Julian Assange to issue statement 'in front' of Ecuador embassy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why does hardly anyone focus on the actual rape allegations in these threads?

They sound like absolute bullshit.

-First the prosecutor drops the case because there isn't enough evidence.
-Then there is a new prosecutor who revives the thing.
-The sex with the one victim was apparently consensual but then there is an issue that there was no condom used.
-The girl who alleges the rape for some reason allows the assange to stay in her house for another 10 days.
-The victim deletes social media posts regarding her relationship with assange.
-The allegations seem to keep changing and now suddenly there was force and coercion involved.

I'm pretty sure I haven't even listed all the shadiness regarding these allegations. I mean, come the fuck on.
 
The bit of the--lets call it a conspiracy theory--I don't get is: why Sweden? The UK is a much closer 'ally' of the US than Sweden is. When I say ally I mean that the US says 'jump' and the UK asks how high and also lubes up while jumping and assumes the position.
 
The extradition of Assange from Sweden to the United States would be prohibited by the European Treaty on Human Rights if there's a risk he'd get the death penalty there.

winter - In accordance with EU law, the extradition UK->Sweden request is valid, legal and should be upheld. If he is then prosecuted there for those charges (at this point he's merely wanted for questioning), then, if the charges are blatantly bogus then he shouldn't really have much to fear. That said, going by the facts of the case, it does seem that he did something illegal by having sex with one of those women without the use of a condom and against her request for using one.
 
empty vessel said:
The Ecuadoran government is no less respectable than the US, UK, or Swedish governments.
Click to expand...

Sure thing
Reporters are frequently assassinated in Mexico, and a populist government in Venezuela has driven some journalists into exile. But press freedom advocates say that no other country in Latin America is moving so fast and on so many fronts to restrain the media as tiny, banana-producing Ecuador.
Click to expand...
 
Mael said:
So Switzerland and the US are also part of the eu?
Man I didn't know we saved the Euro at this extent
Click to expand...
Voila, a case where two European countries worked together to find a rapist. He was sought after since 2004.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/article...Belgian-paedophile-is-captured-in-Gozo.432333



And yes, it is more difficult to get people from the UK to the US, like for instance this case:
Sullivan, who has a previous conviction for assaulting two girls in Ireland and was on an Interpol most-wanted list, is now the 10th person in recent years to see their extradition to the US blocked by the UK.
Click to expand...
( http://www.independent.ie/world-new...in-ireland-is-spared-extradition-3153551.html )
Wanted by Interpol, up for a life sentence (not death penalty). UK court refuses extradition anyway.
 
godelsmetric said:
The bit of the--lets call it a conspiracy theory--I don't get is: why Sweden? The UK is a much closer 'ally' of the US than Sweden is. When I say ally I mean that the US says 'jump' and the UK asks how high and also lubes up while jumping and assumes the position.
Click to expand...

Because whatever happened with Assange and the women, it happened in Sweden.
 
winter said:
Why does hardly anyone focus on the actual rape allegations in these threads?

They sound like absolute bullshit.

-First the prosecutor drops the case because there isn't enough evidence.
-Then there is a new prosecutor who revives the thing.
-The sex with the one victim was apparently consensual but then there is an issue that there was no condom used.
-The girl who alleges the rape for some reason allows the assange to stay in her house for another 10 days.
-The victim deletes social media posts regarding her relationship with assange.
-The allegations seem to keep changing and now suddenly there was force and coercion involved.

I'm pretty sure I haven't even listed all the shadiness regarding these allegations. I mean, come the fuck on.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has read the details can reasonably conclude that he's being framed and punished for releasing classified info that embarrassed governments around the world. The women involved are in on it.
 
It's getting out of hand. His position is becoming untenable, and the validity of his claims against the US are becoming more incredible the longer he's hiding in the embassy.

akira28 said:
Swederland, Switzerland, same fuckin place.
Click to expand...

iMdN7.jpg


Chill, bro. Crack an atlas.
 
If Sweden really wanted him for questioning, they could have questioned him in the UK, or given assurances they wouldn't extradite him. By refusing to assure him he wouldn't be extradited, he's completely justified in seeking asylum.
 
Clipjoint said:
If Sweden really wanted him for questioning, they could have questioned him in the UK, or given assurances they wouldn't extradite him. By refusing to assure him he wouldn't be extradited, he's completely justified in seeking asylum.
Click to expand...

Sweden doesn't want him for questioning, they want him for prosecution. You cannot issue warrants to ask questions.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Sweden doesn't want him for questioning, they want him for prosecution. You cannot issue warrants to ask questions.
Click to expand...

No, he is wanted for questioning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/w...-stay-in-its-embassy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Mr. Patiño said he hoped that Britain would permit Mr. Assange to leave the embassy for Ecuador. But at a news conference on Thursday in London, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, repeated the government’s stance that Britain was legally bound to to extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over accusations that he sexually assaulted two women.
Click to expand...
 
