Ulysses G. Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Not sure what difference it would make where he is when he answers questions. Probably because it is easier to slap him in cuffs and throw him in the clink after he answers the questions in Sweden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The ones that he is refusing to go to Sweden and answer questions about. I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it. Please tell me what charges? a link to anything showing he has been charged. Again, the warrant is for questioning over allegations. No charges have been laid. Mr. Assange, attempted to elude the investigators that were fulfilling their mandate in respect to allegations of Mr. Assange having been implicated in a sex crime. The ability of a court to enable the detention of a prime suspect in a case is accepted in the UK as well as Sweden. Although Mr. Assange has the legal right not to incriminate himself, he does not have the legal right to refuse to meet with investigators. If Mr. assange is not guilty of anything and a poor innocent soul, the Swedish courts will set him free and he can go back to using that chip on his shoulder to get even with all of his perceived tormentors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The ones that he is refusing to go to Sweden and answer questions about. I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it. Please tell me what charges? a link to anything showing he has been charged. Again, the warrant is for questioning over allegations. No charges have been laid. So the obvious reason Assamge doesn't want to return to Sweden is because the answers that he has for those questions will lead to him being charged with a crime. Sure sounds the same as being guilty. I mean, obviously the man has nothing to hide. HOW could he? He has become famous by shedding light on the secrets of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAZZELL Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Seen him a number of times...arrogant <deleted>. And as for his "supporters" RAZZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The ones that he is refusing to go to Sweden and answer questions about. I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it. Please tell me what charges? a link to anything showing he has been charged. Again, the warrant is for questioning over allegations. No charges have been laid. So the obvious reason Assamge doesn't want to return to Sweden is because the answers that he has for those questions will lead to him being charged with a crime. Sure sounds the same as being guilty. I mean, obviously the man has nothing to hide. HOW could he? He has become famous by shedding light on the secrets of others. Here we go again. Assange does NOT have to answer any questions. It is every persons right to not answer questions. The proper forum is for the matter to be determined in court, not in the media and not to prosecutors but to a judge and/or jury. I have seen many cases of people being charged with crimes where they have had nothing to do with it and every lawyer worth his/her salt will tell the client NOT to answer anything. Only fools answer questions whether they are guilty or not and every judge in my country stresses to a jury that they cannot infer guilt simply because a person exercises their right to silence, even when they refuse to give evidence in their own trial. It is up to the prosecution to prove the case, not Assange to prove innocence. Assange has repeatedly said he will answer questions from the prosecutors but will not return to Sweden to do so. He was charged relating to this incident before and those charges were dropped. He told authorities he was leaving the country and they had no reason to detain him or question him so he left. It is completely his perogative, whether he answers anything and I would be telling him to say nothing and let Sweden go with what they have, which isn't much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The ones that he is refusing to go to Sweden and answer questions about. I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it. Please tell me what charges? a link to anything showing he has been charged. Again, the warrant is for questioning over allegations. No charges have been laid. Mr. Assange, attempted to elude the investigators that were fulfilling their mandate in respect to allegations of Mr. Assange having been implicated in a sex crime. The ability of a court to enable the detention of a prime suspect in a case is accepted in the UK as well as Sweden. Although Mr. Assange has the legal right not to incriminate himself, he does not have the legal right to refuse to meet with investigators. If Mr. assange is not guilty of anything and a poor innocent soul, the Swedish courts will set him free and he can go back to using that chip on his shoulder to get even with all of his perceived tormentors. That is correct but what I think he fears is that in Sweden he can be held in custody as long as they like as he cannot apply for bail. For that fact alone, as well as the trial being in secret, I would think anyone in those circumstances would not wish to return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Not sure what difference it would make where he is when he answers questions. Probably because it is easier to slap him in cuffs and throw him in the clink after he answers the questions in Sweden. He doesn't have to answer anything. I would have thought it easier to have a warrant issued for actual charges. But then again, if the evidence is very weak they wouldn't allow an extradition. Easier to get a warrant just for questioning then when in Sweden they can charge him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 <br>I have seen many cases of people being charged with crimes where they have had nothing to do with it and every lawyer worth his/her salt will tell the client NOT to answer anything. Only fools answer questions whether they are guilty or not and every judge in my country stresses to a jury that they cannot infer guilt simply because a person exercises their right to silence, even when they refuse to give evidence in their own trial. It is up to the prosecution to prove the case, not Assange to prove innocence.