# Assange to face extradition



## teqniq (Nov 2, 2011)

Well I a was a little surprised no-one else had posted this but anyway:



> Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition
> 
> The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has lost his high court appeal against extradition to Sweden to face rape allegations.
> 
> Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley on Wednesday handed down their judgment in the 40-year-old Australian's appeal against a European arrest warrant issued by Swedish prosecutors after rape and sexual assault accusations made by two Swedish women following his visit to Stockholm in August 2010.....



I sort of got a little tired of this bloke's attention seeking and histrionics concerning the publication of the Wikileaks archives in conjunction with some national dailies (including the Graun). However this extradition affair seems to me from what I've read a thinly disguised attempt to ship him off to the States. I seem to remember that a Swedish minister has as an adviser a certain Mr. Karl Rove - need I say any more?

Opinions?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/02/julian-assange-loses-appeal-extradition


----------



## manny-p (Nov 2, 2011)

Would not surprise me if he was a rapist.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 2, 2011)

Bollocks. Far easier to extradite to the US from Britain than it is from Sweden, thanks to our shitty no-proof-needed one-way extradition agreement with the Yanks.
Anyway, it's a good thing that the Assange circus is finally over. Ship him off and make him stand trial, like anyone else would have to.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2011)

teqniq said:


> Well I a was a little surprised no-one else had posted this but anyway:
> 
> I sort of got a little tired of this bloke's attention seeking and histrionics concerning the publication of the Wikileaks archives in conjunction with some national dailies (including the Graun). However this extradition affair seems to me from what I've read a thinly disguised attempt to ship him off to the States. I seem to remember that a Swedish minister has as an adviser a certain Mr. Karl Rove - need I say any more?
> 
> ...



A Swedish Minister don't just get to decide to bundle him off to the states though, they have a whole legal system over there. And one far less likely to agree to send him to the US.

His paid goons were refusing to let people into the public canteen at the courts this morning. This sort of thing is why he's rapidly running out of goodwill


----------



## teqniq (Nov 2, 2011)

Hmmm. Maybe he is guilty as charged, I am undecided on this - it's certainly possible I'll agree.

@ temper_tantrum He doesn't face any charges here for anything and the U.S. have, perhaps strangely considering our 'extradition agreement' not applied for extradition. They still, thankfully haven't gotten their hands on Gary McKinnon - someone I have a whole lot more sympathy for.

@ butchers He's really not doing himself any favours with that sort of stuff....


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 2, 2011)

Nobody knows whether he's guilty or not, nobody will until he's been put on trial. I wouldn't want to predict the outcome.

Re: UK/US - well yes quite, he doesn't need to face charges here in order to be extradited to America, so your assertion that extraditing him to Sweden is a 'thinly-disguised attempt to ship him off to the States' is utter bollocks. If the Yanks wanted him, they could have filed an extradition request in the UK at any point. Sweden is far less likely to try and extradite him to the US, at the US's request. Just one of the reasons why I've never understood his strategy of fighting extradition (other than the possibility that it's attention-grabbing grandstanding, of course).


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2011)

If he's innocent, he'll be found innocent and no doubt come out with a load of self-righteous shit about the waste of money spent getting an innocent person extradited and the lengthy courts process.

If he'd just gone to Sweden when asked to, to stand trial, if he was so confident in his innocence - then why the circus? The horrible shite.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 2, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Ship him off and make him stand trial, like anyone else would have to.


Officially, he's only wanted for questioning by the Swedish at the moment IIRC. I don't know why the Swedish didn't just pick up the phone in the first place or arrange a videolink interview instead of going through this mad process which has taken nearly a year.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 2, 2011)

Probably because he dicked them around and they lost patience with him.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Officially, he's only wanted for questioning by the Swedish at the moment IIRC. I don't know why the Swedish didn't just pick up the phone in the first place or arrange a videolink interview instead of going through this mad process which has taken nearly a year.


It's because the Swedish system isn't directly equivalent to the UK one. In Sweden being wanted for questioning happens at a stage in the process similar to being charged in the UK. In Sweden there's less tendency for the police to charge, bail then drop the charges. In Sweden being 'suspected' of a crime by police is almost the same as being charged in the UK. Partly related to there being no trial by jury over here. The police, prosecutor and judge have done a lot of deciding about whether someone's guilty or not before the trial officially starts, whereas in the UK it's supposed to be almost undecided until the jury return their verdict.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 2, 2011)

@ temper_tantrum Maybe it is 'utter bollox' lol but considering the trouble they're having getting hold of McKinnon it may be possible that they consider this an easier option. Who really knows?

here's an article from 2010 concerning Rove's links to the Swedish government:



> Karl Rove's help for Sweden as it assists the Obama administration's prosecution against WikiLeaks could be the latest example of the adage, "Politics makes strange bedfellows."
> Rove has advised Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt for the past two years after resigning as Bush White House political advisor in mid-2007. Rove's resignation followed the scandalous Bush mid-term political purge of nine of the nation's 93 powerful U.S. attorneys.
> These days, Sweden and the United States are apparently undertaking a political prosecution as audacious and important as those by the notorious "loyal Bushies" earlier this decade against U.S. Democrats.....



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/rove-suspected-in-swedish_b_798737.html


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2011)

Balbi said:


> If he'd just gone to Sweden when asked to, to stand trial, if he was so confident in his innocence - then why the circus? The horrible shite.


 I think he might be genuinely scared; or was scared and is now too proud to back down. Hacker activist types tend to have a fairly overblown paranoid idea of how state repression works.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2011)

Random said:


> I think he might be genuinely scared; or was scared and is now too proud to back down. Hacker activist types tend to have a fairly overblown paranoid idea of how state repression works.



Given his unhinged approach to Private Eye, i'd say he's a drama queen.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Given his unhinged approach to Private Eye, i'd say he's a drama queen.


Not been following it. What did he do?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 2, 2011)

teqniq said:


> @ temper_tantrum Maybe it is 'utter bollox' lol but considering the trouble they're having getting hold of McKinnon it may be possible that they consider this an easier option. Who really knows?



Too tinfoil-hat for my liking. He's wanted over there, they therefore sought to extradite him, he should have just assisted with their inquiries and not dicked around so much.
I wonder how the women in this case are feeling? This whole hoo-hah probably hasn't exactly enhanced their experience.
No sympathy for him, I'm afraid.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2011)

Random said:


> Not been following it. What did he do?



Claimed that it was the 'jewish' journalists and the 'sort of jewish' editor Rusbridger at the guardian that were out to get him.

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/03/assange-guardian-wikileaks


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Claimed that it was the 'jewish' journalists and the 'sort of jewish' editor Rusbridger at the guardian that were out to get him.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/03/assange-guardian-wikileaks


Jesus what a tool.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 2, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> No sympathy for him, I'm afraid.



Not a great deal here either.

Oh dearie me. I've just read that New Statesman article.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2011)

Btw the Swedish government does have ties with the USA's right wing. Not just Karl Rove, the current foreign minister was one of teh few Euro members of the Committee to Liberate Iraq. There's a long history of structural cooperation between the Swedish and the US state, all through the cold war and since. But that is still dwarfed by the links between the UK and Sweden. Occam's razor suggests that what's different about Sweden is the strong presence of left-wing feminists, among anti-war actvists, in the police and also in the judiciary.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2011)

Sweden's legal system does not - as far as I know - have a beastly reputation for unfair trials, stitch ups and dodgy sentencing, so I'm failing to see why there's such a fuss about Assange having to go back there to face these sexual assault charges.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Claimed that it was the 'jewish' journalists and the 'sort of jewish' editor Rusbridger at the guardian that were out to get him.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/03/assange-guardian-wikileaks


Funny how the New Stateman's site looks just like the Guardian's!


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2011)

TBH, I couldn't find the Private Eye version in a few minutes of my short lunchbreak Ed - but the NS sums it up well.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 2, 2011)

Balbi said:


> If he's innocent, he'll be found innocent and no doubt come out with a load of self-righteous shit about the waste of money spent getting an innocent person extradited and the lengthy courts process.


You get found "not guilty", not "innocent" (you are legally innocent as a default position). Big difference that too many people don't seem to understand...


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2011)

The European arrest warrant is fucking shit though.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 2, 2011)

The moment he took on Lord Gnome was the moment of his undoing. Farewell then, Julian Assaunge


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 2, 2011)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Claimed that it was the 'jewish' journalists and the 'sort of jewish' editor Rusbridger at the guardian that were out to get him.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/03/assange-guardian-wikileaks





Random said:


> Jesus what a tool.



Seconded.

Not sure why I missed that article first time around, it must have been linked to on here before,  but kinnell!! 

He's a complete idiot ...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2011)

Random said:


> Jesus what a tool.



 You don't believe Hislop do you?  I bloody don't.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Given his unhinged approach to Private Eye, i'd say he's a drama queen.



He's achieved twenty times more than you or I ever will.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> He's achieved twenty times more than you or I ever will.



And possibly raped a few more too.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2011)

Balbi said:


> If he's innocent, he'll be found innocent



Of course, because that's how it always works isn't it?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> And possibly raped a few more too.



He is completely innocent.  I was right about Amanda Knox, and now I am right about him.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 2, 2011)

Psychic Phil strikes again.

On a serious note, Either/Or categorisation really is moronic. People are perfectly capable of doing something very good AND something very bad, both in the same lifetime. Radical thought, I know, for those who like to fit people into little boxes.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> He is completely innocent. I was right about Amanda Knox, and now I am right about him.



Being right once in your life isn't an average i'd brag about to be honest.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> He's achieved twenty times more than you or I ever will.



If I felt like being a beyond cool programmer with a gaggle of online acolytes while managing a website - i'd have grown dreads by now


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> He is completely innocent. I was right about Amanda Knox, and now I am right about him.



I believe he's innocent too, I just think he's played this whole process out - to the detriment of future similar cases of kind both here and in Sweden.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> He is completely innocent. I was right about Amanda Knox, and now I am right about him.



Perhaps he is innocent, perhaps not (best to see what evidence is put forward before making judgements, surely?) but it seems right he go through the same legal process everyone else has to..

Have you donated to Assange's defence fund? Will you be?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Perhaps he is innocent, perhaps not (best to see what evidence is put forward before making judgements, surely?) but it seems right he go through the same legal process everyone else has to..



Bollocks.  He's obviously being framed because he's pissed off some powerful people.



Jon-of-arc said:


> Have you donated to Assange's defence fund? Will you be?



I certainly will.  I urge everyone to do likewise.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 3, 2011)

He seems to have turned into John Inman during that long incarceration in the Norfolk mansion.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 3, 2011)

fuck assange , its bradley manning i feel sorry for .


----------



## Riklet (Nov 3, 2011)

Casually Red said:


> fuck assange , its bradley manning i feel sorry for .



Amen.

No sympathy for creepy rapey assange and his circus, he's so full of shit it's unreal, with his gangs of security, use of wikileaks funds for his own defence/self-interest, anti-semitism (yeah fuck off and all, dwyer) and his ridiculous uber-leak of cables and documents with tons of peoples names in uncensored, some of whom are probably in jail cells being tortured whilst we jabber away.

He's clearly infatuated with himself though, so it'll be interesting how the trial goes when he gets on his soapbox and tries to excuse his fairly predatory behaviour with a_ freeeeeedom_ vs the great satan rant...


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 3, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Bollocks. He's obviously being framed because he's pissed off some powerful people.



My over-active imagination has, at times, allowed me to consider this posibility. It's attractive, captivating, plausible. But, the reality is that there is no hard evidence to suggest this is true. None at all. So allowing myself to believe such nonsense would take me into the realms of conspiracy theorist. Not a position with a huge amount of credibility, usually...



phildwyer said:


> I certainly will. I urge everyone to do likewise.



He sold the rights to his biography for £1million, which, if he's already spunked it on legal fees (or getting close) then he doesn't seem like the sort of person who is capable of sensibly managing money. Same for wikileaks cash, which I understand he has dipped in and out of as he sees fit.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 3, 2011)

Twat with a messiah complex, a nasty streak of anti-semitimism and a touch of the  tinfoil hat. Possibly a sex case as well.

No I will not be contributing to his defence fund.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Twat with a messiah complex, a nasty streak of anti-semitimism and a touch of the tinfoil hat. Possibly a sex case as well.



You're a Guardian reader aren't you?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> My over-active imagination has, at times, allowed me to consider this posibility. It's attractive, captivating, plausible. But, the reality is that there is no hard evidence to suggest this is true. None at all. So allowing myself to believe such nonsense would take me into the realms of conspiracy theorist.



No it wouldn't.  Any rational person can see that he is being set up and sold down the river.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 3, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You're a Guardian reader aren't you?



Meaning what?
That I look at their website? Yes
That I'm a middle class liberal? - no. 
And the relvance of that to the Assange case being what exactly ...?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Meaning what?
> That I look at their website? Yes
> That I'm a middle class liberal? - no.
> And the relvance of that to the Assange case being what exactly ...?



The Guardian is leading the campaign to label Assange what you labelled him.

So I assumed you got your opinion from them.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 3, 2011)

Well you assumed wrong.


----------



## Dhimmi (Nov 3, 2011)

It's interesting to see how folk's political stance can flavour their view of Assange - he's either the poster boy of tranparent governance or of treasonous spying. He's somewhere in between I think, but with a big dollop of ego which has a massive appetite.

Hmmm take the word of one of the UK's most respected organs against someone who seems to specialise in building the brand of Assange. Let me consider that for a while...

With a pile of these leaks there's one person who's been in prison for eighteen months in a US Marine facility (although recently moved) under constant survelleince, in his cell for 23 hours a day.

Few people could tell you his name though, well not without a sneaky google, and you're most unlikely to hear it from Assange's lips which is unusual - is it not? - for someone who professes to be about revealing the actuality.

Bradley Manning, he of little concern compared to Assange, would probably love to swop his current cell for a nice Swedish one. My pity lies with him...


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 3, 2011)

I have to confess I’m puzzled about Assange. When you actually hear him talking on youtube or whatever he seems like a fairly sane individual, but as soon as he’s in private with journalists it’s all lizards and jews and bun out the chi-chi man (I may have made the last bit up).  What’s that all about?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 3, 2011)

I wonder if assange contributed to mannings defence fund?

Still, no idea if j.a is guilty or not. will be following the trial, presuming it is reported (are they closed doors ovrr there?). Despite assange being a bit weird and narcissistic, he has done some good things, so it would be a shame if he gets wrongly convicted. If he did do it, then obviously thats another story.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 3, 2011)

Why do people think he is narcissistic? I mean he is the spokesperson isn't he? Isn't he supposed to be in the public eye?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2011)

Fruitloop said:


> I have to confess I’m puzzled about Assange. When you actually hear him talking on youtube or whatever he seems like a fairly sane individual, but as soon as he’s in private with journalists it’s all lizards and jews and bun out the chi-chi man (I may have made the last bit up). What’s that all about?



Hmmm..... let me see.... hmm.....no I simply can't imagine what can be happening.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 3, 2011)

Casually Red said:


> fuck assange , its bradley manning i feel sorry for .



Manning is a woman puncher, so fuck him as well.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> No it wouldn't. Any rational person can see that he is being set up and sold down the river.



very true, look at Bradley Manning too.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2011)

i fear Urban has lapped up the state's propaganda on this matter at least


----------



## audiotech (Nov 3, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Claimed that it was the 'jewish' journalists and the 'sort of jewish' editor Rusbridger at the guardian that were out to get him.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/03/assange-guardian-wikileaks



He was pulled on this in a recent debate at Oxford University (sorry don't have link) and was clearly rattled by it.


----------



## Random (Nov 3, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


> Manning is a woman puncher, so fuck him as well.


Where did you hear that?


----------



## cemertyone (Nov 3, 2011)

editor said:


> Sweden's legal system does not - as far as I know - have a beastly reputation for unfair trials, stitch ups and dodgy sentencing, so I'm failing to see why there's such a fuss about Assange having to go back there to face these sexual assault charges.



On the face of that...you might be right..however i think that you and i know thats its got bigger implications
than ASS not putting a condom on his cock....if you think that there has not been backhand channels
to get him back to Sweden and a whole lot of pressure for that to occur...you must be mad!!!


----------



## Combustible (Nov 3, 2011)

cemertyone said:


> than ASS not putting a condom on his cock....



This is often repeated but it's not true is it?  There were more to the allegations than that from what I remember.


----------



## dylans (Nov 3, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I wonder if assange contributed to mannings defence fund?
> 
> Still, no idea if j.a is guilty or not. will be following the trial, presuming it is reported (are they closed doors ovrr there?). Despite assange being a bit weird and narcissistic, he has done some good things, so it would be a shame if he gets wrongly convicted. If he did do it, then obviously thats another story.


Guilty of something? He hasn't even been charged with anything. He is to be extradited to answer enquiries.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 3, 2011)

dylans said:


> Guilty of something? He hasn't even been charged with anything. He is to be extradited to answer enquiries.



Answer enquiries about allegations of sexual assault.  Presumably these enquiries will focus on whether he did it or not, aka his guilt.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 3, 2011)

Combustible said:


> This is often repeated but it's not true is it? There were more to the allegations than that from what I remember.



From what I saw in the summary of the appeals decision to extradite Assange, I think one of the women claims she was asleep.

e2a http://www.scribd.com/doc/71271943/Julian-Assange-Judgment-2-Nov-2011 charge 4, in that link


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Twat with a messiah complex, a nasty streak of anti-semitimism and a touch of the tinfoil hat. Possibly a sex case as well.
> 
> No I will not be contributing to his defence fund.



Same. Just IMO like.

Still, we should take absolutely no notice of this article at all (or of any others at all like it) because it's in the Guardian (or Private Eye, or any other bit of the media at all).

It's Assange Against The World, therefore the World must automatically be wrong.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 3, 2011)

Random said:


> Where did you hear that?



I saw it on an SBS documentary that was otherwise reasonably sympathetic to him.

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/601261/n/Bradley-Manning



> *On 7th May Bradley Manning punches a female officer in the face. He is disciplined and immediately demoted. He is told that he is finally to be discharged from the army.*


----------



## dylans (Nov 3, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


> I saw it on an SBS documentary that was otherwise reasonably sympathetic to him.
> 
> http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/601261/n/Bradley-Manning
> _*On 7th May Bradley Manning punches a female officer in the face. He is disciplined and immediately demoted. He is told that he is finally to be discharged from the army.*_


Oh for fucks sakes. So what. The guy is facing life imprisonment on 22 charges. For over a year he was held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day without so much as a blanket or pillow in conditions condemned by Amnesty international as cruel and unusual punishment, despite not being convicted of a single offence.

Let's remember what he did. He released footage of war crimes being committed by US troops in Iraq, specifically the murder of 12 civilians including 2 journalists and the wounding of 2 children. And you want to dismiss all this and say "fuck him" because he once hit a female officer? Get some perspective for gods sakes. Bradley Manning is a hero as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Random (Nov 4, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


> I saw it on an SBS documentary that was otherwise reasonably sympathetic to him.


 Seems like the important fact in that quote is that he punched an officer, rather than the implication of domestic abuse that 'woman puncher' holds.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> Oh for fucks sakes. So what. The guy is facing life imprisonment on 22 charges. For over a year he was held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day without so much as a blanket or pillow in conditions condemned by Amnesty international as cruel and unusual punishment, despite not being convicted of a single offence.



To be honest I was him the 'fuck him' camp well before he gave the female officer the 'Scottish Sunglasses'.


----------



## Random (Nov 4, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


> To be honest I was him the 'fuck him' camp well before he gave the female officer the 'Scottish Sunglasses'.


So you're just smearing him because you disagree with him leaking documents. Nice.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 4, 2011)

Do not buy into the whole Assange propoganda. I flirted with this idea, but really this is a guy that has showed the American State Department behaving like gossiping grannies and the military like a bunch of college drunks on spring break. What did you expect to happen?

This was the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan.



> "Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point. Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."



The problem the esteemed General cannot accept is that some of the leaks actually imply the American government, or military, covers up a great deal of crimes (at the very least manslaughter) in order to portray an image of themselves which is completely contradictory to realities on the ground. So, a number of people cannot "take issue with the policy". They do not have full information.

The whole subtext to the Assange case is this.

_We cannot know about the realities, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, on the grounds that doing so "will cost lives". Oh, and an obscure case in Sweden suggests Assange, based on a claim years after the event, at a time when America are considering extraditing Assange, and after a bunch of documents have surfaced, might be a rapist. And if not a rapist, a misogynist. And if not that, an anti-semite. And if not that, a weird guy with blonde hair. Whatever, lets just let him rot in a cell somewhere, preferrably in America where we can crack jokes about him being raped in the inhumane conditions of American jails._


----------



## teqniq (Nov 4, 2011)

Whilst my theory of him being extradited to Sweden to facilitate his transfer to the U.S. was dismissed by t_t as 'too tinfoil hat' I still think it's possibility. It was being seriously reported in the New York Times in December last year:



> A Swedish prosecutor raised the possibility that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, could eventually be extradited to the United States in a statement posted online on Tuesday.
> Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor who asked British authorities to detain Mr. Assange and send him to Sweden for questioning about possible sex crimes, discussed the possibility of sending him to the United States in a statement posted on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s Web site on Tuesday.



http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ible-extradition-of-wikileaks-founder-to-u-s/

Regardless, Assange has not helped his cause at all with all the posturing and suchlike. I can only surmise the man has a bit of an ego and has surrounded himself with yes people.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Have you actually read what that statement says? It just talks about the legal requirements for extradition to the US under a euro-warrent to happen. It certainly doesn't beef up the set-up claims in any way.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 4, 2011)

Yes, I did read it, and in their words and mine it's a _possibility._ No more no less. Tbf I think they'd love to get their hands on him and just maybe they've considered this a viable option rather than the 8 years later they've been waiting for Mckinnon. I'm not 100% convinced, just speculating.


----------



## Random (Nov 4, 2011)

teqniq said:


> Whilst my theory of him being extradited to Sweden to facilitate his transfer to the U.S. was dismissed by t_t as 'too tinfoil hat' I still think it's possibility. It was being seriously reported in the New York Times in December last year.


 No it wasn't. If you read that quote from Ny she was setting out all the reasons why an extradition to the USA would not be easy from Sweden. The NYT blogger (not the NYT itself) closes with a paragraph about the US 'rooting for Sweden' that doesn't follow at all from the factual info posted in the article itself.


----------



## Random (Nov 4, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> _Oh, and an obscure case in Sweden suggests Assange, based on a claim years after the event_


 It was days after the event, not years. Fantasy.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 4, 2011)

@ Random: Ok no, it wasn't. 

I still wouldn't put anything past them though.


----------



## Random (Nov 4, 2011)

teqniq said:


> I still wouldn't put anything past them though.


 No indeed. But I'd say we should look at real ways that Wikileaks is being strangled - cutting off funding through boycott of payment firms. Imprisonment and near-torture of their info sources. Sexual abuse allegations against Assange are, tbh, not a real threat against Wikileaks existence itself. The only way they could be would be for him to be so totally identified with Wikileaks that it stands or falls on his personal reputation. And this is percisely the situation that Assange and his supporters are driving towards. Many lefties and conspiraloons really like figureheads, it seems.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

If that's what they're driving towards they're killing wikileaks. It's been about private appropriation of dumps and the parcelling and sale of them for ages now anyway.


----------



## Random (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If that's what they're driving towards they're killing wikileaks.


That's just my perception, from reading reports in the media and the alternative press.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Random said:


> That's just my perception, from reading reports in the media and the alternative press.


It does seem to fit the inept media and defence strategies recently though.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 4, 2011)

@ Random: All true. I'm not a big fan of figureheads or people who choose to portray themselves as such either. One thing I would add to you 'lefties and conspiraloons' is governments. They like to have a handy figurehead they can demonise and pillory should it prove necessary. One of the reasons perhaps why they are having difficulties dealing with the occupy movement.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 4, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Claimed that it was the 'jewish' journalists and the 'sort of jewish' editor Rusbridger at the guardian that were out to get him.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/03/assange-guardian-wikileaks


I didn't like him before the rape allegations, and I certainly don't like him after that.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

Random said:


> No indeed. But I'd say we should look at real ways that Wikileaks is being strangled - cutting off funding through boycott of payment firms. Imprisonment and near-torture of their info sources. Sexual abuse allegations against Assange are, tbh, not a real threat against Wikileaks existence itself. The only way they could be would be for him to be so totally identified with Wikileaks that it stands or falls on his personal reputation. And this is percisely the situation that Assange and his supporters are driving towards. Many lefties and conspiraloons really like figureheads, it seems.


Oh come on. The US are after his head on a spike. The guy has been subject to open calls for assassination or for him to face the death penalty by media figures, military figures and political figures across the US who have been quite blatant about the fact that they are after him, not just wikileaks, but him personally. He humiliated them. They want to make a scapegoat of him. If they get their hands on him he will be subject to the same treatment as Manning. In fact the reason that Manning has been subject to such brutal treatment in prison is precisely to force him to implicate Assange.

I have no doubt that extradition to Sweden is part of a plan to get him to the States and to those who think the Sweden is not in the pocket of the US. They were one of the few countries to vote against Palestine joining UNESCO, along with Germany and the US the only countries to do so. I wonder why that was. Its really quite shameful that people are allowing their personal dislike for him or his ego (a dislike which I share btw) to allow them to go along with this quite shocking political persecution and obvious attempt at judicial kidnapping. We shall see who is right and who is wrong is a year or two when he is sitting in Guantanamo bay or a high security prison alongside Bradley Manning


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Dylans has no doubts.Game over. As so often in the past.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Dylans has no doubts.Game over. As so often in the past.


fuck off you irritating twat


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Such forceful statements and predictions proven wrong time after time.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I didn't like him before the rape allegations, and I certainly don't like him after that.


 Why didn't you like him before?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 4, 2011)

Can those who think he will be extradited from Sweden explain why the US aren't seeking to have him extradited from Britain? Given, as I said before, our extremely relaxed attitude to extradition to the US.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

And that he can only be extradited with the UKs agreement if sweden takes the preliminary steps (which it hasn't). I bet he'll be on gtimo on the moon soon.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Do people really think the US enagages in these crude expression of power over people like assange? If so,they're years beyond you in political sophistication. Come into the new century.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Can those who think he will be extradited from Sweden explain why the US aren't seeking to have him extradited from Britain? Given, as I said before, our extremely relaxed attitude to extradition to the US.


Who knows. Maybe the US figures the political climate is easier in Sweden than Britain and that public opinion in the UK would be too hostile to US extradition attempt. Maybe the US has stitched up a nice little deal with Sweden for agreeing to extradition.  This is not as far fetched as it seems. We know for example that wikileaks revealed the fact that Sweden and the US have already made deals that bypass the democratic process and allow Sweden to give information on US citizens to the US.



> *They lied to us about the FRA law*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In November this year Swedish tabloids reported that secret negotiations for the extradition of Assange had already taken place between the US and Sweden. Sorry about the google translation



> *Swedish and U.S. officials have discussed the possibility of forward Julian Assange to the United States. The diplomatic sources said the Independent. *
> 
> 
> *Assange before the English *court today​
> ...



http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/debattamnen/brottochstraff/article12697234.ab

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2...erige-och-usa-i-samtal-om-att-utlamna-assange


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

So, his lawyer says that he would be if sent to Sweden. Anyone convinced?


----------



## TruXta (Nov 4, 2011)

Nah. Fucksake, just lock him up already, sick and fucking tired of the man and his sycophants.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Do people really think the US enagages in these crude expression of power over people like assange? If so,they're years beyond you in political sophistication. Come into the new century.


Now it is you who is being naive. For over a year they have effectively tortured Bradley Manning in the hope that he would break and testify against Assange. The US has shown itself to be extremely revengeful. It wants a scapegoat for the leaking of huge amounts of its data and for revealing the extent of its war crimes. They have already called for his assassination and killing and virtually declared war on him and wikileaks. I can't believe I am having to have this conversation. Of course they are engaging in an expression of power over Assange. And they will get him while idiots like you stand by and watch


----------



## TruXta (Nov 4, 2011)

Boohoo.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> Now it is you who is being naive. For over a year they have effectively tortured Bradley Manning in the hope that he would break and testify against Assange. The US has shown itself to be extremely revengeful. It wants a scapegoat for the leaking of huge amounts of its data and for revealing the extent of its war crimes. They have already called for his assassination and killing and virtually declared war on him and wikileaks. I can't believe I am having to have this conversation. Of course they are engaging in an expression of power over Assange. And they will get him while idiots like you stand by and watch



Now, what's the difference between BM and Assange? Think about it and answer seriously. (I like the way you easily slip into 'they' btw) You're always going to be used dylans. You are having to have this conversation because people don't agree with you, they don't agree with your logic, your conclusions or the larger assumptions that they rest upon. People who in the round agree with you politically. That's what's called politics. Back to the 70s with you.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> Now it is you who is being naive. For over a year they have effectively tortured Bradley Manning in the hope that he would break and testify against Assange. The US has shown itself to be extremely revengeful. It wants a scapegoat for the leaking of huge amounts of its data and for revealing the extent of its war crimes. They have already called for his assassination and killing and virtually declared war on him and wikileaks. I can't believe I am having to have this conversation. Of course they are engaging in an expression of power over Assange. And they will get him while idiots like you stand by and watch



You're why people laugh at or despise the left btw. You crudely reduce complex issue down to the idea that it's one person against another motivated by typically human feelings (anger,revenge,jealousy).The US can and will swallow anything happening to assange short of extradition because he did nothing at all to them.  They don't care. If Coulter pulls your strings that's your lookout.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

BA your posts are so cryptic, and by cryptic I mean badly written and incomprehensibly expressed, that it is hard to know what you are talking about. Are you seriously suggesting that the US government does not seek the extradition of Assange, you know the MAN, the PERSON in order to indict him for espionage or that the motivation for this extraordinary vendetta is the fact that the organisation he created leaked virtually every single document of US activity in Iraq since 2003 and in doing so embarrassed the US government and military or that it seeks his extradition in order to demonstrate to others who may think of leaking or facilitate the leaking of US documents what will happen to them if they do. Or that it is torturing Bradley Manning in order to facilitate the future prosecution of Assange?

Through all the dense, really badly written, barely readable shite that are your posts above, you seem to be saying that it is crude and unsophisticated to suggest that the US government behaves in this way and your spectacularly cryptic post only falls down on the fact that this is exactly what the US government is doing as it has done to others such as Daniel Ellsberg. I guess his prosecution wasn't a politically motivated attack on an individual either?

(sorry in advance if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick but perhaps you could help me avoid that in future by writing in something that approaches comprehensible English not a Times crossword puzzle)

3 across. If Coulter pulls your strings that's your lookout
4 down. The difference between BM and Assange
6 across Back to the 70's with you
7 down.  that repetitive crabbed post
answers on back page


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

I get told off after that repetitive crabbed post of yours? Really?

My point is clear, there is nothing to suggest that he is being sent to Sweden as part of a longer term plot to be extradited to the US - it's harder to be extradited to the US from there. The US doesn't need to and will not pursue Assange. States don't act like and are not motivated by poster type individual motivations. He did them no harm (this is where you confuse commentators with 'them'). They have other ways of dealing with this sort of threat.

Unless of course, what's happening is because everything is part of some larger plan, that's part of a larger plan.

Oh no, _embarrassment_.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 4, 2011)

Has the US issued a request for his extradition?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Has the US issued a request for his extradition?


Hey,it's coming ...it has to be. IT HAS TO BE


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Hey,it's coming ...it has to be. IT HAS TO BE


Hey keep them coming. I've got almost enough for a complete crossword puzzle


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

Of course Sweden would never extradite someone to the US. It's inconceivable. After all they didn't illegally rendition people to be imprisoned and tortured at the behest of the US did they...Oh!.




> Ahmed Agiza was rendered from Sweden to Egypt by U.S. agents through Bromma airport. However the U.S. agents were assisted by the Swedish secret service. He was tortured in Egypt and sentenced to 25 years later reduced to 15. His lawyers sued in Sweden for damages and won. He was awarded 330,000 Euros--but is still in jail!



On another occasion a rendition flight was boarded and stopped BY THE SWEDISH MILITARY after it was found to have broken agreed rules between the Swedish government and the USA.

Anyone who thinks Sweden will not acquiesce in a US extradition demand is deluding themselves. As I posted earlier, they already have.



> U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether it is possible to prosecute Julian Assange for espionage. Julian Assange British lawyer Mark Stephens fears that the U.S. will request that Assange be extradited to the country if he submitted to the Swedish authorities. Now comes evidence that Mark Stephens, the grounds for his concern.*According to sources at the Independent, there have been informal talks between Swedish and U.S. officials about the possibility of disclosing Assange to the United States. *The Independent's diplomatic sources, no request for extradition to the United States sent to Sweden before and if there is a charge against him from the U.S. States government, and it will not happen before the legal process in Sweden is over.



http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2...erige-och-usa-i-samtal-om-att-utlamna-assange


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Are they Assange? Declamation. More routine google-Declamation to ignore the differences.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 4, 2011)

Just to be clear, this is the basic idea behind the "Assange was set-up" theory...?

Assange and wikileaks released documents into the public domain which hugely embarrassed the US government.  Elements of that government sat down to think of a way to not only neutralise the threat of further such leaks, but to also completely discredit the figurehead behind them.  Two women were convinced to make false accusations against Assange of serious sexual assaults.  The Swedish government was also brought in on the plot, not only to facilitate the prosecution of Assange for the assault, but also to extradite him at some later date for espionage related crimes.  This is a conspiracy permeating various levels of the Swedish establishment, including their police, their prosecution service, their diplomats and their elected officials.  And two civilian "honeytrap" agents.

Correct me where I have gone wrong in the above, please.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Not wrong but forgetting the British legal system - fine and upstanding as it is. Of course ,the longer and more ludicrous the links in the  chain the stronger it pulls for you know who.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 4, 2011)

Something like that, jon.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Just to be clear, this is the basic idea behind the "Assange was set-up" theory...?
> 
> Assange and wikileaks released documents into the public domain which hugely embarrassed the US government. Elements of that government sat down to think of a way to not only neutralise the threat of further such leaks, but to also completely discredit the figurehead behind them. Two women were convinced to make false accusations against Assange of serious sexual assaults. The Swedish government was also brought in on the plot, not only to facilitate the prosecution of Assange for the assault, but also to extradite him at some later date for espionage related crimes. This is a conspiracy permeating various levels of the Swedish establishment, including their police, their prosecution service, their diplomats and their elected officials. And two civilian "honeytrap" agents.
> 
> Correct me where I have gone wrong in the above, please.


First of all these are not or at least should not be allegations of serious sexual assault. They are claims of assault that are taken seriously by a frankly barmy and extraordinarily intrusive legal system that is seeking to prosecute a man for engaging in consensual sexual activity and behaving at worst like an inconsiderate lout. Bad bedroom behaviour is nothing to be proud of but whether or not it should be the basis for a European wide interpol arrest warrant is another matter entirely.
Regardless of this, and in answer to your point. It doesn't need a complex conspiracy theory to see this for what it is. Who knows how it has unfolded. Perhaps the initial allegations were and are seen as simply a fortunate opportunity for the US to serve its own interests and pressure was placed to enact and continue with the extradition warrant when otherwise it may have been dropped. It is hardly a conspiracy theory to see that a small country could be pressured into pushing forward this case where common sense suggests it should have been dropped. It is not a conspiracy theory to likewise see that pressure will now be placed on Sweden to extradite him to the US. It is highly likely however that had this case involved joe bloggs and not Julian Assange, this would never have taken the high profile that it has and wouldn't have resulted in the extradition of a man who hasn't even been charged with a crime.  I am reminded of Naomi Wolf's letter to interpol on this last year



> Dear Interpol:
> As a longtime feminist activist, I have been overjoyed to discover your new commitment to engaging in global manhunts to arrest and prosecute men who behave like narcissistic jerks to women they are dating.
> 
> I see that Julian Assange is accused of having consensual sex with two women, in one case using a condom that broke. I understand, from the alleged victims' complaints to the media, that Assange is also accused of texting and tweeting in the taxi on the way to one of the women's apartments while on a date, and, disgustingly enough, 'reading stories about himself online' in the cab.
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 4, 2011)

Fruitloop said:


> Why didn't you like him before?


Because far from being a libertarian hero, he seemed more like a self-serving liberal twat to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Early judgment is in:




			
				dylans said:
			
		

> First of all these are not or at least should not be allegations of serious sexual assault. They are claims of assault that are taken seriously by a frankly barmy and extraordinarily intrusive legal system that is seeking to prosecute a man for engaging in consensual sexual activity and behaving at worst like an inconsiderate lout. Bad bedroom behaviour...


Penetrating some one when they're asleep (as if by a plan according you) is not 'Bad bedroom behaviour' - you've just put yourself outside you creepy fuck.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Odd that the Naomi wolf thing is not what the case is based on at all. Dylans, into the locker.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:
			
		

> I see that Julian Assange is accused of having consensual sex with two women



No, he's not. He's accused of very different things.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 4, 2011)

Jesus, Dylans, I'm surprised at you.  Want to rethink that statement?  (I'll not quote it, out of courtesy).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

If you can spend ten minutes googling 'Sweden extradition US' you can spend 10 minutes reading what this euro-warrent is about. You don't care though.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Early judgment is in:
> 
> Penetrating some one when they're asleep (as if by a plan according you) is not 'Bad bedroom behaviour' - you've just put yourself outside you creepy fuck.


blah blah blah. Yeah Naomi Wolfe is a creepy fuck too I guess.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

She might be, she's wrong on what he's being questioned for. You've fucked up massively by using that. I've got nothing but contempt for the appeal to authority as well.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Jesus, Dylans, I'm surprised at you. Want to rethink that statement? (I'll not quote it, out of courtesy).


NO I DO NOT and I will not be intimidated by this fake pseudo feminist outrage. The guy is not charged with a single crime and these allegations would never stand up in a British court. The Swedish law is extraordinarily intrusive and weighted against the defendent. Paying for sex with a Prostitute is considered rape and prostitution is completely outlawed for example. The two people who are accusing him were engaged in consensual sexual activity with him and strangely enough decided after engaging in consensual sex decided that some aspects of their consensual sexual activity didn't fit the bill. Do me a favour this is a recipe for state interference in every aspect of peoples sex lives which are complex and contradictory in many ways and if every person who behaved badly was prosecuted for loutish behaviour the prisons would be full.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> NO I DO NOT and I will not be intimidated by this fake pseudo feminist outrage.


Fake pseudo?  So real, then?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:
			
		

> fake pseudo feminist outrage.



Glory. Glory


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> NO I DO NOT and I will not be intimidated by this fake pseudo feminist outrage. The guy is not charged with a single crime and these allegations would never stand up in a British court. The Swedish law is extraordinarily intrusive and weighted against the defendent. Paying for sex with a Prostitute is considered rape and prostitution is completely outlawed for example. The two people who are accusing him were engaged in consensual sexual activity with him and strangely enough decided after engaging in consensual sex decided that some aspects of their consensual sexual activity didn't fit the bill. Do me a favour this is a recipe for state interference in every aspect of peoples sex lives which are complex and contradictory in many ways and if every person who behaved badly was prosecuted for loutish behaviour the prisons would be full.



One of them says she was asleep. This is definitely a crime in the UK.

There are 4 separate allegations of assault.

Consent was conditional on the use of a condom, which is alleged to have not been used.

Where are you getting your information from?


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Fake pseudo? So real, then?


When the language of feminism is used to justify the extradition of a man on fake trumped up charges to serve the interests of a hidden agenda it is entirely fake yes. This is not a rape case, because no rape took place. If this had been anyone but Assange and if it had been anywhere but Sweden there would never have been an arrest warrant. You are surprised by my position on this? Frankly I am amazed by yours. The fact that people who should know better are virtually cheering a politically motivated attempt to set up a declared enemy of the US government is not only surprising but bloody depressing


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:
			
		

> The two people who are accusing him were engaged in consensual sexual activity with him and strangely enough decided after engaging in consensual sex


He hath spoken.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> One of them says she was asleep. This is definitely a crime in the UK.
> 
> There are 4 separate allegations of assault.
> 
> ...


From the past when the claims first surfaced and from the asange site -nothing up to date, factual or relevant. Pretty shabby.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> This is not a rape case, because no rape took place.


Well, we'll wait for that verdict.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, we'll wait for that verdict.


Some of us will. Dylans hath spoken though.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 4, 2011)

I'm impressed by your psychic ability to tell what happened behind a closed door between two people. You should turn that talent of yours towards judging British rape cases, clearly you're well qualified for it.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> One of them says she was asleep. This is definitely a crime in the UK.
> 
> There are 4 separate allegations of assault.
> 
> ...


Not if it is consenting which she admits she did. She stayed with him for a week after the incident and engaged in multiple instances of consensual sex at the time and after. At no point did she say NO. Even after finding there was no condom she consents at that time "because she couldn't be bothered to argue" and on numerous occasions after. The women involved were perfectly capable of saying no but didn't. The case of sex while asleep is a case in point. She wakes up and finds a man, her lover having sex with her. Is this rape? Yes if she immediately objects and says no, then it is rape. If however she does not object but on the contrary wakes up and engages in mutual sex with him then clearly it is not. She did the latter not the former. Now you could argue that it is never acceptable but it seems to me that to do this is to ignore the varied nature of relationships and the types of mutual trust and consent that are tied into relationships. Maybe one partner initiating sex while the other is asleep is an established and mutually enjoyable part of a relationship. Is it therefore rape as soon as one partner says so? Whatever, it seems absurd to me to try to bring legislation into this type of intimate mutually consentual behaviour. The key here is that consent was given before, during and after that particular incident. If the woman objected to his behaviour she was perfectly capable of saying no and withdrawing consent. She didn't.

This is the problem with the Swedish judicial system and the kind of social democratic attempt to legislate in areas such as these.. It doesn't treat women like intelligent moral adults who are capable of giving or withdrawing consent. It infantilises both couples in relationships and attempts to impose judicial solutions to what are non criminal human situations and to the extent that it does so using the language of feminism and empowerment it is "pseudo feminism" yes.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 4, 2011)

Dylans you seem a bit blind to the asleep thing.

You'd have questions to answer here if you were accused of having sex with a sleeping person. To suggest its just because its him and Sweden is a bit bonkers.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> Not if it is consenting which she admits she did. She stayed with him for a week after the incident and engaged in multiple instances of consensual sex at the time and after. At no point did she say NO. Even after finding there was no condom she consents at that time "because she couldn't be bothered to argue" and on numerous occasions after. The women involved were perfectly capable of saying no but didn't. The case of sex while asleep is a case in point. She wakes up and finds a man, her lover having sex with her. Is this rape? Yes if she immediately objects and says no, then it is rape. If however she does not object but on the contrary wakes up and engages in mutual sex with him then clearly it is not. She did the latter not the former. Now you could argue that it is never acceptable but it seems to me that to do this is to ignore the varied nature of relationships and the types of mutual trust and consent that are tied into relationships. Maybe one partner initiating sex while the other is asleep is an established and mutually enjoyable part of a relationship. Is it therefore rape as soon as one partner says so? Whatever, it seems absurd to me to try to bring legislation into this type of intimate mutually consentual behaviour. The key here is that consent was given before, during and after that particular incident. If the woman objected to his behaviour she was perfectly capable of saying no and withdrawing consent. She didn't.



Wow.You're fucked. You're not even saying that it didn't happen, _but that it's ok._ You total creep.

I'd like to see this consensus after. You have evidence of this? We have evidence of the woman saying that she did not consent at all. But just the bit for after will do for now.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 4, 2011)

Actually just read your post.made at same time as mine


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wow.You're fucked. You're not even saying that it didn't happen, _but that it's ok._ You total creep.


No you are the creep. A fucking dishonest one at that. You know damn well that in arguments such as this it is easy to smear your opponents rather than engaging in a discussion of the issue and you choose the former, because its easy, because it plays to the crowd, because screaming "apologist for rape" is easier than engaging with the argument. That makes you a cowardly wanker of the first order.You know exactly what you are doing as well as I do, coward.

 But hey you are improving. At least I could read a sentence that you wrote.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

They go to some lengths these CIA types, even controlling the actions of  assange.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> No you are the creep. A fucking dishonest one at that. You know damn well that in arguments such as this it is easy to smear your opponents rather than engaging in a discussion of the issue and you choose the former, because its easy, because it plays to the crowd, because screaming "apologist for rape" is easier than engaging with the argument. That makes you a cowardly wanker of the first order.You know exactly what you are doing as well as I do, coward.
> 
> But hey you are improving. At least I could read a sentence that you wrote.


You weren't apologising for rape before. Now you are. Easy to read.


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You weren't apologising for rape before. Now you are. Easy to read.


fuck you you dishonest coward. No rape occurred.

Rape is being used in the Assange extradition in the same way that womens rights were used to justify the invasion of  Afghanistan. It is a convenient excuse to pursue a ulterior agenda. It is an insult to the real victims of rape and  it is a fucking disgrace that you are cheering it on.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2011)

My problem with dylans, as became clear during events in Libya, is that he seems to find it necessary to take hysterical positions on matters deemed to be in the territory of 'epic struggle between the US empire and people who wish to be free'. All the devilish detail, which often makes up the important substance of the matter, is lost in a great wave of rhetoric and black & white thinking.

Its kind of similar to the way that so much important detail was lost to the cold war, always trumped by the main struggle, truth always overridden by the central narrative.

In the case of Libya this meant that once nato got involved, all fears must be hyped, and all hopeful possibilities denied. In the case of Assange it means downplaying the possibility that the man actually committed an offence. Well bollocks, if detail and truth must be sacrificed in order to wage the struggle effectively then I consider the struggle to be corrupted and likely to produce its own horrors if it ever got anywhere. Theres no need for it, the crimes of empire are great enough already, there is no need to hype them up in absurd ways.

Personally I do think that the US government tends to like to make an example of people in order to act as a powerful deterrent for anyone contemplating doing similar in future. But Assange is not a good textbook example at this stage, not least because the US don't appear to need to do anything to drop him in it, he seems well capable of destroying himself via an inability to deal sensibly with others, some dodgy attitudes, and quite epic double-standards when it comes to transparency.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

He hath spoken. Again.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> fuck you you dishonest coward. No rape occurred.





butchersapron said:


> He hath spoken. Again.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> fuck you you dishonest coward. No rape occurred.



Says the man who tries to take the high ground when people get abusive with him on forums. Dismal.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

elbows said:


> My problem with dylans, as became clear during events in Libya, is that he seems to find it necessary to take hysterical positions on matters deemed to be in the territory of 'epic struggle between the US empire and people who wish to be free'. All the devilish detail, which often makes up the important substance of the matter, is lost in a great wave of rhetoric and black & white thinking.
> 
> Its kind of similar to the way that so much important detail was lost to the cold war, always trumped by the central struggle,
> 
> ...


It's the febrialistic view of politics. It justifies stuff. It' drives people away more than i could ever do.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2011)

Hey hey, how many truths did your crystal balls crush today?


----------



## dylans (Nov 4, 2011)

I've had enough of this site. I'm leaving. Bye


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's the febrialistic view of politics. It justifies stuff. It' drives people away more than i could ever do.



I find it hard to tell how much it drives people away. His stances have a certain purity that is attractive to quite a lot of people, no matter if it must distort the truth in order to achieve that purity.

In the case of Libya I expect many people applauded his stance. But there is a much greater risk of this sort of stuff backfiring when potential sex-crimes are part of the story, and I doubt dylans will take these criticisms very well, his ego is easily bruised when people question his sermons.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> I've had enough of this site. I'm leaving. Bye


Don't leave, just tone down the "black/white, my enemy's enemy is my friend, you're either for us or against us" stuff. And wait for the verdict before deciding whether a rape took place or not.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 4, 2011)

Seconded, don't leave mate even if the debate is getting a bit robust over this issue.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> I've had enough of this site. I'm leaving. Bye



I hope you come back, despite my criticisms you are an interesting poster.

I strongly advise you learn some strategies for coping with criticism, its real hard to be someone who enjoys communicating their strong opinions with others without this skill. And it should be do-able, Im exceptionally thin-skinned in real life but I've learnt to stay relatively calm on the net in 90% of my clashes with others.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 4, 2011)

Hmm, bit of a bun fight, well I did ask for opinions I suppose.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Nah, fuck off dylans. Don't answer for your crimes.


----------



## Random (Nov 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the US government does not seek the extradition of Assange


If they're seeking his extradition then why haven't they ... sought his extradition?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

Random said:


> If they're seeking his extradition then why haven't they ... sought his extradition?



Why would they need to? They have trumped up criminal charges which have actually undermined Assange's cause far more than anything they could actually extradite him for.



butchersapron said:


> You weren't apologising for rape before. Now you are. Easy to read.



While one might very well interpret the allegations against Assange as criminal. One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex. The other is accusing him of "coercion" and "unwanted advances", but Swedish rape law is very strange, and even in that case he is being accused of "minor rape".

It is well known that the allegations "do not meet the European law standard concept of rape". You seem to be arguing they do, or ought to, which I disagree with. Certainly, defending Assange in this case does not constitute "apologising for rape" but whether there is a spectrum of rape.



Random said:


> It was days after the event, not years. Fantasy.



Yes, but one of the cases were dropped for lack of evidence and then reinstated.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> While one might very well interpret the allegations against Assange as criminal. One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex. The other is accusing him of "coercion" and "unwanted advances", but Swedish rape law is very strange, and even in that case he is being accused of "minor rape".



You are wrong. You are not only wrong but you don't even have the basic details of the case right.

Stop posting until you get the facts right rather than parroting Assange's brief "it is well known..."


----------



## Random (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Swedish rape law is very strange...It is well known that the allegations "do not meet the European law standard concept of rape".


 Not true. The only thing that is strange is that a Swedish prosecutor is taking the time to pursue this rape case.


----------



## Random (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Why would they need to? They have trumped up criminal charges which have actually undermined Assange's cause far more than anything they could actually extradite him for.


If you're arguing, like dylans, that the USA is seeking his extradition, then the fact that the USA is not seeking his extradition is a bit of a hole in your argument. I take your point that this ight be a smear; it might be. But the best way to stop this personal attack harming Wikileaks is to make the organisation's work less reliant on a squeaky-clean frontman.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> It is well known that the allegations "do not meet the European law standard concept of rape". You seem to be arguing they do, or ought to, which I disagree with. Certainly, defending Assange in this case does not constitute "apologising for rape" but whether there is a spectrum of rape.


What are your thoughts on the definition of rape by British standards? Because what he is accused of would be rape here too...



> Yes, but one of the cases were dropped for lack of evidence and then reinstated.


The vast majority of all rapes are dropped because of lack of evidence, does that mean they didn't happen?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You are wrong. You are not only wrong but you don't even have the basic details of the case right.
> 
> Stop posting until you get the facts right rather than parroting Assange's brief "it is well known..."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-q-and-a
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/europe/29iht-letter29.html

Start showing me some fucking links.

Actually if you can show me links to any official documentation relating to the case, in Swedish or English I will not think you are just some half-wit with an opinion like the rest of us.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> The vast majority of all rapes are dropped because of lack of evidence, does that mean they didn't happen?



Yeah man, aren't we... like.. all rapists.  Like how can we _really_ know?


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2011)

If we want the case details to emerge in full then he needs to face the Swedish justice system.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Yeah man, aren't we... like.. all rapists. Like how can we _really_ know?



Pathetic.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-q-and-a
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/europe/29iht-letter29.html
> 
> Start showing me some fucking links.
> ...



Your links:


> • That Assange "unlawfully coerced" Miss A by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
> 
> That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
> 
> ...






			
				you said:
			
		

> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex



Thundering dolt.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Yeah man, aren't we... like.. all rapists. Like how can we _really_ know?


Well you don't understand what rape is so what hope was there that you'd understand the context of my previous post (which you only replied to half of)?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Your links:
> 
> Thundering dolt.



Did you actually discover what those legal terms actually mean and their context in Assange's case?



CyberRose said:


> Well you don't understand what rape is so what hope was there that you'd understand the context of my previous post (which you only replied to half of)?



Yes, because your previous post is such an excellent summary of the ambiguities around rape in law, I cannot begin to udnerstand the complexities of the argument.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> The vast majority of all rapes are dropped because of lack of evidence, does that mean they didn't happen?



It means there is no evidence of it happening.  Would you have us convict people on no evidence?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2011)

Random said:


> If you're arguing, like dylans, that the USA is seeking his extradition, then the fact that the USA is not seeking his extradition is a bit of a hole in your argument.



Of course the USA is seeking his extradition. What on earth makes you believe otherwise?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Did you actually discover what those legal terms actually mean and their context in Assange's case?



Certainly did and your claim that




			
				you said:
			
		

> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex



simply doesn't stand up.Your own links killed you-they leave you looking a bit ill-informed and daft:



> • That Assange "unlawfully coerced" Miss A by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
> 
> • That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
> 
> ...


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> It means there is no evidence of it happening. Would you have us convict people on no evidence?


No, it means there is _not enough_ evidence to _prove beyond reasonable doubt_ that a rape happened. You don't seem to know how our (or other) legal systems work...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> Not if it is consenting which she admits she did.



Dylans, I agree with your analysis of the case.

Having said that, it seems futile to me to even bother discussing the details of the allegations.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that this is a set up by the USA.  To discuss the allegations in detail gives them a dignity they do not deserve.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Yes, because your previous post is such an excellent summary of the ambiguities around rape in law, I cannot begin to udnerstand the complexities of the argument.


It shows...


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Anyone with *an ounce of common sense* knows that this is a set up by the USA.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> fuck you you dishonest coward. No rape occurred.
> 
> Rape is being used in the Assange extradition in the same way that womens rights were used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. It is a convenient excuse to pursue a ulterior agenda. It is an insult to the real victims of rape and it is a fucking disgrace that you are cheering it on.



100% correct.

It would be a shame if you left, Dylans.  You´re the best poster here.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Does this poo flakes even read their own links:



> Some, like Sweden, are somewhere in between, with force definitions [of rape] that include situations in which the victim is unable to consent — say, because they are sleeping or intoxicated.



What's wrong with you?


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2011)

I'm sure women all over the world will be overjoyed to hear that their rights are revokable if the perpetrator is some sort of political hero to some.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2011)

And if you are convinced that its a setup by the USA then why wouldn't you welcome the chance to have the details of this exposed in a court?

If its a smear then Assange should welcome the chance to clear his name.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2011)

CyberRose said:


>



Oh alright, the USA is not seeking his extradition. They´re really not all that bothered about having their state secrets plastered all over the internet. And theirs is a remarkably forgiving justice system anyway. Obviously they´re just letting the Swedes get on with it. An of course Sweden is famous for pursuing anyone who had sex while their partner was asleep to the ends of the earth.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> And if you are convinced that its a setup by the USA then why wouldn't you welcome the chance to have the details of this exposed in a court?



Because I know that any such trial would be subject to every kind of armtwisting, fixing, intimidation and lies, to the extent that a fair trial would be imposible.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> An of course Sweden is famous for pursuing anyone who had sex while their partner was asleep to the ends of the earth.


I'd like to think any country would pursue someone for that, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Does this poo flakes even read their own links:
> 
> What's wrong with you?



The question posed in Assange's case, "is he a rapist?", as it is described in the media is, at best, ambiguous. These kinds of examples are given by lawyers themselves when discussing the ambiguities about rape in the law. Dan Subotnik is, in my opinion, is accessible and worth a read.



elbows said:


> I'm sure women all over the world will be overjoyed to hear that their rights are revokable if the perpetrator is some sort of political hero to some.



Feminist perspectives are probably the most interesting, though, as they extend rape to look at 'contextual constraints' (e.g. women's role in society and patriarichal structures). Feminist lawyers, from what little I know of their work, would probably not reach a consensus on Assange's case, as it is being reported, as it seems to be one which really cuts at the core of debates around rape.

butcher... You are simply arguing that consent must be affirmatively granted. Nothing wrong with that, I just find these ambiguities around Assange's case highly unfortunate, and if I am honest suspicious, given his political activities. Does it mean he is innocent? No.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> The question posed in Assange's case, "is he a rapist?", as it is described in the media is, at best, ambiguous. These kinds of examples are given by lawyers themselves when discussing the ambiguities about rape in the law. Dan Subotnik is, in my opinion, is accessible and worth a read.



That's not the question we're on about. We're on about your inaccurate description of the case. You claimed that one of the struts of the case was:




			
				you said:
			
		

> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex


 
Do you now accept - given the evidence that you've helpfully provided that shows this not to be true - that this was totally wrong?  An do you solemnly undertake to get a bit better informed? What bearing does this have on your understanding of the rest of the case?Well,you've shown yourself to be incompetent in scrutiny of sources and presentation of info.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> butcher... You are simply arguing that consent must be affirmatively granted. Nothing wrong with that, I just find these ambiguities around Assange's case highly unfortunate, and if I am honest suspicious, given his political activities. Does it mean he is innocent? No.



It's ok to recognise that you were wrong. Gracious little steps backwards.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's not the question we're on about. We're on about your inaccurate description of the case. You claimed that one of the struts of the case was:
> 
> Do you now accept - given the evidence that you've helpfully provided that shows this not to be true - that this was totally wrong? An do you solemnly undertake to get a bit better informed? What bearing does this have on your understanding of the rest of the case?Well,you've shown yourself to be incompetent in scrutiny of sources and presentation of info.



You completely misunderstand the substance of the case. In one of the cases, and as per my understanding of the second, consent is not as big an issue as your making it to be. The cases are effectively considering the terms of a contract. The second is not even whether or not the woman consented (affirmitively) to have sex with Assange but whether she affirmitively consented to have sex later with Assange.



butchersapron said:


> It's ok to recognise that you were wrong. Gracious little steps backwards.



The fact is you are speaking with a lot of conviction of a case which is highly ambiguous is just fucking weird. As to why it is ambiguous - read the fucking references provided. I do not agree, if the reporting is accurate, that Assange is a rapist unless we were to discuss contextual constraints, but then we would really be discussing whether a wealthy and poor person could ever have consensual sex. Assange's case might be a good point for such a discussion, but since you are speaking with a lot of conviction about an issue which is not as black and white as you are making out tells me you have no real interest in having a substantive discussion.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's not the question we're on about. We're on about your inaccurate description of the case.



Innit - the only reason his alleged actions are being discussed on this thread are because some people are claiming that his alleged actions wouldn't even constitute sexual assault, so therefore show strong evidence of a conspiracy. I've seen no-one claim he is definitely a rapist, and I haven't seen the media ask the question "is he a rapist?" either.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> You completely misunderstand the substance of the case. In one of the cases, and as per my understanding of the second, consent is not as big an issue as your making it to be. The cases are effectively considers the terms of a contract. The second is not even whether or not the woman consented to have sex with Assange but whether she consented to have sex later with Assange.



You claimed that one of the struts of the case was:




			
				you said:
			
		

> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex



This is not true is it? In fact it's the opposite of the case isn't it? I dare you, after the links you've posted, to repeat this claim. Go on, repeat it or take it back.



> The fact is you are speaking with a lot of conviction which is - at best - highly ambiguous is just fucking weird. As to why it is ambiguous - read the fucking references provided. I do not agree, if the reporting is accurate, that Assange is a rapist unless we were to discuss contextual constraints, but then we would really be discussing whether a wealthy and poor person could ever have consensual sex. Assange's case might be a good point for such a discussion, but since you are speaking with a lot of conviction about an issue which is not as black and white as you are makign out, tells me you have no real interest in having a substantive discussion.



You what?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Innit - the only reason his alleged actions are being discussed on this thread are because some people are claiming that his alleged actions wouldn't even constitute sexual assault, so therefore show strong evidence of a conspiracy. I've seen no-one claim he is definitely a rapist, and I haven't seen the media ask the question "is he a rapist?" either.



From the Guardian:

*None of those mentions rape, so why is Assange being described as an alleged rapist? *

The accusation in the fourth point, involving Miss W, falls into the category of rape under Swedish law.

Twat.



butchersapron said:


> This is not true is it? In fact it's the opposite of the case isn't it? I dare you, after the links you've posted, to repeat this claim. Go on, repeat it or take it back.



In both cases, Assange and the two women consented to have sex.  In the first case they had unsafe sex, which the plaintiff alleges she did not consent to.  Not sure what your point is.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

you said:
			
		

> In both cases, Assange and the two women consented to have sex. In the first case they had unsafe sex, which the plaintiff alleges she did not consent to. Not sure what your point is.






			
				you said:
			
		

> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex



Are you sure of what the point is now?

(You're actually still wrong btw, and you've had all day to get up to speed)


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> From the Guardian:
> 
> *None of those mentions rape, so why is Assange being described as an alleged rapist? *
> 
> ...



Yeah, because the question "why is Assange being described as an alleged rapist?" definitely has exactly the same implications as "is Assange a rapist?"

(good to see you signing yourself off in a frank and honest manner, btw - Ra-ha-ha-ha-haa!)


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Yeah, because the question "why is Assange being described as an alleged rapist?" definitely has exactly the same implications as "is Assange a rapist?"



!



butchersapron said:


> Are you sure of what the point is now?



I do not see what you are getting at.  I do not think he committed rape, and that the charges are trumped up largely as a result of his political activities.  You have asked a bunch of questions around the case while I am also in an argument about whether being accussed of committing rape is the same as being accussed of being a rapist.  I am not entirely sure what your point is.

I actually did make a mistake earlier, based on a recollection of a story in the media some time ago, but not on the substance of the allegations.  _You_ did not bring me up on that though.  You do not seem to have any substance to your comments and have already pissed off someone else, accusing him of defending rape.  I have now explained that was a stupid thing to do in this case, followed by a tedious and fruitless conversation about an idiot's guide to Swedish rape law in the Guardian.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

You did make a mistake? This is the first time that you've admitted it. You defended your mistake until a few minutes ago. What changed your mind? Reading up and getting informed about the case? And this didn't undermine any of your other assumptions and claims? It will. And making such a serious error doesn't suggest that the rest of your claims may be a little...under researched...does it?

You have not talked about rape in swedish law at all - you've repeated an unsupported _claim_ from Assanges then brief that what count as rape in sweden is not rape in the rest of europe, then provided a link demolishing this claim. You've not once talked about the legal stuff here,you've talked solely about the truth or or otherwise of the charges.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> !



So a question which asks "Is Assange even accused of rape?" (looking at legal technicalities) is the same as "Is Assange a rapist?"

Or have I missed the point of your exclamation mark?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You did make a mistake? This is the first time that you've admitted it. You defended your mistake until a few minutes ago. What changed your mind? Reading up and getting informed about the case? And this didn't undermine any of your other assumptions and claims? It will. And making such a serious error doesn't suggest that the rest of your claims may be a little...under researched...does it?
> 
> You have not talked about rape in swedish law at all - you've repeated an unsupported _claim_ from Assanges then brief that what count as rape in sweden is not rape in the rest of europe, then provided a link demolishing this claim. You've not once talked about the legal stuff here,you've talked solely about the truth or or otherwise of the charges.



I made a mistake concerning when the allegations surfaced not on the allegations made, or indeed the issue of retrospective revocation of consent which is relevant to the timing of the allegations. I do not see why that really matters, you do.

In both cases, the issue is of consent. The Guardian article states that a couple of the allegations would have been prosecuted under British law. That is debatable and has been debated to death elsewhere.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> So a question which asks "Is Assange even accused of rape?" (looking at legal technicalities) is the same as "Is Assange a rapist?"





Jon-of-arc said:


> Yeah, because the question "why is Assange being described as an alleged rapist?" definitely has exactly the same implications as "is Assange a rapist?"


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> I made a mistake concerning when the allegations surfaced not on the allegations made, or indeed the issue of retrospective revocation of consent which is relevant here. I do not see why that really matters, you do.
> 
> In both cases, the issue is of consent. The Guardian article states that one of the allegations would have been prosecuted under British law. That is debatable and has been debated to death elsewhere.


No, you claimed this



> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex



This is not true as i demonstrated,with the help of your own links.Are you back defending this claim after you pointed out that the accusations are



> • That Assange "unlawfully coerced" Miss A by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
> 
> That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
> 
> ...



Are you?

You seem unable to separate what you've said (i.e what we're actually talking about) from the case. Odd. At best.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> .



"why is Assange being described as a rapist" (preceded by the dodgy assertion that none of the allegations even suggest rape) seems to me to imply they meant "Is Assange even accused of rape?".


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> I'd like to think any country would pursue someone for that, wouldn't you agree?



Let´s get a bit pf perspective here.

The US-uk has for over a decade been engaged in a series of blatant imperialist aggressions against essentially the entire Muslim world. Hundreds of thousands of noncombatats, women and children have been murdered by governments who claim to act in our name, for the sole prupose of profit.

The apathy of the British and American peoples in the face of their governments´ murderous policies has been absolutely disgusting. A few demonstrations, a few occupations, nothing likely to give our leaders pause in their quest for blood and oil.

Virtually alone in the Western world, Assange actually did something. Something that had a real, serious effect on the US war machine. He did this at great personal risk to himself. He´s about the closest we have to a hero.

Naturally the US-uk will try to retailiate, using the usual repertoire of dirty tricks. They did the same against Galloway, aother of the few they genuinally fear. That´s to be expected. What isn´t to be expected is for people who imagine themselves to be on the Left to take such smears seriously. Shame on you.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, you claimed this
> 
> This is not true as i demonstrated,with the help of your own links.Are you back defending this claim after you pointed out that the accusations are
> 
> ...



Those are the accusations against him. In the first case, all are linked to the use of a condom.

The second one might not even be penetrative sex they are talking about.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

So you stand by the claim that




			
				you said:
			
		

> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex



despite this link from you?



> That Assange "unlawfully coerced" Miss A by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
> 
> That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
> 
> ...



Would you please say yes or no. Do you stand by your claim or not?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Yes, you stand by your claim that


> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex



when you've shown that this is untrue?

He's so fucked.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He's so fucked.



You disapoint me again.  You were the same about Galloway. I think you allow the petty infighting between British ultra Left groupuscles to obscure your view of the larger picture.

Don´t you agree that Assage has done more than any other single individual to throw a spanner in the works of the war mahine?
  And don´t you think that was a pretty impressive, very brave, and fairly effective thing to do?  And didn´t you assume that the US would attempt to retaliate using whatever dirty tricks they could come up with?  And isn´t this precisely the sort of ruse they reglaurly do come up with?

Perspective people, perspective...


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> when you've shown that this is untrue?



The issue is whether the second person consented, and how she consented, to sex without a condom.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> The issue is whether the second person consented, and how she consented, to sex without a condom.



She says she didnt consent - the rest is up to a swedish court to decide.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

No,it's about whether you understand what the accusations are. They are not that



> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex



They are that he



> That Assange "unlawfully coerced" Miss A by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
> 
> That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
> 
> ...



Whether he you think he did  "unlawfully coerce" her is neither her not there.  You don't even know what he's been accused of yet you find him innocent of all charges. You're crap.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You disapoint me again. You were the same about Galloway. I think you allow the petty infighting between British ultra Left groupuscles to obscure your view of the larger picture.
> 
> Don´t you agree that Assage has done more than any other single individual to throw a spanner in the works of the war mahine?
> And don´t you think that was a pretty impressive, very brave, and fairly effective thing to do? And didn´t you assume that the US would attempt to retaliate using whatever dirty tricks they could come up with? And isn´t this precisely the sort of ruse they reglaurly do come up with?
> ...


Yep. Surprised by a few on this thread, tbh. And even if every single word of the testimony is true, which I don't believe for one second, the idea that this is worthy of an international police operation is laughable. Would it have happened if you or I had been accused of this? Of course not. Has pressure been brought to bear? Utterly naive and ignorant of history to believe that it hasn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

One down phil.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Whether he you think he did "unlawfully coerce" her is neither her not there. You don't even know what he's been accused of yet you find him innocent of all charges. You're crap.



It is not an issue about whether I believe that the allegation is true or not.  That charge is linked to sex without a condom.  The allegation is that Assange pinned her down so she could not get to a condom.



Jon-of-arc said:


> She says she didnt consent - the rest is up to a swedish court to decide.



Yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> It is not an issue about whether I believe that the allegation is true or not. That charge is linked to sex without a condom. The allegation is that Assange pinned her down so she could not get to a condom..



So,then this is untrue according to you



> One of the women are accusing him of unsafe sex, not non-consensual sex



You're the _only_ one - the _only_ person on the entire thread - linking it to whether he allegation is true or not.

(but now the #1 paediatrician hunter is on the thread...)


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So,then this is untrue according to you
> 
> You're the _only_ one - the _only_ person on the entire thread - linking it to whether he allegation is true or not.



Okay, semantically one could make a big issue as to whether the act of forcing someone to have unsafe sex is different from having non-consensual unsafe sex.  I would say doing so is a massive waste of time.

To sum up your second sentence:

I think the allegations are untrue like two other people on this page of the thread.

I also explained what those allegations are.

Those are two seperate things.

I would be angry at this dialogue, but I have no idea what is going on now. At first, I thought it was you questioning my knowledge about the charges after I claimed the charges look trumped up. Now, I am at a loss as to what you are actually claiming.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> One down phil.


You are playing the role of the convenient idiot on this thread, one with an underlying benchmark faith in authority. And like all convenient idiots, you don't even realise it. You defer to authority in the end, even when you ought to be able to see that the authority is utterly discredited.

I hope you haven't managed to drive dylans from the boards. He has his faults - don't we all - but I like him a lot as a poster, if he happens to be reading this.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

The only faith in authority here is faith in assange. It's the mirror image of the idea that the state is always right. You bought it. Now you sell it.

Drive dylans from the boards? He's repeatedly threatened me with real life violence. He got on the wrong bus, of course you're sitting there finger wagging when he got on - all innocent until guilty unless jesus doesn't like you. In which case, forget it.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And even if every single word of the testimony is true, which I don't believe for one second, the idea that this is worthy of an international police operation is laughable.



It hardly involved hundreds of officers scouring the globe in helicopters now did it? Mostly some paperwork. How nice it must be for possible victims to hear that its not worth the bother of taking their complaint seriously.

Why should Assange be above the law? If someone pokes the US in the eye then we should turn a blind eye to their other activities?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

jesus said:
			
		

> And even if every single word of the testimony is true, which I don't believe for one second, the idea that this is worthy of an international police operation is laughable.



Read this carefully.Very carefully.  Even if it's true doesn't matter. Sexual abuse and rape doesn't matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

> And even if every single word of the testimony is true, which I don't believe for one second,...



What of the testimony have you read?


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Surprised by a few on this thread, tbh. And even if every single word of the testimony is true, which I don't believe for one second, *the idea that this is worthy of an international police operation is laughable*.



What is it worthy of then?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> Why should Assange be above the law? If someone pokes the US in the eye then we should turn a blind eye to their other activities?



No-one is saying Assange is above the law, simply that it is hardly surprising that when a western dissident is accused of rape, it is highly ambiguous cases in a country where it would be far easier to prosecute.



butchersapron said:


> The only faith in authority here is faith in assange. It's the mirror image of the idea that the state is always right. You bought it. Now you sell it.



Utter shite. It is neither Wikileaks nor Assange that locked up a whistleblower without trial for months. While, I presume Assange's innocence you (and others - "Assange is above the law") seem to know, with great conviction, of his guilt (before he has even been charged no less).

The complete lack of faith in the American and British authorities is because state-orchestrated witch-hunts, and bizarre cover-ups (over relatively insignificant issues (Adam Werrity)) have been going on with some regularity for some time. It is entirely reasonable to presume Assange's innocence. Given the circumstances (media coverage alone but also Assange's political activities) and the nature of the allegations, I see sufficient cause to doubt the safety of any verdict.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

You haven't read a damn thing - not even your own links. Spark one up kooky. Fight dat power.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

You're an imbecile.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Safe in his arms. Thanks poo flakes.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You haven't read a damn thing



I contend I have read something.  A Butcherapron's argument.  Well done.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Let me see, you don't know that the case is about, you mistake the defence for legal opinion, you write like a horse giving birth a to a cow, you're frequently factually wrong and you don't understand the difference between talking about the legal issues of a case and the innocent/guilty bit. _I'm an imbecile._

You're losing, getting fainter


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> I contend I have read something. A Butcherapron's argument. Well done.


What arguments have you put forward poo flakes? I've seen you say one single thing and then get it destroyed by your own evidence. What arguments have you put forward? Tell me. What are the arguments that you've offered?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Let me see, you don't know that the case is about, you mistake the defence for legal opinion, you write like a horse giving birth a to a cow, you're frequently factually wrong and you don't understand the difference between talking about the legal issues of a case and the innocent/guilty bit. _I'm an imbecile._
> 
> You're losing, getting fainter



It is not like comparing a horse giving birth to a cow.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Surprised by a few on this thread, tbh. And even if every single word of the testimony is true, which I don't believe for one second, the idea that this is worthy of an international police operation is laughable. Would it have happened if you or I had been accused of this?



Any evidence for this? According to wikipedia there were 13 500 European Arrest Warrants issued in 2008 alone and that number is increasing yearly. In fact according to the Guardian.


> EAWs have been sought for such offences as bicycle theft, possession of 0.45 grams of cannabis, removing car tyres and stealing piglets. More than 2,400 requests were received by the UK from Poland last year.


So how is this any more of an 'international police operation' then any other of these which have been initiated for far less serious criminal accusations. Were those warrants for piglet stealers also only done at the behest of a third power because if not why on earth would an international police operation be launched to reprimand them.

It's also pretty stupid to think that because the US are finding it difficult to extradite Gary McKinnon, a naive, autistic British citizen with a family to lobby on his behalf, they would feel they need to hatch a complex plot to trump up a false set of rape allegations to bring an Australian citizen with no such mitigating factors to Sweden so they can bundle him to the US.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> It is not like comparing a horse giving birth to a cow.


Your tortuous attempts to understand what's going on are exactly like that. I've seen it happen you dimwitted fool.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

_Hey, if you do one political thing this year,defend assange. Don't ask why, just fucking do it._


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Your tortuous attempts to understand what's going on are exactly like that. I've seen it happen you dimwitted fool.



Exactly like that? So, you admit it!  Show me evidence that it is exactly like a horse giving birth to a cow!  You haven't read anything!!!1 LOL.... wawaweawawa


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

You're not even pretending are you?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

_Defend assange. Don't ask why, just fucking do it._


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're not even pretending are you?



You said....



butchersapron said:


> Your tortuous attempts to understand what's going on are exactly like that. I've seen it happen you dimwitted fool.



Do you admit it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Yes i do. I'm trapped in whatever slow witted attempt this is to catch me. I not only admit, i flaunt it.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Utter shite. It is neither Wikileaks nor Assange that locked up a whistleblower without trial for months. While, I presume Assange's innocence you (and others - "Assange is above the law") seem to know, with great conviction, of his guilt (before he has even been charged no less).



I do not presume he is guilty. I would simply like the investigation to proceed without being hindered by an 'I did something that the US hate so I will hide behind that rather than face questioning' approach.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

They give people like assange a shield and offer one to others


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2011)

And, as if it should even need saying, presumption of innocence means the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not that the accused is allowed to ignore the matter and avoid questioning.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2011)

You've released some secret documents. Pass go, collect 2 billion dollars and a get out of jail free card.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

I own them secret docs mind. Pay me.Pay me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 6, 2011)

elbows said:


> And, as if it should even need saying, presumption of innocence means the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not that the accused is allowed to ignore the matter and avoid questioning.


Exactly.

There's several things that I'd assumed didn't need saying, but apparently do.


----------



## Random (Nov 6, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Exactly like that? So, you admit it! Show me evidence that it is exactly like a horse giving birth to a cow! You haven't read anything!!!1 LOL.... wawaweawawa


Either poo flakes is actually ern or firky on a windup, or s/he is simply unable to recognise a simile.


----------



## Random (Nov 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I hope you haven't managed to drive dylans from the boards. He has his faults - don't we all - but I like him a lot as a poster, if he happens to be reading this.


Dylans flounced because he wanted to stop arguing.


----------



## Random (Nov 6, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You disapoint me again. You were the same about Galloway. I think you allow the petty infighting between British ultra Left groupuscles to obscure your view of the larger picture.


Comparing Assange to Galloway is unfair on Assange, I hope. Assange is a rather egotistic hacker, possibly with a big problem relating to women, but he seems to be on a genuine mission. Galloway is a self-aggrandizing bully who uses politics to further his own personal brand, picking up and dropping ethnic groups and international causes as it pleases him.

Both of them illustrate why the cult of personality is still a threat within left/protest movements. Larger than life strongmen can have an impact on the political system and become very visibly in the mainstream media, but at the cost of obscuring the rest of the real living grassroots movement.

We've been hearing reports over the last few weeks how problems with bullying and abuse of women are some of the main things crippling the Occupy camps in the UK. Unquestioning support of strongmen and frontmen means that it's harder to properly deal with sexist and bullying attitudes in protest movements.

All of the above is true whether or not Assange is found guilty or not.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 6, 2011)

I agree with most of that, except the first two sentences.


----------



## Random (Nov 6, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I agree with most of that, except the first two sentences.


You mean you think Assange is probably just as bad as Galloway?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 6, 2011)

Random said:


> You mean you think Assange is probably just as bad as Galloway?


Yes.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 6, 2011)

Random said:


> Either poo flakes is actually ern or firky on a windup, or s/he is simply unable to recognise a simile.



Or I am taking the piss out of a pedant.



elbows said:


> I do not presume he is guilty. I would simply like the investigation to proceed without being hindered by an 'I did something that the US hate so I will hide behind that rather than face questioning' approach.



I can see your perspective, I shared it until I hear the right-wing in this country and America discuss whistleblowing.  A terrible way to determine someone's guilt but watch any news channel, US government employee, or British establishment figure discuss this and I suspect they are at it.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 6, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> I can see your perspective, I shared it until I hear the right-wing in this country and America discuss whistleblowing. A terrible way to determine someone's guilt but watch any news channel, US government employee, or British establishment figure discuss this and I suspect they are at it.



If the British establishment are 'at it' why don't they just conspire to send him straight to the US?  Why bother sending him to Sweden first?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 6, 2011)

There is a famous study conducted which showed that even if allegations made against a particular candidate in an election are untrue (and even vindicated in court), the very fact the allegations surfaced can impact the election result.  Being accused of rape, being a very serious offence, even if untrue, could diminish Assange's cause.  This is what (should) irks people who couldn't really give a flying fuck about Assange or individuals in the open source movement.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 6, 2011)

What is his cause?


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> There is a famous study conducted which showed that even if allegations made against a particular candidate in an election are untrue (and even vindicated in court), the very fact the allegations surfaced can impact the election result. Being accused of rape, being a very serious offence, even if untrue, could diminish Assange's cause. This is what (should) irks people who couldn't really give a flying fuck about Assange or individuals in the open source movement.



Yes, which is why I got pissed off with the way Assange handled the allegations from almost the first moment they arose. For a start if he was so aware of the possibility of being smeared or trapped he should not have put himself in situations which carried that risk. Secondly he should have taken steps to protect wikileaks from any damage to him as an individual personality, but I don't think he could do that because it seems likely that he hasn't actually built an organisation that functions without him. Then some aspects of his defence upset me greatly in a way similar to some of the posts on this thread, the urge to dismiss the allegations at any cost.


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What is his cause?



According to page 5 of this year-old interview with Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/5/



> *Would you call yourself a free market proponent?*
> Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.
> *How do your leaks fit into that?*
> To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.
> ...



So, quite aside from issues surrounding the legal case, I know that some people view Assange with suspicion for other reasons, including his apparent desire to be a for-profit information brokerage.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2011)

Random said:


> Comparing Assange to Galloway is unfair on Assange, I hope. Assange is a rather egotistic hacker, possibly with a big problem relating to women, but he seems to be on a genuine mission. Galloway is a self-aggrandizing bully who uses politics to further his own personal brand, picking up and dropping ethnic groups and international causes as it pleases him.



Who cares about their personalities?

You are simply falling in with the agenda of the right wing press, which attacks the causes by focussing on the supposed personality flaws of the leaders.

This has been done so many times before, with Benn, Scargill, Livingstone etc., that you´´d have thought that people would have seen through it by now.  But nooooo... it seems there is no end to some people´s credulity.



Random said:


> Larger than life strongmen



Is this Assange you´re talking about now?   Perhaps Bradley Manning?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 6, 2011)

The problem is having leaders.  Don't have leaders.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What is his cause?



Subverting the war effort.

I´´call that a damn good cause. And he has pursued it more effectively than anyone else, with the possible exception of Galloway.

And _quelle surprise _these two just happen to be the most demonized figures in the media. For Leftists to fall for this bullshit is truly worrying.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 6, 2011)

I'd have thought that it is more worrying when 'Leftists' think someone should be given a free hand to commit rape because they helped run a website which published leaked documents myself.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2011)

Combustible said:


> I'd have thought that it is more worrying when 'Leftists' think someone should be given a free hand to commit rape because they helped run a website which published leaked documents myself.



1. Nobody has said that.

2.  You know perfectly well that nobody has said that.

3.  Everyone knows that you know perfectly well that nobody has said that.

4.  Everyone knows that you are an unscrupulous and dishonest debater.

5.  Nobody will take you seriously from now on.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 6, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> 1. Nobody has said that.
> 
> 2. You know perfectly well that nobody has said that.
> 
> ...



What he may have done isn't worthy of being properly investigated apparently.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Surprised by a few on this thread, tbh. *And even if every single word of the testimony is true, which I don't believe for one second, the idea that this is worthy of an international police operation is laughable.* Would it have happened if you or I had been accused of this? Of course not. Has pressure been brought to bear? Utterly naive and ignorant of history to believe that it hasn't.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> What he may have done isn't worthy of being properly investigated apparently.



The point is that they most certainly wouldn´t be chasing him over it if he wasn´t who he is.

Therefore it is a political prosecution.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 6, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> The point is that they most certainly wouldn´t be chasing him over it if he wasn´t who he is.
> 
> Therefore it is a political prosecution.



It's the same shite i've seen before. The same old cult of personality drivel that he's one of ours therefore it doesn't matter what he might have done, sexual assault, pssible rape included. It's pathetic.... Defend the free marketer at all costs....


----------



## Combustible (Nov 6, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> 1. Nobody has said that.



Firstly someone has said in this very thread.


littlebabyjesus said:


> And even if every single word of the testimony is true, which I don't believe for one second, the idea that this is worthy of an international police operation is laughable.