Clipjoint said:
No, he is wanted for questioning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/w...-stay-in-its-embassy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

The article is wrong. Again, this issue was addressed specifically by the UK courts. You cannot issue a EAW for investigative purposes or merely to ask questions. Assange's lawyers challenged the warrant on these grounds and multiple courts found that he was being accused and prosecuted. The warrant is not so they can ask him questions.

This is not simply my opinion.
 
KHarvey16 said:
The article is wrong. Again, this issue was addressed specifically by the UK courts. You cannot issue a EAW for investigative purposes or merely to ask questions. Assange's lawyers challenged the warrant on these grounds and multiple courts found that he was being accused and prosecuted. The warrant is not so they can ask him questions.

This is not simply my opinion.
Click to expand...

Back it up with some facts. Every news source I've read says that Sweden wants him for questioning, and that he offered to be questioned in the UK by Swedish authorities or that he would fly to Sweden for questioning if he had assurances he would not be extradited, and Sweden refused.
 
Clipjoint said:
Back it up with some facts. Every news source I've read says that Sweden wants him for questioning, and that he offered to be questioned in the UK by Swedish authorities or that he would fly to Sweden for questioning if he had assurances he would not be extradited, and Sweden refused.
Click to expand...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

This is the decision from the second court, the one that heard the appeal of the first decision. Paragraph 128 is where they discuss this. The previous decision, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the UK, is also available if you look(or browse the references on his Wikipedia entry I believe).
 
lexi said:
I believe it's a very loose definition of rape, in both cases.
Click to expand...

Probably hired goons, or they were paid off to claim they were raped. It's just oh so convenient.

"1. Unlawful coercion
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2. Sexual molestation
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3. Sexual molestation
On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."
Click to expand...
 
Banana Kid said:
At this point, he's got no chance of a fair trial. It would instantly become about politics, and the US would love nothing more than to discredit him and lock him up.
Click to expand...

Exactly, more than likely trumped up rape charges to get him on what they really want to get him on.
 
winter said:
Why does hardly anyone focus on the actual rape allegations in these threads?

They sound like absolute bullshit.

-First the prosecutor drops the case because there isn't enough evidence.
-Then there is a new prosecutor who revives the thing.
-The sex with the one victim was apparently consensual but then there is an issue that there was no condom used.
-The girl who alleges the rape for some reason allows the assange to stay in her house for another 10 days.
-The victim deletes social media posts regarding her relationship with assange.
-The allegations seem to keep changing and now suddenly there was force and coercion involved.

I'm pretty sure I haven't even listed all the shadiness regarding these allegations. I mean, come the fuck on.
Click to expand...

Agreed, this isn't about rape, but it was the only way they could try to nail him. Release secret files about shady shit the US government does and we will find a way to nail you. If we have to set you up to do so we'll do it.
 
KHarvey16 said:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

This is the decision from the second court, the one that heard the appeal of the first decision. Paragraph 128 is where they discuss this. The previous decision, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the UK, is also available if you look(or browse the references on his Wikipedia entry I believe).
Click to expand...

This shows the decision of the UK Supreme Court. Can you show me where he has been formally charged in the Swedish Courts?
 
http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html

US intends to chase Assange, cables show

"AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.

This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months."
 
Clipjoint said:
This shows the decision of the UK Supreme Court. Can you show me where he has been formally charged in the Swedish Courts?
Click to expand...

It is not the decision of the UK Supreme Court. That was rendered after this one and dealt with judicial authority rather specifically.

This decision goes over exactly what you're asking in and around paragraph 128.
 
KHarvey16 said:
It is not the decision of the UK Supreme Court. That was rendered after this one and dealt with judicial authority rather specifically.

This decision goes over exactly what you're asking in and around paragraph 128.
Click to expand...

Here is paragraph 128:

It is a condition set out in s.2(2) of the 2003 Act that an EAW must contain the statement set out in s.2(3):
"A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant ... which contains (a) the statement referred to in subsection (3)"
That sub-section then provides:

"The statement is one that
(a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is accused in the Category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant, and
(b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence."
This reflects in part Article 1.1 of the Framework Decision which specifies that extradition is for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...

Now that we've established that they decided the warrant was an arrest warrant, can you show me any evidence where the Swedish Courts have formally charged Assange? It shouldn't be that difficult for you to find, if they've charged him.

I don't care about the interpretation of the warrant on behalf of the UK courts. Show me where the Swedish Courts have formally charged Assange.
 
Clipjoint said:
Here is paragraph 128:



Now that we've established that they decided the warrant was an arrest warrant, can you show me any evidence where the Swedish Courts have formally charged Assange? It shouldn't be that difficult for you to find, if they've charged him.

I don't care about the interpretation of the warrant on behalf of the UK courts. Show me where the Swedish Courts have formally charged Assange.
Click to expand...

The question we are discussing is if Sweden wants to extradite Assange to have him answer questions. Paragraph 128 and beyond deal with this, as I told you. Why have the goal posts moved? Furthermore, the sections I've pointed you to deal with the issue of him being charged, the differences between Swedish law and most systems using western law and the status and meaning of him being accused of these offenses. Again, paragraph 128(to 154).
 
