Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[Riely]

Good Luck Assange! I pray you make it through this in tact and Wikileaks stays up and working. Y

[MikeyIdea]

*Deleted quote edited out*

so please provide examples of other countries where holding the case in total secrecy is normal? And please explain why

Geoffrey Robertson QC, keeps stating there is risk of a "flagrant violation" of Mr Assange's rights.?

I do not think that it is strange that Assange's defence lawyer tries to defend his client, after all, he's very expensive and that's his job so he should, shouldn't he?

Geoffrey Robertson QC talks a lot publically, he compared Assange with Oscar Wilde a while back, now that was laughable

Explanation why?

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

[khaan]

The part in all of this drama which doesn't make a lot of sense to me is the apparent ruthlessness of the female? In long relationships it is understandable sometimes after the romance has worn off that there can be an element of uncaring and in worst cases even vindictiveness. But doesn't anyone think it is strange that a moment of intimacy and presumably enjoyment by both him and her has deteriorated to this so quickly? That an event which is usually quite pleasurable and memorable during the very early stages of an encounter or romance could have gone sour so quickly and to this extent?

In other words this lady seems doesn't seem at all perturbed by the prospect the person she must have liked to the extent that she willingly shared a bed with him totally voluntarily and who apparently chatted with the accused in an open and friendly manner before and after their sexual relations then suddenly turned on the accused like this? This is not the same as a man attacking a woman which I agree is deplorable and unforgivable. And this has happened to such a degree that she seems completely unemotional and undetached regarding the prospect that her allegations could see this guy going away for the majority of his life? This to me seems incredibly cold and ruthless and is not often something you see in casual affairs.

It really makes you wonder who can you really trust?

Edited November 11, 2011 by khaan

[Scott]

I believe there was more than one lady involved in this situation. If my memory serves me, this lady and another were comparing notes and had similar experiences.

[Wallaby]

*Deleted quote edited out*

so please provide examples of other countries where holding the case in total secrecy is normal? And please explain why

Geoffrey Robertson QC, keeps stating there is risk of a "flagrant violation" of Mr Assange's rights.?

I do not think that it is strange that Assange's defence lawyer tries to defend his client, after all, he's very expensive and that's his job so he should, shouldn't he?

Geoffrey Robertson QC talks a lot publically, he compared Assange with Oscar Wilde a while back, now that was laughable

Explanation why?

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

I don't know why you keep cut and pasting that to hold a secret hearing is to protect both parties. That is just wrong. The court can rule a media blackout but can still have an open hearing where anyone can attend. It happens quite often in other countries so no reason Sweeden cannot do it.

[Wallaby]

I believe there was more than one lady involved in this situation. If my memory serves me, this lady and another were comparing notes and had similar experiences.

Yes I have a similar recollection. I also vaguely recall that it was after they both found out he had shagged both of them that they went to police. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could confirm/deny this.

[Scott]

It was in one of the older threads here, I believe, but I don't have time to search for it right now.

[midas]

*Deleted quote edited out*

so please provide examples of other countries where holding the case in total secrecy is normal? And please explain why

Geoffrey Robertson QC, keeps stating there is risk of a "flagrant violation" of Mr Assange's rights.?

I do not think that it is strange that Assange's defence lawyer tries to defend his client, after all, he's very expensive and that's his job so he should, shouldn't he?

Geoffrey Robertson QC talks a lot publically, he compared Assange with Oscar Wilde a while back, now that was laughable

Explanation why?

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

I don't know why you keep cut and pasting that to hold a secret hearing is to protect both parties. That is just wrong. The court can rule a media blackout but can still have an open hearing where anyone can attend. It happens quite often in other countries so no reason Sweeden cannot do it.

quite right Wallaby his argument is a complete furphy

And anyway I can't think of any other possibly sordid pieces of information and in-depth descriptions

surrounding these allegations that can come out which hasn't already been described

in very intimate detail on swedenversusassange.com (as well as a host of other websites that have been put

up by his supporters).

You could also say you will get a far more balanced account of what really happened

on these websites than you will ever hope to get in the mainstream media

Edited November 11, 2011 by midas

[midas]

I believe there was more than one lady involved in this situation. If my memory serves me, this lady and another were comparing notes and had similar experiences.

Yes I have a similar recollection. I also vaguely recall that it was after they both found out he had shagged both of them that they went to police. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could confirm/deny this.

yes indeed and this website even gives the names !

