WIKILEAKS FOUNDER JULIAN ASSANGE FREED ON BAIL

[Ulysses G.]

Chuckd's point was that some posters are perfectly happy to condemn the alleged victims, but become very defensive when it comes to the alleged perpetrator. Allegedly.

[Wallaby]

Did you ever stop to consider the rules of Swedish interrogation for possible sexual offenses might differ from the rules governing British interrogation?

I don't know but that might account for the extradition request.

If he has nothing to hide, he can waive extradition and be on the next flight to Stockholm.

What does having anything to hide got to do with it. He is NOT obliged to answer questions even though he has already provided a full account to the Swedish authorities previously and they dropped the charges.

If they have the evidence then charge him and issue a warrant for arrest through interpol. Simple really. If the extradition to be 'questioned' fails does that mean there will be no charges? Seems a very ordinary prosecution if it going to rely an accused's statement.

There are many reasons for a person not to talk to investigators and they don't have to be hiding things to refuse. I personally know of people that refuse to be interviewed simply because they do not like, nor trust, police or investigators. Those people where witnesses, not accused. Even the detective investigating one of the incidents was dumbfounded and asked the guy why he wouldn't talk to them and he simply said 'I don't trust you'.

I know that in my country, if an accused refuses to talk to police or refuses to give evidence in court a judge must tell the jury that they cannot draw an inference of guilt. They cannot take silence as a tacit acknowledgement of guilt.

It amuses me that people seem to think differently.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Wallaby

[Ulysses G.]

There are many reasons for a person not to talk to investigators..

Not wanting to get convicted is one of them.

[Wallaby]

In your opinion of course.

Not wanting to be convicted CAN be one of them but doesn't mean it HAS to be the one.

[Ulysses G.]

Perfectly true, but it is probably the most common reason.

[Wallaby]

What you think is a matter for you..

My experience is that every, and I do mean 100% of lawyers who work in criminal law that I have met and dealt with in the criminal justice system (and there are many) will firstly tell his/her client to say nothing. Whether the lawyer believes the person to be guilty or not is of no consequence. Simply do not talk to police.

Criminal law 101

[chuckd]

Good to see you've been to Sweden, but you didn;t answer the question about the highest divorce rate in the world by the Swedes....

And if you speak of sex crimes....nobody has committed any sex crimes; there are mere allegations by 2 dubious women who just loved to jump in bed with their hero, that's all.

But, I've seen already a few self-appointed judges here who declared Assange guilty. How amazing.

LaoPo

If they have men like Assange floating around, I can understand the high divorce rate. But the real reason I didn't answer your question is I simply don't care why they have the high incidence of divorce.

You seem to be a self-appointed jury by declaring, "nobody has committed any sex crimes; there are mere allegations by 2 dubious women who just loved to jump in bed with their hero, that's all."

He is proclaimed innocent without having to bother with that nasty trial.

I'm simply the other side of the coin.

Chuckd. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the part of your post I wish to address. As far as I'm aware everyone is at least presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. Under the current circumstances Assange cannot have a trial as he has not even been charged with an offense. I am neither pro or anti Assange in this or the WL affair, I simply have not as yet come to any solid conclusions.

I said his apologists have "proclaimed" him innocent, not "presumed" him to be innocent.

They get all upset if Assange's detractors do not use the word "alleged" in every reference to his self-induced problems, yet I see no use of "alleged" innocence coming from that side of the discussion. They merely attack the two accusers and proclaim it is a plot of the CIA.

I have chosen not to give him the benefit of the doubt until such time as he is man enough to face his two accusers in a court of law and get his problem solved. Who knows, maybe he will get lucky and they will want to "jump back into bed with their hero again".

[Wallaby]

hahahaha, one is not 'allegedly innocent'. A person is in fact innocent. They have to be PROVED guilty.

I would be very happy for you to never sit on a jury with your view on guilt depending on whether he was man enough to go and face his two accusers in a court of law.

By the way, how does he face his accusers if he hasn't been charged? Does he go and plead with them to charge him? What happens if he does in fact answer all their questions again and the prosecution decides not to charge him, is he still guilty in your eyes because he hasn't faced the accusers?

[chuckd]

What you think is a matter for you..