I will concede that it is not so much a call for someone to be given a free hand to commit rape if they publish leaked documents, more gives them a free hand providing they flee the country before being questioned.

However more importantly if you think about for a second, anyone that assumes a priori that any accusations against Assange (or anyone else) are necessarily false and politically motivated are doing exactly what I said they are doing.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 6, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> The point is that they most certainly wouldn´t be chasing him over it if he wasn´t who he is.
> 
> Therefore it is a political prosecution.



As I posted earlier there are plenty of examples of European Arrest Warrants being issued over far less serious charges.  Are these all politically motivated?



> EAWs have been sought for such offences as bicycle theft, possession of 0.45 grams of cannabis, removing car tyres and stealing piglets. More than 2,400 requests were received by the UK from Poland last year.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> What he may have done isn't worthy of being properly investigated apparently.


I didn't say that, did I? A complaint should be investigated, of course, and if it is found that there is no case to answer, it is not then taken further. I see no case to answer here, certainly no cause for anyone to be incarcerated. I also agree with dylans that the whole case is a perversion of feminism. I worry about the direction Sweden is going in in this regard, both in terms of this law and others such as its attitude to prostitution.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 7, 2011)

He is alleged to have had sex with a sleeping woman. she states she did not consent to this and felt aggrived by such a violation. Furthermore, he did not use a condom, which was said to be a pre requisite for consent. This is not a perversion of feminism, and there is a case to answer.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 7, 2011)

elbows said:


> For a start if he was so aware of the possibility of being smeared or trapped he should not have put himself in situations which carried that risk.



Since he opted to be the figurehead, he should have been particularly careful.  I completely agree with that.



Jon-of-arc said:


> This is not a perversion of feminism, and there is a case to answer.



A preversion of feminism would be to use rape laws to smear a specific individual.  That is what some people suspect is going on here.  The specifics of the case are, by any standard, a grey area.  It is far from clear whether "there is a case to answer".  I am not even sure the Swedish courts believe there is to be a case to answer yet.

http://www.thelocal.se/31934/20110209/


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 7, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Since he opted to be the figurehead, he should have been particularly careful.  I completely agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The british courts do. Theres been a long and protracted legal battle, the outcome of which is also the subject of this thread. A few pages back I linked to the sumary of the appeal judges ruling, which states very clearly why Assange needs to answer some questions in sweden, which may or may not lead to him being charged. "a case to answer" if you like.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Nov 7, 2011)

Apparently the Swedish court documents were leaked which actually goes into much more detail than the Judge's verdict on the extradition.  Have you got a link to them?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2011)

elbows said:


> if he was so aware of the possibility of being smeared or trapped he should not have put himself in situations which carried that risk.


Sorry, but if he has been set up, blaming him for allowing it to happen really is a bit rich.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 7, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Apparently the Swedish court documents were leaked which actually goes into much more detail than the Judge's verdict on the extradition.  Have you got a link to them?



No. wonder if they'll be on wikileaks?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2011)

There are details of the leaks here. BTW, they do away with the suggestion that the euro-warrent was some sort of special harassment, it was because he fled sweden before an agreed meeting with the prosecutor.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't say that, did I? A complaint should be investigated, of course, and if it is found that there is no case to answer, it is not then taken further. I see no case to answer here, certainly no cause for anyone to be incarcerated. I also agree with dylans that the whole case is a perversion of feminism. I worry about the direction Sweden is going in in this regard, both in terms of this law and others such as its attitude to prostitution.



Yes you did, you complained about the EAW. Assange fled the country, how else do they investigate an alleged rapist without issuing a warrant?!


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 7, 2011)

This thread is very depressing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2011)

Assange gets direct ability to ask the SC if he can appeal - odd?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 5, 2011)

Story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16027942


----------



## sihhi (Dec 5, 2011)

Has anyone watched this documentary?

It's pro-Guardian, NYT. But it does suggest Wikileaks didn't give a monkey's about moving Bradley Manning to another country after he'd leaked the information. They're fighting for Assange when Bradley Manning is the guy they should have gotten to somewhere that doesn't have a legal treaty with the USA like Abkhazia or somewhere.
I think approaching the Cuban government would have been an idea aswell but Wikileaks aka Assange's pet didn't even think about him.

The consequences for other military leakers are pretty bad. Who else will want to leak knowing that you get sleep deprivation in a four feet cell? Wikileaks don't seem to care.

Adrian Lamo. There are no words for him.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/wikileaks-secrets-and-lies/4od


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 5, 2011)

I saw the documentary. I was horrified that Bradley Manning was basically abandoned by Wikileaks after he put his life on the line to get the information out.

I didn't think Assange came across very well - kind of reminded me of a blonder younger David Icke.

It was interesting to hear the views of the Guardian and the New York Times.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2011)

Supreme Court will hear Assange case - feb.


----------



## rekil (Jan 21, 2012)

Rolling Stone interview.

He's barking.


> Rolling Stone: WikiLeaks has been credited, even by its critics, with fueling the Arab Spring, and even Occupy Wall Street. Was this your plan? Did you imagine you could have this kind of impact?
> 
> Assange: We planned for most of what has occurred over the past 12 months. It is fair to say we're unexpectedly delighted that those plans came to fruition.



And rubbish at internet.


> Back when we last did a survey, in February, there were a total of 33 million references on the Internet to the word "rape" in any context, from Helen of Troy to the Congo. If you search for "rape" and my name, there were just over 20 million. In other words, perceptively, two-thirds of all rapes that have ever happened anywhere in the world, ever, have something to do with me.


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2012)

Its always ugly when EgoLeaks


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2012)

Assange is to host his own TV chat show http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9035017/Julian-Assange-plans-TV-chat-show.html (can't find the original Wikileaks press release I saw on Twitter).

A little bird told me earlier that this show will be on Press TV. In the official notice it only says it will have a potential audience of 600 million.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

he's also had a play written about him.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

My source was wrong it's actualy going to be on RT (Russia Today) first!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 30, 2012)

lulz.. he is also appearing in the simpsons 500th episode... way to go! stick it to man...


im hearing word that the wikileak crew will be evicting him soon... n get on with work as usual work... yup they is still at it, whilst julian baby is enjoying his 15mins

the thing that is really annoying me at the mo....
*why isnt he SHOUTING Bradley Manning with all these new friends??????*


----------



## teqniq (Mar 10, 2012)

Interesting article by John Pilger in the Graun here


----------



## audiotech (Mar 11, 2012)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *why isnt he SHOUTING Bradley Manning with all these new friends??????*


 
It would be rather foolish of Assange to give public, vocal support to Bradley Manning at this time, as that would give the US authorities and others ammunition to attack Bradley Manning, jeopardising his case in front of a military trial, so it serves no purpose, as I'm sure Assange is well aware.

From the Guardian piece posted by teqnig:




> On Swedish public TV "experts" debate not the country's deepening militarist state and its service to Nato and Washington, but the state of Assange's mind and his "paranoia". A headline in Tuesday's Aftonbladet declared: " Assange's moral collapse". The article suggests Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks' alleged source, may not be sane, and attacks Assange for not protecting Manning from himself. What was not mentioned was that the source was anonymous, that *no connection has been demonstrated between Assange and Manning*, and that Aftonbladet, WikiLeaks' Swedish partner, had published the same leaks undeterred.


My emphasis.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Mar 11, 2012)

hence the feds turning Sabu from #lulzsec trying to build a case.....

Although Assange has left Bradley out to dry, he should be seen to be supporting him... the onus is on the state to make the link....


----------



## audiotech (Mar 11, 2012)

There's no need to assist the state in that is there?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

audiotech said:


> There's no need to assist the state in that is there?


Explain how arguing that a person who benefited from the actions of BM showing solidarity for him is helping the state.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 11, 2012)

They'll use every trick in the book to try to connect Manning with Assange, to the formers detriment, so Assange is doing the wise thing here and keeping schtum.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

That's right. The prosecutors wouldn't have been looking for one. SHHSHH!!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 11, 2012)

tbf Manning could have been facing death for his actions, prosecutors have stated that they'll not go for that. Why the fuck would a man who could still possibly be extradited to the US fess up to being in cahoots with someone on a knife edge of a death sentence? Call me a yellow belly, but I'd deny any association with that thankyouverymuch.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 11, 2012)

Pilger published a good rant about Wikileaks recently.



> War by media, says current military doctrine, is as important as the battlefield. This is because the real enemy is the public at home, whose manipulation and deception is essential for starting an unpopular colonial war. Like the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, attacks on Iran and Syria require a steady drip-effect on readers' and viewers' consciousness. This is the essence of a propaganda that rarely speaks its name.
> 
> To the chagrin of many in authority and the media, WikiLeaks has torn down the facade behind which rapacious western power and journalism collude. This was an enduring taboo; the BBC could claim impartiality and expect people to believe it. Today, war by media is increasingly understood by the public, as is the trial by media of WikiLeaks' founder and editor Julian Assange.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/julian-assange-wikileaks


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> tbf Manning could have been facing death for his actions, prosecutors have stated that they'll not go for that. Why the fuck would a man who could still possibly be extradited to the US fess up to being in cahoots with someone on a knife edge of a death sentence? Call me a yellow belly, but I'd deny any association with that thankyouverymuch.


How does solidarity mean saying _yes , there is a connection and here it is The one the prosecutors haven't come up with._


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Pilger published a good rant about Wikileaks recently.
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/julian-assange-wikileaks


That's a terrible piece bernie. This para is why:



> Assange will soon know if the supreme court in London is to allow his appeal against extradition to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual misconduct, most of which were dismissed by a senior prosecutor in Stockholm.


 
Pilger used to be better than this sort of_ i hope no one checks stuff_ - or maybe he got away wirth it more pre-internet. Either way, idiots like Assange have helped kill this sort of journalism...hopefully.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 11, 2012)

I have to admit, I'm a bit puzzled about your hostility to this whole thing. I mean, sure, there have been stupid claims that it means far more than it does, but still, for example seeing the state dept cables that show the new head of the IAEA is a US stooge is useful.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

Leaks as a  business model - commercial managment of whistleblowing, PR models applied to same. If they've inadvertently blown the doors off something then all good. Assange, no.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 11, 2012)

Ahhh .. OK, I begin to see what you have in mind I think.


----------



## elbows (Mar 11, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Ahhh .. OK, I begin to see what you have in mind I think.


 
Yeah that stuff did get discussed here once or twice in the past, you might find itby searching for cryptome as that guy had quite the rant about the wikileaks business model in the past. The cryptome rant probably went beyond the reality of this case but it opened up some interesting areas for discussion.

Even ignoring the most cynical and disturbing commercial possibilities behind Assanges wikileaks model, I had plenty else to rant about, ranging from the completely innaporpriate use of wiki in their name, to the way Assange has conducted himself on so many fronts.

Primarily Im pissed because there are a load of real important issues here and I would much rather have been able to read a Pilger article on the subject and agree with it, and shout my mouth off as part of a wider struggle to defend leaking entities, explore the way the world could work if sensitive information more routinely escaped into the public sphere, etc.

But no, almost every step of the way Assange did things I couldn't ignore, that shoot the whole cause in the foot. And as he casts himself in the mould of a cunning activist who was fully aware of the implications of his actions, aware that they would be out to get him, I had rather hoped he would actually be well prepared and that even if he personally got 'taken out' in some way, he would have defended a variety of vital concepts and beliefs. But no, at best he walked into an obvious trap and then said some horrible things whilst defending himself. At worst he committed crimes against individuals and then tried to shield himself from account by using his vehicle thats supposed to be about, ahem, holding people in office to account.

I was also critical of him because some of the things he has said make it sound like he hadn't actually tried to create an institution that was bigger than him, that could carry on if he was removed from the picture. But he does talk some shit sometimes so maybe wikileaks will be ok if the law gets him, we shall see.

Now given that various powers would be bound to want to get him, and the number of serious issues at stake, I ca appreciate why many people have defended assange and think that those who attack him are doing the devils work. Well perhaps I could have turned a blind eye to some of Assanges unattractive personality traits & failings, if only there had not been so many areas of hypocrisy right on wikileaks prime territory, double-standards that affect the very core of what wikileaks is supposed to be about. How can I possibly support an organisation that calls other to account but does not think that it should be accountable in anything like the same way?

And even more importantly, how can I fight for a cause whose cheerleader has a very dangerous attitude towards information? Assange is acutely aware of the power of information, and how concentrated that power can be when the information is only in a few hands. But does he want to throw that ring of power into a pit and destroy it forever? No, he is dazzled by the ring, he wants to wear it himself, and decide what it released, to whom, and when.

So he is Gollum to me, and I will only judge him kindly if he completes Gollums acts by sacrificing himself selflessly in the end


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 11, 2012)

Yeah, I must admit I haven't paid much attention to that stuff. I've focussed more on the content of the leaks.


----------



## elbows (Mar 11, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yeah, I must admit I haven't paid much attention to that stuff. I've focussed more on the content of the leaks.


 
I did that too but surprisingly little forum chatter was sustained about the actual contents, and as Im often to be found talking to myself I didn't fancy repeating that phenomenon with all the interesting stuff I read. Im up for giving it another try though at some point if anyone fancies joining in.


----------



## elbows (Mar 11, 2012)

The sexual side of this case was a struggle for me too. I know that such stuff is a good way to smear someone, but also I find it beyond depressing how many sexual crimes happen in the world, and how easily we can pick and choose which to take seriously and which to dismiss. And because Assange has admitted to having some kind of issue when it comes to how he deals with women in his life, I've not been able to brush it to one side just because there are big issues which affect more people than those affected by any possible sexual horrors. 

I can't judge whether Assange committed a crime, I can't bet my life that he crossed the line. But I can be pretty darn sure that he was at least seen in the vicinity of the line, and am disturbed by the idea that this should never be looked into more by any legal system anywhere.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 18, 2012)

So, Assange has a new show on 'Russia Today'. Here is a critique of it with a link to the show:



> The guest on the show’s first episode is Sayyid Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah


 
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/04/17/about-julian-assanges-new-revolutionary-television-show/


----------



## elbows (Apr 18, 2012)

I suppose I will have to watch at least one episode to form my own conclusions. That article appears to gush over it too positively, and as anticipated the mainstream reviews such as the one below shriek rather loudly. If only they would describe other tv stations in such a manner!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/17/world-tomorrow-julian-assange-wikileaks


----------



## teqniq (Apr 18, 2012)

yes it does seem to be one extreme to another, no middle ground


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 30, 2012)

verdict being read live now: http://rt.com/on-air/assange-extradition-uk-ruling/


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 30, 2012)

Looks like he's getting extradited. Majority decision: 5 for extradition, 2 against.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 30, 2012)

But Assange's legal team have been given two weeks to appeal a further point of law


----------



## MAD-T-REX (May 30, 2012)

Adios, amigo. Take your misogynist crap with you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2012)

Supreme Court now told him to knob off.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 14, 2012)

Here's a detailed post on what might happen next: http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/05/29/what-if-julian-assange-loses-in-the-supreme-court/

Long story short, any application to the ECtHR will be rejected in short order and he will be on a plane to Sweden within weeks.

Edit: And here is the announcement from the SC: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/julian-assange-v-swedish-prosecution-authority.html This challenge is described as "without merit"; so much for the last minute goal by his counsel.


----------



## youngian (Jun 15, 2012)

Does anyone know why Assange has been entitled to an appeal?

I understood once an EU arrest warrant is executed it is a done deal.

Is he even a British citizen anyway.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2012)

It's a EU arrest warrent, so I suppose appeal to the ECHR is suitable even for Ozzies.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2012)

His nationality has absolutely nothing to do with it surely?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 19, 2012)

Assange is claiming asylum at Ecuador's embassy


----------



## idumea (Jun 19, 2012)

According to the wikileaks twitter account, he is seeking asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy.
Whut?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 19, 2012)

If they kick him out of the embassy, I imagine the courts will revoke his bail immediately.


----------



## killer b (Jun 19, 2012)

Damarr said:


> If they kick him out of the embassy, I imagine the courts will revoke his bail immediately.


this, and the oddness of the choice of embassy suggests he may have a pre arranged agreement with the equadorians.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 19, 2012)

killer b said:


> this, and the oddness of the choice of embassy suggests he may have a pre arranged agreement with the equadorians.


I think a Ecuadorian minister offered him asylum before but was overruled.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 19, 2012)

Here's the statement from Ecuador: https://twitter.com/ravisomaiya/status/215157793953562624/photo/1/large (a screenshot of some website, but it was posted by the NYT's London reporter so it's reliable, presumably). They're evaluating his claim.

To add to Assange's stupidity, Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the EU (and the US). In the extremely unlikely event that he escapes to Ecuador, he would be reliant on the government's continued good will to avoid extradition to Sweden. Going by his track record, I doubt he could keep them on side. This is pure desperation.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jun 19, 2012)

Damarr said:


> Assange is claiming asylum at Ecuador's embassy


 
for fucks sake why doesn't he just go to Sweden and deal with the charges

he must have spent thousands in legal fees so far. think of all the better things that money could have been spent on


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 19, 2012)

All of the celebs who called on people to donate to Assange's defence deserve a punch in the nose.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 19, 2012)

Who put up his bail money?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 19, 2012)

Jemima Khan and a few others put together just shy of £250,000 for his surety. An expensive mistake.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 19, 2012)

Damarr said:


> Jemima Khan and a few others put together just shy of £250,000 for his surety. An expensive mistake.



Ha ha whoops 

Although they might not miss the money


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 20, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> for fucks sake why doesn't he just go to Sweden and deal with the charges


He's not helping those who want to continue to believe his innocence, is he?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 20, 2012)

So if Ecuador grants him asylum will he be allowed to travel from the embassy to the airport to fly to Ecuador?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 20, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> So if Ecuador grants him asylum will he be allowed to travel from the embassy to the airport to fly to Ecuador?


That's what he's hoping.  

He says the reason he won't go back to Sweden is that it has an extradition treaty with the US.  But so does Ecuador.  So maybe there's another reason he won't go back to Sweden.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 20, 2012)

Man who claims his innocence in rape case continues to avoid defending himself in duly appointed court. Rape victims everywhere have yet another ridiculous thing to have to try and get past in gaining recognition of the seriousness of the crime, it's chronic under-reporting and society's view as it being both a 'female' problem and one that's given to hysteria and bitter false reporting.

Thanks Julian, you complete fucking bellend.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 20, 2012)

_But those women are like paid by the CIA, man._


----------



## Balbi (Jun 20, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> _But those women are like paid by the CIA, man._


 
_They alllllllllllllll are, paid not to talk to me, not to let me stroke their smooth, shiny hair, it's a fucking conspiracy _


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jun 20, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> for fucks sake why doesn't he just go to Sweden and deal with the charges
> 
> he must have spent thousands in legal fees so far. think of all the better things that money could have been spent on


 
Because regardless of the outcome, the sweedes will send him to the US -that's his spin anyway.

A more cynical mind would suggest he thinks he's guilty of the original charge.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 20, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> So if Ecuador grants him asylum will he be allowed to travel from the embassy to the airport to fly to Ecuador?


 
Ecuadorian Air Force holding at 5 minute readiness.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 21, 2012)

Well whatever the outcome of this bizarre Ecuadoran embassy manoeuvre it would seem that pressure has been bought to bear by the Greens within the Australian government to show him more support:



> *Government isolated on prejudicial statements on Assange*
> 
> *21 Jun 2012* | Defence & National Security
> A Greens motion in the Senate passed today with Coalition support, calling on the government to withdraw prejudicial statements made on Mr. Julian Assange.
> ...



http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/government-isolated-prejudicial-statements-assange


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 21, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> That's what he's hoping.
> 
> He says the reason he won't go back to Sweden is that it has an extradition treaty with the US. But so does Ecuador. So maybe there's another reason he won't go back to Sweden.


Either Assange is that stupid, and this act is so badly planned, he's asking a country for asylum that has the same agreement with the USA as Sweden, or you are to think he would.

Fwiw, Ecuador has a fundamentally different extradition treaty with the USA, and this was very obv. stage managed and agreed in advance.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 21, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-asylum-questions-answers

Guardian Q&A on diplomatic immunity. The police have the right to stop any car leaving the embassy as immunity applies only to individuals who are accredited diplomats, so Assange is going to be arrested unless he plans to stay inside the embassy permanently or he is smuggled out in a large box. This is just a stunt to grab some headlines.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 21, 2012)

He needs more heroic material for the film that he hopes will be made about his life.


----------



## Random (Jun 24, 2012)

And now something completely mental. Wikileaks accuses Sweden's World Service of launching an "apparent propaganda war against Assange", for writing an article where the words 'rape' and 'asylum' appear in the headline https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/216979318176362496

They must have their brains cooking with paranois over there at Wikileaks. For people in Sweden, the state radio is notoriously stuffed with lefties, and the World Service wing is worse, if anything. There's a minor scandal right now in Sweden since a survey showed that 41 per cent of radio/tv journos support the Greens. But for Wikileaks SR/SVT might as well be Saudi state Radio or something.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 25, 2012)

Random said:


> And now something completely mental. Wikileaks accuses Sweden's World Service of launching an "apparent propaganda war against Assange", for writing an article where the words 'rape' and 'asylum' appear in the headline https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/216979318176362496
> 
> They must have their brains cooking with paranois over there at Wikileaks. For people in Sweden, the state radio is notoriously stuffed with lefties, and the World Service wing is worse, if anything. There's a minor scandal right now in Sweden since a survey showed that 41 per cent of radio/tv journos support the Greens. But for Wikileaks SR/SVT might as well be Saudi state Radio or something.


What headline do they suggest, "Assange faces questioning over allegations we aren't going to mention, and seeks something or other in Ecuador"?


----------



## newbie (Jun 25, 2012)

read the article daNNY- IT'S ABOUT AN eTHIOPIAN WOMAN SEEKING ASYLUM IN SWEDEN AFTER (oops, soz) being raped in ethiopia.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 25, 2012)

Bob Carr, in full flight from the facts on Assange

Make of this what you will, and it comes complete with handbags (or mice) at fifty paces in the comments below. Somewhat like here in places. If there's one thing you can say about all this, it certainly seems to arouse a lot of ire whichever side of the fence you are sitting on.


----------



## Random (Jun 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> What headline do they suggest, "Assange faces questioning over allegations we aren't going to mention, and seeks something or other in Ecuador"?


The article is nothing about Wikileaks, but based on a report about how women raped in war zones have to prove their rape was "political" before they can get asylum.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 25, 2012)

Random said:


> The article is nothing about Wikileaks, but based on a report about how women raped in war zones have to prove their rape was "political" before they can get asylum.


Sorry, I didn't read the link ( saw the word Twitter and thought it'd have less info than your post); I just assumed they meant stories about Assange shouldn't have those words in their headlines. But - let me get this straight - they're actually saying _any_ stories containing the words "rape" or "asylum" are anti-Assange propaganda?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 25, 2012)

newbie said:


> read the article daNNY- IT'S ABOUT AN eTHIOPIAN WOMAN SEEKING ASYLUM IN SWEDEN AFTER (oops, soz) being raped in ethiopia.


 Read it now (it's very brief). Bizarre.


----------



## Random (Jun 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Sorry, I didn't read the link; I just assumed they meant stories about Assange shouldn't have those words in their headlines.  But - let me get this straight - they're actually saying _any_ stories containing the words "rape" or "asylum" are anti-Assange propaganda?


I think whoever was in charge of the wikileaks twitter account last night drank too much coffee, saw the headline, saw it was Swedish media and just lurched into an odd paranoid accusation. I think it reflects how embattled and defensive the Wikileaks team are right now.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 25, 2012)

Random said:


> I think whoever was in charge of the wikileaks twitter account last night drank too much coffee, saw the headline, saw it was Swedish media and just lurched into an odd paranoid accusation. I think it reflects how embattled and defensive the Wikileaks team are right now.


And how far removed from reality.

(Bad sentence, but I'm not changing it).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

teqniq said:


> Bob Carr, in full flight from the facts on Assange
> 
> Make of this what you will, and it comes complete with handbags (or mice) at fifty paces in the comments below. Somewhat like here in places. If there's one thing you can say about all this, it certainly seems to arouse a lot of ire whichever side of the fence you are sitting on.


Classic example of Assange supporters bullshit and bluffery here - the article is Richard Farmer calling out some TV bloke for arguing that there are no grounds for assuming it would be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US than from the UK. He bases his rejection of this on the fact that the US and Sweden signed a bilateral trearty that allows for what is called Temporary Surrender outside of normal extradition processes and this would be the mechanism used to get Assange to the US. Only problem with this is that_* the UK has a temporary surrender in place as well*_ (all EU countries do).


----------



## teqniq (Jun 25, 2012)

Thankyou for that.  It was one of the bits I was wondering about.


----------



## Random (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Only problem with this is that_* the UK has a temporary surrender in place as well*_ (all EU countries do).


When are these surrenders used?

BTW Swedish media had recently the story of a US Airforce deserter who came to Sweden in the 1980s. He's on the US military's list of most wanted deserters, but there's no sign he'll be handed over.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Random said:


> When are these surrenders used?
> 
> BTW Swedish media had recently the story of a US Airforce deserter who came to Sweden in the 1980s. He's on the US military's list of most wanted deserters, but there's no sign he'll be handed over.


You mean on what grounds are they granted? Appears to be where speed is of the essence, potential danger etc (And i can see nothing in them that means that the terms of the arrest warrant are abrogated i.e that the UK effectively gets final say - though lawyers will see room to argue there).


----------



## Random (Jun 25, 2012)

Thanks


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

predators on the "left", who'd have thought eh?


----------



## Random (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> predators on the "left", who'd have thought eh?


what?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

Random said:


> what?


 
sorry, im just talking about julian assange and his defenders. it's sick how people on the left could even think to defend this bastard, i mean what the fuck? but sadly there is a precedent for it. im thinking about gerry healy and others.


----------



## Random (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> sorry, im just talking about julian assange and his defenders. it's sick how people on the left could even think to defend this bastard, i mean what the fuck? but sadly there is a precedent for it. im thinking about gerry healy and others.


I'd rather reserve judgement on whether he did rape or molest anyone. What I do find sickening is those on the left who look at the statemens made by the two women and say "there's no crime in that" http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden basically arguing that anyone who gets into bed is then handing over control of their body for the duration.

The only way Assange could be guilty is for the women to be lying or exaggerating. The lawyer Hurtig rebuts the allegations at the end of that Guardian article and I think that's a possible explanation.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> sorry, im just talking about julian assange and his defenders. it's sick how people on the left could even think to defend this bastard, i mean what the fuck? but sadly there is a precedent for it. im thinking about gerry healy and others.


I'd certainly defend his right to a fair trial, and inncence until guilt is proven; I'd do that for everyone


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 26, 2012)

Streathamite said:
			
		

> I'd certainly defend his right to a fair trial, and inncence until guilt is proven; I'd do that for everyone



Not sure if that stretches to someone who evades the process of it being decided either way.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Not sure if that stretches to someone who evades the process of it being decided either way.


Well, he still deserves a fair trial if he ever faces trial.  And we should continue to presume innocence.  But his actions and words have certainly stretched credulity on that latter score.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 26, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Not sure if that stretches to someone who evades the process of it being decided either way.


see DLR's comments - spot on. He really has made a mess of things, but everyone deserves fair treatment by the law.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 26, 2012)

teqniq said:


> If there's one thing you can say about all this, it certainly seems to arouse a lot of ire whichever side of the fence you are sitting on.


 
That's what I find most interesting about it, rather than so much the did he didn't he, will they won't they. Every reporter chooses a side, because they have to. Now the Guardian, NY Times and Washington Post have done a complete about face with regards to Assange. Sure they might give a column to a Glenn Greenwald here or there but mostly they attack him and his defenders' arguments as paranoid/fantasy/conspiracy theories; paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories that those papers themselves endorsed only a year ago. And now it's like they never did. It's so 1984.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 26, 2012)

smmudge said:


> That's what I find most interesting about it, rather than so much the did he didn't he, will they won't they. Every reporter chooses a side, because they have to. Now the Guardian, NY Times and Washington Post have done a complete about face with regards to Assange. Sure they might give a column to a Glenn Greenwald here or there but mostly they attack him and his defenders' arguments as paranoid/fantasy/conspiracy theories; paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories that those papers themselves endorsed only a year ago. And now it's like they never did. It's so 1984.


 
The rape allegations placed everyone in a bit of a quandary. They could only really continue supporting Assange as they had previously if they basically called the women who made the allegations liars. Which would be a controversial enough move for anyone to make but more so for the Guardian which has feminist writers on board. So this distancing witnessed was the result of that. And perhaps Wikileaks is now tarred with the same brush as Assange.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 26, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> The rape allegations placed everyone in a bit of a quandary. They could only really continue supporting Assange as they had previously if they basically called the women who made the allegations liars. Which would be a controversial enough move for anyone to make but more so for the Guardian which has feminist writers on board. So this distancing witnessed was the result of that. And perhaps Wikileaks is now tarred with the same brush as Assange.


 
Oh aye that's true to an extent*, although it did take them at least six months from the time the allegations were made to properly turn on him.

*I noticed some writers for the Socialist Worker went through the same quandry and managed to come to the conclusion that it was possible to support Assange without questioning the allegations, hence my to an extent there


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 26, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Oh aye that's true to an extent*, although it did take them at least six months from the time the allegations were made to properly turn on him.
> 
> *I noticed some writers for the Socialist Worker went through the same quandry and managed to come to the conclusion that it was possible to support Assange without questioning the allegations, hence my to an extent there


 
Melanie Phillips had a good old gloat about it at the time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...PHILLIPS-Fancy-The-Left-war-Mr-WikiLeaks.html


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

smmudge said:


> That's what I find most interesting about it, rather than so much the did he didn't he, will they won't they. Every reporter chooses a side, because they have to. Now the Guardian, NY Times and Washington Post have done a complete about face with regards to Assange. Sure they might give a column to a Glenn Greenwald here or there but mostly they attack him and his defenders' arguments as paranoid/fantasy/conspiracy theories; paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories that those papers themselves endorsed only a year ago. And now it's like they never did. It's so 1984.


The Guardian's problem is the same problem a lot of people have: they have heroes instead of values.  This is why Phillips can have a go at the "Left" when talking about Assange, when really it makes no sense at all to call him "Left"; he's a free market "libertarian".  Why the hero worship?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 27, 2012)

They need a new Jesus.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 27, 2012)

I think his 'hero' status on the 'left' is more to do with his actions than his economic opinions.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 27, 2012)

Besides, the Guardian isn't particularly 'left'. It's more capitalism with a pretend conscience in the libdem tradition.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

smmudge said:


> I think his 'hero' status on the 'left' is more to do with his actions than his economic opinions.


What actions would they be?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> What actions would they be?



The exposing America stuff. Which amounted to nothing particularly exciting.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> The exposing America stuff. Which amounted to nothing particularly exciting.


I've never been able to build up much enthusiasm for Wikileaks, to be honest. At the time of the Afghanistan and Iraq document leaks (when I knew next to nothing about Assange), I thought the information confirmed what we already knew. So it was vaguely interesting, but I'm not sure anyone's mind was changed. I couldn't really see what the fuss was about. The question is: has anything other than minds been changed by the public knowledge of the leaks? Have governments behaved differently because of them? I suppose it's too early to say, although I have my doubts. Perhaps they're more careful to guard their secrets. Has US public opinion changed because of Wikileaks, and has the US government had to change its policy to accommodate that? And if so, in what way? I'm open to evidence-based argument.

I remember reading somewhere (the Guardian probably) that the "Arab Spring" happened because of Wikileaks. This statement was unsupported by any further analysis or evidence. I remember writing it in a notebook at the time (I do that sort of thing). It was just a bald statement, at the end of an article about the no show of the banking expose material (if I remember correctly). I'm willing to be persuaded, but my initial reaction was incredulity.  However, let's hear it.  Maybe there was an effect.

Frankly, while the information was available, I think it was handy to use it. But does that make Assange's role "heroic"?

(Bradley Manning is a different issue. He deserves all the support we can give him, and I applaud the efforts of Amnesty to improve his conditions and get him out of Quantico).


----------



## smmudge (Jun 27, 2012)

Nothing is going to single handedly make governments change their behaviour or start revolutions. But I'd like to think there has been a fair push for a deviation from the 'official' line, both of the governments and popular media (mostly the same line, in the US at least) and wikileaks never did that by itself but its basic premise was at least part of that effort. At the very least it embarrassed some powerful people.

But no it certainly isn't heroic. That's silly. But popular culture is all about image and persona and exaggeration, and a 'hero' narrative falls nicely into that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

smmudge said:


> But I'd like to think there has been a fair push for a deviation from the 'official' line, both of the governments and popular media (mostly the same line, in the US at least) and wikileaks never did that by itself but its basic premise was at least part of that effort.


You'd like to think it, or you do think it?  If the latter, why?

What has this push consisted of?  What deviation from the official line has occurred in popular media in the US because of Wikileaks, that wouldn't have happened otherwise?  (I'm not saying it didn't happen, by the way.  Just looking for evidence).


----------



## smmudge (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You'd like to think it, or you do think it? If the latter, why?
> 
> What has this push consisted of? What deviation from the official line has occurred in popular media in the US because of Wikileaks, that wouldn't have happened otherwise? (I'm not saying it didn't happen, by the way. Just looking for evidence).


 
I don't think the popular media has deviated, not significantly anyway (I said a deviation from the popular media, not in the popular media). The push would be the plethora of online magazines, bloggers, writers, commenters and tweeters on a myriad of different subjects nowadays, some of which have used wikileak documents for their arguments. But who knows what will happen. Perhaps there's too much noise and it will end up with these one or two big channels pushing the rest of them to the fringes, essentially mirroring modernism's one-to-many mass media. But the ideal is the democratisation of media, and if it's not happening we at least have the tools at our disposal.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

I can't understand your prose, sorry.  When you said: "But I'd like to think there has been a fair push for a deviation from the 'official' line, both of the governments and popular media (mostly the same line, in the US at least) and wikileaks never did that by itself but its basic premise was at least part of that effort".  You meant "deviation from the popular media", by  which you meant people have turned from the popular media to "online magazines, bloggers, writers, commenters and tweeters"?  I'm sorry, but how was I supposed to divine that from your original sentence?

Maybe it's me, but I've no idea what you're on about.


----------



## elbows (Jun 27, 2012)

Blog etc response to the mass of cables released by wikileaks fell well short of my most optimistic hopes. I speculate that the following factors contributed:

The sheer quantity of documents.
The limited number of people who like to trawl through quite dry diplomatic-speak and do Chomsky-like analysis on the contents.
A lack of smoking-gun phrases that would appeal to both the politically aware and the conspiraloons.
Some possible self-censorship in the form of concern about going near the boatloads of cables that were not covered by the mainstream media.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 27, 2012)

Oh dear, the other thread wasn't enough so we've moved the logic-free conspirafest onto this thread, have we?


----------



## smmudge (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I can't understand your prose, sorry. When you said: "But I'd like to think there has been a fair push for a deviation from the 'official' line, both of the governments and popular media (mostly the same line, in the US at least) and wikileaks never did that by itself but its basic premise was at least part of that effort". You meant "deviation from the popular media", by which you meant people have turned from the popular media to "online magazines, bloggers, writers, commenters and tweeters"? I'm sorry, but how was I supposed to divine that from your original sentence?
> 
> Maybe it's me, but I've no idea what you're on about.


 
Oh I see, it's a scope problem. Sorry, I meant the official line was of the government and popular media, not that the deviation was.


----------



## elbows (Jun 27, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> Oh dear, the other thread wasn't enough so we've moved the logic-free conspirafest onto this thread, have we?


 
You know Im quite happy to invest time in attacking Assange & his defenders, but Im not quite sure what logic-free conspirafest you are referring to, I don't see much like that in this thread recently. Some incoherence and sucker apologist antics yes, but conspirafest?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 27, 2012)

elbows said:


> You know Im quite happy to invest time in attacking Assange & his defenders, but Im not quite sure what logic-free conspirafest you are referring to, I don't see much like that in this thread recently. Some incoherence and sucker apologist antics yes, but conspirafest?


 
I was talking to Smmudge, who got comprehensively turned over on the other thread for his/her logic-free and circular approach to this issue.


----------



## elbows (Jun 27, 2012)

Well you won't find me defending smmudges ability to string together a cohesive argument  Its not conspiraloonery though.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 27, 2012)

elbows said:


> Well you won't find me defending smmudges ability to string together a cohesive argument  Its not conspiraloonery though.


 
It's a conspirafest. Everything is about the big ol' US of A creeping round doing stealthy things stealthily. Setting poor old Julian up and then plotting to extradite him from Sweden.
I didn't say conspiraloonery. That denotes full-on tinfoilhatness. I said conspirafest. Which it is. Assange's supporters are indulging in an epic conspirafest.

Anyway, this is a pointless conversation.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 27, 2012)

I like to think of things more as evolving discussions rather than stating and defending persisting arguments. Unless I'm in court.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 27, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> It's a conspirafest. Everything is about the big ol' US of A creeping round doing stealthy things stealthily. Setting poor old Julian up and then plotting to extradite him from Sweden.
> I didn't say conspiraloonery. That denotes full-on tinfoilhatness. I said conspirafest. Which it is. Assange's supporters are indulging in an epic conspirafest.



Given that the US is on record for kidnapping people and spiriting them away to places outside of their jurasdiction for purposes of torture, I don't think the scenario you mention is _that_ far fetched. Of course, it may be untrue. But it's hardly 'conspirafest'.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Oh I see, it's a scope problem. Sorry, I meant the official line was of the government and popular media, not that the deviation was.


I see. Right, so let me summarise: You said you thought Assange's hero status on the 'left' was to do with his actions, and it turns out that this is because his organisation was one of a number of factors contributing towards a tendency for people nowadays to use blogs and Twitter a bit more.

I continue to be underwhelmed.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jun 27, 2012)

If only all this fuss and effort could've been directed in defense of Bradley Manning and not a egomaniac like Assange.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> (Bradley Manning is a different issue. He deserves all the support we can give him, and I applaud the efforts of Amnesty to improve his conditions and get him out of Quantico).


 
Conditional support for him to be fairly treated, yes, but unconditional support for what he's done? That's far more debateable.

If we acknowledge that there is a need for some level of secrecy in government dealings, we have to accept that people engaged in dealing with sensitive information should be dissuaded from leaking it, and that those that do should face consequences.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I see. Right, so let me summarise: You said you thought Assange's hero status on the 'left' was to do with his actions, and it turns out that this is because his organisation was one of a number of factors contributing towards a tendency for people nowadays to use blogs and Twitter a bit more.
> 
> I continue to be underwhelmed.


 
Yes, I also said his hero status was silly.

Also you might like to underplay it as people using "blogs and twitter a bit more", but personally I think the democratisation of media is a great thing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Conditional support for him to be fairly treated, yes, but unconditional support for what he's done? That's far more debateable.


What he's allegedly done.

Conditional support for him to be fairly treated?  Under what circumstances would you support him being unfairly treated?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

smmudge said:


> I think the democratisation of media is a great thing.


It will be, when it happens.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Conditional support for him to be fairly treated? Under what circumstances would you support him being unfairly treated?


 
None.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> It will be, when it happens.


 
Well, it's a process isn't it. Not one that's perfect by all means, or very far along, but one that I think is certainly happening now. Don't you think it has started already?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> None.


So it's not conditional, then.  You support him being fairly treated.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 27, 2012)

It's like running through treacle.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Well, it's a process isn't it. Not one that's perfect by all means, or very far along, but one that I think is certainly happening now. Don't you think it has started already?


Not really, no.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> So it's not conditional, then. You support him being fairly treated.


 
Of course. I was unclear. 

I do not unconditionally support Manning. What he's (allegedly) done is not to be condoned, imo. But now that he's done it he should be dealt with quickly, and reasonably. Subjective, of course.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Of course. I was unclear.
> 
> I do not unconditionally support Manning. What he's (allegedly) done is not to be condoned, imo. But now that he's done it he should be dealt with quickly, and reasonably. Subjective, of course.


I differ slightly on whether what he's alleged to have done should be condoned, but we agree on the rest.  Adrian Lamo sounds like a piece of shit, though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I differ slightly on whether what he's alleged to have done should be condoned ....


 
How slightly?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

Quite a lot, probably.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 27, 2012)

So somewhat more than "slightly", Pilch.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Not really, no.


 
OK. The irony of saying that on a message board, though...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

smmudge said:


> OK. The irony of saying that on a message board, though...


Not in the least ironic. Bulletin boards are a minority sport.

(If you really want a discussion on what effect new media are having on democratising the traditional media, then we're going to need a new thread).


----------



## teqniq (Jun 28, 2012)

New evidence of US operation against Julian Assange

The above is doing the rounds on Twitter.

It's tone is (unsurpisingly) staunchly in defence of Assange.

It does make some interesting allegations supported by what it describes as wide inter-agency co-operation in the States in pursuance of all things and people associated with Wikileaks.

I await the usual dissection.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2012)

teqniq said:


> New evidence of US operation against Julian Assange
> 
> The above is doing the rounds on Twitter.
> 
> ...


Look at the first line of the second paragraph:  "dubious sexual assault allegations".  So, no prejudging going on there.  Second sentence of that paragraph: " He has good reason to fear that if he is extradited to Sweden, Washington will intervene, extraditing him to face a trial on espionage charges."  So they're already setting up this idea that his fears of extradition to the US trump the need to test the allegations through due legal process.  The allegations are already dubious.  We don't even need to worry about justice being done or being seen to be done there.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 28, 2012)

Lol well yes, I did notice that too. I am trying to sit on the fence on this one but to reiterate whilst I believe that Assange is a bit of an attention-seeking twat, I imagine the U.S. government would love to close the whole Wikileaks operation down and bring people involved to stand trial within it's own jurisdiction.

I guess we won't really know one way or another whether or not the fears being touted around that he risks extradition to the States if he goes to Sweden to answer some questions are paranoid witterings or have some basis in reality unless he actually goes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

teqniq said:


> New evidence of US operation against Julian Assange
> 
> The above is doing the rounds on Twitter.
> 
> ...


Not a thing there to dissect. It simply says that wikileaks say the US is preparing and collecting material about wikileaks with a view to further legal action. Exactly as wikileaks would have known would happen beforehand. That's it. Nothing to do with this case at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

teqniq said:


> Lol well yes, I did notice that too. I am trying to sit on the fence on this one but to reiterate whilst I believe that Assange is a bit of an attention-seeking twat, I imagine the U.S. government would love to close the whole Wikileaks operation down and bring people involved to stand trial within it's own jurisdiction.
> 
> I guess we won't really know one way or another whether or not the fears being touted around that he risks extradition to the States if he goes to Sweden to answer some questions are paranoid witterings or have some basis in reality unless he actually goes.


He risks extradition wherever he goes/stays now - it's just that in one place in particular he faces other allegations.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 28, 2012)

Yeah WSWS are so unashamedly in support of Assange, 'too' much I think because they shouldn't be questioning the allegations.

But cutting through the bullshit this part seems to be the "new evidence"



> Recent prosecution testimony indicates that the case against Manning is only a small element in a massive FBI investigation. US Army Major Ashden Fein, the lead prosecution counsel, told hearings this month that the FBI file on the case, most of it classified, totalled 42,135 pages or 3,475 documents. “Manning is a piece of the FBI file,” Fein said, and only accounted for “8,741 pages or 636 different documents.”
> 
> US Army Computer Crime Investigative Unit special agent Mark Mander also told the pre-trial hearings that the FBI was targeting seven civilians, including “the founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks,” for criminal activity and espionage. He said a US military investigation into WikiLeaks began in early June 2010, a few days after Manning was arrested.


 
I went and looked up Alexa O'Brien. She is a journalist and editor/writer for WL Central so not totally unbiased (WL Central write about Wikileaks but are not officially associated with them). But she does seem to be covering the Manning case in great detail. One of the articles that I'm guessing WSWS.org are citing (there must be another one too but I can't see it straight off) is here.

(And if you're interested the rest of her archives are here)


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2012)

smmudge said:


> "He said a US military investigation into WikiLeaks began in early June 2010, a few days after Manning was arrested"


If that's news to them, then they are in trouble.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> If that's news to them, then they are in trouble.


And that this is "_broader' than the Manning case."!_


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And that this is "_broader' than the Manning case."!_


Indeed.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He risks extradition wherever he goes/stays now - it's just that in one place in particular he faces other allegations.


 
Do you think that there's a chance the US will look to prosecute him at some point in the future? Not from Sweden or anywhere in particular, just wherever they may be able to get him?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Well he _is_ going to Sweden and if they do decide to take that route - as i expect they probably will - it will be have to be from there. Going to Sweden or staying the UK doesn't effect that one way or another.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 28, 2012)

Yeah. Not having a go but genuinely interested in what has made you change your mind in the last six months? Funny thing is I'm not even sure that the US will look to extradite him, as surely it would be a PR disaster. Lots of evidence suggests they want to prosecute him for something, but whether they actually would...For all the talk of Assange being an 'attention seeking twat', it's his high profile that might save his skin in terms of a US prosecution, IMO. But then again, a high profile prosecution would deter other people from doing similar.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

I'm not sure i have really - i think i made one post/argument that the US might decide not to extradite him for a few reasons whilst believing those same reasons (no real damage done, projection of symbolic power etc) might _also_ lead to them deciding to prosecute him. I think Assange's actions over the last 6 months have now made a prosecution far more likely - they are now less likely to leave it as he will now be seen as having been taking the piss publicly.


----------



## elbows (Jun 28, 2012)

Likewise my suggestion on the other thread that they might not bother should not imply that I will be surprised if they do.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 29, 2012)

Assange statement 'on the embassy steps' at 4pm apparently.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 29, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> Assange statement 'on the embassy steps' at 4pm apparently.



Any news on this? Googling news from my phone is too much hassle.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

4pm Ecuadorean time.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 29, 2012)

> *Wikileaks founder Julian Assange will ignore a Metropolitan Police order to surrender himself at a police station, his representative has said.*
> 
> Susan Benn said he was advised to "decline to comply" and will remain inside the Ecuadorian embassy while his application for asylum is processed.
> Officers from the Met's extradition unit delivered a note to Mr Assange at the London embassy on Thursday.
> ...


----------



## maldwyn (Jun 29, 2012)

will they use a honey trap to grab him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

Anyone know which Susan Benn this is?


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

So pretty much the same as what he said yesterday then.

Oh and this yesterday:



> When asked if he had anything to say to the women who have accused him of rape and indecency, he replied: "I am simply not charged. That's all. That's all that is important in this matter. What has been said to date is sufficient."


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/29/julian-assange-police-surrender-bail


Grrrr, although to be completely fair I don't think its good journalism to say that the women accused him of rape, I seem to recall they didn't put it like that and were initially trying to find out whether he could be forced to have a HIV test.


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone know which Susan Benn this is?


 
I strongly suspect its this one, and the BBC have apparently made asses of themselves by describing her as a lawyer earlier:

http://www.pallabs.org/about/who_pal_is/pal_team


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> I strongly suspect its this one, and the BBC have made asses of themselves by describing her as a lawyer:
> 
> http://www.pallabs.org/about/who_pal_is/pal_team


Yes, that was who i settled on - need proper confirmation of course.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 29, 2012)

Just curious, amidst all this crazyness, where people stand on wikileaks. Thats as in the organisation, seperate from Assange (as far as is possible..).

My understanding is that, prior toAssange coming to prominence (which happened around the same time as the cables and the aftermath of the alledged assaults), they were well respected in journalistic circles. They leaked some.important stuff, and won some prestigious awards.

It was when the cult of Assange happened, when he started using wikileaks (& wikileaks began allowing itself to be used...) as a propaganda tool in his defence, that it seemed to lose its way.

If he had done the right thing and distanced himself whilst he had serious allegations hanging over his head, I think it could have remaimed a important, relavant news org.


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

He fell out with loads of people in the media before then, and we'd been bitching about his ego and the way wikileaks was managed before then too.

His dubious attitude towards information control, the possibilities of using the information given to wikileaks to make a lot of money, were the things that first got me hopping mad.

Think information brokerage, and pay to have stuff not released for a starters.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

wikileaks as money-making model is what you need to look at. A s news org? They were never that. It's the model of selling restricted info for private profit as openness and democracy and progressive that counts.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 29, 2012)

Interesting.

I dont remember many early objections to wikileaks on here. Not doubting it, but links would be appreciated.

I also dont recall much anti assange press, prior to the cables/assault, either. The articles I remember described him as secretive, elusive, shy and an oddball.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I dont remember many early objections to wikileaks on here. Not doubting it, but links would be appreciated.
> 
> I also dont recall much anti assange press, prior to the cables/assault, either. The articles I remember described him as secretive, elusive, shy and an oddball.


Why would they be appreciated? To point out that people were wrong? Or to highlight that as it evolved the real motivation became clearer?

if stuff isn't know then you can't blame people for not mentioning it.


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...e-guardian-fell-out-with-assange-2179166.html

January 2011:



> One afternoon last November, the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange collected his lawyer and entered the office of Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian newspaper.
> He had every reason to be pleased: within days the name of his website would be spewing from every media outlet and his reputation as the world's leading "freedom of information warrior" would be confirmed.
> But the visit was not a happy one. Assange had come to threaten the newspaper with legal action if it went ahead with plans to run stories based on the vast quantity of US government material leaked to his website.
> The relationship between Assange and the newspaper had by this point descended into one that involved "distrust and anger", becoming so acrimonious that the WikiLeaks founder claimed it had breached an agreement on the publication of the data which he saw as his own.
> In a detailed account of the tensions, Vanity Fair magazine reports that Assange argued that "he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released".


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I dont remember many early objections to wikileaks on here. Not doubting it, but links would be appreciated.
> 
> I also dont recall much anti assange press, prior to the cables/assault, either. The articles I remember described him as secretive, elusive, shy and an oddball.


Objections on what basis? Regarding their publications? You probably won't. Of the cult of assange and the heroisation of the whole thing? You will.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why would they be appreciated? To point out that people were wrong? Or to highlight that as it evolved the real motivation became clearer?
> 
> if stuff isn't know then you can't blame people for not mentioning it.



Im not interested in pointing out anyone was wrong. I just dont recall these criticisms being mentioned before, as elbows suggested they were. That wouldnt make them anyless valid now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Im not interested in pointing out anyone was wrong. I just dont recall these criticisms being mentioned before, as elbows suggested they were. That wouldnt make them anyless valid now.


Which criticisms? The ones i mentioned were - just search for wikileaks. They are there fromthe start.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Objections on what basis? Regarding their publications? You probably won't. Of the cult of assange and the heroisation of the whole thing? You will.



Objections to thenews model of wikileaks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

What news model? A model of private ownership hidden behind PR about openness and democracy?  Sure they were. They were there from when wikileaks first got proper international attention. It's there is you just look for wikileaks or assange.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Which criticisms? The ones i mentioned were - just search for wikileaks. They are there fromthe start.



Ok. Ill search later.


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

Im not going to pretend I was criticising wikileaks from day one, because I wasn't. My main interest was in the leaks themselves. However, every time Assange opened his gob I started to get more and more alarmed about his attitude towards information and his control over it. I ranted about how the name wikileaks was completely inappropriate, as its not a wiki. Then it became clear he didn't know how to partner with media entities without his ego and financial desires getting in the way.

But I will say that when I look at the timescales, the sex allegations and media fallout and the most sensitive leaks all happened within a very narrow timeframe, so I doubt there is enough space between events for me to claim that I saw all this coming.

In any case what was very telling was that a number of people involved with wikileaks got pissed off with all the mistakes being made, and split, although I don't think their efforts have gone anywhere useful either. But the point is that its not just the natural enemies of wikileaks who have a beef with Assange.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 29, 2012)

I suppose I'm most interested in peoples opinions pre-2010. My recollection is that Assange was barely known of up to this point, but wikileaks was involved in some fairly important and interesting leaks. Something that they won an Amnesty International award for related to Kenyan police killings, a second BNP membership list leak, something about Trafigura and a super injunction, various leaks related to financial services shortly after the "credit crunch". Some of these were important stories, and certainly had wikileaks named in the media prior to "cablegate". And, at the same time, Assange was a name very few people had heard of.

From what I knew of wikileaks at the time, I felt they were a force for good. I don't know much about the "model of private ownership hidden behind PR about openness and democracy" 'although that's certainly something i'd be interested to hear more about. I still don't see that wikileaks is an intrinsically "bad" organisation. Just one that appears to have lost its way.

I look forward to being corrected, though.


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, that was who i settled on - need proper confirmation of course.


 
BBC have a video embedded in the article linked to earlier and it certainly looks like her.


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

Arghhhh!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2012/jun/29/wikileaks-album-verdict



> Wikileaks is releasing an LP with tracks including The Ballad of Julian Assange in order to raise funds. Read our critic's verdict


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

I've obviously no intention of buying it but I tortured myself by listening to track previews on the site that sells it - it really is a criminal record.

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/wikileaksbeattheblockade


----------



## Random (Jun 29, 2012)

I knew David Rovics would be on there. Thank god for the honour of US anarchism that his track is about Manning and not Assange.


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

Attempting to cleanse myself of the horror by listening to pop defect radio instead:

http://popdefectradio.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

Ahh I feel better already.


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

Anyone fancy coming up with an alternative wikileaks cd track listing?

In the spirit of twisting the meaning of lyrics in various ways, I'll start with:

Sweden - Divine Comedy
...And Justice for All - Metallica
Who Needs Information - Roger Waters


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2012)

i fought the law - the clash


----------



## elbows (Jun 29, 2012)

Fugitive Motel - Elbow (I don't like their music by the way)


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 30, 2012)

Fuck Like a Beast - W.A.S.P.


----------



## yield (Jun 30, 2012)

I'm the Leader of the Gang - Gary Glitter


----------



## smmudge (Jun 30, 2012)

"media manipulation" wtf does that mean
(not a song btw)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

He's now got Baltasar Garzón heading his legal team.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 14, 2012)

Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official



> Ecuador's president Rafael Correa has agreed to give Julian Assange asylum, officials within Ecuador's government have said....


 
Well ok, but how is he supposed to get from the embassy to the airport?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 14, 2012)

They can't touch the cars, can they?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 14, 2012)

I dunno that's why I asked, but also he has to step outside the embassy to get into the car and also at the other end to get into the plane. Who knows?


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 14, 2012)

If he does go to equador who knows what will happen the CIA are a very dodgy organisation


----------



## teqniq (Aug 14, 2012)

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the above you may as well scale that up to include the U.S. military. Look what happened to Iran Air Flight 655


----------



## OneStrike (Aug 14, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> They can't touch the cars, can they?


 
In between they can grab him.  I believe they can stick him in a box and if the paper work is correct he can't be held (some embassy tried it years ago but got caught out by a technicality).


----------



## Prince Bert (Aug 14, 2012)

I don't understand why he didn't claim asylum in Russia. If he had got a seat in the Russian parliament he could never be extradited, and as an added bonus there are some seriously hot women in Moscow.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2012)

Meaningless - Ecuador cannot exempt someone from European law by granting them asylum. The only way this would get interesting in that sense is if he was given Ecuadoran citizenship then made a diplomat. Which he won't be.


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2012)

Prince Bert said:


> I don't understand why he didn't claim asylum in Russia. If he had got a seat in the Russian parliament he could never be extradited, and as an added bonus there are some seriously hot women in Moscow.


 
This is true, but it would be a bit mental to seek to escape from a country that goes after journalists who embarass it politically by running off to Moscow.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ... then made a diplomat...


What about a Laundromat? That way he gets to continue to hang out everyone's dirty washing.

*gets coat*


----------



## harpo (Aug 14, 2012)

So...there is no failsafe way for him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and travel to Ecuador without arrest?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 14, 2012)

harpo said:


> So...there is no failsafe way for him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and travel to Ecuador without arrest?


Yes. Just hope the prison van sent to pick him up is G4S


----------



## harpo (Aug 14, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Yes. Just hope the prison van sent to pick him up is G4S


 
Bit of a stalemate for him then.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 14, 2012)

harpo said:


> Bit of a stalemate for him then.


Well, there's always this option...







Oh wait, Assange might wanna be careful with that one...


----------



## 1%er (Aug 14, 2012)

harpo said:


> So...there is no failsafe way for him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and travel to Ecuador without arrest?


That really depends on how much effort the Ecuadorian government are willing to put into it. The police can not stop and search a car with diplomatic plates and all embassies have vans in the fleet. All also can send diplomatic baggage without interference.

What will happen is, the UK and Ecuadorian foreign offices will sit down and cobble together something, one thing is for sure, if diplomats have anything to do with solving this situation it will cost 5 times more than it should and Assange will go around the world 3 or 4 times before ending up in Peru, sometime in 2016


----------



## elbows (Aug 14, 2012)

agricola said:


> This is true, but it would be a bit mental to seek to escape from a country that goes after journalists who embarass it politically by running off to Moscow.


 
His television show on RT was probably as close as he will get to Russia, and that was bad enough since there is something shabby about stooping to indulge the Russians in their classic propaganda tactic of giving the enemy of their enemy a platform. I suppose there is a dilemma if there is only a choice between that platform and no comparable platform at all, but personally I dont think its worth the taint. Mind you Assange is pretty careless when it comes to avoiding being tainted so it was hardly a shock when he went to that channel back in the day.


----------



## agricola (Aug 15, 2012)

1%er said:


> That really depends on how much effort the Ecuadorian government are willing to put into it. The police can not stop and search a car with diplomatic plates and all embassies have vans in the fleet. All also can send diplomatic baggage without interference.
> 
> What will happen is, the UK and Ecuadorian foreign offices will sit down and cobble together something, one thing is for sure, if diplomats have anything to do with solving this situation it will cost 5 times more than it should and Assange will go around the world 3 or 4 times before ending up in Peru, sometime in 2016


 
The police can and do stop diplomatic vehicles, so it would be doubtful that they could (or would, given that it would lead to their diplomats being kicked out) sneak him out that way.


----------



## 1%er (Aug 15, 2012)

agricola said:


> The police can and do stop diplomatic vehicles, so it would be doubtful that they could (or would, given that it would lead to their diplomats being kicked out) sneak him out that way.


 
I'm sure they do, they have every right to stop any vehicle for a lawful reason, as long as it does not result in the detention or arrest of someone with Diplomatic immunity. They are also not allowed to search any vehicle with Diplomatic plates.


----------



## Prince Bert (Aug 15, 2012)

Come on. You know what my point was. He had his own show on Russia today and is no enemy of the Russian state.


----------



## harpo (Aug 15, 2012)

But what about getting from the diplomatic car onto the plane?  Would there be any unprotected window of opportunity then?


----------



## tombowler (Aug 15, 2012)

could he not be placed in a sealed diplomatic box that the authorities would not be able to open even though they would know he is in it as diplomatic baggage is not checked?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 15, 2012)

Looks like he ain't even safe within the embassy's compound...



> The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the*Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.*
> It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623


----------



## 1%er (Aug 15, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Looks like he ain't even safe within the embassy's compound...


I read elsewhere today that they could do similar if they believed he was in a vehicle. Apparently diplomatic plates remain the property of the country that issues them, in this case the UK. The government can revoke the plate thus making the car unlicensed and searchable by police and others.

I'm not sure they would go that far for Assange, this is meant to cover terrorist threats if I understood the context. I would think the act you quote above is a result of Yvonne Fletcher and the Libyans.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 15, 2012)

Maybe repeat info but some tweets/links being shared at the mo:

#BREAKING: Ecuador says it received 'threats' from UK as Assange decision looms http://on.rt.com/mqy04a #news
# Increased police activity outside Ecuador embassy: http://via.me/-437c324
#Copy of UK threat letter to Ecuadorian government: http://tinyurl.com/btcwuf8
#Anonymous on twitter: EMERGENCY CALL TO ARMS: All Anons get to the Ecuador Embassy NOW! We need streamers there asap! | Ecuadorian Embassy 3 Hans Crescent | #SOS
#ALERT: Get ready go all out on #Assange asylum decision tomorrow, 7am Ecuadorian time (1pm London time). http://www.twitlonger.com/show/iqiqhr


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2012)

What teenage rubbish:



> Assange asylum decision tomorrow


 
What decision?


----------



## 1%er (Aug 15, 2012)

This sums up the diplomatic and consular premises Act (lawgazette.co.uk) 

It seems to come down to this phrase "to remove diplomatic status from premises which are being misused". Is it being misused or is one of the functions of an embassy to provide asylum?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 15, 2012)

Possibly: section 3b, but under the act the secretary of state has to withdraw consent of the use of the embassy?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 15, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Possibly: section 3b, but under the act the secretary of state has to withdraw consent of the use of the embassy?
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46


Sorry...what 3 b?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2012)

Livestream from outside embassy: http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 16, 2012)

The met have gone in to the embassy....


----------



## 1%er (Aug 16, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> The met have gone in to the embassy....


You sure it isn't a shift change


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 16, 2012)

Fucking Hell

http://bambuser.com/v/2905015


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 16, 2012)

They've timed this for after the papers are printed?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2012)

I wonder if this has any implications for our own embassies abroad.


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 16, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> They've timed this for after the papers are printed?



Looks that way. Couldn't find a mention on bbc news24 when I switched on either, now cut to Hardtalk. Was mentioned on CBS/sky news in the foreword a few mins ago though.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2012)

LOL@anonymous pizza being sent to Embassy, and refused by staff.
LOL@the UK embassy telling people to call back later.


----------



## 1%er (Aug 16, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I wonder if this has any implications for our own embassies abroad.


 
If you mean the law being talked about, then I think no. It may highlight this legislation and some government may pass reciprocal laws (Brazil does this a lot, if a government puts restrictions on its citizens or companies, Brazil will do the same with regard to that country).

It seems to me that it is a sledge-hammer to crack a nut, if they were to use this legislation. That letter if real doesn't seem very diplomatic 

That live stream above is funny, some guys tried to deliver a pizza and was turned away, he then went back and was invited in  LOL


----------



## Badgers (Aug 16, 2012)

Rutita1 said:
			
		

> LOL@anonymous pizza being sent to Embassy, and refused by staff.
> LOL@the UK embassy telling people to call back later?.



Any ideas what toppings?


----------



## 1%er (Aug 16, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Any ideas what toppings?


No, but his name was georgio and he wouldn't say who the pizza was for


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Any ideas what toppings?


No idea but the delivery guy's name is Georigo...the livestreamer followed him to ask a few questions.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> No idea but the delivery guy's name is Georigo...the livestreamer followed him to ask a few questions.


When he came back out, did he have white hair ?


----------



## Badgers (Aug 16, 2012)

1%er said:
			
		

> No, but his name was georgio and he wouldn't say who the pizza was for



Cheers. I will catch up with him tomorrow. Hoping no pineapple but these are dark times we live in.


----------



## 1%er (Aug 16, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Cheers. I will catch up with him tomorrow. Hoping no pineapple but these are dark times we live in.


I think because they sent him away the first time a British double agent who is embedded in the embassy said "I ordered it" and it has a sleeping drug in it. The police will sneak in and get Assange while everyone is sleeping.

Its a cunning plan


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2012)

I think rather than being an invasion of the embassy (now) this could be a tightenning of the observation to ensure that the Ecuadorians do not sneak Assange out the front or back when UK Plod are not looking. They have stationed police on the front door, probably the back as well and they may be in the process of warning the diplomats inside that they threaten the imminent removal of diplomatic status of the embassy if Assange is not handed over tonight.


----------



## 1%er (Aug 16, 2012)

The guy doing the stream is funny. He went to the door to ask for an interview. He then started to speak to "julian" "if your watching you can speak to the people via my feed", while inside "julian" is saying fuck off for christ sake I want to sleep and you are making to much fucking noise. Be funny if he called the police to move them on


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2012)

The Pizza was allegdedly ordered by Mr Mark Anthony.
There is no confirmed evidence of it having had pineapple on it though.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> The guy doing the stream is funny.


Which stream are you following?


----------



## Badgers (Aug 16, 2012)

Rutita1 said:
			
		

> The Pizza was allegdedly ordered by Mr Mark Anthony.



Physics chap?


----------



## 1%er (Aug 16, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Physics chap?


No Roman, its the British agents code name, but keep it to yourself


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2012)

Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...d-assanges-embassy-refuge-20120816-249pe.html
UK police 'raid' Assange's embassy refuge


----------



## Badgers (Aug 16, 2012)

1%er said:
			
		

> No Roman, its the British agents code name, but keep it to yourself



Mums the word


----------



## 1%er (Aug 16, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Mums the word


You know these MI6 types (posh  ) they love a cultural reference


----------



## Badgers (Aug 16, 2012)

1%er said:
			
		

> You know these MI6 types (posh  ) they love a cultural reference



I am off to Peru


----------



## 1%er (Aug 16, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Which stream are you following?


occupyLSX


----------



## Karim (Aug 16, 2012)

Assange.
My heart bleeds for him ...


----------



## 1%er (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> Assange.
> My heart bleeds for him ...


Yours and ten other people who have turned up at the embassy  they are apparently outnumbered 2 to 1 by press


----------



## Karim (Aug 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> Yours and ten other people who have turned up at the embassy  they are apparently outnumbered 2 to 1 by press


 
Obviously you failed to see the irony in my post..

I haven't much sympathy for the Assange guy...


----------



## Firky (Aug 16, 2012)

Still nowt.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 16, 2012)

I think it's quite funny actually

Ecuador are going to relish this opportunity to beat their chests against the Brits and call them imperialists at every opportunity


----------



## ChrisD (Aug 16, 2012)

Sorry if it's been posted above but I've just read the swedish police transcripts. Put me off breakfast.
http://t.co/sq7CXk4G


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2012)

ChrisD said:


> Sorry if it's been posted above but I've just read the swedish police transcripts. Put me off breakfast.
> http://t.co/sq7CXk4G


Not read yer transcript, but I suspect that a) the extradition's a dead letter, b) heads eill roll in the foreign office, c) this will mean every country in the southern cine supporting argentina on the falklands


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2012)

At least with plod outside the door, the Equadorians will not be able so easily to smuggle Assange out.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2012)

Perhaps GCHQ were listenning to the embassy's communications and overheard them saying "We take the white haired one in a car at 03:00 the British will all be asleep.. Mwahhaahaa! "


----------



## ChrisD (Aug 16, 2012)

I assume Assange has been stuck in that building watching the Olympics in particular the pole vault technique.... expect him to run out the door with long pole then over plod and into a diplomatic open top car.


----------



## LoveMeDont (Aug 16, 2012)

The law that allows the revoking of an embassies status apparently takes a minimum of seven days to enact, so the story being put out by Ecuadorian officials that Britain is on the verge of "storming" the building appears to be bollocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2012)

Ecuador have made sure that he doesn't get out of the UK unless it's to sweden with this carry on-  and not by accident.


----------



## Random (Aug 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ecuador have made sure that he doesn't get out of the UK unless it's to sweden with this carry on-  and not by accident.


But if they refuse him asylum now, how will it look after they've talked about colonialism?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2012)

Random said:


> But if they refuse him asylum now, how will it look after they've talked about colonialism?


They don't give a fuck. What are the potential benefits vs potential damages? The only cost-free benefit is precisely in _talking_ about it. Then being defeated by perfidious albion. All a pathetic sham.


----------



## Random (Aug 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They don't give a fuck. What are the potential benefits vs potential damages? The only cost-free benefit is precisely in _talking_ about it. Then being defeated by perfidious albion. All a pathetic sham.


I see that, but if Ecuador's government itself refuses him asylum, they can't blame the UK. If they grant him asylum and then the UK moves their embassy to get JA, then they can cry about it to Chavez.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2012)

Random said:


> I see that, but if Ecuador's government itself refuses him asylum, they can't blame the UK. If they grant him asylum and then the UK moves their embassy to get JA, then they can cry about it to Chavez.


No, go back back back - granting him asylum changes nothing. Granting him asylum doesn't mean they are allowed take him out of the country. It doesn't mean the EU extradition doesn't apply to him. Granting asylum would be the playing the colonialism card knowing that it means nothing legally. They would need to make him a citizen then a diplomat to change things - which they are not doing to do and have no interest in doing. You know that sabre-rattling is only a sound right?


----------



## LoveMeDont (Aug 16, 2012)

Random said:


> But if they refuse him asylum now, how will it look after they've talked about colonialism?[/quo
> 
> 
> Random said:
> ...


 
Ecuador might paint themselves as victims by saying they wanted to offer asylum to Assange but the evil British colonists threatened to storm the building if they did.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2012)

http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx

live again


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2012)

Of what?





Rutita1 said:


> http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx
> 
> live again


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2012)

live here too

http://reuters.livestation.com/demo


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2012)

Of people doing the Ecuadoran states work?


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No, go back back back - granting him asylum changes nothing. Granting him asylum doesn't mean they are allowed take him out of the country. It doesn't mean the EU extradition doesn't apply to him. Granting asylum would be the playing the colonialism card knowing that it means nothing legally. They would need to make him a citizen then a diplomat to change things - which they are not doing to do and have no interest in doing. You know that sabre-rattling is only a sound right?


 
He can't be an Ecuadorian diplomat unless the appointment is approved by the FCO. I read that in the Guardian so it's at least 50% likely to be correct.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2012)

DownwardDog said:


> He can't be an Ecuadorian diplomat unless the appointment is approved by the FCO. I read that in the Guardian so it's at least 50% likely to be correct.


I suspected something like that may be the case and almost suggested it the other day - i couldn't find anything to back it up on-line though.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2012)

Of course, what's being missed in this is Patiño's party leadership establishing role. Classic rotton old latin-american ruling elite political trick.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2012)

Both met and 10 Downing street websites have been DDos'ed?


----------



## LoveMeDont (Aug 16, 2012)

The Foreign Office have release a copy of the letter that they sent to Ecuador.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum-live


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 16, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Both met and 10 Downing street websites have been DDos'ed?



Both working for me.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/

http://content.met.police.uk/Home


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 16, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Both met and 10 Downing street websites have been DDos'ed?


That was late last night.....from around midnight until the early morning. Can't think why they don't do it at a time when people are actually using/looking at those sites, rather than in the middle of the night.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2012)

_Feel our power._


----------



## 8115 (Aug 16, 2012)

Has Julian Assange just been living under a table in the Equadorean embassy for two months?


----------



## Mephitic (Aug 17, 2012)

8115 said:


> Has Julian Assange just been living under a table in the Equadorean embassy for two months?


 
hell no, he has been living in a cardboard box, under a table in the Equadorean embassy for two months.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 17, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> hell no, he has been living in a cardboard box, under a table in the Equadorean embassy for two months.


 
I read the paper today,he was on a blow up mattress for a bit, now he has a proper bed.

The thing is, I think the charge of (is it?) sexual misconduct is actually quite forward thinking and I generally approve of it in my feminist ways, however the charge does look political, like Sweden have been leaned on by America.  So really, I don't mind what happens, although Assange living in the embassy for years is fully not my preference.  Just, face the music, man.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 17, 2012)

Why would Sweden have been 'leaned on' by America?

He's had allegations made against him that he has to face as part of Swedish law. Same if he was Joe Bloggs.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 17, 2012)

Really?  Everyone Swedish who's had allegations of sexual misconduct (is that what it is, can't keep up) gets pursued to other countries?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 17, 2012)

8115 said:


> Really?  Everyone Swedish who's had allegations of sexual misconduct (is that what it is, can't keep up) gets pursued to other countries?



Criminals who are suspected of evading the law and escaping to fellow EU countries get international arrest warrants all the time, yes. Did you think he was a special case or something?


----------



## 8115 (Aug 17, 2012)

I wonder whether it's a relatively minor crime he's accused of.  Sweden isn't *that* feminist.   Hence I suspect they were mildly leaned on.


----------



## Combustible (Aug 17, 2012)

8115 said:


> Really? Everyone Swedish who's had allegations of sexual misconduct (is that what it is, can't keep up) gets pursued to other countries?


 
Most of them don't run away to other countries.  But the issue of European Arrest Warrants for crimes far less serious than sexual assault is far from uncommon.



> EAWs have been sought for such offences as bicycle theft, possession of 0.45 grams of cannabis, removing car tyres and stealing piglets. More than 2,400 requests were received by the UK from Poland last year.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/butte...un/09/meps-criticise-european-arrest-warrants


----------



## 8115 (Aug 17, 2012)

Let the fucker burn, then, I say


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 18, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Did you think he was a special case or something?


 
I certainly think so.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Aug 18, 2012)

8115 said:


> I wonder whether it's a relatively minor crime he's accused of.  Sweden isn't *that* feminist.   Hence I suspect they were mildly leaned on.




Is a rape inquiry 'feminist' now? I thought it was just a matter of common human decency. Silly me.


----------



## Random (Aug 18, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Criminals who are suspected of evading the law and escaping to fellow EU countries get international arrest warrants all the time, yes. Did you think he was a special case or something?


No, this is definitely a special case. The lawyer who got the prosecution re-opened is probably the top feminist legal figure in Sweden. Getting Assange has become a matter of making a point. Doubt the US has needed to formally lean on anyone.


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

Random said:


> No, this is definitely a special case. The lawyer who got the prosecution re-opened is probably the top feminist legal figure in Sweden. Getting Assange has become a matter of making a point. Doubt the US has needed to formally lean on anyone.



Encouraging prosecutions isn't too much of a problem in Sweden, getting convictions is. Unless I'm way of date?? My point is that Assange has about 90% chance of being acquitted in Sweden, if it even gets as far as prosecution.


----------



## Random (Aug 18, 2012)

There is effort put into encouraging reporting rape, and prosecuting it. That's why there's such a low clear up rate, since convictions are indeed hard to secure. Probablyone reason Borgström is so committed to the case.

assange will probably be acquitted.


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

Even more reason for him to go and face the charges imo. If he gets convicted against the odds, especially if any evidence is "thin", it would lend credibility to his cause.

But he's doing his utmost to avoid it.


----------



## doddles (Aug 18, 2012)

Quite aside from the specifics of this case, there are two more general issues here that deserve consideration.

The first is the European Arrest Warrant. I'm a pretty pro-European person, but the EAW is horrible. There are next to no common standards applied to what sort of crimes justify the issuance of a EAW, and no burden of evidence is required to arrest someone. In the current case, Assange has not been charged because, as many have pointed out, he needs to be questioned on Swedish soil before he can be charged. That's exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be permitted under an EAW. There should be a formal recognition that the prosecuting party must present enough evidence to demonstrate the feasibility of their case, and the extradition should not occur unless charges have been laid. If that requires signatories to the EAW pact to change some laws back home, permitting them to interview suspects abroad, then so be it. It is not right that residents in a country can be more easily arrested by prosecutors from another country than their own.

The second issue relates to the first, in that both Sweden and the UK have agreed to lopsided extradition treaties with the USA. More than that, both countries have taken part in rendition of people who subsequently have been tortured, held without trial, etc. Well guess what? You reap what you sow. Many of us were making the point that by allowing these things to happen, countries like the UK and Sweden undermine the trust that people have in their legal systems. Arguing about whether or not the USA intends to apply for Assange's extradition, and whether or not Sweden is likely to agree to it, is missing the point. Sweden and the UK first need to rewrite their extradition treaties with the USA on more equal terms, and display genuine contrition for their appalling role in the rendition operations.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 19, 2012)

Brilliant post, doddles.


----------



## xenon (Aug 19, 2012)

Why hasn't he been extrodited to the US already, if that's his chief fear. As noted, the UK isn't exactly shy about letting the US have it's wicked way. The concerns about the EU arrest warrent accepted. no one seems to have answered why he's more likley to be sent to the US from Sweden than the UK.

Well they might have but I'm not reading 20 pages FFS.


----------



## Random (Aug 19, 2012)

Today in Sweden's main broadsheet two journalists wrote an opinion piece skewering the case agains Assange very well, it's disproportionality, etc. They then sabotage themselves by saying this is all due to men-hating state feminists, and, anyway, the women contacted Assange in the first place (!)


----------



## doddles (Aug 19, 2012)

xenon said:


> no one seems to have answered why he's more likley to be sent to the US from Sweden than the UK.


My (non-expert) understanding is that extraditions have to served in the order in which they are requested. So the UK can't extradite him to the USA since Sweden got their request in before the USA. I understand Sweden also has an arrangement with the USA for "temporary surrender" under which people can be "lent" to the USA to face charges there without the need for formal extradition proceedings.

Regardless, my points above still stand. If both the UK and Sweden hadn't compromised their principles to kowtow to the USA, this simply wouldn't be an issue. *You* might not think that Sweden are going to extradite Assange to the USA, but clearly many people think that's a very real possibility, and it's not only the tinpot conspiracy theorists who think that, courtesy the recent appalling record of the UK and Sweden.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

The UK also has a 'temporary surrender' agreement with the US - all EU countries do.

I don't understand what principles the UK and Sweden have dropped in order to apply for and then to comply with the terms of a european arrest warrant, nor what that has to do with renditions and so on. Are you simply saying that EAW should not have been issued at all? That there should be no investigation or charges concerning the rape allegations?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

xenon said:


> Why hasn't he been extrodited to the US already, if that's his chief fear. As noted, the UK isn't exactly shy about letting the US have it's wicked way. The concerns about the EU arrest warrent accepted. no one seems to have answered why he's more likley to be sent to the US from Sweden than the UK.
> 
> Well they might have but I'm not reading 20 pages FFS.


In brief - he isn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Random said:


> Today in Sweden's main broadsheet two journalists wrote an opinion piece skewering the case agains Assange very well, it's disproportionality, etc. They then sabotage themselves by saying this is all due to men-hating state feminists, and, anyway, the women contacted Assange in the first place (!)


Yes, there's been a whole lot of 'feminist-hunting' - one of the people who have made the allegations even had the cheek to be a christian-feminist! (See the stalkerly 'exhibit' from Goran Rundling linked to earlier in the thread as evidence of the inherent absurdity and untruth of the allegations).


----------



## Random (Aug 19, 2012)

doddles said:


> My (non-expert) understanding is that extraditions have to served in the order in which they are requested. So the UK can't extradite him to the USA since Sweden got their request in before the USA.


The obvious solution is now for Ecuador to quickly indict and charge Assange and ask for his extradition. He could then go to Sweden and answer questionsc serve any sentence, and then Ecuador would be next in line, in front of the USA. He would then go to Ecuador, charges would be dropped and he could enjoy his refugee status. I'm not even joking.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Random said:


> The obvious solution is now for Ecuador to quickly indict and charge Assange and ask for his extradition. He could then go to Sweden and answer questionsc serve any sentence, and then Ecuador would be next in line, in front of the USA. He would then go to Ecuador, charges would be dropped and he could enjoy his refugee status. I'm not even joking.


Sweden doesn't have to agree to frivolous extradition requests for non-substantive reasons though. Ecuador would have to make a case for their request based on criminal grounds. Don't reckon they could.


----------



## doddles (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The UK also has a 'temporary surrender' agreement with the US - all EU countries do.


Wasn't aware of that. Are they equally easy to apply?



> I don't understand what principles the UK and Sweden have dropped in order to apply for and then to comply with the terms of a european arrest warrant, nor what that has to do with renditions and so on.


The principles they have compromised are i) signing up to extradition treaties that are blatantly one-sided and do not provide adequate protection to EU residents and ii) ignoring their own and international law in partaking of illegal rendition procedures.



> Are you simply saying that EAW should not have been issued at all? That there should be no investigation or charges concerning the rape allegations?


I think the EAW as it stands is horrible, because there is no burden of evidence in order to have someone extradited within the EAW area. Assange certainly needs to face accusations. If the EAW wasn't such a horrible bit of law this would be more straightforward.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

They are substantially the same.

Can you demonstrate i) and show how ii) effects this case?

Well, if he has to face the accusations the EAW is the instrument under which his extradition following his flight would take place. Wider criticisms of the sometimes minor nature of the offences pursued under EAW doesn't change that, it doesn't really change anything. The EAW is not the problem here - it's Assange's various flights that are the problem - and they would have taken place if the EAW was used (after the fact of his flight - _after_) or not. They would have taken place under an extradition system that operated exactly as you liked.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2012)

answer the allegations ffs - that is, if you don't want the entire world to think you're a sex criminal.


----------



## doddles (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They are substantially the same.
> 
> Can you demonstrate i) and show how ii) effects this case?


i) The House of Commons home affairs committee said so itself. e.g.:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/19/us-uk-extradition-agreement-one-sided-keith-vaz

ii) undermines their credibility in matters of protecting the rights of individuals against the long reaching tentacles of the USA. Seriously - can you not see how two countries supporting illegal rendition under request of the USA is not relevant to the current case?

Without i) and ii), Assange wouldn't have a leg to stand on. He certainly wouldn't be holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy right now, because even Equador would be able to find no justification for blocking his extradition to Sweden.



> The EAW is not the problem here - it's Assange's various flights that are the problem - and they would have taken place if the EAW was used (after the fact of his flight - _after_) or not. They would have taken place under an extradition system that operated exactly as you liked.


The two are not the same. Prior to the EAW, Sweden would have had to provide evidence that Assange had a case to answer. Under the EAW they do not. Under a properly formulated EAW, Sweden would have to interview Assange in the UK (live or via internet/teleconference) to compile enough evidence to charge him, at which point he could be extradited.

i) and ii) above are the main problems in the current case (and more broadly), but the EAW coupled with Swedish law requiring him to be in Sweden to be questioned has given him and his team another way out of facing charges.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

That's a member of the committee saying about the US/UK extradiotion process that, not the committee itself. He doesn't have a leg to stand on - regardless of your moral dislike (the credibility argument - which basically says the UK and the US are shit so let's just forget it) of the set up. But even more to the point, he is not subject to a US/UK extradition process. It has never happened. What has happened is that the process you condemn is the one that Assange _has fought to be subject to_ - complaining that the situation in sweden is worse.

You are wrong that a EAW does not require any evidence to be presented - it requires the same as other extradition treaties. Namely evidence of either an enforceable judgement or evidence of an executable warrant in the applying state.


----------



## elbows (Aug 19, 2012)

The gangs all there today, warming up for the 'main event' that may end up the equivalent of Macca singing at the opening olympic ceremony.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-statement-ecuadorean-embassy-live



> Ali has been talking about Latin America and the rise of left-wing governments there, a trend which Ecuador has been part of.
> The Venezuelan model, Ali calls it, referring to the lead taken by Hugo Chavez, spread from that country to Ecuador and Bolivia.
> "These radical social democratic governments in south america offer more social and human rights to their citizens than those in Europe," he says.
> "That is why Julian Assange appealed to Ecuador for asylum."


 
Chinny reckon.


----------



## harpo (Aug 19, 2012)

I wish he'd get a move on.  I've got to get to an Eid party.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> The gangs all there today, warming up for the 'main event' that may end up the equivalent of Macca singing at the opening olympic ceremony.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-statement-ecuadorean-embassy-live
> 
> ...


Look at all the states from the neo-liberal to the andean wrapping themselves in the flag. You'd never guess there was an election in Ecuador in 6 months would you?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

_Assange over London._


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> The gangs all there today, warming up for the 'main event' that may end up the equivalent of Macca singing at the opening olympic ceremony.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-statement-ecuadorean-embassy-live
> 
> ...


 
Does this mean if we repress Tariq Ali he might leave too, never to return?


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

Not one of the news networks that I have watched over the last couple of days have said that he can not be extradited from Sweden to the U.S nor has anyone been presented to refute the claims of those who say that this is on the agenda, so I feel that his reasons for fighting this extradition are well founded.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> The gangs all there today, warming up for the 'main event' that may end up the equivalent of Macca singing at the opening olympic ceremony.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-statement-ecuadorean-embassy-live
> 
> ...


Note this one:



> Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who is an Assange supporter, is responding to questions about suggestions that British law allowed for police to enter the embassy legally and arrest Assange.


 
The same Murray who claimed on the day the asylum decision was reached that through his special channels he could confirm that The UK were going in militarily mob-handed as soon as they heard that decision. How can these people just walk away from such stuff time after time with their credibility intact amongst some people?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Not one of the news networks that I have watched over the last couple of days have said that he can not be extradited from Sweden to the U.S nor has anyone been presented to refute the claims of those who say that this is on the agenda, so I feel that his reasons for fighting this extradition are well founded.


He can be extradited from sweden - anyone can,_ for criminal charges_. They can't be extradited for _political_ offences (as espionage comes under that). He and his supporters will claim that _any_ process _whatsoever_ is political and try to fight them. Rape is a political matter, but not in the way these freaks say.

And we're back where we started with people saying that he should be allowed to avoid the rape charges because of the bigger picture.


----------



## elbows (Aug 19, 2012)

'citizens whipsering in the dark' - what are they whispering? 'Please use a condom?"


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He can be extradited from sweden - anyone can,_ for criminal charges_. They can't be extradited for _political_ offences (as espionage comes under that). He and his supporters will claim that _any_ process _whatsoever_ is political and try to fight them. Rape is a political matter, but not in the way these freaks say.
> 
> And we're back where we started with people saying that he should be allowed to avoid the rape charges because of the bigger picture.


I have not read a single post by anyone who says that he should avoid the rape charges (if they are ever made) yet you keep throwing this accusation at everyone who feels that he is right to fear extradition to the U.S.


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> I have not read a single post by anyone who says that he should avoid the rape charges (if they are ever made) yet you keep throwing this accusation at everyone who feels that he is right to fear extradition to the U.S.


 
He isnt right to fear extradition though, for the reasons butchers states.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> I have not read a single post by anyone who says that he should avoid the rape charges (if they are ever made) yet you keep throwing this accusation at everyone who feels that he is right to fear extradition to the U.S.


That's exactly the position that is adopted when it's argued that he shouldn't go to sweden because he fears extradition to the US. It's an argument to just chop these allegations out of the issue, when they are the core of it. _Leaving aside the rape allegations, just talking legally etc etc_


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> I have not read a single post by anyone who says that he should avoid the rape charges (if they are ever made) yet you keep throwing this accusation at everyone who feels that he is right to fear extradition to the U.S.


For me it's that he can also be extradited/snatched or whatever as easily from the UK (or anywhere else), which leaves you reckoning the main reason he doesn't want Sweden on the travel plans is the sex assault accusations.


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

agricola said:


> He isnt right to fear extradition though, for the reasons butchers states.


Butchers is not a lawyer and if were not true someone would have been presented by now to refute it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

JimW said:


> For me it's that he can also be extradited/snatched or whatever as easily from the UK (or anywhere else), which leaves you reckoning the main reason he doesn't want Sweden on the travel plans is the sex assault accusations.


I reckon if they followed though on the logic of fear of extradition being the main motivating and justifying factor in his actions then they should be arguing that he'd want to get to sweden sharpish.

But that ain't what it's about is it?


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

JimW said:


> For me it's that he can also be extradited/snatched or whatever as easily from the UK (or anywhere else), which leaves you reckoning the main reason he doesn't want Sweden on the travel plans is the sex assault accusations.


Maybe that is why he entered the Ecuadorian embassy?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Butchers is not a lawyer and if were not true someone would have been presented by now to refute it.


People _have_ over and over and over.


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Butchers is not a lawyer and if were not true someone would have been presented by now to refute it.


 
What scandal have you been following?  Lots of people have been presented to refute it, its just they have all been ignored / dismissed because they are interfering with the meme.


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Maybe that is why he entered the Ecuadorian embassy?


But only after a couple of years (was it?) before the UK courts (ETA and so presumably in their power for a black bagging) arguing only about going Sweden.


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> People _have_ over and over and over.


Where?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 19, 2012)

so this speech he just made outside the embassy, did he say anything new? doesnt look like it, from what I can tell.

e2a this underwhelmed summary from the guardian seems to confirm it wasnt very exciting...  


> *14:36 BST*​That seems to be it for now. Assange has gone back inside but the window leading to the balcony remains open.​


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

agricola said:


> What scandal have you been following? Lots of people have been presented to refute it, its just they have all been ignored / dismissed because they are interfering with the meme.


What am I looking for in that? because I missed anything that said he could not be further extradited.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Where?


Well you can have a look at agricola's link, you can look at legal commentary blogs like head of legal - and those of us who've been saying it over and over on here are really not just relying on some opinion pulled from our anus. We, in fact, appear to be the only people to have done any background research on this at all.


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> so this speech he just made outside the embassy, did he say anything new? doesnt look like it, from what I can tell.


There's a unity of oppression*

*offer not valid for victims of sexual assault


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> so this speech he just made outside the embassy, did he say anything new? doesnt look like it, from what I can tell.


Nah, it was just a rallying call to the faithful.


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> What am I looking for in that? because I missed anything that said he could not be further extradited.


 


> The press chief of the Swedish foreign ministry said on Thursday that the fear of Ecuador's foreign minister that Assange would be sent on to the US by the Swedes, and even be executed, are utterly groundless. Both Swedish law and Sweden's obligations under the European convention on human rights mean Assange could not be extradited to the US if he were wanted for a crime which might lead to the death penalty.
> 
> There is a Swedish extradition treaty with the US, but the process of extradition is long and very complicated. So far there is not even a charge against Assange in the US, which would be the first step in the process. We don't even know that the American justice system wants to try Assange.
> 
> Ironically enough, it would probably be easier for the Americans to get Assange from England, since the two countries are much closer to each other in many ways. But it's been a very long time since Assange did anything sensible.


 
Admittedly thats only the second half of the article, but still....


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well you can have a look at agricola's link, you can look at legal commentary blogs like head of legal - and those of us who've been saying it over and over on here are really not just relying on some opinion pulled from our anus. We, in fact, appear to be the only people to have done any background research on this at all.


The only two places that I have been following this is on here and the various TV news channels, the only place that I have heard put forward that he can not be further extradited is on here, no offence but if I was in his shoes that would not fill me with confidence.


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2012)

agricola said:


> Admittedly thats only the second half of the article, but still....


It's not even just the death penalty as I recall, includes cruel and unusual punishments etc. And having exposed various states' disregard for the rule of law, he now suddenly reckons a guarantee will make a difference.


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

agricola said:


> Admittedly thats only the second half of the article, but still....


That only covers the death penalty, it looks to me that if the US give a guarantee that he will not face the death penalty then he can be extradited.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2012)

Anyone have any thoughts as to why Balthasar Garcon has agreed to act as his legal advisor in this case . Sexual assaults usually arent his thing .   is it just another case of Johnny Dago foreigner giving blighty the 2 fingers , as has been suggested about the Ecuadoreans and others on this thread.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 19, 2012)

So now Julian's got Wikileaks, Bradley Manning and now Pussy Riot between him and the questioning about the rape allegations. More layers of fantasy than inception.


----------



## elbows (Aug 19, 2012)

Balbi said:


> So now Julian's got Wikileaks, Bradley Manning and now Pussy Riot between him and the questioning about the rape allegations. More layers of fantasy than inception.


 
And almost the entire continent of South America & their struggle. Like I said the other day, the hand of history is tugging at his pubes.


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> That only covers the death penalty, it looks to me that if the US give a guarantee that he will not face the death penalty then he can be extradited.


 
Yes, but then you come to the other issues with this case. 

Firstly, they have not actually charged him with anything.  Secondly, there are severe questions as to whether they even could charge him with anything - publishing leaked classified material, even in time of war, is not illegal and has a large body of caselaw (and a huge number of powerful and wealthy supporters) *and* an amendment to the US constitution showing that it isnt illegal.


----------



## smmudge (Aug 19, 2012)

> The press chief of the Swedish foreign ministry said on Thursday that the fear of Ecuador's foreign minister that Assange would be sent on to the US by the Swedes, and even be executed, are utterly groundless. Both Swedish law and Sweden's obligations under the European convention on human rights mean Assange could
> not be extradited to the US if he were wanted for a crime which might lead to the death penalty.


 
The US wouldn't ask for his extradition on the grounds of a political crime, they'd find something else to base it on.



> There is a Swedish extradition treaty with the US, but the process of extradition is long and very complicated. So far there is not even a charge against Assange in the US, which would be the first step in the process. We don't even know that the American justice system wants to try Assange.


 
There is plenty of evidence from the Manning trial, various subpoenas that have been issued etc. that there is a grand jury trying to build a case against wikileaks and Assange.



> Ironically enough, it would probably be easier for the Americans to get Assange from England, since the two countries are much closer to each other in many ways.


 
When would the US have asked the UK for his extradition?  Assange is not fighting to stay in the UK; he doesn't live here.  Though this argument lends weight to the idea that the UK would be happy to waive specialty when he's sent to Sweden and if the US decide to try and get him extradited from there.


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> And almost the entire continent of South America & their struggle. Like I said the other day, the hand of history is tugging at his pubes.


 
Is that the same hand of history that is holed up at the Peruvian Embassy at the moment?


----------



## elbows (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The same Murray who claimed on the day the asylum decision was reached that through his special channels he could confirm that The UK were going in militarily mob-handed as soon as they heard that decision. How can these people just walk away from such stuff time after time with their credibility intact amongst some people?


 
Will use the same logic as the conspiracy theorists when doomsday fails to arrive - 'they were going to do it but our voices and attention stopped them'.

Thats certainly the line Julian used. He could hear them scuttling up his fire-escape whilst he tried to sleep. A taste of his own medicine, he's lucky he couldnt feel them.


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2012)

Read elsewhere that if they do frame charges it's expected to be for directing Manning and so being an accomplice to his "crimes" as a serving soldier, since the leaking as such isn't grounds.


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

agricola said:


> Yes, but then you come to the other issues with this case.
> 
> Firstly, they have not actually charged him with anything. Secondly, there are severe questions as to whether they even could charge him with anything - publishing leaked classified material, even in time of war, is not illegal and has a large body of caselaw (and a huge number of powerful and wealthy supporters) *and* an amendment to the US constitution showing that it isnt illegal.


They have applied for and been granted the extradition of people for internet piracy so I doubt very much that they will not find something to charge him with.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> When would the US have asked the UK for his extradition? Assange is not fighting to stay in the UK; he doesn't live here. Though this argument lends weight to the idea that the UK would be happy to waive specialty when he's sent to Sweden and if the US decide to try and get him extradited from there.


 
He lived here before the EAW was issued. If they wanted to extradite him then that's precisely who they would have had to ask.

What is this waiving of specialty you talk of?


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

JimW said:


> Read elsewhere that if they do frame charges it's expected to be for directing Manning and so being an accomplice to his "crimes" as a serving soldier, since the leaking as such isn't grounds.


 
The problem with that is that such a move would firstly be fairly transparent, and secondly would (one imagines) be vigorously opposed by the entire US media.


----------



## 2hats (Aug 19, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> Anyone have any thoughts as to why Balthasar Garcon has agreed to act as his legal advisor in this case .


 
The very same Baltasar Garzón who issued the international warrant for the arrest of Pinochet...


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

agricola said:


> The problem with that is that such a move would firstly be fairly transparent, and secondly would (one imagines) be vigorously opposed by the entire US media.


You do know this is the USA we are discussing don't you?


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2012)

agricola said:


> The problem with that is that such a move would firstly be fairly transparent, and secondly would (one imagines) be vigorously opposed by the entire US media.


Yep. May well be what they would do if they do want him via due process or an approximation, either way some complicated plot involving sex charges in Sweden isn't a necessary part of the mix.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> There is plenty of evidence from the Manning trial, various subpoenas that have been issued etc. that there is a grand jury trying to build a case against wikileaks and Assange.


 
So what? Is your argument that this justifies him not going to sweden? The bigger picture, cut the rape allegations out picture (not to forget getting angry at the mere suggestion that you don't want him to face rape allegations picture).


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> You do know this is the USA we are discussing don't you?


You know that it's not the issue don't you? Every attempt to reduce this down to Assnage vs the US, of perfidious albion vs the whole of latin america cuts the rape allegations away from this whole issue. It effectively says, fuck that shit, only the bigger picture counts.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

2hats said:


> The very same Baltasar Garzón who issued the international warrant for the arrest of Pinochet...


With no evidence!!!!


----------



## smmudge (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So what? Is your argument that this justifies him not going to sweden? The bigger picture, cut the rape allegations out picture (not to forget getting angry at the mere suggestion that you don't want him to face rape allegations picture).


 
When have I ever argued he shouldn't go to Sweden and face rape allegations?


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You know that it's not the issue don't you? Every attempt to reduce this down to Assnage vs the US, of perfidious albion vs the whole of latin america cuts the rape allegations away from this whole issue. It effectively says, fuck that shit, only the bigger picture counts.


The wider issue is the US's murderous foreign policy, the mass murder and colonisation of whatever part of this planet that they take a shine too, it might be just a straightforward rape allegation to you but to others there is far more to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> When have I ever argued he shouldn't go to Sweden and face rape allegations?


I see you did follow the suggestion i made in the brackets.

Ok, here's where - where you suggest that he shouldn't if he fears being extradited to the US.I think he should even if he fears being extradited. Do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> The wider issue is the US's murderous foreign policy, the mass murder and colonisation of whatever part of this planet that they take a shine too, it might be just a straightforward rape allegation to you but to others there is far more to it.


Well out with the logic then, say it openly - he should do all he can to avoid the rape allegations for the wider good of the oppressed.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2012)

2hats said:


> The very same Baltasar Garzón who issued the international warrant for the arrest of Pinochet...


 
and more besides . Why would he want to protect a nonce do you reckon ?


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well out with the logic then, say it openly - he should do all he can to avoid the rape allegations for the wider good of the oppressed.


Is it really such an, either or, world that you live in?


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> You do know this is the USA we are discussing don't you?


 
This isnt an argument about rendition, its about them apparently using a legal process which even a casual look at their legal history confirms would be doomed to failure.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> and more besides . Why would he want to protect a nonce do you reckon ?


I didn't realise that he was there that night.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 19, 2012)

I had to pop out so missed the balcony drivel. Did anyone throw something at him?


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

agricola said:


> This isnt an argument about rendition, its about them apparently using a legal process which even a casual look at their legal history confirms would be doomed to failure.


many people around the world disagree with you.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Is it really such an, either or, world that you live in?


Sorry, this either world is the world that the argument of the bigger picture arguments live in. But in the dark, in the shadows, unable to openly come out and state the logic of their positions.


----------



## elbows (Aug 19, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I had to pop out so missed the balcony drivel. Did anyone throw something at him?


 
Their naive hopes & aspirations.


----------



## smmudge (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, here's where - where you suggest that he shouldn't if he fears being extradited to the US.I think he should even if he fears being extradited. Do you?


 
Where have I suggested that he shouldn't go if he fears being extradited to the US? I've only been arguing that he has a right to fear extradition to the US; of course he should go to Sweden regardless - I've said that many times before.


----------



## cesare (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You know that it's not the issue don't you? Every attempt to reduce this down to Assnage vs the US, of perfidious albion vs the whole of latin america cuts the rape allegations away from this whole issue. It effectively says, fuck that shit, only the bigger picture counts.



Yeah. If they (US) are desperate to get him, they could do it just as easily from here. Plus Sweden's convictions for rape prosecutions are only about 10% anyway, so there's approx 90% chance he'd get acquitted in Sweden.

Smoke and mirrors from Assange to avoid answering the sex offence allegations, imo. Ugh.


----------



## Deareg (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, this either world is the world that the argument of the bigger picture arguments live in. But in the dark, in the shadows, unable to openly come out and state the logic of their positions.


I have stated my position so have others, you choose to either ignore them or put your own interpretation on our words.


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

Deareg said:


> many people around the world disagree with you.


 
On many issues no doubt.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Where have I suggested that he shouldn't go if he fears being extradited to the US? I've only been arguing that he has a right to fear extradition to the US; of course he should go to Sweden regardless - I've said that many times before.


Have you? When you've argued differently for many months all the time you meant that he should go to sweden, not fight the EAW, not seek aslyum in the Ecuadoran embassy regardless of whether he may be extradited to the US?


----------



## smmudge (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have you? When you've argued differently for many months all the time you meant that he should go to sweden, not fight the EAW, not seek aslyum in the Ecuadoran embassy regardless of whether he may be extradited to the US?


 
Many months? I only started taking any notice of this around the end of June.  I think you must be thinking of someone else.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Aug 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> When would the US have asked the UK for his extradition?


The US could have put in their request between his arrival in the UK and the magistrate ordering his extradition in early 2011 (the Home Secretary could have given it priority over the Swedish EAW until the extradition order was made).


----------



## 1%er (Aug 19, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> Anyone have any thoughts as to why Balthasar Garcon has agreed to act as his legal advisor in this case . Sexual assaults usually arent his thing . is it just another case of Johnny Dago foreigner giving blighty the 2 fingers , as has been suggested about the Ecuadoreans and others on this thread.


Dago is a racist term, it is interesting that some people are pulled up for language such as this and other are not. I guess posters here believe some  ethnic origins are more equal than others, a more worthy cause.


----------



## doddles (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You know that it's not the issue don't you? Every attempt to reduce this down to Assnage vs the US, of perfidious albion vs the whole of latin america cuts the rape allegations away from this whole issue. It effectively says, fuck that shit, only the bigger picture counts.


Here we go. I'm going to try to state this in really simple terms so that you have no excuse to put words/meanings into my mouth:
i) Assange should definitely face sexual crimes accusations. Personally I believe he should be extradited to Sweden.

but

ii) This whole fucking mess has been brought about by the UK and Swedish governments watering down protections for individuals, thus giving Assange and his supporters (and much of the general public) a reason to doubt whether Assange would really be safe from politically motivated extradition to the USA

OK?

Now, as to your statements suggested that the EAW is equivalent to previous extradition agreements, you're wrong. One change with the EAW was the abolition of the requirement on the part of the requesting country to put forward a prima facie case. 

That said, I still think he should go to Sweden to answer accusations. This blog is a nice summary of some of the issues:
http://mediaatueablog.net/2011/11/03/assange-keeping-the-issues-separate/


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

doddles said:


> Here we go. I'm going to try to state this in really simple terms so that you have no excuse to put words/meanings into my mouth:
> i) Assange should definitely face sexual crimes accusations. Personally I believe he should be extradited to Sweden.
> 
> but
> ...


Ok, you've replied to another post directed to another poster. I haven't tried to put anything in your mouth. (and sorry, were you earlier posts in sort of language above mere mortals? Can you let us know when you're doing that please). I've responded to your - frankly irrelevant - posts about the EAW and the UK/US extradition treaty  - asked you why you felt that this was important then responded to your posts.

And no, it hasn't been brought about by this at all - assange would not have submitted under any system of extradition  - even  one designed by you. It's not down to the extradition processes being shit at all. If you think whole thing is driven by public doubt then you're well off the pace. Doesn't come into it.

There is now an assumption that a _prima facie_ case has been established and followed through in the requesting country - hence the requirement for evidence of an enforceable judgment or executable warrant. That means that _in the EU_ the old rules have been followed. Means nothing beyond that case being established elsewhere first.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

In the article linked to by doddles there's yet another nail in the coffin of the idea that assange would be more eaasily extradited to the US from sweden than the UK:



> And are Sweden really more likely to extradite Assange to the US than we are in the UK? It seems unlikely, as Andy Greenberg’s report in Forbes suggests. The UK doesn’t have a good record in resisting such requests – and given all the publicity it seems highly unlikely that the Swedish would let such a thing happen on their watch. Moreover, the Swedish system would require dual criminality for an extradition to occur – that is, the offence committed has to be a crime both in the country seeking extradition and in Sweden itself. Assange’s ‘offenses’ would not easily be shoehorned into that description. Either way, it’s hard to see an extradition occurring from Sweden – extradition from the UK seems far more likely.


----------



## doddles (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I've responded to your - frankly irrelevant - posts about the EAW and the UK/US extradition treaty - asked you why you felt that this was important then responded to your posts.
> 
> And no, it hasn't been brought about by this at all - assange would not have submitted under any system of extradition - even one designed by you.


That's your judgement and you're entitled to it. But unless you have some pretty fantastic means of mind reading, it remains just that. An opinion. One that is shared by a lot of people, but also not shared by a lot of people.



> It's not down to the extradition processes being shit at all. If you think whole thing is driven by public doubt then you're well off the pace. Doesn't come into it.


The limited amounts of credibility that Assange and Equador have is due to the doubts that exist in a sizable number of well informed, otherwise sensible people about the ability of the USA to stretch their hands around the world and grab people they find difficult/dangerous and lock them up, and the willingness of our own politicians to help them. I don't know that that's the case in this instance, but quite a few people are willing to entertain the thought that it *might* be.

I'm very glad for you that you can be so 100% certain about all of these things. It must be wonderful to have such a capacity to see through complex issues so totally convinced that you're right. Some of us see the world as a more complicated place - take pity on us for our intellectual weakness.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

doddles said:


> That's your judgement and you're entitled to it. But unless you have some pretty fantastic means of mind reading, it remains just that. An opinion. One that is shared by a lot of people, but also not shared by a lot of people.
> 
> 
> The limited amounts of credibility that Assange and Equador have is due to the doubts that exist in a sizable number of well informed, otherwise sensible people about the ability of the USA to stretch their hands around the world and grab people they find difficult/dangerous and lock them up, and the willingness of our own politicians to help them. I don't know that that's the case in this instance, but quite a few people are willing to entertain the thought that it *might* be.
> ...


Come on, ffs.


----------



## smmudge (Aug 19, 2012)

Damarr said:


> The US could have put in their request between his arrival in the UK and the magistrate ordering his extradition in early 2011 (the Home Secretary could have given it priority over the Swedish EAW until the extradition order was made).


 
Why would the US want to rush to finalise a case and extradition order for Assange knowing that another country (who are also quite happy to accommodate them) have already issued an arrest warrant for him?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Why would the US want to rush to finalise a case and extradition order for Assange knowing that another country (who are also quite happy to accommodate them) have already issued an arrest warrant for him?


Why would they have to rush it? So you're saying the US doesn't want him?

And they didn't know that there was a EAW for him - because there wasn't.

Jesus christ.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

Can we get some fucking rigour - chronological or otherwise here?


----------



## smmudge (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why would they have to rush it? So you're saying the US doesn't want him?
> 
> And they didn't know that there was a EAW for him - because there wasn't.
> 
> Jesus christ.


 

They knew when they were still trying to get evidence against him/wikileaks in December 2010, and given that the investigation appears recently to still be on going it would have been a rush at that stage.


----------



## cesare (Aug 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Can we get some fucking rigour - chronological or otherwise here?




There's a timeline here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> They knew when they were still trying to get evidence against him/wikileaks in December 2010, and given that the investigation appears recently to still be on going it would have been a rush at that stage.


Who was? The people who wanted to talk to him? So having might be a bit of a rush.?


----------



## smmudge (Aug 19, 2012)

It only came to light that Assange was in the UK after he turned himself in at a police station after the arrest warrant was issued. So the US (who was still trying to get evidence against Assange and Wikileaks in the form of subpoenas from Twitter a week after he handed himself in) were going to finalise a case and lodge an order for his extradition from the UK (which would be solid enough to take precedence over the Swedish order already in place) such that the UK would have handed him over to the US before Sweden?

Right, OK.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2012)

You what? Expand. The evidence, the argument and the facts. Right now.


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> They knew when they were still trying to get evidence against him/wikileaks in December 2010, and given that the investigation appears recently to still be on going it would have been a rush at that stage.


 
We are nearly two years down the road though now, and they _still_ havent come up with anything.  Given that the Swedish extradition is more for investigation purposes than any kind of trial, you would think that if there were any charges pending they would have made an appearance by now.


----------



## doddles (Aug 20, 2012)

agricola said:


> We are nearly two years down the road though now, and they _still_ havent come up with anything. Given that the Swedish extradition is more for investigation purposes than any kind of trial, you would think that if there were any charges pending they would have made an appearance by now.


Who? The Americans? They can't extradite him from the UK because Sweden put in a EAW first. They can't request extradition from Sweden because he's not there yet. Anyway, if they want to extradite him, it will look a lot better if done after some extra dirt has been dished on Assange in the Swedish courts. If I were a US prosecutor, I wouldn't be in any rush.

I'm not saying that is what's happening, only that it's feasible. It's one thing to think that Sweden will act reasonably in this case. It's quite another to expect the USA to do so.


----------



## xenon (Aug 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In the article linked to by doddles there's yet another nail in the coffin of the idea that assange would be more eaasily extradited to the US from sweden than the UK:



This is the sort of thing I was looking for earlier. Got confused with the 2 threads and posted the same question on both.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2012)

doddles said:
			
		

> Who? The Americans? They can't extradite him from the UK because Sweden put in a EAW first. They can't request extradition from Sweden because he's not there yet. Anyway, if they want to extradite him, it will look a lot better if done after some extra dirt has been dished on Assange in the Swedish courts. If I were a US prosecutor, I wouldn't be in any rush.
> 
> I'm not saying that is whathappening, only that it's feasible. It's one thing to think that Sweden will act reasonably in this case. It's quite another to expect the USA to do so.



some extra dirt? What means that?


----------



## Riklet (Aug 20, 2012)

more hinting and wittering on the news from those promoting the idea that he really is _that important _that the Americans are bothered about him, possibly for a future wikileaks trial etc.

what level of truth do people think there is in this? the emphasis upon him personally seems pretty implausible to me, but who knows about future wikileaks trial stuff..


----------



## smmudge (Aug 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You what? Expand. The evidence, the argument and the facts. Right now.


 
Lol "right now" butchers you are such a card 

The argument put forward was this one:




Damarr said:


> The US could have put in their request between his arrival in the UK and the magistrate ordering his extradition in early 2011 (the Home Secretary could have given it priority over the Swedish EAW until the extradition order was made).


 
In retrospect we know that Assange came to the UK after he left Sweden in early November 2010. His arrest warrant was issued on 20th November. There may have been rumours he was in the UK but if it was known where he was he would have been arrested; instead he turned himself in on 7th December. This is what the BBC said on 1st December:



> Mr Assange's whereabouts are unknown, although earlier in November he was believed to be in the UK.


 
So the US couldn't have asked before 7th December, and I doubt they'd want to issue an arrest warrant when they didn't really know where he was.

Then in January 2011 the New York Times reported that a



> subpoena was issued by the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on Dec. 14 and asks for the complete account information of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence specialist awaiting a court martial under suspicion of leaking materials to WikiLeaks, as well as Ms. Jonsdottir, Mr. Assange and two computer programmers, Rop Gonggrijp and Jacob Appelbaum.


 
suggesting that they were still trying to get evidence against Assange and wikileaks on 14th December.

So Damarr's argument that a UK-US extradition is relevant is based on the possibility that sometime after December 14th (and before February when the Swedish extradition order was upheld) the US could have finalised a case against Assange, obtained an arrest warrant and issued an extradition order, which for some reason the Home Secretary would have given priority over the Swedish extradition order already in process.  Just seems a bit far-fetched to me.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 20, 2012)

smmudge said:


> So the US couldn't have asked before 7th December, and I doubt they'd want to issue an arrest warrant when they didn't really know where he was.


Sweden did, didn't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2012)

Not much time, but his whereabouts were not unknown - he was known to be in the UK because he was allowed to leave sweden for the UK on the express understanding that he return to sweden. He hasdargued that he need be in the UK to oversee the joint cable releases with the Guardian in November. They might not have not known his exact address, but that's not needed to make an extradition request of another country. The US simply could have applied for that extradition at any point after he arrived in the UK.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2012)

Do the police only put out arrest warrants for people they know the exact whereabouts of? Ludicrous idea that they couldn't request an extradition if they didn't know the exact street someone lives on.


----------



## smmudge (Aug 20, 2012)

The US would have had to have finalised a case and obtained an arrest warrant before they could apply for extradition.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 20, 2012)

smmudge said:


> The US would have had to have finalised a case and obtained an arrest warrant before they could apply for extradition.


Are you saying that as fact? Or are you assuming that?

My understanding is that arrest warrants are for just that - arrest (be they international, European or local warrants). I could be wrong, of course...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2012)

smmudge said:


> The US would have had to have finalised a case and obtained an arrest warrant before they could apply for extradition.


No they wouldn't - they would merely need to come up with a charge, a prosecution. The case does not need to be 'finalised'. What basis do you think the swedish extradition is being carried out on? Do you think their case is 'finalised'?


----------



## smmudge (Aug 20, 2012)

Alright finalised is too strong a word, but enough evidence to be able to obtain an arrest warrant from a court.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2012)

All it needs is:


> (a)the person is accused in the category 2 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the request, and
> (b)the request is made with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 2 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence.


 
You don't have to argue that the case has merits, you don't have to reveal your evidence, you don't have to _win_ the case.

I reckon the US could have come up with something like that pretty sharpish - don't you?


----------



## smmudge (Aug 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You don't have to argue that the case has merits, you don't have to reveal your evidence, you don't have to _win_ the case.


 
You have to show there is reasonable suspicion and I don't think they could do that 'sharpish', no.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2012)

It's probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. The mighty US could not get a tame judge to issue an arrest warrant? Really?  I think your naivety is showing there.


----------



## smmudge (Aug 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's probable cause, not reasonable suspicion.


 
Same thing essentially.

And I think it is strange to think they would bother sharpish finding reasonable cause, taming a judge then getting an extradition order when they already know there is an ongoing investigation against Assange elsewhere!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2012)

I didn't say that they would! We were discussing whether they could, you suggested on pretty flimsy grounds that they were unable to.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2012)

http://rt.com/news/anonymous-uk-justice-site-down-157/



> The website for the UK Ministry of Justice is under attack after hacktivists engaged a mission to try and take down justice.gov.uk in retaliation for Britain’s handling of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
> Twitter user @Anon_Central posted the following message: #OpFreeAssange: TANGO DOWN! http://www.justice.gov.uk/ [500 Internal Server Error] [#Anonymous #WikiLeaks]


----------



## smmudge (Aug 20, 2012)

I certainly think the whole idea is very far fetched.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> http://rt.com/news/anonymous-uk-justice-site-down-157/



Is that the "expect us" crew that were posting on here a couple of weeks back?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2012)

Legal myths about the Assange extradition





> *One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”*
> 
> This is flatly untrue.  The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
> (See my post at Jack of Kent for  further detail on this.)
> ...


 
I fully expect all these myth to re-appear on this and the other Assange thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2012)

myth 4: i don't think assange's supporters are misunderstanding, i think they're wilfully misrepresenting things.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2012)

God, just read the comments on that piece. Depressed now.


----------



## JimW (Aug 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Legal myths about the Assange extradition
> 
> 
> I fully expect all these myth to re-appear on this and the other Assange thread.


Just came to post that as I saw it linked somewhere else. Won't stop the same circular arguments but at least we've got a handy cheat sheet.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2012)

JimW said:


> Just came to post that as I saw it linked somewhere else. Won't stop the same circular arguments but at least we've got a handy cheat sheet.



If you mean my reply to a poster with the link, I got it from butchers post here btw. Credit where it's due etc. (I should have mentioned it there)


----------



## JimW (Aug 20, 2012)

cesare said:


> If you mean my reply to a poster with the link, I got it from butchers post here btw. Credit where it's due etc. (I should have mentioned it there)


I get to other places on the Internet, I'll have you know! 
Saw this there too, which also deals with the "he's only wanted for questioning why can't they just interview him by Skype from the bogs in the embassy"? http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london
Not sure if we've had that.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2012)

JimW said:


> I get to other places on the Internet, I'll have you know!
> Saw this there too, which also deals with the "he's only wanted for questioning why can't they just interview him by Skype for the bogs in the embassy"? http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london
> Not sure if we've had that.



I know, it was on the off chance! My guilty conscience


----------



## smmudge (Aug 20, 2012)

> In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom.


 
With an extradition order already upheld against him? Doesn't seem like such a fantastic opportunity to me.

The UK would quickly comply with any order to extradite him to the US.  But it would be hard to extradite him from Sweden because they'd need the UK's permission..? Great argument.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2012)

Dunno if it's already been posted, but there's a good dispelling of the myths here:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition




> *Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”*
> It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.
> 
> By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows.  Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Dunno if it's already been posted, but there's a good dispelling of the myths here:
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition


go back a page


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> go back a page


Don't be silly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Don't be silly.


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/assange-to-face-extradition.283553/page-22#post-11453092


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2012)

Thanks Pickman's


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Thanks Pickman's


always a pleasure, sleaterkinney


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> always a pleasure, sleaterkinney


Likewise. 'night 'night


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2012)

It should be posted at the top of each page. But even then, it's unlikely to seep into the consciousness of some of assange's more avid supporters.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 20, 2012)

Nice to see Craig Murray naming one of the women making the allegations tonight on newsnight.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 21, 2012)

cesare said:


> It should be posted at the top of each page. But even then, it's unlikely to seep into the consciousness of some of assange's more avid supporters.


 
I must say that it is very persuasive. But I doubt that Assange himself would be easily persuaded by it.


----------



## cesare (Aug 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I must say that it is very persuasive. But I doubt that Assange himself would be easily persuaded by it.


I agree. It doesn't suit him at all.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 21, 2012)

There is a campaign on Twitter to let off the fire alarm at the Ecuadorian embassy.....


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Nice to see Craig Murray naming one of the women making the allegations tonight on newsnight.


 
wtf????


----------



## cesare (Aug 22, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> wtf????



TheIr police witness statements with their personal details have been leaked.


----------



## elbows (Aug 22, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> wtf????


 
The names and all the excruciating details have been out there for a very long time, sadly I read them all a long time before the Assange case became such a busy topic on u75. Long before the current phase of the Assange saga, some on the net were pouring all over the victims details, looking for 'evidence' that they were tools of power used to ensnare Assange, or simply bitter and vengeful.

Indeed some fresh attention is being given to the detail now on one of the other threads, though thankfully not along those lines.

Thats not the same as it being mentioned on uk tv, so Im not trying to excuse Murray at all.

But in terms of the impact on victims, its clear that even at the stage of police interviews, at least one of the women involved was already suffering from the media attention way back then. The damage was done a long time ago and one of the unpleasant aspects of Assange dragging the process out is that it prolongs the agony.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2012)

cesare said:


> TheIr police witness statements with their personal details have been leaked.


 
what the fuck??? do we know who by?


----------



## cesare (Aug 22, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what the fuck??? do we know who by?



Apparently it was back in Jan 2011 according to the website that's hosting the statements. It doesn't say who did it.


----------



## elbows (Aug 22, 2012)

The NYT published some details from it, and the Guardian went further with sexual details in a story from December 17th 2010.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 22, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> wtf????


 


cesare said:


> TheIr police witness statements with their personal details have been leaked.


 
The leaked police interviews have been around for some time: (big PDF file, 58 pages)
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2012)

Galloway:


> If he did these things, he's a rat. But the United States empire, the British empire, the imperial system that around the world is slaughtering human beings by the million, cutting their throats, starving them to death, leaving them to die of poverty and avoidable disease in their millions, is a much bigger rat, no? Imperialism is a much bigger rat than Julian Assange, no? So why would you want Assange to be delivered to the United States and silenced for ever, unless you were on the side of empire."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/20/george-galloway-julian-assange-rape


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2012)




----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2012)

Even though I've got some sympathy with the argument these charges are very convenient for the US, the logic here is stupid.  Compared to the holocaust what's a few rapes here and there?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2012)

He's just been sacked from Holyrood magazine.


----------



## cesare (Aug 22, 2012)

Good for them. I doubt it'll make a difference to him though.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 22, 2012)

This whole issue is awful. It's hard to get any decent discussion, on both "sides" are people and opinons so excreble as to make me want to go and wash for hours.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 22, 2012)

TopCat said:


> This whole issue is awful. It's hard to get any decent discussion, on both "sides" are people and opinons so excreble as to make me want to go and wash for hours.


 
Truesay.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2012)

It's completely mad to suggest, as some people have, that people don't fuck each other when asleep out of some sort of political correctness bullshit. Madness.

i couldn't do that to somebody i was having a relationship with, because it would feel wrong and completely out of order if they were asleep and didn't know what was going on. Surely if you have sex with somebody you want them to be awake while you're doing it so that you both can enjoy it properly?
.

assuming the allegations are true they were very brave to come forward.


----------



## Firky (Aug 22, 2012)

Don't know if this has been posted (I am sick of hearing about the man), but this makes for interesting reading.

*Assange Is A True Democrat: Chomsky*
http://chomsky.info/onchomsky/20120817.htm


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 22, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> assuming the allegations are true they were very brave to come forward.


 
That would be a dangerous assumption.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 22, 2012)

Good job nobody's made it then you dopey twat.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 22, 2012)

I can't believe that Chomsky interview given the kind of empirical rigour you'd normally expect from him. He claims that "anyone in their right mind knows" Sweden is a stepping stone to the US. The evidence? They cooperated with the Nazis during WW2. I know it's an interview and some of the points aren't in quotation marks but he must be happy with the way it's presented if he's put it on his website.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2012)

The website is a pretty hands off job. I'd wait on this one.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 22, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I can't believe that Chomsky interview given the kind of empirical rigour you'd normally expect from him. He claims that "anyone in their right mind knows" Sweden is a stepping stone to the US. The evidence? They cooperated with the Nazis during WW2. I know it's an interview and some of the points aren't in quotation marks but he must be happy with the way it's presented if he's put it on his website.


 
At least he's had the sense not to make any ill-informed comments about the rape accusations themselves, or the people who've made the accusations, unlike say Galloway. Personally that's the bit that's disgusted me the most about this whole thing, the insinuations against the women who made the accusation, and the idea that it didn't constitute rape. But yes, I agree, it's jaw-dropping all the same, especially the bit about Sweden being a stepping stone to the US. I thought too that perhaps the journalist, writing to a presumably sympathetic Australian liberal audience, might be stretching some of those quotes a little, but if it's gone up on his site then I guess like you said he's happy with it.

Because even though I don't like the guy very much I would be perfectly happy to defend Assange and fight against him being deported to the states, egomaniac tosser that he is, were it not for the fact he's refusing to answer these rape charges. Every accusation of rape needs to be taken seriously, no exceptions, don't care who it is.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 22, 2012)

This issue feels to me like the Iraq War was to Hitchens. Most of the far left (Chomsky, Milne in the Guardian, Galloway, the Occupy movement) seem to be lining up on one side, and I feel like I'm on the complete opposite.


----------



## elbows (Aug 22, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> At least he's had the sense not to make any ill-informed comments about the rape accusations themselves


 
Unfortunately that means they end up saying nothing at all about the rape allegations, which gives the impression its a non-issue unworthy of complicating the story they are trying to tell.

The Chomsky stance isnt surprising since he is one of the people that signed the letter to Ecuador supporting the asylum application.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/26/ecuador-julian-assange-asylum

I tend to conclude that the case simply has too many tantalising features that strike a chord with such people. Its too tempting a story, it fits so well with stories they have told before, and there are too few other high-profile characters doing such risky and info-loaded activism at the moment. Throw in various specific details about the rape allegations and the timing, and they find it rather easy to dismiss that side of the case completely, and not let it stand in the way of their standard narrative.

Beyond this case I've found much to criticise Assange and Wikileaks over, often because of things Assange has said in interviews, and despite the fact that I seem more interested than average in the actual contents of the leaks. Therefore it has been rather easy for me not to overlook the sex crime justice aspects of the case, certainly easier than it has been for those who over time have ended up with a struggle template that they seldom let pesky details get in the way of.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 22, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i couldn't do that to somebody i was having a relationship with, because it would feel wrong and completely out of order if they were asleep and didn't know what was going on. Surely if you have sex with somebody you want them to be awake while you're doing it so that you both can enjoy it properly?
> .


 
do you actually understand that the woman claims to have been awakened by assange . That she wasnt comatose during intercourse . Only a sick deranged pervert would want to have sex with a comatose person . Thats not whats going on here or being discussed . Its a scenario were ones partner wakens you  by engaging in a sexual act . Which is a perfectly normal thing people in a sexual relationship engage in all the time .





> Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2012)

They weren't in a relationship were they?

and no. no it's not.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2012)

edited cos i thought better of it


----------



## cesare (Aug 22, 2012)

I detest snippets quoted out of context from these police statements.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 22, 2012)

cesare said:


> I detest snippets quoted out of context from these police statements.


 
out of what context ? its the context which deals directly with the specific allegation .


----------



## cesare (Aug 22, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> out of what context ? its the context which deals directly with the specific allegation .



It's the context of the nature of her sexual relationship with him.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 22, 2012)

hows that at all  relevant


----------



## cesare (Aug 22, 2012)




----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's the context of the nature of her sexual relationship with him.


yes yes  but how's that RELEVANT


----------



## belboid (Aug 22, 2012)

elbows said:


> Unfortunately that means they end up saying nothing at all about the rape allegations, which gives the impression its a non-issue unworthy of complicating the story they are trying to tell.


no need for that at all - and both Seamus Milne and Glenn Greenwald make the explicit point that the women are as deservng of justice as Assange. Which is why the Swedish police should go and interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy.


----------



## elbows (Aug 22, 2012)

belboid said:


> no need for that at all - and both Seamus Milne and Glenn Greenwald make the explicit point that the women are as deservng of justice as Assange. Which is why the Swedish police should go and interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy.


 
Well I wasnt saying that nobody on that side said anything about the rape justice, I was only talking about those who hadnt.

As for the idea of them interviewing him over here, well I think it probably already went beyond that point. Having seen what he said in the original interview, and what other people said in theirs, combined with what I think I remember a few well-informed people on this thread saying in the past about the stage the proceedings in Sweden had reached, it seems more likely they dont want to just ask him a few more questions, they want to do formal legal stuff such as charging him. A little chat in the embassy doesnt really take them further along that well-defined track, which is one of the reasons its not acceptable to Sweden, not a solution.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 22, 2012)

well yes, surely that questioning could end with him being taken into custody, and he seems pretty clear he's not prepared to go with them and face the charges


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 22, 2012)

belboid said:


> no need for that at all - and both Seamus Milne and Glenn Greenwald make the explicit point that the women are as deservng of justice as Assange. Which is why the Swedish police should go and interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy.


Why don't they let the British police have a quiet word with him in the embassy?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 22, 2012)

elbows said:


> ...But in terms of the impact on victims... at least one of the women involved was already suffering...and one of the unpleasant aspects of Assange dragging the process out is that it prolongs the agony.


----------



## elbows (Aug 22, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


>


 
You can roll your eyes at me all day long, but surely people are getting upset with the dodgy points the likes of Galloway make that stomp crudely on sexual crime justice issues, and the opposite of that is to actually say something about victims and the effectiveness and speed of the justice system, even when its a messy case.

I'm refusing to start picking at all the details of the people involved, the actual type of impact of any crimes in this particular case, nor am I trying to claim that this is a great example of a case that can be used as a beacon for the cause of victims. However I have great sympathy with those who have its opposite fear - that various opinions about this this sort of case will involve all sorts of sentiments which end up harming the progress some seek in changing attitudes towards how seriously a variety of sex crimes are thought of, how much the process of seeking justice may further harm the victim, etc.

Some of the issues at stake are about far more than the actual people in this case. There are potential leakers or promoters of leaks out there who may be put off from doing something in future because of whats happened here (which is a reason not hype up how much you are being persecuted if you care about the leaking cause). And there are future victims of sexual crimes who may remember this case and be less willing to sek justice as a result.

Also my point about damage due to stuff dragging on or stalling is something that can be applied to a huge range of situations. It doesnt take much effort to understand that painful delays in justice processes lead to much suffering for many, and the concept of seeking closure and moving on with life as best you can is hardly exotic, and tends to apply to most people regardless of their role in events or any of the details.


----------



## belboid (Aug 22, 2012)

elbows said:


> Well I wasnt saying that nobody on that side said anything about the rape justice, I was only talking about those who hadnt.
> 
> As for the idea of them interviewing him over here, well I think it probably already went beyond that point. Having seen what he said in the original interview, and what other people said in theirs, combined with what I think I remember a few well-informed people on this thread saying in the past about the stage the proceedings in Sweden had reached, it seems more likely they dont want to just ask him a few more questions, they want to do formal legal stuff such as charging him. A little chat in the embassy doesnt really take them further along that well-defined track, which is one of the reasons its not acceptable to Sweden, not a solution.


So they've decided to charge him before even speaking to him?  That is what you are effectively saying, and there is clearly a problem with that, isnt there? 

Even if it were right, it would surely, both tactically and diplomatically, be better to question him, and then explicitly say they want him deported for charging.


CyberRose said:


> Why don't they let the British police have a quiet word with him in the embassy?


he isn't wanted for questioning by the british police


----------



## elbows (Aug 22, 2012)

belboid said:


> So they've decided to charge him before even speaking to him? That is what you are effectively saying, and there is clearly a problem with that, isnt there?
> 
> Even if it were right, it would surely, both tactically and diplomatically, be better to question him, and then explicitly say they want him deported for charging.


 
They already questioned him a long time ago, and indeed the transcript was leaked a long time ago.


----------



## cesare (Aug 22, 2012)

elbows said:


> They already questioned him a long time ago, and indeed the transcript was leaked a long time ago.



One of the problems that I could see with those statements, is that he was only questioned about one of the women.


----------



## belboid (Aug 22, 2012)

elbows said:


> They already questioned him a long time ago, and indeed the transcript was leaked a long time ago.


They have repeatedly said he is wanted for questioning.  Are you claiming they are lying?


----------



## cesare (Aug 22, 2012)

belboid said:


> They have repeatedly said he is wanted for questioning.  Are you claiming they are lying?


Apparently it's the way the Swedish system works. It's set out here in the link that Butchers found: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2012)

belboid said:


> They have repeatedly said he is wanted for questioning. Are you claiming they are lying?


if the new statesman's to be believed, and i trust that rather more than i do assange supporters, the swedes want to arrest him. and why not? why would anyone object to the arrest of someone accused of rape? why not let the swedish criminal justice system run its course on the allegations of serious sexual assault? we all know that, at least in this country, far more allegations of rape are made than rapists convicted. the odds are pretty much on assange's side, or at least they would be if he could bring himself to behave for once in his life like a decent human being.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 22, 2012)

i thought he was wanted for arrest and questioning, can they legally question him under caution outside of sweden?


----------



## belboid (Aug 22, 2012)

cesare said:


> Apparently it's the way the Swedish system works. It's set out here in the link that Butchers found: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition


rebutted (eventually) at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt

(in brief:  he says David Allen Green is contradicting what he said a few months ago - when it more suited him [DAG] to say Assange was only wanted for questioning.)


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> rebutted (eventually) at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt



I can see some rebuttal, but which part do you think makes that much difference?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 23, 2012)

this is a handy little test, isn't it.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I can see some rebuttal, but which part do you think makes that much difference?


it does take fucking ages to get round to the central points....

The specific one was the one you relied to in the first place!  It _isnt_ how the system works, the David Allen Green (the NS writer) is contradicting what he wrote previously, ie: "This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of course, that he will be extradited, _still less that he will be charged_,"


----------



## elbows (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> They have repeatedly said he is wanted for questioning. Are you claiming they are lying?


 
No, you presented a version of events where they hadnt even spoken to him yet, and I was correcting that.

I am not capable of forming my own reliable independent opinion on the exact details of the Swedish legal system, and so when people who apparently should know disagree, I am left with a reasonable degree of uncertainty. But since there are numerous reasons why the justice system of a particular nation may not be willing to bend its processes to fit unusual requests, I am not surprised that the 'solution' of interviewing him here is no solution at all. This part of justice systems doesnt usually involve giving the accused control, and indeed gains much of its power by imposing a process on them which includes all manner of restrictions, and controlling their environment, movements, access, etc. Psychology comes into it, and an investigation does not simply involve inquisitive minds seeking to learn all the details of a case, to seek answers and truths in complete separation from things such as detaining the person.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> it does take fucking ages to get round to the central points....
> 
> The specific one was the one you relied to in the first place!  It _isnt_ how the system works, the David Allen Green (the NS writer) is contradicting what he wrote previously, ie: "This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of course, that he will be extradited, _still less that he will be charged_,"



I'm getting confused here (it's late!). He's wanted for arrest, that's what the extradition order's for. He can't be charged (if they do charge him) until he's arrested. That hasn't been rebutted, has it?


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> No, you presented a version of events where they hadnt even spoken to him yet, and I was correcting that.


but I made no such claim/  I said they wanted to question him, and they do.  Whether they have questioned him before is immaterial, it is common to be interviewed more than once prior to charges being made. And, as cesare pointed out, they  only questined him about one of the women.  And, as my later link shows, the claim this 'questioning' _must be_ immediately tied to a charge is dubious, to say the least.



> I am not capable of forming my own reliable independent opinion on the exact details of the Swedish legal system, and so when people who apparently should know disagree, I am left with a reasonable degree of uncertainty. But since there are numerous reasons why the justice system of a particular nation may not be willing to bend its processes to fit unusual requests, I am not surprised that the 'solution' of interviewing him here is no solution at all. This part of justice systems doesnt usually involve giving the accused control, and indeed gains much of its power by imposing a process on them which includes all manner of restrictions, and controlling their environment, movements, access, etc. Psychology comes into it, and an investigation does not simply involve inquisitive minds seeking to learn all the details of a case, to seek answers and truths in complete separation from things such as detaining the person.


I can see it.  But I can also see why Assange has real fears of onward extradition.  So it would strategically and tactically make sense for Sweden to acquiesce. The power given to Assange would be so little, in the limited terms of the specific accusations, that it would make no difference.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> ...I can see it. But I can also see why Assange has real fears of onward extradition. So it would strategically and tactically make sense for Sweden to acquiesce. The power given to Assange would be so little, in the limited terms of the specific accusations, that it would make no difference.


All eyes on america then, to say they would not make such a request...in the interests of justice?


----------



## elbows (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> but I made no such claim/ I said they wanted to question him, and they do. Whether they have questioned him before is immaterial, it is common to be interviewed more than once prior to charges being made. And, as cesare pointed out, they only questined him about one of the women. And, as my later link shows, the claim this 'questioning' _must be_ immediately tied to a charge is dubious, to say the least.


 
OK then even with that view, simply swap the word charged for arrested and then perhaps my point becomes clearer.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> All eyes on america then, to say they would not make such a request...in the interests of justice?


Interestingly, Johnny Canuck linked to a press cutting that indicated that the US wasn't able to easily extradite him without further legislation of their own being drafted/amended.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Interestingly, Johnny Canuck linked to a press cutting that indicated that the US wasn't able to easily extradite him without further legislation of their own being drafted/amended.


A statement would clear that up.


----------



## newbie (Aug 23, 2012)

it says a bit more than that- a lot more, it's a long and strange rant.
anyway


> In other words, the Swedish judiciary has the right to _block_ an extradition request on legal grounds, but it lacks the power to_ compel_ extradition; if the courts approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still retains the authority to decide if extradition should take place.


so this remains a political issue.

and a romantic one


> Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> A statement would clear that up.



It certainly would. But I doubt they would, European problem innit, nothing to do with them etc.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> It certainly would. But I doubt they would, European problem innit, nothing to do with them etc.


Not at all...with a crime as serious as rape, the whole world knows Assange is in that embassy to avoid extradition to the US....a quick statement of lack of intent by them would quickly clarify all matters.

As does the lack of a statement.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Not at all...with a crime as serious as rape, the whole world knows Assange is in that embassy to avoid extradition to the US....a quick statement of lack of intent by them would quickly clarify all matters.
> 
> As indeed does the lack of a statement.



I can see why it would be helpful for them to do it, but I don't think they're minded to be helpful at the moment.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm getting confused here (it's late!). He's wanted for arrest, that's what the extradition order's for. He can't be charged (if they do charge him) until he's arrested. That hasn't been rebutted, has it?


not at all - it _may_ be that they want to charge him.  But that was explicitly what many of the Assange critics were denying a few months ago, when it so suited them to do so.


elbows said:


> OK then even with that view, simply swap the word charged for arrested and then perhaps my point becomes clearer.


even then, and i'm not sure it does make that much difference, newbie has pointed out an even more important point of rebutall (re the governments role)


newbie said:


> so this remains a political issue.


indeed, and the update added sice i first read it makes it even more clear the state - hilst not being able to give an absolute [iron-cast] guarantee about no onward extradition, it can make explicit statements that it would block any attempt it (not the court) deemed political.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I can see why it would be helpful for them to do it, but I don't think they're minded to be helpful at the moment.


even tho doing so would be the way to bring justice for the women accusing Assange?  So it is the Swedish governments fault?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I can see why it would be helpful for them to do it, but I don't think they're minded to be helpful at the moment.


Truth, justice and the american way.


----------



## newbie (Aug 23, 2012)

At wh


belboid said:


> indeed, and the update added sice i first read it makes it even more clear the state - hilst not being able to give an absolute [iron-cast] guarantee about no onward extradition, it can make explicit statements that it would block any attempt it (not the court) deemed political.


at which point all eyes turn on the Swedish government, don't they? 

Are there any convincing arguments why he shouldn't be protected from extradition to the US?


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> even tho doing so would be the way to bring justice for the women accusing Assange?  So it is the Swedish governments fault?



I don't think the US particularly care about justice for Swedish nationals. The Swedish government probably do.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

newbie said:


> At which point all eyes turn on the Swedish government, don't they?
> 
> Are there any convincing arguments why he shouldn't be protected from extradition to the US?


Are there any convincing arguments why the Swedish authorities shouldn't openly ask the US?


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> not at all - it _may_ be that they want to charge him.  But that was explicitly what many of the Assange critics were denying a few months ago, when it so suited them to do so.



My only point so far on this aspect, is that (as our Supreme Court decided) the matter is beyond "helping with enquiries" and therefore extradition to arrest, formal questioning, and then charging if appropriate.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 23, 2012)

im editing this post, may stick it back up later tomorrow xx


----------



## elbows (Aug 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> this is a handy little test, isn't it.


 
Indeed, but it also resembles a series of tests, and it seems well possible to pass some and end up failing others as a result. Then its a question of priorities as to which failure is deemed to be the biggest sin.

Maybe I would have struggled more choosing my own balancing act if I hadnt already got pissed off with Assanges attitude to information he possessed, or if there had been something in any of the leaks that was actually a shock and opened up a deep and rich new seam of intelligent analysis about our world. 

That article that went on and on about reasons journalists would write nasty stuff about Assange managed to mention a number of factors which played their part Im sure, but despite its length it missed plenty out. One of the problems with this story is that there are so many phenomenon at work here, even the narrow angle of media treatment of Assange contains numerous aspects, let alone the whole story.

If people were looking for someone who could stick one in the eye of a variety of powers and get away with it, avoiding most of the unpleasant potential consequences including tainted reputation, so as to encourage others to lose their fear of speaking out, leaking etc, then its already too late. And if you wanted your defendable hero to do all of this whilst avoiding double-standards and serving as an example of what the cause is really about, again Assange has not proven to be that man. If you wanted to be able to engage in a struggle over extradition and espionage laws, this case can be made to fit that mould but only by shaving off some of the unpleasantly shaped pieces first. I hope it is not too much to ask that humanity occasionally produce individuals who will be able to play useful high-profile roles in various struggles without bringing counterproductive attitudes towards women to the table. But I suppose one of the problems with the at least one sort of personality that is willing to take on large powers in a risky and high-profile manner, is that their attitude towards risk in other matters may also be at best a little eccentric or strangely driven.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> ...However, some of the shit eating justifications that i've seen here for assange's conduct...


I'll quote that.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 23, 2012)

do so. just don't quote the rest of it.


----------



## elbows (Aug 23, 2012)

I dont feel like I can discuss its contents in any way without having the same sort of effect as quoting from it. So apologies for this rather robotic reply.

Instead I think I'll make some exceedingly vague point about how messy and bendable the lines of justice are when it comes to determining what is a crime. There are myriad ways in which we can totally fuck each others heads up in the way we relate, behave, and the things we say. And no matter how thick-skinned we can make ourselves in other areas, few are anything but thin-skinned when it comes to matters of both the heart and the genitals. So much potential pleasure and safety, so much potential pain and terror. And so many attitudes of one kind or another, along with issues of power and trust, that may make the experience the opposite of good. And as if that wasnt enough, an area where human self-awareness, control and language may rub either brilliantly or horrifically against some of our primitive biological drives.


----------



## editor (Aug 23, 2012)




----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Likewise respecting your privacy and right to post, amend or withdraw your post.

To add to what elbows said, the issue of human rights runs through this Assange mess. I see in those leaked police statements (without redactions) the dark side of leaking in the name of freedom of speech. I don't think I *should* have been able to read those, and I'm astounded that they remain in the public domain, allowing a trial to take place over the Internet and other media.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Likewise respecting your privacy and right to post, amend or withdraw your post.
> 
> To add to what elbows said, the issue of human rights runs through this Assange mess. I see in those leaked police statements (without redactions) the dark side of leaking in the name of freedom of speech. I don't think I *should* have been able to read those, and I'm astounded that they remain in the public domain, allowing a trial to take place over the Internet and other media.


 
I know, i think it's completely disgraceful.

Another thing - there's this whole idea that it's ok because "everyone would think it was OK the other way round" ie if a girl had sex with a guy (or another girl for that matter) when asleep. er, i fucking wouldn't - i'd never dream of doing something like that and i would never assume that would be OK at all.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

I also think it's time for the Swedish government to take action. They're probably so busy trying to get consensus on it, that matters will come to a head in the meantime - here. 

Their citizens, their crime. Their leaking of confidential documents, their allowing them to remain in the public domain. Their failure to question properly when the allegations were made. Their failure to sort it out with us/US.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

For a start, I think the Swedes should get a wiggle on, and send their OB over here to stand on guard and bloody arrest Assange once he pokes his nose outside the embassy. I don't see why we should be doing it, and paying for it.


----------



## RubyBlue (Aug 23, 2012)

I'm listening to Ecudor by Sah on my Ipod - I want to blast it out at the embassy tomorrow and say thanks ECUDOR )


----------



## elbows (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> For a start, I think the Swedes should get a wiggle on, and send their OB over here to stand on guard and bloody arrest Assange once he pokes his nose outside the embassy. I don't see why we should be doing it, and paying for it.


 
I assume that would be rather beyond the norms of extradition systems, not the sort of option that would become available just because someone decided to get a wiggle on, or one that doesnt happen simply because someone failed to get a wiggle on?


----------



## laptop (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> rebutted (eventually) at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt


 
Fucking hell. What a crock of Manichean polemical shite. The author can only be USian, no? It's an example of something that's deeply broken in US culture and discourse...



> It is difficult to think of anyone this side of Saddam Hussein who triggers this level of personalized, deeply ingrained hatred from establishment journalists. Few who spew this vitriol would dare speak with the type of personalized scorn toward, say, George Bush or Tony Blair


 
Do fuck off, Glenn Greenwald.

If a brief comes out with shit like that, you know their only hope of an acquittal is that the jury are mad.

And to play him at his own rhetorical game, only to show how silly this Manicheanism is:




			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> One of Greenwald's most notable First Amendment clients was Matthew Hale, a leader of the organization now known as the Creativity Movement.
> 
> ...
> Creativity is known for being "antisemitic, racist and...anti-Christian."[2] Ben Klassen described the organizational structure of the Church of the Creator as "monolithic and...authoritarian",[3] although the Anti-Defamation League noted an apparent hierarchy in the religion.[4] The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies its ideology as Neo-Nazi.[5]


----------



## laptop (Aug 23, 2012)

dp


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> I assume that would be rather beyond the norms of extradition systems, not the sort of option that would become available just because someone decided to get a wiggle on, or one that doesnt happen simply because someone failed to get a wiggle on?



I've long come to terms with the fact that what I think should happen, won't necessarily do so. Apart from the issues arising out of normal extradition systems, I know fine well that the Swedes don't generally get a wiggle on as I alluded to previously when mentioning their tendency to consensus decision making. 

However, that's still what I think should happen. I don't think it will. 

Although we could try invoicing them for the manpower.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Laptop, did you actually read all that rubbish?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I've long come to terms with the fact that what I think should happen, won't necessarily do so. Apart from the issues arising out of normal extradition systems, I know fine well that the Swedes don't generally get a wiggle on as I alluded to previously when mentioning their tendency to consensus decision making.
> 
> However, that's still what I think should happen. I don't think it will.
> 
> Although we could try invoicing them for the manpower.


 
How would you feel if he was made the subject of extraordinary rendition and spirited away to Guantanamo Bay?

The question being, how much are you prepared to see the rules bent in order to get Assange behind bars?


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How would you feel if he was made the subject of extraordinary rendition and spirited away to Guantanamo Bay?
> 
> The question being, how much are you prepared to see the rules bent in order to get Assange behind bars?



I'd be furious if it happened before the sexual assault allegations were properly sorted out. 

After that, well it would depend on what the reasoning was for any such extraordinary rendition. I'm not particularly attached to getting him behind bars.


----------



## laptop (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Laptop, did you actually read all that rubbish?


 
Today, I was reading rubbish for a living. Practiced at skimming thoroughly, then.

I still took up smoking halfway through. I may sue


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

laptop said:


> Today, I was reading rubbish for a living. Practiced at skimming thoroughly, then.
> 
> I still took up smoking halfway through. I may sue



 I admire your patience with it. When I started reading it, I had to double check the URL to make sure that it wasn't infowars.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> After that, well it would depend on what the reasoning was for any such extraordinary rendition.


 
Which reasons justify extraordinary rendition, to your way of thinking?


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I also think it's time for the Swedish government to take action. They're probably so busy trying to get consensus on it, that matters will come to a head in the meantime - here.


Why should the Swedish government make a move? They probably love this situation. They get to tacitly show they're on the same side as the US and UK, while also attracting support from Swedish feminists and Social Democrats. Likewise the Swedish judiciary don't want to lose face by giving in to Assange.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> Why should the Swedish government make a move? They probably love this situation. They get to tacitly show they're on the same side as the US and UK, while also attracting support from Swedish feminists and Social Democrats. Likewise the Swedish judiciary don't want to lose face by giving in to Assange.



I agree.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Which reasons justify extraordinary rendition, to your way of thinking?



To my way of thinking, can't think of any off-hand.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

No one comes out of this situation looking good. Sweden's ruling class is becoming less and less neutral by the week, and this is one of those moments that is going to shift world perception of Sweden solidly into the Nato camp. Likewise the UK ruling class has made it clear they are going to put disproportionate resources into chasing someone that has embarrassed the USA.

And meanwhile all the dodgy "anti-imperialist" lefties are smoked out, scrambling to say that what Assange is accused of "isn't even rape, except in feminazi Sweden", and Assange himself reverts to the worst kind of 'enemy of my enemy' strategy, cosying up to Russia's elite, plus any other state that wants to piss off the USA.

With people falling into two neat camps over this it's easy to see how a greater split in the left, like in the 1920s and 1930s over the USSR, could take place.

I just hope that people like Matkidd12, who are skeptical of the Pilger-Galloway nonsense on this, don't end up abandoning basic leftism or anti-militarism entirely, as Hitchens did. The US and UK have been involved in the slaughter of thousands. They are still the main threat. But this doesn't either mean that anyone critical of them should be given a free pass when it comes to basic feminism or equality politics.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

I thought the UK ruling class was putting resources into enforcing its judiciary wrt to extradition decisions, and jumping bail.


Edit: I'd also feel as strongly about the sexual assault allegations if those raising them were male, intersex or trans.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I thought the UK ruling class was putting resources into enforcing its judiciary wrt to extradition decisions, and jumping bail.


I doubt everyone avoiding a EAW get's personal attention from cabinet ministers. Why do you need to pretend that the UK state is somehow neutral in all this?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> No one comes out of this situation looking good. Sweden's ruling class is becoming less and less neutral by the week, and this is one of those moments that is going to shift world perception of Sweden solidly into the Nato camp. Likewise the UK ruling class has made it clear they are going to put disproportionate resources into chasing someone that has embarrassed the USA.
> 
> And meanwhile all the dodgy "anti-imperialist" lefties are smoked out, scrambling to say that what Assange is accused of isn't even rape, except in feminazi Sweden, and Assange himself reverts to the worst kind of 'enemy of my enemy' strategy, cosying up to Russia's elite, plus any other state that wants to piss off the USA.
> 
> ...


 
I wouldn't worry about the anti-imperialists, they've been up to their necks in blood for decades, this is nothing to them - and we shouldn't have expected anything better from them. It's the people who you thought you could trust that have me thinking about where the hell they're actually coming from.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> I doubt everyone avoiding a EAW get's personal attention from cabinet ministers. Why do you need to pretend that the UK state is somehow neutral in all this?



I don't need to pretend that the UK state is, and I'm not. I also don't think of the Swedish  state as feminazi, but you seem to.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't need to pretend that the UK state is, and I'm not. I also don't think of the Swedish  state as feminazi, but you seem to.


No, I was characterising the views of rape apologists.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I wouldn't worry about the anti-imperialists, they've been up to their necks in blood for decades, this is nothing to them - and we shouldn't have expected anything better from them. It's the people who you thought you could trust that have me thinking about where the hell they're actually coming from.


People like who? Has Chomsky finally lost it?


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> No, I was characterising the views of rape apologists.



But even so, I don't think you can boil down the rape accusations to issues of feminism and equality politics.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> I doubt everyone avoiding a EAW get's personal attention from cabinet ministers.


 
in fairness they dont usually get the chance to challenge it in court either


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

smokedout said:


> in fairness they dont usually get the chance to challenge it in court either



All the way up to the Supreme Court, too.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> People like who? Has Chomsky finally lost it?


I'm not convinced at all by that Chomsky interview as it goes.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> But even so, I don't think you can boil down the rape accusations to issues of feminism and equality politics.


 The whole case clearly involves lots of issues. But the people who dismiss the rape allegations, often as "not even constituting rape even if true" are clearly expressing views relating to feminism and equality politics.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not convinced at all by that Chomsky interview as it goes.


Is it this interview: http://newmatilda.com/2012/08/17/assange-interview-chomsky ? Seems to be very little Noam at all, mostly the reporter paraphrases and drops in the occasional quote. Still, if he said this: "Everyone in their right mind knows that this is a stepping stone to the US." then I think he has lost it a bit. Even though he's correct that in the last 100 years Sweden's leant towards whichever power has been dominant. Still doesn't mean the government will defy its own Supreme Court and provoke a backlash.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> The whole case clearly involves lots of issues. But the people who dismiss the rape allegations, often as "not even constituting rape even if true" are clearly expressing views relating to feminism and equality politics.



I don't entirely agree. Some of them are expressing views related to power, and its use/abuse.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't entirely agree. Some of them are expressing views related to power, and it's use/abuse.


If you keep on with the single-sentence posts on this it's hard for me to engage. I have to second-guess what you actually mean, and reply to that.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

Good article on LibCoM btw http://libcom.org/blog/enemy-my-enemy-notes-not-having-really-shit-politics-22082012


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> If you keep on with the single-sentence posts on this it's hard for me to engage. I have to second-guess what you actually mean, and reply to that.



Earlier, I edited to add a second sentence to the post of mine that you took issue with, and (afaik) misrepresented. There are two problems that I personally find with your analysis (1) the implication that the UK's response to JA's behaviour is nothing more than kowtowing to the US; and (2) that the response to allegations of rape boil down to politics.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Earlier, I edited to add a second sentence to the post of mine that you took issue with, and (afaik) misrepresented. There are two problems that I personally find with your analysis (1) the implication that the UK's response to JA's behaviour is nothing more than kowtowing to the US; and (2) that the response to allegations of rape boil down to politics.


Thanks. I don't see how your edit adds much. Feminism and equality politics isn't just about women. The response of dismissing the rape allegations has shown just how shallowly-seated feminism and equality are as part of some left politics. 

As for the UK, its ruling class certainly is playing up to show just how loyal they are to the USA. But this isn't merely a response to the US. The fact is that the UK and US ruling classes have convergent interests, so the UK both defends its own system and also at the same time strengthens its own position in the transatlantic special relationship.

Having said that, I have no special insight in this, unlike my posts on Sweden. I'm simply going on what I already know about the UK and about the "anti-imperialists". As Butchers already said, many of them already have blood on their hands.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> Thanks. I don't see how your edit adds much. Feminism and equality politics isn't just about women. The response of dismissing the rape allegations has shown just how shallowly-seated feminism and equality are as part of some left politics.



I know that feminism and equality politics isn't just about women, that was the point of my edit.  However I see the response of dismissing the rape allegations, as not merely a criticism of the shallow-seated ness of left politics but of people (of whatever political persuasion) that still hold views which amount to rape apology. 



Random said:


> As for the UK, its ruling class certainly is playing up to show just how loyal they are to the USA. But this isn't merely a response to the US. The fact is that the UK and US ruling classes have convergent interests, so the UK both defends its own system and also at the same time strengthens its own position in the transatlantic special relationship.
> 
> Having said that, I have no special insight in this, unlike my posts on Sweden. I'm simply going on what I already know about the UK and about the "anti-imperialists". As Butchers already said, many of them already have blood on their hands.



Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> However I see the response of dismissing the rape allegations, as not merely a criticism of the shallow-seated ness of left politics but of people (of whatever political persuasion) that still hold views which amount to rape apology.


 I'm not sure what this means. Can you rephrase it? Are you saying something similar to what I said earlier, about how this issues has smoked some people out?


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> I'm not sure what this means. Can you rephrase it? Are you saying something similar to what I said earlier, about how this issues has smoked some people out?



I think it's smoked some people out, but those smoked-out people aren't limited to those on the left (because it's possible to be on the right, or in the centre and not hold views amounting to rape apology).


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I think it's smoked some people out, but those smoked-out people aren't limited to those on the left (because it's possible to be on the right, or in the centre and not hold views amounting to rape apology).


Again, it's very very hard to work out what you meant. As a bland and blanket respons I'll just say that I have very few expectations that anyone on the right or in the centre will have vaguely sound views at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> Again, it's very very hard to work out what you meant. As a bland and blanket respons I'll just say that I have very few expectations that anyone on the right or in the centre will have vaguely sound views at all.


sounds to me like you see the right and centre as fairly monolithick and not - as t.j. hooker would have said - containing a million shades of grey.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> sounds to me like you see the right and centre as fairly monolithick and not - as t.j. hooker would have said - containing a million shades of grey.


I think they are monolithickally not worth me wasting my time over. Most people are not signed up to any political ideology. I've better things to do than engage with tories and lib dems.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> I think they are monolithickally not worth me wasting my time over. Most people are not signed up to any political ideology. I've better things to do than engage with tories and lib dems.


like?


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> Again, it's very very hard to work out what you meant. As a bland and blanket respons I'll just say that I have very few expectations that anyone on the right or in the centre will have vaguely sound views at all.



I don't know many people on the right, but there's plenty that I know on the centre. Some of their views are sound, and others not. However, I feel as "wtf" about rape apology from those where I hear it from the centre as I do from those on the left. I don't think the left should be under any illusion that they are less likely to have rape apologists within their number.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> I think they are monolithickally not worth me wasting my time over. Most people are not signed up to any political ideology. I've better things to do than engage with tories and lib dems.



Plenty of Tories and LibDems In the WC.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> like?


Eating cake


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't know many people on the right, but there's plenty that I know on the centre. Some of their views are sound, and others not. However, I feel as "wtf" about rape apology from those where I hear it from the centre as I do from those on the left. I don't think the left should be under any illusion that they are less likely to have rape apologists within their number.


I don't agree. Leftism is about egalitarianism or it's about nothing, and that has to include sexual/gender egalitarianism, or it's worthless.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Plenty of Tories and LibDems In the WC.


Mostly I'm talking about public political figures, rather than people I meet in everyday life. Crusty dyed in the wool tories and lib dems are not something I'm interested in. Crusty lefties, however, should know better. And left leaders can poison whole movements/campaigns by coming out with this sort of crap. I'm very impressed that Salma Yacqoob has openly ticked Galloway off. Aren't they the two main people in Respect?


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> I don't agree. Leftism is about egalitarianism or it's about nothing, and that has to include sexual/gender egalitarianism, or it's worthless.


In theory, yes. In practice, that's not how it plays out as evidenced by this Assange mess. It's exactly this kind of "oh noes, a member of the _left_ is a rape apologist  which should only happen amongst the politically unaligned, the centre and the right, yuk" that leaves me scratching my head and joining forces with LLETSA.

Edit: and the comments on that Libcom article you linked to show you the variety of idiots that you get on the left as well.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> Mostly I'm talking about public political figures, rather than people I meet in everyday life. Crusty dyed in the wool tories and lib dems are not something I'm interested in. Crusty lefties, however, should know better. And left leaders can poison whole movements/campaigns by coming out with this sort of crap. I'm very impressed that Salma Yacqoob has openly ticked Galloway off. Aren't they the two main people in Respect?


 
Well, mostly I'm talking about people I meet in everyday life.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 23, 2012)

The Frankie Boyle contribution



> Got a new alarm clock. The ring is George Galloway's voice saying "Sshh..Go back to sleep". I'm dressed and out the door before it goes off.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 23, 2012)

there are definitely predatory men on the left (and I don't know, but there are probably predatory women as well). And I do feel a lot more "wtf" about it because the crime of rape and the fact that it supports a patriarchal system is not what the left is meant to be about

i don't feel as "wtf" about it as i did. however it does make you feel a lot more disgusted and disillusioned both with the people who do that sort of shit, and the left as a whole, because the left is meant to be about equality and that sort of thing but some people are only involved so that they can take advantage of people. And when you encounter people who perv on you during political stuff it does make you question sometimes whether the whole thing is just a load of bullshit.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2012)

Assange isn't on the left though.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> In theory, yes. In practice, that's not how it plays out as evidenced by this Assange mess. It's exactly this kind of "oh noes, a member of the _left_ is a rape apologist  which should only happen amongst the politically unaligned, the centre and the right, yuk" that leaves me scratching my head and joining forces with LLETSA.
> 
> Edit: and the comments on that Libcom article you linked to show you the variety of idiots that you get on the left as well.


What idiotic comments? May have simply blanked them, but seemed fine.

Rather than joining LLETSA, why not work to make anarcho/leftism live up to its promises on egalitarianism?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Try telling that to them as you wake up with their hands on you and their cock in you though 

The politics of the left appears not to have had to face the politics of identity, gender, sex and freedom for a while. And now that it is, there's an awful lot of completeand utter shites being revealed.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Well, mostly I'm talking about people I meet in everyday life.


No one I meet here in Sweden supports Assange's arguments about not being extradited at all. So I only do this kind of argument on the net.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> The politics of the left appears not to have had to face the politics of identity, gender, sex and freedom for a while. And now that it is, there's an awful lot of completeand utter shites being revealed.


eh?  One of the main problems for the left has been a total acquiescence to such identity politics. That a small number of 'leading' lefties (lets ignore the shouting eejits on the internet) are coming out with utterly despicable 'defences' of Assange doesn't change that.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

If they've acquiesced so much to it, why are they so fucking awful at dealing with a non-polarised issue then?

Or rather, this is an issue the left actually get media exposure on. And what's being exposed is fucking ugly.


----------



## the button (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> I don't agree. Leftism is about egalitarianism or it's about nothing.


It certainly should be. However -- as you're probably aware -- there have been two or three of occasions in the past few months where "the left" has attempted to deal with the shitty attitudes to women of some in its ranks. The link below is one example:

http://angrywomen.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/awol-statement-on-sexual-harassment-in-activist-spaces/

On *every* occasion that I'm aware of, there have been some who have sided with the perpetrator, and those attempting to set up some kind of accountability process have been accused of acting in authoritarian way. The Assange case is just a high-profile example of these shitty attitudes.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> eh? One of the main problems for the left has been a total acquiescence to such identity politics. That a small number of 'leading' lefties (lets ignore the shouting eejits on the internet) are coming out with utterly despicable 'defences' of Assange doesn't change that.


One of the main problems for the left has been the inability to integrate "identity politics" into its raison d'etre.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

"Over here I keep my social justice politics, in that jar over there are my economic management politics and somewhere at the back of this cupboard is a dusty box filled with my gender, identity and sexual politics."

*rummages through cupboard*

"MUUUUUUMMMM, have you seen my stance on the BNP and other far right groups?"


----------



## the button (Aug 23, 2012)

And here's some more on responses to the above:

https://smashkyriarchy.wordpress.co...e-pdf-sexual-harrassment-statement-from-awol/


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

And why the fuck (now that I'm really annoyed again) should abuse of power manifesting in e.g. sexual assault be a feminist/equality/identity politics issue?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Because it's to do with women, and as women GET raped, it's one of those womens issues innit


----------



## the button (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> And why the fuck (now that I'm really annoyed again) should abuse of power manifesting in e.g. sexual assault be a feminist/equality/identity politics issue?


Distraction from the class struggle, comrade.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> And why the fuck (now that I'm really annoyed again) should abuse of power manifesting in e.g. sexual assault be a feminist/equality/identity politics issue?


Identity politics tries to break all kinds of factors down into tidy little single issues, with identities attached. Maybe the left just bolted on this array or issues, instead of really integrating them into the mainstream of its politics? Rather like the way state-sponsored "multiculturalism" actually divides people and undermines antiracism?


----------



## rioted (Aug 23, 2012)

I've denied rape allegations made against me. Does that make me a rape denialist? Or perhaps a rape apologist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> I've denied rape allegations made against me. Does that make me a rape denialist? Or perhaps a rape apologist?


but you haven't said whether the allegations against you stood up to examination.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> I've denied rape allegations made against me. Does that make me a rape denialist? Or perhaps a rape apologist?



Have you had the trial yet?


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> I've denied rape allegations made against me. Does that make me a rape denialist? Or perhaps a rape apologist?


Without knowing whether you raped someone or not, it's difficult to say.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> I've denied rape allegations made against me. Does that make me a rape denialist? Or perhaps a rape apologist?


No, don't be silly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> I've denied rape allegations made against me. Does that make me a rape denialist? Or perhaps a rape apologist?


you are austen donellan and i claim my £5


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> Identity politics tries to break all kinds of factors down into tidy little single issues, with identities attached. Maybe the left just bolted on this array or issues, instead of really integrating them into the mainstream of its politics? Rather like the way state-sponsored "multiculturalism" actually divides people and undermines antiracism?


 
Which goes back to my point about the left having difficulty integrating "identity politics" into its raison d'etre. Yes, that's a good analogy.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> I've denied rape allegations made against me. Does that make me a rape denialist? Or perhaps a rape apologist?



I take it you denied them to the police, went through the process and no charges were brought. Rather than at a press conference. And that you didnt first attack the integrity of the claimants publicly, and have a go at the police and prosecution as well? 

Then no, silly.


----------



## rioted (Aug 23, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Have you had the trial yet?


Didn't go to trial. Obviously the women involved were too frightened to pursue it. 

I have also on a few occasions penetrated a sleeping woman. On none of those occasions were rape allegations made. I too have been woken by a mouth round  my cock. Sexual assault surely?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Did you, upon waking recieving, or the person you penetrated consider it as such?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Which goes back to my point about the left having difficulty integrating "identity politics" into its raison d'etre.



Because identity politics campaigners aren't necessarily left wing. Someone campaigning for gay rights can as easily be a conservative voter as a socialist.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> Didn't go to trial. Obviously the women involved were too frightened to pursue it.
> 
> I have also on a few occasions penetrated a sleeping woman. On none of those occasions were rape allegations made. I too have been woken by a mouth round my cock. Sexual assault surely?


You're not actually this stupid, so why are you pretending to be?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> Didn't go to trial. Obviously the women involved were too frightened to pursue it.
> 
> I have also on a few occasions penetrated a sleeping woman. On none of those occasions were rape allegations made. I too have been woken by a mouth round  my cock. Sexual assault surely?



We did this two days ago. Did you miss the party?


----------



## rioted (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> And that you didnt first attack the integrity of the claimants publicly,


Surely even denying the accusation was attacking the integrity of the claimant? And denying it to nutty feminists was doing it publicly.


----------



## rioted (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> You're not actually this stupid, so why are you pretending to be?


You mean not stupid enough to do it or not stupid enough to admit it?


----------



## rioted (Aug 23, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> We did this two days ago. Did you miss the party?


I was at another one. Lot more fun.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> You mean not stupid enough to do it or not stupid enough to admit it?


not stupid enough to know your argument is completely specious and nothing to do with the actual issue


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

Is this where rioted outs himself as one of Them?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

rioted said:


> Surely even denying the accusation was attacking the integrity of the claimant? And denying it to nutty feminists was doing it publicly.



Depends where, and how you denied it. During a police interview, not so much integrity attacked as its not exactly public. Mouthing off down the local, little bit less right.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

Rioted, how does your particular case relate to the Assange accusations and defence? Not that I know what happened to you, but did you say to your accuser that what they called rape, wasn't really rape? Did you say that investigating rape wasn't important, since you were an opponent of the US? 

I can't see really why you think there's a parallel here.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Because identity politics campaigners aren't necessarily left wing. Someone campaigning for gay rights can as easily be a conservative voter as a socialist.


Yes. The issue of egalitarianism in terms of gender is cross platform. So to speak.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yes. The issue of egalitarianism in terms of gender is cross platform. So to speak.



The left have to view it through the prism of class. And this won't suit feminists who want to challenge gender equality but are happy with the status quo with regards to the class system.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> The left have to view it through the prism of class. And this won't suit feminists who want to challenge gender equality but are happy with the status quo with regards to the class system.


That's because there are people who want equality of one sort, but not of another. Socialism has the ambition to bring about total equality. I hope.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> That's because there are people who want equality of one sort, but not of another. Socialism has the ambition to bring about total equality. I hope.



Hasn't historically, though. I think the Soviet Union was a pretty sexist society, by most accounts. Of course it can be argued that it wasn't socialism proper either.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Traditional problem of everything. The ideology is perfect, we've just got the wrong kind of humans to fit it.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Hasn't historically, though. I think the Soviet Union was a pretty sexist society, by most accounts. Of course it can be argued that it wasn't socialism proper either.


No, sorry but that's just nonsense. The socialist aspect of the USSR drove the whole Russian Empire in a far more sexually equal direction, with a legacy of women in work that remains in some former-Communist countries. it's true that many versions of socialism have compromised and accepted certain forms of inequality, but that's not because of socialism''s aspirations, but in spite of it.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> The left have to view it through the prism of class. And this won't suit feminists who want to challenge gender equality but are happy with the status quo with regards to the class system.


The left have to view it through the prism of class, but somehow remain mindful that their prism is constructed within a patriarchal society.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Hasn't historically, though. I think the Soviet Union was a pretty sexist society, <snip>


It bloody wasn't!


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2012)

Well I picked that up from here  can't remember who said but don't recall it being challenged.  glad to be corrected though.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Does anyone have John Pilger's number? Someone might want to text him and tell him to calm down a bit.


Www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism

Pursuing Assange is an assault on freedom, Assange fleeing questioning over his sexual assault on women is fine though.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Does anyone have John Pilger's number? Someone might want to text him and tell him to calm down a bit.


What's the latest?


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Well I picked that up from here  can't remember who said but don't recall it being challenged.  glad to be corrected though.


It may have been sexist in the 1950s compared to the Societ dreams of the 1920s, but it was far far more advanced than other semi-feudal societies in eastern europe.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> What's the latest?



Www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism



James Ball pointed out that the staggers leader steps a way, way, waaaaay back from Pilger.

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifesty...must-not-dismiss-or-diminish-allegations-rape


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Does anyone have John Pilger's number? Someone might want to text him and tell him to calm down a bit.
> 
> 
> Www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism
> ...


No need for you to make things up, is there?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Sorry. That lastbit is my interpretation. Pilger supports Julian against the forces of oppression chasing him, without noting that Julian's the one who started running, starting obfuscating and then casually pushes aside the actual cause of the need for questioning with the standard ITS TOTALLY THE USA THAT MADE ASSANGE PENETRATE A WOMAN WHILE SHE WAS ASLEEP AND HOLD ANOTHER DOWN WITHOUT USING A CONDOM DESPITE HER EXPRESSING THAT WISH bullshit.

When it comes to the facts of the case, as opposed to the supposition, conspiracies and denail expressed by sme Assange supporters, i'm not in fantasy land.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism
> 
> 
> 
> ...


not sure what your point is.  The Stateseman - still owned by an ultra-Blairiate isnt it?  So hardly surprising that their editorial decides not to cover the reasons why Assange is actually in the Ecuadorian embassy. To talk solely about one without the other is to do both a mis-service.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Sorry. That lastbit is my interpretation. Pilger supports Julian against the forces of oppression chasing him, without noting that Julian's the one who started running, starting obfuscating and then casually pushes aside the actual cause of the need for questioning with the standard ITS TOTALLY THE USA THAT MADE ASSANGE PENETRATE A WOMAN WHILE SHE WAS ASLEEP AND HOLD ANOTHER DOWN WITHOUT USING A CONDOM DESPITE HER EXPRESSING THAT WISH bullshit.


and you're lying again. You have a go at someone for being a tad hyperbolic and obfuscation, and then make a bunch of stuff up??!!  Doesnt really do your argument much good, does it?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Why's Julian in the embassy? Because he lost his court battle to prevent extradition to Sweden for questioning about acts which his defence have conceded he has commited.

By questioning the documents etc, etc Pilger casually pushes it all aside to continuehis rant against the evilempires pursuit. 

If you think i'm lying, that's ok


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> If you think i'm lying, that's ok


" ITS TOTALLY THE USA THAT MADE ASSANGE PENETRATE A WOMAN WHILE SHE WAS ASLEEP AND HOLD ANOTHER DOWN WITHOUT USING A CONDOM DESPITE HER EXPRESSING THAT WISH"
you know full well that the above was never stated anywhere, so you are lying.  Simple as that.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Fair enough, but he dismisses Assanges actions, which I stated in capitals, which have been conceded by his legal team as having occured and do indeed qualify as rape under Swedish laws. He's suckered into the same shit argument which comes down to who cares if he did it or not, he's being pursued by the US so we must support him. Despite, y'know, him not being actively pursued by the US or anyone but the Met and Sweden right now. Its the bullshit that Assange has spun, conflating his professional work with wikileaks with his own personal actions.

I got over annoyed apologies, but the whole issue winds me the fuck up.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Sensible comment by "Lee Griffin" on that Pilger article.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Fair enough, but he dismisses Assanges actions, which I stated in capitals, which have been conceded by his legal team as having occured and do indeed qualify as rape under Swedish laws.


No they havent. They have said Assange has sex with the women - not that he 'used his body weight' to pin them down, nor that he demanded unprotected sex. It is those that might mean he faces a charge of rape.



> He's suckered into the same shit argument which comes down to who cares if he did it or not, he's being pursued by the US so we must support him. Despite, y'know, him not being actively pursued by the US or anyone but the Met and Sweden right now.


oh come on. The US _are_ pursuing him, they're just astute enough not to have demanded any extradition yet. Assange _doies_ have real reason to fear being extradited there. So the Swedish state should intervene in the case _again_ to say he wont be deported for anything to do with wikileaks. Put the onus back on Assange to come and face the music for the alleged sex crimes. Give him - and his suporters - no excuses.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Wow, atrocious editing there.

And they have admitted that he penetrated a woman while she was asleep. That's the big one.

And the Swedish state won't give Assange special exemption from the usual laws of extradition, because Julian Assange is not a special little fucking rainbow unicorn who should be allowed to engage with legal systems in whatever way he wants to. It's case by case. The same for you, the same for me.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> No they havent. They have said Assange has sex with the women - not that he 'used his body weight' to pin them down, nor that he demanded unprotected sex. It is those that might mean he faces a charge of rape.


 
The rape charge is the asleep thing - those above are sexual molestation and coercion.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> No one I meet here in Sweden supports Assange's arguments about not being extradited at all. So I only do this kind of argument on the net.


 
Going back to this, because there wasn't time earlier. Are you seeing much pressure being exerted on the Swedish govt by Swedish citizens, for the govt to stop sitting back and watching how things play out?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

And, the Assange defence at the extradition hearing admitted that the complainants description was fair and accurate. On the 12th July 2011, actually. 

And I don't think he's guilty, I only know what the allegations are and what his lawyers have conceded. It's my desire that he goes and answers the damn questions and stops playing games.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Going back to this, because there wasn't time earlier. Are you seeing much pressure being exerted on the Swedish govt by Swedish citizens, for the govt to stop sitting back and watching how things play out?


No, none at all. There's the odd situation that Assange's attacks on Sweden has managed to unite everyone from anarchists to Christian Democrats against him. having said that, if the government handed him over to the USA I think all hell would break loose, since everyone except the hard right was very supportive of him before the allegations, and many are still supportive of Wikileaks and Manning.

All just feelings I get from talking to people and reading the papers/twitter btw.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> No, none at all. There's the odd situation that Assange's attacks on Sweden has managed to unite everyone from anarchists to Christian Democrats against him. having said that, if the government handed him over to the USA I think all hell would break loose, since everyone except the hard right was very supportive of him before the allegations, and many are still supportive of Wikileaks and Manning.
> 
> All just feelings I get from talking to people and reading the papers/twitter btw.


Ta. No demonstrations etc then.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ta. No demonstrations etc then.


No, certainly not. The supporters of Assange have mostly come from the "mens' rights" "misandry" campaigners. And no one really wants to touch them.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> No, certainly not.


Still under the iron heel of their nazi comrades no doubt.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Does anyone have John Pilger's number? Someone might want to text him and tell him to calm down a bit.
> 
> 
> Www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism
> ...


 A minor but but revealing bit in all that hyperbole was the bit about the guardian.  He seemed to be at least _implying_ they should have avoided taking up the rape story as they'd profitted from the original wikileaks stuff.  Now that _would_ have been immoral.

In passing, I've always had a problem with Pilger's breathless prose and conflations of issues and powers.  It's in the back of your mind when you are seeing/reading stuff you agree with, but really jars when it's something like this.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Wow, atrocious editing there.
> 
> And they have admitted that he penetrated a woman while she was asleep. That's the big one.


But the key is actually that he continued whilst she was awake. Without that, there would be absolutely zero chance of a conviction for rape - which is (most likely) why the original prosecutor said there was no rape case.



> And the Swedish state won't give Assange special exemption from the usual laws of extradition, because Julian Assange is not a special little fucking rainbow unicorn who should be allowed to engage with legal systems in whatever way he wants to. It's case by case. The same for you, the same for me.


Wrong. He is a man with a real fear of being extradited to a third country. Sweden could resolve the issue by giving Assange the re-assurance he wants, and which they are fully entitled to give, that he wont be extradited on charges relating to wikilieaks. It is the Swedish states refusal to do so that is playing games.

Random has given reasons as to why Sweden are acting that way - they keep everyone on side without having to openly 'do' anything. But all that does is mean there can be no justice for Assange or the women accusing him.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

@wilf That bit strikes me as odd. If they hadn't taken up the story about the rape charges, wouldn't they be, well, not being journalists.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Wilf said:


> A minor but but revealing bit in all that hyperbole was the bit about the guardian. He seemed to be at least _implying_ they should have avoided taking up the rape story as they'd profitted from the original wikileaks stuff. Now that _would_ have been immoral.


No he doesnt.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

His fear is so real he applied for residency of Sweden before these allegations were made? That he fled to a country that it's easier to be extradited from than Sweden. Ok.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> @wilf That bit strikes me as odd. If they hadn't taken up the story about the rape charges, wouldn't they be, well, not being journalists.


 Absolutely. As always, journalists motives are mixed, messy and even opportunistic. However, a willingness to criticise the behaviour of someone you agree with elsewhere has always seemed to me like a pretty good trait. One that Galloway could try and learn.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> That he fled to a country that it's easier to be extradited from than Sweden. Ok.


The UK? Harder to be deported from actually.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Polarisation. Wikileaks, excepting the stuff that didn't redact names, was good. As editor in chief, Julian did good.

Allegations of molestation and rape, bad. As an individual, Julian is alleged to have done a bad thing.

 He answers questions, maybe gets charged, maybe doesn't. But, the very, very public way that he has conducted his defence against the allegations, criticised the prosecutor and used the good thing he did as a reason why he shouldn't have to answer for the bad thing he needs to answer questions about - well, that's bad.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> ...or the women accusing him.


The women didn't accuse him of rape.  The women went to the police to see if JA could be legally forced to take an STD test.   When the police said they were going to charge him with sexual assaults etc.  the woman who had been giving a statement refused to answer any more questions and refused to sign the forms to confirm what had been discussed.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> The UK? Harder to be deported from actually.



To the U.S, if they file charges, which they haven't? Tell that to that golf club schmooze.

If Romney wins in November, Assange is going to wish he'd just answered the damn questions two years ago.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> No he doesnt.


 In saying 'at least implying' I was being careful as to what he might have been saying.  _Okay, to turn it into a question, what is his motive in dangling this?_



> Accompanying this has been a vituperative personal campaign against Assange. Much of it has emanated from the Guardian, which, like a spurned lover, has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. On 20 August, Harding was outside the Ecuadorean embassy, gloating on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”. It is ironic, if entirely appropriate, that a Guardian editorial putting the paper’s latest boot into Assange bears an uncanny likeness to the Murdoch press’s predictable augmented bigotry on the same subject. How the glory of Leveson, Hackgate and honourable, independent journalism


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> Random has given reasons as to why Sweden are acting that way - they keep everyone on side without having to openly 'do' anything. But all that does is mean there can be no justice for Assange or the women accusing him.


TBH I'm trying hard to avoid taking sides in this. To not give the Swedish state/legal system/political elite an easy ride, just because so many things that Assange's team says about Sweden are false. If the Swedish government was sympathetic then one minister or politician could probably say something about how they reject the idea of charges over leaks, and that the US teatment of Manning is inhuman. This statement might be on-binding to the Swedish legal system, but would still show the very real safeguards against Wikileaks extradition for JA.

But they won't, as it suits them to be bloody minded, and the women suffer as well.


----------



## laptop (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Pilger supports Julian against the forces of oppression chasing him...


 
And Pilger does TV. He _doesn't do_ multiple competing parallel arguments, 'cos TV is linear.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> He answers questions, maybe gets charged, maybe doesn't. But, the very, very public way that he has conducted his defence against the allegations, criticised the prosecutor and used the good thing he did as a reason why he shouldn't have to answer for the bad thing he needs to answer questions about - well, that's bad.


Nothing wrong with criticising a prosecutor, but thats by the by. All the above may well be true, but doesnt alter the fact that it can be resolved by Sweden promising ot to extradite - put the onus back on Assange.



Balbi said:


> To the U.S, if they file charges, which they haven't? Tell that to that golf club schmooze.
> 
> If Romney wins in November, Assange is going to wish he'd just answered the damn questions two years ago.


I know that, fule.  My point was that the UK is actually harder to be deported from than Sweden.



Wilf said:


> In saying 'at least implying' I was being careful as to what he might have been saying. _Okay, to turn it into a question, what is his motive in dangling this?_


That seems to be saying that they shouldnt have acted like money grabbers previously, that they had already indulged in shitty behaviour towards Assange (and wikileaks), not that they should ignore any other story.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

George W Bush is sat in his mansion giggling like a crazed ape at this. His 'you're either with us, or against us' stuff has really, really caught on.

And the next time I am up on charges, I am certainly going to imply that because my prosecutor believes in equality for men and women that their judgement is suspect. I am certain that is a correct and proper way to conduct myself, as I flee for the nearest embassy.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> No, certainly not. The supporters of Assange have mostly come from the "mens' rights" "misandry" campaigners. And no one really wants to touch them.


Lagom in action.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Lagom in action.


Lagom is just another form of extremism


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Random said:


> Lagom is just another form of extremism


Too much lagom is bad for you.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> George W Bush is sat in his mansion giggling like a crazed ape at this. His 'you're either with us, or against us' stuff has really, really caught on.


But _you're_ the one doing it!


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> But _you're_ the one doing it!



Nuh-uh. You started it!

MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMM!


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)




----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Ive made myself clear, wikileaks is good and the exposure of the workings of the diplomatic circuit etc was good. However, avoiding answering these questions is a bad thing, as is the treatment of the allegations by Assange and his supporters. He answers the questions, i have no problem. If the US tried to extradite him, I would have a problem with that. That's not polarised, that's accepting he's a flawed human being like the rest of us, who in the case of the allegations in Sweden has made a series of poor choices which may taint his former good works the longer he drags it out.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Ive made myself clear, wikileaks is good and the exposure of the workings of the diplomatic circuit etc was good. However, avoiding answering these questions is a bad thing, as is the treatment of the allegations by Assange and his supporters. He answers the questions, i have no problem. If the US tried to extradite him, I would have a problem with that. That's not polarised, that's accepting he's a flawed human being like the rest of us, who in the case of the allegations in Sweden has made a series of poor choices which may taint his former good works the longer *he* drags it out.


the emboldened bit is where I have the problem.

It isn't him unreasonably dragging things out - he has (do you not agree?) good reason to feat extradition to the US.  So it is the Swedish state that is dragging thngs out.  So criticise them for their behaviour, not Assange.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

He doesn't get to make demands that would change the terms of international treaties simply because he booted a lion up the arse and now he's afraid of the fucking toothy end. And the U.S have no warrant for his extradition, nor have they attempted to get one. The charges they can use are probably based around the espionage act of 1917, which would given Assange's lawyers more fun than a whole bench of judiciary feminists.

The placing of burden on Sweden assumes that the U.S will instantly act the minute he's in Sweden, just like they instantly acted while he was in the UK for 22 months and Sweden before that. And that's an assumption that's been propagated by Julian Assange as a reason why none of this means he has to do anything, and why we should all support him.

It also fails to mention why he should go to Sweden.

That's where I have a problem with it.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> He doesn't get to make demands that would change the terms of international treaties


No such demand has been made.  You are completely and utterly wrong.



> The placing of burden on Sweden assumes that the U.S will instantly act the minute he's in Sweden, just like they instantly acted while he was in the UK for 22 months and Sweden before that. And that's an assumption that's been propagated by Julian Assange as a reason why none of this means he has to do anything, and why we should all support him.


Again, wholly wrong. There is no such assumption. The claim is that it would be a whole lot easier to extradite him from Sweden, when the US finally do make their claim (as everyone knows they wish to). 



> That's where I have a problem with it.


Your problem lies with things which are not true, tho.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

I want to be free from extradition over wikileaks - so, that doesn't change the nature of the extradition treaty, or swedish legal precedent which deals with them on a case my case basis as they happen? 

And yes, he does think if he goes to Sweden he'll end up in the U.S on the basis of....oh, some people in the U.S made statements that they would like to get their hands on him. And it wouldn't be easier to extradite him from Sweden, again, no not really. Could they interview him in London, again, no - the Swedish interview process precedes charging, so he needs to be within Sweden and its legal system in case charges were brought.

Or, just read this. It shows Assange is no safer from the U.S should they decide to act in the U.K or Sweden. It explains why Sweden can't give him extradition immunity. And why they can't interview him in London, or the Ecuadorean embassy.

An evidenced piece of mythbusting.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Also, when the U.S decide to actually get him, all the balconies and embassies in the world really won't stop them. He's wasting time complaining, when he should have gone through the questions in Sweden and geared himself up for the bigger fight which is to come.

And belboid, for all your pernickerty fact checking of other posters - you showed earlier you didn't even know which charge was the one that is considered rape in the UK and Sweden. Maybe you should read a little more, and spend less time as a sub-par version of butchersapron, who is both forensic and informed.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Or, just read this. It shows Assange is no safer from the U.S should they decide to act in the U.K or Sweden. It explains why Sweden can't give him extradition immunity. And why they can't interview him in London, or the Ecuadorean embassy.
> 
> An evidenced piece of mythbusting.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition


oh dear god!  I've read that  - and given the link which goes through it showing why it, and you, are wholly wrong. Keep up.  Your arguments are all over the shop.


Balbi said:


> And belboid, for all your pernickerty fact checking of other posters - you showed earlier you didn't even know which charge was the one that is considered rape in the UK and Sweden. Maybe you should read a little more, and spend less time as a sub-par version of butchersapron, who is both forensic and informed.


Wrong yet again. You are the one confusing cases (and judging them before any charges are even brought).


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

So then. Prove me wrong. Not just saying, repeating, endlessly negating. Proof please.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Belboid, didn't we have a discussion about your rebuttal link last night?


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

its (still) all in here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt

It shows (I donyt know which point you specifically want correcting on) that Assange can be interviewed in London, that the Swedish government can give assurances about onward extradition, that London is less likely to extradite htan Sweden, and various other important details.  Which do you want?


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Belboid, didn't we have a discussion about your rebuttal link last night?


not really. No one has come back and disputed any of the points it makes


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

First reaction, oh dear god its Glenn Greenwald.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

killer argument.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> its (still) all in here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt
> 
> It shows (I donyt know which point you specifically want correcting on) that Assange can be interviewed in London, that the Swedish government can give assurances about onward extradition, that London is less likely to extradite htan Sweden, and various other important details. Which do you want?


 
It doesn't show any of those things.  It wants to, but it doesn't.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Oh sweet jesus, Sweden won't circumvent their entire extradition process including the prosecutor general and other bodies commenting on the individual extradition request as it is made simply to make Julian feel more at home. 

Also, his important quote from Marten Schultz also goes on to talk about the extremely open and uncorrput Swedish system. Greenwald goes on to describe sweden's legal system as secretive. And it's not easier from UK or Sweden, just because it takes a long time to extradite is a feature of extradition law. Look at the 500 days it took for the appeals against the EAW to come to nothing for Assange.

And further down, he states it is true that neither Sweden nor the UK can provide a guarantee. Which is my point. Providing legal protection against something which hasn't and/or may not happen isn't the way the process works. Case by case.

Killer argument? More like a faint brush of blunt nails.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Essentially, as we're talking extradition, as both Greenwald and Allen Green point out, it's a fucking legal nightmare. States stick rigidly to their processes, because without them it descends into a farcical situation.

And trying to gain protection legally for something you think might happen isnt the job of a judiciary, its the job of an insurance company.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> its (still) all in here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt
> 
> It shows (I donyt know which point you specifically want correcting on) that Assange can be interviewed in London, that the Swedish government can give assurances about onward extradition, that London is less likely to extradite htan Sweden, and various other important details. Which do you want?


 
Did you read the links in that article.  It claims to provide an evidence based reason why the NS article is wrong, but all the links provide purely theoretical interpretations of swedish law rather than casework (just as everyone is doing here), and absolutely nothing to back up the extradition from the UK being harder argument.

what needs to happen is for the Swedish legal position to be clarified one way or another.  JA should have swedish supporters start a legal challenge.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Im not certain how many supporters JA has left in Sweden after they way he's characterised them in his many, many intervies, speeches, lawyers statements etc...l


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> Did you read the links in that article. It claims to provide an evidence based reason why the NS article is wrong, but all the links provide purely theoretical interpretations of swedish law rather than casework (just as everyone is doing here), and absolutely nothing to back up the extradition from the UK being harder argument.
> 
> what needs to happen is for the Swedish legal position to be clarified one way or another. JA should have swedish supporters start a legal challenge.


JA's lawyers have certainly been missing a trick if there was any possibility of being successful & they haven't done so.


----------



## laptop (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> not really. No one has come back and disputed any of the points [Greenwald] makes


 
That's because, as I said last night, it's a huge polemical rant with very little content beyond "if you don't support my man 100% you're an Enemy of Freedom".

Greenwald is an attorney. His nit-picking buried at the bottom is a pretty desperate effort to simulate making substantive points.

And he's acted for quasi-fascists. Doesn't mean he is one, but by *his own* polemical rules we can dismiss him for that.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 23, 2012)

In which case we have to assume that all the sudden experts on swedish law are, in fact, not quite the experts they are claiming.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Oh sweet jesus, Sweden won't circumvent their entire extradition process including the prosecutor general and other bodies commenting on the individual extradition request as it is made simply to make Julian feel more at home.
> 
> Also, his important quote from Marten Schultz also goes on to talk about the extremely open and uncorrput Swedish system. Greenwald goes on to describe sweden's legal system as secretive. And it's not easier from UK or Sweden, just because it takes a long time to extradite is a feature of extradition law. Look at the 500 days it took for the appeals against the EAW to come to nothing for Assange.
> 
> ...


 

Wow, you really didnt understand a word that was written, did you?

Commenting on a single request doesnt 'circumvent their entire extradition process.' Plain wrong.

Your second paragraph is a right old mess, none of which has any actual relevance that I can see, certainly not the point re Schultz. In fact it might even be arguing my case, by mistake, but I cant quyite make head or tail of it.

Your point re 'guarantees' is quite disingenuous. It is absolutely clear, 100%, bright as day, that the Swedish government _could_ give a sufficient guarantee that Assange wouldnt be extradited for charges relating to wikileaks as hey would consider them 'political'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

So, how many of greens claims has Greenwald unambiguously  knocked down?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Ahw, you're sweet when you get annoyed with my paragraph structure. Your article of proof still holds no more legal weight than anything put forward in mine though. Don't ever change though honey.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

laptop said:


> That's because, as I said last night, it's a huge polemical rant with very little content beyond "if you don't support my man 100% you're an Enemy of Freedom".


if you think that I can only assume you got bored before the end (the first half certainly is a bit of a rant, as I said last inght)



> Greenwald is an attorney. His nit-picking buried at the bottom is a pretty desperate effort to simulate making substantive points.
> 
> And he's acted for quasi-fascists. Doesn't mean he is one, but by *his own* polemical rules we can dismiss him for that.


A US liberal lawyer acts for the far-right.  They tend to do that, y'know. It has no baring on the argument.  The only time he makes any such argument in that article is pointing out that DAG is not exactly scrupulously independent.  Fair enough, as is pointing out that GG has a history too.  It mans we know a bit about where they are coming from, not that we can accept or dismiss everything they have to say.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Ah. Looking back through the last few pages belboids rather neat on the old 'selective quoting' meaning he'll dismiss out of hand anything which may get through his shield of constant righteousness and attack on the same minutae again, and again.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Ahw, you're sweet when you get annoyed with my paragraph structure. Your article of proof still holds no more legal weight than anything put forward in mine though. Don't ever change though honey.


annoyed with your paragraph structure?  Dont be daft. Your second para was just badly written so it was hard to work out what your point was meant to be.

Legal weight?  They are both arguments in a newspaper/the internet.  Of course they have no legal weight. They are merely two examples of legal opinion. So what?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Mine's better than yours, which is what this boils down to really.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Ah. Looking back through the last few pages belboids rather neat on the old 'selective quoting' meaning he'll dismiss out of hand anything which may get through his shield of constant righteousness and attack on the same minutae again, and again.


selective quoting?  lol.

sorry you cant come up with a better argument.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Mine's better than yours, which is what this boils down to really.


I almost agree with that.  'Mine' is more convincing than 'yours'


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Thats your opinion, but mine is better.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> selective quoting?  lol.
> 
> sorry you cant come up with a better argument.



Also, maybe the third time you've quoted anything of mine completely and it's because it lacks substantive points for the argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

So, how many of greens claims has Greenwald unambiguously knocked down?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

None Butchers, but as it's belboid's main plank - well, he doesn't like people sanding his plank.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Also, maybe the third time you've quoted anything of mine completely and it's because it lacks substantive points for the argument.


well, thats not true either, but thats your problem, not mine



butchersapron said:


> So, how many of greens claims has Greenwald unambiguously knocked down?


five.  four and a half if we're ungenerous


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

By knocked down, you mean posed a counter legal argument, don't you?

Ooh, ooh, or pointed out that David Allen Green changed his mind over about 12 months.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> well, thats not true either, but thats your problem, not mine
> 
> 
> five. four and a half if we're ungenerous


Which ones?


----------



## laptop (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> if you think that I can only assume you got bored before the end


 
I read the lot. He owes me. And his attempts at substantive points are weak nit-picking.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Quick one: some more on why Assange really needs to be in Sweden to be interviewed.

http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-d...&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> By knocked down, you mean posed a counter legal argument, don't you


I would hope and expect so.


Balbi said:


> Ooh, ooh, or pointed out that David Allen Green changed his mind over about 12 months.


is the fact that he changed his mind _when it suited him to do so_ completely irrelevant?



butchersapron said:


> Which ones?


that the Swedes cant interview in London
that it is not merely an invitation to questioning
that Sweden cannot give a _sufficient_ guarantee regarding onward extradition
that Sweden is harder to extradite from than the UK

The 'wouldnt be rape in the UK' arguments are actually made in a different article, so I'll knock it back down to four.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Still lying about the 'it wouldn't be rape' thing eh? My hype on Pilger was one thing, but you're denying that penetration without consent isn't rape. Which the UK courts disagree entirely with. Yuck.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

Why have you _italicized_ sufficient?

None of them are unambiguous. Not a one. They are competing views. What are the four that stand? And why is Greenwald wrong in half the things he says? (I will come back on the things he knocks down later). Would you_ trust someone wrong half the time?_


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Quick one: some more on why Assange really needs to be in Sweden to be interviewed.
> 
> http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-d...&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co


thats really very very poor.  It accepts that interviews take place in other countries, but says "If a decision is taken to formally charge him, Assange would face trial within two weeks of that decision being made.  It is difficult to see how this could happen if the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge."

So, in order to avoid the injustice of not being able to have a trial very quickly after a second interview, they simply refuse to hold the second interview??  Madness.

It even directly contradicts itself!  "It is not true that Assange is only wanted for questioning."  Followed immediately by:   "The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him *before making a decision whether to formally charge him*.  The prosecutor is presently disposed to charge him, unless any new evidence emerges that might change her mind."

So, there has been no decision, and it will follow the second interview.

So, interview him in London, and then announce that he would (or wouldn't, as depends) be charged as soon as he is on Swedish soil. Onus back on Assange to do the right thing.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Still lying about the 'it wouldn't be rape' thing eh? My hype on Pilger was one thing, but you're denying that penetration without consent isn't rape. Which the UK courts disagree entirely with. Yuck.


No it isnt, you misundertand my point - probably my fault for rushing it.

I was not claiming at all that it would not amount to rape in this country, if everything that has been claimed is true it certainly would do so.  I listed it seperately as it wasn't in the GG article, but in a different one.  And that articles point was not that it wouldnt be considered rape here, but that that wasm't the question the judges had to consider.

I wholly and totally accept it would be rape in this counry, which is (one reason) why I have always said that he should go and answer all questions and stand trial if necessary.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Yeah, because so far he's been doing the right thing, every step of the running away.

As for the Ecuadorian interview, like fuck is Assange going to have the interview, Sweden decide to charge and then Julian's going to voluntarily submit to going to Sweden.

And the interview in Serbia wasn't under an EAW, because Serbia isn't in the EU.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> No it isnt, you misundertand my point - probably my fault for rushing it.
> 
> I was not claiming at all that it would not amount to rape in this country, if everything that has been claimed is true it certainly would do so.  I listed it seperately as it wasn't in the GG article, but in a different one.  And that articles point was not that it wouldnt be considered rape here, but that that wasm't the question the judges had to consider.
> 
> I wholly and totally accept it would be rape in this counry, which is (one reason) why I have always said that he should go and answer all questions and stand trial if necessary.



Ok, granted. Was worried about your particular brand of Assange support for a second there.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why have you _italicized_ sufficient?
> 
> None of them are unambiguous. Not a one. They are competing views. What are the four that stand? And why is Greenwald wrong in half the things he says? (I will come back on the things he knocks down later). Would you_ trust someone wrong half the time?_


Cos DAG wants to claim its all about 'cast iron' - when Assange and his defenders have always said it cant be 'cast iron', but that it can be sufficient.

And, I disagree on the other bit, at least three are pretty unambiguosly argued.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Yeah, because so far he's been doing the right thing, every step of the running away.
> 
> As for the Ecuadorian interview, like fuck is Assange going to have the interview, Sweden decide to charge and then Julian's going to voluntarily submit to going to Sweden.


 
He might well not.  But then its all on him isnt it? 

He would have no excuses.  His bluff would have been called. 

So thats what they should do.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> Cos DAG wants to claim its all about 'cast iron' - when Assange and his defenders have always said it cant be 'cast iron', but that it can be sufficient.
> 
> And, I disagree on the other bit, at least three are pretty unambiguosly argued.


What four do you think stand?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> He might well not.  But then its all on him isnt it?
> 
> He would have no excuses.  His bluff would have been called.
> 
> So thats what they should do.



It's not for people who have consistently avoiding answering questions and got stuck in a corner to start dictating terms. He'll be questioned in the same way any other suspect would be questioned. The only reason he's been pursued with such unusual vigour is because he's managed to run away with vigour equal to or greater than his pursuers. It's all om him. Stop prevaricating, stop trying to combine his personal actions with his professional ones. Go to Sweden and answer the damn questions.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> The only reason he's been pursued with such unusual vigour is because he's managed to run away with vigour equal to or greater than his pursuers.


Oh come on.  He is being pursued because he is Julian Assange.  If it were anyone else, he wouldn't be being pursued at all.


----------



## junglevip (Aug 23, 2012)

editor said:


> Sweden's legal system does not - as far as I know - have a beastly reputation for unfair trials, stitch ups and dodgy sentencing, so I'm failing to see why there's such a fuss about Assange having to go back there to face these sexual assault charges.


 
I think if you tried a little bit harder you'd find something

EDIT:

The Pirate Party chap was on about this in an interview recently (top research eh?)


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What four do you think stand?


Not entirely sure any do, I'll have to go and re-read it. The q's re being interviewed in Sweden & promises e onward extradition were the crucial ones tho


----------



## Wilf (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Still lying about the 'it wouldn't be rape' thing eh? My hype on Pilger was one thing, but you're denying that penetration without consent isn't rape. Which the UK courts disagree entirely with. Yuck.


 In the middle of the swirling mass of legal and political arguments, that is indeed the most yucky bit.  That Galloway - or others I thought might have been more principled - might be willing to bend, play with or simply deny that point is vile.  Mistrusting US/UK/Swedish politicians is one thing, but allowing that wider political context to soften your stance on consent is quite another.

For me, there's some really simple points at the heart of this:
1. Are the accusations against Assange plausible enought to warrant a full investigation?  It really is hard to answer anything other than yes to this.
2. Does the U.S desire to get their hands on Assange/frighten future whistle blowers mean the Swedish authorities are actively involved in a process of using the rape thing to ultimately pass him on?  There may be suspicions and certainly there will be channels of communication (_just as there are in London of course_), but I really haven't seen anything significant.  He should simply go back and answer the case against him.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

We did talk about the issue of being beyond merely "helping with enquiries" last night:

belboid said: ↑​not at all - it _may_ be that they want to charge him. But that was explicitly what many of the Assange critics were denying a few months ago, when it so suited them to do so.​ 
And I replied: My only point so far on this aspect, is that (as our Supreme Court decided) the matter is beyond "helping with enquiries" and therefore extradition to arrest, formal questioning, and then charging if appropriate.


That's the order it has to be done in, arrest first (which is what the EAW is for). They can't arrest him in the Ecuador Embassy.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> Oh come on.  He is being pursued because he is Julian Assange.  If it were anyone else, he wouldn't be being pursued at all.



They seek him here, they seek him there....do me a favour, the same kind of bullshit produced by his defenders who view Julian's professional work as sufficient cause to dismiss the whole rape thing out of hand because there are people out to get him.

1) there are lots of people pissed off with julian because of wikileaks

2) julian did some naughty shit in sweden

3) julian is hiding in an embassy, factually, because he has to submit to extradition to sweden to answer for 2.

4) julian is telling the world that he is in the embassy because of 1)

4 is factually inaccurate. It is a lie.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

1) Yes, absolutely.

2)  He is so _accused_, it is not a 'fact'

3) Debatable

4) True

5) Wrong.  It is a point of dispute.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's the order it has to be done in, arrest first (which is what the EAW is for). They can't arrest him in the Ecuador Embassy.


So what?  they can interview him and say they wish to arrest him when he is on Swedish soil. _Call his bluff_


----------



## Wilf (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> Oh come on. He is being pursued because he is Julian Assange.


Maybe he is, or at least the Swedes will be spending more money on it, more time on it - though equally, you could say the reason he's had millionaire backers putting up bail and 3rd countries taking him into their embassy is that he's Julian Assange.  Ultimately, it comes down to whether there's a genuine case to answer. If there is, he should answer it, in Sweden.  That only gets overidden if there's some significant evidence that the Swedes are involved in a mega plot to deliver him to the U.S - and what I've seen on that so far is thin going on non-existent.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What four do you think stand?


I dont think four do stand.  There's only the one about Ecuador 'protecting freedom of the press' about which I am not fussed either way, I think its a red herring.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Wilf said:


> If there is, he should answer it, in Sweden.


Absolutely.  As long as they give as much of a guarantee as possible that he wont be extradited on.


----------



## junglevip (Aug 23, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Maybe he is, or at least the Swedes will be spending more money on it, more time on it - though equally, you could say the reason he's had millionaire backers putting up bail and 3rd countries taking him into their embassy is that he's Julian Assange. Ultimately, it comes down to whether there's a genuine case to answer. If there is, he should answer it, in Sweden. _T*hat only gets overidden if there's some significant evidence that the Swedes are involved in a mega plot to deliver him to the U.S - and what I've seen on that so far is thin going on non-existent.*_


 
I doubt the likes of us will ever get truth about the goings on of international politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> I dont think four do stand. There's only the one about Ecuador 'protecting freedom of the press' about which I am not fussed either way, I think its a red herring.


So, four are knocked down.. Four might be, you're not sure?


----------



## laptop (Aug 23, 2012)

junglevip said:


> I doubt the likes of us will ever get truth about the goings on of international politics.


 
Barring a new organisation that can distribute leaks, *and* whose figureheads understand that to live outside the law you must be honest in all respects...


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, four are knocked down.. Four might be, you're not sure?


DAG makes 5 specific claims.  3 are debunked, imo.  Two are of debatable relevance to the actual issues re extradition.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> Absolutely. As long as they give as much of a guarantee as possible that he wont be extradited on.


 
They can't give a legally cast iron guarantee, that's a constitutional fact.  So they could give a vague guarantee, which they could then break.  Assange's team now want a flaky guarantee from a government which is claimed by them to be a double dealing US puppet. 

So the question is does Assange really want that guarantee, would he really go to Sweden if he got it, or is this a clever legal demand and attempt to claim the moral high ground by issuing a demand he knows the Swedish won't and can't make?


----------



## elbows (Aug 23, 2012)

junglevip said:


> I doubt the likes of us will ever get truth about the goings on of international politics.


 
There is plenty of truth on offer. Sometimes have to wait a while, and it cant be distilled down to a single really simple truth due to the number of players and layers. But many of these layers are not really hidden. Others are very murky and will never escape substantial doubt, but acts in these layers are often motivated by agendas that are visible to us, and its not absolutely necessary to know with certainty what happened in these realms in order to understand the truths of international politics.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

smokedout said:


> They can't give a legally cast iron guarantee, that's a constitutional fact.  So they could give a vague guarantee, which they could then break.  Assange's team now want a flaky guarantee from a government which is claimed by them to be a double dealing US puppet.
> 
> So the question is does Assange really want that guarantee, would he really go to Sweden if he got it, or is this a clever legal demand and attempt to claim the moral high ground by issuing a demand he knows the Swedish won't and can't make?


What they want is a guarantee that Assange won't be extradited for political crimes. They CAN give that assurance, they can say any wiki related attempt would be dismissed. 

Is Assnge bluffing that he'd go with such an assurance? I don't know. Let's call him on it.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> What they want is a guarantee that Assange won't be extradited for political crimes. They CAN give that assurance, they can say any wiki related attempt would be dismissed.
> 
> Is Assnge bluffing that he'd go with such an assurance? I don't know. Let's call him on it.


 
They can say any old shit they like and do the opposite.  Why should Assange trust them?  Why is he asking for this?


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

smokedout said:


> They can say any old shit they like and do the opposite. Why should Assange trust them? Why is he asking for this?


Ask him.

But why not ask, given the above, why aren't Sweden agreeing to JA's demands?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Why the hell should they? Sets a very dodgy precedent.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> Ask him.
> 
> But why not ask, given the above, why aren't Sweden agreeing to JA's demands?


What reasons can you come up with?


----------



## laptop (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> But why not ask, given the above, why aren't Sweden agreeing to JA's demands?


 
Because the demands are designed *not* to be agreed to, because his plan is to kick up maximum fuss in the UK?


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

It does make me wonder if Jeffery Archer and the like insisted on being questioned in their front room after being arrested.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Why the hell should they? Sets a very dodgy precedent.


Overseas interviews have been carried out in the past, so no precedent. Not sure about declarations about further extradition, but given that political extraditions are explicitly barred, there could be no problem with repeating that fact.  And giving a definition of 'political' in the relevant context. Nothing 'dangerous' about that, is there?  Especially given (do you not agree) that he does have a real fear of such extradition



butchersapron said:


> What reasons can you come up with?


Because Sweden want it all ways.  Fuck 'em.


laptop said:


> Because the demands are designed *not* to be agreed to, because his plan is to kick up maximum fuss in the UK?


Good tactics.  Why wont Sweden learn from them and call his bluff?


----------



## Belushi (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> Because Sweden want it all ways. Fuck 'em.
> 
> Good tacti


 
As they are perfectly entitled to do. He is suspected of an extremely serious crime don't forget, second only to murder.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> Because Sweden want it all ways. Fuck 'em.


 
Any better ones?


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Means invalidating the EAW. That precedent.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2012)

belboid said:


> Ask him.
> 
> But why not ask, given the above, why aren't Sweden agreeing to JA's demands?


 
People wanted for a criminal offence don't usually get to make these kinds of demands.  I had a friend who faced an European Arrest Warrant, he didnt get to make any demands.

Assange's demand to be questioned here is even more flaky than his request for a guarantee against US extradition.  Why does he want them to question him here?  If they do, and decide to charge him, will he go with them?  How is Assange's position helped by them questioning and arresting him in the UK?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> It does make me wonder if Jeffery Archer and the like insisted on being questioned in their front room after being arrested.


'I _*will*_ submit to your questions, but only if we sit in the gazebo. Oh and send a footman round to Ken Loach and tell him he'll have to make another dreadful film if he wants his 20 grand back'.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

Wilf said:


> 'I _*will*_ submit to your questions, but only if we sit in the gazebo. Oh and send a footman round to Ken Loach and tell him he'll have to make another dreadful film if he wants his 20 grand back'.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Did Jeffrey Archer or smokedouts friend have a good reason to fear onward deportation for political 'crimes'? If not, the comparisons are specious. 

Should not ANY person who has such a fear be given a guarantee they won't be so forwarded? I think they should.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Have a house point.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Means invalidating the EAW. That precedent.


I disagree.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

*takes back house point*

So from then on anyone who has an EAW against them can get their lawyers to argue that they should be questioned in the country they reside in? 

Your argument rests on Assange's fear of something which hasn't happened, and shows no indication of happening imminently.


----------



## cesare (Aug 23, 2012)

This onward deportation malarkey seems to be a long time coming.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> ...Your argument rests on Assange's fear of something which hasn't happened, and shows no indication of happening imminently.


I don't think that's correct.   I think JA's fears are well grounded.   You'll remember american newscasters and politicos were saying he should be shot, others were saying he should be jailed for treason.   The treatment of Manning would definitely increase this concern.   Adding in the lack of any statement by the US on the matter when there are plenty of people saying there is a grand jury already convened would be more than enough 'proof' for any *normal* person, never mind JA to make sure they never got any place near the clutches of the US.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2012)

> Should not ANY person who has such a fear be given a guarantee they won't be so forwarded? I think they should.


 
Wouldn't that be lovely.  But since no-one ever has then why is the Swedish government likely to do so now?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 23, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I don't think that's correct. I think JA's fears are well grounded. You'll remember american newscasters and politicos were saying he should be shot, others were saying he should be jailed for treason. The treatment of Manning would definitely increase this concern. Adding in the lack of any statement by the US on the matter when there are plenty of people saying there is a grand jury already convened would be more than enough 'proof' for any *normal* person, never mind JA to make sure they never got any place near the clutches of the US.


I'm sure he has *fears* - if I was Assange I'd be fuckin' shitting it about ending up in America (whether it's via Sweden or the UK). But yes, the question is, whether they are _well founded_ fears. More to the point, should any of that stop him facing a proper investigation into what are at least plausible accusations (plausible in the sense that the Swedish authorities still want to proceed and there has been nothing to suggest their motives are ultimately to pass him on to the U.S).


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Adding in the lack of any statement by the US on the matter when there are plenty of people saying there is a grand jury already convened would be more than enough 'proof' for any *normal* person, never mind JA to make sure they never got any place near the clutches of the US.


 
Obama doesn't need this right now, he's got an election to worry about, Cameron doen't need it either, in fact the only person who needs it, right now, is Assange

Theres been murmurings from the US, nothing much but interesting




> U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said on Monday that Assange was making "wild assertions about us, when, in fact, his issue with the government of the United Kingdom has to do with whether he's going to go ... face justice in Sweden for something that has nothing to do with WikiLeaks."
> 
> "So he is clearly trying to deflect attention away from the real issue," Nuland said.
> Nuland's predecessor, P.J. Crowley, said that by taking refuge in Ecuador's embassy and demanding that the United States "renounce its witch-hunt" against WikiLeaks, Assange made it more difficult for Washington to abandon what officials acknowledge is a continuing U.S. probe of Assange and WikiLeaks.
> ...


 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-wikileaks-assange-usa-idUSBRE87L12W20120822


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I'm sure he has *fears* - if I was Assange I'd be fuckin' shitting it about ending up in America (whether it's via Sweden or the UK). But yes, the question is, whether they are _well founded_ fears. More to the point, should any of that stop him facing a proper investigation into what are at least plausible accusations (plausible in the sense that the Swedish authorities still want to proceed and there has been nothing to suggest their motives are ultimately to pass him on to the U.S).


Well...let's say that you're at the sea and going in for a swim...are you saying if you had reasonable fears of a shark you would still go in but you would not go in if you had well-founded fears? The fear has added weight from the consequences which, we would all agree, are fucking major.

I have concerns, that I've posted before...however there are two fucking threads with 2700 posts between them!  so fuck knows where!...(anyway)...

Like most things on urban these days situations seem very polarised


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

smokedout said:


> Obama doesn't need this right now, he's got an election to worry about, ...


lmao yes! Obama doesn't need to catch a traitor/spy against america in an election year! That would never do, eh.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> lmao yes! Obama doesn't need to catch a traitor/spy against america in an election year! That would never do, eh.



He doesn't need a rehash of a lot of negative elements of wikileaks three months out from the election, he doesn't need to divide the democratic party over the wikileaks thing the way that its causing furore here, he doesnt need assange making more speeches from the witness stand. 

Whacking Osama is one thing, 9/11 and all that. But Assange is a different case, and is divisive.


----------



## junglevip (Aug 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> There is plenty of truth on offer. Sometimes have to wait a while, and it cant be distilled down to a single really simple truth due to the number of players and layers. But many of these layers are not really hidden. Others are very murky and will never escape substantial doubt, but acts in these layers are often motivated by agendas that are visible to us, and its not absolutely necessary to know with certainty what happened in these realms in order to understand the truths of international politics.


 
Spoken like a true crank


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 23, 2012)

junglevip said:


> Spoken like a true crank



Really? 

Doesn't read that way to me; rather, like someone who recognises there are many factors/agendas at play, and in turn accepts that understanding the whole picture may actually be impossible given the multi -faceted nature of the situation.


----------



## junglevip (Aug 23, 2012)

shifting gears said:


> Really?
> 
> Doesn't read that way to me; rather, like someone who recognises there are many factors/agendas at play, and in turn accepts that understanding the whole picture may actually be impossible given the multi -faceted nature of the situation.


 
Piss off you pompous twat


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 23, 2012)

junglevip said:


> Piss off you pompous twat



Ok you one-line maestro


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> He doesn't need a rehash of a lot of negative elements of wikileaks three months out from the election, he doesn't need to divide the democratic party over the wikileaks thing the way that its causing furore here, he doesnt need assange making more speeches from the witness stand.
> 
> Whacking Osama is one thing, 9/11 and all that. But Assange is a different case, and is divisive.


Sorry I don't think so, I doubt there's much division in american politics about 'getting' JA and both sides would certainly consider it a massive boost in the polls, especially now he's tarred by half of urban as a rapist.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 23, 2012)

Hah, the Repubs would sing hosannah. The democrats, being left, would argue. Obama needs democrats to all be in a line until Nov 6th. One would suspect that's why the Ecuadorean embassy are caring for him until after then


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Sorry I don't think so, I doubt there's much division in american politics about 'getting' JA and both sides would certainly consider it a massive boost in the polls, especially now he's tarred by half of urban as a rapist.


 
I believe the opinion of the urban politics forum is held in high regard by the US electorate and rightly so


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

smokedout said:


> I believe the opinion of the urban politics forum is held in high regard by the US electorate and rightly so


Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 23, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.


 Are we the elephant or the donkey? 


[This space may be rented for puns and other low forms of humour]


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2012)

in the meantime if anyone fancies having a pop at this garbage do feel free: internationaltimes.it/
assange-and-anglo-saxony/


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 23, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Hah, the Repubs would sing hosannah. The democrats, being left, would argue. Obama needs democrats to all be in a line until Nov 6th. One would suspect that's why the Ecuadorean embassy are caring for him until after then


 
i suspect that the repubs' heads would explode, although it's' probably easier for them to believe the allegations assange because nobody is pregnant


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 23, 2012)

Surely if arresting and charging Assange was such a vote winner/priority for the yanks they might have actually done something about it by now?

His defenders are using the same logic as the diana conspirators; that because someone has powerful enemies anything bad that happens to them must be due to an evil plot - rather then them being the author of  their own fate - i.e. - getting in a car driven by a drunk driver and not wearing a seat belt - or being a sex case.

And even if the US are putting pressure on sweden and/or the uk behind the scenes to 'get' Assange - hes still a fucking dick for gifting them the opportunity.

On the Occupy Facebook page there's people comparing his speech on the balcony to Martin Luther King ffs.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> ...His defenders are using the same logic as the diana conspirators...


You made a couple of points that could be discussed but that bit just takes the give-a-fuck out of me.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 24, 2012)

From radio 4 just now "because the embassy has no proper kitchen, they've already had to buy a bigger fridge".

Sometimes the world really delivers, you know?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2012)

Balbi said:


> He doesn't need a rehash of a lot of negative elements of wikileaks three months out from the election, he doesn't need to divide the democratic party over the wikileaks thing the way that its causing furore here, he doesnt need assange making more speeches from the witness stand.
> 
> Whacking Osama is one thing, 9/11 and all that. But Assange is a different case, and is divisive.


 
It might be divisive here, but it isn't within the US establishment, Democrat or Republican. There might be division over whether or not the correct label to apply to Assange after the Manning leaks is 'traitor', 'terrorist', or 'criminal'. Apart from that, they're pretty much of a similar mind in their opinion of Assange.


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2012)

There's clearly a fairly big international political shit-storm over Assange. So there's no way the Swedish authorities can claim they want to treat him the same as everyone else; that's already not possible, it's a political event. I think if this was the 1960s then a left government would have made some kind of stgatement to assure the world of Sweden's independence towards possible US pressure. Olof Palme would have made some speech. Legally binding or not, it would have set the tone.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 24, 2012)

Not sure if this has been posted already. From wkileaks:




> In early 2011, Burton revealed in internal Stratfor correspondence that a secret Grand Jury had already issued a sealed indictment for Assange: "Not for Pub — We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect."





> According to Burton: "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever." A few weeks earlier, following Julian Assange’s release from a London jail, where he had been remanded as a result of a Swedish prosecutor’s arrest warrant, Fred Burton told SkyNews: "extradition [to the US is] more and more likely"


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 24, 2012)

we all know the americans want him.  there's nothing in that that shows they've done any sort of deal.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 24, 2012)

Burton's a pro-spook, talking head and general whipperupper. He speaks for himself, his company (who are pissed that wikileaks released their emails) and not for the State Department or White House.


----------



## laptop (Aug 24, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Burton's a pro-spook, talking head and general whipperupper.


 
Also, from my recollection of the emails, perpetually in search of fundable fantasies.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 24, 2012)

So a sort of terrifyingly corporate Andy McNabb then?


----------



## audiotech (Aug 24, 2012)

Maybe so, but there's more here (from an article published in April 2011) to suggest that Burton's info may have a ring of truth to it.


----------



## elbows (Aug 24, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Burton's a pro-spook, talking head and general whipperupper. He speaks for himself, his company (who are pissed that wikileaks released their emails) and not for the State Department or White House.


 
And much like Assange, Burton could be said to operate in the same universe as hinted at by an alleged Augustus deathbed quote...

'Did I play my part well? If so, applaud me!'


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2012)

I think it's pretty obvious the Americans want him and, all things being even, _may_ make an attempt to extradite at some point.  That's largely as a deterrent, there's only so much they can get from physically having hold of him - he's too white and rich to be waterboarded.  However the reality of having him will undoubtedly be messy - free speech arguments in open court, boost for those on the left and right saying the US state is totalitarian.  There's also the retaliatory leaks and cyber attacks they will face.  Careful of what you wish for type of thing.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 24, 2012)

Yes it's pretty clear:



> An FBI agent who was a witness in the case of detained soldier Bradley Manning has stated that the “founders, owners and managers” WikiLeaks were under investigation. Ratner also noted that the FBI has compiled a dossier of 42,135 pages pertaining to Assange.


Source.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 24, 2012)

Is it no likely the Swedes will just "render" him to a place of incarceration at the US's request?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

It is an utter impossibility.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I think it's pretty obvious the Americans want him and, all things being even, _may_ make an attempt to extradite at some point. That's largely as a deterrent, there's only so much they can get from physically having hold of him - he's too white and rich to be waterboarded. However the reality of having him will undoubtedly be messy - free speech arguments in open court, boost for those on the left and right saying the US state is totalitarian. There's also the retaliatory leaks and cyber attacks they will face. Careful of what you wish for type of thing.


 
What he is accused of is nothing to do with free speech though.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> What he is accused of is nothing to do with free speech though.


Well, certainly not in the case that could end up in a _Swedish_ court. If he ever gets to America (which I doubt he ever will, by any route) I can see his lawyers bringing in the 1st Amendment re the wikileaks case.


----------



## cesare (Aug 24, 2012)

Does anyone know if Sweden have now requested extradition from Ecuador? There's some useful info here on Swedish extradition laws if anyone's interested: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435


----------



## weltweit (Aug 24, 2012)

> the FBI has compiled a dossier of 42,135 pages pertaining to Assange.


That isn't a dossier, that is bigger than an encyclopedia!!


----------



## Balbi (Aug 24, 2012)

One of Greenwald's quoted sources might have slagged his argument slightly today. @klamberg demonstrates the impossibility of Sweden assuring no extradition.

Its surrounding the supreme court, and its need to assess each case as it arises. The government has a veto, but cannot use it if the supreme court decides that all criteria for extradition have been met. And if not, then the supreme court won't allow extradition anyway. But they cannot pre-judge an extradition request before the details have been made.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 24, 2012)

Eek, the source has claimed that Greenwald misinterpreted his work, didn't ask him about it and has now agreed with David Allen Green. 

your thoughts, belboid?


----------



## Deareg (Aug 24, 2012)

Another intersting article in the guardian which claims that the final decision on extradition lies with the Swedish government and not the courts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...edish-extradition?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 24, 2012)

By a writer who's just been exposed as having misrepresented his sources...


----------



## Deareg (Aug 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> By a writer who's just been exposed as having misrepresented his sources...


has he?


----------



## laptop (Aug 24, 2012)

Deareg said:


> has he?


 
So his source says. Who better to say?

And I don't think he quite understands what he's taken on in shoutily demanding that Jack of Kent retract.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 24, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Another intersting article in the guardian


I personally wouldn't describe _comment is free _as articles...


----------



## free spirit (Aug 24, 2012)

I've not read the entire thread so this may have been discussed, but I've been thinking about this, and am now wondering if Assange possibly actually sought asylum because he got wind that the US were about to issue their own charges that might have trumped the Swedish charges, and resulted in him being extradited from the UK not to Sweden, but to the US directly.

This would really be the only scenario that would actually make sense to me, unless this really is just a ploy to avoid the charges in Sweden. Having read all the statements released, I'd be surprised if this was his motivation though, as to me I'd have though that even if convicted, he'd be given the lowest sentence allowed, as the allegations are about as far from the norms of rape allegations as it's possible to get while still actually falling into that category.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 24, 2012)

free spirit said:


> unless this really is just a ploy to avoid the charges in Sweden....


 
Nearly there, keep going.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 24, 2012)

free spirit said:


> This would really be the only scenario that would actually make sense to me, unless this really is just a ploy to avoid the charges in Sweden. Having read all the statements released, I'd be surprised if this was his motivation though, as to me I'd have though that even if convicted, he'd be given the lowest sentence allowed, as the allegations are about as far from the norms of rape allegations as it's possible to get while still actually falling into that category.


Yea it's not really legitimate rape is it?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 24, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Yea it's not really legitimate rape is it?


That's not what I said.

But to expand on it, one of the charges relates to consensual sex where the girl then alleges that part way through assange deliberately nipped the end of the condom so that it leaked, which is the bit she'd not consented to. Now, if this were true, then it probably would fall into the rape category legally, but I just can't see it getting anything like the sort of sentence that someone would get for a situation where no consent existed at all.

TBH though, I can't really see that this has much if any chance of him being found guilty of it, unless he confessed to it, as it's obvious that he could just state that the condom must have broken itself and he'd pretty much have to be found not guilty on grounds of reasonable doubt, or whatever similar rule they have over there. This isn't me judging whether he's actually guilty of it or not, just saying that I see it as being very doubtful that any court would be able to convict him of it.

The other case possibly does have more chance of getting a conviction, but again she says in her statement that (paraphrasing) she was happy to be having sex with him until she discovered that he wasn't wearing a condom, and even in her statement she doesn't actually say that she told him to stop, just asked him if he was wearing a condom, then said that he'd better not have HIV, which I'd think a court would decide is a pretty unclear way of saying for him to stop. This probably has a slightly greater chance of a successful prosecution, but I'd still expect any sentence to be at the lower end of the scale.

To anyone saying 'rape is rape', you'd have to explain why the sentences for rape range from 4 years to life (in the UK). Also of relevance here is the prior consensual sex, which in this country at least is classed as a mitigating factor, which also feeds into my thinking that he'd likely be facing sentences at the very low end of the sentencing spectrum if he was convicted.



> Mitigating:
> 
> Victim engaged in consensual sexual activity with the offender on the same occasion and immediately before the offence


What I'm trying to say here is that I just don't see that he was really facing sufficiently long sentences if convicted to justify taking refuge in an embassy where he must have known he could end up spending years effectively under house arrest.

Therefore I'm tending more to the view that he actually did genuinely take refuge from fear of extradition to the US, rather than to escape the charges in Sweden. Before reading the statements, I'd had the opposite viewpoint fwiw.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> we all know the americans want him. there's nothing in that that shows they've done any sort of deal.


 
Did you expect to have access to the details of any such deal?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I think it's pretty obvious the Americans want him and, all things being even, _may_ make an attempt to extradite at some point. That's largely as a deterrent, there's only so much they can get from physically having hold of him - he's too white and rich to be waterboarded. *However the reality of having him will undoubtedly be messy - free speech arguments in open court, boost for those on the left and right saying the US state is totalitarian*. There's also the retaliatory leaks and cyber attacks they will face. Careful of what you wish for type of thing.


 
Just a little while ago, the US Govt. sent soldiers in helicopters to execute bin Laden in Pakistan.

They don't seem to be caring as much about all that 'rights' business, as they purported to before.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Just a little while ago, the US Govt. sent soldiers in helicopters to execute bin Laden in Pakistan.
> 
> They don't seem to be caring as much about all that 'rights' business, as they purported to before.


and julian assange did what that's the equivalent of killing 3000 people live on tv?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and julian assange did what that's the equivalent of killing 3000 people live on tv?


 
The rule of law is the rule of law.

If quantity of victims was the test, then Anders Breivik arguably should be executed as well.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 24, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I've not read the entire thread so this may have been discussed, but I've been thinking about this, and am now wondering if Assange possibly actually sought asylum because he got wind that the US were about to issue their own charges that might have trumped the Swedish charges, and resulted in him being extradited from the UK not to Sweden, but to the US directly.
> 
> This would really be the only scenario that would actually make sense to me, unless this really is just a ploy to avoid the charges in Sweden. Having read all the statements released, I'd be surprised if this was his motivation though, as to me I'd have though that even if convicted, he'd be given the lowest sentence allowed, as the allegations are about as far from the norms of rape allegations as it's possible to get while still actually falling into that category.


 
I'd speak to that Occam fella if I were you, think he might be willing to lend you his razor


----------



## cesare (Aug 24, 2012)

laptop said:


> So his source says. Who better to say?
> 
> And I don't think he quite understands what he's taken on in shoutily demanding that Jack of Kent retract.



Swedish law seems so much more straightforward than ours. My link at #1006 is interesting, plus there's a download on the same page to the relevant legislation (all in English).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The rule of law is the rule of law.
> 
> If quantity of victims was the test, then Anders Breivik arguably should be executed as well.


given what i understand to be your profession i'm not surprised you should emphasise the paramount importance of the law. but somewhere along the way you seem to have forgotten about jurisdictions and the varying penalties and indeed deeds that pass as crimes between them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> given what i understand to be your profession i'm not surprised you should emphasise the paramount importance of the law. but somewhere along the way you seem to have forgotten about jurisdictions and the varying penalties and indeed deeds that pass as crimes between them.


 Say what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Say what?


i understand you're a lawyer but you don't seem to understand there's more than one legal system. you sound like a confused septick.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i understand you're a lawyer but you don't seem to understand there's more than one legal system. you sound like a confused septick.


 
I get the theory you're expounding: I don't see how it applies to the facts of anything being discussed here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I get the theory you're expounding: I don't see how it applies to the facts of anything being discussed here.


i'm not expounding a theory, i'm talking about solid facts. every country has a different legal system - the canadian, for instance, is different to the argentinian. and these different legal systems prescribe different penalties for different acts. and some acts which are proscribed in some countries aren't in others - for example, holocaust denial is a crime in germany but not in gabon. the penalties which are laid down for crimes vary from country to country - murder in norway does not attract the same punishment as murder in nebraska.

so when you spout shit as you did in 1022, perhaps you should reflect, in the light of my first paragraph, what an awful gobshite you make yourself appear.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 24, 2012)

free spirit said:


> That's not what I said.
> 
> But to expand on it, one of the charges relates to consensual sex where the girl then alleges that part way through assange deliberately nipped the end of the condom so that it leaked, which is the bit she'd not consented to. Now, if this were true, then it probably would fall into the rape category legally, but I just can't see it getting anything like the sort of sentence that someone would get for a situation where no consent existed at all.
> 
> ...


Al he has to do is deny the allegations and it becomes word against word which has zero chance of a conviction, which is why the conviction rate for rape is so low


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not expounding a theory, i'm talking about solid facts. every country has a different legal system - the canadian, for instance, is different to the argentinian. and these different legal systems prescribe different penalties for different acts. and some acts which are proscribed in some countries aren't in others - for example, holocaust denial is a crime in germany but not in gabon. the penalties which are laid down for crimes vary from country to country - murder in norway does not attract the same punishment as murder in nebraska.
> 
> so when you spout shit as you did in 1022, perhaps you should reflect, in the light of my first paragraph, what an awful gobshite you make yourself appear.


 
What you've said isn't responsive to the original posts re: the current lack of respect in the US for the rule of law, and I'm not interested in pointing out, step by step, where you've gone astray.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and julian assange did what that's the equivalent of killing 3000 people live on tv?


Challenged the power of america.


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2012)

All bets are off regarding Bin Laden. He's the epitome of evil, no lawyer would defend him. I utterly fail to see how this Australian celebrity would get similar treatment.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Challenged the power of america.



This is a real post.


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Challenged the power of america.


You literally worship America


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2012)

All of this 'it might not be rape' stuff is pointless.  The only question is whether there are enough plausible accusations for the Swedish system to run it's course.  None of us know what went on, none of us know how it will turn out if it goes to court - that's the point of the investigation and why it needs to be completed.

The one thing Assange can be sure of is that the publicity and scrutiny means he'll get the closest thing to a fair trial there can be.  That same publicity means the Swedes won't pass him over to the U.S anyway - he'll certainly have more of a chance of avoiding extradition than less famous hackers (handed over by the _UK_ of course).  I'm not one for normally noting the willingness of government's to behave properly, but Assange has actually got the Swedish state in a place where it can do little else but observe his 'rights'.  I suspect he knows this, but fears the rape investigations more than any onward flight to Guantanamo - and that's the key to the whole thing. Shan't bother with the Bin Laden comparisons.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2012)

Random said:


> You literally worship America


 
I think he was being facetious.


----------



## cesare (Aug 24, 2012)

Check out DAG's website, out of interest. Butcher's, it currently summarises the questions you were asking yesterday.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 24, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think he was being facetious.


Random made me lol, to be fair.   I wasn't bothering to get into it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What you've said isn't responsive to the original posts re: the current lack of respect in the US for the rule of law, and I'm not interested in pointing out, step by step, where you've gone astray.


i've taken matters from 1021 on, and i haven't delved into the genealogy of your posts further - there's been no need, as i've only been concerned with 1021 on.

leave it if you wish: but please don't come up with some cock and bull story like this which does you no favours.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i've taken matters from 1021 on, and i haven't delved into the genealogy of your posts further - there's been no need, as i've only been concerned with 1021 on.
> 
> leave it if you wish: but please don't come up with some cock and bull story like this which does you no favours.


 
This is just an offhand discussion on the internet; it's not some attempt to win friends and influence people. Whether a post 'does me no favors' isn't really a concern. If I believe something or think it at the time, I'll post it.  How you react to the post, is your business.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2012)

Good for you.


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2012)

Hmm.



> The first time I met Assange, he was convinced a sniper was targeting him through the windows of a conference centre. A few hours later, he was happily typing in front of the same windows. I asked why he believed he was a target. "I can't tell you," he said. Then, five minutes later, he did. He told me I should come to Washington DC for a press conference. Why? I can't tell you. Again, five minutes later, he told me about the Collateral Murder video.
> 
> Assange attributed his drive to his first experience with power as a young man (hacking into the email of a Pentagon general). I said maybe I liked investigating politicians' expenses because that had been my first big investigation as a student. "No, it's different when you're a young man." Can't women be driven the same way? "No, they're not." It was a definitive statement, no supporting evidence needed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and julian assange did what that's the equivalent of killing 3000 people live on tv?


 
Buttfucked the USA on the internet. The USA might see some equivalency there.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> Hmm.


 
Yep: rapist!


----------



## free spirit (Aug 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'd speak to that Occam fella if I were you, think he might be willing to lend you his razor


you think it that unlikely that the US might consider trumping the Swedish charges and getting him extradited to the US from the UK instead (or from sweden once he's in custody)?

There's also the other aspect that once he's in custody either here or in Sweden, he's then got absolutely no chance of making it to an embassy at that point to go for political asylum if the US do bring charges against him at that point and ask for him to be extradited. If he doesn't believe either UK or Swedish law will protect him at that stage, then I can understand why he might feel he needs to take pre-emptive action now while he still had the option.

Like I saw, having read through all the statements, I really don't think he had anything much to fear from the rape charges themselves, as even if they actually were true, it'd still be their word against his, with no witnesses and lots of mitigating evidence, so he'd surely have been advised that the chances of conviction were very low.... in which case why'd he go and place himself voluntarily under indefinite house arrest just to avoid those charges?


there is of course the possibility that he's so paranoid that he basically imagined the US must be plotting to get him, and convinced himself this was what was happening so much that he legged it to the nearest embassy for protection against something that he'd basically just imagined.

I'm thinking it's probably a bit of a combination of both scenarios tbh.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 25, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Al he has to do is deny the allegations and it becomes word against word which has zero chance of a conviction, which is why the conviction rate for rape is so low


that's pretty much my point in a nutshell.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 25, 2012)

free spirit said:


> there is of course the possibility that he's so paranoid that he basically imagined the US must be plotting to get him, .


 
If US lawmakers have branded him a terrorist, called for his extrajudicial execution; and are trying to change the laws in order to make it easier to get at him..............is he paranoid to think the US is plotting against him?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 25, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If US lawmakers have branded him a terrorist, called for his extrajudicial execution; and are trying to change the laws in order to make it easier to get at him..............is he paranoid to think the US is plotting against him?


of course not.

But that's not to say that they were actually definitely planning to issue an arrest warrant and extradite him the minute he was taken into custody here or in Sweden. They may have been, and he may have had specific info that his is what was being planned, alternatively the strain may have got to him a bit and he essentially panicked himself into assuming the worst and legged it.

I can understand his logic though, of realising that if you're going to do something like this then you have to be proactive about it and not wait until the arrest warrant is issued as the first you'd probably know about it would be when they turned up to extradite you.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

Balbi said:


> One of Greenwald's quoted sources might have slagged his argument slightly today. @klamberg demonstrates the impossibility of Sweden assuring no extradition.
> 
> Its surrounding the supreme court, and its need to assess each case as it arises. The government has a veto, but cannot use it if the supreme court decides that all criteria for extradition have been met. And if not, then the supreme court won't allow extradition anyway. But they cannot pre-judge an extradition request before the details have been made.



He sets this out very clearly at his site :http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-to-us-via-sweden.html


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> Hmm.


 
The best quote there is from John Pilger:

"By standing up to the most rapacious forces in the world today, and telling people in many countries what the powerful say and do behind their backs, he's made enemies of a kind journalists should wear as a badge of honour, but rarely do. The jealousy and envy he attracts often come from those aware of their own collusion with power and unforgiving of one who refuses to join their incestuous club."

Precisely correct imo.


----------



## Random (Aug 25, 2012)

That's assuming the presence of envy in the first place. The only ones I can see who are definitely motivated by jealousy are his former and now pissed-off co-workers in Wikileaks, who surely share the same badge of honour?


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 25, 2012)

Random said:


> That's assuming the presence of envy in the first place. The only ones I can see who are definitely motivated by jealousy are his former and now pissed-off co-workers in Wikileaks, who surely share the same badge of honour?


 
And the real point about all this is made by one "stevecook" in the CiF response to the Guardian piece:

"This isn't about Julian Assange. It's not even about dubious sexual molestation allegation and never has been. What this is about is the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people with brown skin on the other side of the planet by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks' part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that information by any means. Including ensuring the collusion by the MSM in the dissemination of propoganda."


----------



## trashpony (Aug 25, 2012)

This is about one sleazy man's colossal ego. Christ, he must be enjoying himself


----------



## IC3D (Aug 25, 2012)

Identity politics trumps human rights on urban


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 25, 2012)

trashpony said:


> This is about one sleazy man's colossal ego.


 
You don't think what he did was in any way courageous or worthwhile?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2012)

I do think the septicks would have been rather more inventive and forthright if they really wanted assange. After all, they hardly beat about the bush with hackers, do they? Seems to me a lot of people want to see monsters under the bed here.


----------



## trashpony (Aug 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> You don't think what he did was in any way courageous or worthwhile?


I think it's irrelevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> You don't think what he did was in any way courageous or worthwhile?


If you mean trying to fuck a sleeping woman, then no, I don't.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 25, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I think it's irrelevant.


 
Huh?  You think Wikileaks is _irrelevant _to the Julian Assange case?


----------



## trashpony (Aug 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Huh? You think Wikileaks is _irrelevant _to the Julian Assange case?


I think it's perfectly possible to be the founder of wikileaks _and_ be a rapist. Something that seems a bit difficult for some people to get their heads around for some reason.


----------



## RaverDrew (Aug 25, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I think it's perfectly possible to be the founder of wikileaks _and_ be a rapist. Something that seems a bit difficult for some people to get their heads around for some reason.


 
Sounds like you've found him guilty in your mind already.


----------



## trashpony (Aug 25, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Sounds like you've found him guilty in your mind already.


I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. He's been accused of a crime - I have no idea whether he's guilty or not. But being the founder of wikileaks has no bearing on that one way or the other


----------



## RaverDrew (Aug 25, 2012)

trashpony said:


> But being the founder of wikileaks has no bearing on that one way or the other


 
Can't see where I said it did 

You've already denounced him as "sleazy" a few posts ago, and have also equated the possibility of him being the founder of wikileaks, with the possibility of him being a rapist. This to me seems to indicate that you've already made your mind up about whether he is guilty or not.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 25, 2012)

Bradley Manning is the real hero of Wikileaks.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Can't see where I said it did
> 
> You've already denounced him as "sleazy" a few posts ago, and have also equated the possibility of him being the founder of wikileaks, with the possibility of him being a rapist. This to me seems to indicate that you've already made your mind up about whether he is guilty or not.


Excellent, you support his extradition to sweden then right?


----------



## Random (Aug 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> And the real point about all this is made by one "stevecook" in the CiF response to the Guardian piece
> "This isn't about Julian Assange. It's not even about dubious sexual molestation allegation and never has been. What this is about is the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people with brown skin on the other side of the planet by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks' part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that information by any means. Including ensuring the collusion by the MSM in the dissemination of propoganda."


Sounds like the use of 'brown people' to say that certain high profile people should never have to answer an assault case.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2012)

Random said:


> Sounds like the use of 'brown people' to say that certain high profile people should never have to answer an assault case.


As someone so eloquently put it earlier_ Identity politics trumps human rights on urban._


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Eek, the source has claimed that Greenwald misinterpreted his work, didn't ask him about it and has now agreed with David Allen Green.
> 
> your thoughts, belboid?


my thought is that you didnt read the Greenwald article very closely in the first place then.  He quoted klamberg _because_ he was (generally) on DAGs side.  The fact that an absolute guarantee cannot be given has always been accepted.  DAGs disputation of that was dishonest. So this makes absolutely no difference to anything


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

belboid said:


> my thought is that you didnt read the Greenwald article very closely in the first place then.  He quoted klamberg _because_ he was (generally) on DAGs side.  The fact that an absolute guarantee cannot be given has always been accepted.  DAGs disputation of that was dishonest. So this makes absolutely no difference to anything


 To be fair, that Greenwald article was very difficult to read (as I know you acknowledged from the outset). But in any event, I've found going to the sources preferable including the Swedish law.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 25, 2012)

Ah, the la, la I can't hear you approach.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

Klamberg said:
			
		

> Many journalists have contacted me on the issue whether Julian Assange can be extradited to the US via Sweden for espionage where he might face the death penalty. The short answer is: no. Below you will find the long answer.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> And the real point about all this is made by one "stevecook" in the CiF response to the Guardian piece:
> 
> "This isn't about Julian Assange. It's not even about dubious sexual molestation allegation and never has been. What this is about is the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people with brown skin on the other side of the planet by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks' part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that information by any means. Including ensuring the collusion by the MSM in the dissemination of propoganda."


What appears to be the logic behind that is contemptible (I say _appears_ as I can't see the original and what stevecook might, if anything, be saying about the rape investigation). Sometimes things are messy, sometimes the enemy of my enemy isn't my friend in every respect, sometimes you've got be honest about someones personal behaviour even if you adore their political stance (and to be clear, whilst the actual leaks are positive, I don't adore the politics that surround wikileaks). You diminish your politics if it leaves you one eyed about personal behaviour.

Of course if wikileaks had remained more of a collective, more of a _wiki_ if you like, this would all be less damaging. The more it has become the personality cult of Saint Julian the more it left itself open to his feet of clay (and by that I'm not pre-judging the actual rape investigation - just his wandering guru status, Icke sans lizards etc. The grauniad might have turned on their former 'superstar', but some of those tales in agricola's link are very telling).

edit: oh, Random said it quicker.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Can't see where I said it did
> 
> You've already denounced him as "sleazy" a few posts ago, and have also equated the possibility of him being the founder of wikileaks, with the possibility of him being a rapist. This to me seems to indicate that you've already made your mind up about whether he is guilty or not.


Regardless of whether he committed rape and/or sexual assault, that he is sleazy in his approach to women seems to be the one thing it's hard to argue against. Can't be bothered searching for the links, but there are enough direct quotes from women (as opposed to journalist cases against him) to reach that 'common sense' conclusion. It's subjective of course, defenders might say he 'made the most of his fame', but I'm less inclined to be so charitable.

Edit: this, from agricola's post - if anything like the truth - will do:

I followed up with requests to interview him for my book. I received florid emails such as, "I will have you, Heather, of course I will. But let us be messiahs to generation WHY, not a bunch of ageing hacks looking for a pension... regards from intrigue hotel... I have more interesting adventures for you..."

When he suddenly turned up in London, he wanted me to put him up and act as some sort of mother surrogate. "I have a fever. I'm not sure yet if it's going up or down," he told me. "I need some mothering. Someone to make me chicken noodle soup and bring me cookies in bed."

I later heard from two other women who said Assange pulled the same "poor little lost boy" trick on them in an attempt to finagle his way into their homes. I said that was not how I conducted interviews. He complained that I didn't have a maternal instinct, adding in drama-queen fashion: "I have two wars to stop."
I replied: "Yeah, it's a tough life being a messiah." His response left me speechless: "Will you be my Mary Magdalene, Heather? And bathe my feet at the cross."


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2012)

> I will have you, Heather, of course I will.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2012)

Wonder if his fridge has been delivered yet?


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Regardless of whether he committed rape and/or sexual assault, that he is sleazy in his approach to women seems to be the one thing it's hard to argue against.


 
Heh.

Whenever men accuse other men of being "sleazy in their approach to women" I can't help feeling that a _teensy _bit of envy just _may_ possibly be involved in their assessment.


----------



## laptop (Aug 25, 2012)

Ian Katz recalls his last conversation with Assange conclusing the above piece...



> ... a few flashes of menace (one former colleague suspected of leaking had now been "sat on") and some eye-wateringly unsavoury references to sex


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Heh.
> 
> Whenever men accuse other men of being "sleazy in their approach to women" I can't help feeling that a _teensy _bit of envy just _may_ possibly be involved in their assessment.


 
And yet they still love the Stones.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 25, 2012)

laptop said:


> Ian Katz recalls his last conversation with Assange conclusing the above piece...


 
Heh.

Whenever men accuse other men of being "sleazy in their approach to women" I can't help feeling that a _teensy _bit of envy just _may_ possibly be involved in their assessment.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

How about when women accuse some men of being sleazy in their approach to women?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> How about when women accuse some men of being sleazy in their approach to women?


 
Men are sleazy. One woman's sex God is another woman's Benny Hill.


----------



## JimW (Aug 25, 2012)

trashpony said:


> This is about one sleazy man's colossal ego. Christ, he must be enjoying himself


But enough about Phil, what do you reckon to this Assange character? Looks a right wrong'un.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Men are sleazy. One woman's sex God is another woman's Benny Hill.



 Oh, I know that not all women will see sleaziness in the same way. But I was picking up on phil's (so far) twice repeated point about envy.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

JimW said:


> But enough about Phil, what do you reckon to this Assange character? Looks a right wrong'un.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 25, 2012)

JimW said:


> But enough about Phil, what do you reckon to this Assange character? Looks a right wrong'un.


 
Christ what a bunch of Iagos round here innit...

O, beware... of jealousy;
It is the green-ey'd monster, which doth mock
The meat it feeds on.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

Phil, are you suggesting that any man that supports women that find Assange creepy/sleazy, are envious/jealous of him?


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Phil, are you suggesting that any man that supports women that find Assange creepy/sleazy, are envious/jealous of him?


 
Yep.  And you know I speak nothing but the stone cold truth.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yep.  And you know I speak nothing but the stone cold truth.



I know nothing of the sort.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

I'm wondering if this is designed to prove the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"


----------



## Greebo (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm wondering if this is designed to prove the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"


I suspect he's playing devil's advocate again, just because he can.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yep. And you know I speak nothing but the stone cold truth.


As you understand it, in just one paradigm.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> As you understand it, in just one paradigm.


 
You'd have to meet him to get it, as it were. I always forget that you lot don't know each other in the real world.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I suspect he's playing devil's advocate again, just because he can.



Which is fine as far as it goes. He might also be trying to assess how much women get annoyed when they find supportive/less dismissive men attacked, together with whether women are more or less likely to post opinions on the subject of sleaze and/or rape as a result. Difficult to say, but I imagine we'll find out at some point.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> You'd have to meet him to get it, as it were. I always forget that you lot don't know each other in the real world.


Some of us can't be bothered to use personae.  If he can, fair enough.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> You'd have to meet him to get it, as it were. I always forget that you lot don't know each other in the real world.


 

I have met him, and have a great deal of time for him. As he knows.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Some of us can't be bothered to use personae. If he can, fair enough.


 
I am determined to meet VP before I die. Not sure when, Brixton is tinged with a halcyon feeling for me. One day.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> I have met him, and have a great deal of time for him. As he knows.


 
I did wonder. Sometimes these conversations would make a lot more sense down by the River in an old dockers' boozer.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I did wonder. Sometimes these conversations would make a lot more sense down by the River in an old dockers' boozer.


Definitely. If nothing else it adds another dimension to who you're talking to, because they are more "real". I'd also very much like to meet VP.

Edit: and having met laptop, the absurdity of what phil aimed at him made me chortle


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Heh.
> 
> Whenever men accuse other men of being "sleazy in their approach to women" I can't help feeling that a _teensy _bit of envy just _may_ possibly be involved in their assessment.


 That's entirely true Phil, every time I say to a woman 'I'm the Messiah, pet, can I come and stay at your gaff' I tend to get knocked back. 

Actually, let's pause here.  Presumably your belief that I am envious of Assange suggests his approach to relationships is one you admire?  To even hint at that about a bloke who is facing rape allegations is fucking despicable.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Buttfucked the USA on the internet.


 
Assange has done no such thing. Bradley Manning has, he's getting 'buttfucked' back in return.

All Assange did was publish documents handed to him, as did the New York Post.

The US won't want to go for Assange, he's created that illusion to try and evade charges of rape. Ecuadorians should hang their heads in shame that their leader, in trying to out-Chavez Chavez, is sticking up for a possible nonce.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> That's entirely true Phil, every time I say to a woman 'I'm the Messiah, pet, can I come and stay at your gaff' I tend to get knocked back.
> 
> Actually, let's pause here. Presumably your belief that I am envious of Assange suggests his approach to relationships is one you admire? To even hint at that about a bloke who is facing rape allegations is fucking despicable.


He may well have meant envy of the female attention  But I'm sure we'll find out


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Definitely. If nothing else it adds another dimension to who you're talking to, because they are more "real". I'd also very much like to meet VP.
> 
> Edit: and having met laptop, the absurdity of what phil aimed at him made me chortle


 
Missed that. Met laptop a few times. Definitely a searing intellect. Phil would win on bonhomie though. I was cycling down by the river just before the Olympics and I think I went by your old place. Great place to be, down by the river.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Assange has done no such thing. Bradley Manning has, he's getting 'buttfucked' back in return.
> 
> All Assange did was publish documents handed to him, as did the New York Post.
> 
> The US won't want to go for Assange, he's created that illusion to try and evade charges of rape. Ecuadorians should hang their heads in shame that their leader, in trying to out-Chavez Chavez, is sticking up for a potential nonce.


 Spot on.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 25, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ... The US won't want to go for Assange, he's created that illusion to try and evade charges of rape. Ecuadorians should hang their heads in shame that their leader, in trying to out-Chavez Chavez, is sticking up for a possible nonce.


I am not so sure. According to a post in this or the other thread they have a mahoosive dossier on him.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Spot on.


 
He's a potential nonce now. At least there's no children's playground in the Ecuardorian embassy.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I am not so sure. According to a post in this or the other thread they have a mahoosive dossier on him.


 
So?

Mi5 have a dossier on me, they're never gonna act on it.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> He may well have meant envy of the female attention  But I'm sure we'll find out


 Maybe, maybe, I just think whatever games you are playing, whatever persona you are giving a run out to, it's best to stay clear of an alleged rapist as your role model.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Assange has done no such thing. Bradley Manning has, he's getting 'buttfucked' back in return.
> 
> All Assange did was publish documents handed to him, as did the New York Post.
> 
> The US won't want to go for Assange, he's created that illusion to try and evade charges of rape. Ecuadorians should hang their heads in shame that their leader, in trying to out-Chavez Chavez, is sticking up for a possible nonce.


And therein lies the issue of why the US might struggle to find an actual "crime" to extradite Assange from Sweden.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> He's a potential nonce now. At least there's no children's playground in the Ecuardorian embassy.


 
Nonce is any kind of sex offender. hth


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> And therein lies the issue of why the US might struggle to find an actual "crime" to extradite Assange from Sweden.


 
Especially as freedom of expression is perhaps more enshrined in US law than any other country's.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Missed that. Met laptop a few times. Definitely a searing intellect. Phil would win on bonhomie though. I was cycling down by the river just before the Olympics and I think I went by your old place. Great place to be, down by the river.


I'm still there!


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Especially as freedom of expression is perhaps more enshrined in US law than any other country's.


 Yep, if they ever got him to Washington, it would be a First Amendment dominated court case.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Especially as freedom of expression is perhaps more enshrined in US law than any other country's.


I suppose freedom of expression is far more conditional over here/Europe. And not a constitutional right.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm still there!


 
It was funny, because I don't know the area that well. I'd cycled down to look at the Olympic stadium, no chance, a cauldron of bored looking officials blocking the canal, and then I headed for the river and cycled along the banks, stopping for the sun, and then the memory hit me, I'd been there before, cobbled streets, that little boozer, hazy memories, and then back at the Tower of London. It's always good to hit a memory.


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> It was funny, because I don't know the area that well. I'd cycled down to look at the Olympic stadium, no chance, a cauldron of bored looking officials blocking the canal, and then I headed for the river and cycled along the banks, stopping for the sun, and then the memory hit me, I'd been there before, cobbled streets, that little boozer, hazy memories, and then back at the Tower of London. It's always good to hit a memory.


It's a bit off the beaten path so people tend to forget about it. You should have called in!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> I suppose freedom of expression is far more conditional over here/Europe. And not a constitutional right.


 
Yep, hence our mad libel laws vs. the almost non-existent ones in the US.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's a bit off the beaten path so people tend to forget about it. You should have called in!


 
Organise a meet up. Me, you, butchers, phil, VP, the button, greebo, and other assorted vagrants, down by the Thames.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I am determined to meet VP before I die. Not sure when, Brixton is tinged with a halcyon feeling for me. One day.





cesare said:


> Definitely. If nothing else it adds another dimension to who you're talking to, because they are more "real". I'd also very much like to meet VP.<snip>


I'll give you the same reply which 'im indoors instructed me to give before:  VP doesn't do public appearances, sorry.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Organise a meet up. Me, you, butchers, phil, VP, the button, greebo, and other assorted vagrants, down by the Thames.


I can tell you right now, barring a very rare miracle indeed, VP won't be there. Take that as read.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I can tell you right now, barring a very rare miracle indeed, VP won't be there. Take that as read.


 
As James Bond would say, Never say never. But fair dos. I would never force myself on anybody. I'm not fucking Jullian Assange you know.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> As James Bond would say, Never say never.


PM sent.


goldenecitrone said:


> But fair dos. I would never force myself on anybody. I'm not fucking Jullian Assange you know.


Conflate you with the likes of Julian Assange?  Never.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I do think the septicks would have been rather more inventive and forthright if they really wanted assange. After all, they hardly beat about the bush with hackers, do they? Seems to me a lot of people want to see monsters under the bed here.


 
It took them ten years to get bin Laden, but then, in the middle of the night, a SEAL team is landing on his roof.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 25, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I think it's perfectly possible to be the founder of wikileaks _and_ be a rapist. Something that seems a bit difficult for some people to get their heads around for some reason.


 
I agree that that's possible.

Do you agree that it's possible that he can be the founder of wikileaks, and be framed or otherwise not guilty?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 25, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Bradley Manning is the real hero of Wikileaks.


 
Julian Assange made Bradley Manning's actions possible.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> that he is sleazy in his approach to women seems to be the one thing it's hard to argue against. Can't be bothered searching for the links"


 
If you're going to throw these accusations out there, why not go ahead and search for the links?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> The US won't want to go for Assange.


 
I guess you don't follow the US media much.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 26, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Nonce is any kind of sex offender. hth


But also commonly a paedophile.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 26, 2012)

Is anybody allowed to go to the embassy and say "Hi, is Julian at home, can he come out to play?", or do you have to be invited? And, is he paying rent?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So?
> 
> Mi5 have a dossier on me, they're never gonna act on it.


 
Is your face on a terrorist trading card?










> The US vice-president, Joe Biden, today likened the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to a "hi-tech terrorist", the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

People ok with murdering Assange:




> Sarah Palin
> Former US Vice Presidential Candidate
> *Julian Assange should be targeted like the Taliban*
> http://www.computerworlduk.com/news...et-wikileaks-julian-assange-like-the-taliban/
> ...




http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/the_list.html


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If you're going to throw these accusations out there, why not go ahead and search for the links?


 If you'd have looked a little more closely, you'd have seen one woman's account of his sleaze - _in the actual post you quoted_.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I guess you don't follow the US media much.


 And you need to distinguish between the hot air in the media and realpolitik.  Your list of quotes from Sarah Palin, fox new commentators and Watergate conspirators wasn't a good start down that road.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> If you'd have looked a little more closely, you'd have seen one woman's account of his sleaze - _in the actual post you quoted_.


 
Ok: one woman thought he was sleazy. What did you draw from that?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> And you need to distinguish between the hot air in the media and realpolitik. Your list of quotes from Sarah Palin, fox new commentators and Watergate conspirators wasn't a good start down that road.


 
You left out the quote from the Vice President.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

An interesting commentary:



> *We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited*
> 
> For decades we have campaigned to get rapists caught, charged and convicted. But the pursuit of Assange is political


 



> Whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual violence, we do not believe that is why he is being pursued. *Once again women's fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes.* The authorities care so little about violence against women that *they manipulate rape allegations at will, usually to increase their powers*, this time to facilitate Assange's extradition or even rendition to the US. That the US has not presented a demand for his extradition at this stage is no guarantee that they won't do so once he is in Sweden, and that he will not be tortured as Bradley Manning and many others, women and men, have. Women Against Rape cannot ignore this threat.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

> *In over 30 years working with thousands of rape victims who are seeking asylum from rape and other forms of torture, we have met nothing but obstruction from British governments*. Time after time, they have accused women of lying and deported them with no concern for their safety. We are currently working with three women who were raped again after having been deported – one of them is now destitute, struggling to survive with the child she conceived from the rape; the other managed to return to Britain and won the right to stay, and one of them won compensation.
> 
> Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?


 
-same article


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

> *In 1998 Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London following an extradition request from Spain.* His responsibility for the murder and disappearance of at least 3,000 people, and the torture of 30,000 people, including the rape and sexual abuse of more than 3,000 women often with the use of dogs, was never in doubt. Despite a lengthy legal action and a daily picket outside parliament called by Chilean refugees, including women who had been tortured under Pinochet,* the British government reneged on its obligation to Spain's criminal justice system and Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile*. *Assange has not even been charged; yet the determination to have him extradited is much greater than ever it was with Pinochet.* (Baltasar Garzón, whose request for extradition of Pinochet was denied, is representing Assange.) And there is a history of Sweden (and Britain) rendering asylum seekers at risk of torture at the behest of the US.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

> Like women in Sweden and everywhere, we want rapists caught, charged and convicted. We have campaigned for that for more than 35 years, with limited success. We are even having to campaign to prevent rape victims being accused of making false allegations and imprisoned for it. Two women who reported visibly violent attacks by strangers were given two and three year prison sentences.
> 
> But does anyone really believe that extraditing Julian Assange will strengthen women against rape? And do those supporting his extradition to Sweden care if he is then extradited to the US and tortured for telling the public what we need to know about those who govern us?


----------



## JimW (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You left out the quote from the Vice President.


You left out the loaded question from the reporter that set up some either/or "is he more a hi-tech terrorist or some Daniel Ellis (? can't recall name, reporter type or whistle-blower)" to which Biden gives an I suppose more the terrorist response. Not exactly as portrayed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

JimW said:


> You left out the loaded question from the reporter that set up some either/or "is he more a hi-tech terrorist or some Daniel Ellis (? can't recall name, reporter type or whistle-blower)" to which Biden gives an I suppose more the terrorist response. Not exactly as portrayed.


 
I made a post earlier that you might or might not have caught, about the US lawmakers trying to get the law changed there to make it easier to get their hands on Assange.


----------



## JimW (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I made a post earlier that you might or might not have caught, about the US lawmakers trying to get the law changed there to make it easier to get their hands on Assange.


Still fits with the less-than-Seal 6 approach then, IMO, if they have to go to the bother of changing a law.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 26, 2012)

If WikiLeaks is a 'not for profit organisation' where is all the money going?

It's just a website isn't it? Am I missing something?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

JimW said:


> Still fits with the less-than-Seal 6 approach then, IMO, if they have to go to the bother of changing a law.


 
The question isn't whether they'll be sending a SEAL team. The question is, is the US interested in getting their hands on him?

The answer is 'yes'.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 26, 2012)

The more I look at the website, the less I can see any revealing leaks. It's just regurgitated news presented as stuff we didn't already know.

Fuck knows why John Pilger is adding his support. It's rubbished him for me now. I found his Mother's comments in yesterday's Guardian most revealing. It sort of read like 'it isn't my fault'!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The question isn't whether they'll be sending a SEAL team. The question is, is the US interested in getting their hands on him?
> 
> The answer is 'yes'.


 
No they're fucking not.

What are they going to do with him? Give him a 20 minute slot on Fox news to further boost his income?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The question isn't whether they'll be sending a SEAL team. The question is, is the US interested in getting their hands on him?
> 
> The answer is 'yes'.


 And I've made it clear that they *are* 'interested' in getting their hands on him - but that there are pitfalls to both that happening and what would happen in a court if they did.  You don't seem to want to consider that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> No they're fucking not.


 



> On 29 November 2010, Rep. Peter T. King, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) wrote to the Attorney General, Eric Holder, asking that Assange should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, and that he should be declared a terrorist.[190][191] The same day, King also wrote to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, requesting that she designate Wikileaks as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).[190][192][193]
> "I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute Wikileaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I’m also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Wikileaks a foreign terrorist organization", King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening.[194]
> "By doing that, we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever,” he said. “To me,* they are a clear and present danger to America.*"


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian...S_Congress_call_for_Espionage_Act_prosecution


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> ...but that there are pitfalls to both that happening and what would happen in a court if they did. You don't seem to want to consider that.


 
A court for what?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> A court for what?


 Judge Judy?


----------



## JimW (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The question isn't whether they'll be sending a SEAL team. The question is, is the US interested in getting their hands on him?
> 
> The answer is 'yes'.


Don't think that is the question. No doubt various elements within the US state want him - do they dominate and direct policy to the extent that they fabricated these allegations of sexual assault and are manipulating the legal process such that it's all a smokescreen to get him? If you argued they'd tried to influence how the Swedish state handles it I might believe you, but I've seen nothing that undermines what I think is basically the case - Assange behaved in a way that led two women to go to the police about him and that's what's behind the process.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian...S_Congress_call_for_Espionage_Act_prosecution


 
This is very old news now. It was when Wikileaks got their one 'good' break. All of their publicity stemmed from this. Nothing happend.

Personally, I think the current Assange saga has fuck all to do with international politics. When I read Wikileaks I can't see anything worth reading that hasn't already been reported elsewhere in mainstream media. In fact, the most obvious thing I can see is the 'give us your money' option.

Money for what? Most of it is unverified information from years ago. The archive seems to be the biggest selling point. Old news.
So, at the height of internet subverse some bod in the Permanent Select Committe went on radio and Wikileaks picked up on this. That was a long time ago.

The guy is a self-publicist coining it out of war.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 26, 2012)

I would even go further, and say that his antics today are actually the biggest distraction from the truth. Wikileaks publishing of nothing of real interest is on a par with Fox news. Perhaps he wants to join them?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

JimW said:


> If you argued they'd tried to influence how the Swedish state handles it I might believe you,.


 
If the US has a hand in this, either influencing Sweden, or the UK or whomever, it's not something that they'd undertake within the view of the public eye.


----------



## JimW (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If the US has a hand in this, either influencing Sweden, or the UK or whomever, it's not something that they'd undertake within the view of the public eye.


Even conceding they are doing that (which we don't know), do you think the charges are fabricated? I would be enormously surprised if that was the case. If they're not, Assange should still go and answer them. The only increased risk he would be under by doing that is of conviction for the alleged offences. Any threat from the US would still exist if he flees the charges and goes somewhere else.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2012)

JimW said:


> Even conceding they are doing that (which we don't know), do you think the charges are fabricated? I would be enormously surprised if that was the case. If they're not, Assange should still go and answer them. The only increased risk he would be under by doing that is of conviction for the alleged offences. Any threat from the US would still exist if he flees the charges and goes somewhere else.


 
To my understanding, he isn't yet charged.

Do I think the alleged activity took place? At the moment, the only people who know for sure are Assange, and the complainants. For the rest of us, all we can do is conjecture. I accept that it could have happened exactly as they allege. I also accept that something different might have happened.

I agree with the comments of the women in the Guardian article. Both the complainants and the alleged perpetrator deserve justice.  And the fight to see proper recognition brought to the efforts to expose violence against women, is a paramount one.

My personal preference would be to see Assange face and deal with the accusations. But given the tremendous political overlay, I think that leeway should be exercised, such as having the Swedish questioning take place somewhere where Assange doesn't face the risk of unintended consequences, like extradition to the US.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 26, 2012)

In that case he should go to Sweden. Staying in the UK or going back to his native Australia would ensure he's whipped off to the US, if the US decides to go for him. In South America, if the US wanted to, he'd be dead within minutes.

But, in spite of the list or right wing hot air nutjobs you posted, all Assange has done is publish information stolen by others. Something Greg Palast has been doing for decades without ever being locked up by the US. A man who incidentaly has this to say about Assange:

"Do you remember the reporter who put his by-line on the Pentagon Papers story? Of course not, he didn't risk a thing. Julian Assange didn't risk a thing either - except excess TV exposure and an excess of blonde groupies. The hero of the Wikileaks/Guardian/Times/Spiegel exposure is Pvt. Bradley Manning.
"NO ONE gives a sh*t about this heroic man who is rotting in Obama's prison cell. Not Assange (who did nothing to protect him, and does nothing now), nor the Left happy to use his information nor the New York Times which is happy to take the bows for material Manning risked his freedom for.
"Assange is like all publishers except that he erases the names of the 'author' from the books. He will join his fellows in that ring of Hell devoted to those who wear the mantle of courage stolen from others.
"I salute Pvt. Manning. It is Manning, not Assange, who will save this world."

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-real-wiki-hero/


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It took them ten years to get bin Laden, but then, in the middle of the night, a SEAL team is landing on his roof.


we all remember tora bora. What similar attempts have the us made to secure assange?


----------



## newbie (Aug 26, 2012)

Manning needed help to save the world.

What would have happened if Manning had taken his disk direct to the NYT or the Guardian? I'm doubtful they'd have published- possibly the footage of the journalists being shot would have aired- but not the main trove.

Instead, and in the spririt of the age, he found an internet startup with an slim but tantalising backstory and handed them a prize bigger than anyone would have ever imagined. Taking Assange and his mates at face value (ie not considering that they were set up by spook central), there's no way they sat in their bedrooms dreaming that one day someone would turn up with some years of the entire US diplomatic cable traffic. That's just silly... sure they'd hope for important stories about obscure players like Trafigura, but there's no way they'd anticipate a treasure trove like Manning provided.

So everyone is out of their depth. But to pretend that a foreigner meddling in US affairs at that level "didn't risk a thing", as Palast does, is silly. The Pentagon Papers were published in the US under constitutional free speech by an established, respected and protected newspaper. They also, crucually, were a componernt in the main internal US political dynamic of the time. The cables came via a wildcard foreign website immune from US establishment pressure and seem to have united domestic US opinion that they harmed US interests, while actually providing little in the way of smoking guns.

Palast seems to be missing something in his determination to push Assange into a "circle of hell".


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 26, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In that case he should go to Sweden. Staying in the UK or going back to his native Australia would ensure he's whipped off to the US, if the US decides to go for him. In South America, if the US wanted to, he'd be dead within minutes.
> 
> But, in spite of the list or right wing hot air nutjobs you posted, all Assange has done is publish information stolen by others. Something Greg Palast has been doing for decades without ever being locked up by the US. A man who incidentaly has this to say about Assange:
> 
> ...


 
I have a lot of time for Greg Palast but I disagree with what he says about "no one giving a sh*t" about Bradley Manning - his name comes up a lot on threads I've been browsing recently where Assange has been discussed.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 26, 2012)

JimW said:


> Don't think that is the question. No doubt various elements within the US state want him - do they dominate and direct policy to the extent that they fabricated these allegations of sexual assault and are manipulating the legal process such that it's all a smokescreen to get him? If you argued they'd tried to influence how the Swedish state handles it I might believe you, but I've seen nothing that undermines what I think is basically the case - Assange behaved in a way that led two women to go to the police about him and that's what's behind the process.


As I understand it, the case was initially dropped, and then restarted.

Having read the transcripts of the interviews, seeing as someone leaked them to the web, I can well see why the case was initially dropped, because it stands very little chance of getting a conviction whatever the truth of the matter - I'd expect  it would also have been dropped in the UK by the CPS (rightly or wrongly).

It's a lot less clear why it was then picked up by a different prosecutor and restarted again. It's this part of the process that smacks of some pulling of strings behind the scenes.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

free spirit said:


> As I understand it, the case was initially dropped, and then restarted.
> 
> Having read the transcripts of the interviews, seeing as someone leaked them to the web, I can well see why the case was initially dropped, because it stands very little chance of getting a conviction whatever the truth of the matter - I'd expect  it would also have been dropped in the UK by the CPS (rightly or wrongly).
> 
> It's a lot less clear why it was then picked up by a different prosecutor and restarted again. It's this part of the process that smacks of some pulling of strings behind the scenes.





> In English law, there is an evidential presumption that a woman who is not conscious has not consented (s.75 Sexual Offences Act 2003). It is then up to the defendant to prove either that there was in fact consent, or that he had a reasonable belief in consent. Consent to protected sex is not consent to unprotected sex: a conditional “yes”, is in practice a “no” where the conditions are not satisfied.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 26, 2012)

Do people really think those transcripts alone are the whole of the case?


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Do people really think those transcripts alone are the whole of the case?


I don't, I don't see how they can be.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Do people really think those transcripts alone are the whole of the case?


A lot of people probably do


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> A lot of people probably do



There may be an assumption that leaked documents = all documents onward leaked, or even that leaked documents were all the documents that there were to leak.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2012)

Forgive the derail but the Guardian piece on 'those who know assange' had a comment by 'joepestron' on the first page, now deleted. It said something along the line that there is also a UK female weapons inspector holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy (no name).  It had a breathless conspiraloon feel to it and was swiftly removed, but has anyone heard similar?*

* Hangs head in shame for furthering conspiraloonery.


----------



## Deareg (Aug 26, 2012)

JimW said:


> You left out the loaded question from the reporter that set up some either/or "is he more a hi-tech terrorist or some Daniel Ellis (? can't recall name, reporter type or whistle-blower)" to which Biden gives an I suppose more the terrorist response. Not exactly as portrayed.


Are you seriously saying that the vice president of the US is not capable of fielding a loaded question?


----------



## JimW (Aug 26, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Are you seriously saying that the vice president of the US is not capable of fielding a loaded question?


I'm sure he is. Do you reckon that clip is tantamount to a bald statement of govt policy that Assange is a terrorist? I don't.


----------



## laptop (Aug 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Forgive the derail but the Guardian piece on 'those who know assange' had a comment by 'joepestron' on the first page, now deleted. It said something along the line that there is also a UK female weapons inspector holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy (no name). It had a breathless conspiraloon feel to it and was swiftly removed, but has anyone heard similar?*
> 
> * Hangs head in shame for furthering conspiraloonery.


 
On Thursday or Friday someone posted a name here or on the other thread; I looked it up and found only conspiraloon sources... one blog pushing it in particular.

But I can't remember the name of the blog or of the alleged person.


----------



## laptop (Aug 26, 2012)

JimW said:


> "is he more a hi-tech terrorist or some Daniel Ellis (? can't recall name, reporter type or whistle-blower)"


 
Daniel Ellsberg: source of the Pentagon Papers. Lovely man. Obviously, a bit inclined to support the leaker... good on Bradley Manning.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2012)

laptop said:


> On Thursday or Friday someone posted a name here or on the other thread; I looked it up and found only conspiraloon sources... one blog pushing it in particular.
> 
> But I can't remember the name of the blog or of the alleged person.


 Cheers.


----------



## Deareg (Aug 26, 2012)

JimW said:


> I'm sure he is. Do you reckon that clip is tantamount to a bald statement of govt policy that Assange is a terrorist? I don't.


I haven't looked at the clip, I was just surprised at your post.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 26, 2012)

free spirit said:


> It's a lot less clear why it was then picked up by a different prosecutor and restarted again. It's this part of the process that smacks of some pulling of strings behind the scenes.


 
the rape charge was dropped, investigations into one of the other charges remained open.  the lawyer for the women appealed and the case was re-opened.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> we all remember tora bora. What similar attempts have the us made to secure assange?


 
How much knowledge did you have of the operation to get bin Laden, before the SEALs actually landed on his roof?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> all Assange has done is publish information stolen by others. Something Greg Palast has been doing for decades without ever being locked up by the US. A man who incidentaly has this to say about Assange:
> 
> "Do you remember the reporter who put his by-line on the Pentagon Papers story?


 
Watergate? You mean Woodward and Bernstein? Only the most well-known reporting team of the era, thanks to their coverage of Watergate.

Watergate was one of the biggest political crises ever faced by a US administration. It resulted in the impeachment proceedings against Nixon, and caused his resignation. The work done by reporters on Watergate was a landmark, and paved the way for people like Assange and Manning.

Btw, the instigator of the leaks, Daniel Ellsberg, was prosecuted. A mistrial was declared because of bumbling by the govt attorneys. He was not cleared of charges under the Espionage Act.

This is a different time. Back then, the govt at least paid lip service to the First Amendment, habeas corpus etc. It doesn't anymore.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 27, 2012)

I am not a violent person.

However 

If I was given the chance I would give Assange a full on headbut followed by a knee into the bollocks.

He is taking the piss. He is using the rights of a free press for self-publicity whilst giving people an opportunity to close those rights. His website never paid anyone, and never gave protection to anyone willingly giving information. He is in this for the cash and nothing more. No doubt his ghost written biography is already raking it in. Nothing good came from WikiLeaks. Assange has done nothing for anyone else. He is a selfich cunt who deserves a kick in the bollocks at least 5 times a day until he goes home.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

free spirit said:


> As I understand it, the case was initially dropped, and then restarted..


 
One Swedish prosecutor


smokedout said:


> the rape charge was dropped, investigations into one of the other charges remained open. the lawyer for the women appealed and the case was re-opened.


 
One prosecutor, Eva Finne, reviewed the allegations and determined there wasn't enough evidence for a rape charge, but the Swedes said Assange remained under suspicion for molestation. A week later, another Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reopened the investigation into all the allegations.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I am not a violent person.
> 
> However
> 
> ...


 You'd have to get past his team of crack elderly film maker ninjas first.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I am not a violent person.
> 
> However
> 
> If I was given the chance I would give Assange a full on headbut followed by a knee into the bollocks..


 
That's sort of how I felt when I read your story about dropping the mentally challenged girl's shopping on the floor.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 27, 2012)

Wilf said:


> You'd have to get past his team of crack elderly film maker ninjas first.


 
I can't be bothered, but if I had to - no problem.

Thankfully, I think this none story story has run it's course. Perhaps he will just fuck off quietly now.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I can't be bothered, but if I had to - no problem.
> 
> Thankfully, I think this none story story has run it's course. Perhaps he will just fuck off quietly now.


 
Whistle blower and media type release years of US secret diplomatic cables. Yep, a non-story.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Whistle blower and media type release years of US secret diplomatic cables. Yep, a non-story.


 
But, it wasn't.

The story that made Wikileaks came from a single serviceman who was exposed. The rest is just regurgiated crap. There was no expose. There was no contravention of OSA. It's not a story about freedom of information.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> There was no expose..


 
Then why is Bradley Manning sitting in a jail cell?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How much knowledge did you have of the operation to get bin Laden, before the SEALs actually landed on his roof?


As much as most other people in the english-speaking world


----------



## smokedout (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How much knowledge did you have of the operation to get bin Laden, before the SEALs actually landed on his roof?


 
invading afghanistan had been a bit of a give away to tell the truth


----------



## weltweit (Aug 27, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> ... Thankfully, I think this none story story has run it's course. Perhaps he will just fuck off quietly now.


Unfortunately he has manouvered himself into a very public corner, out of which there seems to be no escape, I predict he will be in this corner for more than months, perhaps even years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Unfortunately he has manouvered himself into a very public corner, out of which there seems to be no escape, I predict he will be in this corner for more than months, perhaps even years.


how have your previous predictions fared?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> how have your previous predictions fared?


This is my first prediction !!


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> As much as most other people in the english-speaking world


 
That being very little to nothing makes Johnny's point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That being very little to nothing makes Johnny's point.


Do you think johnny canuck 3 is so weak and feeble he needs you to fight his battles? Y/N


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Do you think johnny canuck 3 is so weak and feeble he needs you to fight his battles? Y/N


 
How weak and feeble are you? Such comments as you make suggest very.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> How weak and feeble are you? Such comments as you make suggest very.


I'll take that as an admission you believe johnny needs your assistance. Ok, perhaps you can explain, in his absence, what his point has to do with the subject of the thread.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I'll take that as an admission you believe johnny needs your assistance. Ok, perhaps you can explain, in his absence, what his point has to do with the subject of the thread.


 
I can explain. Can you understand?




Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It took them ten years to get bin Laden, but then, in the middle of the night, a SEAL team is landing on his roof.


 


Pickman's model said:


> we all remember tora bora. What similar attempts have the us made to secure assange?


 


Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How much knowledge did you have of the operation to get bin Laden, before the SEALs actually landed on his roof?


 


Pickman's model said:


> As much as most other people in the english-speaking world


 
And so you made his point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I can explain. Can you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And what similar attempts to those made to capture osama bin laden has the united states made to secure assange?

Have they invaded any country?

Have they used b52s in pursuit of assange?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

In summary, jc3 has no point


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> In summary, jc3 has no point


 
I didn't think you'd understand.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I didn't think you'd understand.


You fucking don't, that is perfectly clear.

But I will try again.

It is well known that the united states used military means in their attempts first to capture and then to kill osama bin laden. What similar.attempts - what military methods - have been (not may be) used to secure assange?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Come in lock&light, your time is up


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> As much as most other people in the english-speaking world


 
That's my point exactly.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You fucking don't, that is perfectly clear.


 
Lock and Light has it: it's you who doesn't seem to get it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's my point exactly.


And what a shit point it is


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Lock and Light has it: it's you who doesn't seem to get it.


No, YOU don't get it.

NO ONE has alleged there has been ANY military attempt to secure assange, not even thr looniest conspiraloon. What's your point again?


----------



## JimW (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's my point exactly.


A more important point is that the US didn't know where Bin Laden was either until shortly before the op, so not much of a comparison with Assange (leaving aside the various other ways it isn't comparable).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

smokedout said:


> invading afghanistan had been a bit of a give away to tell the truth


 
The intention to get him was always there. The specific operation that got him, ie the one with the SEALS and helicopters - that operation, we heard about once it was done. When the US was planning the logistics, checking the intel pointing to him being in that compound, the operation remained a closely guarded secret.

That's the point: if the US is currently doing something to influence Sweden or the UK, or doing who knows what - if it currently has an Operation Grab Assange - the public at large will not be informed about it while it's being implemented. And if it involves any dirty dealing or whatever, we might never hear about it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Take another example: the nuclear scientist killed in Teheran. Blown up by a bomb.

Who did it?

We don't know. Somebody did it. But, the operation and its details haven't been made public by whomever is behind it. All we know is, the man is dead.

Sometimes, governments do things that way. They work below the surface, and then, all of a sudden, you hear the outcome, but not the workings of the plan.

I'm not suggesting that someone is going to blow Assange up with a bomb. But a govt might be working below the radar, to effect a different outcome.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> And what a shit point it is


 
So, you did understand; were you just playing dumb before?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The intention to get him was always there. The specific operation that got him, ie the one with the SEALS and helicopters - that operation, we heard about once it was done. When the US was planning the logistics, checking the intel pointing to him being in that compound, the operation remained a closely guarded secret.
> 
> That's the point: if the US is currently doing something to influence Sweden or the UK, or doing who knows what - if it currently has an Operation Grab Assange - the public at large will not be informed about it while it's being implemented. And if it involves any dirty dealing or whatever, we might never hear about it.


but that has fuck all to do with what i asked you above - which is what similar attempts to secure assange to those made to get bin laden has the united states made - and i made explicit reference to tora bora. so it's been pretty clear that i meant MILITARY operations. plus, ever since about 12/09/2001 it's been well-known that the united states was out to get bin laden - they made no fucking secret of it. can you demonstrate some similar resolve on the part of the united states to get assange? things like offering a large reward, invading a country, bombing hitherto obscure mountain ranges - that sort of thing.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> ........were you just playing dumb before?


 
Does he need to play dumb?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So, you did understand; were you just playing dumb before?


it's a shit point because it has NO RELATION to what i was talking about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Does he need to play dumb?


how does this in any way add to the discussion?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Does he need to play dumb?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a shit point .


 


> Pickman's model said: ↑
> In summary, jc3 has no point​


​But for it to be a shit point, there must be a point.​​


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a shit point because it has NO RELATION to what i was talking about.


 
You seem to have missed the fact that it was Johnny who was talking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> ​But for it to be a shit point, there must be a point.​​


all this little shitstorm of posts has elicited is you cannot point to any similar means to those used against bin laden by the united states employed against assange which is what i asked you some time ago.

instead you've tried to divert the issue and are now happily trying to get into a stupid argument about shit points / points in general which evades the topick of discussion.

end of.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You seem to have missed the fact that it was Johnny who was talking.


how does this in any way add to the discussion?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> how does this in any way add to the discussion?


 
This "little shitstorm of posts" is the result of your intervention, Picky. You are the one who has distracted from the discussion.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> all this little shitstorm of posts has elicited is you cannot point to any similar means to those used against bin laden by the united states employed against assange which is what i asked you some time ago..


 
I can truthfully say that if the US currrently has some sort of clandestine operation in the works in order to secure Assange, I have absolutely no knowledge of the plan or its details.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> This "little shitstorm of posts" is the result of your intervention, Picky. You are the one who has distracted from the discussion.


how does this in any way add to the discussion?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You seem to have missed the fact that it was Johnny who was talking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I can truthfully say that if the US currrently has some sort of clandestine operation in the works in order to secure Assange, I have absolutely no knowledge of the plan or its details.


so no answer to my question from post 1208 then


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> instead you've tried to divert the issue and are now happily trying to get into a stupid argument about shit points / points in general which evades the topick of discussion.
> 
> end of.


 
I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to assist you through what you appear to regard as a logical minefield.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so it's been pretty clear that i meant MILITARY operations..


 
That's where you fell into error. I wasn't restricting anything to just military operations. I gave an example of a clandestine operation that was military, but..............come on........... surely you didn't think I was suggesting that the US was going to try to take Assange out with a Predator drone?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It took them ten years to get bin Laden, but then, in the middle of the night, a SEAL team is landing on his roof.


how is this 'helping [me] through a logical minefield'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's where you fell into error. I wasn't restricting anything to just military operations. I gave an example of a clandestine operation that was military, but..............come on........... surely you didn't think I was suggesting that the US was going to try to take Assange out with a Predator drone?


how is this 'helping [me] through a logical minefield'?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> how is this helping me through 'a logical minefield'?


 
It's a minefield of your own construction. It makes my work doubly hard.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> how is this 'helping [me] through a logical minefield'?


 
I don't believe anything can help you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> how is this 'helping [me] through a logical minefield'?


 
That isn't. What that post above is, is me, with a machete, trying to hack through the jungle in order to get a little light into you, there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I don't believe anything can help you.


how is this adding anything to the discussion?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> how is this adding anything to the discussion?


 
This has stopped being a discussion and has turned into a pillowfight where the pillowcases are stuffed with strawberry frappe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> This has stopped being a discussion and has turned into a pillowfight where the pillowcases are stuffed with strawberry frappe.


you do know my post was to lock&light, don't you?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you do know my post was to lock&light, don't you?


 
Yep; and my comment was to you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yep; and my comment was to you.


i gathered that, but it did not indicate in which way/s lock&light felt his comment was constructive. do you know what he thinks about his comment, or has he not yet shared that with you?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i gathered that, but it did not indicate in which way/s lock&light felt his comment was constructive. do you know what he thinks about his comment, or has he not yet shared that with you?


 
I got distracted for a moment. I was on flickr, reading about people with different problems than the drama of Julian Assange.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnade/


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2012)

*CIA rendition flights stopped by Swedish military*



> An acute diplomatic crisis broke out between the United States and Sweden in 2006 when Swedish authorities put a stop to CIA rendition flights, according to the latest revelation from Wikileaks.


----------



## cesare (Aug 29, 2012)

Wasn't that after the big kerfuffle over the Egyptian renditions, where the Swedes had to pay a load of guilt/compensation money to the individuals lifted?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2012)

Yep, the 2001 ones. Then wikileaks REVEALED TO THE WORLD the good example that Sweden (_tool of the US_ again today) set the world.


----------



## cesare (Aug 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, the 2001 ones. Then wikileaks REVEALED TO THE WORLD the good example that Sweden (_tool of the US_ again today) set the world.



Aye. They got turned over once (arguably once at least) and set about just trying to make sure it never happened again. They don't like being criticised, and they don't like being embarrassed. Edit, and they don't like being the centre of attention.


----------



## belboid (Aug 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> *CIA rendition flights stopped by Swedish military*


just before the election which returned the right-wing coalition then??


----------



## cesare (Sep 4, 2012)

The New Statesman has just published David Allen Green's latest legal debunking: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

WikiLeaks swiftly blocked David Allen Green on Twitter as a response.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 4, 2012)

This has gone through embarassment into tragedy and straight back into comedy.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> The New Statesman has just published David Allen Green's latest legal debunking: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange
> 
> WikiLeaks swiftly blocked David Allen Green on Twitter as a response.


And it's all gone quiet. Unless there are responses by serious players that i've missed?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

I know that _read the comments_ type posts are not particularly useful or helpful, but fucking hell, read the comments.


----------



## elbows (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I know that _read the comments_ type posts are not particularly useful or helpful, but fucking hell, read the comments.


 
Argh! Skimming one page of them was all I could manage. Mind you its always more fun when the author is prepared to chip in.



> Ho hum, same old crap from the same old crap. What won't you do for money Dave?


​


> Act for Mr Assange.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 4, 2012)

At this stage I don't care anymore if Assange is guilty or not, I just want him to do some time, and get his ugly mug out of the papers. It's not like Swedish prisons are pits of despair and filth anyway.


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

TruXta said:


> At this stage I don't care anymore if Assange is guilty or not, I just want him to do some time, and get his ugly mug out of the papers. It's not like Swedish prisons are pits of despair and filth anyway.


They're probably more comfortable than his current domicile. And the water here tastes better than in London.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> They're probably more comfortable than his current domicile. And the water here tastes better than in London.


 
Wouldn't surprise me at all.


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

Chomsky's right, though, in a recent Alternet article, that if Assange was an Iranian dissident fearing extradition to Russia, that someone prominent in the Swedish government would have said publically that he'd not be extradited.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 4, 2012)

If Assange had had any balls at all he'd have gone to Sweden, faced the charges and challenged the US to request his extradition. As it is he's just another narcissistic self-publicist with a bad case of rapey rapey.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> Chomsky's right, though, in a recent Alternet article, that if Assange was an Iranian dissident fearing extradition to Russia, that someone prominent in the Swedish government would have said publically that he'd not be extradited.


They have  - at least to the extent that they can. I.e he has a constitutional guarantee not to be extradited for espionage or to states where there is the death penalty for the alleged charges, that international law means that they can't say such a thing - and it's not the states job or position to do so (i'd love to see the argument from the left for such executive power) _Won't someone read the links._


----------



## laptop (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> Chomsky's right, though, in a recent Alternet article, that if Assange was an Iranian dissident fearing extradition to Russia, that someone prominent in the Swedish government would have said publically that he'd not be extradited.


 
Ooooh, can we play counterfactuals?


What if he were a Finnish dissident facing extradition to Belgium?


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They have  - at least to the extent that they can. I.e he has a constitutional guarantee not to be extradited for espionage or to states where there is the death penalty for the alleged charges, that international law means that they can't say such a thing - and it's not the states job or position to do so (i'd love to see the argument from the left for such executive power) _Won't someone read the links._


 There's nothing stopping a government figure speaking out, or underlining an existing legal fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> There's nothing stopping a government figure speaking out, or underlining an existing legal fact.


They have - at least to the extent that they can. What do you/he want - someone who has no authority to do something saying that they'll do something? And the consequent undermining of the legal system to the benefit of the executive this would entail? What is the point here?


----------



## cesare (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I know that _read the comments_ type posts are not particularly useful or helpful, but fucking hell, read the comments.



They're just, well, eek.

There's been a barrage on twitter since it was published but nothing of any note that I've noticed.


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They have - at least to the extent that they can. What do you/he want - someone who has no authority to do something saying that they'll do something? And the consequent undermining of the legal system to the benefit of the executive this would entail? What is the point here?


The point is that they would probably do just that if he was an Iranian. The Swedish government is not without authority in this matter.

edit: I don't "want" them to do anything. It's just worth pointing out the fact that they're deliberately making things easier for Assange to raise the spectre of US deportation.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> The point is that they would probably do just that if he was an Iranian. The Swedish government is not without authority in this matter.


They have - at least to the extent that they can. What else do you want? Those other grandstanding statements could only be based on the legal position - they they legally can't extradite someone to certain places. The exact same as with this case - as has been pointed out many times now. They have said the same as they would with these other hypothetical cases.


----------



## elbows (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> The point is that they would probably do just that if he was an Iranian. The Swedish government is not without authority in this matter.


 
Probably?

Is there actual history to use as a guide here?


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

elbows said:


> Probably?
> 
> Is there actual history to use as a guide here?


None that I know of


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They have - at least to the extent that they can. What else do you want? Those other grandstanding statements could only be based on the legal position - they they legally can't extradite someone to certain places. The exact same as with this case - as has been pointed out many times now. They have said the same as they would with these other hypothetical cases.


I've been living in Sweden all this time and tbh I've not noticed the Swedish government making the point that there's a clear legal position here.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random, just a quick question, have you been following the discussion about what guarantees that the swedish state can give following the original david allen green (i almost wrote cole there) article and greenwalds response?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> I've been living in Sweden all this time and tbh I've not noticed the Swedish government making the point that there's a clear legal position here.


Well, i've noticed state reps saying time after time what the legal position is.


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well, i've noticed state reps saying time after time what the legal position is.


I may have noticed this as well, but post a link if it's no bother. What I'm talking about, though, is elected politicians.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> I may have noticed this as well, but post a link if it's no bother. What I'm talking about, though, is elected politicians.


Why? Why should an elected politician say that they guarantee that the Swedish state will not extradite assange? They can make no such guarantee, they have no power to make such a guarantee. Are you really saying that what this situation requires is a politician grandstanding? What do you want to happen here?

Have you really not seen any elected politicians saying that the swedish state has legal obligations that it must fulfill and that this may lead to the state deciding not to extradite him?


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why? Why should an elected politician say that they guarantee that the Swedish state will not extradite assange? They can make no such guarantee, they have no power to make such a guarantee. Are you really saying that what this situation requires is a politician grandstanding? What do you want to happen here?


An elected politician could draw attention to the existing legal fact that no US extradition could happen. It would be simple, and so simple that it would probably be done for the benefit of a dissident from a country like Iran or Belarus.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> An elected politician could draw attention to the existing legal fact that no US extradition could happen. It would be simple, and so simple that it would probably be done for the benefit of a dissident from a country like Iran or Belarus.


First off, it's not true that no legal extradition could happen. Secondly, this is exactly what loads of people have been saying - that there is constitutional guarantees that make his extradition harder from sweden than the UK. How would an elected politician jumping on the back change anything? What do you or chomsky think this would do?


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How would an elected politician jumping on the back change anything? What do you or chomsky think this would do?


 Is this a serious question? Edit: and through out I've meant government politicians.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> Is this a serious question?


Yes.


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

When people in government speak out, people tend to listen. They think that this government is what runs the state.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> When people in government speak out, people tend to listen. They think that this government is what runs the state.


What does it matter if someone prominent if govt talks out about guaranteeing that the Swedish state will not extradite assange if what they say is nonsense, if what they say is untrue, if they have no power whatsoever to ensure that what they say will not happen will not happen? You've taken a wrong turning here.


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What does it matter if someone prominent if govt talks out about guaranteeing that the Swedish state will not extradite assange if what they say is nonsense, if what they say is untrue, if they have no power whatsoever to ensure that what they say will not happen will not happen? You've taken a wrong turning here.


They could simply draw attention to the existing legal safeguards Assange would have. It's about making a point.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> They could simply draw attention to the existing legal safeguards Assange would have. It's about making a point.


Is that the point chomsky was making? That there are legal protections in sweden that would mean that assange would be less likely to be extradited from there and so should go to sweden forthwith? Or was he suggesting that they have not said or done anything like this because they want to extradite him and have already secretly signed up for it?


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is that the point chomsky was making? That there are legal protections in sweden that would mean that assange would be less likely to be extradited from there and so should go to sweden forthwith? Or was he suggesting that they have not said or done anything like this because they want to extradite him and have already secretly signed up for it?


Here's his counterfactual: "Sweden would not hesitate to pursue its sole announced concern, accepting the offer to interrogate Assange in London. It would declare that if Assange returned to Sweden (as he has agreed to do), he would not be extradited to Russia, where chances of a fair trial would be slight."

It doesn't seem to me that he's saying Sweden is in on it. Whether Chom thinks this or not, it still stands to reason that the politicians, in Sweden and the UK, who've been loudly talking about Assange's legal process, would also be saying things in his defence if he was being threatened by politicians and pundits in Russia or Iran.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Random said:


> Here's his counterfactual: "Sweden would not hesitate to pursue its sole announced concern, accepting the offer to interrogate Assange in London. It would declare that if Assange returned to Sweden (as he has agreed to do), he would not be extradited to Russia, where chances of a fair trial would be slight."
> 
> It doesn't seem to me that he's saying Sweden is in on it. Whether Chom thinks this or not, it still stands to reason that the politicians, in Sweden and the UK, who've been loudly talking about Assange's legal process, would also be saying things in his defence if he was being threatened by politicians and pundits in Russia or Iran.


The implication is quite clear - sweden is not doing this (and this article talks about something other than making an announcement) because it has an agenda other than strict legality which it is working towards.


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The implication is quite clear - sweden is not doing this (and this article talks about something other than making an announcement) because it has an agenda other than strict legality which it is working towards.


I'm happy to take Chomsky's article at face value. Hoping he's not lost it.


----------



## elbows (Sep 4, 2012)

Oh I just read that Chomsky article. He didnt mention Iran in conjunction with Assange or Sweden at all, purely Russia.

Given the point it looks like he was making, it may be useful to note what William Hague said just the other day, trying to give reassurances that the UK would do its bit if the US was trying to extradite Assange into a situation incompatible with our human rights laws in regards things like the death penalty. If it were Russia rather than the USA, such stuff would have been heard sooner and been delivered with a lot more gusto. But then the entire politics and some of the legal situation would likely have been quite different too, not to mention that Russia often takes a different approach to dealing with its enemies.

I dont think Chomsky has lost it, but even if he were not as old as he now is its somewhat inevitable that his focus tends towards a set of familiar and well-trodden themes. The wikileaks story has too many of the usual attractions for Chomsky to expect him to explore the other stuff in any depth, sadly. I'd rather he did, and remembering to briefly acknowledge the sex crime justice aspect using slightly ambiguous language is less than I would hope for, but no shock. He put his name to that letter some months back that demonstrated well what the priorities were, and they were nothing to do with rape. Many people cant help themselves but to make the propaganda that suits them out of this story.

I'm not sure Chomsky would be happy with you taking his article at face value, analysis is king


----------



## Random (Sep 4, 2012)

elbows said:


> Given the point it looks like he was making, it may be useful to note what William Hague said just the other day, trying to give reassurances that the UK would do its bit if the US was trying to extradite Assange into a situation incompatible with our human rights laws in regards things like the death penalty.


 Well I'll hold my hands up now and say I'm fairly wrong on this. Hague saying this kind of thing is exactly what I say Swedish politicians should be saying http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=791558  Thanks for bringing that to my attention, elbows.


----------



## cesare (Sep 4, 2012)

The people who put up Assange's bail money are now waiting until the 3rd October to find out the result, the hearing was postponed.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 6, 2012)

cesare said:


> The people who put up Assange's bail money are now waiting until the 3rd October to find out the result, the hearing was postponed.


 ((((Celebrity backers))))


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Sep 6, 2012)

Looks like somehow the BBC story from 2010 about the arrest warrant being dropped has been bumped back into the top stories list.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2012)

I have a feeling that come the start of 2013 Julian Assange will still be resident at the Equadorian embassy.


----------



## cesare (Sep 6, 2012)

Wilf said:


> ((((Celebrity backers))))



I must admit, I am a bit "haha!" about that


----------



## Wilf (Sep 7, 2012)

cesare said:


> I must admit, I am a bit "haha!" about that


 ((((((Jemima Khan's last halfpenny))))


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2012)

Ken loach's twenty grand


----------



## cesare (Sep 7, 2012)

They'll all be destitute


----------



## TitanSound (Sep 7, 2012)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Looks like somehow the BBC story from 2010 about the arrest warrant being dropped has been bumped back into the top stories list.


 
I just saw that, was going to post it and then checked the date. Thought it odd that it would not be at least in the headline section.


----------



## spliff (Sep 7, 2012)

Fuck! I missed the 2010, I just saw August and thought 'old news' I didn't realise how old.


----------



## Random (Sep 8, 2012)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Looks like somehow the BBC story from 2010 about the arrest warrant being dropped has been bumped back into the top stories list.


There was a recent tweet from Wikileaks with that link.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 8, 2012)

How many days has he been living in the stationary cupboard for now?


----------



## Zabo (Sep 10, 2012)

From one of the most respected journalists. Hit it on the head as far as I'm concerned.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-...ssault-on-freedom-and-a-mockery-of-journalism


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2012)

8115 said:


> How many days has he been living in the stationary cupboard for now?


 


Don't worry about days, by the end we will be measuring in months and years !!


----------



## laptop (Sep 10, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Don't worry about days, by the end we will be measuring in months and years !!


 
What _is_ the record for embassy-sitting?

I give you our first contestant: József Mindszenty, 15 years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2012)

The iranians were in the septick embassy in tehran for 444 days


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2012)

laptop said:


> What _is_ the record for embassy-sitting?
> 
> I give you our first contestant: József Mindszenty, 15 years.


 
I think 15 years might be the record. Not sure Assange will manage that long.


----------



## laptop (Sep 10, 2012)

Mindszenty, after all, was a professional celibate...


----------



## belboid (Sep 10, 2012)

Viraj Mendis managed two years - albeit in a church rather than an embassy.  Could be the UK record holder


----------



## 8115 (Sep 11, 2012)

Looks like Assange is walking the streets again.  Sweden have cancelled the warrant.  (Story is from August so not really sure what's going on).  Unless he still fancies living in Equador.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316


----------



## 8115 (Sep 11, 2012)

Oh, I've caught up now.  Thanks


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

Nope. Thats just some nonsense from 2010


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 11, 2012)

8115 said:


> Looks like Assange is walking the streets again. Sweden have cancelled the warrant. (Story is from August so not really sure what's going on). Unless he still fancies living in Equador.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316


 
Your article is from 2010. It would be from when the first prosecutor dropped the rape charges, and before the second prosecutor resurrected them.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 11, 2012)

BBC website must be badly arranged/ archived.


----------



## laptop (Sep 11, 2012)

8115 said:


> BBC website must be badly arranged/ archived.


 
Nah. The culprit is the "Most Popular" box near bottom right. It throws up weird shit because people do weird shit. Someone links a decade-old skateboarding dog from 4chan, up it comes... and people don't read the date, because it's "on the front page".

Perhaps they should stick the date alongside the link to demostrate that weird shit is happening.


----------



## elbows (Sep 13, 2012)

New lows, see how far they will stoop. Who needs your enemies to undermine support when you are so good at soiling yourself?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/13/wikileaks-benghazi-attack-julian-assange


> WikiLeaks has been accused of crass self-centredness after it intimated that its founder Julian Assange's current refuge inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London in part explained or even justified Wednesday's attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi which killed the ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.
> A post on the official WikiLeaks Twitter feed, which is generally presumed to be operated by Assange, read: "By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorian embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world."


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2012)

Yes, they also deleted it then retweeted messages of support for the original message.


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2012)

Good grief. Plus also "siege"


----------



## elbows (Sep 13, 2012)

Its a good thing I have a fair grip on the more fanciful side of my imagination, otherwise I'd be starting to suspect there was a new way to fall on your sword without actually dying. "Do not kill me oh superpower, I will not grovel publicly before you but I will discredit myself more effectively than your smears and showtrials could. I will neuter myself and become a useful idiot that serves your cause. You have nothing to fear from me, I am just another actor and Im not really looking to usurp the director'.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 13, 2012)

the daft bored shite


----------



## elbows (Sep 13, 2012)

And when the ego dam gushes open years too soon, I'll see you on the daft side of the goon.


----------



## laptop (Sep 14, 2012)

elbows said:


> Its a good thing I have a fair grip on the more fanciful side of my imagination, otherwise I'd be starting to suspect there was a new way to fall on your sword without actually dying. "Do not kill me oh superpower, I will not grovel publicly before you but I will discredit myself more effectively than your smears and showtrials could. I will neuter myself and become a useful idiot that serves your cause. You have nothing to fear from me, I am just another actor and Im not really looking to usurp the director'.


 
I too have had to stop myself wondering how the CIA inserted Assange into WikiLeaks


----------



## Balbi (Sep 14, 2012)

laptop said:


> I too have had to stop myself wondering how the CIA inserted Assange into WikiLeaks



Given the form, while they were asleep would seem most likely.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 27, 2012)

NUS ban rape denier Galloway, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mob..._n_1918468.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&just_reloaded=1 nice letter from ex swappie  Hoveman.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 28, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> NUS ban rape denier Galloway, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mob..._n_1918468.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&just_reloaded=1 nice letter from ex swappie Hoveman.


the scumsuckers on socialist unity are salivating at the prospect of Galloway suing the NUS.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 2, 2012)

And the rape denying cunt does so
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19793828


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> And the rape denying cunt does so
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19793828


He's going to find that video hard to explain, eh.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 2, 2012)

Truth to the left of him, truth to the right of him, into the valley of schadenfreude rode the George Galloway.


----------



## elbows (Oct 8, 2012)

Bye bye bail money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19868355


> *Nine people who put up bail sureties for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange have been ordered by a judge to pay thousands of pounds each.*
> Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle said they must pay a total of £93,500 by 6 November.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 8, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> And the rape denying cunt does so
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19793828


 
Not the smartest post, given that he's suing for what you've just repeated.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 8, 2012)

elbows said:


> Bye bye bail money.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19868355


Although the lucky bastards are not having to pay the full amount they originally put up as surety for Assange, as the Judge took pity on their "financial circumstances" and honourable intentions. It looks like they will only have to pay 60% or so of the full amount. Quite how anyone who can afford to put up £20k can plead poverty to the court is beyond me, especially when Assange was a known risk for absconding.



> 1.
> Tricia David £10,000
> 2.
> Caroline Evans £15,000
> ...


 
Full judgement here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sureties-julian-assange-08102012.pdf


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Not the smartest post, given that he's suing for what you've just repeated.


They'll never get us all.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 8, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> And the rape denying cunt does so
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19793828


 


Spymaster said:


> Not the smartest post, given that he's suing for what you've just repeated.


I don't think Galloway will sue anyone - it's just sabre rattling in my opinion. He hasn't got a hope of winning IMO and if you read the news reports carefully you'll see nowhere does it actually say he will sue. Also the NUS haven't had any formal contact from him. I think he's allowed the story to get out to save a bit of face and hope it all blows over...


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 8, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I don't think Galloway will sue anyone - it's just sabre rattling in my opinion. He hasn't got a hope of winning IMO and if you read the news reports carefully you'll see nowhere does it actually say he will sue. Also the NUS haven't had any formal contact from him. I think he's allowed the story to get out to save a bit of face and hope it all blows over...


 
I don't know. Much as I detest Galloway I think he'd stand a good chance of winning if he sued.

For him to be a "rape denier" it would have to have been established that Assange had raped someone, and that's not the case.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I don't know. Much as I detest Galloway I think he'd stand a good chance of winning if he sued.
> 
> For him to be a "rape denier" it would have to have been established that Assange had raped someone, and that's not the case.


No, the claim is about _what legally constitutes rape_. He hasn't a leg to stand on.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 8, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> For him to be a "rape denier" it would have to have been established that Assange had raped someone, and that's not the case.


No I don't agree with that. There is a clear description of rape which Assange is accused of - Galloway says it is "bad sexual etiquette". That's rape denial imo, regardless of whether it actually happened (and we don't know that because Assange faced a trial yet.)

E2A: And just to recap, Assange is accused of holding a woman down with his body weight, holding her arms by her side, and forcing his cock into her. That's rape, not poor sexual etiquette.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 8, 2012)

Yeah, fair enough.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 8, 2012)

Tony Benn?


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 17, 2012)

just found this, seems apt


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

We have decided not to show this newsnight edition.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 17, 2012)

I should imagine the daytime occupants of the Equadorian embassy are starting to get a mite irritated on ariving at work to smell the aroma of Assange's socks drying on the radiators. Perhaps there will come a time when their patience has worn too thin and they might just send him out for the pizza!!


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

On the radio they have just said it has cost the met over 1 million pounds to guard the Ecuadorean embassy since Julian Assange took refuge there. I thought every embassy in London had police officers on duty 24/7


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2012)

Assange still in the Equadorian Embassy then?
What is it about guests and three days, something like fish stink on the third day!!
Bet Assange really stinks now!

/my six monthly status check


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2012)

I saw something from WikiLeaks that he's releasing a book about what really happened in Sweden.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 28, 2012)

More farty fog. He issued an ultimatum to the U.S claiming he'd come out if they stopped investigating wikileaks.

Because that's why he's in there. Fucks sake.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 20, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20790604

hes making a speech today

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 27, 2013)

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange_ I always thought this was the real Julian Assange account but looking at the replies to some of the tweets maybe not?
(I haven't read this thread yet so apologies if it's already been covered.)


----------



## UrbaneFox (Apr 28, 2013)

Why hasn't he cracked up? Even more.


----------



## RedDragon (Apr 28, 2013)

You'd think having all that time to kill he'd tweet more frequently - and don't you just hate it when someone on Twitter is followed by 120,000 but only follows 88.


----------



## teqniq (May 20, 2013)

Julian Assange reveals GCHQ messages discussing Swedish extradition



> Authorities at GCHQ, the government eavesdropping agency, are facing embarrassing revelations about internal correspondence in which Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is discussed, apparently including speculation that he is being framed by Swedish authorities seeking his extradition on rape allegations.
> 
> The records were revealed by Assange himself in a Sunday night interview with Spanish television programme Salvados in which he explained that an official request for information gave him access to instant messages that remained unclassified by GCHQ.
> 
> ...


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2013)

Kid Eternity's thread had a link that gave us a lot of information about Assange. He hides the truth in plain sight (6hour interview); he will provide information, but it may not be all the information and it may be provided by stages; he uses freedom of information to alter courses of events and dominate; it could be a social experiment but he acknowledges the business potential.

Edit: I would have him killed and quickly, but that's just me.


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2013)

I really don't like him.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

> The records were revealed by Assange himself in a Sunday night interview with Spanish television programme Salvados in which he explained that an official request for information gave him access to instant messages that remained unclassified by GCHQ.


Er...no it doesn't. What do they even mean by official? It's a standard Subject access request. Ooh what hi-tech jinks!


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I really don't like him.


 
But what he dıd wıth Wıkıleaks was extremely ımportant and unbelıevably courageous.

It certaınly scared the hell out of the US government--somethıng that badly needs doıng and that no-one else has managed to do for 30 years.


----------



## smokedout (May 20, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> But what he dıd wıth Wıkıleaks was extremely ımportant and unbelıevably courageous.
> 
> It certaınly scared the hell out of the US government--somethıng that badly needs doıng and that no-one else has managed to do for 30 years.


 
he did it on his own did he?


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2013)

smokedout said:


> he did it on his own did he?


 
He's sufferıng the consequences (almost) alone.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2013)

he's hiding in a nice embassy while the other bloke is in a us military nick. I know which of those housing options I would choose


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> he's hiding in a nice embassy while the other bloke is in a us military nick. I know which of those housing options I would choose


The other bloke is collateral damage.


----------



## smokedout (May 20, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> He's sufferıng the consequences (almost) alone.


 
he's suffering the consequences of his own actions, and making things more dangerous for the people who actually did the work and took the risks behind the scenes


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> he's hiding in a nice embassy while the other bloke is in a us military nick. I know which of those housing options I would choose


 
I wouldn't choose eıther of them.  He dıd though.

A lack of bravery ıs the one charge that can't be levelled agaınst Assange.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2013)

smokedout said:


> he's suffering the consequences of his own actions


 
Yes, of hıs heroıc actıons.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 20, 2013)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, of hıs heroıc actıons.



Heroic (alleged) sex pestering.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Heroic (alleged) sex pestering.


 
If you serıously belıeve those are the (alleged) actıons of whıch he ıs sufferıng the consequences you are an extremely daft person.


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

Now: KISS


----------



## danny la rouge (May 20, 2013)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> If you serıously belıeve those are the (alleged) actıons of whıch he ıs sufferıng the consequences you are an extremely daft person.



I believe that he should have answered the allegations rather than running away (to a country that has an extradition treaty with the US). And I believe that the more he says and does the guiltier it makes him look.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> I believe that he should have answered the allegations rather than running away .


Even if he's sure he's being fitted up?


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even if he's sure he's being fitted up?


Especially.

Did you really post that?

What about if the woman really thinks she was raped?


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even if he's sure he's being fitted up?


Do _you_ think he should face the allegations In Sweden - regardless of what _he_ thinks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Especially.
> 
> Did you really post that?
> 
> What about if the woman really thinks she was raped?


If he's sure he's being fitted up and that there isn't anyone out there that thinks she has been raped by him, and he believes that if he goes to Sweden something bad will happen to him, he should still go? Do you really think that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do _you_ think he should face the allegations In Sweden - regardless of what _he_ thinks.


If he knows he's being fitted up, I can see why he would do everything he possibly can to avoid going to Sweden.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If he's sure he's being fitted up and that there isn't anyone out there that thinks she has been raped by him, and he believes that if he goes to Sweden something bad will happen to him, he should still go? Do you really think that?


Er...what if there is a woman who thinks she has been raped by him.  You know, the actual situation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Er...what if there is a woman who thinks she has been raped by him. You know, the actual situation.


'the actual situation'? You know what the actual situation is? You know more than me in that case.


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'the actual situation'? You know what the actual situation is? You know more than me in that case.


It's pretty clear that there is at least one woman who claims she was raped. Do you deny this? If not, that is _the actual situation_.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If he knows he's being fitted up, I can see why he would do everything he possibly can to avoid going to Sweden.


Can you answer the question? This glib little trick is not good enough. I asked you if _you_ think he should go to sweden to answer the rape and other charges, not what _he_ would do if he thinks something.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'the actual situation'? You know what the actual situation is? You know more than me in that case.


I think i do, and i think many others do - given that rape is one of the things they want to extradite him for. Do keep up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It's pretty clear that there is at least one woman who claims she was raped. Do you deny this? If not, that is _the actual situation_.


And he has claimed that this is part of a plot to get him. Two claims that are both part of the _actual situation_.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

Maybe news of this rape allegation might change lbj's mind - then again, he bailed when it was brought up last time. (Which makes his not knowing a bit hmmmm)


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And he has claimed that this is part of a plot to get him. Two claims that are both part of the _actual situation_.


Do you now recognise that there is a rape claim against him? That's a start.

Do you think law works on the basis of how the accused feels or something?


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And he has claimed that this is part of a plot to get him. Two claims that are both part of the _actual situation_.


I'd say the rape allegation is a little less extraordinary than his plot allegation. Meaning, if he's got any balls he'd face the charges.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And he has claimed that this is part of a plot to get him. Two claims that are both part of the _actual situation_.


The actual situation that you didn't know about?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I'd say the rape allegation is a little less extraordinary than his plot allegation. Meaning, if he's got any balls he'd face the charges.


You don't believe him. Fine. I find his allegation at least plausible. So to answer butchersapron's question, I don't know. I don't know whether or not he's being fitted up.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I'd say the rape allegation is a little less extraordinary than his plot allegation. Meaning, if he's got any balls he'd face the charges.


The quality of the claim is not what should be talked about - that it is being claimed is what is key.

(lbj runs through thread to skim read his own posts, ignores everyone else)


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't believe him. Fine. I find his allegation at least plausible. So to answer butchersapron's question, I don't know. I don't know whether or not he's being fitted up.


I didn't ask you that - i did ask you not to offer glib cowardly get outs. 

Does this special treatment of the accused extend to all accused? What about the victims? Are their claims to have at least equal weight? How many times have you waffled on about the rule of law on here?


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't believe him. Fine. I find his allegation at least plausible. So to answer butchersapron's question, I don't know. I don't know whether or not he's being fitted up.


Doesn't matter if I believe him or not. He's a coward plain and simple, for running away from rape charges.


butchersapron said:


> The quality of the claim is not what should be talked about - that it is being claimed is what is key.
> 
> (lbj runs through thread to skim read his own posts, ignores everyone else)


Fair point.


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2013)

additional broadside for lbj's sexism and insult, for the hell of it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't ask you that - i did ask you not to offer glib cowardly get outs.
> 
> Does this special treatment of the accused extend to all accused? What about the victims? Are their claims to have at least equal weight? How many times have you waffled on about the rule of law on here?


I now have no idea what you're on about. It's not glib or cowardly - it's quite a straightforward answer. You asked me whether Assange should go to Sweden. I answered 'I don't know, depends whether he really is being fitted up or not'. As for me waffling on about the rule of law, you've lost me.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

And off he glibs.


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I now have no idea what you're on about. It's not glib or cowardly - it's quite a straightforward answer. You asked me whether Assange should go to Sweden. I answered 'I don't know, depends whether he really is being fitted up or not'. As for me waffling on about the rule of law, you've lost me.


Answer this then - why should Assange's claim that he's the victim of a plot take precedence over this woman's claim that she was raped?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Answer this then - why should Assange's claim that he's the victim of a plot take precedence over this woman's claim that she was raped?


Take precedence with whom?


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Take precedence with whom?


With Assange. With the courts. What kinda plotters would plan to abduct/extradite Assange in one of the least authoritarian countries in the world?


----------



## smokedout (May 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> With Assange. With the courts. What kinda plotters would plan to abduct/extradite Assange in one of the least authoritarian countries in the world?


 
the kind of plotters who did this to keep in him sweden, but then let him leave


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

smokedout said:


> the kind of plotters who did this to keep in him sweden, but then let him leave


The sheer ineptitude does suggest that government employees are at work here


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Take precedence with whom?


With anyone.


----------



## smokedout (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If he's sure he's being fitted up and that there isn't anyone out there that thinks she has been raped by him, and he believes that if he goes to Sweden something bad will happen to him, he should still go? Do you really think that?


 
how many cities do you think there were where the americans had two women with fully checkable identities, families, friends, careers and histories secretly acting as agents with the aim of tricking julian assange into raping them on the off chance he happened to be in town?


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

Thousands. Cuz that's how tragic and heroic and allround sexy empire-toppling beast-like he is.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

smokedout said:


> how many cities do you think there were where the americans had two women with fully checkable identities, families, friends, careers and histories secretly acting as agents with the aim of tricking julian assange into raping them on the off chance he happened to be in town?


It's not the likelihood that this happened that he's even questioning - it's that someone accused of rape _should not have to face trial if they think that they are innocent._ This is possibly the maddest stuff i have ever heard on here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

Don't misrepresent me, please. I was very clear.


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

Clear as mud, lbj. Come on, you can do so much better than this.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't misrepresent me, please. I was very clear.


Was you fuck. If so you can post the very clear stuff again - right?


----------



## Greebo (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's not the likelihood that this happened that he's even questioning - it's that someone accused of rape _should not have to face trial if they think that they are innocent._ This is possibly the maddest stuff i have ever heard on here.


Quite - a bloke I knew who was falsely accused of rape* wasn't worried about having to appear in court because as far as he was concerned it was the only way in which he could officially clear his name.  Come the day of the trial, the judge threw the case out.

*Before anyone shouts me down on this, he wasn't physically able to do what the young woman said he'd done in the way which she said he'd done it.


----------



## smokedout (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't misrepresent me, please. I was very clear.


 


> If he's sure he's being fitted up and that there isn't anyone out there that thinks she has been raped by him, and he believes that if he goes to Sweden something bad will happen to him, he should still go? Do you really think that?


 
that is pretty clear, if he doesnt think he raped anyone he shouldnt have to go to sweden


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

Quite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

smokedout said:


> that is pretty clear, if he doesnt think he raped anyone he shouldnt have to go to sweden


No, there is more to it than that - if he believes there is a plot to get him and that 'something bad will happen to him', such as him being bundled off to the US, which is what he says he fears will happen.


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, there is more to it than that - if he believes there is a plot to get him and that 'something bad will happen to him', such as him being bundled off to the US, which is what he says he fears will happen.


I can't believe you think that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether he should go to Sweden to face charges or not. I literally find it impossible to reconcile you holding this position with what I've learnt about you over the last 6 years or so I've spent here. WTF man. WTF.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I can't believe you think that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether he should go to Sweden to face charges or not. I literally find it impossible to reconcile you holding this position with what I've learnt about you over the last 6 years or so I've spent here. WTF man. WTF.


If he genuinely believes that this is a plot and he'll be bundled off to the US if he is extradited to Sweden, he would be a bit mad not to resist it with all his might, no? That's all I'm saying.


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If he genuinely believes that this is a plot and he'll be bundled off to the US if he is extradited to Sweden, he would be a bit mad not to resist it with all his might, no? That's all I'm saying.


I can understand that he'd think so. I can't understand that you'd salute him doing so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I can understand that he'd think so. I can't understand that you'd salute him doing so.


I don't salute him. I don't take a position either way. I don't know.


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

What is there not to know? He's facing rape charges. He refuses to face them. Do you condone or condemn this?


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What is there not to know? He's facing rape charges. He refuses to face them. Do you condone or condemn this?


_I don't know._


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _I don't know._


You do know. As do I. As do most people I'd wager.


----------



## elbows (May 20, 2013)

The opportunity for Assange to bravely use knowledge of plots and risks was before he got his dick out. He didnt, and he ignored multiple people who tried to advise him of the risks on this front.

Its no good trying to play that game after the event. No good for the alleged victims, for the concept of justice and openness, for his own name or for wikileaks the organisation. But thats the game he chose to play, and that some still buy into. Shameful.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What is there not to know? He's facing rape charges. He refuses to face them. Do you condone or condemn this?


I can think of three possibilities:

1. He's lying his face off about this being part of a conspiracy to get him.

2. He has let his paranoia get the better of him and he believes that this is part of a conspiracy to get him, but in reality it is just what it is being presented to be by the Swedish authorities.

3. This is part of a conspiracy to get him. He's been set up and has real reason to fear that nasty things will happen to him if he goes to Sweden.

1. might be true. 2. might be true, after all, he can be sure that there really are forces out to get him, so it would not be surprising if he started to become paranoid. And 3. might be true, after all, there really are forces out to get him - we can be pretty sure of that. I don't feel able to make a proper judgement about the likelihood of each possibility.


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2013)

Why won't you answer the question?

Edit: the important one


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Does this special treatment of the accused extend to all accused? What about the victims? Are their claims to have at least equal weight? *How many times have you waffled on about the rule of law on here?*


Just to remind you of the last time you made a weird statement like that. It was on the Jimmy Savile thread, on which you were having a go at me for taking the accusations against Savile seriously.


----------



## TruXta (May 20, 2013)

None of those matter. He faces allegations, he refuses to face them. These are the only pertinent facts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Why won't you answer the question?


That is my answer. Whether or not I condemn or condone his actions depends on which of those possibilities is true. Sometimes the answer to a yes/no question is 'it depends'.


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is my answer. Whether or not I condemn or condone his actions depends on which of those possibilities is true.


I'm thoroughly pissed off with you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm thoroughly pissed off with you.


If he has good reason to believe that this is part of a plot to get him, I don't condemn his actions. If he doesn't, then I do. That's all I can do. As I said, it depends.


----------



## smokedout (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can think of three possibilities:
> 
> 1. He's lying his face off about this being part of a conspiracy to get him.
> 
> ...


 
so just in case lets call the victims liars and let assange go, is that what you're saying?


----------



## smokedout (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't salute him. I don't take a position either way. I don't know.


 
would you take that position with anyone evading justice for anything if they said they were being set up?


----------



## weltweit (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ......
> 3. This is part of a conspiracy to get him. He's been set up and has real reason to fear that nasty things will happen to him if he goes to Sweden.
> .........


 
I think it would be easier for the US to get their hands on Assange from Britain, we have a friendly extradition arrangement with the US. They could have applied to get him from here. And if they were conspiring, still, they could perhaps get the Swedish request quashed so they could have first dibs.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If he has good reason to believe that this is part of a plot to get him, I don't condemn his actions. If he doesn't, then I do. That's all I can do. As I said, it depends.


I can't believe that you have told me you are sexist.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What kinda plotters would plan to abduct/extradite Assange in one of the least authoritarian countries in the world?


 
The CIA.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

smokedout said:


> how many cities do you think there were where the americans had two women with fully checkable identities, families, friends, careers and histories secretly acting as agents with the aim of tricking julian assange into raping them on the off chance he happened to be in town?


 
At a rough guess I'd say about 10,000.

The USA has deep cover agents ın pretty much every major cıty ın the world.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> I can't believe that you have told me you are sexist.


I resent that. So there we go. We're pissed off with each other now.

Just to get this straight, I am sexist for refusing to unconditionally condemn Julian Assange?

Ok, I will leave the thread now. I'm fucking pissed off with you.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It's pretty clear that there is at least one woman who claims she was raped. Do you deny this? If not, that is _the actual situation_.


 
But that ıs not what Butchersapron _saıd _was ''the actual sıtuatıon.''

As you know very well.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> The CIA.


Right under the noses of the world press? Yeah right.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I resent that. So there we go. We're pissed off with each other now.
> 
> Just to get this straight, I am sexist for refusing to unconditionally condemn Julian Assange?
> 
> Ok, I will leave the thread now. I'm fucking pissed off with you.


No, you are sexist because (a) you do not take these rape complaints seriously - and bear in mind Assange has admitted to one count already  (b) I have given you information that I took the trouble to establish, that Assange has openly talked about domination - and you brush over this as if it was nothing (c) we have established that Assange will casually leave collateral damage in the pursuit of [whatever pursuit he has] so the casual dominance of women (ie rape) was probably accidental but entirely predictable, in any event they're collateral damage and he doesn't feel inclined to account for that ... I could go on, but you're probably bored. I don't care that you're pissed off with me btw.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Right under the noses of the world press? Yeah right.


 
They do have form for that sort of thıng you know.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> They do have form for that sort of thıng you know.


In Sweden? I think not. Extraordinary rendition yes, but that's not what's gonna happen if he was to man up and face his charges.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> In Sweden? I think not. Extraordinary rendition yes, but that's not what's gonna happen if he was to man up and face his charges.


 
Well I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bet my lıfe on the CIA beıng afraıd to face crıtıcısm from tut-tuttıng European lıberals.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bet my lıfe on the CIA beıng afraıd to face crıtıcısm from tut-tuttıng European lıberals.


The Swedish government might feel differently. As might the Swedish people. At the end of the day it'll be up to the Swedish government, not the CIA.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Oh not this fucking shite again.

Julian's put up so many smokescreens about the reasons why he can't go and answer charges, skipping from reason to reason as glibly as Jazzz refuses to answer questions. The extradition stuff as been completely wiped out by careful examination of e facts. The instant message details he's released are two employees having a guess about it - and leaping to conspiracy because they didnt believe that Julian could fuck up so badly and be that much of an egomaniac. They are wrong.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> Assange has openly talked about domination - and you brush over this as if it was nothing


 
Hang on a second, you mean _sexual _domınatıon?

I must have mıssed that.

I've seen hım talk about other kınds of domınatıon though, wıth great ınsıght and ıntellıgence:

''During the interview with Venezuelan TV station teleSUR from London’s Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange condemned an _“avalanche of totalitarianism”_ incited by the US government. He argued that democracy in Western countries is an illusion, and that the constant surveillance of citizens is leading to the creation of a _“transnational totalitarian state._
_“This is an international phenomenon that isn’t just happening in the US, it’s bigger than the US and it’s taking us to a dark place,”_ Assange said. He alleged that human rights in the West are undergoing a severe deterioration, and that the public is being influenced by _“massive press manipulation.”_

http://rt.com/news/assange-interview-transnational-totalitarianism-021/

http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/12/12/social-media-creates-turnkey-totalitarian-state-assange/#sthash.cFoFJqMb.dpuf


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bet my lıfe on the CIA beıng afraıd to face crıtıcısm from tut-tuttıng European lıberals.


I accept that the CIA has the facility for all sorts of skulduggery we might think unlikely, but if you buy that here it also means they've chosen a really odd and risky strategy for getting him when any number of accidents would have got rid or more straightforward plots slung mud/discredited without the risks this scenario appears to have. It's 99-1 he's just a rapist on the run.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

No phil, domination in its broadest sense as a pursuit and what he does. Sexual dominance is a symptom of that.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> They do have form for that sort of thıng you know.



argument #13521 of Assange "But they extradited people last decade"

Rebuttal: Previous govt did, and got slapped down and had to compensate when revealed in court. Subsequent govt changed their stance regarding as a result. Decision would be made in Swedish Court, and given US rep for torture, would be incredibly unlikely. Thats assuming they even fucking want to.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Basically, to put forward Julian's arguments and defend him, you have to believe he is incapable of massively fucking up, that his egomania and cult of celebrity didnt get the better of him, and that nothing is actually his fault.

That he is too important to be brought to book like the rest of us, because he simply doesn't play by our rules.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bet my lıfe on the CIA beıng afraıd to face crıtıcısm from tut-tuttıng European lıberals.



Why do your "i" characters not have dots?


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> No phil, domination in its broadest sense as a pursuit and what he does.


 
To me he seems to be just about the most effectıve opponent of ''domınatıon ın ıts broadest sense'' on the planet.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Why do your "i" characters not have dots?


 
The CIA have extraorındarıly rendıtıoned them to Guatemala.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Basically, to put forward Julian's arguments and defend him, you have to believe he is incapable of massively fucking up, that his egomania and cult of celebrity didnt get the better of him, and that nothing is actually his fault.


 
I don't see why.

No-one postıng here has the slıghtest ıdea regardıng the truth or falsıty of the rape charges.

We do however know two thıngs for sure:

(a) The USA has a very pressıng motıve to set hım up, and:

(b)  He has saved mıllıons of lıves, at great personal rısk to hımself.

Gıven those facts, I'm ınclıned to gıve hım the benefıt of the doubt.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Why do your "i" characters not have dots?


Turkish keyboard I'm guessing.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

"Millions of lives" Phil?

Cockup over conspiracy every time.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

How the fuck has he saved millions of lives? Where's that Kool-Aid... And again it matters not a jot if he's innocent or guilty - what matters is that he refuses to face the charges and considers himself above the law.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> ...
> 
> No-one postıng here has the slıghtest ıdea regardıng the truth or falsıty of the rape charges.
> 
> ...


Because someone won't face them in an open court in a jurisdiction with an independent judiciary. Which looks suspect and supports Balbi's interpretation.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> To me he seems to be just about the most effectıve opponent of ''domınatıon ın ıts broadest sense'' on the planet.


Well, that's one way of looking at it, granted.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Every time someone's unpicked one of his defences, he springs another one. He's running flat out to avoid these charges, and throwing conspiracy, c.i.a, militant feminism and Bradley manning over his fucking shoulder to try and obscure that despite his work professionally, he has potentially fucked up massively in his personal life. His conflation of Wikileaks and his personal decisions is tarnishing wikileaks work.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> How the fuck has he saved millions of lives?


 
By throwıng a massıve spanner ın the works of the US war machıne.



TruXta said:


> And again it matters not a jot if he's innocent or guilty - what matters is that he refuses to face the charges and considers himself above the law.


 
''Above the law'' ındeed. Thıs ıs really gettıng surreal. _Above the fuckıng law?_

The US and UK governments have demonstrated very clearly just how much respect they have for the law, thank you very much.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> By throwıng a massıve spanner ın the works of the US war machıne.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, what evidence is there that a) he's thrown a spanner in the works of a war machine, and b) that this has saved any lives whatsoever? I'll tell you right now - zero. Zilch. Nada.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Spanner in the works my eye. They're still trundling on.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I resent that. So there we go. We're pissed off with each other now.
> 
> Just to get this straight, I am sexist for refusing to unconditionally condemn Julian Assange?
> 
> Ok, I will leave the thread now. I'm fucking pissed off with you.


You're sexist for believing (as you evidently do, no matter what you might think you do) that he doesn't need to face his charges because there might be a plot (hint: there's no plot) to extradite him to a US torture chamber.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Julian's an irritation, but revealing the past doesn't significantly impact the future. Drones, Pakistan, Libya - all headed on. He's done little more than post embarrassing photos of the US when they were drunk. It had initial impact, then faded. A


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Spanner in the works my eye. They're still trundling on.


 
It was a massıve spanner ın the works.  They had to re-organıze whole sectors of theır ıntellıgence--and that's the stuff they've _admıtted _to.  It slowed them down by months, thus savıng mıllıons of lıves.

But more ımportant that that, ıt showed them that they're not ınvulnerable.  Indeed, Assange's greatest achıevement to date has precısely been to remınd the crımınals who have seızed control of our governments that _they_ can be brought to account for theır actıons.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

What MILLIONS of lives? What accountability?


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Big problem Phil, Assange didn't do this. Hundreds of others did. He just took credit. Assange isn't Woodward and Bernstein. He's Ben Bradlee.

Funnily enough, none of the others are facing charges for rape. Just Julian.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

From an amoral perspective - best get out of rape free reason ever - "The CIA did it!"


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> He's done little more than post embarrassing photos of the US when they were drunk. It had initial impact, then faded.


 
Not ın the Islamıc world, I can tell you that for sure. Hıs revelatıons have been studıed ın great detaıl here, and they have forced many erstwhıle supporters of the West to adjust theır attıtudes--ın publıc at least.

Of course you are rıght to note that ın the UK and (to a lesser extent) ın the USA, the damnıng ınformatıon revealed by Wıkıleaks about the USA's world-wıde campaıgn of mass murder was swıftly swept under the carpet ın favor of salacıous allegatıons agaınst Assange.

However that ıs more a reflectıon of the state of publıc educatıon ın the Western world than anythıng else.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Big problem Phil, Assange didn't do this. Hundreds of others did. He just took credit.


 
And the punıshment.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

What millions of lives did he save?

"Salacious allegations" - nice slur on the woman who's pressed charges. Prick.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And the punıshment.



As far as I can tell, Bradley took the wrap. Julian has made every decision himself, and took the Fererro Rocher route. And the only concrete thing he has run from is charges of alleged rape. 

The rest all comes from Julian. The flight from Sweden, the refusal to return, the court case, the celebrity support, the appeal, the high court, the militant feminist argument, the conspiracy, the ill informed slating of the Swedish judicial system, the appeal, the flight to the embassy, the press conferences. All from his mouth or those he has employed to speak for him.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

I can put my cock in a woman even when she has told me not to, because I am fighting the real enemy!


----------



## elbows (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You're sexist for believing (as you evidently do, no matter what you might think you do) that he doesn't need to face his charges because there might be a plot (hint: there's no plot) to extradite him to a US torture chamber.


 
I usually go even further with this point by still allowing for the possibility of a plot and believing that this is still no excuse.

After all such plots would tend to operate by using the flaws of the target, and of being as much about smears as extradition. Under such conditions there is no great contradiction between justice for victims and what the target needs to do to preserve their reputation as much as possible in the right way - face the allegations head on. If the personality flaws are real and created victims then so be it, the plot already worked and you cant hide from it, your flaws are exposed and attempts to deny this only serve to reveal further flaws and cause further reputation damage. 

Thats not to say that I believe there must have been a plot, for the flaws of Assange could have blown up in his face at any point without malicious exposure by an enemy. I am simply trying to find a stance that can serve both those who think there was a plot and those that dont.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

There might well have been a plot of some kind. It has no bearing on the facts of the matter - he refuses to face the charges brought against him in what is considered one of the most liberal, open-minded and democratic nations on the planet.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Shit I forgot the political party he's starting in Australia. All with the aim of getting him another step away from the charges.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

Yeah, he'd fucking love him some diplomatic immunity wouldn't he.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Someone get me Mel Gibson and Danny Glover.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

Everyone suddenly starts thinking *unfettered* freedom of information is a human right, and will follow whoever ostensibly is fighting for that right. All of a sudden it becomes a rights issue.

