Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[Wallaby]

" 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.

Chuck I don't think anyone is even suggesting Manning didn't steal the documents. Well I'm not anyway. The question really comes down to whether Assange was coercing Manning to provide the information. If he did that then he is in a heap of sh....

Malcolm Fraser is not the only person of note in my country that has little regard for a justice system that does not allow a bail application and holds trials in secret. That's just asking for trouble as justice must also be 'seen' to be done, no matter which way it goes.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Wallaby

[Ulysses G.]

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

Many apologies, but I do not think that your opinion of what the Supreme Court will do or will not do is going to affect their decision on the case in any manner. We will have to wait for the ruling like everyone else.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[GentlemanJim]

Justice is exactly what the women who have accused him are due.

I hope so, and also hope that if all of the information out there is true and that this is all a fabrication, then the women do receive justice by being locked up for a long time and that the Swedish Justice system is fined many millions for breaking it's strict privacy rules.

[Scott]

One post deleted and the posters can voluntarily stop sniping at one another, or I can assist you.

Up to you.

[chuckd]

" 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.

Chuck I don't think anyone is even suggesting Manning didn't steal the documents. Well I'm not anyway. The question really comes down to whether Assange was coercing Manning to provide the information. If he did that then he is in a heap of sh....

Malcolm Fraser is not the only person of note in my country that has little regard for a justice system that does not allow a bail application and holds trials in secret. That's just asking for trouble as justice must also be 'seen' to be done, no matter which way it goes.

Then my only suggestion is for the citizens of your country not travel to Sweden, particularly if they are up to no good. Assange knew full well he was a target of the US government when he traveled there, having already received and distributed the stolen property.

I spent 30 years of my life in places that don't exactly follow the rule of law as practiced in your country. I never had a problem but, then, I knew what I could do legally and what was illegal and I didn't step across the line.

As brilliant as so many people claim him to be, I find him incredibly stupid to have done what he did and not expect some repercussions. He, and he alone, is responsible for this fine mess.

[GentlemanJim]

As brilliant as so many people claim him to be, I find him incredibly stupid to have done what he did and not expect some repercussions

What? Have consensual sex with two women? One was a regular sleeping partner the woman was making love with him in the morning having slept together (she even threw a big party for him in the same evening after 'the event', saying how cool and great he was, she posted it all over facebook) and several days later complains that it was consensual with a condom and the condom broke so it was not consensual. Two weeks later she produced the condom as evidence, it had no DNA or sperm on it. Just what was Assange doing to be 'up to no good'?? He never fled the country, he was there for 5 weeks after but the official prosecuter said there was no case to answer. I often wonder how many people met their innocent demise at the hands of a lynch mob in the USA.

[koheesti]

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?

It isn't out of context. In my country the lawyer tells the client that he doesn't have to say anything usually while the police are present. A client/suspect/"person of interest" cannot simply avoid the police if they want him for questioning. They can try to hide (which is what Assange is doing) but when the police find them they bring them "downtown" for questioning. Here the clients asks for his lawyer and is advised by his lawyer not to say anything. At least that's how they have been doing it on TV the past 45 years.

[koheesti]

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.

The admissible evidence in court against Assange is the first hand testimony of two women. The "evidence" on the list of facts is nothing but, "A works for B, B knows/owns C therefore A & C are working together in secret". Gimme a break.

Edited December 22, 2011 by koheesti

[GentlemanJim]

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?

It isn't out of context. In my country the lawyer tells the client that he doesn't have to say anything usually while the police are present. A client/suspect/"person of interest" cannot simply avoid the police if they want him for questioning. They can try to hide (which is what Assange is doing) but when the police find them they bring them "downtown" for questioning. Here the clients asks for his lawyer and is advised by his lawyer not to say anything. At least that's how they have been doing it on TV the past 45 years.

So what is your point? As I said nobody has mentioned telling Assange or anyone not to go to the police, those were your words when you interpreted Wallabies post. Wallaby said 'not to answer questions'.

You say Assange is hiding, he is not, you forget he was in Sweden for a long time after these allegations and the public prosecutor said 'no case to answer', there was no legal justification for him to return all the way back to Sweden for police questioning, the normal protocol would have been swedish police to travel to the UK and question him there. IF the public prosecutor in Sweden then decided there was enough evidence to press charges then charges would have been legally issued, and Assange requested to go to Sweden, if he refused then an arrest warrant would have been issued and requests for extradition made.

[chuckd]

As brilliant as so many people claim him to be, I find him incredibly stupid to have done what he did and not expect some repercussions

What? Have consensual sex with two women? One was a regular sleeping partner the woman was making love with him in the morning having slept together (she even threw a big party for him in the same evening after 'the event', saying how cool and great he was, she posted it all over facebook) and several days later complains that it was consensual with a condom and the condom broke so it was not consensual. Two weeks later she produced the condom as evidence, it had no DNA or sperm on it. Just what was Assange doing to be 'up to no good'?? He never fled the country, he was there for 5 weeks after but the official prosecuter said there was no case to answer. I often wonder how many people met their innocent demise at the hands of a lynch mob in the USA.

Yeah, he should have known the consequences. If the laws are as severe as those in Sweden he should have kept his pants zipped up and slept alone. Perhaps he was set up but, by your own train of thought, the sex was consensual and as the old saying goes..."It takes two to tango."

As far as your last ditch effort to slay the dragon and blast the US, I would hardly call this a lynch mob. It has taken two years or so and they haven't been able to get him to even answer any questions.

I don't like the guy because he is a thief and a user. My personal sentiments about him are well published so don't expect to get any sympathy from me for the situation he finds himself involved with.

[chuckd]

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?

It isn't out of context. In my country the lawyer tells the client that he doesn't have to say anything usually while the police are present. A client/suspect/"person of interest" cannot simply avoid the police if they want him for questioning. They can try to hide (which is what Assange is doing) but when the police find them they bring them "downtown" for questioning. Here the clients asks for his lawyer and is advised by his lawyer not to say anything. At least that's how they have been doing it on TV the past 45 years.

So what is your point? As I said nobody has mentioned telling Assange or anyone not to go to the police, those were your words when you interpreted Wallabies post. Wallaby said 'not to answer questions'.

You say Assange is hiding, he is not, you forget he was in Sweden for a long time after these allegations and the public prosecutor said 'no case to answer', there was no legal justification for him to return all the way back to Sweden for police questioning, the normal protocol would have been swedish police to travel to the UK and question him there. IF the public prosecutor in Sweden then decided there was enough evidence to press charges then charges would have been legally issued, and Assange requested to go to Sweden, if he refused then an arrest warrant would have been issued and requests for extradition made.

Ah, but you see, GJ, a warrant was issued by Swedish authorities and extradition was requested by Sweden of the UK authorities.

Do you think he is fighting a simple request to go to Sweden?

He is fighting an extradition order issued by the UK in favor of Sweden.

[midas]

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?

It isn't out of context. In my country the lawyer tells the client that he doesn't have to say anything usually while the police are present. A client/suspect/"person of interest" cannot simply avoid the police if they want him for questioning. They can try to hide (which is what Assange is doing) but when the police find them they bring them "downtown" for questioning. Here the clients asks for his lawyer and is advised by his lawyer not to say anything. At least that's how they have been doing it on TV the past 45 years.

So what is your point? As I said nobody has mentioned telling Assange or anyone not to go to the police, those were your words when you interpreted Wallabies post. Wallaby said 'not to answer questions'.

You say Assange is hiding, he is not, you forget he was in Sweden for a long time after these allegations and the public prosecutor said 'no case to answer', there was no legal justification for him to return all the way back to Sweden for police questioning, the normal protocol would have been swedish police to travel to the UK and question him there. IF the public prosecutor in Sweden then decided there was enough evidence to press charges then charges would have been legally issued, and Assange requested to go to Sweden, if he refused then an arrest warrant would have been issued and requests for extradition made.

Ah, but you see, GJ, a warrant was issued by Swedish authorities and extradition was requested by Sweden of the UK authorities.

Do you think he is fighting a simple request to go to Sweden?

He is fighting an extradition order issued by the UK in favor of Sweden.

Ah, but you see even David Blunkett, former Home Secretary ( i.e. the Minister in charge of police etc ) is against what

is happening in this case and even took part in the most recent Parliamentary debate against sending Julian Assange

to Sweden.

He said " When we agreed to the system we believed that people would act rationally "

There is nothing rational about an arrest warrant when even the prosecution admit they

don't have enough evidence

[Wallaby]

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?

It isn't out of context. In my country the lawyer tells the client that he doesn't have to say anything usually while the police are present. A client/suspect/"person of interest" cannot simply avoid the police if they want him for questioning. They can try to hide (which is what Assange is doing) but when the police find them they bring them "downtown" for questioning. Here the clients asks for his lawyer and is advised by his lawyer not to say anything. At least that's how they have been doing it on TV the past 45 years.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you mean that a person can only say nothing if a lawyer is present? Avoid police if they want him for questioning? I'm not being a smartass, just asking if that what you think happens.

Just to explain. A lawyer doesn't have to be present for a person to refuse to answer questions. Usually, if they WANT to answer the lawyer may be there in case the person says anything that the prosecution could use against them.

By the way, Assange isn't hiding and has never hid. He was charged then the charges dropped and he asked prosecutors if he could leave. They said he could. They later said they wanted to question him, he declined (which is totally up to him). They issued a summons for questioning and he said he would answer them via video. Sweden declined and wanted him in Sweden for questioning.

Soooo, he doesn't have to answer any questions, he offered to do so via video, that wasn't enough for the Swedish authorites. I'm not sure why they think questioning him in Sweden would mean he gives different answers, or whether he would be more inclined to answer at all. But it it totally up to him, not the prosecution.

If you think that by police bringing a person 'downtown' means they have to answer anything then you are wrong. It doesn't matter where the person is. It is up to the person whether he wants to go or not. If he refuses to go then the police may arrest him, that would force him to go downtown. But that still doesn't mean he has to answer anything.

Not sure where you are from that would make that any different.

[Wallaby]

" 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.

Chuck I don't think anyone is even suggesting Manning didn't steal the documents. Well I'm not anyway. The question really comes down to whether Assange was coercing Manning to provide the information. If he did that then he is in a heap of sh....

Malcolm Fraser is not the only person of note in my country that has little regard for a justice system that does not allow a bail application and holds trials in secret. That's just asking for trouble as justice must also be 'seen' to be done, no matter which way it goes.

Then my only suggestion is for the citizens of your country not travel to Sweden, particularly if they are up to no good. Assange knew full well he was a target of the US government when he traveled there, having already received and distributed the stolen property.

I spent 30 years of my life in places that don't exactly follow the rule of law as practiced in your country. I never had a problem but, then, I knew what I could do legally and what was illegal and I didn't step across the line.

As brilliant as so many people claim him to be, I find him incredibly stupid to have done what he did and not expect some repercussions. He, and he alone, is responsible for this fine mess.

I don't know about how you travel but as you have been out and about for 30 odd years you would look a certain things you like and dislike or what you want to do and if it is legal. When I travel I take a cursory look at what you can and cannot do but I certainly wouldn't look at whether a broken condom would be considered something you could be charged for rape. Especially if it is consensual. I would think many people wouldn't look at EVERY scenario.

[chuckd]

It isn't out of context. In my country the lawyer tells the client that he doesn't have to say anything usually while the police are present. A client/suspect/"person of interest" cannot simply avoid the police if they want him for questioning. They can try to hide (which is what Assange is doing) but when the police find them they bring them "downtown" for questioning. Here the clients asks for his lawyer and is advised by his lawyer not to say anything. At least that's how they have been doing it on TV the past 45 years.

So what is your point? As I said nobody has mentioned telling Assange or anyone not to go to the police, those were your words when you interpreted Wallabies post. Wallaby said 'not to answer questions'.

You say Assange is hiding, he is not, you forget he was in Sweden for a long time after these allegations and the public prosecutor said 'no case to answer', there was no legal justification for him to return all the way back to Sweden for police questioning, the normal protocol would have been swedish police to travel to the UK and question him there. IF the public prosecutor in Sweden then decided there was enough evidence to press charges then charges would have been legally issued, and Assange requested to go to Sweden, if he refused then an arrest warrant would have been issued and requests for extradition made.

Ah, but you see, GJ, a warrant was issued by Swedish authorities and extradition was requested by Sweden of the UK authorities.

Do you think he is fighting a simple request to go to Sweden?

He is fighting an extradition order issued by the UK in favor of Sweden.

Ah, but you see even David Blunkett, former Home Secretary ( i.e. the Minister in charge of police etc ) is against what

is happening in this case and even took part in the most recent Parliamentary debate against sending Julian Assange

to Sweden.

He said " When we agreed to the system we believed that people would act rationally "

There is nothing rational about an arrest warrant when even the prosecution admit they

don't have enough evidence

Ah, yet again, did Sweden do anything illegal by issuing the request for extradition or did they follow the operative laws in dealing with this matter?

Did the UK act in accordance with the treaty when they ordered the extradition of Assange to Sweden?

Your quote of David Blunkett has no bearing on the law. If the UK authorities "believed" a signed treaty said something other than what it says, perhaps they should not have agreed to the wording prior to signing the treaty.

I do not know specifically what wording he is referring to since you did not provide a link to your source.

[Wallaby]

As brilliant as so many people claim him to be, I find him incredibly stupid to have done what he did and not expect some repercussions

What? Have consensual sex with two women? One was a regular sleeping partner the woman was making love with him in the morning having slept together (she even threw a big party for him in the same evening after 'the event', saying how cool and great he was, she posted it all over facebook) and several days later complains that it was consensual with a condom and the condom broke so it was not consensual. Two weeks later she produced the condom as evidence, it had no DNA or sperm on it. Just what was Assange doing to be 'up to no good'?? He never fled the country, he was there for 5 weeks after but the official prosecuter said there was no case to answer. I often wonder how many people met their innocent demise at the hands of a lynch mob in the USA.

Yeah, he should have known the consequences. If the laws are as severe as those in Sweden he should have kept his pants zipped up and slept alone. Perhaps he was set up but, by your own train of thought, the sex was consensual and as the old saying goes..."It takes two to tango."

As far as your last ditch effort to slay the dragon and blast the US, I would hardly call this a lynch mob. It has taken two years or so and they haven't been able to get him to even answer any questions.

I don't like the guy because he is a thief and a user. My personal sentiments about him are well published so don't expect to get any sympathy from me for the situation he finds himself involved with.

Chuck I don't mean to nitpick but just what has Assange 'stolen'.

[chuckd]

I don't know about how you travel but as you have been out and about for 30 odd years you would look a certain things you like and dislike or what you want to do and if it is legal. When I travel I take a cursory look at what you can and cannot do but I certainly wouldn't look at whether a broken condom would be considered something you could be charged for rape. Especially if it is consensual. I would think many people wouldn't look at EVERY scenario.

A broken condom doesn't mean much to me. At my age, I would rather play golf than have sex anyway.

[chuckd]

As brilliant as so many people claim him to be, I find him incredibly stupid to have done what he did and not expect some repercussions

What? Have consensual sex with two women? One was a regular sleeping partner the woman was making love with him in the morning having slept together (she even threw a big party for him in the same evening after 'the event', saying how cool and great he was, she posted it all over facebook) and several days later complains that it was consensual with a condom and the condom broke so it was not consensual. Two weeks later she produced the condom as evidence, it had no DNA or sperm on it. Just what was Assange doing to be 'up to no good'?? He never fled the country, he was there for 5 weeks after but the official prosecuter said there was no case to answer. I often wonder how many people met their innocent demise at the hands of a lynch mob in the USA.

Yeah, he should have known the consequences. If the laws are as severe as those in Sweden he should have kept his pants zipped up and slept alone. Perhaps he was set up but, by your own train of thought, the sex was consensual and as the old saying goes..."It takes two to tango."

As far as your last ditch effort to slay the dragon and blast the US, I would hardly call this a lynch mob. It has taken two years or so and they haven't been able to get him to even answer any questions.

I don't like the guy because he is a thief and a user. My personal sentiments about him are well published so don't expect to get any sympathy from me for the situation he finds himself involved with.

Chuck I don't mean to nitpick but just what has Assange 'stolen'.

Classified documents which are the property of the US government.

[midas]

chuckd

" Classified documents which are the property of the US government."

But in post 16 you said “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 ” implying there was no link between the two but here you are accusing him of being a theif.

And he was not a thief and it is not half as bad a shooting people in cold blood which is murder and which the US Army was shown as carrying out from the helicopter. That is a much much worse crime than sexual acts and stealing information as you put it.

Edited December 23, 2011 by midas

[chuckd]

chuckd

" Classified documents which are the property of the US government."

But in post 16 you said “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 ” implying there was no link between the two but here you are accusing him of being a theif.

And he was not a thief and it is not half as bad a shooting people in cold blood which is murder and which the US Army was shown as carrying out from the helicopter. That is a much much worse crime than sexual acts and stealing information as you put it.

Sorry, Midas, but you might want to read post #16 again. Just in case you are not able to navigate your way back to it, let me help you out.

Here is post 16 in it's entirety. You will notice we were talking about the rape charges, NOT the stolen property aspect of all this.

________________________________________________________________

Rape is a sexual assault usually involving some kind of sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person will or without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force or with a person who is incapable of giving valid consent.

So how can he or anyone for that matter be charged for rape when these girls have had lot's of sexual intercourse with consent at all times with Assange?

Quote:

According to court documents, after falling asleep, the woman was woken up by Assange's penetration of her. She then asked if he was wearing anything, and after answering that he was not, the woman felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. The statement stated she had never had unprotected sex prior to that encounter, detailing that Assange eventually ejaculated inside of her.

LOL So this girl was asleep at the time his dongle was inside her yeah right on. We are to beleave that she only woke up to the point he was already inside her and penetration was happening! and she was so sleepy she couldn't say get off,no I don't want to do this,or can we do this later I'm tired and as for the condom bit lol.

We in the UK many years ago policed the world and for some reason like money gave it to the USA bad move UK.

this is a case of the USA government trying to get him inside jail anyway they can END OF.

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.

_______________________________________________________________

Now doesn't it make more sense when it is NOT taken out of context?

[Wallaby]

Classified documents which are the property of the US government.

I think you will find he didn't steal anything. Manning stole the documents, not Assange.

And I too would prefer a round of golf.

[Ulysses G.]

Recieving stolen documents is also a crime and there might be proof now.

http://edition.cnn.c...eaks/index.html

[Scott]

I fail to see the relevance of the CIA/Department of State/Department of Defense/Department of Justice involvement in the extradition to Sweden. Is there some reason to belief that if the US wishes to pursue charges that they cannot make their own request directly from the UK?

[Ulysses G.]

You are absolutely correct, but many posters have insisted that the extradition to Sweden is some sort of dastardly plot.

[Scott]

I spent some years working under contracts for the US Department of State. Sweden was one of the countries that was least cooperative with US pressure or bullying. They were not uncooperative, but they are quite independent in their ideas and political pressure just didn't work well with them.

If I were wanted by the US government, I would much rather be safely tucked away in Sweden than sitting in the UK, with that infamous 'special relationship' coming into play.

Of course, my assumption is based on the premise that I have done nothing that is legally questionable in Sweden.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Scott
added

[Ulysses G.]

It would be poetic justice if the UK refused to send him to Sweden and sent him to the U.S. instead.

[koheesti]

If you think that by police bringing a person 'downtown' means they have to answer anything then you are wrong. It doesn't matter where the person is. It is up to the person whether he wants to go or not. If he refuses to go then the police may arrest him, that would force him to go downtown. But that still doesn't mean he has to answer anything.

Which is exactly why Assange is resiting returning to Sweden, he suspects that he will be arrested - although he did nothing wrong.

[midas]

I fail to see the relevance of the CIA/Department of State/Department of Defense/Department of Justice involvement in the extradition to Sweden. Is there some reason to belief that if the US wishes to pursue charges that they cannot make their own request directly from the UK?

yes because of a unique arrangement that exists between Sweden and US ( which does not exist between UK and US ),

Sweden can simply meet a request made by the USA for Assange for a " temporary surrender/conditional release regime "

which is less complicated and less onerous than a normal extradition process.

" Sweden is bound by different extradition agreements. It is not meant to grant onwards extradition to a third country without agreement from the extraditing country. But at the same level of the legal hierarchy there is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests. This is the temporary surrender/conditional release regime - automatic extradition on a loan basis. It is highly likely that the United States will soon request Julian Assange’s extradition from Sweden and this mechanism will be used while Julian Assange is in Swedish custody."

http://www.swedenver...xtradition.html

Edited December 24, 2011 by midas

[chuckd]

Classified documents which are the property of the US government.

I think you will find he didn't steal anything. Manning stole the documents, not Assange.

And I too would prefer a round of golf.

Sorry, I should have been linguistically correct by calling him merely a dealer in stolen documents. Was he a thief when he hacked those sites during his teen-age years and was convicted of that crime?

Haven't played golf in over a year. Forethat convinced me I am a hacker so I stopped going out.

[Scott]

And any unique agreement between the US and Sweden can be not complied with if the Swedish government believes that someones rights will be violated. They are known to be a bit of a stickler on that.