Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[midas]

Midas you are pleading a lost case! what part of "he climbed on her when she was sleeping and because she was sleeping she did not realise that he climbed on her" is it you don't understand?

What part of he climbed on her when she was sleeping WTHOUT USING A CONDOM is it that you do not understand?

the part where the accuser " couldn't be bothered " to do anything about it

[Ulysses G.]

You mean like throw him off of her when she is half aslleep and check to see if he was wearing one?

[maidu]

date rape by any other name is still forced entry.

[koheesti]

This case smells like a couple women pissed off and wanting to get some payback. But Assange is doing everything in his power to give them credibility and make himself look gulity. Maybe he's trying to build interest in a book/movie deal?

[lannarebirth]

This case smells like a couple women pissed off and wanting to get some payback. But Assange is doing everything in his power to give them credibility and make himself look gulity. Maybe he's trying to build interest in a book/movie deal?

It seems less that they are pissed off,than that someone is pissed off on their behalf. It all looks like a joke trial to me. I don't find julian assange a particularly sympathetic character but it looks like he's being set up to me.

Edited December 27, 2011 by lannarebirth

[midas]

This case smells like a couple women pissed off and wanting to get some payback. But Assange is doing everything in his power to give them credibility and make himself look gulity. Maybe he's trying to build interest in a book/movie deal?

It seems less that they are pissed off,than that someone is pissed off on their behalf. It all looks like a joke trial to me. I don't find julian assange a particularly sympathetic character but it looks like he's being set up to me.

that's not the only joke. The application of the European arrest warrant for this purpose and in this way

is also a complete joke and which prompted not one but two debates within the last two months

in the British Parliament about the specific issue. This will just end up burning bridges

for when a real criminal comes along.

[Wallaby]

date rape by any other name is still forced entry.

It isn't date rape if it is consensual, then the girl bragging about it, then when she finds out he was shagging another girl she got pissed off and went to the police to ask if she could do anything about it.

It should not amaze many the amount of trouble a couple of women can cause when they thought, wrongly, that they were the only love of his life.

[koheesti]

date rape by any other name is still forced entry.

It isn't date rape if it is consensual, then the girl bragging about it, then when she finds out he was shagging another girl she got pissed off and went to the police to ask if she could do anything about it.

It should not amaze many the amount of trouble a couple of women can cause when they thought, wrongly, that they were the only love of his life.

Without seeing all the evidence, this is exactly how it seems to me. Then instead of setting the record straight, he lets this scandal drag on costing taxpayers boat loads of money. I don't believe the women, and I don't believe Assange. Lock all three up.

[Wallaby]

date rape by any other name is still forced entry.

It isn't date rape if it is consensual, then the girl bragging about it, then when she finds out he was shagging another girl she got pissed off and went to the police to ask if she could do anything about it.

It should not amaze many the amount of trouble a couple of women can cause when they thought, wrongly, that they were the only love of his life.

Without seeing all the evidence, this is exactly how it seems to me. Then instead of setting the record straight, he lets this scandal drag on costing taxpayers boat loads of money. I don't believe the women, and I don't believe Assange. Lock all three up.

He offered to set the record straight when it first came to light. His offer was not taken up so he left the country. It was then moved to a more 'political' level which I am sure ignited alarm bells in him as to what could be the possible reasons for it all. Especially as the warrant is only for questioning.

So, since Swedish authorities were in the UK regarding his warrant he said he would answer their questions there, but they refused. He didn't even have to offer.

I'm sure if he is extradited he will be charged but it sure is an odd way to go about it, Why not charge him and have an 'arrest' warrant, unless they don't think an arrest warrant would stand up to the scrutiny of the questioning of evidence. Something they can't do in a 'questioning' warrant.

I suppose time will tell. If he is charged and found guilty then fair enough but it all just seems a bit odd at the moment.

[koheesti]

He offered to set the record straight when it first came to light. His offer was not taken up so he left the country.

I didn't realize that if Swedish authorities didn't want to ask questions in the beginning then they forfeited all rights to ask in the future.

[Wallaby]

He offered to set the record straight when it first came to light. His offer was not taken up so he left the country.

I didn't realize that if Swedish authorities didn't want to ask questions in the beginning then they forfeited all rights to ask in the future.

They can ask whenever they want but it is up to Assange to decide if he wants to answer. So completely up to Assange to decide that the authorities forfeited all rights to get answers. Up to him.

[Ulysses G.]

As has been mentioned many times before, the authorities did not want to talk to Assange when the case was temporarily suspended. When more evidence became available, they needed to interview him, but he refused to go back.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

He offered to set the record straight when it first came to light. His offer was not taken up so he left the country.

I didn't realize that if Swedish authorities didn't want to ask questions in the beginning then they forfeited all rights to ask in the future.

They can ask whenever they want but it is up to Assange to decide if he wants to answer. So completely up to Assange to decide that the authorities forfeited all rights to get answers. Up to him.