<br><br><br><br>So when the police want to bring someone in for questioning, any lawyer "worth his/her salt" will tell his client NOT to go with the police? I would be surprised if that were true. <br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) <br>I have seen many cases of people being charged with crimes where they have had nothing to do with it and every lawyer worth his/her salt will tell the client NOT to answer anything. Only fools answer questions whether they are guilty or not and every judge in my country stresses to a jury that they cannot infer guilt simply because a person exercises their right to silence, even when they refuse to give evidence in their own trial. It is up to the prosecution to prove the case, not Assange to prove innocence.<br><br><br><br>So when the police want to bring someone in for questioning, any lawyer "worth his/her salt" will tell his client NOT to go with the police? I would be surprised if that were true. <br> Do you guys ever read any of the links posted here? The whole Sweden thing is a sham. Nobody says he doesn't have to go with the police, but the procedure after events which Wallaby has accurately written down would be that if further questioning was required AFTER any charges had been dropped then the Swedish police would travel to the UK and ask those questions. With the risk of indeterminate jail waiting a trial, a trial held in secret (WHY!!) and the possibility of extradition to the US to face 50 years on some make believe espionage charges would YOU want to go to Sweden? Documents have already been released showing that one of the women making the complaint was told to do so by police, the other woman offered as evidence of the crime a torn condom 2 weeks after the event !!! the condom had no sperm or any other evidence of DNA on it. The condom should be a DNA treasure trove. The very shady situation surrounding the entire thing is all well documented and out there provided by good investigative journalists, so go and read it and try and be objective before just sitting there endlessly pressing the 'spouting off button'. I don't like Assange, I also think he is a <deleted> but does that give anyone the right to create allegations of sexual crimes against him?? In the unlikely event he is found guilty of anything in Sweden it sets a very scary precedent for everyone. The woman lodging one complaint is effectively saying they had sex quite a few times and slept together quite a few times, but one morning he made love to her without asking!!! Have you and your girlfriend/wife ever made love in the morning spontaneously without any words whilst awakening from sleep? These were all consensual partners! Why did the prosecutors and police let Assange go without charge!! Go and read the links provided, go and read the connection between the Female rights activist lawyer now trying to prosecute and the "victims". I just can't believe that some of you comment the way you do if you had taken the time to look at BOTH sides of what is going on. Even those hanging off the edge of the extreme right would think 'mmmm i smell a rotten fish'. And Koheestl you have done the normal Thai Visa spout off. Wallaby said a lawyer would tell their clients NOT to answer questions. That is their legal right. You have changed that to say NOT to go with the police. There is a massive difference between the two in both meaning and legality. Why do you twist things completely out of meaning and context? Edited December 21, 2011 by GentlemanJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 As for putting people in harms way, I believe most people in a position to comment in the US have stated no one has been compromised because of those leaks. That is incorrect. Plenty of people in a position to know have said that a number of sources have been compromised. Well don't just say it's incorrect, give some names of those who have said so. With the exception of those baying for blood like Palin Clinton etc, who has said, from an objective impartial viewpoint that sources have been compromised? Compromised here does not mean they have suffered embarrassment or inconvenience, but their lives genuinely endangered? I know of only one person who has claimed such a thing an Ethiopian Journalist who wanted asylum from Ethiopia as he feared what the regime may do to him as he had been named. So name "plenty of people in a position to know". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) There is this for starters. (CNN) -- More than 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables are now available in full and unfiltered online, exposing scores of U.S. diplomatic sources and informants that were meant to be protected often for their own safety, according to the website WikiLeaks.http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/08/31/wikileaks.security.lapse/index.html Edited December 21, 2011 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Why do you twist things completely out of meaning and context? That is exactly what I was wondering as I read your spin job on Assange's legal problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 There is this for starters. (CNN) -- More than 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables are now available in full and unfiltered online, exposing scores of U.S. diplomatic sources and informants that