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

[dick dasterdly]

28 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 :-

 

 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."

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

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/

 

I've deleted most of my quoted post for the sake of brevity.

 

To make it even simpler, I'll repeat the relevant points :-

 

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

 

"the Svea Court of Appeal.....lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree"

 

I'm still waiting for any indication that rape (according to UK law) is even being suggested.  And, of course - Assange hasn't been charged with anything - they just want to question him.

 

And, thank god for small mercies (!) I gather they're finally coming to the UK to question him in October.  That they've waited this long kind of indicates that they don't consider it particularly important.....

 

 

[impulse]

18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And, thank god for small mercies (!) I gather they're finally coming to the UK to question him in October.  That they've waited this long kind of indicates that they don't consider it particularly important.....

 

Kind of wondering if all the flights have been booked for the past 3 months and into October.  How long can it take to write down a few questions?

 

Unless, of course, there's another reason (or 3 or 300) to delay.

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I've deleted most of my quoted post for the sake of brevity.

 

To make it even simpler, I'll repeat the relevant points :-

 

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

 

"the Svea Court of Appeal.....lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree"

 

I'm still waiting for any indication that rape (according to UK law) is even being suggested.  And, of course - Assange hasn't been charged with anything - they just want to question him.

 

And, thank god for small mercies (!) I gather they're finally coming to the UK to question him in October.  That they've waited this long kind of indicates that they don't consider it particularly important.....

 

What's him living in the UK got to do with this?  I'm not sure of the relevance.  Again, it didn't happen in the UK, so UK law doesn't matter.  He's not wanted by the UK.  And you are right, he's not been charged with anything.  Why not clear this up before he left Sweden?  Easy if there was no rape?

 

They've waited this long because he's been hiding in the embassy of Ecuador! LOL  Last ditch effort to get this cleared up?  He should pay the 11 million pounds the UK spent to keep an eye on him.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Kind of wondering if all the flights have been booked for the past 3 months and into October.  How long can it take to write down a few questions?

 

Unless, of course, there's another reason (or 3 or 300) to delay.

Sorry, but that's a conspiracy theory.

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Sorry, but that's a conspiracy theory.

 

Absolutely.

[dick dasterdly]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

What's him living in the UK got to do with this?  I'm not sure of the relevance.  Again, it didn't happen in the UK, so UK law doesn't matter.  He's not wanted by the UK.  And you are right, he's not been charged with anything.  Why not clear this up before he left Sweden?  Easy if there was no rape?

 

They've waited this long because he's been hiding in the embassy of Ecuador! LOL  Last ditch effort to get this cleared up?  He should pay the 11 million pounds the UK spent to keep an eye on him.

I give up as you obviously have no intention of responding to any points that don't match your 'story' - and instead trot out the same old lines regardless of any argument refuting your points  .

[dick dasterdly]

12 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Sorry, but that's a conspiracy theory.

On this one occasion you're sort of right.

 

The Swedes should have got on a 'plane shortly after it became obvious that Assange had no intention of trusting the Swedes to not quickly send him to the US.

 

They wanted to question him, and he had understandable reservations as to whether he would be sent to the US for 'questioning'  if he left his refuge.

 

So why on earth did they leave it this long before sending their police/investigators to London to question Assange on this relatively minor possible charges???

 

And before someone chips in again saying that rape is not a minor charge - I'll point out in advance that the UK definition of rape is not even being considered as a possible charge.....

[CharlieK]

On 9/17/2016 at 0:27 PM, geriatrickid said:

 

You forget that   Assange ran away. He did his utmost to  prevent  the investigation. Assange was of the view that  his alleged drugging and raping of the woman was no one's business. Well, the Swedish police had a duty to investigate and to protect the  alleged victim. It is unfortunate that you do not believe that women are worthy of legal protection and that sexual assault is a wrongful act.

 

Wasn't it suggested that the ladies concerned did not want to press charges, but the swedish courts decided to proceed with the cases, also that he has not been charged with any crime, these are alleged crimes for which sweden want to question him? 

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

On this one occasion you're sort of right.

 

The Swedes should have got on a 'plane shortly after it became obvious that Assange had no intention of trusting the Swedes to not quickly send him to the US.

 

Could have saved the Brit's 11 million pounds (and counting) , and maybe even prevented the Brexit and saved the EU.

 

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

 

[dick dasterdly]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Could have saved the Brit's 11 million pounds (and counting) , and maybe even prevented the Brexit and saved the EU.

 

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

 

Definitely agree with the emboldened part!

[impulse]

12 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

You can blame the UK government for being the US lacky.  

 

Only if the US mysteriously pays the UK 11 million pounds (cash, no less) for a 30 year old unfinished weapons deal the day the UK sticks him on a plane to the USA.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, impulse said:

 

Only if the US mysteriously pays the UK 11 million pounds (cash, no less) for a 30 year old unfinished weapons deal the day the UK sticks him on a plane to the USA.

I think some of us are wondering why the UK courts agreed to extradite Assange to Sweden when they only wanted to question him on relatively minor charges.  (And I'll repeat yet again, the rape accusation would not be considered rape in the UK).

 

On top of this, why the hell have they dealt with this man as if he was a major terrorist, and spent millions of pounds 'guarding' him?

 

Its not a conspiracy theory to suggest that there is something wrong with this scenario - its common sense.

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its not a conspiracy theory to suggest that there is something wrong with this scenario - its common sense.

 

It's still a theory.  So was the germ theory of disease at one time.  Some conspiracy theories are true, too.  Just not proven.  Yet.

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

It's still a theory.  So was the germ theory of disease at one time.  Some conspiracy theories are true, too.  Just not proven.  Yet.

No wonder you didn't quote my entire post.....

 

But that is quite typical of those who aren't interested in having a proper discussion - and prefer to rely on distorting posts. 

[impulse]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

No wonder you didn't quote my entire post.....

 

But that is quite typical of those who aren't interested in having a proper discussion - and prefer to rely on distorting posts. 

 

'til you have the evidence, it's just a theory.  The rest of your conjecture is just that.  Conjecture.  I don't disagree with it.  But let's call it what it is.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, impulse said:

 

'til you have the evidence, it's just a theory.  The rest of your conjecture is just that.  Conjecture.  I don't disagree with it.  But let's call it what it is.

I understand why you prefer to only quote one small part of my post , but I'm afraid that I'm going to quote my  post in full again! 

 

"I think some of us are wondering why the UK courts agreed to extradite Assange to Sweden when they only wanted to question him on relatively minor charges.  (And I'll repeat yet again, the rape accusation would not be considered rape in the UK).

 

On top of this, why the hell have they dealt with this man as if he was a major terrorist, and spent millions of pounds 'guarding' him?

 

Its not a conspiracy theory to suggest that there is something wrong with this scenario - its common sense."

 

In response to your post doing your best to imply that its pure conjecture - I'd again refer you to the unprecedented way this case has been handled.  Its as close to 'evidence' as we'll ever get.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, CharlieK said:

 

You can blame the UK government for being the US lacky.  

I think there's more than a few who'd argue whether the UK is a lacky.  I don't think so.  Far from it.  Partners?  Definitely.  For better or worse at times!

[CharlieK]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

I think there's more than a few who'd argue whether the UK is a lacky.  I don't think so.  Far from it.  Partners?  Definitely.  For better or worse at times!

 

The only way for the UK to remain relevant in global politics is to follow the US for better or worse. That might change once out of the EU. But even the US now seem intent on taking a back seat in global politics.   

[Publicus]

Assange is just not your usual suspect or any run of the mill publicist. As we see in this case and in its legal wranglings, Julian Assange has a mindset.

 

Assange says he focuses on the United States and the West because they are changable societies, in contrast to the immovable and fiercely determined tyrannies of Putin in Russia, the CCP Dynasty of Dictators in Beijing, the grim ayatollahs in Iran, or elsewhere, such as in Equador, Venezuela among others.

 

So here is an instance of the drivel mindset that flees the authorities in Sweden and jumps bail in UK but gets a television talk show on Russian TV given to him by Putin Himself....

 

 

From the cramped confines of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he was granted asylum four years ago amid a legal imbroglio, Mr. Assange proffered a vision of America as superbully: a nation that has achieved imperial power by proclaiming allegiance to principles of human rights while deploying its military-intelligence apparatus in “pincer” formation to “push” countries into doing its bidding, and punishing people like him who dare to speak the truth.

 

Notably absent from Mr. Assange’s analysis, however, was criticism of another world power, Russia, or its president, Vladimir V. Putin, who has hardly lived up to WikiLeaks’ ideal of transparency.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html?_r=0

 

 

If any additional clarity of Assange's mindset might be needed, there is also this among other articles of evidence and proof...

By making the West the focus of his efforts, Assange betrays an agenda every bit as sinister as the one of which he accuses his enemies, writes George Grant

 

By making the West, and in particular the United States, the focus of his efforts, Assange betrays an agenda every bit as sinister as the one of which he accuses his enemies.

 

In likening Western governments to Soviet ones, and comparing Western "War Crimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan to those committed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Assange demonstrates a dangerous moral relativism that is shared by a worrying number of people, particularly on the anti-establishment Left.

 

If Assange is genuinely committed to shining light into the darkness, and exposing real corruption and human rights abuse, we must ask ourselves, where are the ‘Chinese Embassy Cables’? What has become of the ‘Iran Files’? Whither the ‘Chechnya War Logs’?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8175921/WikiLeaks-Why-is-Julian-Assange-picking-on-the-United-States.html

 

Assange says his goal is to restore the European Enlightenment. Lofty sounding goal for a guy running from a rape charge in Sweden while running a television talk show in Moscow and then jumping bail in the UK to hole up in the embassy of Equador (which also is suspected of aiding Snowden).

 

[Basil B]

Should be hit with a fine for over stay,    ...Thai style,  + the cost of police protection. 

[peergin]

On 9/17/2016 at 10:19 AM, coma said:

If he goes back to Sweden to face the music, regardless of the outcome, guilty or not guilty. His next stop will be to the United States where he will spend the best part of the rest of his life incarcerated. Plain and simple.

 

That is what he deserves. Who is he, this little fellow, to decide that the stolen data had to be released to the whole world?? 

[gk10002000]

The man and his organization and people under his control hacked into and stole classified documents.  That alone is a crime.  Then he released them.  Without knowing all the details of the documents and their classification, you can't say exactly what should happen to him.  (some are just sensitive and some countries are just whining).   The decisions should rest with the proper courts.  He doesn't want to face the music.  If he were smart, he might have been able to cooperate, cut a deal, help the countries with their security issues, anti-hacking protocols, etc.  But instead he feels he is on a mission.  Well, that is his choice. 

[gk10002000]

The rape charge is probably what he is most likely to get prosecuted or tried for.  Again, if he had good lawyers, maybe he could work out an agreement to avoid the rape thingy, if enough governments that are interested in him put some pressure to that because they would want his full cooperation on the leaks issues.  He probably needs to do something soon because I doubt Ecuador is going to want to house him forever.  I wonder if he can wait out a statute of limitations on the alleged rape case?

[gk10002000]

I have a few technical degrees so I was just reading up on Mr Assange.  By all accounts the man was very versatile, was very intelligent, did, and no doubt was capable of doing more very sophisticated technical work. He attended several schools but never completed an official degree.  He traveled the world.   He worked as a consultant, and seems to have had some business sense. The man could have been very affluent and could have led a rich and full and fun life.   But early in his life he decided and continually decided to pursue hacking.  At one point he was in a hacking group they called the International Subversives.  To me, that kind of hints at where his mind was going.  Maybe he felt a higher calling to inform people about things.  I don't know.  I suspect that his ego got the best of him, even though he didn't realized it.  He like the attention he was getting.  He liked catching people or companies or governments with their pants down or in a lie when he revealed things.  Since this is in a Thai forum, I think the ego thing is important.  Ego is very central to Buddhism.  Ego can get you in a lot of trouble

[Publicus]

 

The one common thread of Assange and his Wikileaks is the focus against the United States while ignoring Russia, CCP China, Iran, Venezuela and other tyrannies prominent or not. And his personal beneficial relationship with Putin. I'd guess that easily became his world view from down under.

 

Recall it was Assange's Wikileaks that met Snowden in flight in Hong Kong and skulked him off to Moscow, and that Snowden had the goods in his possession in both places. Snowden no doubt had planned this and the leveraging of the info he had for his own personal interests and safety from prosecution and incarceration for decades as required by U.S. espionage laws.

 

Both Snowden and Assange will do anything Putin requires of them. Assange is getting to the point he'd do anything for anyone who'd get him out of a disastrous mess that will deservedly dominate and determine the remainder of his dastardly and miserable life. 

[craigt3365]

He's a hacker and a criminal.

 

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html
 

Quote

 

Whatever else you might say about WikiLeaks, it’s hard to think of an institution that squanders goodwill more efficiently. Even the people most sympathetic to its aims and ideals have had a hard time defending it recently.

............

In the past, WikiLeaks has tended to defend itself against (frequent) charges of recklessness, indiscretion, and negligence by citing an absolute commitment to free speech and transparency. But these defenses are increasingly less credible, as WikiLeaks seems unable (or unwilling) to rigorously process its leaks — or even fact-check its own claims. The recent fiasco of the “Erdogan emails” (which, as we’ll see, actually have very little to do with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in any meaningful sense) is a shocking demonstration.

 

 

Yet many don't see this side of Julian. 

[Nasrullah]

7 hours ago, peergin said:

 

That is what he deserves. Who is he, this little fellow, to decide that the stolen data had to be released to the whole world?? 

Yes......how dare he expose the grubby, tyrannical dealings from our supposed leaders.......shame on him

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Nasrullah said:

Yes......how dare he expose the grubby, tyrannical dealings from our supposed leaders.......shame on him

What about the women in Turkey?  Was that OK?

[ddavidovsky]

Surveillance 'cost 11 million pounds'.

 

As a point of economics (not my strongest subject) can someone explain in what sense this 'cost' 11 million pounds? I mean, what is the negative consequence to the nation of that 'expenditure'?

 

My understanding is that a country has a 'money supply'. The money supply sloshes around in all directions. A lot of money goes from the people to the government (in taxes), and some of that from the government to the police, and much of that goes in salaries to officers who are part of 'the people', and from there sloshes around the system again. Seems to me that the money is not actually 'lost' to the money supply unless it is physically destroyed or taken out of the country or evaporates in smoke-and-mirrors of financial markets.

 

Maybe those surveillance costs involved officers hired specially - in other words, an incremental cost to the police (though  I suspect they would have been employed anyway). Anyway, given that the money is still circulating in the system, seems to me that it is a 'cost' only on the police's books and not in any meaningful sense to the nation.

 

Obviously the 'cost' of public services affects the level of taxation, therefore the people would not want those costs to be higher than necessary. But I'm thnking that is a macro issue and this particular 11 million is not going to affect levels of taxation directly - it's not as if UK's 60 million tax payers (to include VAT) would each pay 20p less one year had the police not spent that money.

 

Seems to me that saying the operation 'cost' 11 million pounds implies that the money is a cost to the nation, which is not true, and is therefore misleading. Someone correct me if I'm getting all this wrong. I totally admit the possibility.

[Nasrullah]

58 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

What about the women in Turkey?  Was that OK?

I'll bite.......

 

Yes i presume there are women in Turkey.So what about them?