"Why certainly officer, I'll be only too pleased this little diplomatic safe haven I have at the moment and put myself in British custody because your legal process has really been going in my favour lately."
WikiLeaker-in-chief Julian Assange was served with an extradition notice by the Metropolitan police this morning. Scotland Yard said that the 40-year-old Australian, who holed himself up in the Ecuadorian Embassy's digs in London a week ago in an effort to seek political asylum, was required to "attend a police station at date …
"Why certainly officer, I'll be only too pleased this little diplomatic safe haven I have at the moment and put myself in British custody because your legal process has really been going in my favour lately."
Sod his favour, what about the favour of the alleged rape victims?
The world isn't about Jullian Assange, although he clearly seems to think it is. A journalist* sheltering in the Ecuadorian embassy in London because of fear of ill treatment of him in Sweeden is laughable.
*He flips between journalist and not journalist as it pleases him. Sometimes Wikileaks is a site which just puts up information unedited which it is believed to be in the national/international interest (Not journalism). Other times, they edit that information to suit their own ends and give it emotive names, as in the "collateral murder" video (Journalism.)
He's not been charged with anything, even by the Swedes. They say they just want to question him. I believe he's offered to meet their investigating officers and talk for as long as they want - in the UK. On the basis of that the Swedish authorities could then decide whether to press charges. But rather than accept his offer and buy a couple of cheap air tickets to Heathrow, the Swedish authorities decide to go through the whole extradition process just so they can have a chat - with someone who is merely a suspect?
Something suspicious here - the Swedes really, really want him back in Sweden, even before he's been charged with anything. One has to wonder why? Are the Swedish cops so poorly funded they can't afford a couple of air fares and a few nights in a cheap London hotel?
Wrong; they told Assange's legal counsel in Sweden that they wanted to interview him prior to arresting him. Suddenly Assange disappeared. It is neither more nor less suspicious than that, as much as Assange luvvies would have the world believe.
In addition these interviews are always conducted in jurisdiction, not in the jurisdiction of some other country. Further, because Sweden is in the EU it is not an extradition, it is execution of a European Arrest Warrant, it being that, as an EU member, Sweden is deemed to be up to standard in certain areas, including economics, health, human rights, policing and so on.
This is not fantasy land, it is the real world, and the real world is where Assange must face justice.
"He's not been charged with anything, even by the Swedes. They say they just want to question him"
This was covered in the Guardians "live blog" on the stand-off at the Ecuadorian embassy. Legal system in Sweden is different to the UK and this question session is a required step before charging him ... and I think the language used in the request for the interview basically implies that he is expected to be charged after questioning.
I have noticed that lately the legal system of most countries have less to do with "Justice" and are more about enforcing some political agenda.
Just look at whats happened to Dotcom, McKinnon and Alfred-Adekeye;
And I might be wrong but I seem to remember that the whole idea of extradition was to get people CHARGED with a crime back to where they can face trial. Using it to "ask a few questions" seems a little like using a RPG to swat a fly.
He is not accused of any crime, he is wanted for questioning only.
This is nothing more than a way for the United States to get hold of him, and drop him into a deep dark hole.
Hopefully, Julian has made financial arrangements for a rescue, were he to end up in US custody.
Don't forget about Kevin Mitnick, and Charles Dyer
Wrong; he is wanted to fulfill the Swedish procedure, namely interview, then arrest. The EAW was issued for that purpose and, should the US want to extradite him the Swedish authorities will have to ask the UK for their permission. In fleeing to the UK and then fighting to stay there the idiot Assange made his worst decision; he went from a place where extradition is difficult to one where it is easy.
The man should just say yes and take whatever punishment is due. The rest is pure conspiracy phantasm.
Rubbish. Utter tosh.
If the US wanted him, they'd extradite him directly from the UK, as that's much easier than arranging for Sweden to extradite him and then extradite him again from Sweden.
Sweden aren't going to allow an extraordinary rendition either, because it'll go VERY public very quickly - how would that play in the media? Assange extradited and 'vanished' on the way over? Not going to happen.
So, ask yourself - Does it really make any kind of sense to fight two legal battles, one though a puppet and the other in person, to extradite someone instead of just one?
On top of that, the UK has a 'special relationship' with the US, including rather lenient extradition terms for any time the US want somebody. They don't have a similar agreement with Sweden.
If you're looking for a conspiracy theory, this is not one.
And if the Swedes had interviewed him in the UK and not like his answers, they'd had to get a warrant for his arrest by which time he could have been anywhere.
Whereas if he happened to be on Swedish soil at the time, then it's a lot easy to bundle him out of the interview room and into a cell.
"One of the women accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)". link
Journalist? The article clearly states he is " the computer hacker" (fucked if I know why).