were meant to be protected often for their own safety, according to the website WikiLeaks.http://edition.cnn.c...apse/index.html Great article and does not answer the question. You made a statement saying That is incorrect. Plenty of people in a position to know have said that a number of sources have been compromised. I asked you, with the exception of those baying for blood such as Palin and Clinton, name some of those "plenty of people". All your link does is actually detract from the responsibility of Assange. As is well known, the real culprit in all of this is a guy called David Leigh from the Guardian Newspaper. He PUBLISHED the password to the encrypted files belonging to wiki. Within hours of that publication the hackers had located the files, used the passwords and ...bingo 250 000 fils were online. This is also pretty well summarized in the article you linked to, have you read it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 This will be the end of off-topic discussions on this thread. Assange's legal problem in this thread has to do with Sweden. It does not have to do with Wikileaks and the cables that were released. In due time I am sure a news item will come along pertaining to the cables. If you want to be around to post in it, I suggest you stay on-topic and treat other posters in a civil manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 <br>I have seen many cases of people being charged with crimes where they have had nothing to do with it and every lawyer worth his/her salt will tell the client NOT to answer anything. Only fools answer questions whether they are guilty or not and every judge in my country stresses to a jury that they cannot infer guilt simply because a person exercises their right to silence, even when they refuse to give evidence in their own trial. It is up to the prosecution to prove the case, not Assange to prove innocence.<br><br><br><br>So when the police want to bring someone in for questioning, any lawyer "worth his/her salt" will tell his client NOT to go with the police? I would be surprised if that were true. <br> Well yes, sort of. If he is under arrest then he must go with the police, of course. But he still should not answer any questions and he is not under any obligation to answer questions. You don't have to 'accompany police to the station just because they ask. I went out with a girl some years ago who's father had decided to fake his own death about 5 years previous, unbeknownst to me. He was caught and charged. Detectives called me and the conversation was this...... I want to talk to you about ...... I don't want to discuss it with you You have to No I don't have to. You do because I'm telling you that you have to. No I don't and I won't. I'll get a summons for you to appear in court and you can answer to the judge That is a matter for you. But I will then be a crown witness, and you won't be able to cross examine your own witness so I'm happy to tell the court what I know, and you'll just have to wear it as it is. I never heard from him again. Shortly after that I never heard from the girl again either, glad to get out of that one unscathed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The ones that he is refusing to go to Sweden and answer questions about. At 9.27 minutes in the interview with Malou Von Sivers on Swedish TV he said he stayed on in Sweden for 5 weeks and he made several attempts during that time to meet with the prosecutors in Sweden. But at that point the prosecution had been dropped and was only revived again after a Swedish politician involved himself in the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) The ones that he is refusing to go to Sweden and answer questions about. At 9.27 minutes in the interview with Malou Von Sivers on Swedish TV he said he stayed on in Sweden for 5 weeks and he made several attempts during that time to meet with the prosecutors in Sweden. But at that point the prosecution had been dropped and was only revived again after a Swedish politician involved himself in the case. Midas here is an interesting collection of facts concerning Assange's accuser, what she has been up to and who she is connected to. The smell of fish is getting stronger. I am sure you will appreciate it but recommend that anyone commenting on this thread also reads it. 5 mins of your time for some perspective. Assange Accuser Worked with US-Funded, CIA-Tied Anti-Castro Group There is also a rather large scandal brewing about the people who decided to re-instate the prosecution. Claes Borgstrom a former politician and his now business partner Thomas Bodstrom (now living in the USA) who was the Swedish Justice Minister who approved the rendition (bypassing normal protocols) of two men in Sweden to Gitmo. Both of them have the new prosecutor Marianne Ny in their pocket. One of the accusers is a high ranking official alongside Borgstrom in a right wing Christian Political organization. The smell is getting stronger. Thanks to snagglepuss! v1. The original prosecutor in charge, Eva Finné, dropped the charges the same week they were made and stated they were groundless.3. Eva Finné was removed from the case by Claes Borgström and a new prosecutor, Marianne Ny, was appointed. Her first act was to reinstate the charges. 4. Claes Borgström is a former politician. His law partner is Thomas Bodström. Thomas Bodström is Sweden’s former Minister of Justice. 5. Thomas Bodström is currently in the USA. One could assume he is communicating and coordinating things with his partner back in Sweden. 6. It is Swedish protocol not to release the names of people accused of rape until after a conviction. The Swedish prosecutors office claims they have “no idea” how Assange’s name was leaked. 