Apparently it isn't up to him whether he goes back to Sweden or not to tell them nothing otherwise he wouldn't be wasting everyone's time.

[midas]

As has been mentioned many times before, the authorities did not want to talk to Assange when the case was temporarily suspended. When more evidence became available, they needed to interview him, but he refused to go back.

can you give an example of the kind of additional vital evidence that came to light between the date he left

Sweden and the issuance of the European arrest warrant?

[Ulysses G.]

You will have to ask the prosecuter.

[animatic]

Regardless of if the woman gave consent to have protected or Unprotected sex prior, no matter HOW MANY times, once she says no to UNprotected sex, or NO to sex period, that line can not be crossed unless SHE specifically says it can be. If she is not consciously agreeing to sex it is thus NOT with her consent.

You can be married to a woman for 30 years, with lots of sex, and then be split up for 2 weeks and she says No Sex, we are split-up. If you force sex on her. it becomes rape, because it is forced. If she is not conscious, or so mentally impaired, that her consent is not rationally given, that is deemed as sex via force.

Assange is wanted to be returned to Sweden to face further examination, potentially to face charges. And to face his accuser(s) in a legal venue. There has been nothing underhanded by the Swedish courts and other judicial bodies. That he feels there might be real legal problems if he returns is either from; a ) he has done something actionable and knows it. Or, he is so paranoid about USA power over Sweden he thinks this is all about Wiki and nothing to do with his personal actions. What will they do, raise duties on Volvo and SAAB imports?

There has been great amounts of press dedicated to muddying the waters about the case, the potential charges, the rules to be applied, and the veracity of the complainant(s) against him. Standard legal team maneuvers, filtered through Wikileaks partisans and some sympathetic press.

Very hard to believe Karl Rove has much sway in a provincial court in Sweden, even if he knows some past Swedish national leadership. And less likely Karl Rove would in any way give aid to ANY part of Obama's legal apparatus, such as A.G. or State Dept, that might give them a win for their side, during an election year. Far too partisan to even consider it for 1 minute. More likely to want to make them lose, with a plan to get Assange later when his concervos get back in the job.

Bottom line the women's charges need to be addressed,

and Assange needs to face them.

If he has done nothing wrong,

what does he have to fear?

If he has then that really is

HIS problem, not Wiki's.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Scott

[Wallaby]

You will have to ask the prosecuter.

Why? It is you that said there was further evidence. So what is the further evidence you speak of.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Wallaby

[Wallaby]

As has been mentioned many times before, the authorities did not want to talk to Assange when the case was temporarily suspended. When more evidence became available, they needed to interview him, but he refused to go back.

'Temporarily suspended' indeed. How about 'no case to answer' which was what actually happened. Until it became political.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Wallaby

[Wallaby]

There has been great amounts of press dedicated to muddying the waters about the case, the potential charges, the rules to be applied, and the veracity of the complainant(s) against him. Standard legal team maneuvers, filtered through Wikileaks partisans and some sympathetic press.

Bottom line the women's charges need to be addressed,

and Assange needs to face them.

If he has done nothing wrong,

what does he have to fear?

If he has then that really is

HIS problem, not Wiki's.

When it is a he said/she said then it is certainly the case where one must test the veracity of the complaint. Remember it was the Swedish authorities that illegally publicized the case against him.

The prosecution determined earlier that the womens complaints indeed did not need to be addressed as there was no case to answer. It then became political and yet he still has not been charged. So as yet, he doesn't have anything to face, or address.

If he has has done nothing wrong what does he have to fear? Well for one if he goes back he may well be charged and he cannot get bail so will be in custody until the trial ends. I would think that enough to fear especially if he considers that the complaints are a nonsense. He was also told by a member of the Aus Federal Police to expect underhand tactics, especially of claims of sexual misconduct, which just happens to have come to fruition.

Of course it has everything to do with Wikileaks, do you think this would have happened if it wasn't for Wiki? He wouldn't have even met the women so that they could brag about shagging him, until they found out they weren't his one and only love.

He also has said that he would return to Sweeden for questioning if the Aus govt would guarantee he would not be extradited to the US. The Aus govt has not given him that guarantee. In fact the PM of Aus stated he was a criminal though a couple of days later the Aus Fed Police told her he hadn't in fact broken any law.

Then again, if one says that if Assange has nothing to fear he should voluntarily return, then it follows that if the Aus govt has nothing to hide then it should surely release the information requested under freedom of information from Assange's legal team.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-03/greens-ask-for-any-secret-assange-documents/3710668

[Wallaby]

He offered to set the record straight when it first came to light. His offer was not taken up so he left the country.

I didn't realize that if Swedish authorities didn't want to ask questions in the beginning then they forfeited all rights to ask in the future.

They can ask whenever they want but it is up to Assange to decide if he wants to answer. So completely up to Assange to decide that the authorities forfeited all rights to get answers. Up to him.

Apparently it isn't up to him whether he goes back to Sweden or not to tell them nothing otherwise he wouldn't be wasting everyone's time.

I don't see how you think it is Assange who is wasting everyones time. He doesn't have to answer anything so one should be asking why it is the Swedish authorities wasting everyones time when he has agreed to answer their questions in the UK.

[Steely Dan]

13 pages of flogging a dead horse, the decision regarding his extradition can't come soon enough.

[koheesti]

If he has has done nothing wrong what does he have to fear? Well for one if he goes back he may well be charged and he cannot get bail so will be in custody until the trial ends. I would think that enough to fear especially if he considers that the complaints are a nonsense.

All his own making. If I were the Swedes I wouldn't let this guy walk again. Look at all the trouble he is causing bewteen Sweden, UK and Australia and he hasn't done anything wrong. If he gets to Sweden after all this fuss and refuses to speak, he won't be leaving the country anytime soon. Now, if he had gone over when they asked, I doubt there would have been any problem at all.

He was also told by a member of the Aus Federal Police to expect underhand tactics, especially of claims of sexual misconduct, which just happens to have come to fruition.

I was told by a member of the CIA, "Assange? What's that? Some kind of Belgian fruit cake?". Seriously, is there a link to this Aus Fed telling Assange this? Or just what he claims?

Of course it has everything to do with Wikileaks, do you think this would have happened if it wasn't for Wiki? He wouldn't have even met the women so that they could brag about shagging him, until they found out they weren't his one and only love.

I agree here. Without the infamy of Wikileaks, Assange wouldn't be able to find two women to sleep with him.

Edited December 29, 2011 by koheesti

[TAWP]

As has been mentioned many times before, the authorities did not want to talk to Assange when the case was temporarily suspended. When more evidence became available, they needed to interview him, but he refused to go back.

No new evidence, it was a case of the prosecutor that dropped the case got pushed to the side and a new one appointed, due to political interference.

[TAWP]

I was told by a member of the CIA, "Assange? What's that? Some kind of Belgian fruit cake?". Seriously, is there a link to this Aus Fed telling Assange this? Or just what he claims?

So you are saying that the CIA is as badly informed about the world today as during the WMD-finding-quest before the second Iraq war?

Paying a single liar USD250,000 per month and base a full war on his stories...how come no charges has been laid against anyone there?

[Ulysses G.]

As has been mentioned many times before, the authorities did not want to talk to Assange when the case was temporarily suspended. When more evidence became available, they needed to interview him, but he refused to go back.

No new evidence,

That is not what the prosecutor says.

"The woman's lawyer appealed against the decision. Director of public prosecution Marianne Ny decided to reopen the case, saying new information had come in on Tuesday. "We went through all the case material again, including what came in, and that's when I made my decision,"

http://sn140w.snt140...001&fid=1&fav=1

Edited December 30, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

A series of posts, starting with an unsourced quote. Feel free to start again, but when making a quote, please post a link to the source of the information. Links placed in subsequent posts are confusing.

[midas]

A series of posts, starting with an unsourced quote. Feel free to start again, but when making a quote, please post a link to the source of the information. Links placed in subsequent posts are confusing.

In February 2012, seven judges in the UK Supreme Court must decide if Marianne Ny

can be regarded as a “ judicial authority “ under the terms of the European arrest warrant.

But Marianne Ny has been described by Brita Sundberg-Weitman, a Swedish retired judge and

distinguished jurist as a “ prosecutor who is also a crusader on gender issues “ .

Judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman also made the following criticism …“ Marianne Ny regards

the prosecution of men, even without sufficient evidence, as in the public interest ’pour decourager les autres’ [to deter others]”.

In view of these criticisms I would say it would be an uphill battle to persuade the seven Supreme Court judges

Marianne Ny is even remotely near a “ judicial authority “as opposed to a blatantly “partisan prosecutor”

http://www.swedenver...r-Politics.html

Edited December 30, 2011 by midas

[TAWP]

Due to PERSEC I will refrain from posting too much info from the sources on the government side (read: Prosecutors). This case sadly highlights a number of problems that exist in our small nation and how a few 'strong' individuals can offset the scale that Justicia is suppose to hold in absolute balance. More will come out further on.

[koheesti]

In February 2012, seven judges in the UK Supreme Court must decide

If I were a citizen of the UK I would wonder why my Supreme Court is spending/wasting time deciding whether to send an Aussie to Sweden for questioning. Not enough going on with Brits themselves?

[Wallaby]

In February 2012, seven judges in the UK Supreme Court must decide

If I were a citizen of the UK I would wonder why my Supreme Court is spending/wasting time deciding whether to send an Aussie to Sweden for questioning. Not enough going on with Brits themselves?

Then you would be asking why the Swedish authorities are doing that. He offered to talk to them but for some Reason the authorities want him in Sweden to talk, like that will make a difference because I'm sure his lawyers have told him to say nothing.

So I suggest your outrage should be put on Sweden as they are the ones that issued the warrant for the UK to hear the matter. Assange didn't have a choice in that.