My experience is that every, and I do mean 100% of lawyers who work in criminal law that I have met and dealt with in the criminal justice system (and there are many) will firstly tell his/her client to say nothing. Whether the lawyer believes the person to be guilty or not is of no consequence. Simply do not talk to police.

Criminal law 101

Then you have answered your own question about why the Swedish prosecutors do not interview him in England.

His attorney will not permit him to say anything.

It would seem the only way for Swedish law to take its course is to go to trail and let a jury of his peers decide his fate.

PS: You got me on that alleged innocent in the previous post. :jap:

[Wallaby]

I just want to make it clear, I don't particularly care if he is extradited, charged, guilty, not guilty. Personally I think the charge of 'rape' for non use of a condom is a bit demeaning to other women who have suffered what I consider to be a real rape, in my mind. But I suppose the length of prison he would serve for that charge would not be considered a serious offence anyway, certainly in the lesser range.

If he's done it and is found guilty then fair enough. What I don't like is the prosecution changing it's mind so the guy doesn't know whether he's coming or going (so to speak).

I just think, at this stage, it seems to be all smoke and mirrors and just a prelude to the main game that will be sure to start soon.

[JUDAS]

Fair enough chuckd. We have three groups here, the innocent , the guilty and the neutral. Call me astute but I don't think the first two groups will ever fing any common ground. Makes for an interesting debate though, allegedly

[LaoPo]

You seem to be a self-appointed jury by declaring, "nobody has committed any sex crimes; there are mere allegations by 2 dubious women who just loved to jump in bed with their hero, that's all."

I'm not, like others, playing judge here since there are just allegations, so far; not committed sex crimes as you said.

And, about the 2 women, one of them, Anna Ardin, inviting Assange to come to Sweden for a speech:

How many women would invite a man into their own house, to stay and sleep there WITHOUT knowing him before ?

The same for the other girl.

I call that dubious women.

If ANY woman/girl in Thailand (or elsewhere) would invite a man into her home, WITHOUT KNOWING HIM...how would that woman/girl be called, even if he was invited for a speech ?

LaoPo

[Credo]

My opinion of the whole situation surrounding Wikileaks and Assange has been slow to form. There is the aspect of free speech and the ability to governments to do their job. However, the more I hear and read about Assange, the more unsavory of a character I find him to be.

He has no trouble in leaking all kinds of documents with little regard for how it affects others, but when asked the slightest sensitive question in an interview, he doesn't answer and walks out. His behavior regarding the two ladies in Sweden is appalling--and it is HIS behavior that is being questioned, not theirs.

He is an extraordinarily insensitive and dishonorable person.

......or he could be HIV+ and doesn't want anyone to know.

[LaoPo]

What you think is a matter for you..

My experience is that every, and I do mean 100% of lawyers who work in criminal law that I have met and dealt with in the criminal justice system (and there are many) will firstly tell his/her client to say nothing. Whether the lawyer believes the person to be guilty or not is of no consequence. Simply do not talk to police.

Criminal law 101

Then you have answered your own question about why the Swedish prosecutors do not interview him in England.

His attorney will not permit him to say anything.

It would seem the only way for Swedish law to take its course is to go to trail and let a jury of his peers decide his fate.

PS: You got me on that alleged innocent in the previous post. :jap:

Before Assange left Sweden, early October, his Lawyer contacted the Prosecutor and asked if they needed Assange for questioning. the answer was: NO

When the Lawyer asked if it was OK for Assange to leave Sweden, the answer was "no problem".

Later, Assange's Lawyers offered the Prosecution in Sweden that they could have a meeting in the UK or elsewehre in Europe, any time, to talk to Assange in the presence of Police and Lawyers but that was denied.

Why Assange wasn't eager to return to Sweden is well known by now I assume.

The rest is history.

LaoPo

Edited December 21, 2010 by LaoPo

[chuckd]

You seem to be a self-appointed jury by declaring, "nobody has committed any sex crimes; there are mere allegations by 2 dubious women who just loved to jump in bed with their hero, that's all."

I'm not, like others, playing judge here since there are just allegations, so far; not committed sex crimes as you said.

And, about the 2 women, one of them, Anna Ardin, inviting Assange to come to Sweden for a speech:

How many women would invite a man into their own house, to stay and sleep there WITHOUT knowing him before ?

The same for the other girl.

I call that dubious women.

