Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[GentlemanJim]

Still just a lot of flimsy circumstantial "evidence".

#1 & #2 - does this prove that the charges are trumped up? Or does it prove that Eva Finne wasn't doing her job? What are her connections??? Is she left wing?

#3 - CB is a former politician. He works with TB. TB is a former M of J. All that proves is they should know each other.

#4 - TB is now in the USA (which means what?) and has close connections to the CIA (we know this because the writer tells us so?)

#5 - Someone broke Swedish protocol. Happens all the time. How does this make Assange innocent?

#6 - "Normally..." which means not all the time.

#7 - CB's two sisters worked for the largest media conglomerate in the country. So have tens of thousands of others.

#8 - AA - one of the victims - is a member of a right wing group - and still slept with Assange? So obviously she wasn't taken in by Assange's charm, fame or good looks so it must have been a setup. Except that she apparently didn't report anything wrong for a couple weeks or so. If anything that proves it wasn't a setup.

#9 - CB had some of his own communication leaked by Assange. So, anyone whose name appeared in the 200,000+ cables leaked by Assange can't be trusted?

Is that like the circumstantial evidence of a condom produced 10 days later with no DNA on it at all. If the state prosecutor says not enough evidence to go to trial then that is normally good enough for any of the Judiciary. Whatever! You asked for some info, I tried to point you in the right direction. Go figure/research yourself.

[chuckd]

Koheesti:

The conspiracy theorists believe Rove and the Bush administration are behind this dastardly plot.

They think Bush is going to steal Assange from Sweden, much as they believe Bush stole Florida.

Edited January 3, 2012 by chuckd

[midas]

Koheesti:

The conspiracy theorists believe Rove and the Bush administration are behind this dastardly plot.

They think Bush is going to steal Assange from Sweden, much as they believe Bush stole Florida.

I'm wondering under NDAA 2012 why they even need to bother with this farce regarding

a broken condom anymore?

[koheesti]

Still just a lot of flimsy circumstantial "evidence".

#1 & #2 - does this prove that the charges are trumped up? Or does it prove that Eva Finne wasn't doing her job? What are her connections??? Is she left wing?

#3 - CB is a former politician. He works with TB. TB is a former M of J. All that proves is they should know each other.

#4 - TB is now in the USA (which means what?) and has close connections to the CIA (we know this because the writer tells us so?)

#5 - Someone broke Swedish protocol. Happens all the time. How does this make Assange innocent?

#6 - "Normally..." which means not all the time.

#7 - CB's two sisters worked for the largest media conglomerate in the country. So have tens of thousands of others.

#8 - AA - one of the victims - is a member of a right wing group - and still slept with Assange? So obviously she wasn't taken in by Assange's charm, fame or good looks so it must have been a setup. Except that she apparently didn't report anything wrong for a couple weeks or so. If anything that proves it wasn't a setup.

#9 - CB had some of his own communication leaked by Assange. So, anyone whose name appeared in the 200,000+ cables leaked by Assange can't be trusted?

Is that like the circumstantial evidence of a condom produced 10 days later with no DNA on it at all. If the state prosecutor says not enough evidence to go to trial then that is normally good enough for any of the Judiciary. Whatever! You asked for some info, I tried to point you in the right direction. Go figure/research yourself.

I've already stated that the charges seem like BS to me. Like two women scorned. It is just as suspicious though that Assange is running like hell from all this. I know if it were me I would have gone back and set the record straight. Of course, I might feel differently if I was trying to drum up interest in a book.movie deal. Either way Assange's supporters are being played by the man and they refuse to see it.

[GentlemanJim]

Still just a lot of flimsy circumstantial "evidence".

#1 & #2 - does this prove that the charges are trumped up? Or does it prove that Eva Finne wasn't doing her job? What are her connections??? Is she left wing?

#3 - CB is a former politician. He works with TB. TB is a former M of J. All that proves is they should know each other.

#4 - TB is now in the USA (which means what?) and has close connections to the CIA (we know this because the writer tells us so?)

#5 - Someone broke Swedish protocol. Happens all the time. How does this make Assange innocent?

#6 - "Normally..." which means not all the time.

#7 - CB's two sisters worked for the largest media conglomerate in the country. So have tens of thousands of others.

#8 - AA - one of the victims - is a member of a right wing group - and still slept with Assange? So obviously she wasn't taken in by Assange's charm, fame or good looks so it must have been a setup. Except that she apparently didn't report anything wrong for a couple weeks or so. If anything that proves it wasn't a setup.

#9 - CB had some of his own communication leaked by Assange. So, anyone whose name appeared in the 200,000+ cables leaked by Assange can't be trusted?

Is that like the circumstantial evidence of a condom produced 10 days later with no DNA on it at all. If the state prosecutor says not enough evidence to go to trial then that is normally good enough for any of the Judiciary. Whatever! You asked for some info, I tried to point you in the right direction. Go figure/research yourself.

I've already stated that the charges seem like BS to me. Like two women scorned. It is just as suspicious though that Assange is running like hell from all this. I know if it were me I would have gone back and set the record straight. Of course, I might feel differently if I was trying to drum up interest in a book.movie deal. Either way Assange's supporters are being played by the man and they refuse to see it.

Or you would feel differently if you knew the US were looking to extradite you from Sweden and put you behind bars indefinitely without charge. I don't think he has a problem taking about the sex charges at all. Let him follow normal protocol. Answer all the questions the swedish police want in the UK and if the Swedish prosecutor wants to issue an arrest warrant after that then let him be extradited to Sweden. Why is it when precedents are being set against all previous judiciary processes in Sweden it just coincidently happens to involve one of the USA's most wanted men?

[Ulysses G.]

Either way Assange's supporters are being played by the man and they refuse to see it.

If he is innocent, it is time for him to face justice in Sweden like anyone who was innocent would.

[midas]

I've already stated that the charges seem like BS to me. Like two women scorned. It is just as suspicious though that Assange is running like hell from all this. I know if it were me I would have gone back and set the record straight. Of course, I might feel differently if I was trying to drum up interest in a book.movie deal. Either way Assange's supporters are being played by the man and they refuse to see it.

and I have already stated that he probably would have gone back to Sweden before now had they been prepared to guarantee they would not pass them on to USA. Considering he hasn't been charged with anything what was stopping the Swedish authorities from giving that guarantee ?because this basically shows what their real motives are to get him to Sweden?

[Ulysses G.]

Since when do governments have to promise supected criminals anything? If he is innocent, he needs to go to Sweden and clear his name.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[midas]

Since when do governments have to promise supected criminals anything? If he is innocent, he needs to go to Sweden and clear his name.

clear his name? His name is already clear? In most civilised countries you are innocent until proven guilty

[Ulysses G.]

Legally maybe, but in practice, not when you are refusing to answer questions about crimes that you are suspected of commiting.

[midas]

Legally maybe, but in practice, not when you are refusing to answer questions about crimes that you are suspected of commiting.

correction..." YOUR practice " .....?

Edited January 4, 2012 by midas

[GentlemanJim]

Legally maybe, but in practice, not when you are refusing to answer questions about crimes that you are suspected of commiting.

At no point has he refused to answer questions. He had a full series of interviews with police whilst he was in Sweden. No charges were brought against him and he was free to leave. He did so. The 'new prosecutor' wants the police to ask more questions, Assange has always agreed to do so, but as he left Sweden a free man he is entitled to answer those questions anywhere he is residing...in this case the UK.

You are making it up as you go along! Do you do it on purpose?

[Ulysses G.]

Swedish prosecuters issued an international arrest warrant for Assange to answer questions concening the sex crime that he is accused of committing. He has no "right" to answer them anywhere other than Sweden.

[GentlemanJim]

Swedish prosecuters issued an international arrest warrant for Assange to answer questions concening the sex crime that he is accused of committing. He has no "right" to answer them anywhere other than Sweden.

So far he has not been charged, – an essential precondition for a valid European arrest warrant.

Under the EAW scheme, which allows for fast-tracked extradition between EU member states, a warrant must indicate a formal charge in order to be validated, and must be served on the person accused.