But unfettered (unconditional) anything isn't a right, and even if you argue that it is -  if you want it *unfettered * you're also arguing for the opposite eg unfettered right to life is also unfettered right to murder.

So Assange followers are thinking he's fighting for the right to freedom of information, when what he's actually doing is shouting loudly and clearly "I'm in control of the information now, and I will let you have it all. I'll let you have X piece on X date and let you know when you can expect the next instalment"


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What millions of lives did he save?


 
Read the newspapers, I'm not goıng to do ıt for you.



TruXta said:


> "Salacious allegations" - nice slur on the woman who's pressed charges. Prick.


 
I saıd nothıng about the woman whatsoever, you ıllıterate twerp.  Moreover, you ıllıterate twerp, the salacıousness of the allegatıons has no bearıng on theır truth or falsıty.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

Anyway, it's nice to see that phil's still wrong on most things that matter.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Man whose professional aim is accountability and transparency in government starts political party devoted to transparency and accountability while refusing to be accountable or transparent in area of judicial interest which suffers most for a lack of accountability.

*slow hand clap*

This latest revelation is just a 'hello, I exist you know' to the media, who couldn't give a fuck. Celebrity Luke Bozier.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Man whose professional aim is accountability and transparency in government starts political party devoted to transparency and accountability while refusing to be accountable or transparent in area of judicial interest which suffers most for a lack of accountability.
> 
> *slow hand clap*
> 
> This latest revelation is just a 'hello, I exist you know' to the media, who couldn't give a fuck. Celebrity Luke Bozier.


If that's what you accept his professional aim is of course. It might be. What's his personal aim though?


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

Twenty-two mınutes.

That's rıght.  Just twenty-two befuddled, head-scratchıng, pencıl-chewıng mınutes.

That's how long ıt took Truxta to get from here:



TruXta said:


> (hint: there's no plot)


 
To here:



TruXta said:


> There might well have been a plot of some kind.


 
It's not quıte hıs personal best (that remaıns at a seemıngly unassaılable SIX mınutes back ın February), but ıt's a damned good try.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Read the newspapers, I'm not goıng to do ıt for you.


 
What millions? The combined fatalities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan probably adds up to about a million people over the last 12 years. If Wikileaks disrupted the US war machine (hint: it didn't) even for a month or two - maybe a few thousands of lives were saved, if we're to be extremely optimistic. But don't let facts get in the way of your hero-worship.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> If that's what you accept his professional aim is of course. It might be. What's his personal aim though?



Right now? Not getting caught.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Anyway, enough fucks given today. I await his next media communique with the same interest I have in the next series of Miranda.

He's waiting until everyone else is just tired of arguing, so he can be the only one talking. Filibustering his own rape allegations - what a scumbag


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Twenty-two mınutes.
> 
> That's rıght. Just twenty-two befuddled, head-scratchıng, pencıl-chewıng mınutes.
> 
> ...


Good work avoiding the issues here, you scrote.

Also, note the different tenses involved. You should know about tenses, Prof.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Someone get me Mel Gibson and Danny Glover.


 
Thıs ısn't about showbusıness.  Thıs ısn't a matter of tabloıdesque hate-campaıgns, at least not outsıde the US-UK thought-control bubble.

Thıs ıs very serıous power polıtıcs, ın whıch the most powerful forces ın the world are attemptıng to smash a man who they obvıously consıder a dangerous opponent.

You'll say that's not all ıt ıs.  You'll say ıt's also about a rapıst on the run.  So I've a serıous questıon for you.

Do you thınk Assange ıs guılty of rape?


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Right now? Not getting caught.


He doesn't care about getting caught, we've established this.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> ...the US-UK thought-control bubble...


Is that the faint sound of Jazzz music in the distance?


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Do you thınk Assange ıs guılty of rape?


 
In my opinion he's guilty as fuck but it can't be proved one way or another until the trial is held.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> In my opinion he's guilty as fuck


 
Why do you thınk that?


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> The Swedish government might feel differently. As might the Swedish people. At the end of the day it'll be up to the Swedish government, not the CIA.


Woefully naive statement here.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Is that the faint sound of Jazzz music in the distance?


 
You've lıved outsıde the Anglophone West I belıeve?

So you 'll know just how parochıal and unınformatıve ıts medıa are.  You'll know that the populatıons of the USA and the UK are the worst-ınformed peoples ın the entıre world, consıdered _en masse_.

Rıght?  So what else would you call ıt but ''thought control?'' 

I accept that ıt's drıven as much by commercıal consıderatıons as polıtıcal, ıf that was your objectıon, but then agaın ıs there really much practıcal dıfference between the two?


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Why do you thınk that?


 
because of his track record in fucking up everything to do with wikileaks and taking credit for others' work, the fact that he has a massive opinion of himself, has made some racist statements, is really slimy and is probably a sociopath


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Why do you thınk that?


 
look at his face.  that's the face of a rapist right there.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Woefully naive statement here.


Really? What do you think would happen if he went to Sweden?


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Really? What do you think would happen if he went to Sweden?


This was established way back in the thread of course


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You're sexist for believing (as you evidently do, no matter what you might think you do) that he doesn't need to face his charges because there might be a plot (hint: there's no plot) to extradite him to a US torture chamber.


What label do you attach to the numbers of women who believe the evidence is dubious at best and who suspect that there is a plot to extradite Assange to the USA?


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> This was established way back in the thread of course


Sure, I was asking TC what _he_ thinks might happen.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> What label do you attach to the numbers of women who believe the evidence is dubious at best and who suspect that there is a plot to extradite Assange to the USA?


Cult followers


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2013)

but as i said, i don't think we can know one way or another until the trial has been held, i don't have a very high opinion of him though


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> What label do you attach to the numbers of women who believe the evidence is dubious at best and who suspect that there is a plot to extradite Assange to the USA?


Idiots and colluders, and yes, sexist.

Off for lunch. Back in an hour or two.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Sure, I was asking TC what _he_ thinks might happen.


Yeah I know, I was avoiding suggesting to TC that he read the thread


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> There might well have been a plot of some kind. It has no bearing on the facts of the matter - he refuses to face the charges brought against him in what is considered one of the most liberal, open-minded and democratic nations on the planet.


Now you think there might well be a plot? Your losing the plot.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> This was established way back in the thread of course


Established? Some considerable smugness based on fuck all here.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You've lıved outsıde the Anglophone West I belıeve?
> 
> So you 'll know just how parochıal and unınformatıve ıts medıa are. You'll know that the populatıons of the USA and the UK are the worst-ınformed peoples ın the entıre world, consıdered _en masse_.
> 
> ...


Should think the same is true of mainstream media anywhere, certainly is here in China, and that's without the issues surrounding active censorship. That states seek to promote a discourse in their interests in no way amounts to a successful thought control bubble that somehow only the wise such as you and I have seen through despite growing up in it.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Idiots and colluders, and yes, sexist.
> 
> Off for lunch. Back in an hour or two.


Blimey.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

This sort of thing is why comrade delta is still in a position of control somewhere and not being held to account - and has virtually destroyed the SWP as any kind of significant political force.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Thıs ısn't about showbusıness. Thıs ısn't a matter of tabloıdesque hate-campaıgns, at least not outsıde the US-UK thought-control bubble.
> 
> Thıs ıs very serıous power polıtıcs, ın whıch the most powerful forces ın the world are attemptıng to smash a man who they obvıously consıder a dangerous opponent.
> 
> ...


 
I don't know, it's not been proven either way due to Assanges unwillingness to go to court. I haven't ever called him a 'rapist on the run'. I've always maintained he should answer charges in court, as anyone else should. His request for immunity from extradition is a strawman because they can't grant immunity against charges that haven't been lodged. 

One for you Hannibal.

Should he, having been accused of a crime, go to court to defend himself?

(also, the Gibson & Glover thing is about diplomatic immunity, but you missed that)


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> ...
> 
> Off for lunch. Back in an hour or two.


See terms and conditions are being well defended in your workplace


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Established? Some considerable smugness based on fuck all here.


Ok, if you think that it's just smugness what makes you think Sweden will break its constitution over it? Sweden's quite happy he's here now and not their problem anymore.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cult followers


I don't know any women who could be described as any sort of Assnage follower. Many men and women though have remarked to me that they view the evidence as dubious at best and in the light of the US employing black ops including murder on a pretty much daily basis, see the situation as not cut and dried.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> Ok, if you think that it's just smugness what makes you think Sweden will break its constitution over it? Sweden's quite happy he's now and not their problem anymore.


Pressure/realpolitik.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> This sort of thing is why comrade delta is still in a position of control somewhere and not being held to account - and has virtually destroyed the SWP as any kind of significant political force.


The SWP have never been a significant political force.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Shh. Don't let them know.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> because of his track record in fucking up everything to do with wikileaks and taking credit for others' work, the fact that he has a massive opinion of himself, has made some racist statements, is really slimy and is probably a sociopath


 
How does any of thıs suggest that he's guılty? 

The truth ıs, quıte obvıously, that you have no ıdea whether he ıs or ısn't. 

Your reactıon to hım ıs very clearly based on hıs medıa portrayal.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

TC I'm not really bothered if you like Assange. I'm only asserting where my pov is coming from and it doesn't really matter if I'm right or wrong. If I'm right, it's got useful predictive purpose for me. If I'm wrong, I'll consider joining his cult and donning the V mask - but only for a nano second before thinking, nah fuck that


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> because of his track record in fucking up everything to do with wikileaks and taking credit for others' work, the fact that he has a massive opinion of himself, has made some racist statements, is really slimy and is probably a sociopath


Ban this person from Jury Service I beg you.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> TC I'm not really bothered if you like Assange. I'm only asserting where my pov is coming from and it doesn't really matter if I'm right or wrong. If I'm right, it's got useful predictive purpose for me. If I'm wrong, I'll consider joining his cult and donning the V mask - but only for a nano second before thinking, nah fuck that


Don't project onto me. I don't like or dislike Assnage. It's immaterial. I'm surprised at you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2013)

Certain topics just can't be discussed on here without being abused. Savile was one, as was David Kelly. And now this. If you suggest any doubt in the official version of events, you're called a loon, a deluded nasty person, a person with a vile agenda, or, most bizarrely of all perhaps, a sexist. It's ridiculous, and shows the limit of this place. Get a fucking grip.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Ban this person from Jury Service I beg you.


Getting the sketchy cunt in front of even a heavily vetted jury would be a fine thing.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Don't project onto me. I don't like or dislike Assnage. It's immaterial. I'm surprised at you.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Certain topics just can't be discussed on here without being abused. Savile was one, as was David Kelly. And now this. If you suggest any doubt in the official version of events, you're called a loon, a deluded nasty person, a person with a vile agenda, or, most bizarrely of all perhaps, a sexist. It's ridiculous, and shows the limit of this place. Get a fucking grip.


 
It shows the inner workings of certain posters mindsets. Nothing more.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> The SWP have never been a significant political force.


Relative to the left's political grouplets of course. But yea I agree with Balbi that we should keep our voices down cos we've only just managed to round up a few panicked ones and coax them back into the paper sales thread.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Julian Assange is hiding in an embassy because after repeated attempts to prevent it in court, it was ruled that he would be extradited to Sweden to face allegations/charges of an equivalency to rape. Should he be extradited, he will face charges/allegations.

Once that case is concluded, the following may happen.

The U.S may apply for extradition, and it will be examined by the Swedish High Court who, after a previous case, do not extradite to the U.S. However, Britain will also have to authorise any extradition as they got Assange to Sweden, but only if Sweden approve the extradition requirement.

Sweden cannot give Assange the immunity from extradition which he has demanded for his return to Sweden, as Swedish law states it will be decided on the evidence presented. They will not change their laws to suit his requirements.

At present there are no requests for the extradition of Julian Assange outstanding, for his time in Sweden or the United Kingdom, from any country. There have been media comments by hawkish Senators, and from Julian himself, regarding how wanted he is.

Bradley Manning has been incarcerated for 1092 days.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Now you think there might well be a plot? Your losing the plot.


Have been. Might have been. On the balance of probability I'd say there wasn't, but who's to say for sure?


----------



## muscovyduck (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Certain topics just can't be discussed on here without being abused.


And whose fault is that?


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2013)

London local news last night claimed that the Met's policing around the embassy has already cost over £3m. There followed an item detailing the closure of tens of police stations around GL undertaken in order to achieve savings that are hoped, eventually, to total £16m.

Hmmm


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> the US employing black ops including murder on a pretty much daily basis


 
The maın problem as I see ıt ıs that most Amerıcans and Brıts are sımply unaware of thıs, or at least of ıts extent.

That's why they thınk ıt ıs somehow ımplausıble that the CIA mıght actually have--_gasp--_sleeper agents ın deep cover throughout the world, prepared for eventualıtıes such as thıs one.

They just have no ıdea of how the world works.  And I'm not just talkıng about obvıous ıdıots lıke TruXta eıther.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

brogdale said:


> London local news last night claimed that the Met's policing around the embassy has already cost over £3m. There followed an item detailing the closure of tens of police stations around GL undertaken in order to achieve savings that are hoped, eventually, to total £16m.


 
If the Brıtısh people had any prıde they'd storm the embassy, free Assange, and carry hım shoulder hıgh through the streets.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> If the Brıtısh people had any prıde they'd storm the embassy, free Assange, and carry hım shoulder hıgh through the streets.


----------



## Belushi (May 21, 2013)

You were doing well until then phil


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

That's the internet argument equivalent of corpsing isn't it?


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Because someone won't face them in an open court in a jurisdiction with an independent judiciary.


 
Hah!  ''Independent judıcıary'' ındeed.

We saw exactly what the US-UK thınks of ındependent judıcıarıes whıle they were threatenıng and brıbıng the members of the UN to drag them ınto theır bloodbath.

So Balbı, to answer your questıon: Hell no, he shouldn't gıve hımself up.  He'd stand more chance of a faır trıal wıth Ordeal by Fıre.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Hah! ''Independent judıcıary'' ındeed.
> 
> ...


As independent as any within the existing framework. You're casting around more than a bit now.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

You dont need to believe there are thousands of US sleeper agents out there to believe the case against Assange is dodgy as shit.  Nor do you have to believe he is a lovely man, and the sole hero of wikileaks.

That the US would _like_ to fuck him over in any way they can is surely undeniable, and that they can exert influence over foreign governments and legal processes to do so is, surely again, a simple statement of fact.It is highly unlikely that anyone other than Assange would have faced any charges for the alleged offences as stated, certainly not to the extent of seeking extradition proceedings.

Thus, Assange's fear of persecution is well-founded - ie, 'genuine' and objectively reasonable.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Instead he's going to have Ordeal by Vit D deficiency.

He'll end up all skinny, pale, weak and bleached....oh.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just to get this straight, I am sexist for refusing to unconditionally condemn Julian Assange?


Nobody's asking you to find him guilty of rape. He's innocent until proven guilty.  What he is to be condemned for is making a run for it instead of answering the charges.  Making a run for it to Britain, a country with closer ties to the US than Sweden.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> You dont need to believe there are thousands of US sleeper agents out there


 
True.

Although you'd have to be mad not to belıeve ıt.  The CIA does not exıst to play tıddleywınks.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2013)

The working classes never sleep, so assange can never fuck them.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

Tic tac toe.

Would you like to play a game?


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> You dont need to believe there are thousands of US sleeper agents out there to believe the case against Assange is dodgy as shit. Nor do you have to believe he is a lovely man, and the sole hero of wikileaks.
> 
> That the US would _like_ to fuck him over in any way they can is surely undeniable, and that they can exert influence over foreign governments and legal processes to do so is, surely again, a simple statement of fact.It is highly unlikely that anyone other than Assange would have faced any charges for the alleged offences as stated, certainly not to the extent of seeking extradition proceedings.
> 
> Thus, Assange's fear of persecution is well-founded - ie, 'genuine' and objectively reasonable.


Looks like a level of obliqueness where a bullet/equivalent or more straightforward smear would have done compared to any of the CIA schemes that have subsequently come to light I'm aware of.


----------



## elbows (May 21, 2013)

Oh oh Jul-i-un, you're no good at martyrdom.

Inflammation of the information.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> True.
> 
> Although you'd have to be mad not to belıeve ıt. The CIA does not exıst to play tıddleywınks.


But that's not news is it? That's just confirming what we had every good reason to believe all along.


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer you made a claim a couple of pages back that Assange had saved the lives of millions.

How exactly has he done that?


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

elbows said:


> Oh oh Jul-i-un, you're no good at martyrdom.
> 
> Inflammation of the information.


Bonfire of the secret email vanities


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Looks like a level of obliqueness where a bullet/equivalent or more straightforward smear would have done compared to any of the CIA schemes that have subsequently come to light I'm aware of.


really? This is a fucking brilliant smear (if it is one), perfect.  Look at all the lefties lining up to slate him!  Much much better than having him offed (becoming a hero, with an Oliver Stone movie showing how Bush did it following shortly thereafter).


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> But that's not news is it? That's just confirming what we had every good reason to believe all along.


What else might we have good reason to believe all along?  That they'd set up - or grossly manipulate a situation involving - someone who they have explicitly stated is an enemy?


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> really? This is a fucking brilliant smear (if it is one), perfect. Look at all the lefties lining up to slate him! Much much better than having him offed (becoming a hero, with an Oliver Stone movie showing how Bush did it following shortly thereafter).


Really. Brings in several other actors/agencies and nowhere near as straightforward as planting something incriminating but even more damning in the eyes of his perceived constituency.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> What else might we have good reason to believe all along? That they'd set up - or grossly manipulate a situation involving - someone who they have explicitly stated is an enemy?


They do it all the time. I don't have any problems accepting that the CIA and world powers etc are every bit as dire as painted.


----------



## Belushi (May 21, 2013)

it's no wonder the reporting rate for rape is so low isnt it


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Really. Brings in several other actors/agencies and nowhere near as straightforward as planting something incriminating but even more damning in the eyes of his perceived constituency.


What could they plant?  Kiddie porn?  Everyone would just go 'its a plant'

This situation requires no great skills or many agencies.  Clearly the US already have strong links with other western governments, police forces and state agencies - that is the precise basis of how they work.  So that they could simply pull a couple of strings to make all this happen, it is quite plausible.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> They do it all the time. I don't have any problems accepting that the CIA and world powers etc are every bit as dire as painted.


But they couldnt have done so  in this case?  I dont understand why not.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> What could they plant? Kiddie porn? Everyone would just go 'its a plant'
> 
> This situation requires no great skills or many agencies. Clearly the US already have strong links with other western governments, police forces and state agencies - that is the precise basis of how they work. So that they could simply pull a couple of strings to make all this happen, it is quite plausible.


As it's being set out requires various agencies in  three sovereign nations. And again, would be at a level of obliqueness far beyond the documented cases we have historically AFAIK. As I said way back, I don't rule it out entirely but seems far less likely than the more straightforward fact that he has a case to answer.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> But they couldnt have done so in this case? I dont understand why not.


He may well have been set up. But still doesn't let him off the rape allegations.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

We're not really going to go down the route of CIA agents can't be raped, are we?


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> And again, would be at a level of obliqueness far beyond the documented cases we have historically AFAIK.


 
_Whaaaat?_

No ıt bloody wouldn't. Read a hıstory of Cuba, to take only the most obvıous example. Or maybe you've heard of the Gulf of Tonkın?

I don't consıder you an ıdıot, but when you fınd yourself ın bed wıth the lıkes of TruXta, you mıght want to thınk about the company you're keepıng.


----------



## coley (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> He may well have been set up. But still doesn't let him off the rape allegations.


I'd like him to face the allegations but, as has been suggested, that would/could be quickly followed by being hauled off to the good old US of A and a lifetime in one of their penitentiaries? 

A lack of bit D seems preferable.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> _Whaaaat?_
> 
> No ıt bloody wouldn't. Read a hıstory of Cuba, to take only the most obvıous example. Or maybe you've heard of the Gulf of Tonkın?
> 
> I don't consıder you an ıdıot, but when you fınd yourself ın bed wıth the lıkes of TruXta, you mıght want to thınk about the company you're keepıng.


Course it would and the Gulf of Tonkin entirely supports my point. Far more straightforward. Which Cuban one did you have in mind? Exploding cigars aren't exactly three-dimensional chess.


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

coley said:


> I'd like him to face the allegations but, as has been suggested, that would/could be quickly followed by being hauled off to the good old US of A and a lifetime in one of their penitentiaries?
> 
> A lack of bit D seems preferable.


He's more easily hauled off from here than Sweden. He's merely chosen the terms of his incarceration - better off incarcerated in the embassy than a Swedish jail.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> He may well have been set up. But still doesn't let him off the rape allegations.


 
Huh?

Beıng set up doesn't let hım off?

What does then?


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

*waits*


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2013)

If he's been set up he needs to prove it in court.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Huh?
> 
> Beıng set up doesn't let hım off?
> 
> What does then?


I believe a jury of your peers find the case against you not proven is traditional.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2013)

And if the authorities are playing an active part in the set up?

Oh wait, sorry, Sweden is the freest place in the world and that couldn't possibly happen.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2013)

Freer than Ecuador?


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And if the authorities are playing an active part in the set up?
> 
> Oh wait, sorry, Sweden is the freest place in the world and that couldn't possibly happen.


Let's accept he was set up. Let's accept that these CIA/other state agents lured him into their beds.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2013)

I'm off. This thread is like a chapter from a Kafka novel.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And if the authorities are playing an active part in the set up?
> 
> Oh wait, sorry, Sweden is the freest place in the world and that couldn't possibly happen.


There's couldn't possibly and the chances of them tampering with a jury trial, and the risks of exposure etc. that would entail, for benefits that could have been achieved in a far less complex and hazardous fashion. Doesn't add up.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If he's been set up he needs to prove it in court.


 
No he doesn't.

That's not the way ıt works.

For someone so certaın of Assange's guılt, you seem to have a rather tenuous grasp of the law.


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> Let's accept he was set up. Let's accept that these CIA/other state agents lured him into their beds.


Lets not instead ...


----------



## cesare (May 21, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Lets not instead ...


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> As it's being set out requires various agencies in three sovereign nations. And again, would be at a level of obliqueness far beyond the documented cases we have historically AFAIK. As I said way back, I don't rule it out entirely but seems far less likely than the more straightforward fact that he has a case to answer.





JimW said:


> As it's being set out requires various agencies in three sovereign nations. And again, would be at a level of obliqueness far beyond the documented cases we have historically AFAIK. As I said way back, I don't rule it out entirely but seems far less likely than the more straightforward fact that he has a case to answer.


nonsense.  It would require some behind the scenes conversations by spooks, and friendly government officials, and it most certainly would not be particularly oblique compared to other american actions. Cuba,Vietnam, hell, just look at the plot of Argo!  A plot like this would be a piece of piss for them.



cesare said:


> He may well have been set up. But still doesn't let him off the rape allegations.


'Let him off'?  No.  But it would, in international law, take precedence - see Abu Qatada


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

I wonder what Bradley Manning thinks about all of this


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> nonsense. It would require some behind the scenes conversations by spooks, and friendly government officials, and it most certainly would not be particularly oblique compared to other american actions. Cuba,Vietnam, hell, just look at the plot of Argo! A plot like this would be a piece of piss for them...


Plot of Argo involves actions by one state agency alone, again backing up my point. Roping in John Goodman doesn't count. Would love an example of tri-national skulduggery from the Cold War of this complexity and indirectness that didn't fail or go tits up.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Plot of Argo involves actions by one state agency alone, again backing up my point. Roping in John Goodman doesn't count. Would love an example of tri-national skulduggery from the Cold War of this complexity and indirectness that didn't fail or go tits up.


it doesnt require tri-national cooperation, the brits are irrelevant. It requires some quiet words in Swedish spooks ears, plus maybe a minister or two. If you really dont think the CIA are capable of that, then you're a tad naive.

And Argo did involve three different states, in fact (US, UK, NZ. Plus possibly others)


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Plot of Argo involves actions by one state agency alone, again backing up my point. Roping in John Goodman doesn't count. Would love an example of tri-national skulduggery from the Cold War of this complexity and indirectness that didn't fail or go tits up.


 
Operation Gladio doesn't fulfill this? I don't really know enough about the Assange case to properly comment but it's certainly not out of the realms of possibility that he was set up in some way, it wouldn't be the weirdest thing that Secret Services have done by a very long way.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> it doesnt require tri-national cooperation, the brits are irrelevant. It requires some quiet words in Swedish spooks ears, plus maybe a minister or two. If you really dont think the CIA are capable of that, then you're a tad naive.
> 
> And Argo did involve three different states, in fact (US, UK, NZ. Plus possibly others)


 
Sweden also was pretty involved in NATO's stay behind armies, too, so there's some precedence...


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If he's been set up he needs to prove it in court.


Does the onus to provide proof not rest with the prosecution? or is that fine, free Sweden a bit different from most places?


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> it doesnt require tri-national cooperation, the brits are irrelevant. It requires some quiet words in Swedish spooks ears, plus maybe a minister or two. If you really dont think the CIA are capable of that, then you're a tad naive.
> 
> And Argo did involve three different states, in fact (US, UK, NZ. Plus possibly others)


I think it's naive to buy a complex conspiracy theory when the far more likely thing is he has a case to answer for the not-at-all far-fetched charges against him. I do concede I may have the plot of Argo wrong


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Plot of Argo involves actions by one state agency alone, again backing up my point. Roping in John Goodman doesn't count. Would love an example of tri-national skulduggery from the Cold War of this complexity and indirectness that didn't fail or go tits up.


You only get to hear (by their nature) of the operations that go tits up.


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Does the onus to provide proof not rest with the prosecution? or is that fine, free Sweden a bit different from most places?


 
Yes, and I'm sure that'll all play out once Assange and his lawyers answer the charges made against them. Oh, wait...


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Operation Gladio doesn't fulfill this? I don't really know enough about the Assange case to properly comment but it's certainly not out of the realms of possibility that he was set up in some way, it wouldn't be the weirdest thing that Secret Services have done by a very long way.


As I say, I don't rule it out but seems unlikely given the stakes compared with Gladio and the international scenario at the time.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> You only get to hear (by their nature) of the operations that go tits up.


Fair point.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Have been. Might have been. On the balance of probability I'd say there wasn't, but who's to say for sure?


You said there was no plot. Then you said there was possibly a plot. Whilst you lost the plot and hurled abuse.


----------



## tommers (May 21, 2013)

None of it matters. Assange is saying he is worried that he could be extradited to the USA from Sweden. It would be a lot easier for the USA to extradite him from here. That's the only salient point. His story is obviously bollocks.


Why bother setting him up? If you're the USA then you are no closer to your goal, in fact you're further away because there's another load of legal proceedings to muddy the waters.


Him being accused of rape in Sweden makes it no more likely that he will be made to go to the USA. I'm amazed that people have just swallowed it all.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

To continue on my hiding to nothing here, thinking on the miscarriages of justice at jury trials we're aware of didn't they mostly require lying cop witnesses about matters of fact or fixed forensics as in Birmingham 6. Here he'd not be disputing the fact of penetration so it's a consent argument which juries even in Sweden tend to give benefit of doubt to accused on, if I recall stats from earlier in the thread. So again, seems a madly risky strategy.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> I think it's naive to buy a complex conspiracy theory when the far more likely thing is he has a case to answer for the not-at-all far-fetched chances against him. I do concede I may have the plot of Argo wrong


It isnt a particularly complex conspiracy is it?  It would involve either getting one woman to make a story up, or putting pressure on a prosecutor to go ahead and charge, despite the evidence being vastly less than is usual in such cases.  Pretty straightforward.




tommers said:


> None of it matters. Assange is saying he is worried that he could be extradited to the USA from Sweden. It would be a lot easier for the USA to extradite him from here. That's the only salient point. His story is obviously bollocks.


Its not easier, it adds another (albeit friendly) governmento to the mix, which makes it slightly more complex.



> Why bother setting him up? If you're the USA then you are no closer to your goal, in fact you're further away because there's another load of legal proceedings to muddy the waters.
> 
> Him being accused of rape in Sweden makes it no more likely that he will be made to go to the USA. I'm amazed that people have just swallowed it all.


are you kidding?  Why bother?  Havent you noticed how he has gone from hero to zero? Hadn't you noticed how (blowhard) Senators had called for the death penalty for him? The reasons to set him up are stark staring obvious. And 'muddying the waters' by making him a rapist is superb for them.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> To continue on my hiding to nothing here, thinking on the miscarriages of justice at jury trials we're aware of didn't they mostly require lying cop witnesses about matters of fact or fixed forensics as in Birmingham 6. Here he'd not be disputing the fact of penetration so it's a consent argument which juries even in Sweden tend to give benefit of doubt to accused on, if I recall stats from earlier in the thread. So again, seems a madly risky strategy.


there's lots more that is disputed than 'simple' consent


----------



## coley (May 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I wonder what Bradley Manning thinks about all of this


Would imagine he has his own set of problems to worry about?


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

It's pretty obvious that the US sees wikileaks as a threat and is trying to make an example of them. That's why Bradley Manning has been publicly tortured, otherwise what point would that serve?


----------



## coley (May 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> He's more easily hauled off from here than Sweden. He's merely chosen the terms of his incarceration - better off incarcerated in the embassy than a Swedish jail.


Debatable


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> there's lots more that is disputed than 'simple' consent


But what among it could they put the sort of fix in that will sway a jury?


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> But what among it could they put the sort of fix in that will sway a jury?


sorry, dont follow


----------



## tommers (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> Its not easier, it adds another (albeit friendly) governmento to the mix, which makes it slightly more complex.


 
eh?  No it doesn't.  USA -> UK vs USA-> Sweden -> UK.  You cut out the whole messy and discovery-prone effort of getting 2 women to set him up.  Just extradite him from here on the charges that they are apparently going to use to extradite him from Sweden.



> are you kidding? Why bother? Havent you noticed how he has gone from hero to zero? Hadn't you noticed how (blowhard) Senators had called for the death penalty for him? The reasons to set him up are stark staring obvious. And 'muddying the waters' by making him a rapist is superb for them.


 
Well, to start with I thought these beastly allegations were a set up to enable him to be extradited.  That's why he says he isn't going to go and face them.  (We've already worked out that's bollocks.)

And secondly, as you rightly point out, his reputation has already been destroyed by them.  So maybe he should go and clear his name?  Hiding away in an embassy isn't going to change anything is it?


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> sorry, dont follow


Was following on from my idea that it's a high-risk strategy of making him hero by acquittal, as even in Sweden as I understand juries tend to give benefit of doubt absent solid forensic or witness evidence.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

tommers said:


> eh? No it doesn't. USA -> UK vs USA-> Sweden -> UK. You cut out the whole messy and discovery-prone effort of getting 2 women to set him up. Just extradite him from here on the charges that they are apparently going to use to extradite him from Sweden.


cos its in no way easier to extradite already being held in custody, is it?



> Well, to start with I thought these beastly allegations were a set up to enable him to be extradited. That's why he says he isn't going to go and face them. (We've already worked out that's bollocks.)


have we? i think you mean you have decided its bollocks.  Nothing more.



> And secondly, as you rightly point out, his reputation has already been destroyed by them. So maybe he should go and clear his name? Hiding away in an embassy isn't going to change anything is it?


It (technically) gives him a better chance to compile the info required to clear his name, and allows him to carry on his campaigning on other issues.  Fairly straightforward.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Was following on from my idea that it's a high-risk strategy of making him hero by acquittal, as even in Sweden as I understand juries tend to give benefit of doubt absent solid forensic or witness evidence.


Sorry, I'd somehow read 'accused' in your previous comment as 'accuser', thus getting somewhat confused.

The thing - from his perspective - is that once he was there, he'd be more liable to be grabbed for extradition, and that, if they can 'fake' accusations of rape in the first place, they can 'fake' evidence too. And just because he is paranoid, doesnt mean no one is out to get him.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> You said there was no plot. Then you said there was possibly a plot. Whilst you lost the plot and hurled abuse.


Is/was. There's a difference. Either way - it's of no consequence for what matters - Assange is a coward. Possibly a rapist. I wonder why this is so hard to get.


----------



## tommers (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> cos its in no way easier to extradite already being held in custody, is it?


 
We do have police in this country you know. Why is he hiding in that Embassy? Who does he think is about to arrest him?



> have we? i think you mean you have decided its bollocks. Nothing more.


 
OK. If you think that it makes sense for the USA to add even more unpredictable stages into the mix if they just want to extradite somebody then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure that making it necessary for him to face criminal charges in an entirely separate country is a normal part of extradition proceedings, but I'm no lawyer.



> It (technically) gives him a better chance to compile the info required to clear his name, and allows him to carry on his campaigning on other issues. Fairly straightforward.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> Sorry, I'd somehow read 'accused' in your previous comment as 'accuser', thus getting somewhat confused.
> 
> The thing - from his perspective - is that once he was there, he'd be more liable to be grabbed for extradition, and that, if they can 'fake' accusations of rape in the first place, they can 'fake' evidence too. And just because he is paranoid, doesnt mean no one is out to get him.


My posts are riddled with typos I notice so easily done.
I thought the extradition risk takes us into the other massive argument on here that (while he might believe that, I concede) he's not at any more risk of that in Sweden than the UK, probably the reverse. So while I do entertain these arguments made and don't rule them out entirely, still left feeling he's got a case to answer and won't.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> My posts are riddled with typos I notice so easily done.
> I thought the extradition risk takes us into the other massive argument on here that (while he might believe that, I concede) he's not at any more risk of that in Sweden than the UK, probably the reverse. So while I do entertain these arguments made and don't rule them out entirely, still left feeling he's got a case to answer and won't.


I think he has a case too answer too.  However, if you were charged with something for which you knew* you were innocent of, and also thought you were being set up and that the trial would be fixed, would you go back to that country?  Or would you do everything you could not to do so.


*( in his head, he 'knows', and if he is innocent then he really knows)


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> I think he has a case too answer too. However, if you were charged with something for which you knew* you were innocent of, and also thought you were being set up and that the trial would be fixed, would you go back to that country? Or would you do everything you could not to do so.
> 
> 
> *( in his head, he 'knows', and if he is innocent then he really knows)


We know nothing of what he "knows", only what he says. How many rapists hold up their hands and go "ok yeah sorry that was me"?


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

tommers said:


> We do have police in this country you know. Why is he hiding in that Embassy? Who does he think is about to arrest him?


What?  Are you really this daft?  He has claimed asylum in that Embassy, thus stopping them from arresting him.  Its why he's done it.



> OK. If you think that it makes sense for the USA to add even more unpredictable stages into the mix if they just want to extradite somebody then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure that making it necessary for him to face criminal charges in an entirely separate country is a normal part of extradition proceedings, but I'm no lawyer.


Clearly you're not. That comment bears absolutely no relation to what I was replying to.  I have no idea why you posted it. Its irrelevant.



>


compelling argument. I'll take it that you have found yourself forced to agree with me


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> We know nothing of what he "knows", only what he says. How many rapists hold up their hands and go "ok yeah sorry that was me"?


Of course not.  But, assume for one second he is innocent.  If he is, then all his paranoia and apparent conspiracy theories fall perfectly into place, and he is reacting in the way any sane person would. Or any sane person with access to the Ecuadorian embasssy, anyway.


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> I think he has a case too answer too. However, if you were charged with something for which you knew* you were innocent of, and also thought you were being set up and that the trial would be fixed, would you go back to that country? Or would you do everything you could not to do so.
> 
> 
> *( in his head, he 'knows', and if he is innocent then he really knows)


Even accepting all that, I reckon I'd have come to a point by now having made such a big stink over it that I would go back thinking I'd drawn enough of the spotlight to stop the fix, unless it was actually the charges themselves I was running from. Because the CIA would carry on after you if they were involved to the depths he thinks even if he slipped away from this trial, so no value in staying on the run. Can't really do more than speculate about what's going on in his head, of course.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> Of course not. But, assume for one second he is innocent. If he is, then all his paranoia and apparent conspiracy theories fall perfectly into place, and he is reacting in the way any sane person would. Or any sane person with access to the Ecuadorian embasssy, anyway.


Let's assume he's innocent. Let's also assume that contrary to some posters' imaginations, the CIA is not the eminence gris behind all Western governments, and that a country such as Sweden has an interest in upholding its own laws despite what the US/CIA might wish. Let's assume then that he will not be extradited from Sweden as Swedish laws prohibit this, even if found guilty.

Now what? You still think he's right in seeking asylum and evading his charges?


----------



## tommers (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> What? Are you really this daft? He has claimed asylum in that Embassy, thus stopping them from arresting him. Its why he's done it.


 
Right yes.  Stopping WHO from arresting him?  And what do they want to do with him after he has been arrested?



> Clearly you're not. That comment bears absolutely no relation to what I was replying to. I have no idea why you posted it. Its irrelevant


 
eh?  I said that his claims that these charges were a set up to enable him to be extradited were "clearly bollocks".  You said that "only you have decided this."  I then pointed out that setting somebody up to face unrelated charges in an unrelated country is not a normal part of the extradition process.  That's not hard to follow is it?


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

This stuff isn't even limited to the CIA http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/22/undercover-police-cleared-sex-activists so I don't see why the idea that the CIA would use sex to entrap people is 100% out of the realms of possibility tbh


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Let's assume he's innocent. Let's also assume that contrary to some posters' imaginations, the CIA is not the eminence gris behind all Western governments, and that a country such as Sweden has an interest in upholding its own laws despite what the US/CIA might wish. Let's assume then that he will not be extradited from Sweden as Swedish laws prohibit this, even if found guilty.


 
Unfortunately, from 'extraordinary rendition' we know that this really isn't always the case whether the Swedish government wants it to be or not. Just as with the distrust that people are going to regard polio vaccines now, distrust regarding this really is an understandable consequence of the practices of the War on Terror.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Unfortunately, from 'extraordinary rendition' we know that this really isn't always the case whether the Swedish government wants it to be or not. Just as with the distrust that people are going to regard polio vaccines now, distrust regarding this really is an understandable consequence of the practices of the War on Terror.


 
I'm sorry, but what has polio vaccines got to do with this?


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Unfortunately, from 'extraordinary rendition' we know that this really isn't always the case whether the Swedish government wants it to be or not. Just as with the distrust that people are going to regard polio vaccines now, distrust regarding this really is an understandable consequence of the practices of the War on Terror.


Furthermore, how many extraordinary renditions of people IN SWEDEN took place? I'm not counting ER flights that went through Sweden.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I'm sorry, but what has polio vaccines got to do with this?


 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/cia-vaccine-ruse-in-pakistan-may-have-harmed-polio-fight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

Also, it might have been posted before, but here's a Swedish jurist on the legal facts of the matter http://klamberg.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-to-us-via-sweden.html


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Furthermore, how many extraordinary renditions of people IN SWEDEN took place? I'm not counting ER flights that went through Sweden.


 
During the War on Terror, two people were removed from Sweden (not including flights that used Sweden as a stop off point even after Sweden said not to) as far as we know

http://www.hrw.org/de/news/2004/11/21/swedish-tv4-kalla-fakta-program-broken-promise-part-iv


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/cia-vaccine-ruse-in-pakistan-may-have-harmed-polio-fight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


And that pertains to this case how?

You don't think I'm saying the CIA is trustworthy do you?


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2013)

I wouldn't trust the UK or Ecuador though either ffs. And the UK has far closer ties to the US than Sweden.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> And that pertains to this case how?
> 
> You don't think I'm saying the CIA is trustworthy do you?


 
It only pertains to the case insofar that it's an example of how CIA practices during the War on Terror have caused people to be mistrustful of things that they otherwise wouldn't be. As is the case here, I think.


----------



## tommers (May 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> During the War on Terror, two people were removed from Sweden (not including flights that used Sweden as a stop off point even after Sweden said not to) as far as we know
> 
> http://www.hrw.org/de/news/2004/11/21/swedish-tv4-kalla-fakta-program-broken-promise-part-iv


 
and how many from the UK?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/22/british-cia-rendition-9-11



> Over the next four years CIA rendition flights used British airports at least 210 times. The book reveals that Washington asked the UK for permission to build a large prison on Diego Garcia, the British territory in the Indian Ocean where the US has a large bomber base. The project was dropped, for logistical rather than legal reasons.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> During the War on Terror, two people were removed from Sweden (not including flights that used Sweden as a stop off point even after Sweden said not to) as far as we know
> 
> http://www.hrw.org/de/news/2004/11/21/swedish-tv4-kalla-fakta-program-broken-promise-part-iv


Yes, and they were given compensation in a Swedish court of law, and one of them were given a permanent residence permit in Sweden last year. They (the Swedes) did cock up, and they were taken to task for it. So much for the might of the CIA.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It only pertains to the case insofar that it's an example of how CIA practices during the War on Terror have caused people to be mistrustful of things that they otherwise wouldn't be. As is the case here, I think.


See - I don't get how you can get that from this polio thing. If Assange did go to Sweden the media would be there in their thousands. There'd be demonstrations on the streets, governments would try to intervene. And these are the circumstances people think the CIA wants to engineer? What planet are you lot on?


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

tommers said:


> and how many from the UK?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/22/british-cia-rendition-9-11


 
Yeah, I think that the if they're going to do it why haven't they just done it from the UK? question is probably the most convincing for me here.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

Well ıt seems that even the Brıtısh secret servıce thınk he's beıng framed:

''Authorities at GCHQ, the government eavesdropping agency, are facing embarrassing revelations about internal correspondence in which Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is discussed, apparently including speculation that he is being framed by Swedish authorities seeking his extradition on rape allegations.
The records were revealed by Assange himself in a Sunday night interview with Spanish television programme Salvados in which he explained that an official request for information gave him access to instant messages that remained unclassified by GCHQ.
A message from September 2012, read out by Assange, apparently says: "They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ … It is definitely a fit-up… Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-gchq-messages-extradition


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You don't think I'm saying the CIA is trustworthy do you?


 
Of course not. 

You're not _that _stupıd.

You're much stupıder.  You thınk they're ımpotent:



TruXta said:


> So much for the might of the CIA.


 
Serıously, how stupıd and ıgnorant does one have to be to scorn the power of the CIA?

It ıs a feat of truly _Truxtaesque _stupıdıty.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not.
> 
> You're not _that _stupıd.
> 
> ...


Impotent? Stop talking about yourself. I'm merely pointing out that even _the mighty CIA_, which is clearly giving lots of you boners (or would if you could), isn't all it's cracked up to be by the likes of yourselves and Jazzz and so on.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well ıt seems that even the Brıtısh secret servıce thınk he's beıng framed:
> 
> ''Authorities at GCHQ, the government eavesdropping agency, are facing embarrassing revelations about internal correspondence in which Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is discussed, apparently including speculation that he is being framed by Swedish authorities seeking his extradition on rape allegations.
> The records were revealed by Assange himself in a Sunday night interview with Spanish television programme Salvados in which he explained that an official request for information gave him access to instant messages that remained unclassified by GCHQ.
> ...


 
Instant messages - so basically, instant urbans between two gchq employees - 'their timings are too convenient' is basically 'fucked if we know, but he's probably being fitted up'.




> A second instant message conversation from August last year between two unknown people saw them call Assange a fool for thinking Sweden would drop its attempt to extradite him.
> The conversation, as read out by Assange, goes: "He reckons he will stay in the Ecuadorian embassy for six to 12 months when the charges against him will be dropped, but that is not really how it works now is it? He's a fool… Yeah … A highly optimistic fool."




 basically what I said about filibustering his way out.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Impotent? Stop talking about yourself. I'm merely pointing out that even _the mighty CIA_, which is clearly giving lots of you boners (or would if you could), isn't all it's cracked up to be by the likes of yourselves and Jazzz and so on.


 
Just because I think the CIA is capable of this, which frankly would not be close to the most outrageous or complex action undertaken by the CIA, doesn't make it okay to lump me in with an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well ıt seems that even the Brıtısh secret servıce thınk he's beıng framed:
> 
> ''Authorities at GCHQ, the government eavesdropping agency, are facing embarrassing revelations about internal correspondence in which Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is discussed, apparently including speculation that he is being framed by Swedish authorities seeking his extradition on rape allegations.
> The records were revealed by Assange himself in a Sunday night interview with Spanish television programme Salvados in which he explained that an official request for information gave him access to instant messages that remained unclassified by GCHQ.
> ...



If he thinks that helps his case, then he should present it in court.


----------



## Balbi (May 21, 2013)

I do like the idea that GCHQ has its own instant message service, the procrastinating bastards


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2013)

tommers said:


> Why is he hiding in that Embassy? Who does he think is about to arrest him?


The UK police are in the corridors of the building that houses the embassy. It was on the news months ago.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Just because I think the CIA is capable of this, which frankly would not be close to the most outrageous or complex action undertaken by the CIA, doesn't make it okay to lump me in with an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist.


I apologise. I should've worded it more carefully really.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2013)

The CIA are well-resourced, powerful, unaccountable, and often extraordinarily inept. I don't see anyone here fantasising about their all-pervasive influence.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I apologise. I should've worded it more carefully really.


 
Thanks


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The CIA are well-resourced, powerful, unaccountable, and often extraordinarily inept. I don't see anyone here fantasising about their all-pervasive influence.


Except for Professor Piss you mean?


----------



## tommers (May 21, 2013)

TopCat said:


> The UK police are in the corridors of the building that houses the embassy. It was on the news months ago.


 
They were leading questions. 

The UK police are trying to arrest him so that they can extradite him because apparently they need to send him to Sweden so that the Swedes can arrest him and extradite him.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Even accepting all that, I reckon I'd have come to a point by now having made such a big stink over it that I would go back thinking I'd drawn enough of the spotlight to stop the fix, unless it was actually the charges themselves I was running from. Because the CIA would carry on after you if they were involved to the depths he thinks even if he slipped away from this trial, so no value in staying on the run. Can't really do more than speculate about what's going on in his head, of course.


Once he's made the move (to the embassy) he cant really do anything else without there being some backing down by one side or the other. He's stuck now, cant go forward or back.


TruXta said:


> Let's assume he's innocent. Let's also assume that contrary to some posters' imaginations, the CIA is not the eminence gris behind all Western governments, and that a country such as Sweden has an interest in upholding its own laws despite what the US/CIA might wish. Let's assume then that he will not be extradited from Sweden as Swedish laws prohibit this, even if found guilty.
> 
> Now what? You still think he's right in seeking asylum and evading his charges?


As I said earlier, if he has a well-founded (in the legal sense) fear of being persecuted, then, yes, that does, according to international law, take precedence. Abu Qatada.




tommers said:


> Right yes. Stopping WHO from arresting him? And what do they want to do with him after he has been arrested?
> eh? I said that his claims that these charges were a set up to enable him to be extradited were "clearly bollocks". You said that "only you have decided this." I then pointed out that setting somebody up to face unrelated charges in an unrelated country is not a normal part of the extradition process. That's not hard to follow is it?


the whole point is this isn't a normal extradition case, because it is (supposedly) a frame up. So what is 'normal' is irrelevant


----------



## JimW (May 21, 2013)

What would Jason Bourne do?


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> As I said earlier, if he has a well-founded (in the legal sense) fear of being persecuted, then, yes, that does, according to international law, take precedence. Abu Qatada.


 
Shame it's not well-founded then eh.


----------



## tommers (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> the whole point is this isn't a normal extradition case, because it is (supposedly) a frame up. So what is 'normal' is irrelevant


 
To be honest mate I feel a bit like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

Assange says that this is a set-up so that he can be extradited from Sweden to some horrible USA detention camp or something. 

I'm saying that's bollocks because they could just extradite him from the UK.

That's it.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

To which the retort is, were it  not for these charges, he would have had a massive campaign to defend him from extradition which would have delayed, and quite possibly completely stopped any such proceedings.  Now, that campaign would be rather smaller, thus making it much easier to carry out the extradition.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Shame it's not well-founded then eh.


There is surely no doubt his fear is genuine. Whether it is objectively reasonable may be more open to question, but its objectively plausible at the very least, imo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Shame it's not well-founded then eh.


You clearly have access to more information than me on this to be able to pronounce this, judge him a coward, etc.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> There is surely no doubt his fear is genuine. Whether it is objectively reasonable may be more open to question, but its objectively plausible at the very least, imo.


I don't think there's a whole lot that's genuine about the bloke except for his ambition tbh. Anyway, I'll leave it at that - somehow I suspect we won't agree on much of this any time soon. A good day to you, squire.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You clearly have access to more information than me on this to be able to pronounce this, judge him a coward, etc.


I can't be bothered. Also stop it with the sarcasm, it's not a strong point of yours.


----------



## laptop (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> As I said earlier, if he has a well-founded (in the legal sense) fear of being persecuted, then, yes, that does, according to international law, take precedence. Abu Qatada.


 
Except the UK and ECHR courts have repeatedly found that the US legal system does not practice torture, nor is to be tried in it persecution.

You may disagree with them. But an argument in accordance with the facts has a certain aesthetic appeal which yours lacks.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I don't think there's a whole lot that's genuine about the bloke except for his ambition tbh. Anyway, I'll leave it at that - somehow I suspect we won't agree on much of this any time soon. A good day to you, squire.


i think we can also agree that he is an arrogant, overbearing arsehole, who makes it very difficult for people to defend him, and very easy for people to loathe him.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2013)

laptop said:


> Except the UK and ECHR courts have repeatedly found that the US legal system does not practice torture, nor is to be tried in it persecution.
> 
> You may disagree with them. But an argument in accordance with the facts has a certain aesthetic appeal which yours lacks.


Political persecution is political persecution. If the crime is political, it is persecution. And, yes, I know Sweden wont extradite for political crimes, but that is what he is trying to force them to say _now_.


----------



## TruXta (May 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> i think we can also agree that he is an arrogant, overbearing arsehole, who makes it very difficult for people to defend him, and very easy for people to loathe him.


Alright, that's one thing we do agree on


----------



## teqniq (May 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> This latest revelation is just a 'hello, I exist you know' to the media, who couldn't give a fuck. Celebrity Luke Bozier.


 
Whilst you are probably close to the mark with this, I found it a bit odd that it was published in the Graun seeing as how they fell out over rights or somesuch - I would have thought that they wouldn't give him the time of day but it doesn't look to have much negative spin imo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I can't be bothered. Also stop it with the sarcasm, it's not a strong point of yours.


Well I'm quite amazed at the number of people queuing up on here to say what Assange should do, even if he knows he's being fitted up. And calling him a coward for not doing it. Personally, I wouldn't presume to tell him what to do in such a circumstance.


----------



## elbows (May 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well I'm quite amazed at the number of people queuing up on here to say what Assange should do, even if he knows he's being fitted up. And calling him a coward for not doing it. Personally, I wouldn't presume to tell him what to do in such a circumstance.


 
I've not told him what to do. I've pointed out all the ways he already lost by taking the action he did. Its up to him whether he values the cause more than his own skin.

I have very little idea what he really thought would happen when he started his quest. Many of the themes he is interested in should leave little room for naivety, but given that in an interview some years ago he claimed that one of his aims was to make people feel like they could whistleblow and leak without fearing severe consequences, I do have to wonder how much he really thought things through. At the very least his risk calculations seem to have exposed a raft of contradictions and if he has escaped one trap then he has surely leapt into another.

I remain disgusted by the willingness of some to disregard victims and justice, and give Assange a get out of jail free card because of his struggles. Even if you think its a complete stitch-up I do not see how that glosses over the fact he totally undermined the concept of making the powerful accountable with his own wriggling attempts to avoid accountability himself. He isnt offering anything that could free us from the terrible failings of power, for he was trying to get in on that act himself. And at the very least he took stupid risks and liberties along the way, and then shot himself and the cause in the foot repeatedly while trying to avoid the consequences of those actions.


----------



## andysays (May 21, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It was a massıve spanner ın the works. They had to re-organıze whole sectors of theır ıntellıgence--and that's the stuff they've _admıtted _to. It slowed them down by months, thus savıng mıllıons of lıves.
> 
> But more ımportant that that, ıt showed them that they're not ınvulnerable. Indeed, Assange's greatest achıevement to date has precısely been to remınd the crımınals who have seızed control of our governments that _they_ can be brought to account for theır actıons.


 
The only massive spanners I can see here are you and your mate Jules...

How exactly have any of those "crımınals who have seızed control of our governments" actually been "brought to account for theır actıons"?

Tony Blair and George W Bush (to mention just two examples) are still free to roam the world stage at will, whereas your mate has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past 11 months.

And this is resisting "domınatıon ın ıts broadest sense''?

You plum


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> nonsense. It would require some behind the scenes conversations by spooks, and friendly government officials, and it most certainly would not be particularly oblique compared to other american actions. Cuba,Vietnam, hell, just look at the plot of Argo! A plot like this would be a piece of piss for them.


 
it would require the CIA having two sleeper agents in place on the off chance assange turned up, one sleeper agent with a fairly extensive history of activism, one who worked in a museum, both have checkable work/family histories. it would require those agents to be good enough to be able to risk them face cross-examination in open court and also to convince several friends and family members to give corroborating statements to the police about the events surrounding the alleged offences (which they have)

it would have required both of those agents to convince assange in one case to stay at her flat for several days and the other to spend the night with him - and to at least behave in a manner that means even he has never been confident enough to deny the allegations, which dont just include rape but three counts of sexual assault

these women then did not accuse him of rape, but sought advise at the local police station on whether they could force him to take an std test - the police, who would have to be in on it would then press ahead with charges

at some point this elaborate conspiracy would have seemed to go wrong, when charges were dropped and assange was allowed to travel away from the country where everyone says is conspiting to hand him over to the US, and let him leave. at this point the womens lawyer conspired with the cia to appeal this decision, which was granted and the charges were restored and a new prosecutor appointed - this prosecutor, who presumably is also in on it, is a well known with a reputation as being a feminist who has spoken out many times about the scandal of low rape conviction rates in sweden

by now its too late an assange was in the uk, but he was then given, by the uk government, who presumably are also in on it, unprecedented opportunity to appeal the european arrest warrant (which wasnt unusual despite assange's claims, 10,000 are issued a year and no-one has been given access like assange was to challenge them before)

its fucking conspiraloon bullshit to suggest this is a set up, they arent anywhere near that good, its up there with 911 shit and all the rest of it and it is really fucking telling how keen some people have been to swallow this shit just because they think assange's cool


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2013)

Assange and the conspiraloons walk side by side. It's all anti-capitalism and occupy and conspiraloons and CIAlizards and V masks.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

and just to add, this hugely elaborate and complex conspiracy to get assange, didnt fucking work - why such a complex rape allegation, why a rape allegation at all if sweden were so keen to extra-rendition him then why didnt they just fucking extra-rendition him when he was living it up in what he claimed at the time was the safest country in the world


----------



## free spirit (May 22, 2013)

I was initially highly suspicious of this whole situation, but having read a fair amount, including the leaked police interview reports, I now think there probably is at least a fair amount of truth to the allegations against him.

It seems like he's a pretty odd individual, with some very odd ideas about women, and at that time was probably believing his own legend and pretty much viewing these women as groupies who wouldn't really mind what he did even if they'd been going on about wearing a condom earlier in the night etc.

If he wasn't so egotistical, he could probably have best furthered the cause of wikileaks and the wider cause it represents by handing wikileaks over to the rest of the team, then owning up to it and facing the jail time as he'd probably be out by now anyway.

I do however still understand his concern that once in prison, he'd then lose the ability to claim asylum in the way he is doing if the US did then demand his extradition - I do think that this fear of his probably is genuine, and probably does have some basis in the truth of the situation, but that's not in anyway saying it was set up in the first place, just that the US might take the opportunity to get him extradited while he was unable to run to the nearest embassy.


----------



## TopCat (May 22, 2013)

free spirit said:


> If he wasn't so egotistical, he could probably have best furthered the cause of wikileaks and the wider cause it represents by handing wikileaks over to the rest of the team, then owning up to it and facing the jail time as he'd probably be out by now anyway.


 
This is a _weird_ assessment of what he should do.


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> it would require the CIA having two sleeper agents in place on the off chance assange turned up, one sleeper agent with a fairly extensive history of activism, one who worked in a museum, both have checkable work/family histories. it would require those agents to be good enough to be able to risk them face cross-examination in open court and also to convince several friends and family members to give corroborating statements to the police about the events surrounding the alleged offences (which they have)
> 
> it would have required both of those agents to convince assange in one case to stay at her flat for several days and the other to spend the night with him - and to at least behave in a manner that means even he has never been confident enough to deny the allegations, which dont just include rape but three counts of sexual assault
> 
> ...


Hear fucking hear.


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 22, 2013)

when put like that it's quite easy to see why he chose to do a runner rather than stand up in court and use that as his defence.


----------



## weltweit (May 22, 2013)

Do you think Assange has a plan for the future?

And does it contain more than "continue to live in the embassy!" ?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> it would require the CIA having two sleeper agents in place on the off chance assange turned up, one sleeper agent with a fairly extensive history of activism, one who worked in a museum, both have checkable work/family histories. it would require those agents to be good enough to be able to risk them face cross-examination in open court and also to convince several friends and family members to give corroborating statements to the police about the events surrounding the alleged offences (which they have)
> 
> it would have required both of those agents to convince assange in one case to stay at her flat for several days and the other to spend the night with him - and to at least behave in a manner that means even he has never been confident enough to deny the allegations, which dont just include rape but three counts of sexual assault
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> it would require the CIA having two sleeper agents in place on the off chance assange turned up, one sleeper agent with a fairly extensive history of activism, one who worked in a museum, both have checkable work/family histories. it would require those agents to be good enough to be able to risk them face cross-examination in open court and also to convince several friends and family members to give corroborating statements to the police about the events surrounding the alleged offences (which they have)
> 
> it would have required both of those agents to convince assange in one case to stay at her flat for several days and the other to spend the night with him - and to at least behave in a manner that means even he has never been confident enough to deny the allegations, which dont just include rape but three counts of sexual assault
> 
> ...


or, as i said and you have chosen to ignore, it could be done by a couple of spooks influencing the swedes to press charges in a case where, had it been anyone else, there would be no charges at all. No need for the fantasy you had so much fun creating.

Stupid boy


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> or, as i said and you have chosen to ignore, it could be done by a couple of spooks influencing the swedes to press charges in a case where, had it been anyone else, there would be no charges at all. No need for the fantasy you had so much fun creating.
> 
> Stupid boy


 
no charge for getting into bed with someone and rubbing your naked cock against them when you've been expressly asked to stop trying to initiate sexual contact, or for having sex with someone, without consent whilst they are asleep and not using a condom, despite, according to one of the alleged victims, this being something that had been argued about at length the previous night?

police attitudes aside, even for a nobody, with two alleged victims claiming similar things there would have been likely to have been charges, including in the UK where it has been firmly established that this would be rape under UK law.

assange is high profile, the offences are just as serious (more in some cases) as many of the things television presenters are currently being arrested for in the uk, of course these charges would very likely have proceeded with any high profile figure (and the prosecutor is an outspoken critic of the poor rate of rape convictions in sweden and is quite possibly using this as an example of what she rightly thinks should not be tolerated)

and im sure reactionary forces in the swedish government friendly with the US have egged them on, just as liberal forces in the swedish government might have tried to sweep it under the carpet (possibly one reason why three of the charges were dropped at one point) - but all that is irrelevent to what actually is alleged to have taken place, and the legal position as it now stands


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Instant messages - so basically, instant urbans between two gchq employees - 'their timings are too convenient' is basically 'fucked if we know, but he's probably being fitted up'.


 
Yep.  And the fact that ıt's ınformal chat rather than anythıng offıcıal shows that they really do belıeve ıt.  They may well be guessıng, but theır guess ıs lıkely to be better than most.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> no charge for getting into bed with someone and rubbing your naked cock against them when you've been expressly asked to stop trying to initiate sexual contact, or for having sex with someone, without consent whilst they are asleep and not using a condom, despite, according to one of the alleged victims, this being something that had been argued about at length the previous night?
> 
> police attitudes aside, even for a nobody, with two alleged victims claiming similar things there would have been likely to have been charges, including in the UK where it has been firmly established that this would be rape under UK law.
> 
> ...


none of which has anything to do with the possibility of him being fitted up, which is what we were talking about. 

You are just saying that you believe the women - which is also why you are repeating some of their claims as fact.

As you say it is very likely that there would be charges for a similar offence in the UK<  I'm sure you'll be able to provide us with an example of that actually happening.  Otherwise, I'd still tend to say - there is no way anyone but Assange would be facing charges and extradition for these allegations.


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> it would require the CIA having two sleeper agents in place on the off chance assange turned up, one sleeper agent with a fairly extensive history of activism, one who worked in a museum, both have checkable work/family histories. it would require those agents to be good enough to be able to risk them face cross-examination in open court and also to convince several friends and family members to give corroborating statements to the police about the events surrounding the alleged offences (which they have)


 
In other words, ıt would requıre the CIA to be a mınımally competent ıntellıgence agency.

Settıng up sleeper agents wıth verıfıable professıonal and personal hıstorıes, ınfıltratıng them ınto organızatıons consıdered subversıve, traınıng them to face cross-examınatıon ın court etc are very basıc spyıng technıques. All ıntellıgence agencıes do all of thıs all the tıme.

And the honeytrap ıs the easıest, oldest and most commonly used method ın the book.

The fact that you evıdently know none of thıs suggests a verıtably _Truxtaesque _degree of ıgnorance.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And the honeytrap ıs the easıest, oldest and most commonly used method of all.


especially if they know - as they would after years of surveillance - that their target was a horny old goat who would fuck anything that offered itself to him.



See what you bastards have done now?!  You've got me agreeing with bloody dwyer.  That's twice in a week, I need a lie down.


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> especially if they know - as they would after years of surveillance - that their target was a horny old goat who would fuck anything that offered itself to him.
> 
> 
> 
> See what you bastards have done now?! You've got me agreeing with bloody dwyer. That's twice in a week, I need a lie down.


 
"would fuck anything that didn't offer itself to him".... seems more precise. As for dwyer. You've made your bed, now sleep with him.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> "would fuck anything that didn't offer itself to him".... seems more precise. As for dwyer. You've made your bed, now sleep with him.


except they clearly did - what happened later is disputed, but that both women happily invited him into their home isnt denied.

And, even stopped clocks etc etc


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> except they clearly did - what happened later is disputed, but that both women happily invited him into their home isnt denied.
> 
> And, even stopped clocks etc etc


I said SLEEP WITH HIM


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I said SLEEP WITH HIM


they did that too.


----------



## Balbi (May 22, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Yep. And the fact that ıt's ınformal chat rather than anythıng offıcıal shows that they really do belıeve ıt. They may well be guessıng, but theır guess ıs lıkely to be better than most.


 
Jazzz like post hoc ergo propter hoc there Phil. Water cooler gossip as fact.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> none of which has anything to do with the possibility of him being fitted up, which is what we were talking about.
> 
> You are just saying that you believe the women - which is also why you are repeating some of their claims as fact.


 
no I'm repeating the claims as claims - from two alleged victims of several serious alleged sexual assaults that you think should be ignored, thats more than you get in most of these cases where it's one person's word against another, of course these allegations should be pursued and they are certainly, under UK or swedish law, credible enough to initiate legal proceedings

arent you SWP, it might explain your attitude to these kinds of offences if you are



> As you say it is very likely that there would be charges for a similar offence in the UK< I'm sure you'll be able to provide us with an example of that actually happening. Otherwise, I'd still tend to say - there is no way anyone but Assange would be facing charges and extradition for these allegations.


 
there are sexual assault charges less serious than these prosecuted everyday in the UK courts, have a look in your local paper


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> especially if they know - as they would after years of surveillance - that their target was a horny old goat who would fuck anything that offered itself to him.


 
I thınk you may have your honeytraps confused.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> no I'm repeating the claims as claims - from two alleged victims of several serious alleged sexual assaults that you think should be ignored,


nowhere have i said they should be ignored, so go fuck yourself



> arent you SWP, it might explain your attitude to these kinds of offences if you are


again, no, and go fuck yourself



> there are sexual assault charges less serious than these prosecuted everyday in the UK courts, have a look in your local paper


it is not a question of 'seriousness' it is a question of actionable evidence, which these cases dont have.  So, find me an equivalent case.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And the honeytrap ıs the easıest, oldest and most commonly used method ın the book.


 
in which case you'll be able to give several credible exmaples of a similar honeytrap operation that has been as complex ie not vanunu where all that was required was to get him over a border

and, as ive pointed out, for all this ingenious spookery, it didnt work, assange is not in a US prison, or even sweden, he is in the bolivian embassy


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Jazzz like post hoc ergo propter hoc there Phil. Water cooler gossip as fact.


 
Water cooler gossıp from professıonal spıes.

Who have no motıve to lıe to or mıslead each other ın such gossıp.

Who say ın such gossıp that ıt ıs completely fuckıng obvıous to anyone of more than _Truxtaesque _ıntellıgence that Assange ıs beıng set up.

And who are experıenced and clever enough to know what they are talkıng about, unlıke the varıous fools and knaves here assembled.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> it is not a question of 'seriousness' it is a question of actionable evidence, which these cases dont have. So, find me an equivalent case.


 
two credible victims, corroborating statements from several people around the nature of events and no denial from assange when interviewed under caution, as these kind of cases go, the evidence is pretty strong


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> in which case you'll be able to give several credible exmaples of a similar honeytrap operation that has been as complex ie not vanunu where all that was required was to get him over a border


 
Dude, wıth all the respect ın the world, I'm not goıng to sıt here and prove to you that the honeytrap ıs a commonly-used espıonage technıque.

That ıs an extremely well-known fact.

Just Google ''Mata Harı'' and work backwards from there.


----------



## Balbi (May 22, 2013)

"Yeah, stands to reason he's being setup - s'exactly what would happen if you fucked with the US enough. Stands to reason."

Professional spooks in 'seeing intelligence plots in everything' shocker!


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> in which case you'll be able to give several credible exmaples of a similar honeytrap operation that has been as complex ie not vanunu where all that was required was to get him over a border


lol, and all this required was to get Assange into bed. Nothing particularly complex. Especially as they have probably spied on him for years and know what he's like.


> and, as ive pointed out, for all this ingenious spookery, it didnt work, assange is not in a US prison, or even sweden, he is in the bolivian embassy


so, it cant be a plot, because it didnt work??!! Wow, what a daft comment.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> two credible victims, corroborating statements from several people around the nature of events and no denial from assange when interviewed under caution, as these kind of cases go, the evidence is pretty strong


there was a denial, that is why he wasn't immediately arrested and charged!  If he hadn't denied it, he wouldn't have been let go.

(and, all this omits the point that there is still absolutely no need for either of the two women to be a plant anyway.  It is simply pointing out that it is _plausible_ and that such events _do_ happen)


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

What hard evidence exists of a CIA plot? Is there anything at all that isn't hearsay or speculation? Honest question.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> especially if they know - as they would after years of surveillance - that their target was a horny old goat who would fuck anything that offered itself to him.
> 
> 
> 
> See what you bastards have done now?! You've got me agreeing with bloody dwyer. That's twice in a week, I need a lie down.


But haven't you just said "it's not complex, lean on the odd official" but are now back to having the women being complicit to the conspiracy AFAICS.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> But haven't you just said "it's not complex, lean on the odd official" but are now back to having the women being complicit to the conspiracy AFAICS.


see 1659


----------



## Balbi (May 22, 2013)

also the IM's of GCHQ employees - doesn't automatically mean super spies. Could be the tech guys or anyone


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> and, as ive pointed out, for all this ingenious spookery, it didnt work, assange is not in a US prison, or even sweden, he is in the bolivian embassy


 
No he ıs not.

Agaın wıth all due respect, I don't thınk we should contınue thıs conversatıon untıl you've read up a bıt on espıonage ın general and thıs case ın partıcular.

At the moment ıt's almost lıke talkıng to TruXta, quıte frankly.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> they did that too.


.


----------



## Greebo (May 22, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Dude, wıth all the respect ın the world, I'm not goıng to sıt here and prove to you that the honeytrap ıs a commonly-used espıonage technıque.
> <snip>
> Just Google ''Mata Harı'' and work backwards from there.


They'd do better googling "swallows" (or ravens for the male equivalent) and "cold war".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Russian-spy-a-swallow-came-to-spy-on-us.html
http://sabotagetimes.com/people/katia-zatuliveter-and-the-art-of-the-spy-honey-trap/


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> see 1659


But if they're not a plant/involved then they're making these accusations in good faith, where's the fit up in that? Leaning on prosecutors after the fact when it might not have been pursued would be a separate matter and not what you seemed to be claiming before.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> But if they're not a plant/involved then they're making these accusations in good faith, where's the fit up in that? Leaning on prosecutors after the fact when it might not have been pursued would be a separate matter and not what you seemed to be claiming before.


uhh, it is what I've claimed before.  It is, imo, the more likely explanation. And that _would_ be fitting someone up - what else would you call prosecuting someone when there is insufficient evidence?  It is, at the very least, deliberate tarnishing of their name.

But it is also _possible_ that it is wholly and completely a set up, it wouldn't be an especially complex operation, no matter what smokedout says.


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2013)

laptop said:


> Except the UK and ECHR courts have repeatedly found that the US legal system does not practice torture, nor is to be tried in it persecution.


 
Phew, that's alrıght then.








laptop said:


> You may disagree with them.


 
Thanks!



laptop said:


> But an argument in accordance with the facts has a certain aesthetic appeal which yours lacks.


 
So I see.

Is _Truxtaısm _ınfectıous or somethıng?


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> uhh, it is what I've claimed before. It is, imo, the more likely explanation. And that _would_ be fitting someone up - what else would you call prosecuting someone when there is insufficient evidence? ...


Fitting up means made up whole cloth to me. You're essentially saying at worst they pounced on a situation presented ready made, and with sufficient substance that there's not been some massive legal outcry outside Assange camp that it's preposterously thin case. How that's more likely than it being a more straightforward case of accusations made, bit of official shilly-shallying then going ahead with the prosecution I don't see.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> Fitting up means made up whole cloth to me. You're essentially saying at worst they pounced on a situation presented ready made, and with sufficient substance that there's not been some massive legal outcry outside Assange camp that it's preposterously thin case. How that's more likely than it being a more straightforward case of accusations made, bit of official shilly-shallying then going ahead with the prosecution I don't see.


uhh, there has been a legal outcry from many, but, by definition, the people making it are within the Assange camp, so they can, apparently, be dismissed.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> uhh, there has been a legal outcry from many, but, by definition, the people making it are within the Assange camp, so they can, apparently, be dismissed.


I won't dismiss them if they can show that it's unprecedented for the Swedish state to prosecute on similar allegations, and AFAIK it isn't.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> I won't dismiss them if they can show that it's unprecedented for the Swedish state to prosecute on similar allegations, and AFAIK it isn't.


show the precedent then


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> there was a denial, that is why he wasn't immediately arrested and charged! If he hadn't denied it, he wouldn't have been let go.


 
all he's ever denied is breaking the condom as far as i know, not the other charges.  and dont forget, as well as two very credible statements alleging similar behaviour from the victims and statements from friends and colleagues corroborating what happened before, and after the events, the police could have a whole heap of evidence (and probably do) that we dont know about, all thats been linked is the transcripts from one series of interviews

what evidence do you want in this kind of case? what we know theyve got is as good as it often gets



> (and, all this omits the point that there is still absolutely no need for either of the two women to be a plant anyway. It is simply pointing out that it is _plausible_ and that such events _do_ happen)


 
it's about as plausible as the cia rigging the world trade centre with explosives, the honeytrap examples given are about gathering intelligence, not elaborate conspiracies to frame someone for rape

no intelligence operation in the world would be stupid enough to leave two assets, who in at least one's case only experience of espionage is organising conferences and writing a feminist blog, open to cross examination in a friendly country on a rape charge, particularly where whether they are foreign intelligence agents is likely to form a large chunk of the defence


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> show the precedent then


Can't be arsed, and am sure any absence would have been highlighted when they've bothered with the quibbling over far more minor procedures. But if you show the absence I'll set to Googling.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> all he's ever denied is breaking the condom as far as i know, not the other charges. and dont forget, as well as two very credible statements alleging similar behaviour from the victims and statements from friends and colleagues corroborating what happened before, and after the events, the police could have a whole heap of evidence (and probably do) that we dont know about, all thats been linked is the transcripts from one series of interviews
> 
> what evidence do you want in this kind of case? what we know theyve got is as good as it often gets


drivel which shows you know nothing.  There is precious little evidence of _rape_. And, yes, you can get far far better evidence of abuse than just one persons word. That Assange slept with both of them is not denied, so the 'corroborating evidence' isnt actually corroborating anything. Assange has denied all the serious claims - the condom, using his body weight as a weapon - you know, the things that actually amount to rape. So, the above is just nonsense.



> it's about as plausible as the cia rigging the world trade centre with explosives, the honeytrap examples given are about gathering intelligence, not elaborate conspiracies to frame someone for rape


as pointed out earlier, they are not particularly elaborate. Even if it was an elaborate story (which it isnt) that doesnt require an elaborate set up.

'Seduce the horny old goat, get him into bed, then make some shit up - the more complex the better, cos then some eejits will think 'this is so elaborate it cant possibly be a set up!'



> no intelligence operation in the world would be stupid enough to leave two assets, who in at least one's case only experience of espionage is organising conferences and writing a feminist blog, open to cross examination in a friendly country on a rape charge, particularly where whether they are foreign intelligence agents is likely to form a large chunk of the defence


yes they would


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> Can't be arsed, and am sure any absence would have been highlighted when they've bothered with the quibbling over far more minor procedures. But if you show the absence I'll set to Googling.


I am sure you know full well that it is impossible to prove an 'absence', so the onus is on you.  Or, it is on those who say Assange is guilty already, of whom there are many.  But none of whom seem to have found a similar case.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> I am sure you know full well that it is impossible to prove an 'absence', so the onus is on you. Or, it is on those who say Assange is guilty already, of whom there are many. But none of whom seem to have found a similar case.


No, onus on you making the "extraordinary claim" that the Swedish state wouldn't prosecute on basis of such allegations, when here it is doing just that.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> No, onus on you making the "extraordinary claim" that the Swedish state wouldn't prosecute on basis of such allegations, when here it is doing just that.


I have looked at every case ever tried in Sweden, they have never prosecuted a case on the same evidential basis.


That is, of course, bollocks, but it is what would be required to fulfill your request.  As it is all but impossible to do so, it is a wholly unreasonable request.  YOU claim that similar cases have been tried - show me.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2013)

belboid How is Assange's personal freedom etc more directly beneficial to the working class than holding him accountal for rape/consent issues?


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> I have looked at every case ever tried in Sweden, they have never prosecuted a case on the same evidential basis.
> 
> 
> That is, of course, bollocks, but it is what would be required to fulfill your request. As it is all but impossible to do so, it is a wholly unreasonable request. YOU claim that similar cases have been tried - show me.


Don't feel the need. Clear from the way the nit-picking has been conducted that it's not seen as unusual to want to proceed based on these allegations, as it's not been raised in his defence when ever other jot and tittle has. And nothing's going to convince you either way. But I shall have a read around and report back if I find (unless it doesn't support my case  ).


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

cesare said:


> belboid How is Assange's personal freedom etc more directly beneficial to the working class than holding him accountal for rape/consent issues?


Because it isn't about individuals' personal freedoms, or individuals' personal injuries.  It is about state power and corruption. It is about how the state - the most powerful state in the world - deals with its enemies.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> Don't feel the need. Clear from the way the nit-picking has been conducted that it's not seen as unusual to want to proceed based on these allegations, as it's not been raised in his defence when ever other jot and tittle has. And nothing's going to convince you either way. But I shall have a read around and report back if I find (unless it doesn't support my case  ).


It HAS been raised, so your point is wrong (which means you are, accidentally, agreeing with me )


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> drivel which shows you know nothing. There is precious little evidence of _rape_. And, yes, you can get far far better evidence of abuse than just one persons word. That Assange slept with both of them is not denied, so the 'corroborating evidence' isnt actually corroborating anything. Assange has denied all the serious claims - the condom, using his body weight as a weapon - you know, the things that actually amount to rape. So, the above is just nonsense.


 
there is an allegation of rape from a credible victim and no doubt that assange was at the scene and sexual contact took place, what else would you expect in a date rape type of case - remember no-one is asking for assange to be convicted on this alone, just that it is credible and normal (and right) under these circumstances for him to face charges

there are three further charges relating to sexual assault, which you seem to dismiss out of hand, even though it was serious enough for one of the alleged victims to move out of her own flat temporarily to get away from him




> as pointed out earlier, they are not particularly elaborate. Even if it was an elaborate story (which it isnt) that doesnt require an elaborate set up.
> 
> 'Seduce the horny old goat, get him into bed, then make some shit up - the more complex the better, cos then some eejits will think 'this is so elaborate it cant possibly be a set up!'
> 
> yes they would


 
you sound like jazzz, you are starting from the presumption of a grand conspiracy and then jumping through hoops to try and prove this was the case

I'm sure you'll be able to give a historical example of a honeytrap operation being used by the intelligence services to frame someone for rape then if this kind of thing is so common place


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> It HAS been raised, so your point is wrong (which means you are, accidentally, agreeing with me )


Raised maybe, you just have, not been latched on as part of the substance of his case.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Because it isn't about individuals' personal freedoms, or individuals' personal injuries. It is about state power and corruption. It is about how the state - the most powerful state in the world - deals with its enemies.


 
what fits them up on a charge that probably wouldnt even carry a prison sentence and then bungles it completely and allows assange free passage out of sweden


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

is how the most powerful state in the world deals with its enemies, they dont do subtle


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> there is an allegation of rape from a credible victim and no doubt that assange was at the scene and sexual contact took place, what else would you expect in a date rape type of case - remember no-one is asking for assange to be convicted on this alone, just that it is credible and normal (and right) under these circumstances for him to face charges


wholly wrong.  It would not be normal for him to face charges.  It would be normal for him to face questions, charges would only follow if there was any further evidence.



> there are three further charges relating to sexual assault, which you seem to dismiss out of hand, even though it was serious enough for one of the alleged victims to move out of her own flat temporarily to get away from him


I have never dismissed any charges, you lying little shit, so apologise or fuck off.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> is how the most powerful state in the world deals with its enemies, they dont do subtle


 
Not true. Read up on the absurd list of botched plots to kill Fidel Castro.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> Raised maybe, you just have, not been latched on as part of the substance of his case.


its been raised by most of the defense, actually


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not true. Read up on the absurd list of botched plots to kill Fidel Castro.


Most of them weren't subtle, they were absurdly stupid. Poisoned cigars? Check. Exploding seashells? Check.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> what fits them up on a charge that probably wouldnt even carry a prison sentence and then bungles it completely and allows assange free passage out of sweden


bungled?  He has had his and wikileaks credibility all but fucked, so that soft lefties like you wont have any more to do with him or them. Far more effective than your infantile fantasies about how the state operates.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Most of them weren't subtle, they were absurdly stupid. Poisoned cigars? Check. Exploding seashells? Check.


This case isnt exactly 'subtle' either tho, is it?  The point is, how they tried to fuck Castro shows the daftness of smokedouts argument.


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> bungled? He has had his and wikileaks credibility all but fucked, so that soft lefties like you wont have any more to do with him or them. Far more effective than your infantile fantasies about how the state operates.


From this thread it seems plenty of lefties give him and wikileaks more than enough credibility.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> its been raised by most of the defense, actually


Was good as my word and Googling round, found this pro-Assange site with a list of their problems with the prosecution and nary a sniff AFAICS: http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Prosecution.html


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Because it isn't about individuals' personal freedoms, or individuals' personal injuries. It is about state power and corruption. It is about how the state - the most powerful state in the world - deals with its enemies.


I'm no big fan of the state in its various guises, but "it" for me is about the class.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not true. Read up on the absurd list of botched plots to kill Fidel Castro.


 
precisely, they dont do subtle, they do exploding cigars


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> precisely, they dont do subtle, they do exploding cigars


If only Fidel had been more of a serial sex abuser in Scandinavia type, we might have avoided the whole missile crisis.


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> This case isnt exactly 'subtle' either tho, is it? The point is, how they tried to fuck Castro shows the daftness of smokedouts argument.


It's more than 50 years ago - they might have become a bit more finessed in the meantime. Altho maybe not. But here we go again - OTOH it's CIA who do what they want when they want and fuck anyone else - OTOH the CIA are less competent than a drunk monkey in SCUBA gear. Don't you see the disconnect?


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> wholly wrong. It would not be normal for him to face charges. It would be normal for him to face questions, charges would only follow if there was any further evidence.


 
so thats your position, if its his word against hers, then it should go no further?

and how do you know there is no further evidence?




> I have never dismissed any charges, you lying little shit, so apologise or fuck off.


 
well you certainly havent addressed them, so what about the sexual assault, are they making that up as well, or is rubbing your naked cock up and down against someone when asked to stop initiating sexual contact several times just bad sexual etiquette?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> precisely, they dont do subtle, they do exploding cigars


How about poison in his shoe polish that would make his beard fall out? Absurd but also rather subtle.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> wholly wrong. It would not be normal for him to face charges. It would be normal for him to face questions, charges would only follow if there was any further evidence...


My Google quest brought up this too as it happens: http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/julian-assange-is-charged-there-is-no-doubt-about-it/ which as you can see from the URL says he has been charged, but not yet asked to enter a plea (for some reason he seems to be hard to get hold of)


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How about poison in his shoe polish that would make his beard fall out? Absurd but also rather subtle.


 Fair point. Subtly comes in the effects though not the complicated number of actors required to pull it off (pull it out?)


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm no big fan of the state in its various guises, but "it" for me is about the class.


That's nice. But doesn't actually mean anything in this context.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> precisely, they dont do subtle, they do exploding cigars


Days the boy who a moment ago claimed the only way they dealt with enemies was with massive, overwhelming, force


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Days the boy who a moment ago claimed the only way they dealt with enemies was with massive, overwhelming, force


I'd say an exploding cigar would be overwhelming force. It's not exactly a polonium-tipped umbrella is it?


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> so thats your position, if its his word against hers, then it should go no further?
> 
> and how do you know there is no further evidence?
> 
> ...