If ANY woman/girl in Thailand (or elsewhere) would invite a man into her home, WITHOUT KNOWING HIM...how would that woman/girl be called, even if he was invited for a speech ?

LaoPo

Your words, not mine. "Nobody has committed any sex crimes;" sounds like a precise judgement on your part as to his guilt or innocence.

The lady that invited him to use her apartment during the meeting was out of town. She returned early and, after discussing the situation with him, decided to share her apartment with him.

She probably didn't know he "just really likes girls" or she might not have committed to such an arrangement. I don't know and neither do you. All I know for certain is they were both pretty stupid to agree to the arrangement.

None of the three of them are the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

Now, it's my beddy-bye time so I will have to bid you a fond adieu until the morrow.

We will leave your last question on the table. At this time of night I will call it rhetorical.

[LaoPo]

You seem to be a self-appointed jury by declaring, "nobody has committed any sex crimes; there are mere allegations by 2 dubious women who just loved to jump in bed with their hero, that's all."

I'm not, like others, playing judge here since there are just allegations, so far; not committed sex crimes as you said.

And, about the 2 women, one of them, Anna Ardin, inviting Assange to come to Sweden for a speech:

How many women would invite a man into their own house, to stay and sleep there WITHOUT knowing him before ?

The same for the other girl.

I call that dubious women.

If ANY woman/girl in Thailand (or elsewhere) would invite a man into her home, WITHOUT KNOWING HIM...how would that woman/girl be called, even if he was invited for a speech ?

LaoPo

Your words, not mine. "Nobody has committed any sex crimes;" sounds like a precise judgement on your part as to his guilt or innocence.

The lady that invited him to use her apartment during the meeting was out of town. She returned early and, after discussing the situation with him, decided to share her apartment with him.

She probably didn't know he "just really likes girls" or she might not have committed to such an arrangement. I don't know and neither do you. All I know for certain is they were both pretty stupid to agree to the arrangement.

None of the three of them are the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

Now, it's my beddy-bye time so I will have to bid you a fond adieu until the morrow.

We will leave your last question on the table. At this time of night I will call it rhetorical.

1. If there are allegations there are no committed sex crimes, so far, until proven guilty. He committed sex crimes..... your words, afaik.

2. That doesn't matter; a decent Lady doesn't give her appartment to a total stranger and upon return decides to have sex with the same total stranger she only knows for a day or so.

3. Sleep well

LaoPo

[chuckd]

3. Sleep well

LaoPo

I shall. My conscience is clear.

[moetownblues]

<br />

<br />

<br />What a nice double standard some of you boys have going on here. The collective view is that It's the women's fault, they seduced him, they were evil whores etc..

<br /><br />Re read what you said in post #165.  Bit of a pot and kettle attitude you have.<br />

<br /><br />Not at all. Are you getting desperate to excuse Mr. Assange's behaviour?<br /><br />The man has multiple sexual partners. That is called promiscuous behavior. I am not passing a moral judgement. It's a fact. He is selfish because he repeatedly refused the HIV test despite the women's request. They asked that he take the test because he did not use a condom and they realized that he was a promiscous male and was therefore more likely to be an HIV carrier. Males that remain with  one partner are less likely to  transmit HIV. That's a fact, not a moral judgement. There is indeed a double standard at work. There is one that say's its ok for a guy to screw around. If a woman does it she's a whore. The difference between the  man and the women in this case, is that the women are acting responsibly by seeking to determine if they are now carriers and would put their future sex partners at risk. Mr. Assange  apparently doesn't care about anyone else, just his need for sexual satisfaction,<br />The Swedish case is going to  expose alot of hypocrites.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

What are you on about? Are you advocating that every man who has sex should then go out and have a HIV tests. That will surely clog up the health systems around the world with billions of men lining up everyday for a test or you asking that one single human being in assange take one? If I demanded that you take one after everytime you dipped your wick you would probably tell me to go F$#% myself as it is against your civil liberties and privacy. Why should Assange take one just because he dipped his wick does he not have the same rights as you to refuse.

Guess the asprin excuse is dead so when the cheese and kisses wants me to go diving I have to say the can't slam the donger because I hate the thought of the prickles.

[LaoPo]

3. Sleep well

LaoPo

I shall. My conscience is clear.

I'm sure it is; than we have a mutual feeling.

