Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder may walk free from London hide-out

[Kerryd]

Love all the misguided (and mostly uninformed) conspiracy theories. Let's look at a few facts shall we ?

Julian Assange is a convicted hacker. In 1996 (long before WikiLeaks) he plead guilty to 25 charges of hacking. He had, at different times, hacked into the Pentagon, The US Navy, Citibank, NASA, various universities and other places. He got off lightly because of "the perceived absence of malicious or mercenary intent and his disrupted childhood." Oh boo hoo what a load of tripe.

Wikileaks started publishing the "Manning Documents" in 2010. Remember that date - 2010. The first 2 sets of docs were released in April and July 2010.

In August 2010 he was wanted in Sweden for questioning regarding allegations of "unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape" allegedly committed against 2 women. (Apparently some people think that the US just "made that all up" on the spur of the moment in order to try and get him arrested - in Sweden of all places - within weeks of the release of those documents. Wait for it though.)

In October 2010 while in Switzerland he told a Swiss TV show that he was considering requesting political asylum in Switzerland or Iceland - not because of fear of supposed US arrest but because he thought those were the only 2 countries where Wikileaks could operate safely. No mention at all about trying to avoid prosecution in Sweden or "imagined" US plots.

In December 2010 Assange was being held in a BRITISH prison after being denied bail at his extradition hearing. (But wait - if the US had trumped up charges in Sweden with the expressed interest of having him arrested and then deported to the US, why didn't they nab him while he was being held in custody by one of their closest allies ?. He was released 9 days later after winning another appeal.

That was on Dec 16, 2010. Remember that date. Dec 16, 2010. (Also note that WikiLeaks had released more documents in Oct and Nov of 2010 including the "Iraq War Logs" and all those Diplomatic cables. Then in April 2011 they released the "Guantanamo Files".) Strangely enough, despite all those additional "leaks", the US apparently didn't make any effort to charge Assange with anything, or try to make up false charges against him in some other country.

On 16 August 2012 he applied for political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why ? Because the Supreme Court in London had ruled that he should be deported to Sweden.

I'm sure all the conspiracy nuts out there will ignore how he was wandering around free for 20 months before suddenly deciding to flee to the Ecuadorian Embassy. I mean after all, if the Americans supposedly have such great control over the Swedish Justice system, surely they must have some "pull" with the UK ? It's not like they couldn't have arranged some undercover sting like when they bagged Bout in Thailand. Did Assange spend that entire time in England ? (Possibly. If he'd travelled anywhere else he'd have risked getting arrested and extradited to Sweden by a country that didn't believe his BS.)

As of May 2014, almost 2 years after Assange started hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy and started the rumours that the Swedish charges were all a plot by the US to have him arrested and extradited, the US still had not filed any charges against him !! (He may however be the subject of ongoing investigations but without formal charges they can't extradite him.)

Hint - That is probably why the US didn't try to extradite him while he was in British custody - because there were no charges against him by the US, period.)

Hint - If there were any charges against him by the US, he would have been arrested in the UK and had an extradition hearing on those charges, just like he did on the Swedish ones.

Hint - In May 2015 (3 months ago) The Swedish Supreme Court rejected Assange's appeal to have the charges dropped. Hmmm, that would have required them to review the allegations and evidence against him, wouldn't it ? Oh right, I forgot. The US apparently controls all aspects of the Swedish Justice system right up to their Supreme Court. I wonder if the Swedes know they are mere puppets of the US ?

BTW - The puppets, er, I mean the Swedes, are being forced to drop the coercion and molestation charges but the rape allegation is still pending (that has another 5 years before it's statute of limitations runs out).

So lets see. He's a (formerly) convicted criminal, fleeing rape and sex assault charges, claiming it's all a plot by the US to have him arrested despite the fact the US has filed no charges against him. He has claimed that the US wants to charge him with treason which by itself should tell you what a pathetic joke he is, as he is Australian, not American, so they can't charge him with Treason. ("In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation.^[1] Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant.")

The only place he faced possible treason charges was in Australia (who examined possible charges against him back in 2010). Obviously nothing has come from that as Australia hasn't filed any charges against him (that I'm aware of). Odd too how I never hear anything from the Australian government about this matter. You'd think they'd have something to say about one of their citizens being holed up in a foreign embassy for so long. Maybe they have issued statements and I've overlooked them which is quite possible.

(I've just did a bit more research and apparently Australia is treating this as they would pretty much any other case of a citizen facing criminal charges. He chose to hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy and the Australian gov't is providing consular assistance as they would to anyone else facing criminal charges. Oh wait, let me guess, they are all puppets of the US gov't as well - isn't that how the conspiracy theory goes ? Anyone who doesn't openly support me is in a conspiracy against me ?)

Of course Assange is also the guy who sent an "open letter" to France telling them that "they are the only country that could protect him from the US" and that if they were to offer him asylum, he'd consider it. <deleted> ? He would "consider it" ? What a load of absolute BS. A truly pathetic attempt to use psychology in the hopes that France would come begging him to accept an offer of asylum, as though he'd be doing them some great "slap in America's face" favour by accepting. (The fact that his ex-wife and 26 y.o. son live in France apparently had nothing to do with his "suggestion" though he did mention them. Maybe in hopes of proving he'd be willing to accept an asylum offer.) (I guess he's also given up the idea of requesting political asylum in Switzerland or Iceland as well.)

That should tell you right there just how this guy thinks. It caused quite a few chuckles (and red faces) when France outright rejected his "proposal".

Of course this is the same guy who (in July 2013) deliberately spread false rumours that Edward Snowden was on a Bolivian airplane which was returning to Bolivia with their president. The aircraft was forced to land in Vienna after France, Spain and Italy all refused to allow it in their airspace (the "forced to land" bit was because they couldn't have made it to Bolivia without crossing that airspace so they had to land, refuel and pick a new route. They weren't being threatened with military force.)

After that incident everyone blamed the US of course under the false assumption that they had ordered all those other countries to close their airspace to the Bolivian plane.

Last April Assange admitted (in a documentary no less) to being the one who had spread the false rumours as part of "special measures designed to distract secret services". Absolutely NO concern for ANYONE on that plane or the possible consequences that could have arisen.

That is the way this guy thinks.