7. Normally Swedish media will not publish an accused’s name until after a conviction. Swedish media is controlled by a single ruling class family named Bonnier who work closely with local politicians to protect their media monopoly. 8. Claes Borgström’s two sisters, Annette Kullenberg and Kerstin Vinterhed, both work for Bonnier family newspapers. 9. Anna Ardin and Thomas Bodström are high ranking members of the right wing Christian political organization “Socialdemokrat-Brödraskapet”. 10. Claes Borgström is a right wing politician whose push for larger big brother powers for the Swedish state were leaked by Wikileaks. Edited December 21, 2011 by GentlemanJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Yet another conspiracy theory to add to the list. Edited December 21, 2011 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Yet another conspiracy theory to add to the list. There is no conspiracy theory, it is a list of factual information. You make of it what you will, i never mentioned Conspiracy theories. In general you can see so much more if you are brave enough to take the blinkers off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Let's not bait other posters with personal comments. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Limit your responses to their opinion. Edited December 21, 2011 by Scott changed per PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) The ones that he is refusing to go to Sweden and answer questions about. At 9.27 minutes in the interview with Malou Von Sivers on Swedish TV he said he stayed on in Sweden for 5 weeks and he made several attempts during that time to meet with the prosecutors in Sweden. But at that point the prosecution had been dropped and was only revived again after a Swedish politician involved himself in the case. Midas here is an interesting collection of facts concerning Assange's accuser, what she has been up to and who she is connected to. The smell of fish is getting stronger. I am sure you will appreciate it but recommend that anyone commenting on this thread also reads it. 5 mins of your time for some perspective. Assange Accuser Worked with US-Funded, CIA-Tied Anti-Castro Group There is also a rather large scandal brewing about the people who decided to re-instate the prosecution. Claes Borgstrom a former politician and his now business partner Thomas Bodstrom (now living in the USA) who was the Swedish Justice Minister who approved the rendition (bypassing normal protocols) of two men in Sweden to Gitmo. Both of them have the new prosecutor Marianne Ny in their pocket. One of the accusers is a high ranking official alongside Borgstrom in a right wing Christian Political organization. The smell is getting stronger. Thanks to snagglepuss! v1. The original prosecutor in charge, Eva Finné, dropped the charges the same week they were made and stated they were groundless.3. Eva Finné was removed from the case by Claes Borgström and a new prosecutor, Marianne Ny, was appointed. Her first act was to reinstate the charges. 4. Claes Borgström is a former politician. His law partner is Thomas Bodström. Thomas Bodström is Sweden’s former Minister of Justice. 5. Thomas Bodström is currently in the USA. One could assume he is communicating and coordinating things with his partner back in Sweden. 6. It is Swedish protocol not to release the names of people accused of rape until after a conviction. The Swedish prosecutors office claims they have “no idea” how Assange’s name was leaked. 7. Normally Swedish media will not publish an accused’s name until after a conviction. Swedish media is controlled by a single ruling class family named Bonnier who work closely with local politicians to protect their media monopoly. 8. Claes Borgström’s two sisters, Annette Kullenberg and Kerstin Vinterhed, both work for Bonnier family newspapers. 9. Anna Ardin and Thomas Bodström are high ranking members of the right wing Christian political organization “Socialdemokrat-Brödraskapet”. 10. Claes Borgström is a right wing politician whose push for larger big brother powers for the Swedish state were leaked by Wikileaks. Gentleman Jim quite frankly it's mind-boggling isn’t it. But at least the way the new Supreme Court in the United Kingdom operates and presents itself is more encouraging than the way old House of Lords would have handled it. The new court appears to be much more open and even has an interesting website and every decision with an analysis is subsequently posted in detail on the website after each case. When the seven justices deliberate in February I'm hoping little gems like this ( from the article you posted ) will be able to be presented to them by the very capable and articulate Geoffrey Robertson QC . “Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. Edited December 21, 2011 by midas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 here is an interesting collection of facts concerning Assange's accuser, what she has been up to and who she is connected to. The smell of fish is getting stronger. I am sure you will appreciate it but recommend that anyone commenting on this thread also reads it. 5 mins of your time for some perspective. Assange Accuser Worked with US-Funded, CIA-Tied Anti-Castro Group There is also a rather large scandal brewing about the people who decided to re-instate the prosecution. Claes Borgstrom a former politician and his now business partner Thomas Bodstrom (now living in the USA) who was the Swedish Justice Minister who approved the rendition (bypassing normal protocols) of two men in Sweden to Gitmo. Both of them have the new prosecutor Marianne Ny in their pocket. One of the accusers is a high ranking official alongside Borgstrom in a right wing Christian Political organization. The smell is getting stronger. Thanks to snagglepuss! v1. The original prosecutor in charge, Eva Finné, dropped the charges the same week they were made and stated they were groundless.3. Eva Finné was removed from the case by Claes Borgström and a new prosecutor, Marianne Ny, was appointed. Her first act was to reinstate the charges. 4. Claes Borgström is a former politician. His law partner is Thomas Bodström. Thomas Bodström is Sweden’s former Minister of Justice. 5. Thomas Bodström is currently in the USA. One could assume he is communicating and coordinating things with his partner back in Sweden. 6. It is Swedish protocol not to release the names of people accused of rape until after a conviction. The Swedish prosecutors office claims they have “no idea” how Assange’s name was leaked. 7. Normally Swedish media will not publish an accused’s name until after a conviction. Swedish media is controlled by a single ruling class family named Bonnier who work closely with local politicians to protect their media monopoly. 8. Claes Borgström’s two sisters, Annette Kullenberg and Kerstin Vinterhed, both work for Bonnier family newspapers. 9. Anna Ardin and Thomas Bodström are high ranking members of the right wing Christian political organization “Socialdemokrat-Brödraskapet”. 10. Claes Borgström is a right wing politician whose push for larger big brother powers for the Swedish state were leaked by Wikileaks. What is that list supposed to prove? That there is some sort of conspiracy against Assange? There is more convincing "proof" and "evidence" that Assange is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 here is an interesting collection of facts concerning Assange's accuser, what she has been up to and who she is connected to. The smell of fish is getting stronger. I am sure you will appreciate it but recommend that anyone commenting on this thread also reads it. 5 mins of your time for some perspective. Assange Accuser Worked with US-Funded, CIA-Tied Anti-Castro Group There is also a rather large scandal brewing about the people who decided to re-instate the prosecution. Claes Borgstrom a former politician and his now business partner Thomas Bodstrom (now living in the USA) who was the Swedish Justice Minister who approved the rendition (bypassing normal protocols) of two men in Sweden to Gitmo. Both of them have the new prosecutor Marianne Ny in their pocket. One of the accusers is a high ranking official alongside Borgstrom in a right wing Christian Political organization. The smell is getting stronger. Thanks to snagglepuss! v1. The original prosecutor in charge, Eva Finné, dropped the charges the same week they were made and stated they were groundless.3. Eva Finné was removed from the case by Claes Borgström and a new prosecutor, Marianne Ny, was appointed. Her first act was to reinstate the charges. 4. Claes Borgström is a former politician. His law partner is Thomas Bodström. Thomas Bodström is Sweden’s former Minister of Justice. 5. Thomas Bodström is currently in the USA. One could assume he is communicating and coordinating things with his partner back in Sweden. 6. It is Swedish protocol not to release the names of people accused of rape until after a conviction. The Swedish prosecutors office claims they have “no idea” how Assange’s name was leaked. 7. Normally Swedish media will not publish an accused’s name until after a conviction. Swedish media is controlled by a single ruling class family named Bonnier who work closely with local politicians to protect their media monopoly. 8. Claes Borgström’s two sisters, Annette Kullenberg and Kerstin Vinterhed, both work for Bonnier family newspapers. 9. Anna Ardin and Thomas Bodström are high ranking members of the right wing Christian political organization “Socialdemokrat-Brödraskapet”. 10. Claes Borgström is a right wing politician whose push for larger big brother powers for the Swedish state were leaked by Wikileaks. What is that list supposed to prove? That there is some sort of conspiracy against Assange? There is more convincing "proof" and "evidence" that Assange is guilty. It is merely a list of facts, where have I mentioned a conspiracy? Can you provide the list of "more convincing proof and evidence that Assange is guilty", I would really like it. I am objective and interested in knowing the truth, I would really like that evidence and truth, please point me in the right direction or print it here. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 One off-topic, emoticon only post has been removed. If you have nothing to say, then don't say anything. Your less likely to get in trouble that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 " THE former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and dozens of public figures have called on the Foreign Affairs Minister, Kevin Rudd, to ensure the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is protected from ''rendition'' to the US. They warn that if Assange is extradited from Britain to Sweden, where he may face rape and sexual assault charges, he could then be handed over to the US, where prosecutors are considering criminal charges against him following the release of confidential cables." http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/rudd-urged-to-protect-assange-20111218-1p0vl.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) here is an interesting collection of facts concerning Assange's accuser, what she has been up to and who she is connected to. The smell of fish is getting stronger. I am sure you will appreciate it but recommend that anyone commenting on this thread also reads it. 5 mins of your time for some perspective. Assange Accuser Worked with US-Funded, CIA-Tied Anti-Castro Group There is also a rather large scandal brewing about the people who decided to re-instate the prosecution. Claes Borgstrom a former politician and his now business partner Thomas Bodstrom (now living in the USA) who was the Swedish Justice Minister who approved the rendition (bypassing normal protocols) of two men in Sweden to Gitmo. Both of them have the new prosecutor Marianne Ny in their pocket. One of the accusers is a high ranking official alongside Borgstrom in a right wing Christian Political organization. The smell is getting stronger. Thanks to snagglepuss! v1. The original prosecutor in charge, Eva Finné, dropped the charges the same week they were made and stated they were groundless.3. Eva Finné was removed from the case by Claes Borgström and a new prosecutor, Marianne Ny, was appointed. Her first act was to reinstate the charges. 4. Claes Borgström is a former politician. His law partner is Thomas Bodström. Thomas Bodström is Sweden’s former Minister of Justice. 5. Thomas Bodström is currently in the USA. One could assume he is communicating and coordinating things with his partner back in Sweden. 6. It is Swedish protocol not to release the names of people accused of rape until after a conviction. The Swedish prosecutors office claims they have “no idea” how Assange’s name was leaked. 7. Normally Swedish media will not publish an accused’s name until after a conviction. Swedish media is controlled by a single ruling class family named Bonnier who work closely with local politicians to protect their media monopoly. 8. Claes Borgström’s two sisters, Annette Kullenberg and Kerstin Vinterhed, both work for Bonnier family newspapers. 9. Anna Ardin and Thomas Bodström are high ranking members of the right wing Christian political organization “Socialdemokrat-Brödraskapet”. 10. Claes Borgström is a right wing politician whose push for larger big brother powers for the Swedish state were leaked by Wikileaks. What is that list supposed to prove? That there is some sort of conspiracy against Assange? There is more convincing "proof" and "evidence" that Assange is guilty. Good grief then you appear to be in possession of "proof" and "evidence" the prosecution dont even have otherwise they would have charged him by now. Anyway thank goodness the UK Supreme Court is involved because his lawyers can now present information in those 2 days that the first two court hearings were never able to even consider or hear so he has a much better chance of Justice now. Edited December 22, 2011 by midas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Justice is exactly what the women who have accused him are due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) " THE former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and dozens of public figures have called on the Foreign Affairs Minister, Kevin Rudd, to ensure the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is protected from ''rendition'' to the US. They warn that if Assange is extradited from Britain to Sweden, where he may face rape and sexual assault charges, he could then be handed over to the US, where prosecutors are considering criminal charges against him following the release of confidential cables." http://www.smh.com.a...1218-1p0vl.html The following lifted from your link... "Private Bradley Manning, who leaked the thousands of secret cables, faced the first day of a preliminary hearing on Friday to determine whether he should be court-martialled over the leaks." Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1hFAumoxj It would seem the Sydney Morning Herald has little doubt where the stolen classified material originated. They didn't even used "allegedly" leaked. The rest of the article is utter nonsense. Former PM Malcolm Fraser seems to have little regard for the Swedish justice system. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. Edited December 22, 2011 by chuckd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Justice is exactly what the women who have accused him are due. sorry to dissapoint you but I dont think the new UK Supreme Court being only 2 years old will want to tarnish its international image by sending him to a country that is described as follows :- " A trial at the European Court of Human Rights would probably draw attention to Sweden - and change perception that has prevailed internationally of Sweden as a state governed by the Rule of Law. The perception of Sweden as a lawless country of the Wild West as the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Justice described it will spread in the international media and law journals. It would take many years to wash away that label." Althin and Schultz, DN, 26 October 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 " THE former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and dozens of public figures have called on the Foreign Affairs Minister, Kevin Rudd, to ensure the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is protected from ''rendition'' to the US. They warn that if Assange is extradited from Britain to Sweden, where he may face rape and sexual assault charges, he could then be handed over to the US, where prosecutors are considering criminal charges against him following the release of confidential cables." http://www.smh.com.a...1218-1p0vl.html The following lifted from your link... "Private Bradley Manning, who leaked the thousands of secret cables, faced the first day of a preliminary hearing on Friday to determine whether he should be court-martialled over the leaks." Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1hFAumoxj It would seem the Sydney Morning Herald has little doubt where the stolen classified material originated. They didn't even used "allegedly" leaked. The rest of the article is utter nonsense. Former PM Malcolm Fraser seems to have little regard for the Swedish justice system. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. As to who is sane or insane in this matter purely comes down to personal values and beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts