Six years a squatter - The long legal battle of Julian Assange

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

 

American law knows no international boundaries.

 

Extradition treaty exists in international law so that a government can apprehend a person who violated its laws and who happens to be in a foreign country. Extradition is an instrument of international law and the laws of a sovereign nation state. It is available to every government to negotiate a treaty of extradition, as with any treaty.

Good post. Amazing some don't understand this...

[tracker]

The dirty laundry of governments come to light. We find out they don't play honest. They hide behind laws and regulations, which they invent themselves as they go. Who is going to check the governments? We know they are not honest. So how do we see "the facts" of the rape cases against assange? Who knowns the women were paid or forced to make statements against him. I can't and will not accept facts relayed by media and government which existence is threatened by the whistleblowers. 

[dick dasterdly]

To look on the bright side - the OP states :-

 

" The legal tug-of-war continues, but there has been one development. Swedish investigators who had previously refused to travel to Britain to interview Assange, may now question him in London on October 17. "

 

At last!

 

It will be interesting to see what transpires after they interview Assange on, hopefully, the 17th of October.

Edited September 18, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, tracker said:

The dirty laundry of governments come to light. We find out they don't play honest. They hide behind laws and regulations, which they invent themselves as they go. Who is going to check the governments? We know they are not honest. So how do we see "the facts" of the rape cases against assange? Who knowns the women were paid or forced to make statements against him. I can't and will not accept facts relayed by media and government which existence is threatened by the whistleblowers. 

The "facts" of rape cases are not made public to protect the victims.  You do understand that, right?  Your logic does not make sense.  Plenty of info out there to read up on this case.  If you open your mind.

[Nasrullah]

Yes.....something tells me assange would of wanted an interview to clear these allegations up.

 

Why don't the swedes want to make the trip?........Ulterior motives perhaps!

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

To look on the bright side - the OP states :-

 

" The legal tug-of-war continues, but there has been one development. Swedish investigators who had previously refused to travel to Britain to interview Assange, may now question him in London on October 17. "

 

At last!

 

It will be interesting to see what transpires after they interview Assange on, hopefully, the 17th of October.

Yes, great news.  Hopefully, Assange will be paying for all travel expenses for the Swedish investigators.  Only fair, right?

[stevenl]

25 minutes ago, tracker said:

The dirty laundry of governments come to light. We find out they don't play honest. They hide behind laws and regulations, which they invent themselves as they go. Who is going to check the governments? We know they are not honest. So how do we see "the facts" of the rape cases against assange? Who knowns the women were paid or forced to make statements against him. I can't and will not accept facts relayed by media and government which existence is threatened by the whistleblowers. 

In this case the facts were there before the whistle started blowing.

 

On top of that I think you're overly paranoid, but that is not for this discussion.

[thaihome]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I honestly believe he'd be pleased to go back and answer to the Swedish charges.  If there were assurances that he wouldn't be bundled off next to the USA.  And he'd be an idiot to believe he won't.

 

Maybe not.  But I wouldn't bet the rest of MY life on it.

 

Again, how can Sweden make any guarantee on extradition to the US when no charges have been filed against Assange in the US and therefore no extradition request for the Swedish court to rule on has been made. How can the current  Swedish government make a guarantee on an undefined  legal preceeding in the future that a separate Swedish government entity would have to rule on?

TH 

[dick dasterdly]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Yes, great news.  Hopefully, Assange will be paying for all travel expenses for the Swedish investigators.  Only fair, right?

 

The Brit. govt. has been happy to spend millions of pounds ensuring that Assange cannot leave the Embassy......  I'm sure there is a very good reason for this unprecedented pursuit (and waste of money) of someone wanted for questioning by another government? 

 

Perhaps they will be happy to spend a couple of thousand more to pay for the Swedish investigators to question Assange?  It would certainly save them a lot of money in the long-run if the questioning results in the Swedish investigators deciding that there is not enough/any evidence to support charges being made against Assange.

 

On the other hand of course, perhaps the Swedish authorities should pay the travel expenses involved in questioning someone  who hasn't even been charged?  Although of course I'm sure they'd prefer that the Brits. pay to extradite Assange - so that they can question him about possible charges.....

[impulse]

22 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

Again, how can Sweden make any guarantee on extradition to the US when no charges have been filed against Assange in the US and therefore no extradition request for the Swedish court to rule on has been made. How can the current  Swedish government make a guarantee on an undefined  legal preceeding in the future that a separate Swedish government entity would have to rule on?

TH 

 

Hence his dilemma.  Do we know that no charges have been filed in the USA?  Or that there isn't a 500 page indictment all written up and waiting for the right moment to get a judge's signature so they can pounce, even before he's allowed to leave for Sweden?

 

Here's the great thing about extraordinary renditions and getting an ally to intercept and force land a diplomatic jet for you (Edit: and building a coalition to go to war over WMD's that don't exist) :  Everyone knows you're not to be trifled with.  The bad thing?  Nobody trusts you any more to follow international conventions.

Edited September 18, 2016 by impulse

[dick dasterdly]

9 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

Again, how can Sweden make any guarantee on extradition to the US when no charges have been filed against Assange in the US and therefore no extradition request for the Swedish court to rule on has been made. How can the current  Swedish government make a guarantee on an undefined  legal preceeding in the future that a separate Swedish government entity would have to rule on?

TH 

Of course Sweden won't make any guarantees - after all, he hasn't been charged by the Swedish authorities yet, they just want to question him about possible charges.  And the UK agreed to extradite him to Sweden for questioning - not because he had been charged.

 

Which would make it a touch difficult for the Swedes to not allow Assange to be extradited to the US for questioning - even more so if once in Sweden the US decided to press charges against Assange.

[geriatrickid]

On 9/17/2016 at 1:31 AM, sgtsabai said:

Drugged and raped, where in the world did you read/hear that? Breitbrat, US gov't propaganda, The Daily Caller? He had consensual sex, CONSENSUAL SEX,  without a condom and waking one "lady" that he had already had sex with and was sleeping with. That's it, that's all there is to that. The real story is why all of this is being done to him. He did not run away, he left thinking it was finished. Somebody better do a little research.

 

Assange says it was consensual sex. His victims say it was not.   Assange would not co-operate with the police investigators (as was his legal right) in their initial investigation. However, he also  did his utmost to derail and sabotage the investigation. The Swedish court said there was sufficient evidence to warrant his being questioned.  He indeed ran away because he refused to cooperate with the Swedish investigators AFTER the Swedish court said he had to meet with the police.  Your hero stands accused of sexual assault.

 

At its core, this is why the Swedish government is holding firm. The  women victims have a right to justice. Their human rights and dignity has standing. All you are giving is Assange's position. What of his victims. or are you one of those people who blames the women? You know its 2016 and we have  moved beyond the era when women were blamed for being raped.

 

 

 

[geriatrickid]

5 hours ago, coma said:

 

Please Craig3365. Do you honestly think he is that concerned about potential rape charges in Sweden ? If that is all this is about, I am sure he would be dying to get back there and clear his name.

 

The only thing this sociopath wants is to be the center of attention. Conceited, boastful, given to wild mood swings, abusive, bullying, manipulative and self promoting. His behaviour screams out narcissistic personality disorder.  Have a good long hard look at  this man's history.  He has left a trail of destruction and engaged in anti social behaviour for decades. He uses people. There is a reason why he used to get the crap  kicked out of him when he was a kid: He was always telling people what to do, pushing people around and trying to control them.  He got older and found away to be the center  of attention. Unfortunately, in doing so, he was probably responsible for the  death and torture of hundreds if not thousands of people who were named in his leaks as being opposed to the Taliban or jihadists or Baathists.  You are defending a bully.

 

[coma]

2 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

Assange says it was consensual sex. His victims say it was not.   Assange would not co-operate with the police investigators (as was his legal right) in their initial investigation. However, he also  did his utmost to derail and sabotage the investigation. The Swedish court said there was sufficient evidence to warrant his being questioned.  He indeed ran away because he refused to cooperate with the Swedish investigators AFTER the Swedish court said he had to meet with the police.  Your hero stands accused of sexual assault.

 

At its core, this is why the Swedish government is holding firm. The  women victims have a right to justice. Their human rights and dignity has standing. All you are giving is Assange's position. What of his victims. or are you one of those people who blames the women? You know its 2016 and we have  moved beyond the era when women were blamed for being raped.

 

 

 

 

Maybe they were raped. Maybe they were not. The only people that know if they were or not are the women making the "allegations" and Mr Assange himself. Not you, not I nor anybody else. You are all too keen to judge and declare him guilty when you have no evidence to back up your claim. No wonder the guys is all gun shy. What hope would he have of getting a fair trial with people like yourself branding him guilty when you couldn't possibly know if he is or isn't. At the moment as it stands these "victims" as you put it are in fact alleged victims. At best.

[coma]

8 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The only thing this sociopath wants is to be the center of attention. Conceited, boastful, given to wild mood swings, abusive, bullying, manipulative and self promoting. His behaviour screams out narcissistic personality disorder.  Have a good long hard look at  this man's history.  He has left a trail of destruction and engaged in anti social behaviour for decades. He uses people. There is a reason why he used to get the crap  kicked out of him when he was a kid: He was always telling people what to do, pushing people around and trying to control them.  He got older and found away to be the center  of attention. Unfortunately, in doing so, he was probably responsible for the  death and torture of hundreds if not thousands of people who were named in his leaks as being opposed to the Taliban or jihadists or Baathists.  You are defending a bully.