I have said nothing about what 'should' happen, I've talked of what DOES happen. And it requires further evidence - none of which is public at this time. 

And I have no interest in discussing your sexual fantasies.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> Was good as my word and Googling round, found this pro-Assange site with a list of their problems with the prosecution and nary a sniff AFAICS: http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Prosecution.html


I'll have read when I'm back from signing on. 



JimW said:


> Fair point. Subtly comes in the effects though not the complicated number of actors required to pull it off (pull it out?)


The Cuba 'events' required vast numbers if actors, certainly more than would be involved here.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'll have read when I'm back from signing on.
> 
> 
> The Cuba 'events' required vast numbers if actors, certainly more than would be involved here.


Big team maybe but not these various agencies all singing from the same song sheet I mean.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> That's nice. But doesn't actually mean anything in this context.


It does to me.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

cesare said:


> It does to me.


That's nice. Care to explain?  Personally, I'd have thought not letting the ruling classes most powerful agency (the US state) do whatever it likes does have some bearing upon the ability of the working class to fight and to defend itself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> Fair point. Subtly comes in the effects though not the complicated number of actors required to pull it off (pull it out?)


I don't know how many actors would be required in the Assange case if it is a fit-up. Not necessarily many. The Castro case and many others illustrate several points - that the CIA is often incompetent, that they often plan rather subtle and convoluted plots, and that these plots don't always involve eliminating their target but rather are concerned with discrediting them. It's not necessarily easy just to bump off a figure with a high public profile if you need to ensure that it can never be pinned on you, and other measures are considered.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know how many actors would be required in the Assange case if it is a fit-up. Not necessarily many. The Castro case and many others illustrate several points - that the CIA is often incompetent, that they often plan rather subtle and convoluted plots, and that these plots don't always involve eliminating their target but rather are concerned with discrediting them. It's not necessarily easy just to bump off a figure with a high public profile, and other measures are considered.


Yep, I've said all along I don't rule it out entirely, just that balance of probabilities here strikes me as more it's something he's done off his own bat and needs to face the consequences for - do have number of further quibbles on the CIA thing - stakes involved etc. but can see that would go round in circles.
ETA: And to repeat, by actors I mean multi-agency coordination which the Swedish plot would seem to require, whereas imagine with Castro it's all their own agents.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> I have said nothing about what 'should' happen, I've talked of what DOES happen. And it requires further evidence - none of which is public at this time.


 
the only reason the police statements are public is because they were leaked, there could be lots more evidence, you're just assuming there isn't because you decided its all a big conspiracy by the evil americans

and in fact, almost all of the current celebrities being arrested and in some cases charged, is in very similar circumstances to those assange is facing - allegations of abuse, from credible victims, in some cases different people alleging similar behaviour, just like the assange case - the only difference is that in the assange case the allegations are fresh and he hasnt denied them




> And I have no interest in discussing your sexual fantasies.


 

so youve decided to ignore the other allegations as i thought, which is why i wont be fucking apologising


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know how many actors would be required in the Assange case if it is a fit-up. Not necessarily many.


 
and yet one, whose entire life history has been raked over and could only have been an asset, rather than an agent at best, was placed at the heart of this conspiracy that if blown open would be a huge scandal in sweden bringing down several high profile figures who would have to be involved (the prosecutor, the police, the womens lawyers etc)

look at how the filth jumped through hoops to keep mark stone out of the courts, he was highly trained yet they were prepared to blow the entire operation - which was legal (ish) to make sure this didnt happen

they dont work this way - and the alternative is that this is more or less as it appears and nothing spectacular has taken place apart from assanges response (which in itself only shows him behaving exactly the way you would expect him to behave if he thought there was a reasonable chance of successful prosecution)

occams fucking razor loon


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> and yet one, whose entire life history has been raked over and could only have been an asset, rather than an agent at best, was placed at the heart of this conspiracy that if blown open would be a huge scandal in sweden bringing down several high profile figures who would have to be involved (the prosecutor, the police, the womens lawyers etc)


 
I don't agree that the prosecutor, police and lawyers need necessarily be involved.

You've set up a strange false dichotomy on this thread - you have decided that a plot is entirely implausible, and you think anyone who disagrees with your position is a loon Assange fanboi/gurl.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> That's nice. Care to explain? Personally, I'd have thought not letting the ruling classes most powerful agency (the US state) do whatever it likes does have some bearing upon the ability of the working class to fight and to defend itself.


No, I don't care to explain. I have made my position on class/women's agency and equality/male sexual domination clear already.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

how did the women trick the police into pursuing charges when that wasnt their initial intention when they reported the offence?

how did they trick the swedish authorities into replacing the prosecutor who initially dropped three of the charges?

how did they trick their lawyers into appealing the charges being dropped if the allegations werent credible?

how did they trick the new prosecutor into re-instating and pursuing the charges?


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree that the prosecutor, police and lawyers need necessarily be involved.
> 
> You've set up a strange false dichotomy on this thread - you have decided that a plot is entirely implausible, and you think anyone who disagrees with your position is a loon Assange fanboi/gurl.


 
and the reason this is important is because you are endorsing a message that if a woman alleges abuse by a powerful man and if that powerful man happens to be 'on our side', then the response should be to accuse the women of being cops

its fucking contemptible


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> and the reason this is important is because you are endorsing a message that if a woman alleges abuse by a powerful man and if that powerful man happens to be 'on our side', then the response should be to accuse the women of being cops
> 
> its fucking contemptible


No I'm not. That is exactly the false dichotomy I'm talking about.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not. That is exactly the false dichotomy I'm talking about.


 
yes you are, give him the benefit of the doubt, they might have been cops, we dont know, thats your position

gary glitter claimed there was a conspiracy to get him, if you were a gary glitter fan youd be inventing shit to support him


----------



## weltweit (May 22, 2013)

Perhaps Assange plans to win the record for the person longest kept in an embassy. He has some way to go mind! :

Hungarian Catholic Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty spent 15 years under the protection of the US embassy in Budapest, from 1956 to 1971.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> yes you are, give him the benefit of the doubt, they might have been cops, we dont know, thats your position
> 
> gary glitter claimed there was a conspiracy to get him, if you were a gary glitter fan youd be inventing shit to support him


Again, no. Where have I said 'give him the benefit of the doubt'? Where have I said anything that would imply that I'm a fan?

What is contemptible is to fling mud at people like you're doing.


----------



## sihhi (May 22, 2013)

Just to restate:

We shouldn’t take a position on Assange’s guilt or innocence, because we shouldn’t have one but Assange should properly face down the charges. As things stand because of where we're at, we have a festering situation where a figure deemed to be critical of the West, allied to another pole, can help you wear down and erode rape charges so long as you stay in an Embassy bedroom and use the courtyard as a garden. It's possible, Cardinal Mindszenty spent over 15 years in the US Embassy in Budapest, as smokedout suggests.

Attempted intercourse and penile contact whilst a partner is sleeping is still a form of sexual assault/rape, and is treated as a crime in Sweden where it took place. It is not judged as harshly as other forms of rape where the victim begins the ordeal conscious (whether that's right or not is another question).

http://www.thelocal.se/47314/20130413/#.UZzMDqKHuuI (2 year sentence, short compared to other rapes)

There is no situation where the Swedish legal system automatically accepts rape charges as this recent incident and countless others prove.
http://www.thelocal.se/47920/20130515/#.UZzL_aKHuuI

The new stuff:

The burden of argument is firmly on those who wish to suggest a CIA/MI5/SAPO connection to false allegations of rape should _in this instance_. Instant messaging from two GCHQ employeess is not enough:
"They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ … It is definitely a fit-up… Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate."


"He reckons he will stay in the Ecuadorian embassy for six to 12 months when the charges against him will be dropped, but that is not really how it works now is it? He's a fool… Yeah … A highly optimistic fool."


... That's _it_ - that's all there is in Assange's latest pronouncements.

In general:


Assange applied for permanent residence and citizenship in Sweden in late 2010, this was not granted - he was seeking to be in Sweden when still a potential/hypothetical target of US justice.
Assange was happy to be in the UK, a country that regularly extradites to USA political (of various sorts) figures, and yet refused to step foot in Sweden again after 2011 (the change in outlook is the rape charges). This is not appropriate behaviour.


We ought not tolerate two systems of law for Swedish citizens - one for common as muck Swedish males charged with rape and another for jet-setting foreign celebrities (who, incidentally, do no whistleblowing themselves and fail in the case of Manning to protect their whistleblowers that make their websites so popular).

The UK judgement is here, it accedes to the Swedish request in a normal manner, not dissimilar to similar cases between other EU countries and Britian.


http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Again, no. Where have I said 'give him the benefit of the doubt'? Where have I said anything that would imply that I'm a fan?
> 
> What is contemptible is to fling mud at people like you're doing.


 


> That is my answer. Whether or not I condemn or condone his actions depends on which of those possibilities is true. Sometimes the answer to a yes/no question is 'it depends'.


 
but, but he might be innocent and sometimes, when i like them, its okay for someone to avoid sexual charges and smear the victims with no evidence at all, sometimes, in some circumstances, that might be okay and i refuse to condemn it outright

does that sum up what you think?


----------



## sihhi (May 22, 2013)

Assange _did_ belittle victims of sexual assault without condoms in a very general sense whilst in East Anglia on bail, instead of going to Sweden to place his defence where it matters most:




> Q: All right, what do you think is probable here?
> JA: What is probable? It is less probable that there was that type of involvement at the very beginning. That kind of classic Russian-Moscow thing. That is not probable.
> Q: That leaves us with the fact, because you accept this, that one of those women at least did make a complaint against you.
> JA: Not even a complaint. It appears, from the records that we do have, the suggestion is that they went to the police for advice and they did not want to make a complaint. What they say is that they found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had undertaken sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. They went to the police to…
> ...


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> the only reason the police statements are public is because they were leaked, there could be lots more evidence, you're just assuming there isn't because you decided its all a big conspiracy by the evil americans


I go on the evidence I know about, that is all  can do. You are imagining evidence, maybe there is some, maybe there isn't.  I dont know, and neither do you.   So letsd stick tyo the evidence we do know about.



> and in fact, almost all of the current celebrities being arrested and in some cases charged, is in very similar circumstances to those assange is facing - allegations of abuse, from credible victims, in some cases different people alleging similar behaviour, just like the assange case - the only difference is that in the assange case the allegations are fresh and he hasnt denied them


wrong yet again. The allegations against Savile et al are overwhelmingly based upon claims by the defendants that there was no sexual contact at all. That is far far easier to disprove, even after years.  Its not just the corroboration evidence (although that is important) it is about describing things that could not have happened unless there was sexual contact. They are quite different to the Assange case.



> so youve decided to ignore the other allegations as i thought, which is why i wont be fucking apologising


no, i chose to ignore your revoltingly lurid writing up of events.  It is perfectly possible to discuss the case without having to write that shit up again and again, and I can only imagine you do so cos you get a kick out of it.

If your short-term memory wasn't so fucked, you'd be able to remember me, earlier in the thread, writing at some length about how it was indeed important for Assange to answer questions about the events in Sweden, and that what is needed now is not some pricks shouting off that he is clearly a guilty shitbag who should go hang, but to find a way to get him to be held responsible for what he did or did not do.  But that does not mean he should just wander back into Sweden and let them (and the yanks) do whatever they want.  You carry on posturing if you like tho.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> occams fucking razor loon


you dont actuallu understand what Occams razor is about.  It isnt, as is often stated, simply that 'the simplest solution is the right one' - its about cutting away the crap, the peripheral stuff around central events so that you can see the wood amidst the trees.  you are looking at the trees.


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> But that does not mean he should just wander back into Sweden and let them (and the yanks) do whatever they want.


Yeah god forbid they try and implement their laws eh? The cheek of it.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

cesare said:


> No, I don't care to explain. I have made my position on class/women's agency and equality/male sexual domination clear already.


Well, I'm sorry, but it still means sweet FA in this context.  I am aware, in general, of your view, and would agree with most of it.  But unless you are going to say that all accusations of rape must be believed, then it is still down to you to show why you think merely saying 'class' means anything.  And even then, it doesnt really mean much.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Yeah god forbid they try and implement their laws eh? The cheek of it.


It would be perfectly within Swedish law to interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy. If they were desperate for a resolution, they would have done so.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Well, I'm sorry, but it still means sweet FA in this context. I am aware, in general, of your view, and would agree with most of it. But unless you are going to say that all accusations of rape must be believed, then it is still down to you to show why you think merely saying 'class' means anything. And even then, it doesnt really mean much.


I deliberately phrased that post so that you could just leave it there, but no, you're determined to respond.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

cesare said:


> I deliberately phrased that post so that you could just leave it there, but no, you're determined to respond.


oh no!  Someone on a discussion board responded to something else someone said!  What a cad.

I'm so fucking sorry.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> oh no! Someone on a discussion board responded to something else someone said! What a cad.
> 
> I'm so fucking sorry.


This is just making you look like a bully, now.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)




----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

Funny how none of the JA fanbois care to respond to sihhi's points eh.


----------



## Smyz (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> I think he has a case too answer too.  However, if you were charged with something for which you knew* you were innocent of, and also thought you were being set up and that the trial would be fixed, would you go back to that country?  Or would you do everything you could not to do so.
> 
> 
> *( in his head, he 'knows', and if he is innocent then he really knows)


George Galloway doesn't know what rape is. How do you know Assange does?


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Funny how none of the JA fanbois care to respond to sihhi's points eh.


there arent really any other points there tho.  It is just a repetition of what we already know, isnt it?


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

I think you need to read it again belboid.


----------



## teqniq (May 22, 2013)

From what I have read there are no fanbois.


----------



## sihhi (May 22, 2013)

My point is that those defending Assange staying away from Sweden need to bring forward something, otherwise its carte blanche for all movements abroad with men in them that the US government doesn't like, being able to bat away accusations of sexual assault and rape as agent women being used by CIA partisans.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I think you need to read it again belboid.


done that, its a restatement of known facts. Admirably briefly put, but still just a re-statement. Shit man, it even starts: 'Just to restate'




sihhi said:


> My point is that those defending Assange staying away from Sweden need to bring forward something, otherwise its carte blanche for all movements abroad with men in them that the US government doesn't like, being able to bat away accusations of sexual assault and rape as agent women being used by CIA partisans.


this is a good point, and it is indeed why any defense of Assange leaves a somewhat unpleasant taste in the mouth. i would say that there is some clear, circumstantial, evidence in Assanges favour. Leading members of the US state had just said how they wanted him tried for aiding and abetting the enemy, there were direct and current accusations and threats against him. It was all _remarkably_ convenient for them.

None of which means Assange shouldn't face questioning. Justice must be done for all. I simply believe that the most practicable way for that to happen would be for Sweden to question Assange in the embassy, and for them to give the strongest possible statement that they will not extradite him onwards for any political crime related to wikileaks.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> Was good as my word and Googling round, found this pro-Assange site with a list of their problems with the prosecution and nary a sniff AFAICS: http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Prosecution.html


read this now, and it does make exactly the point I was making:

"It is highly irregular in Sweden for an international arrest warrant to be sought in relation to allegations of this kind, and for a preliminary investigation where there is no charge. The only recent example of Sweden issuing an INTERPOL Red Notice and The European Arrest Warrant for sexual offences involved a repeat-offending paedophile."


----------



## Smyz (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> except they clearly did - what happened later is disputed, but that both women happily invited him into their home isnt denied.
> 
> And, even stopped clocks etc etc


Invited into their homes is not permission to screw them at his convenience.


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> done that, its a restatement of known facts. Admirably briefly put, but still just a re-statement. Shit man, it even starts: 'Just to restate'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's illegal for them do so!  FFS


----------



## Smyz (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> they did that too.


Sleeping with him is not permission to force himself on them at any and all future opportunities.

Neither ever consented to no condom.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Invited into their homes is not permission to screw them at his convenience.


get to the end of the thread before posting!  We've covered that one


----------



## Smyz (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> lol, and all this required was to get Assange into bed. Nothing particularly complex. Especially as they have probably spied on him for years and know what he's like.
> 
> so, it cant be a plot, because it didnt work??!! Wow, what a daft comment.


They know what he is like makes the set-up likely but you don't believe he might have a case to answer because of what he is like?

Your attitude is worrying.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It's illegal for them do so! FFS


Not to give the 'strongest possible statement' it isnt. Fucks sake, thats what they pay lawyers millions for, to find ways of meeting the letter of the law whilst bending its intent to what is needed at the time.


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Not to give the 'strongest possible statement' it isnt. Fucks sake, thats what they pay lawyers millions for, to find ways of meeting the letter of the law whilst bending its intent to what is needed at the time.


I give up - you're entrenched.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

Smyz said:


> They know what he is like makes the set-up likely but you don't believe he might have a case to answer because of what he is like?
> 
> Your attitude is worrying.


you've just said it was 'likely' a set up.

No one has a case to answer because of 'what they are like' - they have a case to answer because of what they _do_


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> read this now, and it does make exactly the point I was making:
> 
> "It is highly irregular in Sweden for an international arrest warrant to be sought in relation to allegations of this kind, and for a preliminary investigation where there is no charge. The only recent example of Sweden issuing an INTERPOL Red Notice and The European Arrest Warrant for sexual offences involved a repeat-offending paedophile."


Wasn't aware the question was international warrants - certainly my point was that these charges for sexual offences weren't unprecedented, hence haven't elicited any surprise/outrage on that score in Sweden.
Pound to a penny any rarity of Interpol warrants is as much to do with few of presumably overwhelming Swedish accused fleeing such relatively minor charges.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> read this now, and it does make exactly the point I was making:
> 
> "It is highly irregular in Sweden for an international arrest warrant to be sought in relation to allegations of this kind, and for a preliminary investigation where there is no charge. The only recent example of Sweden issuing an INTERPOL Red Notice and The European Arrest Warrant for sexual offences involved a repeat-offending paedophile."


 
10,000 red notices are issued a year, and a similar number of EAWs - i know someone personally who had to go and face charges due to one and who, unlike assange, was given no access to the coruts to challenge it

and it is not a preliminary investigation, they want to arrest him, this site is lying or misinformed, and simply spouting what assanges legal team have been putting out


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I give up - you're entrenched.


and you arent?!

It would be perfectly possible to find a form of words that would satisfy all parties, if there were the will to do so - on _both_ sides.

As it is, the Swedes, and the yanks, are happy for things to carry on as they are.


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> and you arent?!
> 
> It would be perfectly possible to find a form of words that would satisfy all parties, if there were the will to do so - on _both_ sides.
> 
> As it is, the Swedes, and the yanks, are happy for things to carry on as they are.


You honestly think JA has any intention whatsoever of facing a Swedish court? Talk about wishful thinking.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

i give up as well, learnt long ago theres no point arguing with conspiracy theorists


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> 10,000 red notices are issued a year, and a similar number of EAWs - i know someone personally who had to go and face charges due to one and who, unlike assange, was given no access to the coruts to challenge it
> 
> and it is not a preliminary investigation, they want to arrest him, this site is lying or misinformed, and simply spouting what assanges legal team have been putting out


Not from Sweden they arent, which is what the article says. And it is still a preliminary investigation, as it will remain until he is arrested.They cant move on until they have questioned him, which is why they issued the warrant.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You honestly think JA has any intention whatsoever of facing a Swedish court? Talk about wishful thinking.


Yes.  Ultimately i think even he must know he will have to.  Ecuador has already met with Labour bods to try and find a way out of the impasse.


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Yes. Ultimately i think even he must know he will have to. Ecuador has already met with Labour bods to try and find a way out of the impasse.


OK. Thanks for ignoring my poor attempt at mocking you. It doesn't add anything and I should really stop it.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Not from Sweden they arent, which is what the article says. And it is still a preliminary investigation, as it will remain until he is arrested.They cant move on until they have questioned him, which is why they issued the warrant.


My other link says he's now at what would be the charged stage, just need him there in person to plead to continue the process.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Not from Sweden they arent, which is what the article says. And it is still a preliminary investigation, as it will remain until he is arrested.They cant move on until they have questioned him, which is why they issued the warrant.


 
they are ready to charge, they cant charge until he's arrested, at least bother to learn the sheeple laws


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> i give up as well, learnt long ago theres no point arguing with conspiracy theorists


You aren't really 'arguing' tho, are you?  You're just stating and restating your personal belief.  Whenever your points are demolished, you just ignore them and move swiftly on. Sounds a bit Jazzzy to me.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> they are ready to charge, they cant charge until he's arrested, at least bother to learn the sheeple laws


lol, that was basically my point, dumbo!  the article is technically absolutely correct, it is still a preliminary investigation because they cant physically arrest him.  Thus, it cannot move onto the next stage.  Which is what I said.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> lol, that was basically my point, dumbo! the article is technically absolutely correct, it is still a preliminary investigation because they cant physically arrest him. Thus, it cannot move onto the next stage. Which is what I said.


But that stage is of being charged, as that's how Swedish law operates. They have no doubt he has a case to answer. So not a preliminary investigation.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> But that stage is of being charged, as that's how Swedish law operates. They have no doubt he has a case to answer. So not a preliminary investigation.


But until he actually is arrested, it is in limbo.  Yes, hey know they want to move onto the next stage, yes we all know they want to move onto the next stage, but, _technically_ until they nick him, they cant.

I know its pedantic piffle, but that's the law for you.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> lol, that was basically my point, dumbo! the article is technically absolutely correct, it is still a preliminary investigation because they cant physically arrest him. Thus, it cannot move onto the next stage. Which is what I said.


 



> "It is highly irregular in Sweden for an international arrest warrant to be sought in relation to allegations of this kind, and for a preliminary investigation where there is no charge. The only recent example of Sweden issuing an INTERPOL Red Notice and The European Arrest Warrant for sexual offences involved a repeat-offending paedophile."


 
in other words, the last time a sex offender hot-footed it out of sweden to avoid charges, exactly the same thing happened


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> But until he actually is arrested, it is in limbo. Yes, hey know they want to move onto the next stage, yes we all know they want to move onto the next stage, but, _technically_ until they nick him, they cant.
> 
> I know its pedantic piffle, but that's the law for you.


I get that, but does strike me as a substantive difference between being at the stage of firm charges that procedurally require a "how do you plead" versus we just have some questions we want to clear up with you.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> in other words, the last time a sex offender hot-footed it out of sweden to avoid charges, exactly the same thing happened


That isnt what it says at all. It says there has only been one EAW issued for (alleged) sex offences. And that that was issued for someone with significant previous for those crimes.  That is a very different thing.  It strongly implies (tho doesn't state explicitly, I'll grant you) that there were other people accused of sex offenses who did not have an EAW issued for them.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> I get that, but does strike me as a substantive difference between being at the stage of firm charges that procedurally require a "how do you plead" versus we just have some questions we want to clear up with you.


I agree, I was just disagreeing with smokedouts claim that the article was wrong.  It was technically absolutely correct.


----------



## Smyz (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> you've just said it was 'likely' a set up.
> 
> No one has a case to answer because of 'what they are like' - they have a case to answer because of what they _do_


You said it was likely because of the way he is known to behave with women. You didn't say that this also makes it believable that he has a case to answer. In a country that cannot legally extradite him for political crimes including espionage.

Your attitude is worrying.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

Smyz said:


> You said it was likely because of the way he is known to behave with women. You didn't say that this also makes it believable that he has a case to answer. In a country that cannot legally extradite him for political crimes including espionage.
> 
> Your attitude is worrying.


I have said that it is believable he has a case to answer.

Your ability to read is worrying.


----------



## smokedout (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> That isnt what it says at all. It says there has only been one EAW issued for (alleged) sex offences. And that that was issued for someone with significant previous for those crimes. That is a very different thing. It strongly implies (tho doesn't state explicitly, I'll grant you) that there were other people accused of sex offenses who did not have an EAW issued for them.


 
of course it implies that, its a site lying for assange, but nowhere does it provide evidence that is the case

ffs, you think if your accused of rape in one european country you can simply nip over the border and it will all be okay, of course they issued an EAW


----------



## Smyz (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> I have said that it is believable he has a case to answer.
> 
> Your ability to read is worrying.


Your ability to dismiss women as liars and accept the Assange fantasy as truth is disgusting. If they are lying let a court decide. If the assaults were too trivial for the law to punish them let a judge and jury decide. If it is easier to extradite him from Sweden when he is facing rape charges than from the UK when he is not -- prove it.

Your slack attitude disgusts me.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> of course it implies that, its a site lying for assange, but nowhere does it suggest that is the case
> 
> ffs, you think if your accused of rape in one european country you can simply nip over the border and it will all be okay, of course they issued an EAW




Really, read the thing properly, it didn't state what you claim at all.  It says that there has only been one EAW issued for sexual offenses in recent years.  Do you honestly think that there has only been one person who has been accused of sexual offenses who has left the country?  That is frankly far more unbelievable than anything anyone else has claimed in this thread!

And you say it is a lying site for Assange (not that you've already completely made your mind up based on evidence you've imagined, oh no, not at all), but the thing you said it lied about a few minutes ago is, in fact, completely (if pedantically) true.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Your ability to dismiss women as liars and accept the Assange fantasy as truth is disgusting. If they are lying let a court decide. If the assaults were too trivial for the law to punish them let a judge and jury decide. If it is easier to extradite him from Sweden when he is facing rape charges than from the UK when he is not -- prove it.
> 
> Your slack attitude disgusts me.


I have neither dismissed the women as liars, nor have I accepted Assanges fantasy. Those are plain and simple lies.

So fuck off.


----------



## sihhi (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> None of which means Assange shouldn't face questioning. Justice must be done for all. I simply believe that the most practicable way for that to happen would be for Sweden to question Assange in the embassy, and for them to give the strongest possible statement that they will not extradite him onwards for any political crime related to wikileaks.


 
This is the state of play, as I understand it: there are no arrest warrants that have any currency in Swedish extradition law for anything related to the Manning releases or any other aspect of Wikileaks.

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...-stefan-lindskog/story-fncynjr2-1226612062993

Questioning in the Ecuador embassy would be to prejudice the case over the charges relating to the 13-14, 17 and 18 August 2010 of rape and sexual assault. To place the accused as a special accused who has super rights not accorded to other left-wing but pro-US or non-political suspects, is not a tenable scenario.


Military agents can act out disruptive illegal efforts on dissidents and then go hide in another country's embassy then make the same claims as Assange - something the Shah's lot associated with SAVAK were very good at doing across European capitals in the 1970s.
Assange's behaviour is precisely the behaviour you'd want to have to destroy an anonymising potentially damaging whistleblowing project. Yet there are no CIA question marks against him, someone who can't even protect their crucial military intelligence whistleblower (Bradley Manning). I'm not saying there should be CIA question-marks I'm pointing out the _absurdity_ of some of the suggestions that some have made here.

The female weaker party of this affair is often seen as screwing up spy-style the proper crusading left, whilst the male more powerful one isn't.
CIA attempted to assassinate Castro, Lumumba might have been murdered by Belgian security service-funded gangs - how on earth are these events used as pro-Assange-stay-away-from-justice-over-rape charges? Is this how we judge reality? Police in Ecuador often employ aspects of torture in their work, hence we should reject the proceedings of the Ecuadoran judicial system and demand that any suspects in a rape investigation where the accused is someone leftist be interviewed only in an embassy of a foreign country perhaps Sudan or Sweden, ie on specially immune soil where embassy guards dictate the terms?



An embassy means that if you don't want to commit a crime under the Vienna convention the Swedish investigators, there are also, I imagine, very valid reasons for returning the suspect to the 2 flats and bedrooms involved in the 3 charges.

Asil Nadir the Cypriot tycoon said he was the victim of a British City conspiracy who didn't like foreigners making money. He refused to set foot in Britain to face charges of fraud, since the British judges would not agree to give him bail and wanted to see him suffer in prison, but that police were welcome to question him in northern Cyprus. Should Nadir's requests have been fulfilled?

If Assange was in danger of a US warrant nabbing him to a US military prison from Sweden, why did he apply for residency in Sweden in 2010, why indeed did he set foot in Sweden at all. Wikileaks was a remote operation, didn't need his particular appearance anywhere.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2013)

The thing, surely, is how to actually move the case on - so that _everyone_ involved can get some kind of justice.

Assange isn't just gonna walk out, Sweden isn't just gonna drop the case (not that anyone, bar a couple of Assange's barmier supporters like Galloway, has said they should).  So what next?

I don't think interviewing him in the embassy would give him super rights. They have interviewed people abroad before, so, whilst being unusual, that isn't wholly breaking with precedent. And, as we all agree, they have said they want to arrest him and move proceedings on, then they can essentially carry out a formal interview, and will then have fulfilled all the requirements to move on.  Having him return to the flats and bedrooms could indeed serve a valuable purpose, but it doesn't have to be done at the next interview, it could be done in an interview after that (as far as I understand).

Of course he would still, most likely, refuse to leave the embassy even after that, but it should be done to at least call his bluff. Likewise, you can give strong statements re-iterating Sweden's existing policy on not extraditing people for political cases, and noting that they consider wikileaks a political organisation (or something along those lines that overpriced lawyers should be able to concoct).

Again, he might refuse to move on, but then his bluff is called. I mentioned earlier how Ecuador are trying to find a way to get him out of their embassy, and I find it hard to believe they are trying to find a way that doesn't involve him going back to Sweden. And, again, I'd say that, yes, he should go back to Sweden.

The difference with Nadir, is that his defense was always wholly and completely crap, and everyone knows it now and always did. That there is at least an element of political contrivance to destroy Assange behind this case is at least plausible.

And its not about Sweden being especially likely to extradite him, its about it being much easier to extradite someone who is already locked up, and less able to defend himself. It doesn't matter that it is Sweden, it would be just as true of France, Germany, wherever.

I do agree with you that there is a nasty taste left in the mouth both those trying to portray Assange as Mr Super Who Must Be Believed, and who dismiss the case against him, and that much of that comes with a macho attitude towards women.  Assange does himself no favours by not referring to getting justice for the women involved too (as well as barely mentioning Bradley Manning). But there _is_, imo, a clear political reason behind the pursuit of him, and that means that he does deserve some special considerations _in order that he can be got back to Sweden to answer the charges fully_.

Just going 'he should go back now' gets no one anywhere, even if the US and Sweden are both kinda happy for it to go on that way.


----------



## sihhi (May 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> The difference with Nadir, is that his defense was always wholly and completely crap, and everyone knows it now and always did. That there is at least an element of political contrivance to destroy Assange behind this case is at least plausible.


 
That assessment is from a Western left perspective, not from the Turkish Cypriot nationalist perspective who saw him as an individual who had probably done a few wrong things but was being particularly heavily targetted for nasty reasons, he had done much for helping out his immigrant workforce whom no one else would employ and was an unwanted thorn in the side of the British establishment.
The point is: who can pronounce which claims of those refusing to face justice are correct and which are faulty?

We would rightly have supported an INTERPOL arrest team bringing Nadir to justice from his exile in an occupied pseudo-state, and many know think the principle of embassy immunity should stand and not be sacrificed since it would boomerang badly against Third world countries, but Assange should face the accusations.

His releasing this kind of drip drip non-information to muddy the water and delaying the analysis in order to question and knock down testimony on grounds of memory does not serve the struggle against sexual violence well. Particularly so, given his inconsistencies over _having sought Sweden_ as a base for his operations before any rape charges.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2013)

> arent you SWP, it might explain your attitude to these kinds of offences if you are


 
arguments aside, thats really not in order is it?


----------



## weltweit (May 22, 2013)

This thread is just going round in circles.

Send wikileaks a full invoice for the policing costs outside the embassy.


----------



## Smyz (May 26, 2013)

belboid said:


> The thing, surely, is how to actually move the case on - so that _everyone_ involved can get some kind of justice.
> 
> Assange isn't just gonna walk out, Sweden isn't just gonna drop the case (not that anyone, bar a couple of Assange's barmier supporters like Galloway, has said they should).  So what next?
> 
> ...


Already been questioned. The Swedish police want him because the prosecutors have decided he must face charges in court. Needs to turn up for that.

Repeating his delusions keeps this 'just going round in circles'. He was not wikileaks but supporters of wikileaks say support the imperialists or him. False choice.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 9, 2013)

How long before he holds Snowden up in front of him as another barrier between him and the charges? He's sooooooooo inspirational


----------



## laptop (Jun 9, 2013)

I was just searching for this thread to note that, with any luck, it is superseded and JA is eclipsed by someone who, so far, seems very rational.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 9, 2013)

Wiki's twitter already heavy on Snowden's desire to seek asylum in Iceland. They're the saaaaammme maaaaan


----------



## laptop (Jun 9, 2013)

JA will now be praying that someone blatantly tries to fit Snowden up with something or other


----------



## weltweit (Jun 9, 2013)

The Assange stalemate can't continue for ever, at some point something will change. But what?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2015)

Wikileaks' Julian Assange considering suing Nick Clegg for defamation



> Julian Assange is considering legal action against Nick Clegg over comments he made on a radio programme yesterday.
> 
> The Wikileaks founder is taking legal advice on whether he should sue the Deputy Prime Minsiter for defamation, after he said he had been "charged" with a crime.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 6, 2015)

lol


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 6, 2015)

hows he planning on turning up to court


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2015)

i read the thread title as 'assange to face execution' 

and i hoped it was true 

does that make me a bad person?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 6, 2015)

is nick clegg doing to have to seek asylum in somebodies embassy now?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i read the thread title as 'assange to face execution'
> 
> and i hoped it was true
> 
> does that make me a bad person?



All depends on what side of the barbed wire fence you're sitting on


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> All depends on what side of the barbed wire fence you're sitting on


the happy side.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> is nick clegg doing to have to seek asylum in somebodies embassy now?


he won't get that far

crack hit squads track him night and day just waiting for the word and even if he evades them all the embassies are watched


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the happy side.



The inside.


----------



## laptop (Feb 7, 2015)

weltweit said:


> The Assange stalemate can't continue for ever, at some point something will change. *But what?*



Mostly, it seems, the date 





Change of government in Ecuador must be on the cards eventually...


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2015)

laptop said:


> Change of government in Ecuador must be on the cards eventually...



It's only going to move to the Left though, so presumably will be even less sympathetic to the Empire's demands.

It's starting to look like he'll come out in a coffin.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2015)

bohemond i, first prince of antioch, was captured by the danishmends. he escaped, after some time in captivity, by faking his death and was carried out in a coffin. he went on to continue his long feud with the byzantine empire before dying round 1111.

this may not be strictly true


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 7, 2015)

maybe the ptb will try to dart him when he gives another of his balcony addresses to the adoring bemasked crowd of oddball fans.

if he falls backwards, then well it is a waste of a dart. If he falls forward the rozzers can be there with a big sheet to catch him then arrest him


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> bohemond i, first prince of antioch, was captured by the danishmends. he escaped, after some time in captivity, by faking his death and was carried out in a coffin. he went on to continue his long feud with the byzantine empire before dying round 1111.
> 
> this may not be strictly true



Complete and utter bollocks.

However, George Blake did smuggle himself into East Berlin by turning himself black, using drugs and sun-ray lamps.  Got to be worth a try.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2016)

Bump, in time for tomorrow's announcement that the UN panel have found in Assange's favour...that he has been detained arbitrarily.

Setting aside the usual cut & thrust of any Assange discussion, it quite amusing to see how the news of this impending finding has upset tories who were quick to point out that the UN finding will not be binding in this country. Those same tories happy to cheer on Assange's extradition under the **EU** arrest warrant treaty.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Bump, in time for tomorrow's announcement that the UN panel have found in Assange's favour...that he has been detained arbitrarily.
> 
> Setting aside the usual cut & thrust of any Assange discussion, it quite amusing to see how the news of this impending finding has upset tories who were quick to point out that the UN finding will not be binding in this country. Those same tories happy to cheer on Assange's extradition under the **EU** arrest warrant treaty.



The EU is alright now, haven't you heard? It has an emergency brake which means it is good now and we should vote to stay in because of the emergency brake a negotiation won which ensures an emergency brake so going forward we will stay in a reformed emergency European brake Union emergency.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The EU is alright now, haven't you heard? It has an emergency brake which means it is good now and we should vote to stay in because of the emergency brake a negotiation won which ensures an emergency brake so going forward we will stay in a reformed emergency European brake Union emergency.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 4, 2016)

_Sex case! Sex case! Hang him, hang him, hang him!_


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> _Sex case! Sex case! Hang him, hang him, hang him!_


Good of you to provide 





> _the usual cut & thrust of any Assange discussion_


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

UN panel redefines "detained" and "arbitrary".

UN panel urges UK and Sweden to end Julian Assange's 'deprivation of liberty'


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2016)

Probably worth pointing our that this silly committee actually consisted on three people in this case, one person recused themselves and another disagreed with the findings.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

I called on Sweden to end the deprivation of my liberty last time I went to IKEA. Turns out all I had to do was find the exit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)




----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2016)

The three morons responsible for this report should be tarred and feathered, it's not just ludicrous it's offensive to those people that are arbitrarily detained and makes any UN criticism of government actions on this or other issues (for example the very valid criticism of the Australian governments NT policy) even more useless than previously.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> it's not just ludicrous it's offensive to those people that are arbitrarily detained and makes any UN criticism of government actions on this or other issues (for example the very valid criticism of the Australian governments NT policy) even more useless than previously.


Precisely.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)




----------



## bimble (Feb 5, 2016)

He's talking now, on a screen .. telling the Uk and Sweden that they have to implement the verdict that they have no choice etc. 
He just suggested that sanctions might be implemented if they fail to do so.
Julian Assange: UN panel decision is 'vindication' – live updates


----------



## gosub (Feb 5, 2016)

this group's find as well as absurd (Assange should be paid for hiding from the law GTF), are also non binding.


All he's managed to do is further deminish the UN


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> He's talking now, on a screen .. telling the Uk and Sweden that they have to implement the verdict that they have no choice etc.
> He just suggested that sanctions might be implemented if they fail to do so.
> Julian Assange: UN panel decision is 'vindication' – live updates



Have you seen what that cunt's got for a background? justice4assange


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)




----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

The charges that were "dropped" haven't been dropped for any reason other than Assange waited out the statute of limitations. 

The more serious charge of rape still stands. 

The course of the legal process could be speeded up if Assange chose to answer the case against him. It could have proceeded faster up until now if he hadn't pursued appeal after appeal and if he hadn't skipped bail to hole himself up in the embassy. 

And as for #JusticeForAssange: that's what I want too.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> And as for #JusticeForAssange: that's what I want too.








I want to punch the smug cunt in the face.


----------



## gosub (Feb 5, 2016)

In other news Chelsea Manning is 3 years into a 35 year sentence.


----------



## bimble (Feb 5, 2016)

Can someone please explain what reason he's given for deciding to hide / incarcerate himself in the embassy for years instead of just letting himself be tried & found to be completely innocent ?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> Can someone please explain what reason he's given for deciding to hide / incarcerate himself in the embassy for years instead of just letting himself be tried & found to be completely innocent ?


He _says_ that getting him to Sweden is simply a ruse to enable them to extradite him to the US.

It's nonsense. They want to question him for fucking women whilst they were sleeping.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

Julian, if you want your "arbitrary detention" to come to an end, all you have to do is walk to your nearest police station. According to my phone there's one a minutes walk round the corner from you on Pavilion Road.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> He _says_ that getting him to Sweden is simply a ruse to enable them to extradite him to the US.
> 
> It's nonsense. They want to question him for fucking women whilst they were sleeping.



He may be right, as the US wouldn't ask the UK to extradite him, what with US/UK relations on a par with US/North Korean ones...


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

gosub said:


> In other news Chelsea Manning is 3 years into a 35 year sentence.


And Julian's weaselly mendacity is detracting from Manning's cause. He's setting up some sort of equivalence, but there isn't one. Manning wasn't facing rape and sexual assault charges and refusing to answer them. Manning has behaved with dignity and courage.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> Can someone please explain what reason he's given for deciding to hide / incarcerate himself in the embassy for years instead of just letting himself be tried & found to be completely innocent ?


Indeed.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> He _says_ that getting him to Sweden is simply a ruse to enable them to extradite him to the US.
> 
> It's nonsense. They want to question him for fucking women whilst they were sleeping.


Do you think hiding in a room for five years is a rational decision to those allegations?


----------



## bimble (Feb 5, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Do you think hiding in a room for five years is a rational decision to those allegations?


He did sound a little bit mad today, like someone whose sense of his own importance has tipped over into the realm of the properly bonkers. 
eg) "Assange said that if Sweden and the UK continued to dispute the report, “the diplomatic effect is that it will become difficult for [the two countries] to be treated seriously as international players”.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 5, 2016)

bimble I don't dispute he could be bonkers ..definitely by now a least


----------



## Kesher (Feb 5, 2016)

Swedish investigators have refused to interview Assange via video link or personally at the embassy. And they have refused to assure him that he won't be extradited to the U.S. That's bound to make Assange  wary of  going to Sweden.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

Kesher said:


> Swedish investigators have refused to interview Assange via video link or personally at the embassy. That's bound to make Assange  wary of  going to Sweden.


No they haven't - they signed an agreement with Ecuador last year that they would do the latter. The ecuadorians were doing all they could to lose him.


----------



## Kesher (Feb 5, 2016)

So why haven't they interviewed him?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

Kesher said:


> So why haven't they interviewed him?


I don't know. Maybe he refused and started playing games. Are you suggesting the agreement wasn't reached with Ecuador? As far as i can tell the swedes were fobbed off until a week ago by bureaucratic moves by the embassy and that sweden has set the wheels in motion for an interview to happen. 

You people like RT don't you? Here's RT on it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

Kesher said:


> So why haven't they interviewed him?


Because he doesn't want them to. Under Swedish law he can't be formally charged until he has been formally interviewed first. That's why he has been pursuing all his appeals.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know. Maybe he refused and started playing games. Are you suggesting the agreement wasn't reached with Ecuador? As far as i can tell the swedes were fobbed off until a week ago by bureaucratic moves by the embassy and that sweden has set the wheels in motion for an interview to happen.
> 
> You people like RT don't you? Here's RT on it.


The end of that article gives a clue as to what Assange might be waiting for:

"The more serious rape allegation only expires after 10 years, meaning it would be dropped in 2020."

Six years.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> The end of that article gives a clue as to what Assange might be waiting for:
> 
> "The more serious rape allegation only expires after 10 years, meaning it would be dropped in 2020."
> 
> Six years.


I read, when the other two ran out of time, that they have an option to simply re-classify the rape allegation in 2020, effectively going back to day one. I can't find anything backing that up right now, but i def did read it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I read, when the other two ran out of time, that they have an option to simply re-classify the rape allegation in 2020, effectively going back to day one. I can't find anything backing that up right now, but i def did read it.


Oh ok.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh ok.


I agree that Assange is going to try and wait till 2020 if he has to btw


----------



## Kesher (Feb 5, 2016)

I've just  heard the vice-chairman of the UN working panel on RT: he believes that the UK and Sweden are just  doing the U.S's bidding and that Assange would be extradited to the U.S from Sweden where he would likely spend most of his life in prison.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

Kesher said:


> I've just  heard the vice-chairman of the UN working panel on RT: he believes that the UK and Sweden are just  doing the U.S's bidding and that Assange would be extradited to the U.S from Sweden where he would likely spend most of his life in prison.


Blimey.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2016)

Kesher said:


> I've just  heard the vice-chairman of the UN working panel on RT: he believes that the UK and Sweden are just  doing the U.S's bidding and that Assange would be extradited to the U.S from Sweden where he would likely spend most of his life in prison.


"believes"?


----------



## Kesher (Feb 5, 2016)

I'm paraphrasing


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2016)

Kesher said:


> I'm paraphrasing


Yeah fine, but there's a crucial difference between 'believes' and citing something as fact for the basiis of their finding. No?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Do you think hiding in a room for five years is a rational decision to those allegations?


Er, yes. Absolutely ......


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2016)

The bastard's on the embassy balcony now, gobbing off as if he's "won".

"It's a historic decision that's legally binding" .... "the UK and Sweden have lost" .... 

Someone should egg the cunt. 

Come on Jules, step outside .....


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2016)

He's getting heckled and says "can someone close that person up?"


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Feb 5, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Because he doesn't want them to. Under Swedish law he can't be formally charged until he has been formally interviewed first. That's why he has been pursuing all his appeals.


Yup. Assange's strategy from day one has been to delay/avoid the interview as his indictment for rape will inevitably follow. He doesn't want the interview to happen, regardless of what he claims.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> Yup. Assange's strategy from day one has been to delay/avoid the interview as his indictment for rape will inevitably follow. He doesn't want the interview to happen, regardless of what he claims.


If he did...there's a police station a minute's walk away.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2016)

What's his team's schizzle about the Swedish prosecutor not getting stuff done in a timely fashion/being incompetent?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

It's chaff.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2016)

Clearly, but what are they trying to hang that hat on?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2016)

'Interesting' timing from the Danish justice minister to reveal their government's complicity in US plans to extradite Snowden.


----------



## Sirena (Feb 5, 2016)




----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

Sirena said:


>


Blimey.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Clearly, but what are they trying to hang that hat on?


Nothing really. The original negotiations was to do with a may 2015 request to interview him.  The swedes thought that would carry over - but no  - have been told to put in new request post-agreement. Done.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

Sirena said:


>


Yes, banner waving men, that's what this is about.

What's your opinion on victims of rape being labelled honey trapping liars? How long do you think consenting to sex lasts for? Do you have to be awake when the man takes you up on that once given consent?  How many rape allegation fugitives do you idolise? 

Fucking morons.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

The parallels with the Tommy Sheridan debacle are depressing.  The hero-worshipping beatification, the misogyny, the disregard for victims, the feeling that their hero is above the usual standards of decency.  And the stupid polarising mentality that says if you think he should answer the charges, then you're "a neocon liar" (seen today on Twitter).

Just because someone once did something you admired doesn't mean they didn't also do something appalling.  Welcome to messy reality, kids. Maybe the Lone Ranger was a racist.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

How did the UN get it so wrong on Julian Assange?| Joshua Rozenberg

"Of course, he knew he would be arrested for breach of his bail conditions. Of course, he knew he would face extradition to Sweden. Of course, he knew that he might face extradition to the United States once proceedings in Sweden were at an end. But that does not mean he was detained, and still less that his detention was of an arbitrary character. How, then, did the majority of the working party get it so wrong?"


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

Nice taking apart of the UN working group's opinion:

The UN working group’s Assange opinion


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

This from 2012 is also good (though out of date on the point about Assange being interviewed in London):

The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange

"Then there is the rational explanation. In view of the significant protections he would have against onward extradition to the United States from Sweden, it would appear that the only rational (as opposed to subjective) explanation for his refusal is not that he is seeking to avoid any onwards extradition; it is that he simply wants to avoid interrogation and any prosecution for allegations of sexual assault and rape in Sweden."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Nice taking apart of the UN working group's opinion:
> 
> The UN working group’s Assange opinion


Nothing left after that. Do read people.


----------



## Pingu (Feb 5, 2016)

so to summerise todays "news"

UN holds long, expensive and in depth review of teh legal position surrounding his stay atthe embassy and his asylum status

assange applauds reviews outcome that he should be allowed to go to actual eccuador.

UK gov goes "fair doos come on out then"

assange but you wil arrest me...

UK gov yup

assange but the UN says i am safe

UK gov. yep safe as houses

assange.. hmmm you sure?

UK gov Totes Bro come on out it wil be cool

assange.. erm what's with all the bizzies sat about outside?

UN - hey UK we haz madz a rulingz and you should obayz uz

UK gov FUCK you UN youre not the boss of me


----------



## laptop (Feb 5, 2016)

' Assange said the opinion of the panel was "vindication", adding: "The lawfulness of my detention is now a matter of settled law." ' 

Julian Assange decision by UN panel ridiculous, says Hammond - BBC News


Is delusional. Freemen on teh Land delusional.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 5, 2016)

According to the radio news Ecuador say they want an Ecuadoran prosecutor to put the questions to Assange and have refused the Swedish prosecutor's request to interrogate Assange in their embassy. They have requested a list of questions from the Swedish prosecutor.

They also claim the British government has violate the immunity of their diplomatic premises by deploying an invasive police cordon outside their embassy at a cost exceeding $18 million, they went on to say the British government can't be trusted as they told embassy officials months ago they would remove the police cordon but have so far failed to do so.

Radio in Spanish (it was the 2nd story on the news just past the hour, the first story was about the Popes visit later this year for anyone who was wondering  )


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2016)

Do the rape victims have any say in this process or is it all about Assange?


----------



## 1%er (Feb 5, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Do the rape victims have any say in this process or is it all about Assange?


I don't think rape victims have any say in the process in any country once they have made their complaint other than withdrawing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

1%er said:


> According to the radio news Ecuador say they want an Ecuadoran prosecutor to put the questions to Assange and have refused the Swedish prosecutor's request to interrogate Assange in their embassy. They have requested a list of questions from the Swedish prosecutor.
> 
> They also claim the British government has violate the immunity of their diplomatic premises by deploying an invasive police cordon outside their embassy at a cost exceeding $18 million, they went on to say the British government can't be trusted as they told embassy officials months ago they would remove the police cordon but have so far failed to do so.
> 
> Radio in Spanish (it was the 2nd story on the news just past the hour, the first story was about the Popes visit later this year for anyone who was wondering  )


Blimey.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2016)

1%er said:


> I don't think rape victims have any say in the process in any country once they have made their complaint other than withdrawing it.



They often get to tell their story in court once the alleged rapist has been apprehended. Normally the perp does get off, it is not normally the United Nations that steps in and says the perp should be able to walk via cos he's been on the lam for four years.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

Kesher said:


> So why haven't they interviewed him?


Here's your answer:




1%er said:


> According to the radio news Ecuador say they want an Ecuadoran prosecutor to put the questions to Assange and have refused the Swedish prosecutor's request to interrogate Assange in their embassy



_If only Sweden would grant Assange speedy justice!_


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 5, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I called on Sweden to end the deprivation of my liberty last time I went to IKEA. Turns out all I had to do was find the exit.


That is near impossible


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

kropotkin said:


> That is near impossible


Give me a break, I was looking for flippant parallels. I thought that one was quite good. Then you came along with your observational comedy...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

kropotkin said:


> That is near impossible


Lat time we in there there was a MUSLIM BOMB THREAT - hidden doors opened very quickly.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Lat time we in there there was a MUSLIM BOMB THREAT - hidden doors opened very quickly.


You can skip between the rooms quite easily, if you know how, like cheats on Jetset Willy*.

*My observational comedy needs more current reference points...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> You can skip between the rooms quite easily, if you know how, like cheats on Jetset Willy*.
> 
> *My observational comedy needs more current reference points...


Is good.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 5, 2016)

'Allahu Abba!'


----------



## 1%er (Feb 5, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> _If only Sweden would grant Assange speedy justice!_


A little late for speedy anything around this case. 

I just posted what the Ecuadoran line appears to be, something I didn't see on here. Ecuador only got involved as they thought it would be good domestically to be seen standing up to the USA, that's how it was played to start with, I'm not sure with the benefit of hindsight they'd do it again. Assange has turned out to be a real pest for them, but politicians never like to be seen to climb down.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2016)

1%er said:


> A little late for speedy anything around this case.


I know. I was making a joke about this:







Because it's hardly Sweden's fault that Assange skipped bail and hid in an embassy for years.


----------



## laptop (Feb 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Lat time we in there there was a MUSLIM BOMB THREAT - hidden doors opened very quickly.


Remind me of this if I have to go there again!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

laptop said:


> Remind me of this if I have to go there again!


It was amazing, we just walked out without any idea and behind us suddenly  1000s of people - very efficient.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Lat time we in there there was a MUSLIM BOMB THREAT - hidden doors opened very quickly.


You not reached 'peak stuff' yet, then?


----------



## Kesher (Feb 5, 2016)

This article makes the  rape claims against Assange look very dubious:

Exclusive New Docs Throw Doubt on Julian Assange Rape Charges in Stockholm


And also read about Hammond's lie to deceive the public: 

Craig Murray  » Blog Archive   » Philip Hammond’s Astonishing Lie


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Nice taking apart of the UN working group's opinion:
> 
> The UN working group’s Assange opinion


This is game, set, and match.

The _working group_ has completely devalued everything they supposedly stand for. In fact, reading that, one has to wonder if someone's been bunged somewhere along the line. At least there'd be a reason if that were the case.

Excepting bribery, they are simply incompetent fucks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2016)

is he _still_ in there ffs


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2016)

kropotkin said:


> That is near impossible


Everyone else just got jobs.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 6, 2016)

Personally, I think it is about time he apologised and helped Bradley Whatshername, then died.

So that settles it then – everyone’s to blame except Julian Assange | Marina Hyde

Sick to death of his name, and regret clicking here again. Self-publicising fucking nemesis. He never really showed anyone anything they didn't know already.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Feb 6, 2016)

i hope he is freed.


----------



## xenon (Feb 6, 2016)

Cheesypoof said:


> i hope he is freed.



 It's difficult to be free when you just have to go outside. 

 What the fuck is he doing in there anyway.  I hope he at least runs the Hoover around a bit makes the tea or something.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Feb 6, 2016)

xenon said:


> It's difficult to be free when you just have to go outside.
> 
> What the fuck is he doing in there anyway.  I hope he at least runs the Hoover around a bit makes the tea or something.


 
Amen.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 6, 2016)

Cheesypoof said:


> i hope he is freed.


He's free now, and has been since he started to take the piss out of the asylum system. 

He's a wanker, and probably a rapist.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> He's free now, and has been since he started to take the piss out of the asylum system.
> 
> He's a wanker, and probably a rapist.



Is Wikileaks...just a bunch of bollocks?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is Wikileaks...just a bunch of bollocks?


This is the thing that a lot of liberal leftists don't seem to get: it is possible for someone to do a thing you admire and then also do something appalling. It is furthermore possible that in evading taking responsibility for the appalling thing, that the person who once did a useful thing actually does a lot of damage to the useful cause and to others involved in the useful cause. 

Now, that may take a minute or so to think about, but it's really not hard to process ethically. The sentences have a few clauses, and that can take time for some people. But the concept isn't hard. But some people just can't deal with the complexity of reality. They prefer this:

"Person does something admirable = hero. Heroes don't do bad things. Bad thing must be lie. People who think hero should face a fair trial in a fair court must be against the admirable thing. Therefore they are bad people". 

I think people accused of sexual violence should have the opportunity to test those allegations in a fair court. 

Assange doesn't appear to want to.


----------



## gosub (Feb 6, 2016)

Justice for Assange UK Facebook page latest post

*Justice for Assange UK*
4 February at 20:14 ·

Putting a call out - we no longer have the time to run this page - please PM us if you would like to take over the admin of this page - but you must be based in the UK. Many thanks.





I would have thought Mr Assange could run it himself, he's got nothing else to do


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> Justice for Assange UK Facebook page latest post
> 
> *Justice for Assange UK*
> 4 February at 20:14 ·
> ...


I'll do it. There's quite a lot of stuff I could post up.


----------



## gosub (Feb 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I'll do it. There's quite a lot of stuff I could post up.



careful now, you'll end up being wanted by the UN for hate crime


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> careful now, you'll end up being wanted by the UN for hate crime


 That's fine: I * do* hate crime.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I think people accused of sexual violence should have the opportunity to test those allegations in a fair court.
> 
> Assange doesn't appear to want to.



For some obscure reason, he doesn't think he'll get a fair trial.

He seems to have developed the ludicrous, paranoid notion that powerful forces are out to get him by any means necessary.  Christ knows where he came up with that one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> For some obscure reason, he doesn't think he'll get a fair trial.
> 
> He seems to have developed the ludicrous, paranoid notion that powerful forces are out to get him by any means necessary.  Christ knows where he came up with that one.


He won't now.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

Or rather, he's made it much harder for himself to get a fair trial now.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

Q&A: Why the UN’s Julian Assange ruling is meaningless


----------



## Kesher (Feb 6, 2016)

Why the UN's Julian Assange ruling is*  NOT* meaningless. The intro to the piece on Assange  starts at 02:45 in.  If you want to jump straight to the interview with his lawyer (Melinda Taylor) who explains  why the ruling is legal and what will happen if the UK Gov does not comply with it then this  starts  at 03:55 in:


Julian Assange, London’s Syria Conference & Labour’s Red Tories (E303)


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)




----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)




----------



## gosub (Feb 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


>




Lawyers can't do 140 character can they.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> Lawyers can't do 140 character can they.


They're used to being paid per sentence, so it's a mindset mismatch.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> For some obscure reason, he doesn't think he'll get a fair trial.
> 
> He seems to have developed the ludicrous, paranoid notion that powerful forces are out to get him by any means necessary.  Christ knows where he came up with that one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


>


It's like travelling back in time five years, isn't it?


----------



## Smangus (Feb 6, 2016)

I'm now hoping that the powerful forces out to get him do. The self-aggrandizing arrogant tosser.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

Smangus said:


> I'm now hoping that the powerful forces out to get him do. The self-aggrandizing arrogant tosser.


Really?
No, don't go that far...sends powerful message to anyone considering attempt to leak state 'secrets'.
If charged by the Swedes he should face justice, but there's no need to cheer on the CIA taking him out, is there?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> If charged by the Swedes he should face justice, but there's no need to cheer on the CIA taking him out, is there?


I sincerely hope the Yanks get hold of him after the Swedes.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Really?
> No, don't go that far...sends powerful message to anyone considering attempt to leak state 'secrets'.
> If charged by the Swedes he should face justice, but there's no need to cheer on the CIA taking him out, is there?


Yup. I understand the frustration, but what is required here is a fair hearing in a fair court: the course of law. 

Jeez. I don't know how many anarchist points I lose for saying this stuff!


----------



## J Ed (Feb 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> This is the thing that a lot of liberal leftists don't seem to get: it is possible for someone to do a thing you admire and then also do something appalling. It is furthermore possible that in evading taking responsibility for the appalling thing, that the person who once did a useful thing actually does a lot of damage to the useful cause and to others involved in the useful cause.
> 
> Now, that may take a minute or so to think about, but it's really not hard to process ethically. The sentences have a few clauses, and that can take time for some people. But the concept isn't hard. But some people just can't deal with the complexity of reality. They prefer this:
> 
> ...



Yes, this reminds me of the article in the New $tatesman where they attempted to defend mass surveillance by leaking an IRC chat Snowden was a participant in where he said some right-wing pro-privatisation stuff.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I sincerely hope the Yanks get hold of him after the Swedes.


Why did the US not seek his extradition from the UK?


----------



## Smangus (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Really?
> No, don't go that far...sends powerful message to anyone considering attempt to leak state 'secrets'.
> If charged by the Swedes he should face justice, but there's no need to cheer on the CIA taking him out, is there?



It's not my nature to think like this but he behaves in such a self-centred manner that it's my gut reaction to him, sorry.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

Smangus said:


> It's not my nature to think like this but he behaves in such a self-centred manner that it's my gut reaction to him, sorry.


OK, but think it through, eh?


----------



## Smangus (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> OK, but think it through, eh?



Not cheering on the CIA btw, but think he should face up to the Swedish accusations.


----------



## Kesher (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Why did the US not seek his extradition from the UK?


The U.S could but it's more likely to succeed in Sweden. Sweden has form on this whilst  in the UK there are more safeguards within the legal process.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

Kesher said:


> The U.S could but it's more likely to succeed in Sweden. Sweden has form on this whilst  in the UK there are more safeguards within the legal process.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

So no nearer an answer to my Q, then?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So no nearer an answer to my Q, then?


David Allen Green in the New Statesman piece I linked to earlier says:

"And here there is also an obvious point to be made. The United States has actually not made an extradition request. Although it is reported that there is a “Grand Jury” investigation currently proceeding (and even that there is a “sealed indictment”), there remains no extradition request.  There may never be one."

We return therefore to the question of where the suggestion that he might be extradited comes from in the first place.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> David Allen Green in the New Statesman piece I linked to earlier says:
> 
> "And here there is also an obvious point to be made. The United States has actually not made an extradition request. Although it is reported that there is a “Grand Jury” investigation currently proceeding (and even that there is a “sealed indictment”), there remains no extradition request.  There may never be one."
> 
> We return therefore to the question of where the suggestion that he might be extradited comes from in the first place.


Call me TFH, but I'd say that Assange's *fear* of an attempted extradition by the US is not without foundation.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Call me TFH, but I'd say that Assange's *fear* of an attempted extradition by the US is not without foundation.


No, but it seems to have taken its present form straight after he became aware of the allegations in Sweden. Not before visiting Sweden.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 6, 2016)

The federal grand jury has not yet said that they want him charged with anything. Hence no extradition request.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The federal grand jury has not yet said that they want him charged with anything. Hence no extradition request.


Precisely.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> No, but it seems to have taken its present form straight after he became aware of the allegations in Sweden. Not before visiting Sweden.


Which, playing TFH "devil's advocaat", would be consistent with a perception of being fitted up.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 6, 2016)

TFH?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> TFH?


tinfoilhat(ter)


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The federal grand jury has not yet said that they want him charged with anything. Hence no extradition request.


and yet you want the yanks to get him?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 6, 2016)

Yes. I want him to be as miserable as possible for as long as possible.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. I want him to be as miserable as possible for as long as possible.


Unappealing though his personality & projection may be, he's not been charged or prosecuted for any crime, has he?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Unappealing though his personality & projection may be, he's not been charged or prosecuted for any crime, has he?


He hasn't been charged or prosecuted because he's avoided being questioned by the Swedish plod.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> He hasn't been charged or prosecuted because he's avoided being questioned by the Swedish plod.


What's that got to do with the yanks?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> What's that got to do with the yanks?


Oh, I see. No, they haven't yet decided on what basis (or if) to pursue him, afaik. Should they do so I'd be delighted.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, I see. No, they haven't yet decided on what basis (or if) to pursue him, afaik. Should they do so I'd be delighted.


and the cause of your delight?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 7, 2016)

Angels? Turks? Rappers?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Angels? Turks? Rappers?


you missed pm


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> and the cause of your delight?


His discomfort.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> you missed pm


Had to Google that. That's a song that had passed me by somehow.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> His discomfort.


I see, just out and out Schadenfreude, then?
Or has Assange caused you some personal disadvantage?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I see, just out and out Schadenfreude, then?


No that's not schadenfreude. It's a desire to see him punished for what he's done. Very different. I despise the concept of Wikileaks, I despise his evasion of justice, I despise the mockery he's made of asylum, and I despise his attempted contortions of international law.  


> Or has Assange caused you some personal disadvantage?


No. But neither has Gary Glitter.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No that's not schadenfreude, it's a desire to see him punished for what he's done. Very different. I despise the concept of Wikileaks, I despise his evasion of justice, I despise the mockery he's made of asylum, and I despise his attempted contortions of international law.
> 
> No. But neither has Gary Glitter.


Silly comparison; GG is a convicted offender.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Silly comparison; GG is a convicted offender.


It's a perfectly reasonable response to a silly question, which asks whether someone should have disadvantaged us personally for us to hold that person in contempt.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's a perfectly reasonable response to a silly question which asks whether someone should have disadvantaged us personally for us to hold that person in contempt.


I was attempting to understand your animosity.
Which you've explained as a basic dislike of the concept of a platform for individual 'whistle-blowers' to leak state-based secrets exposing wrong-doing.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Which you've explained as a basic dislike of the concept of a platform for individual 'whistle-blowers' to leak state-based secrets exposing wrong-doing.


Well it's more than that, but yes, there's a need for state-based secrets and I'm not sure the likes of Assange and his cronies are the best people to judge which of them should be leaked and which not. 

Then there's the rapey stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Silly comparison; GG is a convicted offender.


tony blair has personally disadvantaged me but he's not beenconvicted yet


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well it's more than that, but yes, there's a need for state-based secrets and I'm not sure the likes of Assange and his cronies are the best people to judge which of them should be leaked and which not.
> 
> Then there's the rapey stuff.


leak them all and let god sort them out


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well it's more than that, but yes, there's a need for state-based secrets and I'm not sure the likes of Assange and his cronies are the best people to judge which of them should be leaked and which not.
> 
> Then there's the rapey stuff.


Individuals (& states themselves) have leaked 'state secrets' since there have been states, Wikileaks provides a digital platform for such...who would you have judging/editing what whistle-blowers feel compelled to leak?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Individuals (& states themselves) have leaked 'state secrets' since there have been states, Wikileaks provides a digital platform for such...who would you have judging/editing what whistle-blowers feel compelled to leak?


(((clive ponting)))


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Individuals (& states themselves) have leaked 'state secrets' since there have been states, Wikileaks provides a digital platform for such...who would you have judging/editing what whistle-blowers feel compelled to leak?


Well nobody really. That's the point.

If we accept people leaking supposed instances of _wrongdoing (_which is always going to be subjective_) _such as causing civilian casualties and the like, it becomes difficult to counter other people leaking other things. Would you support the leaking of the identities of ISIS informants, or airport security flaws .... etc, etc?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tony blair has personally disadvantaged me but he's not beenconvicted yet


Donald Trump has neither disadvantaged me personally nor been convicted of any offence, but I still think he's a massive wanker, and if he were convicted of something and imprisoned, I'd laugh my cock off.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well nobody really. That's the point.
> 
> If we accept people leaking supposed instances of _wrongdoing (_which is always going to be subjective_) _such as causing civilian casualties and the like, it becomes difficult to counter other people leaking other things. Would you support the leaking of the identities of ISIS informants, or airport security flaws .... etc, etc?


This comes across as denialism. In the digital age whistle-blowers are not dependent on the gate-keepers of the MSM to judge whether or not to publish.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> This comes across as denialism. In the digital age whistle-blowers are not dependent on the gate-keepers of the MSM to judge whether or not to publish.


MSM=main stream media?

If so, so what?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> MSM=main stream media?
> 
> If so, so what?


So what?
You appear to be saying that there should be no measures by which individuals can attempt to expose perceived state 'wrong-doing' outside of the MSM, but you'd be happy for MSM editors to 'police' that territory?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

Eh? I haven't mentioned the MSM. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Eh? I haven't mentioned the MSM.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.


I attempting to explore if there's anything more nuanced behind your statement that you "_despise the concept of Wikileaks", _or is it just that you think that citizens should just trust states to get on with whatever they want and STFU?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Feb 7, 2016)

Kesher said:


> The U.S could but it's more likely to succeed in Sweden. Sweden has form on this whilst  in the UK there are more safeguards within the legal process.


The safeguards in UK/US extraditions are minimal. If he goes to Sweden, the UK would have to give its consent to any onward extradition, making it a trilateral instead of bilateral process.

If the Yanks wanted him for prosecution, they'd ask the UK.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I attempting to explore if there's anything more nuanced behind your statement that you "_despise the concept of Wikileaks" ... _


Well of course there is, but let's do this the other way around.

Do you believe that state workers should be free to disseminate any confidential information that_ they_ _feel_ is in the public interest, and that sites like Wikileaks should encourage them to do so?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> The safeguards in UK/US extraditions are minimal. If he goes to Sweden, the UK would have to give its consent to any onward extradition, making it a trilateral instead of bilateral process.


Only whilst he's being investigated for the reason we extradited him to Sweden. After that (if he's acquitted or the case is closed) Sweden can do what they like with him without reference to the UK.


----------



## Sirena (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Do you believe that state workers should be free to disseminate confidential information that_ they_ _feel_ is in the public interest, and that sites like Wikileaks should encourage them to do so?



I do.  It would help ensure that secret dealings between countries were, at the very least, less machiavellian and immorally self-serving.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

Sirena said:


> I do.  It would help ensure that secret dealings between countries were, at the very least, less machiavellian and immorally self-serving.


I don't. Given that we should apply the same legal principles to everyone, not different ones to those we do or don't like, you're effectively advocating allowing spies to leak the kind of information that I mentioned before, without sanction.


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 7, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> If the Yanks wanted him for prosecution, they'd ask the UK.



The US could get him any time they want if they really wanted to. False flag car bomb in Knightsbridge causing the building to be damaged and evacuated would do it. Or CIA shell corporation buys the building and turfs out the Ecuadorians. It probably wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to get somebody inside and Litvinenko him if necessary.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 7, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> The US could get him any time they want if they really wanted to. False flag car bomb in Knightsbridge causing the building to be damaged and evacuated would do it. Or CIA shell corporation buys the building and turfs out the Ecuadorians. It probably wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to get somebody inside and Litvinenko him if necessary.



Fantasy nonsense.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well of course there is, but let's do this the other way around.
> 
> Do you believe that state workers should be free to disseminate any confidential information that_ they_ _feel_ is in the public interest, and that sites like Wikileaks should encourage them to do so?



If they are whistleblowing on information that exposes mass surveillance on a previously unimagined scale then yes they should be given special dispensation and protected from prosecution, Snowden is a genuine hero.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2016)

J Ed said:


> If they are whistleblowing on information that exposes mass surveillance on a previously unimagined scale then yes they should be given special dispensation and protected from prosecution ...


Why?

On what basis is it decided which information is _whistleblowable _and which isn't?

And who does the deciding?


----------



## J Ed (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why?
> 
> On what basis is it decided which information is _whistleblowable _and which isn't?
> 
> Who does the deciding?



There are cases that are just so clear cut, like the exposure of mass surveillance, that they shouldn't really be up for debate. In the same way that if a whistleblower exposed gas chambers in Surrey or something they should be immune from prosecution. 

In reality of course the government/security state (more the latter than the former) does the deciding.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why?
> 
> On what basis is it decided which information is _whistleblowable _and which isn't?
> 
> And who does the deciding?



It is the individual who decides what is morally right or wrong _to them_ and, funnily enough it seems that often individuals are quite good at doing that.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 7, 2016)

Isn't it incredible that mass surveillance in this country is more pervasive than it was under the Stasi yet Stasi is still the byword for dystopian mass surveillance, perhaps we should start calling overbearing middle managers 'the GCHQ'?


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 7, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Isn't it incredible that mass surveillance in this country is more pervasive than it was under the Stasi yet Stasi is still the byword for dystopian mass surveillance, perhaps we should start calling overbearing middle managers 'the GCHQ'?


 
Yep. Or start calling 'GCHQ' The Stasi...


----------



## gosub (Feb 7, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Isn't it incredible that mass surveillance in this country is more pervasive than it was under the Stasi yet Stasi is still the byword for dystopian mass surveillance, perhaps we should start calling overbearing middle managers 'the GCHQ'?



In some ways yes in some ways no, GCHQ can tap into anything pretty much, but the UK doesn't have anywhere like the proportion of the country on its security pay roll.  If they'd had 21st century comms in the GDR, they would have been as pervasive as current UK system, but we don't maintain  a collection of jars of the smell of dissidents (for giving to the border patrol dogs) and unless you are mentally ill you can still go down the pub and say what you like without worrying that  at least a couple of people in the pub is going to grass you up to Stasi HQ


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 7, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Isn't it incredible that mass surveillance in this country is more pervasive than it was under the Stasi yet Stasi is still the byword for dystopian mass surveillance, perhaps we should start calling overbearing middle managers 'the GCHQ'?


When Germany reunified a lot of the ex secret police got jobs as taxi drivers. Apparently it was really handy because when you got in a cab you didn't even have to tell the driver where you lived. You could just say "home please".


----------



## Kesher (Feb 7, 2016)

This latest article by John Pilger explains Assange's situation  very well and with regard  to other whistle blowers

Freeing Julian Assange: the last chapter


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 7, 2016)

The box at the bottom is this is useful:

Julian Assange says UN ruling on arbitrary detention a ‘vindication’ - FT.com


"The formal opinion that Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily detained” is a bizarre and unconvincing document.

It is only an opinion — it is not a ruling or judgment — and so it has no legal effect as between the parties. The law stands just as it was before the document was published. This means that if Mr Assange leaves the Ecuadorean embassy in London he still faces arrest for breaching his bail, and extradition to Sweden to face a rape allegation.

The content of the report is extraordinary. The three members of the panel that formed the majority have concluded that Mr Assange’s predicament is “of such gravity as give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character”.

This is not correct.

Mr Assange is free to leave the embassy at any point. Once he leaves, he will be expected to comply with the law of the land.

Hiding from legal consequences is not arbitrary detention.

Mr Assange is only in this situation because he lost his challenge to the extradition request, with the benefit of lengthy appeals up to the UK Supreme Court. Few appellants in English legal history have been given as many opportunities to present their case. But he lost at each stage.

The report, however, is not unanimous. In a brief but powerful eight-paragraph dissent, the former war crimes prosecutor and distinguished academic Vladimir Tochilovsky deftly demolishes the majority’s reasoning.

He observes that “fugitives are often self-contained within the places where they evade arrest and detention”. His implicit disdain for his fellow panel members is stark.

_David Allen Green writes the law and policy blog at FT.com "_


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2016)

Kesher said:


> This latest article by John Pilger explains Assange's situation  very well and with regard  to other whistle blowers
> 
> Freeing Julian Assange: the last chapter



An excellent article.  This really hits the nail on the head:

"What is certain is that the decent world owes much to Julian Assange. He told us how indecent power behaves in secret, how it lies and manipulates and engages in great acts of violence, sustaining wars that kill and maim and turn millions into the refugees now in the news."

That will be the judgment of history.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Feb 7, 2016)

Kesher said:


> This latest article by John Pilger explains Assange's situation  very well and with regard  to other whistle blowers
> 
> Freeing Julian Assange: the last chapter


This is why you should never trust any Assangist's spin on the law:


> The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the international tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - has ruled that Julian Assange has been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden.


The working group is not a tribunal and it does not make rulings. Its opinions are completely unenforceable and bind no one.



> ...since he was arrested and held in London under a European Extradition Warrant, itself now discredited by Parliament.


When did this happen and what does it mean?



> The UN Working Group bases its judgements...


Again, using language that suggests this working group is judicial in nature and has any legal authority.



> Telling us this truth alone earns Assange his freedom, whereas justice is his right.


Yes, the great man should not be troubled with petty matters such as allegations of rape.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why?



There are times when governments break the laws they've sworn to uphold, and then do their utmost to ensure that no one finds out. There are times when large corporations violate the law, and attempt to keep the fact secret.

Without whistleblowers, chances are good that these illegal activities - activities that may have major consequences for many people - will not be discovered.

Is that an acceptable state of affairs?


----------



## gosub (Feb 7, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There are times when governments break the laws they've sworn to uphold, and then do their utmost to ensure that no one finds out. There are times when large corporations violate the law, and attempt to keep the fact secret.
> 
> Without whistleblowers, chances are good that these illegal activities - activities that may have major consequences for many people - will not be discovered.
> 
> Is that an acceptable state of affairs?



Equally unacceptable for whistleblowers to get hung out to dry, whilst those who encourged them pursue self aggrandizement ,  the champagne and canapee lifestyle and then when it starts to unravel martyrdom


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Equally unacceptable for whistleblowers to get hung out to dry,



No disagreement from me about that.

My response is mostly directed to Spymaster's comment that he's opposed to the idea of Wikileaks.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> In some ways yes in some ways no, GCHQ can tap into anything pretty much, but the UK doesn't have anywhere like the proportion of the country on its security pay roll.  If they'd had 21st century comms in the GDR, they would have been as pervasive as current UK system, but we don't maintain  a collection of jars of the smell of dissidents (for giving to the border patrol dogs) and unless you are mentally ill you can still go down the pub and say what you like without worrying that  at least a couple of people in the pub is going to grass you up to Stasi HQ



I agree that the Stasi would have used the same systems as GCHQ if they had access to them but at the same time the fact that surveillance and data collection all takes place in the background with no obvious immediate consequences (unlike in the GDR) is the result of the fact that our state feels a lot more secure than the GDR did. If we had anything approaching an existential threat to the establishment things would start to look very different very quickly, just think about the behaviour of mi5 towards the Graunid because during the Snowden release.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I don't. Given that we should apply the same legal principles to everyone, not different ones to those we do or don't like, you're effectively advocating allowing *spies* to leak the kind of information that I mentioned before, without sanction.


You seem to be conflating whistle-blowing and espionage.


----------



## gosub (Feb 7, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I agree that the Stasi would have used the same systems as GCHQ if they had access to them but at the same time the fact that surveillance and data collection all takes place in the background with no obvious immediate consequences (unlike in the GDR) is the result of the fact that our state feels a lot more secure than the GDR did. If we had anything approaching an existential threat to the establishment things would start to look very different very quickly, just think about the behaviour of mi5 towards the Graunid because during the Snowden release.



Noone in there right mind would have smuggled a filing cabinet out of the Kremlin and given it to Berliner Zeitung to publish and be damned


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 7, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> The box at the bottom is this is useful:
> 
> Julian Assange says UN ruling on arbitrary detention a ‘vindication’ - FT.com
> 
> ...


Just like Aung San Suu Kyi was free to leave her house arrest at any time?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 7, 2016)

DexterTCN said:


> Just like Aung San Suu Kyi was free to leave her house arrest at any time?


That you think there are any parallels says much.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 7, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> That you think there are any parallels says much.


Same UN group said she was being held illegally, didn't they?

You were just dissing them.   Seems relevant.

Seeing as how you're the one justifying it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 7, 2016)

DexterTCN said:


> Same UN group said she was being held illegally, didn't they?
> 
> You were just dissing them.   Seems relevant.
> 
> Seeing as how you're the one justifying it.


See if you can quote me having just dissed them. You'll find it hard, since what you just read were the words of a legal expert I quoted and provided a link to, not my words. But that's the kind of detail you seem to miss quite easily. 

There are no parallels between the cases you compare. Assange is not under house arrest. He is a fugitive from rape allegation in hiding. Aung San Suu Kyi was not. 

As always I know you will worship the hero who can do no wrong, and allow any good things he did in the past to blind you to his human frailty. You will blindly follow him and cheer him on as he drags all those connected to his former cause through the mire of his own making because he refuses to take responsibility for his actions. You did it before and you'll do it again I have no doubt. Nor will you read or consider any points put to you to the contrary, so good luck to you in your hero worship and I bid you good evening.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Apols if we've already had this...but what do we make of 'L'Esspresso's account of the emails between the CPS & the Swedish authorities that it revealed after FoI requests?


> To put on paper that the extradition case of Julian Assange is not an ordinary extradition is a lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service in London: Mr. Paul Close. In an email to the Swedish prosecutors dated 13 January 2011, Close writes: «It is simply amazing how much work this case is generating. It sometimes seems like an industry. It is certainly no stop. *Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request»*. What makes the Assange case special? Mr. Close does not explain this. However, in his email exchange with the Swedish, he seems pleased that two days earlier, the 11th of January 2011, the extradition hearing at the Belmarsh Magistrates' Court was not exactly an exciting event for journalists: «It was all rather boring and technical, which of course is precisely what I wanted to happen».
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 7, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> See if you can quote me having just dissed them. You'll find it hard, since what you just read were the words of a legal expert I quoted and provided a link to, not my words. But that's the kind of detail you seem to miss quite easily.
> 
> There are no parallels between the cases you compare. Assange is not under house arrest. He is a fugitive from rape allegation in hiding. Aung San Suu Kyi was not.
> 
> As always I know you will worship the hero who can do no wrong, and allow any good things he did in the past to blind you to his human frailty. You will blindly follow him and cheer him on as he drags all those connected to his former cause through the mire of his own making because he refuses to take responsibility for his actions. You did it before and you'll do it again I have no doubt. Nor will you read or consider any points put to you to the contrary, so good luck to you in your hero worship and I bid you good evening.



You dissed them by posting a quote from a link which dissed them.   That's not a minor detail...you didn't post any counter-balance did you?   That's a diss.



> The *Working Group on Arbitrary Detention* is a UN-mandated body of independent human rights experts that investigates cases of arbitrary arrest and detention that may be in violation of international human rights law.
> 
> It was established in 1991 by the former Commission on Human Rights as one of the "Special Procedures" created to monitor human rightsviolations, and is currently under the purview of the UN Human Rights Council. In September 2013, its mandate was extended by the Council for another three years.
> 
> After verifying information from a variety of sources, including non-governmental organisations, inter-governmental agencies and victims' families, the Working Group issues opinions on the compliance with international law and sends urgent appeals to governments to ascertain the whereabouts and condition of those allegedly detained. It can also conduct fact-finding visits to countries that have extended an invitation to the Working Group.



Maybe you'd like to give another example of when you think they were wrong...seeing as how they're just giving opinions.  (that's a challenge...throw some names out there)

Basically....you're ok with this because the implied offence is sexual.   

You're fine with it.   You know none of the people, you know nothing.  That's a fact...as a person you know nothing...you've surmised, elementarised, supposed.   And you're fine with it, comfortable.   It sits easy for you, you can go with it.

The UN says unlawful detention, the deprivation of human rights.  After 16 months and meetings with representatives of the Swedish govt, the UK govt and others....they say it's wrong.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Feb 8, 2016)

The working group's previous work, its supposed expertise and the amount of effort it has apparently put into this review are not really relevant when anyone can read their reasoning and see how piss poor it is.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You seem to be conflating whistle-blowing and espionage.


No. You just want to call it whistleblowing when you agree with with the source's political motivations, and espionage when you don't.

The act is one and the same.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> The working group's previous work, its supposed expertise and the amount of effort it has apparently put into this review are not really relevant when anyone can read their reasoning and see how piss poor it is.


"They were right about lots of other things so they must be right about this" is a terrible line of thinking.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. You just want to call it whistleblowing when you agree with with the source's political motivations, and espionage when you don't.
> 
> The act is one and the same.


No it isn't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2016)

Espionage is done for material gain or on behalf of a state. Snowdon hasn't gained much out of this except a permanent residence at the kremlin


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> There are cases that are just so clear cut, like the exposure of mass surveillance, that they shouldn't really be up for debate.


Again this is completely subjective. You think Snowden is some kind of hero for confirming what most people suspected anyway. I think he's a tit for sacrificing himself on the alter of public interest, for nothing.

What would you do with a right wing GCHQ employee who leaked the personal details of leftist activists that were subsequently published by Stormftont?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Espionage is done for material gain or on behalf of a state.


Nonsense. There are legions of ideologically motivated spies.


----------



## 2hats (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. You just want to call it whistleblowing when you agree with with the source's political motivations, and espionage when you don't.



You appear to be confused.

Snowden (and Assange) was placing into the public domain details of unethical activity, namely the spying practices of governments (agencies thereof). He has been whistleblowing on acts of government espionage.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2016)

philby et al. That was on behalf of a state. Ideology motivated them but they worked for a state. Whats snowndons ideology? what state has he reported to?