" Below are links to information about the Assange case and the accusers that the mainstream media and feminists don’t want you to see "

http://www.inmalafide.com/the-julian-assange-false-rape-file/

Edited November 11, 2011 by midas

[Wallaby]

I believe there was more than one lady involved in this situation. If my memory serves me, this lady and another were comparing notes and had similar experiences.

Yes I have a similar recollection. I also vaguely recall that it was after they both found out he had shagged both of them that they went to police. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could confirm/deny this.

yes indeed and this website even gives the names !

" Below are links to information about the Assange case and the accusers that the mainstream media and feminists don't want you to see "

http://www.inmalafid...alse-rape-file/

Not much of a claim that secrecy is to protect parties to the case etc when all the information is already out there. I would think the opposite, because it is such a high profile case with an international flavour the Swedish authorities would want an open transparent hearing.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Wallaby

[MikeyIdea]

*Deleted quote edited out*

so please provide examples of other countries where holding the case in total secrecy is normal? And please explain why

Geoffrey Robertson QC, keeps stating there is risk of a "flagrant violation" of Mr Assange's rights.?

I do not think that it is strange that Assange's defence lawyer tries to defend his client, after all, he's very expensive and that's his job so he should, shouldn't he?

Geoffrey Robertson QC talks a lot publically, he compared Assange with Oscar Wilde a while back, now that was laughable

Explanation why?

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

I don't know why you keep cut and pasting that to hold a secret hearing is to protect both parties. That is just wrong. The court can rule a media blackout but can still have an open hearing where anyone can attend. It happens quite often in other countries so no reason Sweeden cannot do it.

quite right Wallaby his argument is a complete furphy

And anyway I can't think of any other possibly sordid pieces of information and in-depth descriptions

surrounding these allegations that can come out which hasn't already been described

in very intimate detail on swedenversusassange.com (as well as a host of other websites that have been put

up by his supporters).

You could also say you will get a far more balanced account of what really happened

on these websites than you will ever hope to get in the mainstream media

The law in Sweden in this area didn't come by coincidence. It is specifically written the way it is to protect both parties. Regardless of if people from other countries think that it is wrong or not

It's (mainly) there to protect Assange (the accused) actually, from getting his personal reputation destroyed by speculation before all facts have been taken into consideration. That law, together with not allowing names (of adults as well as children) to be published used to do a good job protecting Assanges' reputation until confirmed guilty before the internet was born.

The law doesn't work well in the internet age, in Sweden that is not considered a positive development

We will not get a balanced account of what happend from internet websites at this stage, laughable statement really. We will get a balanced and correct account of what happened after Assange has been questioned and if he gets charged, after the case has been tried first in court and then in the appeals court. Then we will know the truth for sure - I think that is correct actually

Edited November 11, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[midas]

I do not think that it is strange that Assange's defence lawyer tries to defend his client, after all, he's very expensive and that's his job so he should, shouldn't he?

Geoffrey Robertson QC talks a lot publically, he compared Assange with Oscar Wilde a while back, now that was laughable

Explanation why?

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

I don't know why you keep cut and pasting that to hold a secret hearing is to protect both parties. That is just wrong. The court can rule a media blackout but can still have an open hearing where anyone can attend. It happens quite often in other countries so no reason Sweeden cannot do it.

quite right Wallaby his argument is a complete furphy

And anyway I can't think of any other possibly sordid pieces of information and in-depth descriptions

surrounding these allegations that can come out which hasn't already been described

in very intimate detail on swedenversusassange.com (as well as a host of other websites that have been put

up by his supporters).

You could also say you will get a far more balanced account of what really happened

on these websites than you will ever hope to get in the mainstream media

The law in Sweden in this area didn't come by coincidence. It is specifically written the way it is to protect both parties. Regardless of if people from other countries think that it is wrong or not

It's (mainly) there to protect Assange (the accused) actually, from getting his personal reputation destroyed by speculation before all facts have been taken into consideration. That law, together with not allowing names (of adults as well as children) to be published used to do a good job protecting Assanges' reputation until confirmed guilty before the internet was born.

The law doesn't work well in the internet age, in Sweden that is not considered a positive development

We will not get a balanced account of what happend from internet websites at this stage, laughable statement really. We will get a balanced and correct account of what happened after Assange has been questioned and if he gets charged, after the case has been tried first in court and then in the appeals court. Then we will know the truth for sure - I think that is correct actually

" It's (mainly) there to protect Assange (the accused) actually, from getting his personal reputation destroyed by speculation before all facts have been taken into consideration. "

Is that so ?