Too many people think this guy is some kind of "free speech" hero. Bull. He makes his money off of publicizing secrets. Anyone's secrets. Ever since 2006, long before the "Manning Documents" Wikileaks had published stuff pertaining to different countries, banks, politicians and even Scientology. In 2010 WikiLeaks had generated over 1.2 million Euros in donations and "wire transfers" (over 500,000 Euros in Dec 2010 alone).

(Oddly enough despite all that cash, in 2011 Assange claimed that the organization "might not survive" (because of the finances) and in 2013 they were complaining about having to operate on a "shoe-string" budget). (Dec 2010 is also when Assange and a few others reportedly started receiving "salaries".)

It was also noted that the expenses of running Wikileaks amounted to about 200,000 Euros a year. Most of the work is done by volunteers, most of their legal work is done "pro bono" and even a lot of their server costs are "donated". (Gee, I wonder where all the rest of that money goes ?)

A lot of what goes on the WikiLeaks site comes from hacker groups like Anonymous. It seems that they made some changes to allow virtually anyone to post virtually anything on their site and remain completely anonymous (which also means that literally anything can be posted regardless if it's authentic or merely forged in order to achieve a specific aim).

According to one journalist (a former human-rights activist and a former director at Human Rights Watch of all places) "WikiLeaks is motivated by "a theory of anarchy," not a theory of journalism or social activism." (I laughed when I saw that because for as long as there's been hackers, their battle cry has been "Anarchy", not "Freedom of Speech" and Assange started out as a hacker, not a "free speech" activist.)

Interestingly the (former) # 2 person in Wikileaks was "suspended" by Assange for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization" for leaking information to Newsweek magazine ! Apparently the leaker doesn't like having his secrets leaked !

(Once again - goes to show you how this guy thinks.)

"Oh but he's a "free speech" activist - he shouldn't have to answer to any criminal charges because, you know, HE says they are all just a plot by the US."

Fact - he never denies having sex with those women.

Fact - his lawyers claim that the problem arises because of a difference in language between what is considered assault and rape in Sweden compared to other places !

Fact - the 2 women involved initially only wanted him to have an AIDS test done because apparently in one case the condom broke and he continued having intercourse with the woman despite her objection and in the other case he used a condom the first time but the next morning started having sex with the woman while she was sleeping - and didn't use a condom (which again means he didn't have her consent). In Swedish law those are criminal offences regardless of where the perpetrator comes from or what he "thinks" defines assault or rape. (Forcibly continuing with intercourse despite the withdrawal of consent is a crime.). Had he done the AIDs test like they wanted this wouldn't have been an issue. He refused so they pressed charges.

This is no different than all those people who get caught with drugs in various countries and then cry "but back home I'd only get a slap on the wrist for that". In most western countries if you are having sex with a woman and she tells you to stop, for any reason, and you don't - you are liable to face criminal charges. Just like if someone has AIDs and has unprotected sex without informing their partner - they are liable to be charged. There is no "but in my country that would be allowed" BS (though I'm sure some lawyers would try it anyways).

What a surprise. Like so many conspiracy theories, absolutely nothing to do with the US at all ! But of course, admitting that would erase the protection he currently enjoys and force him to face those charges.

He's nothing more than a criminal fleeing charges he knows he's guilty of.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Kerryd

[yadongbreakfast]

who cares

[billd766]

I correct my own post.:"trumped up charges" ......trumped up allegations.

Have you read the original allegations that the two women weren't even bothered about pursuing...just wanted Assange to take an AIDS test originally...., until pressed to lay a formal complaint by the Swedish authorities. It wasn't rape as we know it, just bad manners..nothing like the connotations forceful rape implies.

Assange volunteered himself for interview and the case was dropped. then another prosecutor took over with a hidden agenda, and hasn't attempted to interview him in person in the Ecuadorian embassy or via video link re the allegations since. Methinks it was all just a ploy to get Assange into Sweden for onward travel.

He did what any of us would do in the circumstances to avoid a setup.

All the excuses and evasions offered up by Assange and his supporters shot down in the British courts. Not that the supporters stop repeating their junk. Assange is just a grubby little rapist on the run, no existential hero he.

So you know for 100% certainty that Assange is a grubby little rapist on the run.

Really? And just HOW do you know that? Do you personally have all the evidence to hand? Have you contacted the police in Sweden. the UK or the USA?

Where I come from in the UK a person is deemed innocent util proven guilty.

You seem to belive that you have all the necessary proof. Publish it then.

Of course if you actually don't have any proof of anything then a wise man would keep quiet and a fool would blabber on.

Which are you?

[Linky]

Love all the misguided (and mostly uninformed) conspiracy theories. Let's look at a few facts shall we ?

Julian Assange is a convicted hacker. In 1996 (long before WikiLeaks) he plead guilty to 25 charges of hacking. He had, at different times, hacked into the Pentagon, The US Navy, Citibank, NASA, various universities and other places. He got off lightly because of "the perceived absence of malicious or mercenary intent and his disrupted childhood." Oh boo hoo what a load of tripe.

Wikileaks started publishing the "Manning Documents" in 2010. Remember that date - 2010. The first 2 sets of docs were released in April and July 2010.

In August 2010 he was wanted in Sweden for questioning regarding allegations of "unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape" allegedly committed against 2 women. (Apparently some people think that the US just "made that all up" on the spur of the moment in order to try and get him arrested - in Sweden of all places - within weeks of the release of those documents. Wait for it though.)

In October 2010 while in Switzerland he told a Swiss TV show that he was considering requesting political asylum in Switzerland or Iceland - not because of fear of supposed US arrest but because he thought those were the only 2 countries where Wikileaks could operate safely. No mention at all about trying to avoid prosecution in Sweden or "imagined" US plots.

In December 2010 Assange was being held in a BRITISH prison after being denied bail at his extradition hearing. (But wait - if the US had trumped up charges in Sweden with the expressed interest of having him arrested and then deported to the US, why didn't they nab him while he was being held in custody by one of their closest allies ?. He was released 9 days later after winning another appeal.

That was on Dec 16, 2010. Remember that date. Dec 16, 2010. (Also note that WikiLeaks had released more documents in Oct and Nov of 2010 including the "Iraq War Logs" and all those Diplomatic cables. Then in April 2011 they released the "Guantanamo Files".) Strangely enough, despite all those additional "leaks", the US apparently didn't make any effort to charge Assange with anything, or try to make up false charges against him in some other country.

On 16 August 2012 he applied for political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why ? Because the Supreme Court in London had ruled that he should be deported to Sweden.

I'm sure all the conspiracy nuts out there will ignore how he was wandering around free for 20 months before suddenly deciding to flee to the Ecuadorian Embassy. I mean after all, if the Americans supposedly have such great control over the Swedish Justice system, surely they must have some "pull" with the UK ? It's not like they couldn't have arranged some undercover sting like when they bagged Bout in Thailand. Did Assange spend that entire time in England ? (Possibly. If he'd travelled anywhere else he'd have risked getting arrested and extradited to Sweden by a country that didn't believe his BS.)

As of May 2014, almost 2 years after Assange started hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy and started the rumours that the Swedish charges were all a plot by the US to have him arrested and extradited, the US still had not filed any charges against him !! (He may however be the subject of ongoing investigations but without formal charges they can't extradite him.)

Hint - That is probably why the US didn't try to extradite him while he was in British custody - because there were no charges against him by the US, period.)

Hint - If there were any charges against him by the US, he would have been arrested in the UK and had an extradition hearing on those charges, just like he did on the Swedish ones.

Hint - In May 2015 (3 months ago) The Swedish Supreme Court rejected Assange's appeal to have the charges dropped. Hmmm, that would have required them to review the allegations and evidence against him, wouldn't it ? Oh right, I forgot. The US apparently controls all aspects of the Swedish Justice system right up to their Supreme Court. I wonder if the Swedes know they are mere puppets of the US ?

BTW - The puppets, er, I mean the Swedes, are being forced to drop the coercion and molestation charges but the rape allegation is still pending (that has another 5 years before it's statute of limitations runs out).

So lets see. He's a (formerly) convicted criminal, fleeing rape and sex assault charges, claiming it's all a plot by the US to have him arrested despite the fact the US has filed no charges against him. He has claimed that the US wants to charge him with treason which by itself should tell you what a pathetic joke he is, as he is Australian, not American, so they can't charge him with Treason. ("In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation.^[1] Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant.")

The only place he faced possible treason charges was in Australia (who examined possible charges against him back in 2010). Obviously nothing has come from that as Australia hasn't filed any charges against him (that I'm aware of). Odd too how I never hear anything from the Australian government about this matter. You'd think they'd have something to say about one of their citizens being holed up in a foreign embassy for so long. Maybe they have issued statements and I've overlooked them which is quite possible.

(I've just did a bit more research and apparently Australia is treating this as they would pretty much any other case of a citizen facing criminal charges. He chose to hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy and the Australian gov't is providing consular assistance as they would to anyone else facing criminal charges. Oh wait, let me guess, they are all puppets of the US gov't as well - isn't that how the conspiracy theory goes ? Anyone who doesn't openly support me is in a conspiracy against me ?)

Of course Assange is also the guy who sent an "open letter" to France telling them that "they are the only country that could protect him from the US" and that if they were to offer him asylum, he'd consider it. <deleted> ? He would "consider it" ? What a load of absolute BS. A truly pathetic attempt to use psychology in the hopes that France would come begging him to accept an offer of asylum, as though he'd be doing them some great "slap in America's face" favour by accepting. (The fact that his ex-wife and 26 y.o. son live in France apparently had nothing to do with his "suggestion" though he did mention them. Maybe in hopes of proving he'd be willing to accept an asylum offer.) (I guess he's also given up the idea of requesting political asylum in Switzerland or Iceland as well.)

That should tell you right there just how this guy thinks. It caused quite a few chuckles (and red faces) when France outright rejected his "proposal".

Of course this is the same guy who (in July 2013) deliberately spread false rumours that Edward Snowden was on a Bolivian airplane which was returning to Bolivia with their president. The aircraft was forced to land in Vienna after France, Spain and Italy all refused to allow it in their airspace (the "forced to land" bit was because they couldn't have made it to Bolivia without crossing that airspace so they had to land, refuel and pick a new route. They weren't being threatened with military force.)

After that incident everyone blamed the US of course under the false assumption that they had ordered all those other countries to close their airspace to the Bolivian plane.

Last April Assange admitted (in a documentary no less) to being the one who had spread the false rumours as part of "special measures designed to distract secret services". Absolutely NO concern for ANYONE on that plane or the possible consequences that could have arisen.

That is the way this guy thinks.

Too many people think this guy is some kind of "free speech" hero. Bull. He makes his money off of publicizing secrets. Anyone's secrets. Ever since 2006, long before the "Manning Documents" Wikileaks had published stuff pertaining to different countries, banks, politicians and even Scientology. In 2010 WikiLeaks had generated over 1.2 million Euros in donations and "wire transfers" (over 500,000 Euros in Dec 2010 alone).

(Oddly enough despite all that cash, in 2011 Assange claimed that the organization "might not survive" (because of the finances) and in 2013 they were complaining about having to operate on a "shoe-string" budget). (Dec 2010 is also when Assange and a few others reportedly started receiving "salaries".)

It was also noted that the expenses of running Wikileaks amounted to about 200,000 Euros a year. Most of the work is done by volunteers, most of their legal work is done "pro bono" and even a lot of their server costs are "donated". (Gee, I wonder where all the rest of that money goes ?)

A lot of what goes on the WikiLeaks site comes from hacker groups like Anonymous. It seems that they made some changes to allow virtually anyone to post virtually anything on their site and remain completely anonymous (which also means that literally anything can be posted regardless if it's authentic or merely forged in order to achieve a specific aim).

According to one journalist (a former human-rights activist and a former director at Human Rights Watch of all places) "WikiLeaks is motivated by "a theory of anarchy," not a theory of journalism or social activism." (I laughed when I saw that because for as long as there's been hackers, their battle cry has been "Anarchy", not "Freedom of Speech" and Assange started out as a hacker, not a "free speech" activist.)

Interestingly the (former) # 2 person in Wikileaks was "suspended" by Assange for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization" for leaking information to Newsweek magazine ! Apparently the leaker doesn't like having his secrets leaked !

(Once again - goes to show you how this guy thinks.)