Julian Assange has never been charged by Swedish prosecutors. He is formally wanted as a witness only and as such is in no way compelled to return to Sweden.

[Ulysses G.]

Assange was arrrested and jailed and is trying to fight extradition to Sweden. It certainly looks like it is very likely that he will be compelled to go to Sweden and answer questions about the sex crime he has been accused of.

"The High Court judges in London have thrown out his four highly polished points and, unless he can conjure some legal magic from Britain's Supreme Court (once known as the House of Lords) or the European Court of Human Rights, he'll be bundled off to Sweden to be questioned about an alleged rape of one woman and the sexual molestation of another".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1iUnsX2U1

Edited January 4, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[midas]

Swedish prosecuters issued an international arrest warrant for Assange to answer questions concening the sex crime that he is accused of committing. He has no "right" to answer them anywhere other than Sweden.

So far he has not been charged, – an essential precondition for a valid European arrest warrant.

Under the EAW scheme, which allows for fast-tracked extradition between EU member states, a warrant must indicate a formal charge in order to be validated, and must be served on the person accused.

Julian Assange has never been charged by Swedish prosecutors. He is formally wanted as a witness only and as such is in no way compelled to return to Sweden.

I wouldn't even waste your time any more with these guys GentlemanJim! I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ulysses

and his colleagues will still be on here arguing he is guilty even if the UK Supreme Court rules against Sweden!

Just sit back and wait now and hopefully real justice will prevail in February.

[chuckd]

Swedish prosecuters issued an international arrest warrant for Assange to answer questions concening the sex crime that he is accused of committing. He has no "right" to answer them anywhere other than Sweden.

So far he has not been charged, – an essential precondition for a valid European arrest warrant.

Under the EAW scheme, which allows for fast-tracked extradition between EU member states, a warrant must indicate a formal charge in order to be validated, and must be served on the person accused.

Julian Assange has never been charged by Swedish prosecutors. He is formally wanted as a witness only and as such is in no way compelled to return to Sweden.

I wouldn't even waste your time any more with these guys GentlemanJim! I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ulysses

and his colleagues will still be on here arguing he is guilty even if the UK Supreme Court rules against Sweden!

Just sit back and wait now and hopefully real justice will prevail in February.

What if your version of "justice" does not prevail?

It seems to me the UK would have thrown out the Swedish request for extradition if it was not originally done in accordance with the treaty between the two countries and the EU. The UK accepted it and acted upon it by advising Assange he must return to Sweden. Now we are embroiled in the interminable appeal process, which is within the legal right of Assange to pursue.

I can just envision the next few thread headlines on Assange...

1. Assange Extradited to Sweden for questioning.

2. Assange to face criminal sexual misconduct charges.

3. Assange convicted of sexual molestation and sentenced to 14 years.

4. Assange escapes from maximum security prison, whereabouts unknown.

5. Assange voluntarily surrenders to US authorities at Guantanamo.

6. The above five sentences are jokes, folks. Lighten up...nothing we can do about it anyway.

[Wallaby]

Assange was arrrested and jailed and is trying to fight extradition to Sweden. It certainly looks like it is very likely that he will be compelled to go to Sweden and answer questions about the sex crime he has been accused of.

"The High Court judges in London have thrown out his four highly polished points and, unless he can conjure some legal magic from Britain's Supreme Court (once known as the House of Lords) or the European Court of Human Rights, he'll be bundled off to Sweden to be questioned about an alleged rape of one woman and the sexual molestation of another".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1iUnsX2U1

Do you know anything about the legal process?

Assange does NOT have to answer anything. Even if he is charged he doesn't have to answer anything. Even when he goes to court he doesn't have to answer anything. An accused cannot be compelled to give evidence.

He may well be compelled to go to Sweden but he will not be compelled to answer anything.

[Wallaby]

Swedish prosecuters issued an international arrest warrant for Assange to answer questions concening the sex crime that he is accused of committing. He has no "right" to answer them anywhere other than Sweden.

So far he has not been charged, – an essential precondition for a valid European arrest warrant.

Under the EAW scheme, which allows for fast-tracked extradition between EU member states, a warrant must indicate a formal charge in order to be validated, and must be served on the person accused.

Julian Assange has never been charged by Swedish prosecutors. He is formally wanted as a witness only and as such is in no way compelled to return to Sweden.

I wouldn't even waste your time any more with these guys GentlemanJim! I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ulysses

and his colleagues will still be on here arguing he is guilty even if the UK Supreme Court rules against Sweden!

Just sit back and wait now and hopefully real justice will prevail in February.

What if your version of "justice" does not prevail?

It seems to me the UK would have thrown out the Swedish request for extradition if it was not originally done in accordance with the treaty between the two countries and the EU. The UK accepted it and acted upon it by advising Assange he must return to Sweden. Now we are embroiled in the interminable appeal process, which is within the legal right of Assange to pursue.

I can just envision the next few thread headlines on Assange...

1. Assange Extradited to Sweden for questioning.

2. Assange to face criminal sexual misconduct charges.

3. Assange convicted of sexual molestation and sentenced to 14 years.

4. Assange escapes from maximum security prison, whereabouts unknown.

5. Assange voluntarily surrenders to US authorities at Guantanamo.

6. The above five sentences are jokes, folks. Lighten up...nothing we can do about it anyway.

7. Assange found playing golf with Forethat and begging to return to jail in Sweden.

[midas]

Assange was arrrested and jailed and is trying to fight extradition to Sweden. It certainly looks like it is very likely that he will be compelled to go to Sweden and answer questions about the sex crime he has been accused of.

"The High Court judges in London have thrown out his four highly polished points and, unless he can conjure some legal magic from Britain's Supreme Court (once known as the House of Lords) or the European Court of Human Rights, he'll be bundled off to Sweden to be questioned about an alleged rape of one woman and the sexual molestation of another".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1iUnsX2U1

Do you know anything about the legal process?

Assange does NOT have to answer anything. Even if he is charged he doesn't have to answer anything. Even when he goes to court he doesn't have to answer anything. An accused cannot be compelled to give evidence.

He may well be compelled to go to Sweden but he will not be compelled to answer anything.

Wallaby I know you have made reference to this many times in this thread so now I have to ask you this question. You are probably correct regarding what you say but particularly in this case wouldn't keeping his mouth shut be counter-productive? There is such an absence of due process in this whole matter anyway that by keeping his mouth shut wouldn't give them an even greater opportunity to lock him up?

[midas]

Assange should have made Wikileaks a religious institution...........

http://falkvinge.net/2012/01/04/missionary-church-of-kopimism-approved-as-official-religion/

[Ulysses G.]

He may well be compelled to go to Sweden but he will not be compelled to answer anything.

My point is that may well compelled to go to Sweden for the purpose of answering questions about the crime that he is accused of. It is indeed likely that he will refuse to answer them. .

[chuckd]

What if your version of "justice" does not prevail?

It seems to me the UK would have thrown out the Swedish request for extradition if it was not originally done in accordance with the treaty between the two countries and the EU. The UK accepted it and acted upon it by advising Assange he must return to Sweden. Now we are embroiled in the interminable appeal process, which is within the legal right of Assange to pursue.

I can just envision the next few thread headlines on Assange...

1. Assange Extradited to Sweden for questioning.

2. Assange to face criminal sexual misconduct charges.

3. Assange convicted of sexual molestation and sentenced to 14 years.

4. Assange escapes from maximum security prison, whereabouts unknown.

5. Assange voluntarily surrenders to US authorities at Guantanamo.

6. The above five sentences are jokes, folks. Lighten up...nothing we can do about it anyway.

7. Assange found playing golf with Forethat and begging to return to jail in Sweden.

Now that one got a right guffaw out of me. Thanks.

[Wallaby]

Do you know anything about the legal process?

Assange does NOT have to answer anything. Even if he is charged he doesn't have to answer anything. Even when he goes to court he doesn't have to answer anything. An accused cannot be compelled to give evidence.

He may well be compelled to go to Sweden but he will not be compelled to answer anything.

Wallaby I know you have made reference to this many times in this thread so now I have to ask you this question. You are probably correct regarding what you say but particularly in this case wouldn't keeping his mouth shut be counter-productive? There is such an absence of due process in this whole matter anyway that by keeping his mouth shut wouldn't give them an even greater opportunity to lock him up?

It could be sometimes taken that way but this case is a bit different as it is an international matter.

Normally an accused will say nothing and the police will arrest or not arrest on the evidence they have. Usually anything an accused says will not be of assistance to him but will assist the police in determining what charges to lay. If they don't have enough evidence to charge a person, if he says nothing, then they won't arrest him.

This particular case is a bit different. If Sweden thinks the evidence is not sufficient for charges to be laid then if they issued an arrest warrant it could be that the evidence is questioned a lot more when determining if the warrant is succesful in the UK court. The UK could could also take into consideration the matter of him not being allowed bail and the court being held in secret etc etc.

As they 'only' issued a warrant for questioning then the UK can't vigorously challenge the evidence (as no charges are laid). The UK will merely determine if the warrant for questioning is supported by somewhat 'less' evidence.

Under the circumstances the warrant for questioning would be the easier to get, in my opinion, and that Sweden has made the right tactical move for getting him over there.

I'm sure that if/when he is taken to Sweden he will be formally charged and the games will begin. It will certainly be entertaining.

[midas]

it's no wonder Julian Assange has resisted going to Sweden so strenuously because

now it becomes clear to what extent USA is determined to get him........................

this is starting to resemble McCarthyism

" A year ago this week, it was learned that a US grand jury had secretly issued subpoenas for the Twitter account information of several WikiLeaks supporters."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/06/judge-rules-that-twitter-must-hand-over-information-on-wikileaks-supporters/

[chuckd]

it's no wonder Julian Assange has resisted going to Sweden so strenuously because

now it becomes clear to what extent USA is determined to get him........................

this is starting to resemble McCarthyism

" A year ago this week, it was learned that a US grand jury had secretly issued subpoenas for the Twitter account information of several WikiLeaks supporters."

http://www.rawstory....aks-supporters/

Would you care to share with us why this should come as a big surprise? Assange is the subject of a grand jury investigation. They are investigating and have now been granted access to the Tweeter accounts of some of his supporters.

There is no great mystery here.

Besides those little facts, where does Sweden enter this picture?

[Ulysses G.]

" A year ago this week, it was learned that a US grand jury had secretly issued subpoenas for the Twitter account information of several WikiLeaks supporters."

Good. He should face justice in both places.

[GentlemanJim]

" A year ago this week, it was learned that a US grand jury had secretly issued subpoenas for the Twitter account information of several WikiLeaks supporters."

Good. He should face justice in both places.

And exactly what justice should he face in the United States? and if he does for any reason face charges then should the same justice be meeted out to every editor of every newspaper that printed information from wikileaks?

[koheesti]

Normally an accused will say nothing and the police will arrest or not arrest on the evidence they have. Usually anything an accused says will not be of assistance to him but will assist the police in determining what charges to lay. If they don't have enough evidence to charge a person, if he says nothing, then they won't arrest him.

I agree with that BUT to me the Assange situation seems like this...

I'm at home and a knock comes at the door. It's the police;

POLICE: Mr. Koheesti, You need to come down to the police station with us to answer some questions.

ME: Why? What have I done?

POLICE: A couple women have accused you of blah, blah, blah.

ME: You know, I was down there a couple months ago and nobody wanted to ask me any questions then. What's up?

POLICE: Mr. Koheesti, sir, there are some questions now. Will you please come with us?

ME: Well, I have the right to remain silent so I refuse to go with you. You can ask me questions now while you're standing in my doorway but I won't answer them.

POLICE: OK, Mr. Koheesti. That is your legal right. Sorry for disturbing you. Thank you for your time and have a nice day.

[TAWP]

" A year ago this week, it was learned that a US grand jury had secretly issued subpoenas for the Twitter account information of several WikiLeaks supporters."

Good. He should face justice in both places.

Requiring out IP addresses to track down the real identity of SUPPORTERS isn't directly about Assange, it is about tracking down everyone that dislikes big government and be able to harass them at will.