 

 

What ? Were you his old school buddy ? You sure do seem to know a hell of a lot about the man. 

 

I would much prefer to not label him or anybody else the things you just have unless I seen it with my own eyes. That's just me.

[dick dasterdly]

13 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

Assange says it was consensual sex. His victims say it was not.   Assange would not co-operate with the police investigators (as was his legal right) in their initial investigation. However, he also  did his utmost to derail and sabotage the investigation. The Swedish court said there was sufficient evidence to warrant his being questioned.  He indeed ran away because he refused to cooperate with the Swedish investigators AFTER the Swedish court said he had to meet with the police.  Your hero stands accused of sexual assault.

 

At its core, this is why the Swedish government is holding firm. The  women victims have a right to justice. Their human rights and dignity has standing. All you are giving is Assange's position. What of his victims. or are you one of those people who blames the women? You know its 2016 and we have  moved beyond the era when women were blamed for being raped.

 

 

 

I think you're making it up as you go along....

 

He WAS questioned by the Swedish police, and (IIRC) they dropped the case until after he had left the country.  But perhaps this is what you mean by "he also  did his utmost to derail and sabotage the investigation" 

 

i.e. he left the country to follow his planned schedule after they dropped the case at the time?

 

Additionally, the women involved (as far as I can make out) agree that they had consensual sex - but that he refused to use a condom/deliberately broke the condom or something.

 

I haven't read anywhere that they are alleging rape - as per the UK definition of rape.  But I may well have missed this, so would appreciate a link showing that I have misunderstood.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I think you're making it up as you go along....

 

He WAS questioned by the Swedish police, and (IIRC) they dropped the case until after he had left the country.  But perhaps this is what you mean by "he also  did his utmost to derail and sabotage the investigation" 

 

i.e. he left the country to follow his planned schedule after they dropped the case at the time?

 

Additionally, the women involved (as far as I can make out) agree that they had consensual sex - but that he refused to use a condom/deliberately broke the condom or something.

 

I haven't read anywhere that they are alleging rape - as per the UK definition of rape.  But I may well have missed this, so would appreciate a link showing that I have misunderstood.

They did not drop the case.  Here's a great timeline.  He's got only himself to blame for this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341

 

Quote

 

August 2010 - the Swedish Prosecutor's Office first issues an arrest warrant for Mr Assange. It says there are two separate allegations - one of rape and one of molestation. Mr Assange says the claims are "without basis"

December 2010 - Mr Assange is arrested in London and bailed at the second attempt

May 2012 - the UK's Supreme Court rules he should be extradited to Sweden to face questioning over the allegations

June 2012 - Mr Assange enters the Ecuadorean embassy in London

 

 

He's a suspected criminal on the run.  Amazing so many are backing him.  Rape is a big deal.

[dick dasterdly]

19 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The only thing this sociopath wants is to be the center of attention. Conceited, boastful, given to wild mood swings, abusive, bullying, manipulative and self promoting. His behaviour screams out narcissistic personality disorder.  Have a good long hard look at  this man's history.  He has left a trail of destruction and engaged in anti social behaviour for decades. He uses people. There is a reason why he used to get the crap  kicked out of him when he was a kid: He was always telling people what to do, pushing people around and trying to control them.  He got older and found away to be the center  of attention. Unfortunately, in doing so, he was probably responsible for the  death and torture of hundreds if not thousands of people who were named in his leaks as being opposed to the Taliban or jihadists or Baathists.  You are defending a bully.

 

Bit weird then that the US government who initially claimed that this WOULD be the result of his 'leaks', have been ever so quiet about this ever since.

 

Perhaps they were being kind and didn't want to shame Assange for the thousands of people tortured or killed as a result of his revealing the truth to the population.  More likely  though, that they were unable to back up these accusations with facts....

 

Not a problem though, as they can rely on people like you to claim this to be the case - when even the US govt. has given it up as they have no proof.....

[dick dasterdly]

22 minutes ago, coma said:

 

Maybe they were raped. Maybe they were not. The only people that know if they were or not are the women making the "allegations" and Mr Assange himself. Not you, not I nor anybody else. You are all too keen to judge and declare him guilty when you have no evidence to back up your claim. No wonder the guys is all gun shy. What hope would he have of getting a fair trial with people like yourself branding him guilty when you couldn't possibly know if he is or isn't. At the moment as it stands these "victims" as you put it are in fact alleged victims. At best.

Not even the woman concerned are claiming that they were raped (as in the UK definition of rape) - as far as I can make out.

[craigt3365]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/11685451/Julian-Assanges-three-year-stay-in-Ecuadorean-embassy-has-cost-taxpayer-11.1m.html

Quote

Julian Assange's three-year stay in Ecuadorean embassy has cost taxpayer £11.1m

 

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Not even the woman concerned are claiming that they were raped (as in the UK definition of rape) - as far as I can make out.

Did you read my link?  The charges are rape and molestation.  At least that's what the women have claimed.

[dick dasterdly]

I know wikipedia isn't exactly a great source of information... but nonetheless I think the following quote is quite relevant :-

 

"On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it.^[7] The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three,^[20][21] and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden,^[22] which decided not to hear the case. At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months."

 

There are a few relevant points in the above quote, namely "lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree" - and I'm still waiting for anyone to say that he committed actual rape (as per UK law) and

 

"At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months".

[dick dasterdly]

There are so many things wrong with this 'saga' - which all boil down to Assange seriously pissing off governments and corporations that have either had their guilty secrets exposed, or are concerned that the same may happen to them.

 

Not particularly suprising then that this man has been pursued in a way entirely different to anybody else wanted for questioning over possible 'molestation' charges.  I deliberately leave out the possible rape charge - as the possible charge is not rape according to UK law.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I know wikipedia isn't exactly a great source of information... but nonetheless I think the following quote is quite relevant :-

 

"On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it.^[7] The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three,^[20][21] and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden,^[22] which decided not to hear the case. At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months."

 

There are a few relevant points in the above quote, namely "lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree" - and I'm still waiting for anyone to say that he committed actual rape (as per UK law) and

 

"At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months".

Only 2 people know if he committed rape or not.  One says he did, the other says he didn't.  That's why we have a court of law to help sort this stuff out.  The Swedish legal system is pretty good.  If he wasn't guilty, why did he leave before clearing his name?   Seems they still want him, so there's got to be something to it.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/swedish-court-upholds-arrest-warrant-for-wikileaks-founder-julia/

Quote

Swedish court upholds arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

 

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

There are so many things wrong with this 'saga' - which all boil down to Assange seriously pissing off governments and corporations that have either had their guilty secrets exposed, or are concerned that the same may happen to them.

 

Not particularly suprising then that this man has been pursued in a way entirely different to anybody else wanted for questioning over possible 'molestation' charges.  I deliberately leave out the possible rape charge - as the possible charge is not rape according to UK law.

He wasn't in the UK.

[dick dasterdly]

54 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The only thing this sociopath wants is to be the center of attention. Conceited, boastful, given to wild mood swings, abusive, bullying, manipulative and self promoting. His behaviour screams out narcissistic personality disorder.  Have a good long hard look at  this man's history.  He has left a trail of destruction and engaged in anti social behaviour for decades. He uses people. There is a reason why he used to get the crap  kicked out of him when he was a kid: He was always telling people what to do, pushing people around and trying to control them.  He got older and found away to be the center  of attention. Unfortunately, in doing so, he was probably responsible for the  death and torture of hundreds if not thousands of people who were named in his leaks as being opposed to the Taliban or jihadists or Baathists.  You are defending a bully.

 

Hang on a minute, you're claiming that he's a bully and that he used to get the crap kicked out of him at school....

 

Bullies don't 'get the crap kicked out of them' at school, they're generally known for doing the kicking rather than being on the receiving end!

 

Having pointed out a small part of the absurdity in your post - Coma is right insofar as I doubt you know him, and yet feel compelled to disparage him by posting an imaginary history!

 

FWIW , I think he most likely is extremely egotistical and conceited.  Nonetheless, I still think he is a hero for being brave enough to reveal to the population the lies told to them by their governments and corporations.

[OMGImInPattaya]

This whole case is a bunch of BS cooked up by the CIA and the Obama administration to get their hands on Assange. Look up the definition of "rape" under Swedish law...it's not what you think it is.

 

And kuddos to the Equadorans for letting Assange squat in their London embassy all these years and damn the Brits for doing the Obama administration's dirty work and not allowing him safe passage to a country of his choice.

Edited September 18, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[dick dasterdly]

31 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/11685451/Julian-Assanges-three-year-stay-in-Ecuadorean-embassy-has-cost-taxpayer-11.1m.html

 

Exactly.

 

Inconceivable that the  UK govt. would spend this money on a man only wanted for questioning by the Swedish authorities on  relatively minor charges.

 

Unless of course, they're more concerned about something entirely different - namely him having the audacity to reveal to the population things that those in power are determined should be kept secret.  i.e. the truth revealing the lies they've told.

[craigt3365]

Just now, OMGImInPattaya said:

This whole case is a bunch of BS cooked up by the CIA and the Obama administration to get their hands on Assange. Look up the definition of "rape" under Swedish law...it's not what you think it is.

You did read the part where this happened before he leaked the good stuff???

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

You did read the part where this happened before he leaked the good stuff???

They've been out to get him/Wikileaks from day one.