"Oh but he's a "free speech" activist - he shouldn't have to answer to any criminal charges because, you know, HE says they are all just a plot by the US."

Fact - he never denies having sex with those women.

Fact - his lawyers claim that the problem arises because of a difference in language between what is considered assault and rape in Sweden compared to other places !

Fact - the 2 women involved initially only wanted him to have an AIDS test done because apparently in one case the condom broke and he continued having intercourse with the woman despite her objection and in the other case he used a condom the first time but the next morning started having sex with the woman while she was sleeping - and didn't use a condom (which again means he didn't have her consent). In Swedish law those are criminal offences regardless of where the perpetrator comes from or what he "thinks" defines assault or rape. (Forcibly continuing with intercourse despite the withdrawal of consent is a crime.). Had he done the AIDs test like they wanted this wouldn't have been an issue. He refused so they pressed charges.

This is no different than all those people who get caught with drugs in various countries and then cry "but back home I'd only get a slap on the wrist for that". In most western countries if you are having sex with a woman and she tells you to stop, for any reason, and you don't - you are liable to face criminal charges. Just like if someone has AIDs and has unprotected sex without informing their partner - they are liable to be charged. There is no "but in my country that would be allowed" BS (though I'm sure some lawyers would try it anyways).

What a surprise. Like so many conspiracy theories, absolutely nothing to do with the US at all ! But of course, admitting that would erase the protection he currently enjoys and force him to face those charges.

He's nothing more than a criminal fleeing charges he knows he's guilty of.

You talk about facts but then get the important fact wrong.

He is not a criminal fleeing charges. He has not been charged. He is only wanted for questioning.

That is the fact.

[Linky]

so in sweden, you just have to run away & hide for 5 years and you are clear ?

No. He has not been charged. Every person has a right not to answer questions. He previously offered to be questioned and the authorities refused.

[Linky]

What an awful situation, apart from the guilty or politically motivated stuff, if someone is indicted for rape, you walk free if they can't get you in a court of law before hand?
or do i miss something?

Yes, you missed something.

Trumped up charges to get Assange to Sweden.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-is-a-farce-a-special-investigation

Assange is a nasty piece of work and Pilger has his own fish to fry.

I dont care if Assange is Atilla The Hun or Mother Theresa. It doesnt change the information he exposed. What people think of him is irrelevent.

I dont care if Assange is Atilla The Hun or Mother Theresa. a rapist. It doesnt change the information he exposed. What people think of him is irrelevent.

What they are really saying.

You better give your evidence that he is a rapist to the authorities because he has not even been charged with it.

The warrant is to question him.

[Credo]

And what about him having jumped bail? Isn't that a crime?

[NickJ]

Sooner or later Julian will be put into a place he doesnt want to be........

[Baerboxer]

Love all the misguided (and mostly uninformed) conspiracy theories. Let's look at a few facts shall we ?

Julian Assange is a convicted hacker. In 1996 (long before WikiLeaks) he plead guilty to 25 charges of hacking. He had, at different times, hacked into the Pentagon, The US Navy, Citibank, NASA, various universities and other places. He got off lightly because of "the perceived absence of malicious or mercenary intent and his disrupted childhood." Oh boo hoo what a load of tripe.

Wikileaks started publishing the "Manning Documents" in 2010. Remember that date - 2010. The first 2 sets of docs were released in April and July 2010.

In August 2010 he was wanted in Sweden for questioning regarding allegations of "unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape" allegedly committed against 2 women. (Apparently some people think that the US just "made that all up" on the spur of the moment in order to try and get him arrested - in Sweden of all places - within weeks of the release of those documents. Wait for it though.)

In October 2010 while in Switzerland he told a Swiss TV show that he was considering requesting political asylum in Switzerland or Iceland - not because of fear of supposed US arrest but because he thought those were the only 2 countries where Wikileaks could operate safely. No mention at all about trying to avoid prosecution in Sweden or "imagined" US plots.

In December 2010 Assange was being held in a BRITISH prison after being denied bail at his extradition hearing. (But wait - if the US had trumped up charges in Sweden with the expressed interest of having him arrested and then deported to the US, why didn't they nab him while he was being held in custody by one of their closest allies ?. He was released 9 days later after winning another appeal.

That was on Dec 16, 2010. Remember that date. Dec 16, 2010. (Also note that WikiLeaks had released more documents in Oct and Nov of 2010 including the "Iraq War Logs" and all those Diplomatic cables. Then in April 2011 they released the "Guantanamo Files".) Strangely enough, despite all those additional "leaks", the US apparently didn't make any effort to charge Assange with anything, or try to make up false charges against him in some other country.

On 16 August 2012 he applied for political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why ? Because the Supreme Court in London had ruled that he should be deported to Sweden.

I'm sure all the conspiracy nuts out there will ignore how he was wandering around free for 20 months before suddenly deciding to flee to the Ecuadorian Embassy. I mean after all, if the Americans supposedly have such great control over the Swedish Justice system, surely they must have some "pull" with the UK ? It's not like they couldn't have arranged some undercover sting like when they bagged Bout in Thailand. Did Assange spend that entire time in England ? (Possibly. If he'd travelled anywhere else he'd have risked getting arrested and extradited to Sweden by a country that didn't believe his BS.)

As of May 2014, almost 2 years after Assange started hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy and started the rumours that the Swedish charges were all a plot by the US to have him arrested and extradited, the US still had not filed any charges against him !! (He may however be the subject of ongoing investigations but without formal charges they can't extradite him.)

Hint - That is probably why the US didn't try to extradite him while he was in British custody - because there were no charges against him by the US, period.)

Hint - If there were any charges against him by the US, he would have been arrested in the UK and had an extradition hearing on those charges, just like he did on the Swedish ones.

Hint - In May 2015 (3 months ago) The Swedish Supreme Court rejected Assange's appeal to have the charges dropped. Hmmm, that would have required them to review the allegations and evidence against him, wouldn't it ? Oh right, I forgot. The US apparently controls all aspects of the Swedish Justice system right up to their Supreme Court. I wonder if the Swedes know they are mere puppets of the US ?

BTW - The puppets, er, I mean the Swedes, are being forced to drop the coercion and molestation charges but the rape allegation is still pending (that has another 5 years before it's statute of limitations runs out).