Then if that was really the case which it is not, it would have helped Assange (the accused) from getting his personal reputation destroyed if the Prime Minister of Sweden had kept his mouth shut So it's clear Sweden doesn't have a dam about those kinds of things .

" The defence had unsuccessfully sought an adjournment following remarks this week by the Swedish prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, in which, Robertson said, he had vilified Assange as "public enemy number one" in Sweden and created a "toxic atmosphere" against him.

Next !

Edited November 11, 2011 by midas

[Wallaby]

If a trial is held in secret then no one but those directly involved can go in and see it. At the end all we will have is one side saying it was fair and the other side saying it was unfair.

Please tell me how one can have an objective view on the trial being fair or not if no one can actually witness it and report on it at a later date?

Trials should be transparent, unless unusual circumstances. That is what a fair judicial system does. Anything hidden only causes conjecture which is not good for any judicial system.

And please no more of the nonsense about protecting Assange or the complainants, that's just political correctness <deleted>.

[midas]

Sorry to bust your bubble but your opinion of what constitutes rape is hardly pertinent in Sweden. They will question him under the laws of Sweden and prosecute him or not, as the case might be.

In my opinion, Assange is a cheap thief, publicity hound and likely suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He's a greasy little character.

By the way, does anybody have any proof this is all a set-up by the CIA or any other agency of the US government?

If so, please post it.

I saw this excellent passage in another similar thread about unproven sexual allegations so I thought I would " borrow " it

and import it here

" One reason I am appearing to be on ........ side is he has not been charged with committing one crime. If he is charged with breaking a law, then we will see where the chips fall. Until then, I prefer to give the man the benefit of the doubt.

Do you like that chuckd ?

Edited November 12, 2011 by midas

[Ulysses G.]

[in my opinion, Assange is a cheap thief, publicity hound and likely suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He's a greasy little character.

Very true, but he still deserves a fair trial in both Sweden and the US and it looks like he will eventually be getting them.

[chuckd]

Sorry to bust your bubble but your opinion of what constitutes rape is hardly pertinent in Sweden. They will question him under the laws of Sweden and prosecute him or not, as the case might be.

In my opinion, Assange is a cheap thief, publicity hound and likely suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He's a greasy little character.

By the way, does anybody have any proof this is all a set-up by the CIA or any other agency of the US government?

If so, please post it.

I saw this excellent passage in another similar thread about unproven sexual allegations so I thought I would " borrow " it

and import it here

" One reason I am appearing to be on ........ side is he has not been charged with committing one crime. If he is charged with breaking a law, then we will see where the chips fall. Until then, I prefer to give the man the benefit of the doubt.

Do you like that chuckd ?

Since you lifted this from the Herman Cain thread, let me ask you one simple question.

Are the police desirous of questioning Mr. Cain about anything?

Yeah...I thought not.

PS: You are in violation of forum rule number 30. Following is rule 30 so you will be certain this violation does not happen again.

" 30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording."

[midas]

Sorry to bust your bubble but your opinion of what constitutes rape is hardly pertinent in Sweden. They will question him under the laws of Sweden and prosecute him or not, as the case might be.

In my opinion, Assange is a cheap thief, publicity hound and likely suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He's a greasy little character.

By the way, does anybody have any proof this is all a set-up by the CIA or any other agency of the US government?

If so, please post it.

I saw this excellent passage in another similar thread about unproven sexual allegations so I thought I would " borrow " it

and import it here

" One reason I am appearing to be on ........ side is he has not been charged with committing one crime. If he is charged with breaking a law, then we will see where the chips fall. Until then, I prefer to give the man the benefit of the doubt.

Do you like that chuckd ?

Since you lifted this from the Herman Cain thread, let me ask you one simple question.

Are the police desirous of questioning Mr. Cain about anything?

Yeah...I thought not.

PS: You are in violation of forum rule number 30. Following is rule 30 so you will be certain this violation does not happen again.

" 30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording."

I humbly apologise for deleting one word from your passage and changing the original font to italic :jap:

So I am curious ….is that how you decide a person's guilt? Whether or not they are questioned by the police?

And what about if this is all indeed a “ set up “ and we find out eventually that the authorities are more corrupt than the alleged perpetrator?

