Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

purplefood wrote:Would it not be easier for the US just to have him killed?
I mean, London is a dangerous place...

This is the part that annoys me about all the super CIA hitman movies. So many opportunities to prove themselves...

Wolfstan wrote:A bit of common sense here. If he was sent back to Sweden the US would then express an interest in having a word or lay down a charge against him. They aren't going to say or do anything at the moment as it would fuel the fire.

They didn't just leak American documents, so at best it isn't just the Americans that would be interested. As LordofHats pointed out earlier, Sweden doesn't seem the kind of place that would make up rape and sexual assault claims just to do the US a solid. There is nothing 'common sense' about that statement. If the US wanted to have a word with Assange, he is (or was) hanging out in the countryside of one of our closest allies; we wouldn't need to wait for him to be sent back to Sweden.

The whole thing is bizarre, but he has done a fine job of building a narrative as the victim and underdog.

Edit: Apparently everyone was thinking along the same lines at the same time!

Kanluwen wrote:
If the US wanted him, we would have tried to extradite him from the UK not Sweden.

We have a fairly good working relationship with the UK in terms of things like espionage charges, if we wanted to charge him with it.

Assange keeps harping about some kind of supposed tie between the CIA and the woman making the charges against him, and for whatever reason--people on the Internet are gullible enough to believe it.

He is Australian so not sure if they could.

Wolfstan wrote:He is Australian so not sure if they could.

Which is why he went to the Australian Embassy to hide out. No wait...

Talking to him in Australia wouldn't be more difficult then it would be to talk to him in the UK.

Kanluwen wrote:
Assange keeps harping about some kind of supposed tie between the CIA and the woman making the charges against him, and for whatever reason--people on the Internet are gullible enough to believe it.

Assange gets charged with rape a few days after he commited the crime, not against one, but two women. One of them even had a party in his honor, like I said previously, after said rape (hardly something you do after you've been a victim of rape). He is heard, case is dropped, he travels, case reopened nearly two weeks later, even interpol launches a red notice for his international arrest... Seems off enough. Then again, I'm yet to meet an american that is capable of seeing him as anything other than a criminal because of the whole wikileaks case.

He might be making it up all along the ride, but it seems like a series of unlikely coincidences.

Destrado wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Assange keeps harping about some kind of supposed tie between the CIA and the woman making the charges against him, and for whatever reason--people on the Internet are gullible enough to believe it.

Assange gets charged with rape a few days after he commited the crime, not against one, but two women. One of them even had a party in his honor, like I said previously, after said rape (hardly something you do after you've been a victim of rape).

That's actually not what happened.
She had organized the "party in his honor" for months in advance. It was a kind of fundraiser, essentially, intended to help him get cash for WikiLeaks to work.

He is heard, case is dropped, he travels, case reopened nearly two weeks later, even interpol launches a red notice for his international arrest... Seems off enough.

He was actually never heard, the case was never dropped, and he traveled before ever speaking to the police.
It's only "off" if you didn't pay attention to it. When it was the claims of one woman, there wasn't likely too much of a hooplah about it--but then when a second woman surfaced and both tested positive for STDs after having had sex with him(which is why he's being sought after for questioning, mind you, not for rape. They want to test him for STDs and if it can be proven that he purposely engaged in unprotected sex without having informed his partners or anything of that nature--there can be some serious legal ramifications).

Then again, I'm yet to meet an american that is capable of seeing him as anything other than a criminal because of the whole wikileaks case.

Hi. I'm an American.

I think he's an egotistical douchebag who has garnered sympathetic relations from people, worldwide, because of the fact that he was/is the public face for WikiLeaks. People have flocked to defend him because clearly this has to be some kind of New World Order organized conspiracy to put him into a CIA mind control program.

It has nothing to do with the fact that he's related to WikiLeaks that I think he's a criminal. I think he's a criminal because he's acting like one. He fled the country, he's refused to submit for even basic questioning, and he's hiding behind one of the biggest friggin' smokescreens he can.

He might be making it up all along the ride, but it seems like a series of unlikely coincidences.

It only seems like a series of unlikely coincidences if you're ill-informed in regards to the case and wear a tin foil hat as anything but a stylish way to mock conspiracy theorists.

Kanluwen wrote:
It has nothing to do with the fact that he's related to WikiLeaks that I think he's a criminal. I think he's a criminal because he's acting like one. He fled the country, he's refused to submit for even basic questioning, and he's hiding behind one of the biggest friggin' smokescreens he can.

Why would you ever stand trial and submit to questioning if you didn't have to, criminal or not?

Kanluwen wrote:
That's actually not what happened.
She had organized the "party in his honor" for months in advance. It was a kind of fundraiser, essentially, intended to help him get cash for WikiLeaks to work.

He was actually never heard, the case was never dropped, and he traveled before ever speaking to the police.
It's only "off" if you didn't pay attention to it. When it was the claims of one woman, there wasn't likely too much of a hooplah about it--but then when a second woman surfaced and both tested positive for STDs after having had sex with him(which is why he's being sought after for questioning, mind you, not for rape. They want to test him for STDs and if it can be proven that he purposely engaged in unprotected sex without having informed his partners or anything of that nature--there can be some serious legal ramifications).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

According to this, either you or some reporter at BBC.co.uk is making something up.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
It has nothing to do with the fact that he's related to WikiLeaks that I think he's a criminal. I think he's a criminal because he's acting like one. He fled the country, he's refused to submit for even basic questioning, and he's hiding behind one of the biggest friggin' smokescreens he can.

Why would you ever stand trial and submit to questioning if you didn't have to, criminal or not?

If you're being accused of something like this and don't answer it--that will always be hanging over you.
If you can clear it up by simply submitting to questioning without having to go to trial--it's a win/win for you.

By fleeing the country and refusing to do anything outside of telephone/videophone interviews--it makes you look guilty as hell.

Destrado wrote:According to this, either you or some reporter at BBC.co.uk is making something up.

Because timelines go in-depth, right?

It doesn't say that the charges were ever dropped, just that they didn't swear out a warrant for arrest at that time. Withdrawing an arrest warrant and continuing to investigate while also being petitioned by the victims lawyer is a far cry from charges being dropped.

Kanluwen wrote:
Because timelines go in-depth, right?

You also made claims and didn't go in depth over them.

Kanluwen wrote:He was actually never heard, the case was never dropped, and he traveled before ever speaking to the police.

And if you follow the words in orange they connect to major news regarding the case, which show that Swedish procedure was, not unheard of, but still irregular. Amongst other things.

Destrado wrote:And if you follow the words in orange they connect to major news regarding the case, which show that Swedish procedure was, not unheard of, but still irregular. Amongst other things.

Wait, the Zimmerman case was fairly similar in that much of the problem came from not enough transparency in the investigation and so it was continually scrutinized. It all makes sense now. The French want Zimmerman because he knows about the secret gold so they make an elaborate ploy to get Assange from the UK into Sweden so that they have a bargaining chip to get the US to give them Zimmerman. We didn't get the memo fast enough so they had to continue to investigate and hold Zimmerman. The only reason that any investigation would go through a period where they collect evidence and change their opinion as evidence is continually collected would be for some grand conspiracy to extradite someone through overly absurd and inane maneuvering through third party countries.


What is above the UK Supreme Court? It says it got all the way to the UK Supreme Court and they said he had to go back to Sweden and he appealed again. In the US if you go to the Supreme Court and lose there is no appeal beyond that. We got a lot of our system from the UK so I am a bit perplexed at that one.

Still waiting on the documents to appear on wikileaks to show US involvment in Sweden judicial system to appear..

Ahtman wrote:
Wait, the Zimmerman case was fairly similar in that much of the problem came from not enough transparency in the investigation and so it was continually scrutinized. It all makes sense now. The French want Zimmerman because he knows about the secret gold so they make an elaborate ploy to get Assange from the UK into Sweden so that they have a bargaining chip to get the US to give them Zimmerman. We didn't get the memo fast enough so they had to continue to investigate and hold Zimmerman. The only reason that any investigation would go through a period where they collect evidence and change their opinion as evidence is continually collected would be for some grand conspiracy to extradite someone through overly absurd and inane maneuvering through third party countries.

A cookie for Athman, he cracked the case

Ahtman wrote:What is above the UK Supreme Court? It says it got all the way to the UK Supreme Court and they said he had to go back to Sweden and he appealed again. In the US if you go to the Supreme Court and lose there is no appeal beyond that. We got a lot of our system from the UK so I am a bit perplexed at that one.

I'm not sure, possibly some sort of European Court, but I'm not sure of how much power it would have. I've heard of similar instances here, but I don't know if appealing to any EU court would help.

The UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in civil cases in the UK.
It's not a court related to the European Union though technically it is a European court seeing as the UK is part of Europe...
You may need to distinguish European and European Union further in your posts if you ever come across the two again.

Kanluwen wrote:
If you're being accused of something like this and don't answer it--that will always be hanging over you.

Sure, but it will be hanging over me in a tropical country without an extradition treaty.

Kanluwen wrote:
If you can clear it up by simply submitting to questioning without having to go to trial--it's a win/win for you.

Its a rape investigation, submitting to questioning isn't going to clear anything up.

If Equadror wants to accept him (as a stick the finger to the US) the fact he is in the Uk and jumped bail is now moot.

He would get in an embassy car on embassy premisis. That is Equador territory. Drive to a diplomatic airport (the hangers of which are diplomatic territory) and get on an Equadorial embassy plane and there is nothing the police can (legally) do.

What they can and will do is claim the £240,000 bail money pledged by his celebrity supporters.

Ahtman wrote:[
We got a lot of our system from the UK so I am a bit perplexed at that one.

The Supreme Court is the US's idea, prior to Tony Blair attempting to recreate the US system quite recently, we actually had Crown Courts instead.

Not a change for the better to be honest.

Ketara wrote:

Ahtman wrote:[
We got a lot of our system from the UK so I am a bit perplexed at that one.

The Supreme Court is the US's idea, prior to Tony Blair attempting to recreate the US system quite recently, we actually had Crown Courts instead.

Not a change for the better to be honest.

No, Crown Courts are completely different and lower down the scale so to speak. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in the UK and was created to separate the judicial system from the political, since previously the highest court of appeal was the judges who sat in the House of Lords, the UK's second House.

Arguably separating the judiciary and politics is a good thing.

Someone needs to go over that ith "Da Chosen One" with "Change we can Believe in" seperation of Judicial from Executive branch

Ahtman wrote:

Destrado wrote:And if you follow the words in orange they connect to major news regarding the case, which show that Swedish procedure was, not unheard of, but still irregular. Amongst other things.

Wait, the Zimmerman case was fairly similar in that much of the problem came from not enough transparency in the investigation and so it was continually scrutinized. It all makes sense now. The French want Zimmerman because he knows about the secret gold so they make an elaborate ploy to get Assange from the UK into Sweden so that they have a bargaining chip to get the US to give them Zimmerman. We didn't get the memo fast enough so they had to continue to investigate and hold Zimmerman. The only reason that any investigation would go through a period where they collect evidence and change their opinion as evidence is continually collected would be for some grand conspiracy to extradite someone through overly absurd and inane maneuvering through third party countries.


What is above the UK Supreme Court? It says it got all the way to the UK Supreme Court and they said he had to go back to Sweden and he appealed again. In the US if you go to the Supreme Court and lose there is no appeal beyond that. We got a lot of our system from the UK so I am a bit perplexed at that one.

His lawyer sought permission to appeal on a point of law, but it was denied.

Lux_Lucis wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Ahtman wrote:[
We got a lot of our system from the UK so I am a bit perplexed at that one.

The Supreme Court is the US's idea, prior to Tony Blair attempting to recreate the US system quite recently, we actually had Crown Courts instead.

Not a change for the better to be honest.

No, Crown Courts are completely different and lower down the scale so to speak. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in the UK and was created to separate the judicial system from the political, since previously the highest court of appeal was the judges who sat in the House of Lords, the UK's second House.

It's a rebranding, the Supreme Court is made up of Law Lords. All twelve on the panel are peers. it is part of a slow drip removal of the old order under new Labour, but also in order to remove former law lords and place cronies where cronies were wanted, 'fairness' and 'accountability' having nothing to do with it despite the hype.

Lux_Lucis wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Ahtman wrote:[
We got a lot of our system from the UK so I am a bit perplexed at that one.

The Supreme Court is the US's idea, prior to Tony Blair attempting to recreate the US system quite recently, we actually had Crown Courts instead.

Not a change for the better to be honest.

No, Crown Courts are completely different and lower down the scale so to speak. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in the UK and was created to separate the judicial system from the political, since previously the highest court of appeal was the judges who sat in the House of Lords, the UK's second House.

Arguably separating the judiciary and politics is a good thing.

Ahh, my mistake. I thought it replaced the Crown Courts, not the Law Lords.

Interesting.