So lets see. He's a (formerly) convicted criminal, fleeing rape and sex assault charges, claiming it's all a plot by the US to have him arrested despite the fact the US has filed no charges against him. He has claimed that the US wants to charge him with treason which by itself should tell you what a pathetic joke he is, as he is Australian, not American, so they can't charge him with Treason. ("In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation.^[1] Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant.")

The only place he faced possible treason charges was in Australia (who examined possible charges against him back in 2010). Obviously nothing has come from that as Australia hasn't filed any charges against him (that I'm aware of). Odd too how I never hear anything from the Australian government about this matter. You'd think they'd have something to say about one of their citizens being holed up in a foreign embassy for so long. Maybe they have issued statements and I've overlooked them which is quite possible.

(I've just did a bit more research and apparently Australia is treating this as they would pretty much any other case of a citizen facing criminal charges. He chose to hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy and the Australian gov't is providing consular assistance as they would to anyone else facing criminal charges. Oh wait, let me guess, they are all puppets of the US gov't as well - isn't that how the conspiracy theory goes ? Anyone who doesn't openly support me is in a conspiracy against me ?)

Of course Assange is also the guy who sent an "open letter" to France telling them that "they are the only country that could protect him from the US" and that if they were to offer him asylum, he'd consider it. <deleted> ? He would "consider it" ? What a load of absolute BS. A truly pathetic attempt to use psychology in the hopes that France would come begging him to accept an offer of asylum, as though he'd be doing them some great "slap in America's face" favour by accepting. (The fact that his ex-wife and 26 y.o. son live in France apparently had nothing to do with his "suggestion" though he did mention them. Maybe in hopes of proving he'd be willing to accept an asylum offer.) (I guess he's also given up the idea of requesting political asylum in Switzerland or Iceland as well.)

That should tell you right there just how this guy thinks. It caused quite a few chuckles (and red faces) when France outright rejected his "proposal".

Of course this is the same guy who (in July 2013) deliberately spread false rumours that Edward Snowden was on a Bolivian airplane which was returning to Bolivia with their president. The aircraft was forced to land in Vienna after France, Spain and Italy all refused to allow it in their airspace (the "forced to land" bit was because they couldn't have made it to Bolivia without crossing that airspace so they had to land, refuel and pick a new route. They weren't being threatened with military force.)

After that incident everyone blamed the US of course under the false assumption that they had ordered all those other countries to close their airspace to the Bolivian plane.

Last April Assange admitted (in a documentary no less) to being the one who had spread the false rumours as part of "special measures designed to distract secret services". Absolutely NO concern for ANYONE on that plane or the possible consequences that could have arisen.

That is the way this guy thinks.

Too many people think this guy is some kind of "free speech" hero. Bull. He makes his money off of publicizing secrets. Anyone's secrets. Ever since 2006, long before the "Manning Documents" Wikileaks had published stuff pertaining to different countries, banks, politicians and even Scientology. In 2010 WikiLeaks had generated over 1.2 million Euros in donations and "wire transfers" (over 500,000 Euros in Dec 2010 alone).

(Oddly enough despite all that cash, in 2011 Assange claimed that the organization "might not survive" (because of the finances) and in 2013 they were complaining about having to operate on a "shoe-string" budget). (Dec 2010 is also when Assange and a few others reportedly started receiving "salaries".)

It was also noted that the expenses of running Wikileaks amounted to about 200,000 Euros a year. Most of the work is done by volunteers, most of their legal work is done "pro bono" and even a lot of their server costs are "donated". (Gee, I wonder where all the rest of that money goes ?)

A lot of what goes on the WikiLeaks site comes from hacker groups like Anonymous. It seems that they made some changes to allow virtually anyone to post virtually anything on their site and remain completely anonymous (which also means that literally anything can be posted regardless if it's authentic or merely forged in order to achieve a specific aim).

According to one journalist (a former human-rights activist and a former director at Human Rights Watch of all places) "WikiLeaks is motivated by "a theory of anarchy," not a theory of journalism or social activism." (I laughed when I saw that because for as long as there's been hackers, their battle cry has been "Anarchy", not "Freedom of Speech" and Assange started out as a hacker, not a "free speech" activist.)

Interestingly the (former) # 2 person in Wikileaks was "suspended" by Assange for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization" for leaking information to Newsweek magazine ! Apparently the leaker doesn't like having his secrets leaked !

(Once again - goes to show you how this guy thinks.)

"Oh but he's a "free speech" activist - he shouldn't have to answer to any criminal charges because, you know, HE says they are all just a plot by the US."

Fact - he never denies having sex with those women.

Fact - his lawyers claim that the problem arises because of a difference in language between what is considered assault and rape in Sweden compared to other places !

Fact - the 2 women involved initially only wanted him to have an AIDS test done because apparently in one case the condom broke and he continued having intercourse with the woman despite her objection and in the other case he used a condom the first time but the next morning started having sex with the woman while she was sleeping - and didn't use a condom (which again means he didn't have her consent). In Swedish law those are criminal offences regardless of where the perpetrator comes from or what he "thinks" defines assault or rape. (Forcibly continuing with intercourse despite the withdrawal of consent is a crime.). Had he done the AIDs test like they wanted this wouldn't have been an issue. He refused so they pressed charges.

This is no different than all those people who get caught with drugs in various countries and then cry "but back home I'd only get a slap on the wrist for that". In most western countries if you are having sex with a woman and she tells you to stop, for any reason, and you don't - you are liable to face criminal charges. Just like if someone has AIDs and has unprotected sex without informing their partner - they are liable to be charged. There is no "but in my country that would be allowed" BS (though I'm sure some lawyers would try it anyways).

What a surprise. Like so many conspiracy theories, absolutely nothing to do with the US at all ! But of course, admitting that would erase the protection he currently enjoys and force him to face those charges.

He's nothing more than a criminal fleeing charges he knows he's guilty of.

Fact: he hasn't been charged with anything. Fact: the Gothenburg Prosecutor, chosen to replace the Stockholm Prosecutor who dismissed the case before, refuses to go to London to question him. Fact: she is either a little bit sloppy or contrived to allow him to travel so she could invoke a EAW and get him extradited easily, and prior to any trial or conviction.