Edited November 12, 2011 by midas

[chuckd]

I saw this excellent passage in another similar thread about unproven sexual allegations so I thought I would " borrow " it

and import it here

" One reason I am appearing to be on ........ side is he has not been charged with committing one crime. If he is charged with breaking a law, then we will see where the chips fall. Until then, I prefer to give the man the benefit of the doubt.

Do you like that chuckd ?

Since you lifted this from the Herman Cain thread, let me ask you one simple question.

Are the police desirous of questioning Mr. Cain about anything?

Yeah...I thought not.

PS: You are in violation of forum rule number 30. Following is rule 30 so you will be certain this violation does not happen again.

" 30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording."

I humbly apologise for deleting one word from your passage and changing the original font to italic :jap:

So I am curious ….is that how you decide a person's guilt? Whether or not they are questioned by the police?

And what about if this is all indeed a “ set up “ and we find out eventually that the authorities are more corrupt than the alleged perpetrator?

Then I would imagine Assange can get on an airplane and fly anywhere his little heart desires.

Perhaps that super-duper Australian lawyer can bring civil action against both nations and the EU just for grins and giggles.

Until that happens, he belongs to the authorities of either England or Sweden.

[TAWP]

Any non-consented sex including while asleep and sex by surprise is considered rape. That's hard, not loose

You are wrong.

A person do not need a signed contract to initiate sex in Sweden and most other countries.

They need just a reasonable belief that the person was not expressly against it.

He had sex with her, consensually, they fall asleep and the next morning he initiates it another round while she isn't fully awake. How many of you haven't done that? Or having it done to you?

[MikeyIdea]

Any non-consented sex including while asleep and sex by surprise is considered rape. That's hard, not loose

You are wrong.

A person do not need a signed contract to initiate sex in Sweden and most other countries.

They need just a reasonable belief that the person was not expressly against it.

He had sex with her, consensually, they fall asleep and the next morning he initiates it another round while she isn't fully awake. How many of you haven't done that? Or having it done to you?

I don't think that Assange thinks that he broke the law and I don't think that he knew the law in the country he was in either. Unfortunately, sex by surprise, including having sex with a sleeping person is considered rape in Sweden. I'm not necessarily saying that I think the law always is right, just that Swedish law in this area is hard, not lose as someone else originally said - and of course that Swedish law is the only thing that metters in Sweden

Edited November 14, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[Scott]

If I recall correctly, the main issue on the part of the alleged victim had to do with condom usage.

[midas]

If I recall correctly, the main issue on the part of the alleged victim had to do with condom usage.

Yes Scott spot on !

The British judges were not allowed under the EAW system to even consider this kind of detail and what is really vital evidence . A lot of this hasn't even been mentioned yet.

“ Since the 100-page Swedish police protocol file leaked onto the internet in February 2011, it has been widely known that the SKL (Sweden's national forensic laboratory) failed to find any chromosomal DNA -- either male or female -- on the torn, used condom that Complainant AA gave to police 12 days after the event as evidence of her allegations “

http://wlcentral.org/node/2325

[midas]

Doesn't bode well for him to get any assistance when the PM has already made up her mind.

Well even if Australia's Prime Minister doesn't go out of her way to help him, thank goodness for some decent

journalists like Guy Rundle of the Sydney Morning Herald who in this article reveals some very

interesting facts about the condom and some rather intriguing ' relationships ' between the accusers and individuals from the Swedish

authorities that I have never seen covered in the mainstream media before

http://www.smh.com.au/world/moment-of-truth-20111001-1l2lt.html

Edited November 14, 2011 by midas

[midas]

On the 24 November 2011 the British Parliament will hold a debate on extradition. Members of the public have been writing to their local MPs to urge them to raise the 1st point of law regarding ’judicial authority’ in the Julian Assange appeal. This point is particularly relevant for parliamentary discussion because the judgement against Julian Assange goes against parliamentary intention behind the 2003 Extradition Act.

And in open court, at the Royal Courts of Justice on 5 December 2011 Julian Assange’s legal team

will seek leave to appeal two points of law of general importance for consideration by the UK Supreme Court.

They are interesting points actually

1) Whether a European Arrest Warrant issued by a partisan prosecutor working for the executive (i.e. not an independent judge or investigating magistrate in the civil law system) is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a "judicial authority" within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003? This point argues that the decision goes against parliamentary intent in the 2003 Extradition Act.

