Assange to go!

[Collider]

And this is where I really agree with you. Facing the charges and coming away innocent would make him look the victim which is not what normally happens normally no matter what the mud sticks.

If there was no US involvement and no consent: then it would be his word against theirs. In light of their subsequent messages - they find in his favour

If there was US involvement and no consent: then it would be his word against theirs. In light of their subsequent messages - they find in his favour

If there was no US involvement and consent: then it would be his word against theirs. In light of their subsequent messages - they find in his favour

If there was US involvement and consent: then it would be his word against theirs. In light of their subsequent messages - they find in his favour

No matter what he walks. At the moment he is running and looking guilty running at that. But as the outcome is pretty much guaranteed then I wondering why the Swedish authorities are pursuing it and he is running. Therefore, from that I read it as there was US involvement and no consent. Simplistic speculation but I like to speculate and I am pretty simple!

I can see the logic in that in principle.

But equally if he had thought so he would have stayed or gone back voluntarily.

The association with Ecuador, which has no extradition to Sweden, makes me suspicious that he has run because he doesn't believe he would get off. Given Sweden has an excellent record in terms of the justice system he cannot be fearing the lack of a fair trial or getting convicted in a case where the evidence is bad.

And as the US have not sought him it seems very odd..as mentioned before Ecuador is the sort of country you would have thought someone with his claimed principles would be campaigning against, not going to live in!

 

[Xordium]

How can they successfully prosecute him though when the very people who would give them the evidence they need a) are not that involved in it anymore b) undermined their credibility in that regard with their subsequent messages. The issue isn't that something happened but something happened without consent.

I think desperate people do desperate things though and people who are under a lot of pressure get very desperate. He has completely undermined whatever credibility he had and it is pretty hard to find people sticking up for him now bar on the likes of these forums. The is also a presumption being made that he is thinking rationally - his actions for quite some time now have indicated everything to the opposite though - that he is not acting rationally.

Same question I asked Castiel then to you:

'do you think the USA will make any attempt to pursue charges against Assange under the Espionage Act (1917) for his involvement in the release and subsequent dissemination of classified material provided to him by Manning?'

 

[ubersonic]

How can they successfully prosecute him though when the very people who would give them the evidence they need a) are not that involved in it anymore b) undermined their credibility in that regard with their subsequent messages. The issue isn't that something happened but something happened without consent.

Basically they re-examined the girls statements and found a couple of things that they could use that were statutory offenses (i.e don't need the victims cooperation over) which due to how super overprotecting Swedish sex laws are was not hard.

I.E when you wake up next to your partner in a morning do you then wake her up and ask her for permission to cuddle up to her? or do you just do it? in Sweden just doing it consists an offence as it is done without consent/permission and this is one of the offenses alleged against Assange, that he cuddled up to one of the women while she was asleep (waking her when his erection poked her).

 

[snave]

I thought this whole thing was pretty straight forward.

US wants to string him up and watch him twist in the wind, if he goes to Sweden he will be extradited to the US. He offered to return to Sweden if they promised him he would not be extradited to the US and they told him they would not make that promise.

It's not very hard to read between the lines here, this guy managed to make a lot of very powerful people very very angry and he exposed governments for the lies and atrocities they had committed then tried to hide. We should be applauding him and holding the actually guilty people to task. Instead we're arguing over some trumped up molestation charge from a girl who threw him a party the next day and continued to tweet/message him after the fact.

He's even offered to answer the Swedish police's questions from the UK, there is no actual reason for him to go back to that country at this point. The UK is even threatening to storm the embassy if they don't comply - over a molestation charge.

 

[Xordium]

Basically they re-examined the girls statements and found a couple of things that they could use that were statutory offenses (i.e don't need the victims cooperation over) which due to how super overprotecting Swedish sex laws are was not hard.

I.E when you wake up next to your partner in a morning do you then wake her up and ask her for permission to cuddle up to her? or do you just do it? in Sweden just doing it consists an offence as it is done without consent/permission and this is one of the offenses alleged against Assange, that he cuddled up to one of the women while she was asleep (waking her when his erection poked her).

Which answers in no way my assertion they would not be able to use that without support from the women, that it would still be his word against theirs and that their subsequent messages did not indicated anything to substantiate potential charges in fact they rather detract from them.

 

[ubersonic]

Which answers in no way my assertion they would not be able to use that without support from the women, that it would still be his word against theirs and that their subsequent messages did not indicated anything to substantiate potential charges in fact they rather detract from them.

Im not entirely sure what you mean, but they already have the statements by the women and do not need their consent (has to be some irony here) to use the contents of them against him.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I am just watching his 10 part tv show called "the world tomorrow". where he interviews controversial individuals from around the world, similar to the show hardtalk.

I always thought it was atrocious that the establishment can abuse the legal system in such a way as to make up a false accusation and manage to deport someone on a false accusation, he has not even been charged. From what i am aware i can't say that X person in mongolia raped me and as such demand that the person be imported in to the uk for questioning. This is a clear abuse of the legal system and just shows how corrupt it realy is.

 

[oli collett]

Ok, as somebody who has been following this since before he became wanted, ill throw my 2 cents in.

First of all the rape allegations, the aren't any and never were, basically rape/sexual molestation/etc is what our media is calling it because the things he is wanted for are not crimes in the UK and they needed English words to refer to them (and also because it makes for a better story).

To sum it up, on 20/08/10 two girls walked into a police station because they had had consensual sex with a man and having heard rumors about him wanted to know if they could legally force him to have a HIV test done. Statements were taken etc, Assange was questioned on 30/08/10 and it was determined the was no crime to answer too and he couldn't be forced to take a test. The case was then re-opened on the 01/09/10 by a Swedish prosecutor and on the 18/09/10 Assange applied for residence in Sweden which was declined on 18/09/10 and so he left Sweden on 27/09/10 and on 18/11/10 an arrest warrant was issued for him.

The things that strike me as suspect is that the new prosecutor basically went over all the evidence with a fine tooth-comb to try and find the slightest thing that could be used against him. Things that would have to be statutory offences as the two women involved were not interested in bringing any charges against him (hence why they stopped cooperating with authorities and why it took so long between the case re-opening and an arrest warrant being issued).

According to translations those things basically consist of stuff like pinning a women down (holding her hands behind her head during consensual sex) and molesting the other women while she was asleep and therefore unable to give consent (cuddling up to her with an erection which then pressed against her).

Stepping back and looking at the big picture the is no way in hell all this should even have got off the ground let alone gone as far as it has unless for some reason somebody important really has it in for Assange (or a lot of people do). Then the last factor that I haven't addressed until now comes into view, all this took place during a period where Wikileaks were releasing lots and lots of confidential US information and congress was calling for his head.

I'm not usually one for conspiracy's, but if the shoe fits...

Got to the second paragraph and you've already made multiple factual errors. I'd suggest going over the case and allegations again.

 

[[TW]Fox]

From what i am aware i can't say that X person in mongolia raped me and as such demand that the person be imported in to the uk for questioning.

Not Mongolia, no, but if they were in France and certain conditions were met then this is exactly what you could do.

 

[deanolfc]

could these “allegations” be more pathetic? one of the women admits he didnt do anything, one (the same one?) is a radical feminist who blogs about “revenge techniques”

 

[anything I don't mind]

Not Mongolia, no, but if they were in France and certain conditions were met then this is exactly what you could do.

So you are saying merely an accusation would be enough to the legal wheels moving to extent that the person in France would be brought to court and eventually forced to be deported. Again merely on an accusation?

 

[Xordium]

From what i am aware i can't say that X person in mongolia raped me and as such demand that the person be imported in to the uk for questioning.

That's because we don't have an extradition treaty with Mongolia. Besides the Mongols stopped their raping almost 600 years ago.

 

[Xordium]

Im not entirely sure what you mean, but they already have the statements by the women and do not need their consent (has to be some irony here) to use the contents of them against him.

So you think that the would be able to get an acceptable level of proof to find him guilty on the basis of a statement. The non-appearance of the women would be quite significant but the ability to not cross-examine them even more so.

 

[oli collett]

could these “allegations” be more pathetic? one of the women admits he didnt do anything, one (the same one?) is a radical feminist who blogs about “revenge techniques”

You think these allegations are pathetic? You're a nice chap aren't you?

Unlawful coercion

On 13-14 August 2010, in home of the injured party [A] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs while lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

Sexual molestation (1)

On 13-14 August 2010, in home of the injured party [A] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

Sexual molestation (2)

On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [A] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity; that is, lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party , Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's integrity.

 

[anything I don't mind]

It is called trumped up charges the woman were probably working for the western intelligence establishment from the start and have merely agreed to try and set assange up. I saw a video of one of the woman who actually seemed rather unaffected by the incident and from my opinion appeared to be used by the prosecutor without her even been happy about it. So in other words they got people to interact with assange and then they used this interaction as a mechanism to try and get him in to a situation where they can attack his character and ultimately where they can get him in to the states where we all know he will be locked in a cage next to manning.

Such an abuse of the legal system, that it realy does bring the legal corruption that we see in todays society by the state and the intelligence establishment in to the light of day. The "above the law" etc. They can lock people away for life, without a trial or even charges. Now with new laws they can drone strike your house for whatever reason they want. They are not playing games and this case just shows that the state and it its followers will go to any means necessary to continue their crimes.

 

[ubersonic]

You think these allegations are pathetic? You're a nice chap aren't you?

Lmao, first you say my facts are wrong then you post that nonsense XD, where did you find that rubbish lol.

Lets see, does it tie in with his version of events? no. Does it tie in with women A's version of events? no, does it tie in with Women B's version of events? no.

Hell that doesn't even tie in with the Swedish authorities selective version of events.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So you are saying merely an accusation would be enough to the legal wheels moving to extent that the person in France would be brought to court and eventually forced to be deported. Again merely on an accusation?

This is more than merely an accusation though. The facts place him there at the time of the alleged offence, there is an admission that at least some sexual activity occured, etc etc.

So in the above example, if some random person reported you for a crime in a country you were not even in, then no, it wouldn't result in your extradition. But if there was a heck of a lot more to it, then it may well do.

 

[Third Opinion]

This is more than merely an accusation though. The facts place him there at the time of the alleged offence, there is an admission that at least some sexual activity occured, etc etc.

So in the above example, if some random person reported you for a crime in a country you were not even in, then no, it wouldn't result in your extradition. But if there was a heck of a lot more to it, then it may well do.

Well said.

Plus if he was was nothing to do with Wiki-leaks and had run to an embassy I would imagine that 99% of people would be calling for him to be extradited or thrown out to a waiting angry mob.

 

[Xordium]

Plus if he was was nothing to do with Wiki-leaks

If he was nothing to do with Wikileaks he would never have been in the position to not get consent in the first place.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Lets see, does it tie in with his version of events? no. Does it tie in with women A's version of events? no, does it tie in with Women B's version of events? no.

Hell that doesn't even tie in with the Swedish authorities selective version of events.

I presume you've spoken to Woman A and Woman B? Your posts seem to imply you have detailed inside knowledge of the case.