How do you know he's guilty and what, if anything, he's guilty of? Have you seen all the evidence, interviewed witnesses, read statements? If so please share the details. If not, do you consider it o k to defame and libel someone for political aims?

[chuckd]

And what about him having jumped bail? Isn't that a crime?

And you are all dancing around answering Credo's very pertinent questions.

To respond to the questions...

1. Yes, he jumped bail when he took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

2. Yes, jumping bail is a crime

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Assange backers must pay £93,500 over skipped bail

Nine people who put up bail of £140,000 for the WikiLeaks editor must forfeit most of it, a court has ruled, since Assange refuses to surrender to British police.

By Karen Friar | October 9, 2012 -- 15:02 GMT (23:02 GMT+08:00) | Topic: Security

Nine supporters of Julian Assange have been ordered to hand over £93,500 in guarantees lost after the WikiLeaks editor skipped bail.

The nine, who include a Nobel prize winner and a veteran investigative journalist, put up £140,000 in bail sureties for Assange, who decamped to the Ecuadorian embassy in London in June to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Those supporters must now pay thousands of pounds each by 6 November, chief magistrate Howard Riddle ruled on Monday. The judge said he had taken into account the financial hardship some of them would face, as well as their "integrity", and would not ask them to pay the full forfeit.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/assange-backers-must-pay-93500-over-skipped-bail/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the question is...will the UK authorities arrest Assange when he departs the Embassy on the grounds of failure to comply with the terms of his bail and the forfeiture of the bond put up by his previous supporters?

Anybody?

[Linky]

And what about him having jumped bail? Isn't that a crime?

And you are all dancing around answering Credo's very pertinent questions.

To respond to the questions...

1. Yes, he jumped bail when he took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

2. Yes, jumping bail is a crime

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Assange backers must pay £93,500 over skipped bail

Nine people who put up bail of £140,000 for the WikiLeaks editor must forfeit most of it, a court has ruled, since Assange refuses to surrender to British police.

By Karen Friar | October 9, 2012 -- 15:02 GMT (23:02 GMT+08:00) | Topic: Security

Nine supporters of Julian Assange have been ordered to hand over £93,500 in guarantees lost after the WikiLeaks editor skipped bail.

The nine, who include a Nobel prize winner and a veteran investigative journalist, put up £140,000 in bail sureties for Assange, who decamped to the Ecuadorian embassy in London in June to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Those supporters must now pay thousands of pounds each by 6 November, chief magistrate Howard Riddle ruled on Monday. The judge said he had taken into account the financial hardship some of them would face, as well as their "integrity", and would not ask them to pay the full forfeit.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/assange-backers-must-pay-93500-over-skipped-bail/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the question is...will the UK authorities arrest Assange when he departs the Embassy on the grounds of failure to comply with the terms of his bail and the forfeiture of the bond put up by his previous supporters?

Anybody?

The bail jump is in relation to the extradition request. When the statute of limitations expires on all the allegations pertaining to that warrant then the warrant will not be enforced as he then cannot be charged. In effect the warrant will be void.

UK can arrest him for the bail jump but he would be released immediately by the court because the penalty for the bail jump has been paid, loss of bail.

So as bail has been forfeited, which is the penalty, and he can no longer be charged, the court will have no reason to hold him and he must be free to go.

The repayment of bail to the people who put up the funds is a matter between them. I dont know if they can try civil suit to get the money back but I doubt they would try considering he wont have any money.

[webfact]

RELATED TOPIC:

Sweden drops some sex cases against Assange

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/848096-sweden-drops-some-sex-cases-against-assange/

[dexterm]

If there was not a Swedish plan to rendition Assange elsewhere after giving evidence, why would the Swedes not simply give a rock solid guarantee that he would not be extradited onwards after any interviews, trial, conviction or imprisonment.

Easy as that.

Because they would not give such a guarantee, I don't blame Assange for smelling a rat.

[chuckd]

Care to show any links proving any other country even wants him?

[Linky]

I dont think the US usually advertises when it kidnaps people off the streets of other countries.

[Basil B]

I give him 2 minutes of freedom before he's locked up for something else, and <12 hours in the UK before he's on a plane to the USA in cuffs.

It's a trap.

True,any visa he had to enter the UK will have expired...

But although the sexual assault charges will have to be dropped due to Sweden's statute of limitations, but for the rape allegations he will have to hide away for a further 5 years.

[Linky]

I cant link to the site at the moment but the latest on ninemsn news is Assange has now told Swedish prosecutors to come to the Embassy to take his statement or promise he will not be sent to the US.

[Seastallion]

He is more in danger walking out that door and inside. Snowden I hate, but Assange is simply a messenger.

It's reasonable to think so....but Julian is quite a smart guy. He has put in place half a dozen "insurance policies". These consist of separate encrypted files, on various servers, with many gigabytes of as-yet unreleased information. Should he disappear, or the wikileaks servers be dismantled, the key for unencrypting those files will be released to the WWW.

[SheungWan]

Assange and Snowden are heroes they have shown our governments for what they are and what we have always suspected, liars and hypocrites all of them.

Has what they revealed compromised the safety of our men and women fighting for the oil overseas, no! Flawed foreign policy and the bumbling incompetence of government can do that without help from others.

Will our governments learn from the activities of these people, maybe or will they just become more devious and pull back more of our rights in their quest to support their corporate backers and cling to their own power.

From hero Assange's ghost-written autobiography: 'at one school he apparently came across an obnoxious little girl who wouldn't share. His reaction to this injustice? "I decided to express myself without hindrance, so I hit the girl over the head with a hammer. This caused a giant fuss, of course, and I had to leave" Yep a real hero, particularly with women since his youngest days.

[Linky]

Assange and Snowden are heroes they have shown our governments for what they are and what we have always suspected, liars and hypocrites all of them.

Has what they revealed compromised the safety of our men and women fighting for the oil overseas, no! Flawed foreign policy and the bumbling incompetence of government can do that without help from others.

Will our governments learn from the activities of these people, maybe or will they just become more devious and pull back more of our rights in their quest to support their corporate backers and cling to their own power.

From hero Assange's ghost-written autobiography: 'at one school he apparently came across an obnoxious little girl who wouldn't share. His reaction to this injustice? "I decided to express myself without hindrance, so I hit the girl over the head with a hammer. This caused a giant fuss, of course, and I had to leave" Yep a real hero, particularly with women since his youngest days.