Classy. Publicly smear a woman who reports rape, but AC yourself. Julian would be so proud.
"....he is " the computer hacker" (fucked if I know why)." Saint Jules has a previous conviction for hacking US companys' systems, for which he got a slap on the wrist and has carried a massive chip on his shoulder ever since:
Was the language something like "Bork Bork Bork" ? ;)
Yeees. Sweeeden. Det is weeeere dey shooooet de cheeecken.
But obv OK to leak Mr A's name directly to the Press before any questioning.
Is it not possible that perhaps the lady in question became unhappy after much later hearing he was also banging her younger acquaintance? I mean, hypothetically ;) Plus allegedly some people might think she has scary eyes man. Whoever she is ;)
And not only do they want him really really bad, but it's on suspicion of a complaint which was dropped by the Swedish Public Prosecutors and only reared it's ugly ugly head the week after Cablegate broke and Assange officially became persona non gratia in the States.
Of course I'm not suggesting the Yanks did anything so underhand as to lean on the Swedes to reinstate the charges and at the very least smear his reputation, if not get him locked up, but other suspicious types have have been known to mutter suggestions to such an effect...
Which is very interesting to someone who watched the film 'Zeitgeist' a couple of days ago.
Far from being an antihero, Assange is actually a device of the US Government's paymasters to fuel instability in the Middle East, thus perpetuating their agenda of money making.
The uber-rich can only make money by lending it to governments to fight wars, usually on both sides.
There is almost certainly a level of CIA involvement, for whatever reason ^^^
Yeah, been a lot of ugly head goin on.
I suggest you go back and review the facts of the case.
The issue of rape is that it wasn't consensual sex in either case. One was asleep and the other said no when Julian didn't want to wear a 'rain coat'.
No means no, and poor Julian didn't like their response.
If Assange is tried in Sweden, I doubt whether you will be called to testify as to his state of mind about wearing a rain coat.
If you think 'no always means no', you have probably missed out on some outstanding action in your younger days. "The cook doesn't always cry when she chops an onion."
The Kron vs. Assange should be quite a trial. It will be just like a divorce except there won't be any friends of the couple to testify as to their behavior. It will be a "He said (Australian). She said (Swedish)" case to be tried in Sweden.
I don't doubt that the Swedish prosecutors and their American patrons are suborning the perjury of a bunch of witnesses right now. At the trial there should be parade of Svenskers who observed the couples at the meeting, leaving the hall, getting into the car. arriving at the flat and climbing up the stairs. And, mirabile dictu, they'll all testify that Assange was pushy, shovey, loud, arrogant, bitter and not wearing a rain coat, even though there was a light drizzle.
Assange has every reason to believe he will suffer the same fate as Vercingetorix.
" Vercingetorix surrendered to the Romans after being defeated at the Battle of Alesia in 52 BC, after which he was imprisoned for five years. In 46 he was paraded through Rome as part of Caesar's triumph before being executed."
All you gentlemen who stopped if your ladies said "no", will be belatedly rewarded when you go to Washington to see Assange dragged in cage down the Mall to the Lincoln Memorial.
I think you need to reread the complaints against Assange.
In both complaints Assange did not wear protection and both women claim that they indicated that they did not want to have unprotected sex.
So yes, no means no. At the same time the second woman said she was asleep and woke to find Assange attempting to engage in sex. Asleep means that she could not consent to having sex.
Had you also paid attention to the extradition hearing, Assange's laywer pointed out that the charge of rape in Sweden, which Assange is going to be charged with, wouldn't be considered a chargeable offense. Had you also read the prosecutions response, you might have learned that rape is one of the 32 offenses #26 on the list, I think, where you don't have to consider the 'duality' of the charge. This means that all that matters is what Sweden considers rape is all that matters.
It's troubling that you don't seem to get the importance of that when a woman says no to sex that you don't feel that you have to respect their wishes. And no, I didn't miss out on anything in my 'earlier days' , except when I decided not to close the deal. ;-)
You also unfortunately give too much credit to Assange. He's a wuss for running away from the charges. IMHO had he stayed to face the charges, he could have this all behind him by now... The US has time to build their case against Assange. Let's see what happens with Manning first...
"I think you need to reread the complaints against Assange...." Your're both completely correct and completely wasting your time, Gumby. Local Fruitloop doesn't do comprehension, he is another one of the sheeple that wait to be told what to think, they're incapable of logical analysis. Fruitloop would probably believe it if A$$nut said he could walk on water.
" "I think you need to reread the complaints against Assange...." Your're both completely correct and completely wasting your time, Gumby. Local Fruitloop doesn't do comprehension, he is another one of the sheeple that wait to be told what to think, they're incapable of logical analysis. Fruitloop would probably believe it if A$$nut said he could walk on water."
Sadly this analysis is on the mark, as evidenced by the tendency of the fools to mark down posts in which writers articulate the publicly available facts, on the EAW, on Assange's Swedish counsel's behaviour, on the counsel's admission in a UK court that the Swedish police had in fact been trying to contact him about 'interviewing Assange, and so on. Indeed, when this imbroglio started some 2 years ago (is it really that long now?) and I referred to Assange as a convict people denied it, marked me down and 'shouted' at me.
I reposted the conviction data but, even so, the Assange luvvies do not seem to be capable of letting go and of realising that behavioural histories predict future behaviour. So much so that there is much speculation about the alleged victims; that they are whores, loose women, CIA women, women annoyed at the fact that the same man had screwed them in a row, and so on.
It is clear from the publicly available data that Assange likes the opposite sex, and he has demonstrated few if any scruples where breaking existing relationships is concerned. In fact it would seem to me that Assange holds some powerful attraction to the opposite sex, and that might explain why he has a following of so many naive, pulchritudinous women; men who perceive themselves as having power (e.g., and particularly, politicians) appear to become fairly hypersexual and possibly even more attractive. This would make evolutionary sense since, if they indeed occupy a position of power, they would be well placed to exert protective influence over any issue and, moreover, would likely be sufficiently affluent or command sufficient resources to bring them up successfully.
Thus, in the preceding analysis, the incident in which he 'stole' a journalist's girlfriend and adopted a faux pugilist's stance to the jilted journo, the incident would be based on this putative hypersexuality and arousal. There is another, deeper, neuropsychology perspective, but I'll wait and see if he is convicted before adducing that one. I need him first to be convicted again before I'll feel comfortable about it.
Both women are obviously familiar with the sight of the male penis both in its naked and suited up condition. Wasn't it incumbent upon them, seeing Assange's unprotected unit working its way into their genetalia, to act decisively, grab the unwelcome intruder by its balls and thereby halt its progress?
If they had done so and Assange had made them continue, these ladies would have an action of forced rape? And the Swedish authorities would have acted accordingly.
My guess is that the women's better judgement was overruled by their needy clitorises. Assange's lawyers will argue that what's 'flagrante delicto for the gander is flagrante delicto for the goose.' A casual fuckmate, who wants her partner's penis to have a condom on, is just as responsible for the illegal entrance of a non-condomed penis into her vagina as he is. If he forces her, it is rape of a different color.
If he doesn't force it in, she has given her implied consent,
I would be surprised, Gumby, if that isn't your experience as well.
As Assange only recently arrived in Stockholm, he had no flat there. Do you know whether these two volunteers invited him back to their places, hinting sex? Isn't it possible that the first accuser waited a couple of days before reporting it to the police to let the second act occur so that there would be two accusations and not one? Just asking .
Those commenters who were critical of Assange after the Wikileaks dump but before the rape charges, are the ones now who believe everything his accusers say. Those who applauded Wikileaks at the time the documents were leaked are defending Assange now. La plus ca change :)
" Assange has every reason to believe he will suffer the same fate as Vercingetorix.
" Vercingetorix surrendered to the Romans after being defeated at the Battle of Alesia in 52 BC, after which he was imprisoned for five years. In 46 he was paraded through Rome as part of Caesar's triumph before being executed." "
Ah yes, Vercingetorix, and Julie is just like him, isn't he? Which way around would it be though? Hmm, Julie aka Neo leading the vast armies of the rebelling internetties against the vile Obamies?
Naw, I know how it went, though the internet was a different matter in Vercingetorix' days, wasn't it? In his time it was all a matter of pieces of string and tin pots, beaten until they resembled modern tins in their thinness. That way messages would be transmitted over the Rome-net and the only way for Vercingetorix and crew to find out what was going on would be to, quite literally, hack their way into this modern marvel of instant communication! Man in the middle attacks would be facilitated by interposing, at great speed, a tin in the middle of the line of communication, so that Vercingetorix, Asterix and Obelix could find out where the next attack would take place, or where a supply train would be found, by Toutatis!
And, at the end, blind Julie will fly his craft all the way to Washington and take on the vile Obamie army, sparing no Merkin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin ) their lives, and bringing peace back to the burned out shell of earth.
Sadly Nnnnnnneeeeeee^ha^haJulie doesn't live according to this plot, does he? He sinks back onto his bed of robots and is borne away, like jesus, having sacrificed himself for all of us, so say we all.
Gee, Scorchio, all I said was:"" Assange has every reason to believe he will suffer the same fate as Vercingetorix," which -- perhaps a soupcon of hyperbole -- is no less true than your birth certificate. So what did you do? You took it as license to blather. For shame. I thought you were cured of that unattractive habit.
Where we disagree is whether or not Rafael Correa is going to grant Assange asylum, n'est pas? And when? What, Scorchio, is the difference between Assange living in the Ecuadorean Embassy under a grant of asylum or waiting for such a grant? If you were Assange you'd find them to be identical.
Shouldn't Correa keep the world on pins and needles awaiting Ecuador's decision? Some wag here recently quoted Oscar Wilde's famous line: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
Well, I've seen Ecuador's name in the press more since June 19th, than I have in a 100 years. JA has done more for Ecuador than Simon de Bolivar.
Anyway, glad you're back sharing your wisdom with us. :o)
"Gee, Scorchio, all I said was^oh^oh^oh[...] Zoodle wurdle, zoodle wurdle"
Trying to cover up for the word salad that you spouted will not work.
You're attempting to spin a story that isn't. The facts of the case are that the women alleged unwanted sex and that under Swedish law constitutes rape. Its not what I or anyone here thinks but its what the Swedish prosecutor is willing to consider a case worth pursuing. She's the one who has seen the facts, determine that they are credible and worth pursuing.
Whether or not Assange had prior consensual sex or not is irrelevant. The key is that on this occasion, the sex or attempt of sex was not consensual because he didn't wear a raincoat and that he attempted to have sex with an unconscious participant.
Also what we consider rape isn't at issue. Its what the Swedish law considers rape and if the alleged complaints by the two women meet their standards of rape.
Also note that being charged doesn't mean that he would be found guilty. Just that there is enough credible evidence to pursue a case which the prosecutor thinks she can win.
Either his supporters have difficulty in holding all of the data in perceptual conciousness, or they are deliberately ignoring parts that do not suit them. Either way it does not look good, because the dancing in here is mirrored by the dancing in meat space.
Happy 4th by the by. Next stop the glorious twelfth, and bugger the PC vegetarian mob. :-)
Everything you say may be true.
Yet only the testimony of the women and Assange can establish the action of the couples in bed. As there are two women testifying against him for his criminal behavior on two different occasions, Assange thought his neck was wrung and sought asylum in the Emabassy.
Whether Assange spends the rest of his life in Knightbridge or his permitted to go to Equador, no one can say. But if he feels the deck is stacked against him and doesn't trust Sweden to give him fair trial and is worried that American termination and rendition await him, I say "Godspeed."
These things bother me. (a,The first prosecutor dropping the case, the second one picking it up -- it looks like outside interference. (b, The first victim waiting a few days to report the rape. -- This delays the police from informing Assange of the investigation of rape and thereby prevents the second one from happening. Two Swedish victims are essential to convince a Swedish jury of the frame up by the Swedish Prosecutor of Assange.
I don't trust government to tell the truth any more.
When I first learned of WMD in Iraq I didn't believe it. Then there was Hans Blix's inspection of WMD and his eventual clearing of Saddam. Then the US moved the goalposts and insisted that Blix missed them and invaded anyway. Then the invasion force confirmed Blix's observation, but, hey, we were there, the oil was ours and to err is human.
"I'll have grounds more relative than this—but the trial's not the way,
For it looks like Assange has made good his getaway>"
...is to get a REALLY big diplomatic pouch made up. A sleeping bag would do at a push, I suppose.
Hop in to the pouch/sleeping bag and leave the country unmolested by the Met, as we all know it has immunity from search or seizure. Job's a good 'un.
You reading this Julian? :P
If they used a spanned zip he could fit in the standard sized ones!
A large pouch, enough to hold a human?
What about a body bag?
Whatever they use, please let it be air tight and soundproof.
Surely he'd fit into a broken condom, wouldn't he?
Wow, I had no idea someone would be insane enough to try the diplomatic pouch thing in real life. Obviously Israelis had to be involved...
Isn't the Ecuadorean embassy in a condominium? Wrap it up in rubber and send the whole thing to Sweden.
He clearly originated in one.....
My tip is:
1) Don't use the GCHQ bags, or
2) Make sure you don't let one any of the people who put up your bail money zip you in.
3) Double check that the baggage label doesn't say London to Quito via Washington DC
4) Just because Ecuador expelled its US ambassador doesn't mean they like you.
A bottle of hair dye would probably do it.
But also he clearly need a curly 'tache, a tricorn and a rapier. Maybe they can do him some velvet boots as well.
I think he needs a man-sized pouch too. Like, you know, a thong.
He's only human. Unless you know better ;)
I got as far as 'Erratic leaker too busy boning' on the front page, and thought, 'Isn't that what got him into trouble in the first place!'
I thought it was boning without a sheath. Something like that.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017