2) Whether a person in respect of whom no decision to prosecute has been taken can be said to be ’accused’ within the meaning of sections 2(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003?

Edited November 23, 2011 by midas

[Credo]

Good that they aren't looking at whether or not a person is guilty of committing a crime in that country.

[melvinmelvin]

Doesn't bode well for him to get any assistance when the PM has already made up her mind.

Well even if Australia's Prime Minister doesn't go out of her way to help him, thank goodness for some decent

journalists like Guy Rundle of the Sydney Morning Herald who in this article reveals some very

interesting facts about the condom and some rather intriguing ' relationships ' between the accusers and individuals from the Swedish

authorities that I have never seen covered in the mainstream media before

http://www.smh.com.a...1001-1l2lt.html

too bad we don't have journalism like that in Thailand

[GentlemanJim]

Doesn't bode well for him to get any assistance when the PM has already made up her mind.

Well even if Australia's Prime Minister doesn't go out of her way to help him, thank goodness for some decent

journalists like Guy Rundle of the Sydney Morning Herald who in this article reveals some very

interesting facts about the condom and some rather intriguing ' relationships ' between the accusers and individuals from the Swedish

authorities that I have never seen covered in the mainstream media before

http://www.smh.com.a...1001-1l2lt.html

How interesting, that article now appears to have been taken down. It obviously touched a few raw nerves.

[koheesti]

On the 24 November 2011 the British Parliament will hold a debate on extradition. Members of the public have been writing to their local MPs to urge them to raise the 1st point of law regarding ’judicial authority’ in the Julian Assange appeal. This point is particularly relevant for parliamentary discussion because the judgement against Julian Assange goes against parliamentary intention behind the 2003 Extradition Act.

And in open court, at the Royal Courts of Justice on 5 December 2011 Julian Assange’s legal team

will seek leave to appeal two points of law of general importance for consideration by the UK Supreme Court.

They are interesting points actually

1) Whether a European Arrest Warrant issued by a partisan prosecutor working for the executive (i.e. not an independent judge or investigating magistrate in the civil law system) is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a "judicial authority" within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003? This point argues that the decision goes against parliamentary intent in the 2003 Extradition Act.

2) Whether a person in respect of whom no decision to prosecute has been taken can be said to be ’accused’ within the meaning of sections 2(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003?

So the UK Supreme Court will look into whether an Aussie accused of a crime in Sweden can be extradited?

[midas]

Doesn't bode well for him to get any assistance when the PM has already made up her mind.

Well even if Australia's Prime Minister doesn't go out of her way to help him, thank goodness for some decent

journalists like Guy Rundle of the Sydney Morning Herald who in this article reveals some very

interesting facts about the condom and some rather intriguing ' relationships ' between the accusers and individuals from the Swedish

authorities that I have never seen covered in the mainstream media before

http://www.smh.com.a...1001-1l2lt.html

How interesting, that article now appears to have been taken down. It obviously touched a few raw nerves.

if you are referring to Guy Rundle's article I just clicked the link and it worked ok for me?

You should keep trying because that article has everything to show what a farce the whole thing is

[midas]

On the 24 November 2011 the British Parliament will hold a debate on extradition. Members of the public have been writing to their local MPs to urge them to raise the 1st point of law regarding ’judicial authority’ in the Julian Assange appeal. This point is particularly relevant for parliamentary discussion because the judgement against Julian Assange goes against parliamentary intention behind the 2003 Extradition Act.

And in open court, at the Royal Courts of Justice on 5 December 2011 Julian Assange’s legal team

will seek leave to appeal two points of law of general importance for consideration by the UK Supreme Court.

They are interesting points actually

1) Whether a European Arrest Warrant issued by a partisan prosecutor working for the executive (i.e. not an independent judge or investigating magistrate in the civil law system) is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a "judicial authority" within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003? This point argues that the decision goes against parliamentary intent in the 2003 Extradition Act.

2) Whether a person in respect of whom no decision to prosecute has been taken can be said to be ’accused’ within the meaning of sections 2(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003?

So the UK Supreme Court will look into whether an Aussie accused of a crime in Sweden can be extradited?

" Julian Assange, as he was was living in London on a six month visa at the time of his arrest, was therefore subject to the EAW for his alleged crime in Sweden regardless of his country of birth or official country of domicile. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8864379/European-Arrest-Warrant-the-device-that-Julian-Assange-cannot-beat.html