KHarvey16 said:
The question we are discussing is if Sweden wants to extradite Assange to have him answer questions. Paragraph 128 and beyond deal with this, as I told you. Why have the goal posts moved? Furthermore, the sections I've pointed you to deal with the issue of him being charged, the differences between Swedish law and most systems using western law and the status and meaning of him being accused of these offenses. Again, paragraph 128(to 154).
Click to expand...

No one has moved the goal posts. Yes, they want to have him answer questions. In the Swedish legal system, he has not been formally charged, and they will not charge him until after he has been questioned. It's pretty clear cut. The fact that you can't point to an official Swedish Court charge against him is all that needs to be said.
 
Here's more help:

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

Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[35] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. The High Court found that the Swedish process has reached the stage of criminal proceedings, which would be equivalent to having been charged under English process.[36]
Click to expand...
 
Another one:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange
Click to expand...
 
Clipjoint said:
No one has moved the goal posts. Yes, they want to have him answer questions. In the Swedish legal system, he has not been formally charged, and they will not charge him until after he has been questioned. It's pretty clear cut. The fact that you can't point to an official Swedish Court charge against him is all that needs to be said.
Click to expand...

You claimed they only want to ask him questions. And I quote:

Clipjoint said:
No, he is wanted for questioning.
Click to expand...

The decision I referred you to lays out clearly why this is not the case:

130. The Senior District Judge found that there was no ambiguity in the EAW. He was therefore required to look at the warrant alone. He was sure it was valid on its face; the surrender of Mr Assange was, as the warrant stated, requested for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offences.
Click to expand...

140. ... In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect.
Click to expand...

Have we established this now? He is not wanted for questioning. If this is satisfactory we can move onto the topic you've decided you like better, which is the status of him being charged.
 
lexi said:
Why can't that be done over video link or something? I'm sure I've seen that dozens of times, it seems stupid you need to go to a country to answer questions.

The whole thing seems shady to me, I'd seek asylum too.
Click to expand...

You mean after he already skipped bail by not abiding by his house arrest? How is it shady that they don't conduct police interviews over skype?
 
“While today is a historic victory, our struggles have just begun. The unprecedented US investigation against WikiLeaks must be stopped.” - Julian Assange

Yea, let's stop investigations from taking place. That sounds like a good idea.
 
empty vessel said:
This doesn't suggest to me, at all, that the Ecuadoran government is less respectable than the US, UK, or Swedish governments. This is especially ironic in a thread about the criminal investigation of people by the US government regarding the publication of US government secrets.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect it would, considering your low opinion of the US government.
 
winter said:
Why does hardly anyone focus on the actual rape allegations in these threads?

They sound like absolute bullshit.

-First the prosecutor drops the case because there isn't enough evidence.
-Then there is a new prosecutor who revives the thing.
-The sex with the one victim was apparently consensual but then there is an issue that there was no condom used.
-The girl who alleges the rape for some reason allows the assange to stay in her house for another 10 days.
-The victim deletes social media posts regarding her relationship with assange.
-The allegations seem to keep changing and now suddenly there was force and coercion involved.

I'm pretty sure I haven't even listed all the shadiness regarding these allegations. I mean, come the fuck on.
Click to expand...

So amazing.

"These rape allegations are so laughable"

"So then I guess he shouldn't worry about getting convicted"

"Yea! Wait no. Wait... erm... hold on a sec"
 
I honestly don't think The US government has the balls to accuse him of espionage, and they don't have the balls to put him to death for it.

It does slightly disturb me that there is no logical reason why we should just assume Mr. Assange didn't rape/assault some women just because he is the guy who created wiki leaks... but supporters just say its a US conspiracy.
 
lenovox1 said:
No. And no. He cannot be deported if there is a death sentence attached to his crimes. He cannot be deported to a military prison.
Click to expand...

During the past 10 years the US, with the help of other countries, has done plenty of things that they supposedly could not do. The idea that something is impossible because it's not proper or technically legal is awfully quaint.

The US "cannot" perform domestic wiretapping without a warrant, yet did so. The US "cannot" indefinitely imprison criminals without right to Habeas, yet did so.

harvey said:
Sweden and the UK have said they aren't being pressured.
Click to expand...

They would say that even if they were being pressured, making this a complete non-point.

In the previous thread on Assange you lied over and over again and said you didn't. Someone saying something doesn't make it true, especially when they have a strong incentive to not let certain truths get out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tax Issue/Question
19
1K
Sub_Level replied
UK to start Phase 1 of Digital ID in 2025
2
56
2K
Bojji replied
Nasa makes mysterious 'portal' discovery on Mars in major breakthrough to finding new world of alien life
News 
46
2K
mansoor1980 replied
Amazing remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark in the early 80’s
4
866
Evil Calvin replied
  • Locked
El Salvador offers to house violent US criminals and deportees of any nationality in unprecedented deal
36
2K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom