His own fault
This is no longer news. He is only a man refusing to go to Sweden, so an investigation can continue. It is his own fault that he is in the situation.
44 posts • joined 23 Nov 2011
You have no proof that it will not go through the courts. We have already seen Julian Assange being granted the opportunity to challenge an extradition request through the courts.
Sweden has entered into an international agreement with the UK that requires approval from the UK for any further extradition. That what the EAW is. Every individual who was a victim of "extraordinary rendition" was under the jurisdiction of the state that where "rendered" from.
Sorry, but any extradition of Assange has to go through the courts. Next time wait for an answer.
Enhanced Interrogation techniques were used to extract information out of suspects of crimes or people associated with a specific criminal organizations. Such techniques are a violation of an individuals rights. All those individuals were not sent to the US for the obvious reason. All where under the direct jurisdiction of the countries that they were arrested in. There is no possibility that Assange will be sent to the US an extradition request approved by courts in both Sweden and the UK.
It has been reported that it was about 20 people. That is not a lot of people. The thing for certain now is Assange will remain in the embassy until Correa leaves office or Correa finds no use of keeping Assange.
It is hard to understand Assange's reasoning. He has yet to produce anything that would secure his freedom. He also fails to accept that if the woman really believe that they were harmed that they will wait him out while living their lives.
That will be a long time and only continue to hurt his image.
The UK would not spend millions of pounds waiting for you to exit because you would have been kicked out of the embassy as soon as the police requested you surrender.This is the same for other people. If the police want a suspect they would be waiting for the individual to surrender just like Assange.
"Apart from showing the Swedish government and Säpo have no problem colluding to break their own laws on extradition, I suppose."
Those two individuals were never extradited, but deported back to country of birth. There were 50 countries involved in that situation. The did something wrong and owned up to it. Assange has violated his bail condition and has refused to return to Sweden to answer allegations of sexual assault.
"leaking his name immediately to the press"
How ironic the person who wants to publish others dirty secrets, but when what he is accused of gets leaks he complains. Wikileaks exists to get leaked information even if "laws were broken."
All that seems to be is a complaint that one person should not be held accountable for their actions.
A lot has happened between the treatment of those two individuals and 2010. However, the mistreatment of those two individuals have absolutely nothing to do with Assange's legal situation. How Assange has been treated is also a clear indication that his rights will not be violated.
It is not possible to go from "if America files a request" to "there's a good chance he'll face changes in the US." There is a chance he will face changes in the US if America files a request. However, it will have to go through the courts.That is America MUST make a request and it MUST be approved. Two things that have not happened.
Assange has shown that he only stands for Assange. Assange enter the embassy while out on bail after losing his extradition hearings, about two weeks before he was to be sent to Sweden. The authorities in the UK expected him to uphold his bail condition, or at least his sureties force them to. Those sureties had to admit that they could not do that resulting in all of them losing money. Refusing to present himself to the court when requested will also result in Assange losing money, but also spending time in jail. He has created a situation where during his hearing on the punish he should get that he might not get bail (as he does not deserve that privilege).
These people cheer-leading Assange have done him no service.
Those at the top were not securing large quantities of information that they had no clearance to access. It does not dismiss their irresponsibility. then passing them off to media organizations. If Petraeus was doing what Manning and Swonden did he would be in jail. The other difference is Petraeus wealth allowed him to support a better deference. Manning was provided with a very capable law, but would have been better severed if people who supported her donated more money or time.
Petraeus, Manning, and Snowden will forever be known for the acts they have committed. Each will also be able to rehabilitated their images. Snowden's status will be tenacious until he returns to the US.
There are significant differences between the two cases. To some they want to make similarities were no existed. Petraeus was very irresponsible for allowing an individual without proper security clearance to get access to classified documents, and showed a lack of judgment. This is further compounded that he was have an extra-maritall affair a relationship with that individual. It was his own documents that he provided to that individual.
Manning has always been looking for a way to keep in touch with other people. It is important to people like Manning to keep in touch with their supporters. There is no surprise that one of those supporters are willing to have Manning dictate thoughts to them and post those thoughts on Twitter.
Yes, even one is allowed to their opinion even when that is all it is.
There have been a lot of reports about the women when have never been true, let alone having supporting information to demonstrate them to be true. If it is states that something existed and was later deleted then it never existed.
1. Based on the allegations at 4 incidents consent was absent.
2. They might have enjoyed it but at some point felt their rights were violated. Point (1)
3. More like the women felt empowered enough to go to the police together.
4. The FB never existed nor have been demonstrated to have existed.
5. They believed that their rights were violated.
Of course what Julian Assange was accused in Sweden violated Swedish laws. Sweden has a statue of limitation on when an individual can bring similar complaints forward, other countries have none. So, if it is 10 years then a person can bring the complaint forward 9 years after the event. This "weeks or months after the event" as a point of disbelief has no basis in law.
Did both brag about it? No, they did not.
There is only one accusation of rape and only one. Both women's complaints are entirely different, except for two points. The obvious is they are complaining about the same individual. In principle that what started out as being consensual, had incidents that were not consensual.
With the most serious offense it is quite obvious that consent was absent. Sorry, but the courts nor the law use the standard you have suggested.
What he is accused of was released before his first extradition hearing. It was also included in the initial hearing and the appeal.
There can not be a desire to have "thrown them all in jail" when one does not even want to address the basics of the case.
The problem is not addressing the accusations and these constant shifting arguments. What has been suggested make it less likely the US is involved, which what is less than 0.
Julian Assange needs to stop his demands and fully cooperate. It has never worked. None of his strategies have worked other than delaying the process. It is unknown the details about Swedish laws, but his tactics have only worked to his detriment.
Strange was allowing his lawyers to argue on what he believed the accusations were instead of what was in the arrest warrant. Just maybe allowing his lawyers to argue against the actual accusation then there could be some consideration on the validity of the accusations.
It was known long ago when the case was being argued through the courts that there are statute of limitations on sexual assault in Sweden. Ng is being pressured into meeting with Assange because the statute of limitations. The expiration of the limitation on bring legal proceedings will conclude the case.
At issue for the prosecution is having Assange in a Swedish court to defend himself against the allegations. However, before that is to get Assange's version of the events without him being able to "skip out of the country when things get to hot."
Evidence is what Assange has not produced to support his fear that Sweden will violate the rights of the accusers, Assange, and international law.
With the low rate of conviction on sexual assault, Assange would statistically be free today.
It was that she commented about being around the coolest "people." That is more than one person. If we understand about human nature it would be no surprise, and means absolutely nothing in relationship to the allegations. Being that up is the weakest defense that can be used for a person as famous as Assange, for an experienced litigator can turn it around to make matters worse for Assange.
The statue of limitation is a law to force the prosecution or the complainant to be diligent in seeking "justice." It is not a tool to be used by the accused. If the prosecutor or the complainant can demonstrate in court that they have been diligent and the situation is exceptional then the statue of limitation is tolled.
It is about who has been more diligent in moving the legal proceedings forward. It is unknown how far the prosecution needs to being the case forward, but Julian Assange's stalling tactics do not help him at all. He seems more intent on making matters ever worse than they already are.
"People get away with skipping bail all the time,"
Actually, that is false. There are two situations with bail. The first; where a person is required to return to the court to have their bail conditions adjusted so that they adhered to it. However, if the individual does not show up to court without a valid reason they will be imprisoned. The second; where a person is imprisoned for merely violating bail conditions. The latter is the case in the UK. Assange not showing up to court when requested is the reason he will be punished, not for violating his bail condition.
"No. However that same protection allows you to avail yourself of certain rights."
Is a none issue with this case. It is akin to a person with a lawyer complaining about no being to get a lawyer.
"So you were in favour of Apartheid?"
Aparheid is a system that persecuted an individual when they did nothing wrong because they were part of a certain group. We and anyone else would be treated exactly the same as Assange if we were accused of the same crimes and acted in the same way. That is if we did something wrong.
This interview seems to be designated to help the prosecution. This has very little to do with extradition request. If the prosecution does not change their mind on the case, they will use this attempted interview to demonstrate that they have done everything in their power to move the case forward. This move will work against Assange unless he can put doubt in the prosecutions mind. That does not seem likely.
Julian Assange was hoping for a small miracle in both getting a seat, and being able to return to Australia without being arrested. Conventional wisdom states that Assange can not legally sit in the senate with his legal problems. Also, that such legal problems end political careers.
On the verge of collapse? During the extradition hearing on the allegations of the woman in question there was no mention of a condom. The condom lacking DNA was suggested over a year ago, but never got traction. That evidence seemed to have been removed. It is a wonder why Julian Assange's lawyers brought up again.
That comment is distinct from reality. The decision was made by a court based on the laws of that country. The ruling only demonstrates the difficulties that international companies have in implementing uniform policies, especially when those policies might be viewed as unjust.
There are reasons to be concerned about America's foreign policy. However, the belief that the accusation are part of a plot to surrender Assange to America is absurd, and is void of logic.
Assange has admitted that he had sex with been alone with both women, and everything that happened was consensual. To jump to the a point to suggest that it is a wider conspiracy without dismissing the allegations demonstrates an escape from a disillusioned view.
Supporters of Assange have posted a lot of information relating to the interviews and other documents relating to the accusations. Those are the facts. Additionally, according to the EAW both countries have to agree with a extradition to a third country. That is the fact and logic.
This paranoid view of the accusations against Assange has resulted in him wasting his time and money, when this could have all ended.
With Assange's popularity and name makes the idea that this is all part of a plot by America makes it more absurd.
The senator when to Sweden to get assurances about Assange's human rights ahead of his extradition to that country. The circumstance that surround the accusations against Assange would be consider crimes in Australia. On the issue of consent Australia recognizes rape after the withdraw of consent, rape on a sleeping individual, and rape in marriage as serious crimes.
This repeat of "Assange has committed no crime ... nor has he been charged with one," is a distortion of how the law, legal system, and law enforcement system works. Yes, Assange has not be "convicted" of committing any crime, but he has been accused of committing several crimes while he was in Sweden.
If Senator Scott Ludlam took the time to read about Sexual assault laws in Australia he wouldn't have ventured to Sweden. It is doubtful that he even read the European Extradition Warrant laws while he was in Europe.
Assange should stop this "gong show" and got the Sweden to face his accusers.
If Bradley Manning was responsible for leaking the information he should be court marshaled, and sentences for the maximum time under the law. Manning is credited with leaking the video, but decided that wasn't enough.
Manning is a member of the military which is under the Department of Defense. He is also being accused of is leaking diplomatic cables which are from U.S. Department of State. The fact that Manning is from a different department, makes it clear that he stole them, that is if he was the person who leaked the cables.
The documents in question has very limited relationship to elected officials in America, if any. Information in the cables have been claimed to have brought about the Arab Spring. None, of those Arab leaders were elected by American citizens. Including in those documents were observations and opinions of leaders in countries other than America. One such document caused the resignation of one diplomat who had a harsh criticism of one foreign leader. The documents cover a wide range of topics as they are communications between diplomats and the State Department.
The presence of Manning as a hero is nothing but a lie. The worse case scenario of Manning is that he didn't release the information, and just an unfortunate victim of mistake identity. That is it was someone else who released the information.
I am all for the leaking of information that clearly shows that a crime has been committed, or that we have been lied to. There is an importance in that, and it is part of the system.
The elected officials are accountable to all their citizens. This doesn't mean that they must listen to every single citizen, but they must enact policies that are beneficial to the citizens as a whole.
The leaking of 250,000 cables were the purpose to embarrass. Not in the sense to hamper the operation of government, but to cause difficulties for America when dealing with other countries.
There are freedom of information acts that need to be updated, but that is the responsibility of our elected officials. Laws should also be enacted to protect whistle blowers. That is people who have witness crimes.
Government agencies should be able to deal with protecting whistle blowers, and assisting in any investigation. They should be able to punish individuals who leak information where there are no clear crimes, or circumvent laws relating to whistle blowing. The public should be able to get access to such crimes through the freedom of information act, also to the laws that govern whistle blowing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020