and arrest and file charges in a case that has been given to you.

Explain please why she refused to do her duty. Anything that happened after she failed in her duty, is irrelevant. That is WHY Prosecutors are supposed to interview suspects right in the very beginning. Because of what can happen when they do not.

She KNEW the ramifications of failing to do her duty, yet she failed to do so.

I am only interested in your explanation of why a Prosecutor would fail so spectacularly to interview a suspect who was right there asking to speak to her and then file her charges. If you still refuse to answer that question, I have no interest in anything else you have to say because all of it is merely a distraction. And it is not relevant to her actions in this case.

[hack89]

98. Swedish legal experts testifying under oath disagree with you.

I believe them.

[sabrina 1]

100. Why did the Swedish Prosecutor not speak to Assange while he was in Sweden for

three whole, long weeks, arrest him there and file her charges? Failing that why did she refuse his offer to return to Sweden in Oct and speak to him then, and arrest him and file her charges? That is the only relevant question regarding this whole case. Yet, you cannot answer it.

It's very simple, this case would be over now had the Prosecutor followed her own advice and done her job.

Anything that happened AFTER she failed to do her job, is irrelevant. None of it would have happened had she followed the law. Instead she did the exact opposite. She told him to leave.

Unbelievable that anyone gives this prosecutor any credibility at this point. Even her spokesperson admitted recently that they cannot explain these issues.

[hack89]

102. Read the High Court's transcript - the Swedish legal witnesses explain it better than me. nt

[sabrina 1]

107. I read it long ago. It means nothing wrt to the non case against Assange.

Because there is still no case against him. He is still 'only wanted for questioning'. I read the legal experts, one of whom it appears you ignored btw.

Why did the Prosecutor not end this case right at the beginning?

Why did she allow it to get to this point?

Why did she not speak to him in Sweden, arrest him, slam that cell door shut, and file her charges?

This case should have been over long ago, except for the fact that the Prosecutor refused to file charges against him and is still refusing to do so.

Everything after that is irrelevant.

[hack89]

109. You just demonstrated that if you read it you didn't understand it.

yes the case should have been over years ago. Nye, however, seems very patient so it will end when it ends. With Assange in jail.

[sabrina 1]

111. Why did she fail so spectacularly to do her duty in this case?

That is the only relevant question here. And one you refuse to answer.

Your predictions for the future were already made over a year ago. According the crystal ball readers, Assange was supposed to have been in jail in Sweden with charges filed against him by this Prosecutor.

They still have not come true. Nye has let you down. She has not done her job, she is still refusing to do it, she still has filed no charges.

Or maybe, she did do her job!

As of now, Assange is charged with no crime and the more time that elapses, the more we find out as to why she refused to file charges.

[hack89]

103. Assange will find out how credible she is when that cell door shuts behind him. nt

[sabrina 1]

105. Still can't answer the question. Why did she fail to lock that cell door when she

should have? I don't think he has anything to worry about regarding this prosecutor. She does not want, as you yourself now admitted, to file charges. Because the minute she does the whole world gets to see her 'case'.

I think Assange and the rest of the world, see clearly how credible she is.

[hack89]

108. Why do think that matters now?

he will be arrested. He will be interviewed by Nye. And he will be indicted. Is there any doubt in your mind that this is what will happen?

[sabrina 1]

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

do not want to get?

Why is it relevant when a Prosecutor botches a case so badly? Are you serious?

In any other case such a failure to do her job should have resulted in her being removed from the case.

You have now resorted to reading a crystal ball, no facts, no answers to legitimate questions, but you 'know' what will happen in the future. Wishful thinking on your part. We were told this would all happen over a year ago, and yet, it has not. Still no charges filed, still a refusal on the part of the Prosecutor to do her job.

I understand, what happened in the recent past is hard for you to defend or explain so you've now taken to predicting the future.

Not so for me, I fully understand why she failed to do her duty.

[hack89]

115. Yet she will win - so perhaps she didn't botch it after all

I mean - when you have to ignore legal testimony from Swedish legal experts to come to your conclusion then it is reasonable to think your conclusion in wrong.

In any case, I hope you are not too disappointed as this play out - it is always a mistake to put your hope in individuals. They have a bad habit of being mere mortals.

It's been nice talking to you - have a good evening.

[sabrina 1]

120. I don't ignore testimony from Swedish legal experts. I have read the opinions of this

case by many, many Swedish and International Legal experts, and none of it is good for this prosecutor.

You have failed to respond to facts. You have been unable to explain why the Swedish Prosecutor blew this case in the beginning, and you have now resorted to getting personal, projecting I guess. Nothing is personal to me when it comes to politics. I care about facts, justice, the Rule of Law and I am never disappointed when the Rule of Law is applied.

In this case there has been little evidence of the Rule of Law. Even to the point of fabricating evidence. But enough legal experts are watching this unfold, that was the one very clever thing Assange did when he realized he was being targeted to make sure he didn't just disappear for years and years, without charges to some gulag somewhere. He put himself in the public domain, making it far more difficult to just make him disappear.

All they have to do is be honest. Present their evidence which they have been hiding even from Assange and his Defense team. So far, there has been little evidence of any kind of professionalism in this case which is why a majority of people around the world, doubt their assertions and have come to believe this is nothing more than a political persecution.

[hack89]

126. Yet I predict that things will turn out exactly has I have said

I suspect I understand what is happening much better than you. You merely strike me as being in a state of denial over the mess your hero is in.

[sabrina 1]

136. Mmmm ....

I wonder, should I just go with this flow and resort to the same tactics, rather than continue to treat this discussion as if facts were of any interest here.

Eg, I could say, emulating what you appear to think passes for any kind of credible argument: 'you merely strike me as someone who supports Big Business and you are working hard to protect your Wall Street Heroes, the Masters of the Universe, from exposure by Wikileaks'.

So, are you afraid that Wikileaks will expose your heroes and that is why you work so hard to try, though failing miserably here, to discredit them?

I see no reason to continue to keep this discussion on a higher level. You have now set the standards and I am more than willing to engage on your own terms.

Heroes, to some people those corrupt Wall Street Bankers really are heroes. They admire them, they don't care how corrupt they are. They are SUCCESSFUL!

[hack89]

78. And yet in the end Sweden will arrest and indict him.

because they understand their laws and you clearly don't.

Every one of your arguments has lost in court. Every one of them. Kind of pathetic that you keep parroting them as if it will make an iota of difference. Trust me - he is not going to escape Swedish justice.

[sabrina 1]

80. My arguments have never been presented in court. Motions were presented, no case

has ever been tested in court with witnesses and evidence and it never will be imho.

Courts generally grant motions such as the ones filed in this case. But they mean NOTHING in terms of the case itself. All they are are a means of facilitating the presentation of a case being claimed by a Prosecutor and have no other meaning in terms of whether there actually is a case. It happens every day in courtrooms, and it also often results in complete dismissals of cases.