LaoPo

[koheesti]

I doubt any of these people giving Assange the benefit of a doubt have never given the American soldier one.

[LaoPo]

I doubt any of these people giving Assange the benefit of a doubt have never given the American soldier one.

...which soldier ?

But, if anybody, (American) soldier or no soldier, has not been put on trial yet, EVERYBODY is considered to be innocent until proven guilty and in MY eyes he/she has the benefit of the doubt.

LaoPo

[flying]

I doubt any of these people giving Assange the benefit of a doubt have never given the American soldier one.

I am guessing you meant to say ever given the soldiers

I would also guess that most folks (& I know in my case that I dont) hold a soldier accountable for poor foreign policies as they are not the makers of such policies.

[LaoPo]

Julian Assange defends decision not to face questioning in Sweden

WikiLeaks founder says he is not obliged to return to be questioned over sexual assault allegations

Adam Gabbatt

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 December 2010 14.21 GMT

Julian Assange today defended his decision not to return to Sweden for questioning over allegations of sexual assault, saying he did not need to be "at the beck and call of people making allegations".

The WikiLeaks founder said he was not obliged to return to the country, adding that there were "serious problems" with the prosecution against him.

In a separate interview, Assange said documents had been leaked to the Guardian by the Swedish authorities in an attempt to "undermine" his bail application hearing last week.

Speaking from the mansion in East Anglia where he is staying under the terms of his bail, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't need to go back to Sweden.

"The law says that I also have certain rights, and these rights mean that I do not need to speak to random prosecutors around the world who simply want to have a chat, and won't do it in any other standard way."

Assange said he had waited in Sweden for five weeks to be interviewed by police – "so I can put my side of the case forward" – but the interview did not happen. He added that he had been told there was no reason for him to remain in the country.

Continues:

http://www.guardian....decision-sweden

LaoPo

[Pakboong]

His legal team is a biggy. They are the same firm that represents the Rothschild Family. Not easy to retain.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Pakboong

[LaoPo]

Julian Assange reported to have sold memoirs

WikiLeaks founder expected to publish book in March, through UK publishers Canongate

Benedicte Page

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 December 2010 13.08 GMT

Julian Assange is understood to have sold his memoirs, to publishers Canongate in the UK and Knopf in the US. The news leaked appropriately enough via a tweet from Spanish publisher Random House Mondadori, with head of the literary division Claudio Lopez telling the world that "Manuscrito listo en marzo" — the manuscript will be ready in March.

Online money and finance website DailyFinance said Canongate publisher Jamie Byng had confirmed the news to the site by email, telling them that the UK publisher was handling all the translation rights. Literary agency Peters, Fraser and Dunlop declined to comment on reports that agent Caroline Michel had sealed the English language deals for the WikiLeaks founder's book.

Continues:

http://www.guardian....assange-memoirs

LaoPo

[koheesti]

I doubt any of these people giving Assange the benefit of a doubt have never given the American soldier one.

I am guessing you meant to say ever given the soldiers

I would also guess that most folks (& I know in my case that I dont) hold a soldier accountable for poor foreign policies as they are not the makers of such policies.

Thanks for the correction.

I'm saying, that when one reads about Haditha, a speeding car with a family getting shot up, or whatever tragedy involving an American military operation which ends in the death of civilians, many of the people here saying Assange is innocent until proven guilty don't offer that consideration to the American military.

[Wallaby]

This is the latest update I could find on Assange.

Seems the US govt are struggling to find a charge against him.

http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-slipping-out-of-reach-of-us-grip/story-fn79cf6x-1225995128966

[Ulysses G.]

Actually, they have not found a connection YET and all the blogs are playing it up . That does not mean that they won't in the future.

[JUDAS]

This is the latest update I could find on Assange.

Seems the US govt are struggling to find a charge against him.

http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-slipping-out-of-reach-of-us-grip/story-fn79cf6x-1225995128966

This comes as no surprise to me especially as USAG Eric Holder stated some time ago that they were scouring the law books to find a relevant statute to charge him over. Anyway, when Fox News goes quiet over the case.........

[softgeorge]

This is the latest update I could find on Assange.

Seems the US govt are struggling to find a charge against him.

http://www.news.com....x-1225995128966

I guess that country that cannot be named on here will have egg on there face and serves them right.