Thats nice dear, but dont think he is being investigated for that and cant see how anything about him personally detracts from the information he gas released.

But typical deflection, dont address the issues, go after the messenger.

Dont think he is being investigated

[Credo]

Assange and Snowden are heroes they have shown our governments for what they are and what we have always suspected, liars and hypocrites all of them.

Has what they revealed compromised the safety of our men and women fighting for the oil overseas, no! Flawed foreign policy and the bumbling incompetence of government can do that without help from others.

Will our governments learn from the activities of these people, maybe or will they just become more devious and pull back more of our rights in their quest to support their corporate backers and cling to their own power.

From hero Assange's ghost-written autobiography: 'at one school he apparently came across an obnoxious little girl who wouldn't share. His reaction to this injustice? "I decided to express myself without hindrance, so I hit the girl over the head with a hammer. This caused a giant fuss, of course, and I had to leave" Yep a real hero, particularly with women since his youngest days.

Thats nice dear, but dont think he is being investigated for that and cant see how anything about him personally detracts from the information he gas released.

But typical deflection, dont address the issues, go after the messenger.

Dont think he is being investigated

No, I think it is you are deflecting. He was wanted for questioning in connection to a charge of sexual misconduct. This particular thread isn't about the information he released.

[dexterm]

Assange and Snowden are heroes they have shown our governments for what they are and what we have always suspected, liars and hypocrites all of them.

Has what they revealed compromised the safety of our men and women fighting for the oil overseas, no! Flawed foreign policy and the bumbling incompetence of government can do that without help from others.

Will our governments learn from the activities of these people, maybe or will they just become more devious and pull back more of our rights in their quest to support their corporate backers and cling to their own power.

From hero Assange's ghost-written autobiography: 'at one school he apparently came across an obnoxious little girl who wouldn't share. His reaction to this injustice? "I decided to express myself without hindrance, so I hit the girl over the head with a hammer. This caused a giant fuss, of course, and I had to leave" Yep a real hero, particularly with women since his youngest days.

Internet link please would help your credibility.

Your motive seems to be blatant and desperate character besmirching.

[Linky]

Its just sensalionist. He was a young kid, the girl was not injured and no action taken against him. So it isnt really like it sounds. He also used to burn ants with a magnifying glass as a kid.

Was written in an unauthorised biography so how much is literary licence is anyones guess. But still fail to see the relevance.

[Oziex1]

The whistle blowers who provide information to Wikileaks want freedom of information and the justice that comes with it. Assange may have his faults but his organisation is not one of them.

[kovaltech]

Love all the misguided (and mostly uninformed) conspiracy theories. Let's look at a few facts shall we ?

Julian Assange is a convicted hacker. In 1996 (long before WikiLeaks) he plead guilty to 25 charges of hacking. He had, at different times, hacked into the Pentagon, The US Navy, Citibank, NASA, various universities and other places. He got off lightly because of "the perceived absence of malicious or mercenary intent and his disrupted childhood." Oh boo hoo what a load of tripe.

Wikileaks started publishing the "Manning Documents" in 2010. Remember that date - 2010. The first 2 sets of docs were released in April and July 2010.

In August 2010 he was wanted in Sweden for questioning regarding allegations of "unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape" allegedly committed against 2 women. (Apparently some people think that the US just "made that all up" on the spur of the moment in order to try and get him arrested - in Sweden of all places - within weeks of the release of those documents. Wait for it though.)

In October 2010 while in Switzerland he told a Swiss TV show that he was considering requesting political asylum in Switzerland or Iceland - not because of fear of supposed US arrest but because he thought those were the only 2 countries where Wikileaks could operate safely. No mention at all about trying to avoid prosecution in Sweden or "imagined" US plots.

In December 2010 Assange was being held in a BRITISH prison after being denied bail at his extradition hearing. (But wait - if the US had trumped up charges in Sweden with the expressed interest of having him arrested and then deported to the US, why didn't they nab him while he was being held in custody by one of their closest allies ?. He was released 9 days later after winning another appeal.

That was on Dec 16, 2010. Remember that date. Dec 16, 2010. (Also note that WikiLeaks had released more documents in Oct and Nov of 2010 including the "Iraq War Logs" and all those Diplomatic cables. Then in April 2011 they released the "Guantanamo Files".) Strangely enough, despite all those additional "leaks", the US apparently didn't make any effort to charge Assange with anything, or try to make up false charges against him in some other country.

On 16 August 2012 he applied for political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why ? Because the Supreme Court in London had ruled that he should be deported to Sweden.

I'm sure all the conspiracy nuts out there will ignore how he was wandering around free for 20 months before suddenly deciding to flee to the Ecuadorian Embassy. I mean after all, if the Americans supposedly have such great control over the Swedish Justice system, surely they must have some "pull" with the UK ? It's not like they couldn't have arranged some undercover sting like when they bagged Bout in Thailand. Did Assange spend that entire time in England ? (Possibly. If he'd travelled anywhere else he'd have risked getting arrested and extradited to Sweden by a country that didn't believe his BS.)

As of May 2014, almost 2 years after Assange started hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy and started the rumours that the Swedish charges were all a plot by the US to have him arrested and extradited, the US still had not filed any charges against him !! (He may however be the subject of ongoing investigations but without formal charges they can't extradite him.)

Hint - That is probably why the US didn't try to extradite him while he was in British custody - because there were no charges against him by the US, period.)

Hint - If there were any charges against him by the US, he would have been arrested in the UK and had an extradition hearing on those charges, just like he did on the Swedish ones.

Hint - In May 2015 (3 months ago) The Swedish Supreme Court rejected Assange's appeal to have the charges dropped. Hmmm, that would have required them to review the allegations and evidence against him, wouldn't it ? Oh right, I forgot. The US apparently controls all aspects of the Swedish Justice system right up to their Supreme Court. I wonder if the Swedes know they are mere puppets of the US ?

BTW - The puppets, er, I mean the Swedes, are being forced to drop the coercion and molestation charges but the rape allegation is still pending (that has another 5 years before it's statute of limitations runs out).

So lets see. He's a (formerly) convicted criminal, fleeing rape and sex assault charges, claiming it's all a plot by the US to have him arrested despite the fact the US has filed no charges against him. He has claimed that the US wants to charge him with treason which by itself should tell you what a pathetic joke he is, as he is Australian, not American, so they can't charge him with Treason. ("In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation.^[1] Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant.")

The only place he faced possible treason charges was in Australia (who examined possible charges against him back in 2010). Obviously nothing has come from that as Australia hasn't filed any charges against him (that I'm aware of). Odd too how I never hear anything from the Australian government about this matter. You'd think they'd have something to say about one of their citizens being holed up in a foreign embassy for so long. Maybe they have issued statements and I've overlooked them which is quite possible.

(I've just did a bit more research and apparently Australia is treating this as they would pretty much any other case of a citizen facing criminal charges. He chose to hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy and the Australian gov't is providing consular assistance as they would to anyone else facing criminal charges. Oh wait, let me guess, they are all puppets of the US gov't as well - isn't that how the conspiracy theory goes ? Anyone who doesn't openly support me is in a conspiracy against me ?)

Of course Assange is also the guy who sent an "open letter" to France telling them that "they are the only country that could protect him from the US" and that if they were to offer him asylum, he'd consider it. <deleted> ? He would "consider it" ? What a load of absolute BS. A truly pathetic attempt to use psychology in the hopes that France would come begging him to accept an offer of asylum, as though he'd be doing them some great "slap in America's face" favour by accepting. (The fact that his ex-wife and 26 y.o. son live in France apparently had nothing to do with his "suggestion" though he did mention them. Maybe in hopes of proving he'd be willing to accept an asylum offer.) (I guess he's also given up the idea of requesting political asylum in Switzerland or Iceland as well.)

That should tell you right there just how this guy thinks. It caused quite a few chuckles (and red faces) when France outright rejected his "proposal".

Of course this is the same guy who (in July 2013) deliberately spread false rumours that Edward Snowden was on a Bolivian airplane which was returning to Bolivia with their president. The aircraft was forced to land in Vienna after France, Spain and Italy all refused to allow it in their airspace (the "forced to land" bit was because they couldn't have made it to Bolivia without crossing that airspace so they had to land, refuel and pick a new route. They weren't being threatened with military force.)

After that incident everyone blamed the US of course under the false assumption that they had ordered all those other countries to close their airspace to the Bolivian plane.

Last April Assange admitted (in a documentary no less) to being the one who had spread the false rumours as part of "special measures designed to distract secret services". Absolutely NO concern for ANYONE on that plane or the possible consequences that could have arisen.

That is the way this guy thinks.

Too many people think this guy is some kind of "free speech" hero. Bull. He makes his money off of publicizing secrets. Anyone's secrets. Ever since 2006, long before the "Manning Documents" Wikileaks had published stuff pertaining to different countries, banks, politicians and even Scientology. In 2010 WikiLeaks had generated over 1.2 million Euros in donations and "wire transfers" (over 500,000 Euros in Dec 2010 alone).

(Oddly enough despite all that cash, in 2011 Assange claimed that the organization "might not survive" (because of the finances) and in 2013 they were complaining about having to operate on a "shoe-string" budget). (Dec 2010 is also when Assange and a few others reportedly started receiving "salaries".)

It was also noted that the expenses of running Wikileaks amounted to about 200,000 Euros a year. Most of the work is done by volunteers, most of their legal work is done "pro bono" and even a lot of their server costs are "donated". (Gee, I wonder where all the rest of that money goes ?)

A lot of what goes on the WikiLeaks site comes from hacker groups like Anonymous. It seems that they made some changes to allow virtually anyone to post virtually anything on their site and remain completely anonymous (which also means that literally anything can be posted regardless if it's authentic or merely forged in order to achieve a specific aim).

According to one journalist (a former human-rights activist and a former director at Human Rights Watch of all places) "WikiLeaks is motivated by "a theory of anarchy," not a theory of journalism or social activism." (I laughed when I saw that because for as long as there's been hackers, their battle cry has been "Anarchy", not "Freedom of Speech" and Assange started out as a hacker, not a "free speech" activist.)

Interestingly the (former) # 2 person in Wikileaks was "suspended" by Assange for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization" for leaking information to Newsweek magazine ! Apparently the leaker doesn't like having his secrets leaked !

(Once again - goes to show you how this guy thinks.)

"Oh but he's a "free speech" activist - he shouldn't have to answer to any criminal charges because, you know, HE says they are all just a plot by the US."

Fact - he never denies having sex with those women.

Fact - his lawyers claim that the problem arises because of a difference in language between what is considered assault and rape in Sweden compared to other places !

Fact - the 2 women involved initially only wanted him to have an AIDS test done because apparently in one case the condom broke and he continued having intercourse with the woman despite her objection and in the other case he used a condom the first time but the next morning started having sex with the woman while she was sleeping - and didn't use a condom (which again means he didn't have her consent). In Swedish law those are criminal offences regardless of where the perpetrator comes from or what he "thinks" defines assault or rape. (Forcibly continuing with intercourse despite the withdrawal of consent is a crime.). Had he done the AIDs test like they wanted this wouldn't have been an issue. He refused so they pressed charges.

This is no different than all those people who get caught with drugs in various countries and then cry "but back home I'd only get a slap on the wrist for that". In most western countries if you are having sex with a woman and she tells you to stop, for any reason, and you don't - you are liable to face criminal charges. Just like if someone has AIDs and has unprotected sex without informing their partner - they are liable to be charged. There is no "but in my country that would be allowed" BS (though I'm sure some lawyers would try it anyways).

What a surprise. Like so many conspiracy theories, absolutely nothing to do with the US at all ! But of course, admitting that would erase the protection he currently enjoys and force him to face those charges.

He's nothing more than a criminal fleeing charges he knows he's guilty of.

"Not that i am aware of" say´s it all.....

[tumama]

I'm Swedish and I've been following this case quite a lot. He is not off the hook yet. Only two out of four crimes he allegedly committed have their statutory limits exceeded. The other counts of rape have a statutory limit of 10 years.

But anyone who knows anything about this case knows that the rape charges are bogus. He would never get sentenced in a court of law in Sweden. One can think of only one reason why they are still pursuing this case. And the constant police presence outside the embassy just re-enforces that.