Sweden has failed to indict him. Even after arresting him. So your arguments are just failures at this point but I am happy to keep on pointing out how far the anti-Wikileaks contingency will go to try to ignore the facts because they have an agenda.

Again, you are only helping my case. You point out that the Prosecution got everything they wanted from the courts. And even with that, they have still failed to present their case in court.

The facts of this 'case' are simple. This prosecutor had many opportunities, especially when he was IN Sweden, to speak to him, to arrest him, and to file charges. She failed again when he offered to return to Sweden in Oct and she refused again to speak to him. And she has failed now for going on three years, to speak to him in London where it is perfectly legal to do and has been done many times before.

The fact is they did NOT file charges, and now we know why. The first prosecutor was correct, and even the nutty attorney now representing the women, admitted early on that 'we have a very weak case'. So why did he push to reopen a 'very weak case' and then refuse to present it in court?

The more you try to explain all of this, the more you are, inadvertently I know, proving what a majority of people, including legal experts, now believe. There never was a case.

[hack89]

83. All of those issues were addressed by the British High Court. It is time you read the transcript. nt

[sabrina 1]

85. The British High Court did NOT rule on this case. What are you talking about?

[hack89]

87. All of those issues were part of the extradition hearing

they were all failed attempts to undermine the Swedish warrant. They all failed.


Here is the link again - perhaps you will read it this time? It will save you some embarrassment.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

[sabrina 1]

90. The British Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a Swedish case.

That is ridiculous. They heard from no witnesses, the ruled on one issue, extradition.

The British Court also ruled against the extradition of genocidal murderer Pinochet, so their rulings are not exactly gospel in terms of justice.

Since that ruling which was based on a quickly cobbled together list of allegations, NOT charges, a list that was never made available to the defense despite their repeated requests to see them, allegations that were very different from the original allegations, and one of which has been completely debunked with the revelation that the 'witness' fabricated a piece of evidence to try to match it to her story.

The ruling of the British Court has zero to do with the facts of this case and if you are now resorting to that ruling, which with the latest revelations re the US Govt, should be appealed, or taken to an International Court, you really are grasping at straws.

[hack89]

91. Every argument you have made about the interview and the prosecutor doing her job

was address in great detail by the High Court. And shown to be wrong. By Swedish legal experts called into for expert testimony.

That is what we are talking about - this interview nonsense you are fixated on.

[sabrina 1]

95. Lol, no, it was the anti-Wikileaks contingency who were fixated on the interview. Now

that all your excuses for why it was never conducted have been debunked, all of a sudden it is no longer important!

That was your major claim re Assange, that it was he who was 'running away from the Prosecutor'. Now that you cannot make that claim anymore, the interview is no longer important.

Lol! Thanks for that.

[hack89]

97. Except they were not debunked. What I said has been confirmed by Swedish legal experts

testifying under oath in a British court. Everything I said comes from a Swedish legal expert - where do you think I got my arguments from in the first place?

You really need to read the transcript.

[sabrina 1]

99. Not only were they debunked, you are now running away from your previous

assertions and claiming that what was once so important, Assange's interview, is NO LONGER important! Because all your arguments regarding that interview have been debunked. You tried and tried, but the facts were always there to contradict your assertions.

And you still have not answered the question as to why the Prosecutor did not do her duty, speak to Assange while he was in Sweden, arrest him and file her charges.

That is the million dollar question the anti-Wilileaks contingency refuses to answer.

[hack89]

101. No - there is a reason Assange lost his extradition fight

the interview argument was part of his case - it was blown out of the water. By Swedish expert witnesses.

[sabrina 1]

104. You still have not answered the question. Why was there even a need for an

extradition hearing? Why was this case not handled in Sweden when Assange was there for weeks, asking to speak to the Prosecutor, and later when he offered to return to Sweden to speak to her?

Why can you not answer that very simple question? Because everything that happened AFTER that, happened as a result of the failure of the prosecutor to interview Assange, arrest him in Sweden, file her charges and do her job by presenting her case in court.

I don't care about the British Court, it has zero to do with this case. And it was because of the failure of the Prosecutor to interview, arrest and file charges against Assange in Sweden, that there was ever any need for the British Court to get involved at all.

Why did she fail so spectacularly to do her job? Why did she outright refuse to do her job?

Why did it have to get to this point when she had him right within her jurisdiction and refused to keep him there and file her charges?

[hack89]

106. It is all moot now.

he is trapped like a rat with two choices - life in a cramped embassy or a Swedish jail cell.

The interview is very important - it will take place just before he is indicted. And Nye will win and Assange will lose. Bottom line.

[reorg]

114. The obvious answer

is that they wanted this thing to drag on for years to distract from the actual public interest in Assange and Wikileaks without ever being called on their BS.

This strategy proved to be quite successful because it gave certain mainstream media organizations an excuse to chime in and exploit the issue while making friends in high places.

The authorities in the US were probably not to make a move until they were sure to succeed with extraditing and prosecuting Assange. With Ecuador getting involved, this outcome has, hopefully, been prevented. They're probably still mulling over what to do now, the whole bunch of them

[msanthrope]

150. So 'they' convinced Assange to fight extradition, and then, appeal for two years, all because 'they'

weren't ready to extradite and prosecute Assange?

Wow.

What's going to happen when the black helicopters don't show up?

[reorg]

153. the prosecutor made a reassuring move first

- when she could and probably should have arrested Assange, at least have him immediately interrogated shortly after having re-interviewed the complainants. Instead, she didn't even impose travel restrictions, highly unusual if she in fact had "probable cause" as is now alleged, given that Assange did not reside in Sweden.

Then, a week later or so, she appears to have been very determined as to specific dates all of a sudden. She arrested Assange "in absence" only a few hours before his plane left, but strangely didn't manage to get hold of him. It does indeed appear that mixed signals were sent: leave while you still can, because if we can get you, you'll be detained, and, as you know, we can hold you incommunicado for quite a while if we choose to.

This, and the reactions in the US to the leaks as well as the smear campaign might have convinced him that he was in danger of getting locked up forever. If you think that's silly, please point out how he can be sure that nothing he ever did through Wikileaks can be considered illegal in the US. You seem strangely reluctant to do that and I wonder why.

[sabrina 1]

178. Thank you for you posts. I think her failure to conduct this case in a professional manner

and according to her own well known beliefs about the importance of interviewing suspects as fast as possible, and even more so when they are foreign nationals, was deliberate..

As you said above, it suited the real purpose of the smear campaign to drag it out, rather than take it to court where it would have been thrown out, which even the women's lawyer has admitted.

And people must never forget the presence of Karl Rove in Sweden throughout this whole smear campaign.

[hack89]

61. Fugitives don't get to dictate to prosecutors. That is how the world really works.

he has a valid Swedish arrest warrant in this name - that is all the prosecutor needs. She is patient - she knows she will win in the end. And she will win without giving in a inch to Assange.

[sabrina 1]

77. He was never a fugitive, he was in Sweden asking to speak to her, then in London

asking to speak to her. She refused, she failed to follow the law. We now know why.

Keep trying, but the facts are the facts. This Prosecutor never intended to file charges as most people now believe. And the more we see of her 'evidence', the more it becomes clear WHY she refused to follow the law.

Someone, one of her main witnesses, fabricated a piece of forensic evidence to try to match it to her 'story', well on of her stories. That is a crime.

I would not want to file charges either in a case where the exculpatory evidence is so overwhelming that any decent court would do as the first prosecutor did, throw it out.

[hack89]

79. He fled Sweden the night before his interview with the prosecutor.

you believe in coincidences. Apparently the prosecutor doesn't.

He is a fugitive from British justice - or do you also refuse to recognize the authority of the British court system?

[sabrina 1]

82. He did not flee Sweden, he was told by the Prosecutor on Sept 15 that he was free to

leave. His attorney testified that while he did receive emails he did not see them until later and did not speak to Assange before he left with permission from the Prosecutor.

And of course the Prosecutor always had the option of calling Assange herself and revoking her permission for him to leave. But she did not do that. Why?

The Women's attorney has admitted that. He was asked about Assange leaving and stated 'he was given permission to leave so no crime was committed'. If you want to argue with the Women's attorney, be my guest.

And the more you keep repeating these distortions debunked many times, the more you help me to show how desperate the anti-Wikileaks contingency is, how little they care about facts, or guilt or the law.

[hack89]

86. The lawyer's memory got much better under oath

he admitted that on the 22nd and 23rd of September he had three communications with the prosecutor - a two way communication.

The Swedish system emphasises the importance of early interrogation (Mr Alhem). Ms Ny contacted Mr Hurtig and asked to interrogate his client. Mr Hurtig cannot say for certain whether that was on 21st (as Ms Ny says in her written information) or 22nd September. The 28th September was suggested as a date for interrogation.

And this is the impression he left with the judge:

Mr Hurtig in an unreliable witness as to what efforts he made to contact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September (see transcript pages 122-132). He has no record of those attempts. They were by mobile phone, but he has no record. He cannot recall whether he sent texts or simply left answer-phone messages.

This is particularly damning:

Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.

You really need to read the entire transcript.

[sabrina 1]

112. And none of that has anything to do with Assange who was told by the prosecutor,

incredibly when you consider the circumstances, that he was free to leave. A fact corroborated by the women's attorney.

What the attorney did or did not do is irrelevant. The Prosecutor always had the option to call Assange and tell him she had changed her mind, but she did not do that. Why not?

Once he heard that the prosecutor wanted to speak to him, AFTER it was too late, he offered to return to Sweden in Oct. She again refused to speak to him. Explain that if you can.

Keep trying, you continue to give me the opportunity to explain the facts of this non case to others who may not be familiar with them.

[hack89]

116. You keep believing that if it gives you comfort. nt

[sabrina 1]

117. I'll leave 'belief' and crystal balls to you. I deal only with facts.

And so far the facts are not looking good for the Swedish Prosecutor. The more time passes, the worse it looks for her.

[hack89]

119. Yet she is the one who will win.

because only the Assange fans like yourself really believe the nonsense you are peddling.

Assange is not going to win - Sweden has shown no willingness to back down. They seem think that Nye is doing a great job.

[sabrina 1]

123. Well, now I know I won this debate. How?

When someone sinks to the level of reducing a legal matter to 'winning' rather than the finding of facts and seeking justice, you know they have no further arguments. And when someone sinks to the even worse tactic of asserting that their opponent is a 'fan', you know for sure they have nothing else to offer.

Sweden backed down long ago in this case. They blew a very simple case and you have failed to offer any logical reason why a Prosecutor would refuse to conduct a case according to the laws available to her.

I rest my case.

[hack89]

127. That "incompetent" prosecutor who "botched" the case will put his ass in jail

and the entire Swedish legal system will be behind her to give her all the support she needs.

I look forward to seeing you try to spin that - I am sure you will still be squawking about that interview.

Lets pick up this conversation once he is in custody.

You can have the last word.

[sabrina 1]

133. As I said, signs someone has lost the debate, when they resort to non-facts,

personal attacks, and predicting the future, despite the evidence from the past, that creates much doubt about that future.

I never spin, I leave that to you. I state facts, I ask questions, simple questions, such as 'why did the Swedish Prosecutor totally botch this case in the beginning? Why did she outright REFUSE to do her duty as a prosecutor'?

That is the million dollar question being asked around the world as more and more time goes by and more and more evidence surfaces despite all her attempts to keep it secret for more than two years now.

You cannot offer a reasonable explanation for her failures. No one can, not even her spokespeople so don't feel too bad about that.

I hope that Assange's new attorney can get this case out into the open, into an International Court where it now belongs, considering all the evidence collected over the past two years that there is no way anyone would trust this case to this very compromised Prosecutor and Sweden's secret court rooms. This case NEEDS the light of day, it needs to be very public.

I very much want to see this case in a proper court room setting where nothing is hidden from the public. And I am confident, knowing what I know, about the 'witnesses' and the evidence, that it will be thrown out as it already was.

[hack89]

42. If the prosecutor is breaking Swedish law then explain these facts

Why would the Court of Appeal agree with her?

A domestic warrant for the respondent’s arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

[sabrina 1]

44. Because the Court does not investigate a crime, they accept the documents presented

to them by a member state. Not that the British Courts haven't ever been spectacularly wrong in the past of course. As we saw many times during the 'Irish Troubles'.

The documents presented by Sweden were not challenged, so the court simply accepted them at face value.. They made a wrong decision because they did not see the real evidence in this case, they saw only the allegations, most of them changed since the case began.

[hack89]

47. Except we are talking about a Swedish Appeal Court

that agreed with the prosecutor. How is that possible if she was violating Swedish law? Wouldn't they have told the prosecutor to go back and do it legally?

[sabrina 1]

50. How long ago was that?

It took two, going on three years of her refusing to take the necessary step to file the case, which STILL HAS NOT BEEN FILED, for it to become clear that this Prosecutor has refused to do her duty.

And the longer she procrastinates, considering there is nothing standing in her way, the more obvious it becomes that she does not want to file a case.

There is no credible reason why this case was not filed two years ago. None, not a single plausible excuse for this refusal to do what is necessary to file that case.

Other than, as more and more people now believe, she does not want to. They are achieving what they set out to do, or were until now, by simply stalling and procrastinating, by telling lies about why they had not done so.

But now the game they've been playing is pretty much clear to anyone with half a brain cell functioning.

[hack89]

52. Yet the Swedish Appeal Court disagrees with you

they thought she had valid grounds to arrest Assange without an interview.

[sabrina 1]

113. They expected her to do her job, she did not. But you still have not explained

she so badly botched this case when it was given to her. Why did she refuse to speak to Assange for three weeks at the time when every Prosecutor worth anything, knows you need to do? And why did she again refuse to speak to him after he left but offered to return to Sweden?

People are beginning to wonder if she has been working hard NOT to speak to him, because the minute she does, she must make her case available to the Defense.

By continuing now into the third year, to play these games, she gets to hide the evidence from the Defense. That all changes the minute she files charges.. I have a feeling no charges will ever be filed in this case.

[hack89]

118. Saying it over and over again does not make you right.

especially when you have to ignore the sworn testimony of Swedish expert witnesses. Just saying. Denial on your part is not going to help Assange - can't you think of some more effective way to help him? He sure can use a helping hand right now.

[sabrina 1]

122. Resorting to 'Swedish Experts' some of whom were brought there by the Prosecution

and ignoring the very simple and glaring facts of this case, won't make them go away.

But you have progressed. You no longer try to use the excuse that the poor Prosecutor could not speak to Assange.

Nor have you even tried to defend her failure to speak to Assange when he was in Sweden and later when he offered to return to Sweden, thereby blowing the case either from gross incompetence, or on purpose.

Now you claim that a Prosecutor blowing a case is irrelevant, still that is progress since it is hard to dispute the facts any other way.

[hack89]

125. It is time to move on - it's over

he has come to the end of the road - regardless of what one may think of the prosecutor she has the upper hand while Assange has run out of legal options.

Bye

[sabrina 1]

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

witted and outsmarted by her own disingenuous mishandling of this case which left the door open for facts to take the place of propaganda. Her reasons for botching this case so completely became obvious early on. She may very well end up being disciplined for her behavior throughout this period. As she should be.

[hack89]

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

That's what I don't understand about your argument - you seem to think that it means something significant. That somehow Assange will avoid arrest and a trial. You will be saying she botched the case as you watch Assange be arrested, indicted and tried. And it will be pathetic to watch.

[sabrina 1]

163. And you still refuse to even try to answer the question as to why a Prosecutor

who has been given a resurrected case, knowing the suspect is not a Swedish national, refused over and over again to speak to him, to clear the way to filing charges, for three weeks. The police had no problem speaking to him, what was her problem? She violated all the rules of how to conduct an investigation, which led to this sham we are now watching.

Funny thing though, those of you who oppose Wikileaks need to align your talking points. I was just told by S4P that Assange has 'nothing to whine about' because has been FREE all this time.

I did point out that he has not been free, that it is unprecedented that someone who is only wanted for questioning, should lose their freedom for years, without charges and without his own attorneys even having access to the allegations and evidence they claim to have.

Strange that any democrat would find this travesty of justice, no matter how they feel about the individual, to be amusing.

[hack89]

164. And I fail to see the importance of this point.

he was the one who decided to wage a two year legal battle to avoid extradition. He could have resolved this a long time ago regardless of the actions of the prosecutor.

It will be over soon. I am sure there is plenty of drama ahead.

[struggle4progress]

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

to hide in Quito's London embassy

[wtmusic]

17. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Assange thinks (correctly) that the US will do anything - including manufacturing cases, evidence, whatever - to get their hands on him.

He's singlehandedly upset the world order, and it's driving the CIA crazy.

[struggle4progress]

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

paranoid fantasies, unsupported by evidence, won't impress most people

[wtmusic]

28. Paranoid fantasies like the secret US indictment?

"Stratfor's emails leaked by WikiLeaks have discussions surrounding a secret grand jury[162] with a secret indictment.[163] Later, a media organisation received declassified diplomatic cables that confirm a secret indictment exists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange

Ha, crazy Julian! I put full faith in the reality the CIA constructs for me.

[struggle4progress]

32. Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously

Max Fisher
Feb 27 2012, 4:18 PM ET

On June 2, 2009, Anya Alfano of Stratfor, which describes itself as a private "global intelligence company," sent an email to a colleague requesting some global intelligence on a certain trans-national civilian group on behalf of a powerful international client. That email has now been released to the world, along with five million others like it, by global transparency group Wikileaks, thus revealing Stratfor's shadowy scheme.

According to Anya Alfano's email, Stratfor's target was PETA, the animal rights group, and its client Coca-Cola. Their top secret mission was to find out "How many PETA supporters are there in Canada?" and other tantalizing global secrets that could only be secured through such top-secret means as calling PETA's press office or Googling it. Alfano concluded her chilling email, "I need all the information our talented interns can dig up by COB tomorrow."

Shortly before the release, Wikileaks told the world to prepare for "extraordinary news." In announcing today's release, Wikileaks describes Stratfor as "a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations." The group's announcement says that the released emails "show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment-laundering techniques and psychological methods" and calls the company "a money-making scheme of questionable legality." It adds, "The material shows how a private intelligence agency works, and how they target individuals for their corporate and government clients" ...

The group's reputation among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners is poor; they are considered a punchline more often than a source of valuable information or insight. As a former recipient of their "INTEL REPORTS" (I assume someone at Stratfor signed me up for a trial subscription, which appeared in my inbox unsolicited), what I found was typically some combination of publicly available information and bland "analysis" that had already appeared in the previous day's New York Times. A friend who works in intelligence once joked that Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive. As of 2001, a Stratfor subscription could cost up to $40,000 per year ...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-them-seriously/253681/

[struggle4progress]

33. Stratfor email hackers were tricked into using Feds' server

Spotlight on source of WikiLeaks' files
By John Leyden
8th March 2012 13:36 GMT

WikiLeaks – and Julian Assange – could get caught up in the investigation into the LulzSec takedown saga because it published the internal emails of Stratfor, the private global intelligence firm that was attacked by Anonymous hackers, it has emerged.

A warrant authorising the arrest of the prime suspect in the Stratfor raid revealed that an FBI supergrass persuaded hackers to use a server controlled by the feds to store the emails.

Whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks began publishing emails from the intelligence biz last month to show "how a private intelligence agency works, and how they target individuals for their corporate and government clients".

The site refuses to explain how it came by the "Global Intelligence Files [1]" but the dates covered by the emails - from July 2004 to late December 2011 - are consistent with the hacktivists' ransacking of Stratfor back in December as part of a high-profile and much publicised cyber-assault ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/08/strafor_anon_arrest_analysis/print.html

[struggle4progress]

34. So, why should we take any Wikileaks-related remarks in the Stratfor emails seriously?

Our ultimate source for the Stratfor emails is Wikileaks itself -- so the Stratfor emails don't really provide any independent evidence regarding Wikileaks-related issues. Moreover, Stratfor is a business with a financial interest in hyping its intelligence-gathering abilities, so claims by Stratfor about normally-secret matters must be taken cum grano salis. Beyond that, there the small detail that the Stratfor hack was immediately followed by arrests, because the Feds seem to have had an insider who helped direct at least part of the exploit. So the "information" resulting from the Stratfor hack could be quite dubious

[wtmusic]

37. I seem to have touched a nerve.

This case involves espionage, as well as critical government information. I think that you would agree that any time both are present most of what the public sees will obfuscation, lying, and propaganda.

Let's look at the incentives here. Wikileaks published information which is damaging to the US government. Do you really think the DOJ is just made up of swell people who wouldn't think of fabricating evidence to take it down?

If that's the case, you're just naive. And if you think Assange is a media hound you know nothing of his background.

[struggle4progress]

129. I provided several links and cogent argument: you retort with personal remarks

[wtmusic]

134. It ultimately becomes a case of judgement

Actually I provided the link and you attempted to discredit it, although I (and whoever is editing the Wikipedia article) disagree with you.

Do you believe falsifying evidence and trumping up a case is beyond the Department of Justice would be willing to do to get its hands on Assange?

[sabrina 1]

139. Why does the US Government take Stratfor emails seriously?

You are making some wild claims here.

We don't need Wikileaks, we can read those emails for ourselves, and many of us have.

But this is a moot point now. Added now to the Stratfor emails, giving them more credibility than they already had is the revelation that the US has declared Wikileaks to be an Enemy of the State. This proves that Assange had every reason to protect himself whatever way he could..

You cannot keep trying to sweep evidence under rug. Your rug has no more room as more and more evidence surfaces the longer this goes on.

[msanthrope]

30. Driving the CIA crazy???? Did Jason Bourne fail? nt

[xiamiam]

25. I think you should read or watch or something so that your posts come from an informed place

Its insulting and inhibits intelligent dialogue when you keep posting the same nonsense over and over in every thread. People are just not that stupid..and for the most part, are open to learning and growth instead of regurgitating propaganda.

[wtmusic]

31. More paranoia

"Swedish bloggers uncovered the full story in a few hours. The complaint was lodged by a radical feminist Anna Ardin, 30, a one-time intern in the Swedish Foreign Service. She’s spokeswoman for Broderskapsrörelsen, the liberation theology-like Christian organization affiliated with Sweden's Social Democratic Party. She had invited Julian Assange to a crayfish party, and they had enjoyed some quality time together. When Ardin discovered that Julian shared a similar experience with a 20-year-old woman a day or two later, she obtained the younger woman’s cooperation in declaring before the police that changing partners in so rapid a manner constituted a sort of deceit. And deceit is a sort of rape. The prosecutor immediately issued an arrest warrant, and the press was duly notified. Once the facts were examined in the cold light of day, the charge of rape seemed ludicrous and was immediately dropped. In the meantime the younger woman, perhaps realizing how she had been used, withdrew her report, leaving the vengeful Anna Ardin standing alone.

However, before we absolve the Swedish police as unwitting, if zealous, dupes, please note that Swedish law strictly forbids police and prosecutors to release to the media the details of any rape-connected complaint. The Expressen had all the details of the case, including the names of the accused and the complainant, within a matter of minutes. Please note further that the right-wing tabloid Expressen belongs to the Bonnier family, the biggest media owners in Sweden, who are not only pro-American but very much pro-Israel, too. As you know, the pro-Israeli lobby is warmly supportive of America’s Middle Eastern wars, while Assange and his WikiLeaks have the potential to undermine America’s weakening support for the war."

Assange must return to Sweden to face trial for deceit-sort-of-rape! Justice demands it!

http://www.democrats.com/portrait-of-a-framing-the-case-of-wikileaks-julian-assange

[struggle4progress]

131. Your author, "Israel Shamir", is a known anti-Semite and holocaust denier, who is a close friend

of Assange's, and who seems to have taken some of the Wikileaks information directly to the Belarussian dictator to help prop up the regime there -- so mebbe "Israel Shamir" (whatever his real name is) isn't be the best news source

One might generally hope that a person, whose sexual partners are unhappy with aspects of the relationship, might have the decency to sort matters out with sensitivity and discretion

But Assange's approach seems instead to have been to accuse the women of being jealous feminist radical CIA agents who were angry that he didn't call after boinking them -- and, yes! he made ALL of those accusations only shortly after having sex with them

[wtmusic]

135. How does Assange's boinking of a Swedish woman and her dubious accusation of rape

becoming an international incident without a subtext?

[sabrina 1]

141. Lol, you are funny. Speaking of 'jumping'. Maybe you can explain what someone else

in this thread has failed to explain, 'why did the Swedish Prosecutor refuse to do her duty when Assange was IN Sweden ASKING to speak her? Why did she REFUSE to take that step, arrest him, file her case, and end this where it should have ended?

She was a huge proponent of Prosecutors taking immediate action in cases like this, by speaking to suspects, because, she seemed to realize, the longer you wait to take those important steps, the less chance you have of filing your case. Yet, she deliberately refused to take those steps herself, instead, incredibly, telling Assange he was free to leave Sweden.

I wonder why no one who is anti-Wikileaks, including the Prosecutors own spokes peopel, are willing to explain this apparent gross negligence by a prosecutor?

Maybe YOU can explain it. And please don't bother me with what happened AFTER she failed to do her duty. Everything that happened AFTERWARDS, is a direct result of her incredible refusal to take the necessary steps to get this case to court.

That is all I am interested in, why did she do this?

[struggle4progress]

146. Agreed statements of facts and issues

... 11 ... on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutor’s decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Goteborg. On 1st September 2010 , that prosecutor (Marianne Ny) decided that: i. The Preliminary Investigation in respect of file K246314-10<SW> would be resumed, under the offence of ‘rape’ ...

14 ... On 21st September 2010, the prosecutor contacted the Appellant’scounsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28th September 2010. The date was provisionally agreed ...

15. On 27th September 2010 , the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested.

17. On 30th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel was advised of theexistence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27th September 2010. The Appellant offered to return to Sweden for interview on Sunday 10th October or on any date in the week commencing 11th October 2010. The Sunday was rejected as inappropriate. The week commencing 11th October 2010 was later rejected as being too far away.

18. The Respondent believed that the Appellant was attending a lecture in Stockholm on 4th October 2010. Plans were made to detain him then but that information proved inaccurate.

19. Therefore, on 5th and 8th October 2010, the prosecutor again contacted the Appellant’s counsel to discuss possible appointments for interview. The Appellant’s counsel offered to speak to the Appellant about whether he would be able to attend on 14th October 2010 ...

21. On 12th October 2010, the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor indicated her intention to issue an EAW if the Appellant did not attend for interview ...

25. On 18th November 2010, the prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court for a detention order in absentia ...

26. On the same date, the Stockholm District Court granted the prosecutor’s application for a domestic detention order in absentia.

27. On 19th November 2010, the Appellant appealed that order to the Svea Court of Appeal.

28. On 24th November 2010, following written argument on behalf of the parties, in which it was argued on behalf of the Appellant that the domestic arrest was not proportionate and not based on sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause, but without an oral hearing, the order was upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal ...

29. The prosecutor’s written submissions to the Svea Court of Appeal on 24th November 2010 confirmed that she was “…requesting the arrest of Assange is in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation…”.

30. On 26th November 2010, an EAW was issued by the prosecutor pursuant to the Council of the European Union Framework Decision ...

33. On 28th November 2010, the Appellant applied to the Supreme Courtfor permission to appeal the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal. On 2nd December 2010, that application was refused ...

37. On 6th December 2010, the EAW was certified by SOCA ...

40. The ‘extradition hearing’ took place before the Senior District Judge(Judge Riddle) at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (sitting atBelmarsh Magistrates’ Court) on 7th, 8th & 11th February 2011 ... On 24th February 2011, the Appellant’s extradition was ordered by the Senior District Judge ...

43. On 12th & 13th July 2011, the Appeal was heard before the High Court ...

44. The High Court considered four appeal grounds:
a. The EAW had not been issued by a "judicial authority".
b. The EAW did not meet the dual criminality test.
c. The Applicant was not an “accused” within the meaning of s.2(3) of the 2003 Act.
d. The issue of the EAW and subsequent proceedings were not proportionate ...

46. On 2nd November 2011, the High Court dismissed the appeal, pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the 2003 Act. The Court held that:
a. The Swedish prosecutor was a judicial authority, because the term “judicial” was not limited to a judge who adjudicates and could also include a prosecutorial body, as envisaged by Article 6 of the Framework Decision (judgment §§20-54);
b. The offences in the EAW did meet the dual criminality requirement, having regard to ss.74, 75 and 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (§§55-127);
c. The Applicant was an “accused” person, applying the House of Lords’ decision in Re Ismail <1999> 1 AC 320 (§§128-154);
d. The decision to issue the warrant and the failure to take up the offer of video link questioning were not disproportionate (§§155-160) ...

47. On 5th December 2011, the High Court certified that the following point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision, pursuant to section 32(4)(a) of the 2003 Act: “…Whether a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a “judicial authority” within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003? ...” ...

51. No grounds of appeal were left undetermined by the High Court.

The issues

52. Whether a public prosecutor is a judicial authority ...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

Assange had his year and a half in the UK courts, to argue against his extradition as he saw fit, and the foregoing provides a summary of the case as it left the High Court and headed into the UK Supreme Court. Note that any hint of the bizarre fantasia about forward extradition had already been dropped at Belmarsh. Assange's lawyers chose to quibble in the High Court about minor technical points -- such as whether the Swedish prosecutor could issue an EAW, or whether Assange could properly be described as "an accused person" for the purposes of extradition proceedings. He had his days in court, and he lost his case there

[sabrina 1]

147. And once again you jumped right over the question. Not surprising, it was what I expected.

So I will try again. The Prosecutor who was given the resurrected case had the opportunity to question Assange, (who had already gone voluntarily to the Police giving them a statement), for three weeks before, incredibly telling him he was free to leave on Sept 15th.

I specifically stated that I am only interested in discussing this very critical period in this case, the MOST critical period actually.

This Prosecutor refused to interview Assange, over and over again during those first few weeks.

She then told him, a fact corroborated by the women's attorney, that he was free to leave.

So, instead of speaking to him, then filing her case, she refused to do so.

Explain that please.

I am not interested in the after effects of her failure. Just in explaining why she chose to not do her duty.

[JackRiddler]

4. US officially considers Assange an "enemy of the state"

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

[cprise]

9. This cannot be emphasized enough

Assange's suspicions about the US' intentions were spot-on.

Anyone who is skeptical of Ecuador's grant of asylum, show them this document.

[struggle4progress]

16. It would be nice to see the actual declassified documents, rather than Dorling's interpretation

For example,

... Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death ...

may not actually mean that "WikiLeaks = enemy" but may rather mean that any military personnel, who hand over military documents to Wikileaks, will be presumed to have known that the leaked documents could thereby fall into enemy hands

... The Taliban has issued a chilling warning to Afghans, alleged in secret US military files leaked on the internet to have worked as informers for the Nato-led coalition, telling Channel 4 News "US spies" will be hunted down and punished ...

Taliban hunt Wikileaks outed Afghan informers
By Jonathan Miller
Updated on 30 July 2010
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667.html

[struggle4progress]

18. Scoop has a link to pdf of the actual FOIA release: it doesn't seem to show what Dorling claims:

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1209/AssangeWikiLeaksEnemyUSAFFOI.pdf

It seems to be some records from a (now-closed) 2011 investigation into a military person stationed in the UK

[JackRiddler]

49. Of course it shows exactly what Dorling claims.

It's even worse. I invite all to read it, how mere googling is turned into a point of suspicion, and consider the context of an investigation of "SUBJECT" for possibly aiding the enemy! This is the Orwellian reality.

[struggle4progress]

124. The military will, no doubt, exercise some diligence to ensure that no personnel repeat the stunt

of which Manning stands accused: in particular, the brass will be certain to impress on anyone that leaking restricted documents to an organization like Wikileaks, that will share them with everyone, can be construed as the UCMJ 104 "communicating with the enemy" offense, since one may reasonably deduce that documents released in that manner will fall into the hands of US enemies

... David Leigh of England's Guardian ... recalls a meeting he was invited to about the publication of the war memos. He remembers pleading with Assange to redact the names of tribal elders and U.S. informants who were exposed cooperating with the U.S. and could be the subject of deadly retribution. He comments, "Julian was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them. And we said: 'Julian, we’ve got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to.'"

"And he said: 'These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.' And a silence fell around the table" ...

Wikileak's Assange on U.S. Informants in Afghanistan: "They Deserve to Die"
Jason Mick (Blog) - May 24, 2011 9:30 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/Wikileaks+Assange+on+US+Informants+in+Afghanistan+They+Deserve+to+Die/article21724.htm

... As soon as WikiLeaks received the State Department cables, Assange announced that the opponents of dictatorial regimes and movements were fair game. That the targets of the Taliban, for instance, were fighting a clerical-fascist force, which threatened every good liberal value, did not concern him. They had spoken to US diplomats. They had collaborated with the great Satan. Their safety was not his concern.

David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths. They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind ...

The treachery of Julian Assange
The WikiLeaks founder, far from being a champion of freedom, is an active danger to the real seekers of truth
Nick Cohen
The Observer, Saturday 17 September 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

[reorg]

130. Really?

That piece of slime,

Mr. Leigh let slip the top secret password revealing the names of U.S. collaborators around the world—information now freely available to all the enemies of the U.S.
http://nigelparry.com/news/guardian-david-leigh-cablegate.shtml

- your choice to believe him.

[struggle4progress]

137. ... In a statement the Guardian rejected the accusations from Wikileaks, explaining

that the paper had been told the password was temporary and would be deleted within hours. "No concerns were expressed when the book was published and if anyone at WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security they have had seven months to remove the files," the statement said. "That they didn't do so clearly shows the problem was not caused by the Guardian's book" ...
Leak at WikiLeaks A Dispatch Disaster in Six Acts
By Christian Stöcker
09/01/2011
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks-a-dispatch-disaster-in-six-acts-a-783778.html

[reorg]

140. Yes, they even admit it openly

that they published the password.

Just like with the allegation that Wikileaks had endangered Prime Minister Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe by publishing reports of his questionable behavior. When in fact it had been the Guardian editors themselves publishing that material.

But then it is never their own fault and they are using Assange as a punching bag, to the big applause of their friends in high places.

Goes to show that Assange should have been a bit more selective and careful with the lying media slime he entrusted the documents with.

If anything, he was far too trusting in people, just as the case in Sweden shows.

[sabrina 1]

143. Thank you, it's hard work here on DU lately refuting the misinformation

being posted on a daily basis. But someone has to do it. Slime is right. Just like Domscheit Berg, another of Struggle4Progress's 'witnesses'. A man so discredited at this point, no one in their right mind would try to use him as any kind of credible source on Wikileaks, he told so many lies, including his account of being a 'founder of Wikileaks' which he never was.

[struggle4progress]

144. The Der Spiegel article is worth a read, but you clearly didn't bother to read it

[sabrina 1]

148. Thank you, this truly is Orwellian and very scary. But it proves Assange was correct

all along. He was absolutely correct to seek asylum away from Sweden who have worked before with the CIA to render refugees to Egypt for torture.

We are truly shameful, and getting worse it appears.

[JDPriestly]

8. Excellent speech!

On edit! In fact I liked both the speech of Julian Assange and the speech of President Obama.

Great speeches, both!

[krawhitham]

10. bull shit speach by a 1st class con artist

[Katashi_itto]

11. Can tell your well informed...

That's sarcasm BTW

[struggle4progress]

24. His complaint of "having been detained for 659 days without charge" brought tears to my eyes!

What a poseur!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/galleries/2010/12/30/exclusive-photos-of-wikileaks-julian-assange/jcr:content/gallery/slide3/image.img.572.jpg

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/galleries/2010/12/30/exclusive-photos-of-wikileaks-julian-assange/jcr:content/gallery/slide4/image.img.572.jpg

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/galleries/2010/12/30/exclusive-photos-of-wikileaks-julian-assange/jcr:content/gallery/slide5/image.img.572.jpg

[ronnie624]

29. Yep, that proves it.

He's a rapist and the U.S. government isn't really pissed, after all.

[struggle4progress]

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

[GliderGuider]

38. The mention of 659 days was about Bradley Manning's detention.

Please get your "facts" straight.

[hack89]

48. Except Manning was charged before he even left Iraq

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/releases/charge-sheet-html

[struggle4progress]

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

for 659 days without charge ... I am free to speak my mind"

Julian Ass***e here was not discussing PFC Manning: Julian Ass***e was discussing Julian Ass***e's favorite subject -- himself

[GliderGuider]

132. Oh well, carry on then. nt

[sabrina 1]

149. But once again, you attempt to distract from the facts. Was his claim correct or not?

His claim is correct. There are still no charges in this bogus case, he has been deprived of his freedom for no obvious reason. That is not something normal people find amusing.

In fact I find this post of yours to be eerily disturbing.

[struggle4progress]

151. Nobody else ever counts time spent out on bail as time in detention, nor does anyone else

ever count the time spent, in one's hideout after jumping bail, as time spent in detention

Assange was arrested on 8 December 2010 and released on bail on 16 December 2010, so he has actually spent a total of eight (8) nights in detention

[sabrina 1]

152. Wrong, he has been detained under house arrest for two years, required to report

to the police every evening and deprived of his freedom to return to his own country.

He has still not been charged with any crime, and if you think this is just fine, then I fail to understand how you came to that conclusion.

The Prosecutor either has a case or she doesn't. This is now becoming a human rights violation. And more and more people are coming to the conclusion that there never was a case to begin with.

I hope sincerely no one ever falsely accuses you of a crime, and that if they do, you get a chance to answer the charges, because hopefully you would not be detained in a foreign country for years without charges. That is unacceptable in a civilized society.

This is an egregious violation of human rights as more and more people are now seeing.

At this point it is safe to conclude that the Swedish Prosecutor has no case, but is unwilling to release Assange for some reason, which we can, and many are, only speculate about.

Not even Genocidal Murderers like Pinochet were treated this way. HE was not deprived of his freedom, despite the charges against him. The British Court disgraced itself by refusing to extradite him for trial in Spain.

And it has, once again, disgraced itself.

[dipsydoodle]

12. Guardian link here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/27/julian-assange-obama-arab-spring

[xiamiam]

21. excellent speech. freedom of speech and press are the foundations of a democracy

It is baffling that grown adult American citizens on a democratic website don't understand this. As history unfolds, Assange will be the beacon of light remembered. They would have already destroyed him if they could have. Be wary of those who fear truth.

[mike_c]

26. Assange speaks for me....

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

93. if sunlight is the best disinfectant then he should stop hiding from it neh? nt

[mike_c]

145. if that's the extent of your understanding of events surrounding Assange's persecution...

...then I doubt we have much to discuss.

[JackRiddler]

156. How come you know his exact location?

He's hiding? Really? Everyone in the world knows his current residence. This thread is about a speech he just made to the UN. Strange idea of hiding you have there.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

162. Might want to look at the post i replied to neh?

it should be obvious what 'sunlight' was referring to in both his and my post

[Comrade_McKenzie]

39. Assange should've focused on corporate leaks more than US government leaks. nt

[Luminous Animal]

73. So it wasn't a good idea for TuniLeaks ( works in partnership with Wikileaks) to

release the Tunisian info on Ben Ali?

[JackRiddler]

165. Why don't you send him some?

He doesn't magically cause leaks, you know. Wikileaks can only publish what it receives - just like the New York Times.

[dipsydoodle]

70. He sure did manage to get the oar in during that speech.

.

[JackRiddler]

158. I am unfamiliar with this figure of speech.

What does it mean? Just asking.

[dipsydoodle]

161. Here ya go

oar
noun
stick your oar in interfere, intervene, get involved, meddle, butt in, poke your nose in (informal), put your two cents in (U.S. slang) Keep out of this - nobody asked you to stick your oar in.

Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/oar

[joshcryer]

81. Where are the Moscow files Assange?

Got rid of them to get the sweet gig at RT?

[JackRiddler]

155. Hand them to him.

He seems to have no compunctions about publishing anything he gets, including the Syria files. But as you should know, Wikileaks only receives, it does not collect or hack to acquire information, so it can't just magically release whatever you'd like to see.

As for the "sweet gig," there's no more shame in working with RT than there is in working with the State Department propaganda vehicle at the New York Times, which he also did. Journalists generally take the jobs they're offered.

[sabrina 1]

160. RT is one of the best news outlets available here in the US. Their coverage of foreign

news is the best. They have a wide variety of guests, including believe it or not, people we will never see on the MSM here as they never talk to Progressive voices, such as Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, not to mention some of the best war correspondents and independent journalists we are familiar with and have wondered for years, why none of them ever appear on our MSM. Because they report actual news.

The shame is our MSM, which has mostly turned into Fox clones, including CNN. I mean Glenn Beck? Lol, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter? Compared to what you get on the MSM here, which I no longer bother with as it is so censored, RT is what people on the Left dreamed of for a long time. They also interview voices from the Right and the discussions are intelligent, without all the interruptions and screaming etc we get here. They are now available in most of the country, at least for now.

[joshcryer]

166. Wikileaks has them, they announced they were going to release them.

Russia threatened Wikileaks and then a year and a half later Assange gets a gig with Russia Today.

The Moscow files, are real, and it's no coincidence he got the gig with Russia Today a year and a half later.

Also, the Bank of America files were never released? Some of the data was even destroyed as per Assange's own admission. Why would they destroy the Bank of America files? I smell corruption.

[JackRiddler]

167. What you're saying is certainly a possibility.

The story with BoA was that the stuff wasn't so impressive, or else impenetrable and they didn't have the right people to read it. You'll remember BoA was caught having its lawyers solicit shady blackmail plots (against Assange, family and friendly journalists like Greenwald) on the part of HB Gary, in alliance with Palantir/Peter Thiel. Pretty hair-raising enemies. Maybe it's fear, maybe it's corruption, maybe Wikileaks has been successfully degraded by the financial hits, maybe it's practically down to a beleaguered one-man operation getting nothing done. I'm sure you wouldn't want the Russia or the BoA files just dumped without a read-through? Have they ever set up the new leak servers? I don't look to Wikileaks to always be the source of sensational revelations. I honor what they accomplished (not just with the US empire files but also Iceland, Syria and many other earlier releases). I hope they are an example to others. I oppose the campaign to make negative examples out of Manning and Assange (functionally, a journalist) for revenge and as deterrence to future leakers. It's all pretty simple, even if Assange proves more dubious than honorable in the end.

[joshcryer]

169. I have no requirement for redaction or a thorough "read through."

It's nice if it's done but I am not going to argue against the free dissemination of information even while I can accept the repercussions of such a thing. Regardless it's been 2 years since the Moscow files were announced and it's no coincidence that they were swept under the rug and Assange wound up getting a gig on RT. I find it inconceivable that someone can go from being threatened by Russia to being on their state TV network. That only happens if a deal was made.

Wikileaks had a lot of potential but because 1) they tried to sell the cables and 2) they aren't releasing everything and 3) Manning didn't get much from Wikileaks by way of donations ($15k of the promised $100k) I'm not very pleased with how it handles things.

Funny how you look at Wikileaks and you think, "Well dang, here's a transparent and open organization, maybe things will improve for the world." Then Wikileaks starts doing the covering up of crap that you wouldn't have ever expected in a million years. I was shocked. I was duped.

[JackRiddler]

171. Wikileaks's achievements are world-historical.

Your vision of missed "potential" doesn't change that. What Wikileaks accomplished is without precedent. Enormous. Whatever it is now, that cannot change what was achieved. What Wikileaks is now is very much a product of the relentless financial and political attack. How easily you ignore the actions of Amazon and Mastercard, the BoA subcontractor plot, the many public threats to Assange's life by politicians, the threats to US citizens for merely reading the cables online, the Virginia grand jury, the designation of Wikileaks as "enemy." Who wouldn't crack, Mr. Purity? Wikileaks is not a savior, or a menu for you to choose from. Wikileaks is not the only org that can or will do the same things in the future. Wikileaks has shown what is possible, and there will be successors. Its main potential now remaining is in the example, and this is why so much is being done to take revenge on Assange and make a negative example of him.

[fascisthunter]

175. too many falling for the demonization of Assange

sad

[joshcryer]

176. I don't dispute that.

I am merely saying that if they don't evolve from the corruption that they are clearly involved in (failing to release the Moscow files over suspicious circmustances, deleting the Bank of America files) then they will not be able to continue having an impact.

You do realize that the cables were being sold, right? That they didn't get released until someone within Wikileaks released the password for the cables, right?

I agree there will be successors if Wikileaks can't evolve, but they won't evolve without a critical observation of how they operate and what things that they do. Other organizations will do it better because they'll see how Wikileaks has marginalized itself despite its achievements.

And that's what's disappointing.

Assange only got himself in his own mess by failing to maintain the terms of consent with a woman who had specific requests as far as sexual conduct is concerned. Those who think otherwise are dismissive of the victims who are still pursuing the case. For what it's worth I expect that in the end the victims will lose out no matter what happens. Justice for victims of sexual abuse is rare.

[treestar]

142. What persecution?

[smileydcheese]

168. Wasn't this guy a rapist?

I thought that this guy was accused of rape?

[joshcryer]

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

[JackRiddler]

172. No charges have been filed.

Nice quick entry with immediate talking points. "Welcome to DU."

[hack89]

173. Because Assange has to be interviewed before charges can be file.

why do you think he keeps running?

[sabrina 1]

174. Still trying I see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you still insist

on posting wrong information on DU.

I have explained the facts regarding the failure of the Swedish Prosecutor to file her case over and over again to you, and you continue to post nonsense like this as if you did not know the facts.

Why are you still pretending not to know that Assange did not flee?

That he was interviewed, voluntarily, by the Swedish police.
That he remained in Sweden for weeks trying to speak to the Prosecutor.
That she refused, over and over again to conduct that interview.
That she refused his offer to return to Sweden to speak to her.
That she has refused every offer over the past two, going three years to speak to him.

How is it that the Swedish Police had no problem interviewing Assange, but this Prosecutor failed so spectacularly to do her job?

Why does she not want to file this case?

Why is she playing these games?

The whole world knows that the failure to speak to Assange is the fault of the Swedish Prosecutor!

Why do you continue to deny what the entire world knows?

Why, if you want to see Wikileaks destroyed, don't you make your case without constantly posting wrong information?

People I'm sure would be more than happy to have an honest discussion about that.

But as long as you keep insisting on posting misinformation here I will correct it whenever I see it.

[joshcryer]

177. Yep, he skipped town the day before his interview.

Not a coincidence.