----------



## andysays (Feb 8, 2016)

DexterTCN said:


> You dissed them by posting a quote from a link which dissed them.   That's not a minor detail...you didn't post any counter-balance did you?   That's a diss.



So expressing an opinion and posting up arguments from a variety of sources to substantiate that is a "diss" now? This is unfortunately all too typical of the Assange groupies who shy away from addressing the actual issues and turn this into a load of nonsense about their hero's supposed right to swan around the world pursuing his egotistical "career" free from any challenge or criticism, not just from the USA, but seemingly from anyone.



> Maybe you'd like to give another example of when you think they were wrong...seeing as how they're just giving opinions.  (that's a challenge...throw some names out there)



Throwing random names around serves only to muddy the waters, as your absurd attempt to compare Assange to Aung San Suu Kyi amply demonstrates.



> Basically....you're ok with this because the implied offence is sexual.



The original offence was sexual, but the issue now is that Assange is using the supposed threat that he might be extradited to the US to attempt to justify his on-going refusal to comply with the legal processes of two other countries. To suggest that danny la rouge (or anyone else) is only interested or concerned about this because of the sexual element would be offensive if it weren't so ridiculous.



> You're fine with it.   You know none of the people, you know nothing.  That's a fact...as a person you know nothing...you've surmised, elementarised, supposed.   And you're fine with it, comfortable.   It sits easy for you, you can go with it.
> 
> The UN says unlawful detention, the deprivation of human rights.  After 16 months and meetings with representatives of the Swedish govt, the UK govt and others....they say it's wrong.



Let's be clear here - we're not talking about a decision reached by the UN Security Council or something, this is a small group who have expressed an opinion (and that not even unanimously) which has no legal force. They're welcome to state their opinion, but others are equally welcome to disagree and give the reasons why they disagree.

You've given no coherent reasons for anything, as far as I can see, and are now reduced to attempting to smear others for "dissing" and having questionable motives. That kind of tells its own story, and it's not a happy one...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. You just want to call it whistleblowing when you agree with with the source's political motivations, and espionage when you don't.
> 
> The act is one and the same.


No at all. Whistleblowing is the act of an employee who perceives wrong-doing on the part of their employer or organisation, whereas espionage occurs when an individual is deliberately placed by an authority/organisation within a context in which they obtain information desired by their employer.
These are well established definitions; I'm surprised at your confusion.


----------



## cesare (Feb 8, 2016)

Whistleblowing is the same as public interest disclosure - which is a more descriptive term. Espionage is much the same as spying. Public interest disclosure isn't the same as spying.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Whistleblowing is the act of an employee who perceives wrong-doing on the part of their employer or organisation, whereas espionage occurs when an individual is deliberately placed by an authority/organisation within a context in which they obtain information desired by their employer.
> These are well established definitions; I'm surprised at your confusion.


Rubbish. You've just tried to establish them! 


cesare said:


> Whistleblowing is the same as public interest disclosure - which is a more descriptive term. Espionage is much the same as spying. Public interest disclosure isn't the same as spying.


This is really dodgy. Who gets to decide what's in the public interest?

Again, a GCHQ fascist employee decides that the public has a right to know the details of all the lefty activists that the government has been keeping tabs on. He leaks that information and Stormfront publish it. 

What should happen to that whistleblower?


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Espionage is done for material gain or on behalf of a state. Snowdon hasn't gained much out of this except a permanent residence at the kremlin



Unless he was FSB from the start.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2016)

cesare said:


> Whistleblowing is the same as public interest disclosure - which is a more descriptive term. Espionage is much the same as spying. Public interest disclosure isn't the same as spying.


Quite; this seems obvious to most folk...except those apparently blinded by a dislike of the individual(s) involved.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2016)

cesare said:


> Whistleblowing is the same as public interest disclosure - which is a more descriptive term. Espionage is much the same as spying. Public interest disclosure isn't the same as spying.


Indeed. Whistleblowing is making public evidence of (alleged) malpractice or wrongdoing. Espionage is covertly passing on information to another party.  The former hopes to make the information public, the latter does not. 

Whistleblowing for employees - GOV.UK

Espionage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Rubbish. You've just tried to establish them!


You're just making a fool of yourself, now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Unless he was FSB from the start.


deep game


----------



## cesare (Feb 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Quite; this seems obvious to most folk...except those apparently blinded by a dislike of the individual(s) involved.


I can't stand the individual involved, ftr


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> deep game


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There are times when governments break the laws they've sworn to uphold, and then do their utmost to ensure that no one finds out. There are times when large corporations violate the law, and attempt to keep the fact secret.
> 
> Without whistleblowers, chances are good that these illegal activities - activities that may have major consequences for many people - will not be discovered.
> 
> Is that an acceptable state of affairs?


Governments do illegal stuff. Wow! Who knew?

I'm not suggesting that governments don't do things that are _worthy_ of being made public. Of course they do.

But what legal device do you put in place that enables *just* the worthy acts to be made public, and who decides where the line gets drawn?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2016)

cesare said:


> I can't stand the individual involved, ftr


Showing you've not been blinded by dislike.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Governments do illegal stuff. Wow! Who knew?
> 
> I'm not suggesting that governments don't do things that are _worthy_ of being made public. Of course they do.
> 
> But what legal device do you put in place that enables just the worthy acts to be made public, and who decides where the line gets drawn?


i'm prepared to do that if no one else steps forward


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Showing you've not been blinded by dislike.


Don't be stupid. Think about this and answer my question at #1997 before you canonise St Julian of Assange.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Governments do illegal stuff. Wow! Who knew?
> 
> I'm not suggesting that governments don't do things that are _worthy_ of being made public. Of course they do.
> 
> But what legal device do you put in place that enables *just* the worthy acts to be made public, and who decides where the line gets drawn?


Whistle-blowing is, by definition, based upon the subjective perceptions of the individual(s) involved. The state does provide guidance & some laws that are supposed to limit the scope of public-interest disclosure, but ultimately this is not something that the state can or should have control over.


----------



## laptop (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster - are you wrestling with your conscience over blowing the whistle on some sworn secret?

It's OK, you can tell us


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed. Whistleblowing is making public evidence of (alleged) malpractice or wrongdoing. Espionage is covertly passing on information to another party.  The former hopes to make the information public, the latter does not.
> 
> Whistleblowing for employees - GOV.UK
> 
> Espionage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Again, this all comes down to "public interest" and who gets to decide what it is.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be stupid. Think about this and answer my question at #1997 before you canonise St Julian of Assange.


Before you waste anymore time on that line, I don't *like* what I see/hear of Asssange.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Before you waste anymore time on that line, I don't *like* what I see/hear of Asssange.


Cool. 

Now answer my question in #1997.


----------



## 2hats (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Again, this all comes down to "public interest" and who gets to decide what it is.



I vote for members of the public rather than government goons and peons.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Governments do illegal stuff. Wow! Who knew?



Not you nor me; if it wasn't for a lot of whistleblowers.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Whistle-blowing is, by definition, based upon the subjective perceptions of the individual(s) involved.


Bingo. 

Now why should Assange and Snowden get a pass, but not the fascist who reports on leftists?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Again, this al comes down to "public interest" and who gets to decide what it is.


No. It's the difference between disclosing a secret and making it public knowledge and passing on a secret with the intention of the secret being known only to the recipient. Ethical motivations   aside, there's a difference in effect.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> the fascist who reports on leftists?



Are there any examples of that?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Cool.
> 
> Now answer my question in #1997.





Spymaster said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Now why should Assange and Snowden get a pass, but not the fascist who reports on leftists?


Now conflating a whistle-blower and an 'editor' who decides to publish disclosure.
Snowden has got no pass from his employer, and neither would the hypothetical GCHQ employee.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Now conflating a whistle-blower and an 'editor' who decides to publish disclosure.


Purely because you're supporting Assange's non-rapey activities and someone else has referred to Snowden as a hero.

But you're avoiding the question.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Now why should Assange and Snowden get a pass, but not the fascist who reports on leftists?


A pass on what from whom?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A pass on what from whom?


On their "whisteblowing" activities, and legally (as that seems to be what some here are arguing).


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Purely because you're supporting Assange's non-rapey activities and someone else has referred to Snowden as a hero.
> 
> But you're avoiding the question.


You question demonstrates flawed logic.
The employee could only be considered a whistle-blower if he were attempting to expose wrong-doing against the public interest. A fascist could not credibly argue that he objected to state surveillance of leftists; his disclosure to a fascist publication, aside from breaching the OSA, would be treated as espionage.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2016)

theres almost certainly elements within the american security apparatus who think snowden should be assasinated for treason and the rest want him in a supermax for life. Hows he got a pass from his former employer?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> On their "whisteblowing" activities, and legally (as that seems to be what some here are arguing).


The contradictions don't allow for a clean answer of the form you seem to want. The state is revealed to be breaking the laws it itself enforces. The whistleblower is held legally accountable by the same body that it has revealed to be breaking the law. The law itself is shown up as inconsistent. The nature of what has been revealed is the whistleblower's only protection - and yes, of course, that is a subjective judgement: you discover that the state is murdering people, say, and you decide to make this fact public; your judgement is that more people will agree with you that this disgusting behaviour needed to be revealed than will side with the state in thinking you shouldn't have revealed it. And you hope the state doesn't murder _you_ next.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2016)




----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 8, 2016)

andysays said:


> ...The original offence was sexual...
> 
> 
> You've given no coherent reasons for anything, as far as I can see, and are now reduced to attempting to smear others for "dissing" and having questionable motives. That kind of tells its own story, and it's not a happy one....



Firstly...it's an alleged offence.  

Secondly....it's not a smear to challenge someone's post.  You'll find no personal attacks or insults in _my_ posts.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Again this is completely subjective. You think Snowden is some kind of hero for confirming what most people suspected anyway. I think he's a tit for sacrificing himself on the alter of public interest, for nothing.



Before and for a while after the revelations (where they weren't censored) the narrative was 'of course none of this happens, how ridiculous' which of course quickly changed to 'of course this goes on, what are you some kind of naive idiot?'


----------



## elbows (Feb 9, 2016)

Plus there is a world of difference between general suspicions about intelligence service capability, and specific details. The media hardly ever had anything concrete with which to generate stories about modern digital snooping capability. Snowden gave them lots of specifics, backed up by documents, which they could use.

This can make a lot of difference in practice. The difference between being able to write people off as paranoid fools who are making no real case using no proper evidence, and being able to write a well-informed article with interesting details that will not be dismissed in the same way at all. The former doesn't get a look-in when it comes to 'legitimate mainstream political debate' whereas the latter generates debate in that realm.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 9, 2016)

Speaking of the man himself


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 10, 2016)

*Edward Snowden* ‏@Snowden  Feb 5
Edward Snowden Retweeted AFP news agency

This writes a pass for every dictatorship to reject UN rulings. Dangerous precedent for UK/Sweden to set. #Assange

Edward Snowden added,

*AFP news agency* @AFP
#BREAKING Britain rejects UN panel ruling on Assange: government
6,782 retweets4,642 likes


*Edward Snowden* ‏@Snowden  Feb 5
Judging UN ruling based on like or dislike of #Assange forgets that human rights defend principles by protecting blindly, best and worst.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2016)

In which Wikileaks is caught out publishing a deliberate falsehood


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 20, 2016)

Sweden asks to meet Julian Assange inside Ecuador embassy



> Ecuador has received a formal request from the Swedish authorities to interview Julian Assange, inside its London embassy, in a potential breakthrough to the long-running saga.


Progress?



> Long said Ecuador’s legal department needed to examine the request, and must also view it in the context of the UN ruling and the lack of sworn guarantees from the US. Ecuador would also want assurances that the UK would not seek to prosecute Assange for avoiding arrest.


Nope! The same old delaying bollocks.

Assange will never agree to the interview,  which is a legal prerequisite before he can be charged in Sweden. If Swedish law is similar to ours, the charging of Assange (which would likely follow the interview) would make the statute of limitation in 2020 irrelevant as time limits apply to instituting proceedings, not concluding them. Sweden could interview, charge and wait for however long it took for Assange to emerge.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 4, 2016)

Assange has been going on for months now about how he has some really damaging information on Hillary Clinton that he's going to release when the time is right - seems like a strange approach for an organization that used to claim to be devoted to total transparency, by this point it would be hilarious if somebody hacked the WikiLeaks files and leaked the information.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Oct 4, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> Assange has been going on for months now about how he has some really damaging information on Hillary Clinton that he's going to release when the time is right - seems like a strange approach for an organization that used to claim to be devoted to total transparency, by this point it would be hilarious if somebody hacked the WikiLeaks files and leaked the information.



She wanted "to drone this guy" according tto the Internet!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 4, 2016)

is he still inside that fucking embassy? 

What a berk!


----------



## kebabking (Oct 4, 2016)

they must be really, _really_ sick of having his fucking socks on the radiator...


----------



## elbows (Oct 4, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> Assange has been going on for months now about how he has some really damaging information on Hillary Clinton that he's going to release when the time is right - seems like a strange approach for an organization that used to claim to be devoted to total transparency, by this point it would be hilarious if somebody hacked the WikiLeaks files and leaked the information.



It's an approach that is entirely consistent with the shit stance on these matters that Assange/Wikileaks have taken for years. I ranted about it some years ago more effectively than I am able to repeat now, because I had suitable quotes from an Assange interview or two with a business magazine or newspaper and I don't have any of this detail to hand now.

From what I recall it seemed fairly clear at the time that he saw it as his right to harness whatever power and profit from the information, the timing of its release or its non-release, etc, as he could. He wasn't subtle about this at all and it seemed easy to find heaps of hypocrisy and contradiction at every turn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 4, 2016)

kebabking said:


> they must be really, _really_ sick of having his fucking socks on the radiator...


having to lock their bedroom doors at night...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

elbows said:


> It's an approach that is entirely consistent with the shit stance on these matters that Assange/Wikileaks have taken for years. I ranted about it some years ago more effectively than I am able to repeat now, because I had suitable quotes from an Assange interview or two with a business magazine or newspaper and I don't have any of this detail to hand now.
> 
> From what I recall it seemed fairly clear at the time that he saw it as his right to harness whatever power and profit from the information, the timing of its release or its non-release, etc, as he could. He wasn't subtle about this at all and it seemed easy to find heaps of hypocrisy and contradiction at every turn.


He sold what he had - and under very exclusice enclsing terms, as i he then owned what he had been given - and used what he couldn't sell to further a highly individualised agenda. See releasing loads of stuff on Erdogan the day of the coup. It stinks. He stinks.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 19, 2020)

_bump_

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.









						Trump Offered Assange Pardon if He Covered Up Russian Hack, WikiLeaks Founder’s Lawyer Claims
					

Lawyers acting for the WikiLeaks founder said Dana Rohrabacher, a former Republican congressman, had brought the message to London from Trump.



					www.thedailybeast.com


----------



## teqniq (Sep 7, 2020)

Whatever your opinion of the man this is looking like the dice are heavily loaded against him (threads):


----------



## Wilf (Sep 7, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Whatever your opinion of the man this is looking like the dice are heavily loaded against him (threads):



Yeah, I dislike him and his brand of superstar liberalism, think he should have faced charges in Sweden and all the rest, but what he's got coming must be terrifying.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 8, 2020)

I mentioned on the other thread that I have no time at all for the guy and reckon he's proper dodgy in many ways.  That being said there is a very good case that he shouldn't be extradited to the US.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 30, 2020)

Looks to be proper dodgy:









						Assange Court Report September 30: Morning
					

Assange spying ordered by senior Trump associate




					assangecourt.report
				






> A Spanish security firm secretly filmed and recorded Julian Assange on the orders of Donald Trump associate Sheldon Adelson, the Wikileaks founder’s London extradition hearing has been told. Contractors hired by Adelson also discussed kidnapping or poisoning the Wikileaks founder and allegedly broke into the office of his lawyer, as well as passing on the information to US intelligence agencies....


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Looks to be proper dodgy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is this impartial site you are quoting called assangecourtreport for any reason relevant to the case, or is it just a coincidence?


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is this impartial site you are quoting called assangecourtreport for any reason relevant to the case, or is it just a coincidence?


The facts they are reporting are reported in many other places, as it is what was said in court.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is this impartial site you are quoting called assangecourtreport for any reason relevant to the case, or is it just a coincidence?


The guy claims to be a reporter working mostly for Byline Times (see twitter handle). It looks like he's set the site up specifically to provide ongoing reportage on the case. As for bias which is what you seem to be suggesting I am guessing he may be sympathetic towards Assange. However the reportage looks to be factual.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> The facts they are reporting are reported in many other places, as it is what was said in court.





teqniq said:


> The guy claims to be a reporter working mostly for Byline Times (see twitter handle). It looks like he's set the site up specifically to provide ongoing reportage on the case. As for bias which is what you seem to be suggesting I am guessing he may be sympathetic towards Assange. *However the reportage looks to be factual*.



So?

None of it changes anything. And that fucking website is just an awful source of anything.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So?
> 
> None of it changes anything. And that fucking website is just an awful source of anything.


So?

What point are you trying to make?   That Assange is a git doesn’t alter the fact that he is being treated abysmally for his journalism.  This case isn’t about anything else, it’s about wiki leaks severely embarrassing the US government.  That matters, doesn’t it?


----------



## teqniq (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse To all of the above, why?


----------



## andysays (Sep 30, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Looks to be proper dodgy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a certain irony about Assange supporters complaining about information about their hero being gathered by underhand or unorthodox means and passed to US intelligence agencies...


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Where’s that fucking facepalm smiley?


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Let’s just remind ourselves why the US state went after Assange and wiki leaks (hint: it has fuck all to do with sexual assault or Russian collusion)


----------



## teqniq (Sep 30, 2020)

andysays said:


> There's a certain irony about Assange supporters complaining about information about their hero being gathered by underhand or unorthodox means and passed to US intelligence agencies...


For the record, again. I am not a supporter.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> So?
> 
> What point are you trying to make?   That Assange is a git doesn’t alter the fact that he is being treated abysmally for his journalism.  This case isn’t about anything else, it’s about wiki leaks severely embarrassing the US government.  That matters, doesn’t it?





teqniq said:


> Bahnhof Strasse To all of the above, why?




That trashy site, assangecourtrport is just that, trash.

Embarrassed the US government? He made Obama uncomfortable about the actions of a former administration, but he released Manning very early, so just how embarrassed where they? Probably enough to start the ball rolling in getting him nicked. What would have happened to Assange? We don't know as he went and hid in the Ecuadorian embassy to sit out the time limit on a number of Swedish rape charges.

Once US 'justice' gets going it can't stop, what we're seeing is it not stopping just cos he hid away.

Nothing in that report is new 'news', it has all been reported before, the bugging, baby DNA etc.

So teqniq, what's 'proper dodgy' here?


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Factual reporting of a current court case is trashy? You’re letting your vitriol get in the way of the facts


----------



## teqniq (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse This is a new definition of trash that i have not come across before. The scum, the fail et al are trash but there we are. Yes the bugging has been reported on before but not as evidence in a court of law. Manning was released early but has now been back in prison for quite some time for refusing to give evidence to a grand jury regarding Assange. So much for US 'justice' more like revenge imo, this is borne out by their relentless pursuit of him. That Assange himself is dodgy I have taken on board, from his Swedish indiscretions to his politics but i still think he shouldn't be extradited to the U.S.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> Factual reporting of a current court case is trashy? You’re letting your vitriol get in the way of the facts



Trashy, yes, in the same way the Sun, Express or Mail is trash. Factual, mostly yes, but ludicrously skewed.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Trashy, yes, in the same way the Sun, Express or Mail is trash. Factual, mostly yes, but ludicrously skewed.


Perhaps because that is the nature of the evidence thus far.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Bahnhof Strasse This is a new definition of trash that i have not come across before. The scum, the fail et al are trash but there we are. Yes the bugging has been reported on before but not as evidence in a court of law. Manning was released early but has now been back in prison for quite some time for refusing to give evidence to a grand jury regarding Assange. So much for US 'justice' more like revenge imo, this is borne out by their relentless pursuit of him. That Assange himself is dodgy I have taken on board, from his Swedish indiscretions to his politics but i still think he shouldn't be extradited to the U.S.




Rape = indiscretions.

I think we are done here.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 30, 2020)

Lol. It was never proven in a court of law though it look to be likely. He really should have gone there to stand trial.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Lol.




Fuck sakes.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Fuck sakes.


He’s on trial for exposing fucking war crimes.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Fuck sakes.


I was amused by your picking out of my use of the word 'indiscretions' rather than responding to anything else in the post, anything to add? Anything of actual substance?

E2a rather like your preceeeding repsonse actually.


----------



## andysays (Sep 30, 2020)

teqniq said:


> For the record, again. I am not a supporter.


I wasn't referring to you but to the creators of that site.

Apologies if I appeared to tar you with the same brush.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2020)

Personally I  believe the man is a really unpleasant twat.  Egocentric, selfish, narcissistic, rapey, dishonest and a coward.  I also increasingly don't think he should be extradited to the States, not because he hasn't a case to answer (he clearly has even if you make a greater good argument) but because of the lack of anything resembling justice that will meet him if he ends up there.

I don't think these are contradictory positions to hold.   This being said I'm not going to be contributing to any bail funds for him soon and I won't be shedding many tears for his predicament.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> He’s on trial for exposing fucking war crimes.



Is he?


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is he?


Yes.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> Yes.



He really isn't.  Not in any legal sense.  It is an extradition hearing to see whether he is going to be sent to the US because they want to apparently put him on trial there. That is not the same thing.  The reason he doesn't have his liberty at the moment should be bloody obvious to even his most starry eyed supporters.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> Yes.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> He really isn't.  Not in any legal sense.  It is an extradition hearing to see whether he is going to be sent to the US because they want to apparently put him on trial there. That is not the same thing.  The reason he doesn't have his liberty at the moment should be bloody obvious to even his most starry eyed supporters.


And what do they want to put him on trial for?   That should be obvious even to the blindest buffoon.  Lets not forget, the reason (he said)  he wouldn't go to Sweden for the rape investigation he undoubtedly should have faced, was because he feared Sweden would allow him to be deported to the US to face 175 years in jail for exposing information about war crimes. 'Oh no, that wont happen' they said, but look where we are now.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>


yes, your daftness is quite shocking.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> yes, your daftness is quite shocking.



I am shocked you should resort to lies. Add to that teqniq trying to make a thing of stating that he’s not been found guilty rape in a court of law, and that the rape of two women is just lolz anyway and we are at classic Assange here. Epic stuff you two.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I am shocked you should resort to lies. Add to that teqniq trying to make a thing of stating that he’s not been found guilty rape in a court of law, and that the rape of two women is just lolz anyway and we are at classic Assange here. Epic stuff you two.


what lies? You're the one making shite up.

Assange is being threatened with deportation because he exposed war crimes.  _That _has absolutely nothing to do with his sexual crimes.   

I hope you never have to be a union rep or owt - 'this guy is being unfairly dismissed'   'yeah, but he's a shit and I dont like him'


----------



## teqniq (Sep 30, 2020)

He should have gone to court in Sweden, then we would have had a much higher possibility of knowing for sure moreover I never suggested rape is lolz. The thing about him fearing deportation to the US from Sweden has been disproven on this thread.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> what lies?



This lie



belboid said:


> He’s on trial for exposing fucking war crimes.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This lie


What do you think it’s about then? It’s not about sexual assault, it’s about exposing war crimes, crimes you seem to think are just ‘lolz’

so sorry that he’s only facing extradition so far, rather than the explicit trial, but if you can’t tell A leads directly to B, then that’s your problem.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 1, 2020)

belboid said:


> And what do they want to put him on trial for?



Future tense.  So, we agree he is currently not on trial for "exposing war crimes" at all.  Its an extradition hearing to see whether he should be sent to the US to potentially be put on trial. Exactly as I said.



> Lets not forget, the reason (he said)  he wouldn't go to Sweden for the rape investigation he undoubtedly should have faced, was because he feared Sweden would allow him to be deported to the US to face 175 years in jail for exposing information about war crimes. 'Oh no, that wont happen' they said, but look where we are now.



Lets not forget the reason he fled Sweden in the first place is a very good point.


----------



## belboid (Oct 1, 2020)

Yeah they just want him back in the us for a nice chat about cats.   ‘Potentially put on trial’ my arse.   Hope you’re proud boy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2020)

andysays said:


> There's a certain irony about Assange supporters complaining about information about their hero being gathered by underhand or unorthodox means and passed to US intelligence agencies...


First, you don't have to consider Assange a hero to oppose what is being done to him.

Second, to equate the actions of a private group/individual seeking to expose wrongdoing kept secret by the state with the actions of a state in pursuing that group/individual is the height of stupidity. You are being a useful idiot if you do this. Sadly no irony involved at all.


----------



## andysays (Oct 1, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> First, you don't have to consider Assange a hero to oppose what is being done to him.
> 
> Second, to equate the actions of a private group/individual seeking to expose wrongdoing kept secret by the state with the actions of a state in pursuing that group/individual is the height of stupidity. You are being a useful idiot if you do this. Sadly no irony involved at all.


Firstly, I'm doing neither of the things you suggest. 

Secondly, no one could justifiably accuse you of being a useful anything.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 1, 2020)

belboid said:


> Yeah they just want him back in the us for a nice chat about cats.   ‘Potentially put on trial’ my arse.   Hope you’re proud boy



Its like having two different conversation when speaking with you.  There is what I'm saying which is factually correct and what your head is shouting which is something that may or may not happen in the future which you seem to think is fact. Its not.

The reason I'm hesitant about saying whether he may or may not face trial in the states because I'm not 100% sure he won't just be disappeared into the system as a trial may prove a bit to uncomfortable for the US government.

He's still a rapey cunt who no one should trust in the slightest but hey, we all have our heros.


----------



## belboid (Oct 1, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Its like having two different conversation when speaking with you.  There is what I'm saying which is factually correct and what your head is shouting which is something that may or may not happen in the future which you seem to think is fact. Its not.
> 
> The reason I'm hesitant about saying whether he may or may not face trial in the states because I'm not 100% sure he won't just be disappeared into the system as a trial may prove a bit to uncomfortable for the US government.
> 
> He's still a rapey cunt who no one should trust in the slightest but hey, we all have our heros.


Lol, the only reason you think you’re having two conversations is because your trying to justify to yourself supporting making someone pay for exposing US war crimes while saying you oppose those war crimes.  That’s your contradictory mess.  

you can keep lying, pretending that disagreeing with you means we must think Assange is a hero, but if we only supported the rights of people we think are heroes then we’d have no rights at all.  two wrongs don’t make a right, whatever you may think.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 1, 2020)

belboid said:


> Lol, the only reason you think you’re having two conversations is because your trying to justify to yourself supporting making someone pay for exposing US war crimes while saying you oppose those war crimes.  That’s your contradictory mess.
> 
> you can keep lying, pretending that disagreeing with you means we must think Assange is a hero, but if we only supported the rights of people we think are heroes then we’d have no rights at all.  two wrongs don’t make a right, whatever you may think.



This is quite frankly bizarre.  You appear to be able to read but unable to understand what is being written.  You are having the conversation which you want to have not the one we are actually having.  Please direct me to where I said anything like you have just written.  Anything?  Have you got me mixed up with a different poster?  Or is your way of communicating akin to shouting at a brick wall?

For the avoidance of doubt I have said:

He is not on trial for exposing war crimes he is at an extradition hearing.
If he does get extradited he will likely face a trial or will possibly just be disappeared into the system
I don't think he should be extradited
He's a rapey and cowardly cunt

So please go back and find where I said any of that weird shit your increasingly erratic brain created.  I said this on the other threat but I reckon Assange was as likely hiding from his fans in that Embassy as he was arrest.  Can't say I blame him.


----------



## belboid (Oct 1, 2020)

You’re right, you did, just about, say he should be extradited.  But you wrapped it up in blather about how he was actually guilty and didn’t deserve defending.   And you pretend that anyone defending the right of _journalists_ to do journalism must be an Assange ‘fan boy’. So, in practise, you are siding with the extraditers I’m afraid.

I may well go ott in lambasting those like you from time to time, but I’d rather do that than be a useless liberal sitting on the fence and pretending to claim moral purity.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 1, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> .... I reckon Assange was as likely hiding from his fans in that Embassy as he was arrest.  Can't say I blame him.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 1, 2020)

belboid said:


> You’re right, you did, just about, say he should be extradited.  But you wrapped it up in blather about how he was actually guilty and didn’t deserve defending.   And you pretend that anyone defending the right of _journalists_ to do journalism must be an Assange ‘fan boy’. So, in practise, you are siding with the extraditers I’m afraid.



Eh? He hasn't done any of that!


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 1, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Eh? He hasn't done any of that!



Its just downright weird.


----------



## andysays (Oct 1, 2020)

you appear to have seriously lost the plot here belboid.

Someone, for example, correcting your factually incorrect claim that Assange is on trial for exposing war crimes by pointing out that he's currently going through an extradition hearing is not saying he's guilty, or supporting the US state in putting him on trial or the British state in extraditing him, should either or both of those things actually happen in the future.


----------



## belboid (Oct 1, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> I also increasingly don't think he should be extradited to the States, *not because he hasn't a case to answer* (he clearly has even if you make a greater good argument) but because of the lack of anything resembling justice that will meet him if he ends up there.
> 
> I don't think these are contradictory positions to hold.   *This being said I'm not going to be contributing to any bail funds for him soon and I won't be shedding many tears for his predicament.*


Looks like saying he’s guilty and you won’t be supporting any defense to me.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 1, 2020)

belboid said:


> Looks like saying he’s guilty and you won’t be supporting any defense to me.



Of course he's guilty, the question is whether the civic duty to expose wrong-doing overrides the US laws surrounding the publication of US government documents/information.

I think he - and those who supplied him with that information - have a reasonable case in some the instances, and not in others.

But then I've not jumped down rabbit hole of taking a laughably simplistic view of a hugely complex and multi-faceted subject because I think I share politics with someone.....


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 1, 2020)

belboid said:


> Looks like saying he’s guilty and you won’t be supporting any defense to me.



No, there is a clear prima facie case that he has potentially committed crimes.  That's not the same as saying he is guilty of those crimes, its saying that he has a case to answer.  Also what kebabking says in the post above this one there is the question of whether journalists should be prosecuted in this regard.

I'm supporting his defense in the sense that I don't think he should be extradited because of what he represents and because of what has happened to Chelsea Manning.  I think Assange the man is vile and I couldn't give two shits about his predicament.  His more recent actions have made it impossible for me to have any sympathy for him on a personal level and I find myself unable to defend Assange the man because he disgusts me.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 1, 2020)

belboid said:


> Assange is being threatened with deportation because he exposed war crimes.



This is a massive oversimplification of whats going on. Wikileaks have released fucktons of information, documents, emails, realting to thousands of matters, not just "war crimes".


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 1, 2020)

In itself "war crimes" is such a loaded and problematic phrase.  For something to be a crime it needs to legislated against in some form and this case its the Geneva Convention.  But what about incidents that happened before that?  When Sherman burnt Atlanta on his march to the sea was that a war crime?  In WW2 the Soviet Union was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, can it be accused of war crimes in the strictest sense?

The reason I bring this up is because the Geneva Convention is one of the reasons countries generally don't declare ware these days because they are then bound by the convention.  Instead we get conflicts and the like.  This is why what happens at The Hague is often so iffy and just rich mans justice.  Anyway, I digress.


----------



## belboid (Oct 1, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> No, there is a clear prima facie case that he has potentially committed crimes.  That's not the same as saying he is guilty of those crimes, its saying that he has a case to answer.  Also what kebabking says in the post above this one there is the question of whether journalists should be prosecuted in this regard.
> 
> I'm supporting his defense in the sense that I don't think he should be extradited because of what he represents and because of what has happened to Chelsea Manning.  I think Assange the man is vile and I couldn't give two shits about his predicament.  His more recent actions have made it impossible for me to have any sympathy for him on a personal level and I find myself unable to defend Assange the man because he disgusts me.


So for the US charges he has a ‘case to answer’ but for the Swedish charges you’ve already found him guilty.   Uhuh.  

and this has nothing to do with ‘assange the man’ it is entirely to do with his activities as a journalist.   It’s a classic tactic from the right to try to strip away their enemies support by peeling off the soft layers through lambasting them (the enemy) for unassociated acts.  Letting Assange be deported will not do anything to reduce sexual abuse, or make him pay for any such crimes, it will just weaken the tights of journalists.


----------



## andysays (Oct 1, 2020)

belboid said:


> So for the US charges he has a ‘case to answer’ but for the Swedish charges you’ve already found him guilty.   Uhuh.
> 
> and this has nothing to do with ‘assange the man’ it is entirely to do with his activities as a journalist.   It’s a classic tactic from the right to try to strip away their enemies support by peeling off the soft layers through lambasting them (the enemy) for unassociated acts.  Letting Assange be deported will not do anything to reduce sexual abuse, or make him pay for any such crimes, it will just weaken the tights of journalists.


tbh, the idea that Assange is a "journalist" is also highly questionable.

He certainly doesn't appear to have had any of the traditional journalist's concern about protecting his sources from the consequences of his "journalism" or the potential harm caused to the innocent people his so called journalism has put at risk.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 1, 2020)

andysays said:


> tbh, the idea that Assange is a "journalist" is also highly questionable.
> 
> He certainly doesn't appear to have had any of the traditional journalist's concern about protecting his sources from the consequences of his "journalism" or the potential harm caused to the innocent people his so called journalism has put at risk.


Moreover, should so called journalists be able to publish anything that they decide is in the public interest regardless of the levels of secrecy and other consequences of them doing so? Like it or not there is a need for some secrecy in diplomatic and military matters and most sensible people would probably prefer that Julian fucking Assange wasn't the arbiter of which secrets get leaked.


----------



## andysays (Oct 1, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Moreover, should so called journalists be able to publish anything that they decide is in the public interest regardless of the levels of secrecy and other consequences of them doing so? Like it or not there is a need for some secrecy in diplomatic and military matters and most sensible people would probably prefer that Julian fucking Assange wasn't the arbiter of which secrets get leaked.


You're only saying that because you don't want Julian's children (you remember, the ones he very responsibly conceived when he was hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy avoiding the Swedish sexual assault charges) to ever see their daddy again, you monster.


----------



## elbows (Oct 1, 2020)

andysays said:


> tbh, the idea that Assange is a "journalist" is also highly questionable.
> 
> He certainly doesn't appear to have had any of the traditional journalist's concern about protecting his sources from the consequences of his "journalism" or the potential harm caused to the innocent people his so called journalism has put at risk.



In one or two interviews he gave at the peak of his powers, to the likes of the business press, he made it sound like he thought he/wikileaks was in the information brokerage business. Including laughable double-standards such as viewing the information leaked to wikileaks as wikileaks own property which he should have control over, and that it would be wrong for anyone else to disclose without wikileaks being in the driving seat. The idea of entities being able to pay Wikileaks in exchange for wikileaks then suppressing the info and making sure it never went public was also on the radar somewhere.

He also set himself up for failure by declaring that one of his goals was to make future whistleblowers and leakers feel like they could do that stuff without having their lives ruined. It was correct to identify this as a major factor in the game, but you therefore need a very cunning plan in order to hope to prevent that fate from happening to you too. Assanges own personal behaviour and apparent values made him especially ill-equipped for that challenge.


----------



## belboid (Oct 1, 2020)

No one would choose Assange as the poster boy for press freedom, but, as some old beardy bloke pointed out, we don’t get to choose the circumstances in which we make history (or not).  That’s why the society of editors oppose his extradition - pretty bloody quietly, which is also shameful, but they still do.  

the fact that he is deeply unpleasant and often supported by assholes who shout off without paying sufficient attention to what their ‘opponents’ have to say doesn’t alter the fact that once precedents are set they can’t be unset.


----------



## elbows (Oct 1, 2020)

Precedents can be made irrelevant or otherwise bypassed, for example by reforming the relevant extradition treaty.


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2020)

belboid said:


> No one would choose Assange as the poster boy for press freedom, but, as some old beardy bloke pointed out, we don’t get to choose the circumstances in which we make history (or not).  That’s why the society of editors oppose his extradition - pretty bloody quietly, which is also shameful, but they still do.
> 
> the fact that he is deeply unpleasant and *often supported by assholes who shout off without paying sufficient attention to what their ‘opponents’ have to say* doesn’t alter the fact that once precedents are set they can’t be unset.


We've seen examples of that on this very thread, including from you.

Just because posters are critical of Assange (and let's face it, there's plenty to be critical about) doesn't mean they are actually supportive of the US state's attempts to prosecute him.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 2, 2020)

belboid said:


> So for the US charges he has a ‘case to answer’ but for the Swedish charges you’ve already found him guilty.   Uhuh.
> 
> and this has nothing to do with ‘assange the man’ it is entirely to do with his activities as a journalist.   It’s a classic tactic from the right to try to strip away their enemies support by peeling off the soft layers through lambasting them (the enemy) for unassociated acts.  Letting Assange be deported will not do anything to reduce sexual abuse, or make him pay for any such crimes, it will just weaken the tights of journalists.



Nope, wrong again.  You're still having the argument you want to have rather then the conversation that is happening.  I don't think we can go much further with this.  Two ears, one mouth etc etc


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 15, 2020)

It’s all just bullying by the neurotypicals Assange's autism explains why people read him unfairly


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 15, 2020)

Autistic he may be, but his real undoing was his narcissism. That's why he did a victory lap instead of going to ground in the outback.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 15, 2020)

And even though he's a twat, there's no way in hell he's getting a fair trial in the states, so his extradition should be opposed on those grounds alone.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 15, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> It’s all just bullying by the neurotypicals Assange's autism explains why people read him unfairly


Well that was an article about nothing, wasn’t it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2021)

Assange wins


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 4, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> Assange wins


You're joking. . .


----------



## Cerv (Jan 4, 2021)

not a joke. 








						Julian Assange cannot be extradited to US, British judge rules
					

Judge says it would be ‘oppressive’ to extradite WikiLeaks founder to US, citing concerns for his mental health




					www.theguardian.com
				




wow. unexpected result that is.
of course there will be an appeal from the other side. this will keep dragging on.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 4, 2021)

So, where does he go now?

Back to Australia?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2021)

Well, I’m glad the US don’t get him. (But that doesn’t put him on the side of the angels).


----------



## Cerv (Jan 4, 2021)

Idris2002 said:


> So, where does he go now?
> 
> Back to Australia?


can't imagine he'd voluntarily go into the 2 week hotel quarantine just yet


----------



## kebabking (Jan 4, 2021)

The interesting thing will be to see the Judges ruling explained...

It's no secret that I'd like to see him in an orange jumpsuit handcuffed to the floor of a USAF C-17 and on his way to 500 years in supermax, but I'm interested in why the judge has ruled as she has - if she's ruled that the US justice system is so flawed that it's simply impossible for anyone to get a fair trial then it's going to be something of an ask to get her to change her mind. Conversely of course it's just a problem with the paperwork - which has happened many times before - then our friend may not be as safe as he thinks he is.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 4, 2021)

I was glancing at the threads covering it and it all seemed to be going against him until the magic mental health/neuridiversity/vulnerability button was pressed


----------



## moochedit (Jan 4, 2021)

Idris2002 said:


> So, where does he go now?
> 
> Back to Australia?



I read he is still on remand due to the usa appeal. I'm not sure if he will want to go back to aus in case the usa tries to extradite him from there? (He may have no choice of course)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 4, 2021)

Very glad he won't get sent to the US torture dungeon (for the time being at least).


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 4, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, I’m glad the US don’t get him. (But that doesn’t put him on the side of the angels).



Yeah.  The guy is awful but as I mentioned several times up thread there are some very good reasons why he shouldn't be extradited to the US.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 4, 2021)

kebabking said:


> The interesting thing will be to see the Judges ruling explained...
> 
> It's no secret that I'd like to see him in an orange jumpsuit handcuffed to the floor of a USAF C-17 and on his way to 500 years in supermax, but I'm interested in why the judge has ruled as she has - if she's ruled that the US justice system is so flawed that it's simply impossible for anyone to get a fair trial then it's going to be something of an ask to get her to change her mind. Conversely of course it's just a problem with the paperwork - which has happened many times before - then our friend may not be as safe as he thinks he is.


She's basically said that she doesn't think the yanks can stop him from killing himself whilst in their custody even though Belmarsh prison seemed to have managed fine. The Americans have 2 weeks to appeal. Let's hope that appeal is heard by someone sensible and the scrote is duly shipped across the pond.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 4, 2021)

Can't say I've paid much attention to this guy, but what is it about him that makes him so hated round here?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 4, 2021)

Wow, if you're depressed about your future you can avoid being extradited. Would have thought most people facing life without parole in ADX Florence might be a little down in the dumps...


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> She's basically said that she doesn't think the yanks can stop him from killing himself whilst in their custody even though Belmarsh prison seemed to have managed fine. The Americans have 2 weeks to appeal. Let's hope that appeal is heard by someone sensible and the scrote is duly shipped across the pond.



This result, it’s really bringing out the right wing string him up douche nozzles innit


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2021)

Same basis as  Lauri Love case and the Mackinnon one that Theresa May intervened on. Both still standing.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 4, 2021)

Cerv said:


> not a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. Bet he's glad he spent all those years hiding the Ecuadorian embassy now.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 4, 2021)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Wow. Bet he's glad he spent all those years hiding the Ecuadorian embassy now.


This was my first thought


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2021)

He was hiding from extradition to sweden not the US though. That's sweden who he went to to establish his operations because they wouldn't extradite him to the US.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 4, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> Same basis as  Lauri Love case and the Mackinnon one that Theresa May intervened on. Both still standing.


Two other questionable cases. 

Baraitser has been absolutely hounded and pilloried by Assangists for almost a year. 

Looks like it's finally got to her and she wasn't up to the job.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Two other questionable cases.
> 
> Baraitser has been absolutely hounded and pilloried by Assangists for almost a year.
> 
> Looks like it's finally got to her and she wasn't up to the job.


Two cases that are still standing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 4, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> This result, it’s really bringing out the right wing string him up douche nozzles innit


Get used to it, Braindead. This is going to run-on for a while.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2021)

Staff at the Ecuadorian embassy are standing by to repel boarders


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> He was hiding from extradition to sweden not the US though. That's sweden who he went to to establish his operations because they wouldn't extradite him to the US.


Exactly. Well worth reiterating.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Get used to it, Braindead. This is going to run-on for a while.



I’m sure you are rubbing your micro-stub with anticipation


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 4, 2021)

Slight tangent but is there any analysis about 1) those with diagnosable/diagnosed psychiatric/developmental disabilities within either the anti-imperialist left or the third position movements (or both) 2) individuals within the anti-imperialist/3P scene crying ‘mental health’ when they’ve been caught or suspected of wrong doing


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 4, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Slight tangent but is there any analysis about 1) those with diagnosable/diagnosed psychiatric/developmental disabilities within either the anti-imperialist left or the third position movements (or both) 2) individuals within the anti-imperialist/3P scene crying ‘mental health’ when they’ve been caught or suspected of wrong doing



Ask me one on sport


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 4, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> I’m sure you are rubbing your micro-stub with anticipation


I've noticed you do this weird associating-punishment-with-sex thing quite a lot. Are you the headmaster of a boys school, by any chance?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 4, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> Ask me one on sport



You’re a less impressive version of Benjamin butterworth


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I've noticed you do this weird associating-punishment-with-sex thing quite a lot. Are you the headmaster of a boys school, by any chance?


Doubtless the vice headmaster


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 4, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Slight tangent but is there any analysis about 1) those with diagnosable/diagnosed psychiatric/developmental disabilities within either the anti-imperialist left or the third position movements (or both) 2) individuals within the anti-imperialist/3P scene crying ‘mental health’ when they’ve been caught or suspected of wrong doing


It sounds like you might have one, do you want to share it with the class?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 4, 2021)

I’m on my arse.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 4, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Can't say I've paid much attention to this guy, but what is it about him that makes him so hated round here?


I mean, there's this for a start:
*The rape allegation against Julian Assange, explained*
And then also his shitty politics:
*Julian Assange - Also neoliberal utopian*

*Julian Assange’s Hatred of Hillary Clinton Was No Secret. His Advice to Donald Trump Was.*

*Regarding my banishment from the Courage Foundation at the behest of Julian Assange*
*Julian Assange Went After a Former Ally. It Backfired Epically.*

Sure there's more I could dig up with a bit more effort but that's enough for a starter.

Actually, that Barrett Brown statement (from a guy who actually spent 2012-2016 in prison on charges directly related to wikileaks/journo-related activity, with like a tiny tiny proportion of the publicity and support Assange has received) is good and short enough to be worth quoting in full:


> Since getting out of prison in late 2016, I have been increasingly vocal about my growing distaste for Wikileaks in general and Julian Assange in particular, largely due to his close and ongoing involvement with fascist entities, his outright lies about his role in the last U.S. election, and his willingness to have others tell similar lies on his behalf. I have also continued to support his rights against the state and private organizations that have pursued him from the very beginning, when his original mission of ethical transparency was still in play.
> 
> Given that the original FBI investigation into me stemmed directly from my involvement in defending Wikileaks from firms like HBGary, Booz Allen Hamilton, and Palantir, as made clear by the FBI’s own search warrant that may be found at Buzzfeed; and given that the charges I ultimately plead to were directly related to my efforts to ensure that the Stratfor leak was handled properly; and given that Assange himself refrained from even mentioning my name in public until it became a clear that I was to become a cause celebre; and given that the entirety of the legal defense fund that actually kept me from going away for decades was handled by the FreeBB organization, not Wikileaks or anyone associated with it; and given that Courage, though a fine organization staffed by extraordinary people, has provided me with something along the lines of $3500 out of the total $14,000 that has been donated for my benefit since FreeBB was incorporated into that organization; and given that I voluntarily allowed the rest to go into a pool for other beneficiaries that would seem to include Assange himself; and given that Assange and close associates have nonetheless chosen to publicly imply that I am somehow indebted to Assange for having made me a beneficiary after I’d already been sentenced; and given how much I’ve learned since my release about the degree of dishonesty and outright fabrication that Assange has engaged in along with those associates, much of which is already public record; and given that Assange himself has repeatedly reached out through intermediaries to “explain” himself to me but has in each case failed to actually do so — given all of this, I’m afraid I cannot agree with the stance, presented by the Courage board to me yesterday via a poorly-written e-mail, that I am somehow obligated to not only defend Assange’s rights — which I’m happy to do - but also to refrain from speaking out about the problems facing a movement that I risked a hundred years of prison time in order to defend.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2021)

To no one's great surprise, application for bail denied.


----------



## moochedit (Jan 6, 2021)

andysays said:


> To no one's great surprise, application for bail denied.



London's embassy staff breath a sigh of relief!


----------



## gosub (Dec 10, 2021)




----------



## extra dry (Dec 10, 2021)




----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, there's this for a start:
> *The rape allegation against Julian Assange, explained*
> And then also his shitty politics:
> *Julian Assange - Also neoliberal utopian*
> ...


perhaps australia might yet appoint assange ambassador to the united states, they'd not have to fork out for his accommodation or security (see suggestion in the hatred of hillary clinton article)


----------



## moochedit (Dec 10, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps australia might yet appoint assange ambassador to the united states, they'd not have to fork out for his accommodation or security (see suggestion in the hatred of hillary clinton article)


Depends if the us accepts it though as both countries have to agree. Equador tried that one on with the uk.


----------



## extra dry (Dec 10, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, there's this for a start:
> *The rape allegation against Julian Assange, explained*
> And then also his shitty politics:
> *Julian Assange - Also neoliberal utopian*
> ...


  reddit thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2021)

extra dry said:


> reddit thread



but what do you think?


----------



## extra dry (Dec 10, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> but what do you think?


Sorry, don't even try to box me in with your intellect, wit and knowledge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2021)

extra dry said:


> Sorry, don't even try to box me in with your intellect, wit and knowledge.


i'm just asking what you think of assange and his potential extradition. you clearly have some view on the matter, what is it?


----------



## extra dry (Dec 10, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm just asking what you think of assange and his potential extradition. you clearly have some view on the matter, what is it?


what I think - reading the headline the extradition is already going ahead, unless a higher court in the land can halt the process. 
 I think Assange should have relocated to Russia like Snowden. Whereas now I fear Assange will die in a US jail for telling the unspeakable truth that war gets innocent people killed.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 10, 2021)

War gets innocent people killed


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 10, 2021)

Should I pack a bag now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2021)

extra dry said:


> what I think - reading the headline the extradition is already going ahead, unless a higher court in the land can halt the process.
> I think Assange should have relocated to Russia like Snowden. Whereas now I fear Assange will die in a US jail for telling the unspeakable truth that war gets innocent people killed.


on second thoughts stick to posting other people's stuff as your own views are so vacuous and vapid they really shouldn't be shared


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 10, 2021)

extra dry said:


> reddit thread



Fuxk off


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 10, 2021)

Should the threads not be merged?


----------



## extra dry (Dec 11, 2021)

Shechemite said:


> Should I pack a bag now?


Are you living near an embassy, try hiding in their garden just to be safe.


----------



## extra dry (Dec 11, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> on second thoughts stick to posting other people's stuff as your own views are so vacuous and vapid they really shouldn't be shared


I will just put that rock carefully back in place.  Have an awesome Christmas and a happy new year.


----------



## _Russ_ (Dec 11, 2021)

Well thats it then, They are going to kill him
What a fucked up world


----------



## LDC (Dec 11, 2021)

extra dry said:


> I will just put that rock carefully back in place.  Have an awesome Christmas and a happy new year.



I thought better of you, but your last few posts are just rubbish, and why post a bonkers 3 hour long YouTube video with no comment ffs? You think anyone here is going to watch that?!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2021)

extra dry said:


> what I think - reading the headline the extradition is already going ahead, unless a higher court in the land can halt the process.
> I think Assange should have relocated to Russia like Snowden. Whereas now I fear Assange will die in a US jail for telling the unspeakable truth that war gets innocent people killed.


I've rarely read anything so fuckwitted. It's like the deaths of innocents wrongly targeted or as 'collateral damage' were only known about through assange's work. Whereas the deaths of civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan were widely reported from the get-go. USAF bombings of wedding parties became notorious, for example. Yeh if I was julian assange the future wouldn't look so rosy. But he's not some sort of left-wing hero. Lwh's don't work to engineer fascists' election, do they


----------



## Smangus (Dec 11, 2021)

Fuck him, self aggrandising twat.


----------



## belboid (Dec 12, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, there's this for a start:
> *The rape allegation against Julian Assange, explained*
> And then also his shitty politics:
> *Julian Assange - Also neoliberal utopian*
> ...


Yeah, he’s an untrustworthy twat.   But that is separate from the fact that the us state wants him for exposing some of their murderous activities.    Solidarity isn’t only given to people we think are nice, or it’s not really solidarity.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> Yeah, he’s an untrustworthy twat.   But that is separate from the fact that the us state wants him for exposing some of their murderous activities.    Solidarity isn’t only given to people we think are nice, or it’s not really solidarity.


Yeah, I wouldn't really disagree with that, but the context of that post was someone asking "what is it about Assange that makes him so hated?", if they'd been asking "should Assange, who is undoubtedly a twat, be supported in the context of the espionage charges?" I'd have answered differently.

Although since the subject has come up, I will freely admit to being a bit bitter that Assange seems to get so much more attention and support compared to the cases of people like Brown, Hammond, Winner or Hale. (Leaving Manning off that list since she does seem to get at least a vaguely comparable amount of attention?) Admittedly, there is an argument to be made that people in the UK should pay more attention to the Assange case since "our" state is involved, but on the other hand, comparing it to the cases of Wootton, McConville, Bassalat, or recent events in Bristol, it does seem like UK-held prisoners who aren't Trump-assisting twats do tend to get less support as well?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Dec 12, 2021)

Smangus said:


> Fuck him, self aggrandising twat.


It's not Assange I care about but the ramifications of jailing him. And I don't care for his politics at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> Yeah, he’s an untrustworthy twat.   But that is separate from the fact that the us state wants him for exposing some of their murderous activities.    Solidarity isn’t only given to people we think are nice, or it’s not really solidarity.


there are two aspects to the documents for which the americans seek assange's extradition. on the one hand are the release of army documents, some of which expose the killings of civilians. on the other hand there are the documents which expose how the american government saw their allies. it is i think the embarrassment caused by the latter which has really caused the united states government to go after assange. after all, the americans' murderous activities have been well covered by journalists for many years and if you followed the news at all you'd have had to bury your head in the sand not to know about massacres in afganistan and iraq.

but i don't offer solidarity to assange. i don't think he deserves it. i think that the left which supports him supports him on the facile basis that he's seen as the enemy of american imperialism. i don't believe he is. the left which supports him seems to me to be largely the left that supported or lionised shayler. but shayler wasn't some civil liberties critic of the secret state. he was provoked by mi5's lack of efficiency. 

i agree solidarity shouldn't be only given to people we think are nice. but it shouldn't be spread to people who are allied with the most reactionary elements. it should be offered on the basis of progressive struggle and ideas. and when someone allies themselves with trump and farage it's very very hard to see why they should be offered solidarity, which prevents that same solidarity (by nature of the time and resources involved) being offered to someone who actually deserves support.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 12, 2021)

AmateurAgitator said:


> It's not Assange I care about but the ramifications of jailing him.



What are the ramifications? What will the state inflict on people that wouldn’t otherwise come up with?


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> you'd have had to bury your head in the sand not to know about massacres in afganistan and iraq.


Assange cultists have spent the last 10 years doing this to cover for Assad, Iran and Russia. And sometimes just brazenly cheering on the carnage.



> Richard Boyd Barrett: It was very annoying to hear Deputy Micheál Martin saying, obviously with a sideswipe at the left, that people were not jumping up and down about the Russians in Syria. Some of us were. I did not notice Deputy Martin on the marches to the Russian embassy. We were there.
> 
> Mick Wallace: We were not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Smangus (Dec 12, 2021)

AmateurAgitator said:


> It's not Assange I care about but the ramifications of jailing him. And I don't care for his politics at all.



What ramifications?


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 13, 2021)

Smangus said:


> What ramifications?


A very brief bit of digging turns this up:








						Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues (Published 2019)
					

The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces 17 counts in a superseding indictment over his role in obtaining and publishing classified documents in 2010.




					www.nytimes.com
				





> Justice Department officials did not explain why they decided to charge Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act — a step also debated within the Obama administration but ultimately not taken. Although the indictment could establish a precedent that deems actions related to obtaining, and in some cases publishing, state secrets to be criminal, the officials sought to minimize the implications for press freedoms...
> 
> For the purposes of press freedoms, what matters is not who counts as a journalist, but whether journalistic activities — whether performed by a “journalist” or anyone else — can be crimes in America. The Trump administration’s move could establish a precedent used to criminalize future acts of national-security journalism, said Jameel Jaffer of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
> 
> ...


While (as mentioned above) I don't have much sympathy for the man himself, it does sound like the espionage charges for publishing do indeed have some pretty dodgy implications?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 13, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> A very brief bit of digging turns this up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed.  I don’t have any sympathy with his views, many of his actions, or the fact that he ran from a rape charge, but it doesn’t mean we should be relaxed about the US extraditing people.


----------



## LDC (Dec 13, 2021)

No maybe not, but in terms of battles to pick when there's so much going on that's impacting people's lives every day I can't summon up one atom of concern about this tbh.

Also, why does his support seem to be comprised of total fucking fruitcakes?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed.  I don’t have any sympathy with his views, many of his actions, or the fact that he ran from a rape charge, but it doesn’t mean we should be relaxed about the US extraditing people.


so would you support a campaign to renegotiate the 2003 treaty which currently governs extradition from the uk to us?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> so would you support a campaign to renegotiate the 2003 treaty which currently governs extradition from the uk to us?


I don’t feel the need for my moral judgements to be bound by the treaties of states.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I don’t feel the need for my moral judgements to be bound by the treaties of states.



fair enough. i just wondered if you'd do anything concrete about your concerns over extradition to the usa


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> fair enough. i just wondered if you'd do anything concrete about your concerns over extradition to the usa


Personally? No.


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Also, why does his support seem to be comprised of total fucking fruitcakes?


I know the guardian is crap,but total fucking fruitcake is ott.  Ditto the Society of Editors, Ai Weiwei, Tulsa Gabbard, Edward Snowden, Rafael Correa and a whole shitload more.  

If the fuckwits show up more in your timeline, perhaps the issues with said timeline.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Dec 13, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> A very brief bit of digging turns this up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Precisely the ramifications I was referring to. But apparently it's 'not important'.


----------



## LDC (Dec 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> I know the guardian is crap,but total fucking fruitcake is ott.  Ditto the Society of Editors, Ai Weiwei, Tulsa Gabbard, Edward Snowden, Rafael Correa and a whole shitload more.
> 
> If the fuckwits show up more in your timeline, perhaps the issues with said timeline.



Not sure your list convinces me much tbh! I don't have any sort of timeline. But he doesn't seem to have any people with decent politics supporting him does he? It's liberals at _The Guardian _or similar, minor washed-up celebrities, or conspiracy/Anonymous types.


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I don't have any sort of timeline. But he doesn't seem to have any people with decent politics supporting him does he? It's liberals at _The Guardian _or similar, minor washed-up celebrities, or conspiracy/Anonymous types.


I dont particularly mean 'your' as in LDC's, but I get told off if I say 'one'

The Society of Editors aren't liberals by any means, they're about the rights of journalists.  Which is why the NUJ support him too.  Rafael Correa isn't any of the things you say, or the other people I mentioned. He gets (critical) support from the large majority of the british left (although that does include wanky stalinists, of course). 

Whose support do you want for him? Cos his vocal opponents are much bigger wankers.


----------



## LDC (Dec 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Whose support do you want for him? Cos his vocal opponents are much bigger wankers.



None really, I think he's completely irrelevant to any important politics or political struggle tbh. I was just musing on why his support (fair enough with your people, I guess I was thinking the ones I see 'on the ground' or in the media) seems to consist of people that I wouldn't want anything to do with. Bet there's a nice anti-vax/Assange support crossover tbh.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> I dont particularly mean 'your' as in LDC's, but I get told off if I say 'one'
> 
> The Society of Editors aren't liberals by any means, they're about the rights of journalists.  Which is why the NUJ support him too.  Rafael Correa isn't any of the things you say, or the other people I mentioned. He gets (critical) support from the large majority of the british left (although that does include wanky stalinists, of course).
> 
> Whose support do you want for him? Cos his vocal opponents are much bigger wankers.


Tbh, my impression is that while there might be all sorts of people who vaguely support him and think the charges should be dropped, for whatever that's worth, the people who are actually motivated to campaign on the issue, organise Free Assange events and so on are very much at the fruitcakey end of things. Oh, crossposted with LDC saying pretty much the same thing.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 13, 2021)




----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> View attachment 300632


i like the way yer man in the v for vendetta mask has 'nobel prize nominee' as tho that buttered some parsnips


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 13, 2021)

Thinking about it, is Free Assange stuff the only time anyone's seen the WSWS/SEP lot actually organise an event, or at least have a really visible presence? I must have been at loads of things over the years where someone from the WSWS has come up and given me a closely-typed double-sided A4 leaflet denouncing the leadership of whatever the demo's about, but I don't think I've ever actually seen them with big signs like that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Thinking about it, is Free Assange stuff the only time anyone's seen the WSWS/SEP lot actually organise an event, or at least have a really visible presence? I must have been at loads of things over the years where someone from the WSWS has come up and given me a closely-typed double-sided A4 leaflet denouncing the leadership of whatever the demo's about, but I don't think I've ever actually seen them with big signs like that.


it's not the first outing for those signs


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2021)

I'd prefer that this discussion was taking place in a Swedish context, after he'd faced a Swedish court and been found guilty or not guilty over there.

Given that's not where we are, I'm conflicted. Assange is horrible, as a person and with his 'guru' status for some on the 'left'.  He's the author of his own misfortune in a number of ways.  Having said that, there's a bit of me that has an intake of breath at the idea of anyone spending decades in a supermax prison. Maybe he should just go on the list of people who have been screwed by the American justice system, not on a list of martyrs or superheroes.  If he'd had a bit less of a messianic self image, I doubt he'd be where he is now.


----------



## A380 (Dec 13, 2021)

Narcissist  sex pest locked up. Some of his organisations post embarrassed the USA and us, not sure they told us anything we didn't know as has been pointed out. Some leaks cost people working against authoritarian regimes  their lives.  He won't see inside Supermax Florence much less a death chamber despite what some pearl clutchers are claiming.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 13, 2021)

Wilf said:


> I'd prefer that this discussion was taking place in a Swedish context, after he'd faced a Swedish court and been found guilty or not guilty over there.
> 
> Given that's not where we are, I'm conflicted. Assange is horrible, as a person and with his 'guru' status for some on the 'left'.  He's the author of his own misfortune in a number of ways.  Having said that, there's a bit of me that has an intake of breath at the idea of anyone spending decades in a supermax prison. Maybe he should just go on the list of people who have been screwed by the American justice system, not on a list of martyrs or superheroes.  If he'd had a bit less of a messianic self image, I doubt he'd be where he is now.


I think it is part of the extradition deal that he won't spend time in a supermax. If he's convicted, he will serve his sentence in Australia.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I think it is part of the extradition deal that he won't spend time in a supermax. If he's convicted, he will serve his sentence in Australia.


maybe he'll end up in the goulburn correctional centre


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 13, 2021)

Wilf said:


> I'd prefer that this discussion was taking place in a Swedish context, after he'd faced a Swedish court and been found guilty or not guilty over there.


Sure it must've been mentioned plenty on here already, but there is an impressive irony in that it would be much better for him as well if the discussion was taking place in a Swedish context:








						Would Sweden Ever Extradite Assange to the United States?
					

Two years into his stay at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he is hiding from Swedish authorities looking to question him in connection with…




					foreignpolicy.com
				





> Sweden’s extradition agreement with the United States, signed in 1961 and updated in 1983, prohibits extradition on the basis of "a political offense" or "an offense connected with a political offense." The agreement does not specify what constitutes a "political offense." Whether the Swedish supreme court would rule to extradite Assange largely depends on what charges the secret U.S. grand jury brings against him.
> 
> If Assange is accused of espionage, Sweden most certainly would not comply, as its courts have consistently determined that espionage constitutes a political offense. For example, in 1992 Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, the only CIA agent to defect to the Soviet Union, to the United States. Charged with espionage, Swedish courts ruled that those accusations amounted to the kind of "political offense" specified in the extradition agreement.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I think it is part of the extradition deal that he won't spend time in a supermax. If he's convicted, he will serve his sentence in Australia.


Shows how much I keep up with stuff.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe he'll end up in the goulburn correctional centre


Or the Wentworth Detention Centre.


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 13, 2021)

I don't see what any of this has got to do with politics and why I should be bothered, Assange is a horrible person with dodgy views on things and if the US want to lock him up, we'll that's their business.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2021)

Not sure why he has a messiah status. It can't be difficult to build a website to publish stuff on. I suppose he had the guts to do it but I assume he wasn't alone. Why aren't others in the dock with him?


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 13, 2021)

And the Wikileaks thing. Didn't we know that these Imperialist regimes are rotten anyway, and that wars are unjust, so what's new about that? Better to resign ourselves and leave them off at it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2021)

Plus it seemingly changed fuck all.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2021)

splonkydoo said:


> And the Wikileaks thing. Didn't we know that these Imperialist regimes are rotten anyway, and that wars are unjust, so what's new about that? Better to resign ourselves and leave them off at it.


I'm not going to pretend the Americans locking him up is a 'neutral' issue or one I should be unconcerned about. However everything about Assange, his politics, his 'status' and his behaviour pares that concern back to the bone. Fuck the Americans and fuck Assange.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

i hear the ecuadorian embassy in canberra has been rehearsing what to do to repel political asylum-seeking messiahs


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 13, 2021)

Wilf said:


> I'm not going to pretend the Americans locking him up is a 'neutral' issue or one I should be unconcerned about. However everything about Assange, his politics, his 'status' and his behaviour pares that concern back to the bone. Fuck the Americans and fuck Assange.



'Our' politics should be focused on the state and its reaction to particular events, and supporting certain iviolable rights and principles. I'm less interested in whether Assange himself happens to be a jerk, other than  being satisfied he isn't a full blown fascist.


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 13, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Plus it seemingly changed fuck all.



The entire left has seemingly changed fuck all in the last twenty years. The biggest anti-war protests seen in a generation also seemingly changed fuck all. We can go on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

splonkydoo said:


> 'Our' politics should be focused on the state and its reaction to particular events, and supporting certain iviolable rights and principles. I'm less interested in whether Assange himself happens to be a jerk, other than  being satisfied he isn't a full blown fascist.


'our' politics should perhaps be focused on weakening the state and its disciplinary functions, and strengthening working class communities - building communities of resistance.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2021)

splonkydoo said:


> The entire left has seemingly changed fuck all in the last twenty years. The biggest anti-war protests seen in a generation also seemingly changed fuck all. We can go on.


Yes, but at least most of us weren't being extradited to a harsh sentence for changing fuck all.


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> 'our' politics should perhaps be focused on weakening the state and its disciplinary functions, and strengthening working class communities - building communities of resistance.



'We' can also have problems convincing others of the sanctity or durability of our politics by having nothing to say about the US vs Assange, or by failing to give the least bit of critical support. Unsavoury and troublesome people exist everywhere, including in our own local communities. This doesn't mean that I walk out on them if they have been unfairly targeted by the state.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 13, 2021)

splonkydoo said:


> 'Our' politics should be focused on the state and its reaction to particular events, and supporting certain iviolable rights and principles. I'm less interested in whether Assange himself happens to be a jerk, other than  being satisfied he isn't a full blown fascist.


Agree. But then there's the facts of the case. Assange started out working with major news organisations and using their legal and other expertise to ensure that material wasn't released that would risk exposing anyone to harm. Given that that's they way he was working, and that the material was in the public interest, what he was involved in was legitimate journalism and he ought to be protected from prosecution (IMO, not necessarily in the eyes of the law).

But then one day he got into a spat with the Guardian (I think it was because they wanted to hold back certain material until after the Manning trial) and, in a childish fit, he released a massive amount of unvetted stuff directly via Wikileaks. That's morally unforgivable, and I don't see how anyone can say it's unreasonable to regard it as a serious crime. So, with that act, I think he loses the right to expect sympathy and also the right to dodge his day in court (if he ever had that right).


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

splonkydoo said:


> 'We' can also have problems convincing others of the sanctity or durability of our politics by having nothing to say about the US vs Assange, or by failing to give the least bit of critical support. Unsavoury and troublesome people exist everywhere, including in our own local communities. This doesn't mean that I walk out on them if they have been unfairly targeted by the state.


no one from 'the real world' has ever mentioned julian assange to me, or suggested that my attitude to his situation was a touchstone by which i would be judged.


----------



## andysays (Dec 13, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Agree. But then there's the facts of the case. Assange started out working with major news organisations and using their legal and other expertise to ensure that material wasn't released that would risk exposing anyone to harm. Given that that's they way he was working, and that the material was in the public interest, what he was involved in was legitimate journalism and he ought to be protected from prosecution (IMO, not necessarily in the eyes of the law).
> 
> But then one day he got into a spat with the Guardian (I think it was because they wanted to hold back certain material until after the Manning trial) and, in a childish fit, he released a massive amount of unvetted stuff directly via Wikileaks. That's morally unforgivable, and I don't see how anyone can say it's unreasonable to regard it as a serious crime. So, with that act, I think he loses the right to expect sympathy and also the right to dodge his day in court (if he ever had that right).


And given that this act of recklessness definitely endangered the lives of many and has almost certainly led directly to the deaths of some whose data he released, he has, in my opinion, lost any claim he might once have had to anything resembling solidarity.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 13, 2021)

splonkydoo said:


> I don't see what any of this has got to do with politics and why I should be bothered, Assange is a horrible person with dodgy views on things and if the US want to lock him up, we'll that's their business.





splonkydoo said:


> 'Our' politics should be focused on the state and its reaction to particular events, and supporting certain iviolable rights and principles. I'm less interested in whether Assange himself happens to be a jerk, other than  being satisfied he isn't a full blown fascist.





splonkydoo said:


> 'We' can also have problems convincing others of the sanctity or durability of our politics by having nothing to say about the US vs Assange, or by failing to give the least bit of critical support. Unsavoury and troublesome people exist everywhere, including in our own local communities. This doesn't mean that I walk out on them if they have been unfairly targeted by the state.


Was your first post sarcastic, or did you have a massive conversion over the course of this afternoon?


----------



## elbows (Dec 13, 2021)

In addition to the sex crime cases and issues of unredacted sensitive data being released, there were other notable problems:

He ignored warnings about honeytraps
He utterly failed in one of his stated missions - to demonstrate that people could leak and whistleblow without having their lives ruined.
He failed to play well with media partners, perhas sometimes for reasonable reasons, but not always.
He gave some stupid interviews to the business press which revealed dodgy attitudes about his sense of ownership of information given to wikileaks.

Some of those I critiqued on u75 at the time, before the more recent chapters of wikileaks and Assange. What happens to him next will contain elements which should highlight and be of concern to people in regards the nature of certain charges, aspects of extradition etc. Unfortunately this high-profile opportunity to explore such things will be hampered by the aforementioned baggage in this case, peoples opinions of him and some of the things he said and did will significantly muddy the waters and make a more clinical discussion about the broader politics and legal aspects extremely difficult.

Its also quite possible that a range of specific activities and conversations he had will go well beyond traditional leaking & journalistic approaches to such information and causes, and may very well get into some very dodgy political territory and collusion with certain state actions.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Was your first post sarcastic, or did you have a massive conversion over the course of this afternoon?



That got  me scratching my head a bit also.


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I think it is part of the extradition deal that he won't spend time in a supermax. If he's convicted, he will serve his sentence in Australia.


Completely untrue.   He is at risk of 175 years and the US had reserved the right to put him in a maximum security facility or to subject him to special administrative measures – ie solitary.  

Reporters Without Borders note that the acts he is charged with “could be applied to any media outlet that published stories based on the leaked documents, or indeed any journalist, publisher or source anywhere in the world”

But fuck that, he’s supported by the World Shittest WebSite lot, so he obviously deserves whatever’s coming to him.


----------



## LDC (Dec 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Completely untrue.   He is at risk of 175 years and the US had reserved the right to put him in a maximum security facility or to subject him to special administrative measures – ie solitary.
> 
> Reporters Without Borders note that the acts he is charged with “could be applied to any media outlet that published stories based on the leaked documents, or indeed any journalist, publisher or source anywhere in the world”
> 
> But fuck that, he’s supported by the World Shittest WebSite lot, so he obviously deserves whatever’s coming to him.



What do you do support him and try to keep him out of a US jail out of interest? Do you think any of it makes any difference?


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> What do you do support him and try to keep him out of a US jail out of interest? Do you think any of it makes any difference?


tbh, other than signing petitions and letters of protest, pretty much bugger all.  Maybe arguing intemperately on the internet will convince one or two other people to do the same.  I suspect the most useful thing at the moment would be pressurising the aussie government to step up their condemnations of the process and to actually defend the rights of one of their citizens.  Bound to be more useful than appealing to PP's conscience.  Just talking about it and keeping it in the news helps a _bit._


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 13, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Was your first post sarcastic, or did you have a massive conversion over the course of this afternoon?


The first was not sincere, and an attitude expressed in this thread I was poking at. I thought it would become apparent over the following posts, but this being the internet amongst other things...


----------



## Raheem (Dec 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Completely untrue.   He is at risk of 175 years and the US had reserved the right to put him in a maximum security facility or to subject him to special administrative measures – ie solitary.


It's been widely reported that the US only got the appeal to go their way by making various promises to the court, including that they would put Assange in a regular prison while he's awaiting trial. If that's completely untrue, maybe you could explain.

I will agree that he potentially faces a long sentence (although unlikely to be anything like 175 years). Maybe we shouldn't have an extradition treaty with the US. But given that we do, I don't see what distinguishes Assange in this respect, given that I think the idea he's done nothing wrong is for the birds.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Plus it seemingly changed fuck all.



Not true. It helped get Trump elected.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not true. It helped get Trump elected.



Ah yeah, he helped get the Elite in again. Only this time masquerading as the Anti-Elite.


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2021)

Raheem said:


> It's been widely reported that the US only got the appeal to go their way by making various promises to the court, including that they would put Assange in a regular prison while he's awaiting trial. If that's completely untrue, maybe you could explain.
> 
> I will agree that he potentially faces a long sentence (although unlikely to be anything like 175 years). Maybe we shouldn't have an extradition treaty with the US. But given that we do, I don't see what distinguishes Assange in this respect, given that I think the idea he's done nothing wrong is for the birds.


They add the key proviso of 'as long as he does what we want him too' - ie they can go back on their promise on a whim. (see The US diplomatic assurances are inherently unreliable. Julian Assange must be released)

The Espionage Act has no public interest defense. Assange is the first publisher to be prosecuted under it so it would set an important precedent.  The fact that he is in many ways a crap journalist does not alter the fact that this amounts to an attack on any and all journalists. What better way to start such a move than with the prosecution of someone who has done many indefensible things (just not the ones he's being extradited for)?


----------



## steeplejack (Dec 13, 2021)

Wilf said:


> Fuck the Americans and fuck Assange.



_Neither Washington nor Quito but International Shoulder-Shrugging!_


----------



## Raheem (Dec 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> They add the key proviso of 'as long as he does what we want him too' - ie they can go back on their promise on a whim. (see The US diplomatic assurances are inherently unreliable. Julian Assange must be released)
> 
> The Espionage Act has no public interest defense. Assange is the first publisher to be prosecuted under it so it would set an important precedent.  The fact that he is in many ways a crap journalist does not alter the fact that this amounts to an attack on any and all journalists. What better way to start such a move than with the prosecution of someone who has done many indefensible things (just not the ones he's being extradited for)?


Googling for what seems to have been promised in court, it looks like there is this caveat, but it also doesn't look like it amounts to the Americans being able to just do what they like on a whim. Assange has to do something to warrant transfer (ie he has agency). It's not clear to me what the threshold is, but the US are unlikely to want to invoke it lightly, because it would then be brought up in every extradition case until the end of time. 

I don't think we can say that the case is an "attack on all journalists" before it has started. For one thing, the trial may give us some insight into why Assange is being prosecuted and not his many journalist abettors, so to that extent it may give clarity to journalists in terms of what they are free to do. It's impossible to know in advance, of course. But there's two different questions. Should journalism be a defence to espionage? Of course. Should someone who's pissed any credible journalism defence up the wall still benefit from it? Not really.


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Googling for what seems to have been promised in court, it looks like there is this caveat, but it also doesn't look like it amounts to the Americans being able to just do what they like on a whim. Assange has to do something to warrant transfer (ie he has agency). It's not clear to me what the threshold is, but the US are unlikely to want to invoke it lightly, because it would then be brought up in every extradition case until the end of time.
> 
> I don't think we can say that the case is an "attack on all journalists" before it has started. For one thing, the trial may give us some insight into why Assange is being prosecuted and not his many journalist abettors, so to that extent it may give clarity to journalists in terms of what they are free to do. It's impossible to know in advance, of course. But there's two different questions. Should journalism be a defence to espionage? Of course. Should someone who's pissed any credible journalism defence up the wall still benefit from it? Not really.


Every journalists union disagrees with you.  As do Amnesty who clearly recognise this as an attack on a free press. 

I can’t help but be reminded of the line from Matewan - “that ain’t a union. It’s a club”


----------



## Raheem (Dec 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Every journalists union disagrees with you.  As do Amnesty who clearly recognise this as an attack on a free press.


I wonder if Amnesty are also investigating the whereabouts of the many people identified to their governments by Assange.


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2021)




----------



## Raheem (Dec 13, 2021)

belboid said:


>


You're seriously rolling your eyes at that?


----------



## extra dry (Dec 14, 2021)

Interview with susan sarandon, it is 11 minutes long.
 Summary - Highlighting issues around free speech, media bias, and the major usa newspapers ignoring the news. 



Quel surprize.  It is what a fair majorty on here would charge as echo chamber report, I think it needx to heard, in my opinon.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 14, 2021)

extra dry said:


> Interview with susan sarandon, it is 11 minutes long.
> Summary - Highlighting issues around free speech, media bias, and the major usa newspapers ignoring the news.
> 
> 
> ...



She’s talking nonsense. He is not "being prosecuted for asking questions” at all. He’s potentially facing espionage charges in relation to illegally procuring and publishing stolen secret material. And it wasn’t just reports of allied bombings he published. There were millions of pages of stuff, some of which may well have been helpful to “enemy” regimes. Like it or not, there is a need for some things to be kept secret. You can argue about what those things should be, but Julian fucking Assange shouldn’t get to be the arbiter of that.


----------



## rekil (Dec 14, 2021)

extra dry said:


> Interview with susan sarandon, it is 11 minutes long.
> Summary - Highlighting issues around free speech, media bias, and the major usa newspapers ignoring the news.
> 
> 
> Quel surprize.  It is what a fair majorty on here would charge as echo chamber report, I think it needx to heard, in my opinon.


That cranklib channel is a perfect example of what I was on about earlier.


----------



## extra dry (Dec 14, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Personally? No.


Boycott some stuff - there you go - fighting the system


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 14, 2021)

extra dry said:


> Boycott some stuff - there you go - fighting the system


I might send an email to my MP who will then email me back a pre written response to a slightly different issue.

Thing is, I do sometimes do indirect “action” - sign petitions and march up and down with other people - but I’m struggling with chronic fatigue at the moment so I try to focus my activity on direct action and supporting direct action (unmediated action directed at the source of the problem carried out by the people affected).  

Should Sleezy Jules be extradited to the iniquitous US for doing what journalists do? No, he shouldn’t.  But I’m afraid responding in any meaningful way is not on my to do list.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 14, 2021)

I can't remember if I've posted this before, but think it qualifies as someone with a fairly unique perspective on Assange - a call recorded with Jeremy Hammond, who at the time of recording was approaching the end of his original federal prison sentence for hacking, but had that interrupted to serve an additional sentence for contempt of court for his refusal to cooperate with the grand jury targeting wikileaks:


			Episode 2 – Grand Jury Exposed – Twin Trouble
		

It is very long, if you just want to listen to the discussion of the grand jury experience that starts at 46 minutes in, and then the most relevant discussion of Assange is just from about 1:20-1:34.

I'd also completely forgotten about the whole Trump impeachment spectacle of early 2020, being reminded of it is... well, I can see it would be a tad irritating if you were in prison for contempt of court for refusing to cooperate with a government investigation.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 14, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I might send an email to my MP who will then email me back a pre written response to a slightly different issue.
> 
> Thing is, I do sometimes do indirect “action” - sign petitions and march up and down with other people - but I’m struggling with chronic fatigue at the moment so I try to focus my activity on direct action and supporting direct action (unmediated action directed at the source of the problem carried out by the people affected).
> 
> Should Sleezy Jules be extradited to the iniquitous US for doing what journalists do? No, he shouldn’t.  But I’m afraid responding in any meaningful way is not on my to do list.


Liked, though not for you feeling poorly of course.   Yeah, I'm the same on this: don't like Assange or his celebrity status, but I do think he shouldn't be prosecuted. Also, that nothing good comes from this for anyone else on the left. But in terms of what you can do?  There's a lot of other people I'd support before him, but I would do... _something_.  I'd no doubt sign some meaningless petition, but anything else?  Probably not.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 14, 2021)

It’s terrible etc but what did he _expect_ might be the outcome of releasing thousands of classified documents? That the US state apparatus would just shrug and respect independent journalism? That the UK wouldn’t bow down to them?


----------



## LDC (Dec 14, 2021)

extra dry said:


> Interview with susan sarandon, it is 11 minutes long.
> Summary - Highlighting issues around free speech, media bias, and the major usa newspapers ignoring the news.
> 
> 
> ...




Jesus fucking christ that channel. Have a word with yourself posting that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 14, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Jesus fucking christ that channel. Have a word with yourself posting that.



Is it a loon channel?  I need to see loon channels. I doubt a thread on here will go down well but where’s the best place to go down the rabbit hole? I guess Icke’s forum might yield.


----------



## moochedit (Dec 14, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is it a loon channel?  I need to see loon channels. I doubt a thread on here will go down well but where’s the best place to go down the rabbit hole? I guess Icke’s forum might yield.


googling "assange", "plandemic" or "bitcoin" would probably lead to some loon stuff if you trawl through the results. Depends what variety of loonness you want


----------



## LDC (Dec 14, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is it a loon channel?  I need to see loon channels. I doubt a thread on here will go down well but where’s the best place to go down the rabbit hole? I guess Icke’s forum might yield.



Make sure you film yourself doing increasingly deranged videos so we can watch your decline to the dark fetid depths of Piers Corbyn from the comfort of our sofas.


----------



## extra dry (Dec 21, 2021)

Ok one vid,  it is about 11 or 12 minutes long, so put the kettle on and find a comfy chair.

Covering live at the time, the strike at one of the Amazon packing sheds



This loon what is he doing?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 20, 2022)

Julian Assange's US extradition order sent to Priti Patel for final approval
					

A court has approved an order for the Wikileaks founder to face espionage charges in the US.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Hope he likes hamburgers.


----------



## extra dry (Apr 20, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Julian Assange's US extradition order sent to Priti Patel for final approval
> 
> 
> A court has approved an order for the Wikileaks founder to face espionage charges in the US.
> ...


Ten to one the plane used will disappear somewhere over the Atlantic, heavy unexpexted storm, and no weckage.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Apr 20, 2022)

extra dry said:


> Ten to one the plane used will disappear somewhere over the Atlantic, heavy unexpexted storm, and no weckage.


With Priti's level of competence, if he's lucky it will show up in Rwanda


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 20, 2022)

Must be pretty annoying to place yourself into a prison for years in an attempt to avoid the one that's coming.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 20, 2022)

pseudonarcissus said:


> With Priti's level of competence, if he's lucky it will show up in Rwanda


Hopefully priti is the pilot!


----------



## teqniq (Sunday at 2:10 PM)

Not the first time i've seen this speculation recently but the first time I've seen an in-depth article about it:









						The year Assange walks free? Why there are cautious hopes
					

The prime minister’s push to bring Julian Assange home and the appointment of Kevin Rudd as US ambassador have heightened expectations, but this is not a done deal.




					www.theage.com.au


----------

