Assange To Leave Embassy

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/world/europe/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said he'll leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London "soon" after living there for two years to avoid extradition to Sweden.
"I can confirm I am leaving the embassy soon, but not for the reason you might think," Assange said at a news conference Monday.
He did not provide additional details but said he is suffering from health problems and would leave "when conditions are right."
However, WikiLeaks said, "his departure is not imminent."
Ecuador's foreign minister, who sat next to him, said his freedom is long overdue.
WikiLeaks to release new documents Rap duo collaborates with Assange Assange: It is 'embarrassing' for Obama
"The situation must come to an end ... two years is too long," Ricardo Patino said. "It is time to free Julian Assange. It is time for his human rights to be respected."
Swedish authorities want to question him over allegations that he raped one woman and sexually molested another.
He denies the allegations and describes them as politically motivated.
"I've not been charged with an offense in the UK or Sweden," he said Monday.
Patino said Swedish prosecutors have disregarded offers to get evidence from Assange via video conference or send prosecutors to the embassy.
As a result, he said, the case remains unresolved years later, an injustice to both Assange and the two women.
"The end result is these requests have not been heeded," Patino said.
Assange says he fears Sweden will transfer him to the United States, where he could face the death penalty if he is charged and convicted of publishing government secrets through WikiLeaks.
Last month, his lawyers argued that the detention order against him should be revoked.
But Stockholm District Court Judge Lena Egelin ruled that Assange is still suspected, with probable cause, of sex crimes and his detention order should remain in place.
After the decision last month, prosecutor Marianne Ny said the warrant could remain in place until the statute of limitations takes effect -- five years for unlawful coercion and 10 years for rape.
Assange rocketed to international fame when WikiLeaks began publishing secret government documents online.
In addition to the Guantanamo procedures manual, it also published documents related to U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and diplomatic cables from U.S. embassies.
In August 2010, Swedish prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for him over allegations of sexual assault from two female WikiLeaks volunteers.
He turned himself in to London authorities the same year, and was remanded in custody.
At the time, a judge ruled that he should be extradited to Sweden, and Assange launched a series of appeals that went all the way to the British Supreme Court. It denied his appeal.
In June 2012, Assange fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy to seek asylum, which was granted in August of the same year.
He's been living at the embassy in London since then.

**Graphite**

Awesome. Then they can arrest him for skipping bail, which he's definitely guilty of. I have no idea if he's guilty of anything else, nor do I care.

**Steve steveson**

He called a press conference to say that he is leaving the embassy, but only if the UK government don't arrest him, which they have said they will, so he won't...

I:t's more Assange grand standing. He just got fed up that he hasn't been in the news for a while. I suspect he is just making sure the Ecuadorian government don't get fed up with him by keeping pressure on them to look anti American.

It's a bit rich him saying he has been denied justice when the only problem is he expects special treatment.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Steve steveson wrote:
He called a press conference to say that he is leaving the embassy, but only if the UK government don't arrest him, which they have said they will, so he won't...

I:t's more Assange grand standing. He just got fed up that he hasn't been in the news for a while. I suspect he is just making sure the Ecuadorian government don't get fed up with him by keeping pressure on them to look anti American.

It's a bit rich him saying he has been denied justice when the only problem is he expects special treatment.

No, he wants assurances that he's not going to be shipped off to Guantanamo Bay by the Swedes. His reluctance is entirely justified I think given the US government's' history of torture, human rights abuses and denial of fair trials to "terror" suspects.

And he hasn't actually been charged with anything AFAIK, he's just wanted for questioning. He's offered repeatedly to speak with Swedish prosecutors via video conference or in person in the Embassy but Sweden declined and demanded he be extradited. They could have interviewed him 2 years ago, and THEN charged him (in which case I would agree that he should go to Sweden to face the charges).

Let's be honest here, this isn't really about whatever sexual misdemeanors he may or may not be guilty of. The women he's accused of abusing, even if their allegations are true, are just pawns. This is about luring him out of that Embassy so America can get its hands on him.

In the event that he was extradited to Sweden, charged and found guilty (or not)...does anyone here really doubt that Sweden wouldn't then extradite him to the USA?

**LordofHats**

I don't think Assage will be going to Guantanamo Bay, even if we did get our hands on him. He'd go somewhere darker where you're forced to listen to Bob Saget all day.

he's just wanted for questioning.

Um, he is charged with suspicion of rape, unlawful coercion and three cases of sexual molestation*. So no, he's not just wanted for questioning. And further, Sweden's case against him has only gotten stronger with time. Unless you believe that the US government controls every other government process in Europe, he's appealed the extradition to every possible place he can and all of them have said that the authorities in Sweden have sufficient evidence and cause to want him.

*Edit: To clarify, you've confused Swedish legal procedure. In Sweden, when someone is accused of a crime a warrant is put out for them and they are brought in for questioning. After that questioning, they are formally indited or released. The Swedish authorities have made it very clear that they have every intention at this point to formally indite him, but they can't properly do it until they've passed the first part of their process.

Let's be honest here, this isn't really about whatever sexual misdemeanors he may or may not be guilty of. The women he's accused of abusing, even if their allegations are true, are just pawns. This is about luring him out of that Embassy so America can get its hands on him.

I'm pretty sure its about the two women who accused him of raping them (who are not the first to level such accusations, just the first to actually press charges). Would Sweden hand him over after they were done with him? Maybe. I think boiling Swedish politics down to "pawns of America who are okay with women being raped just so America can get its man" requires of a certain kind of crazy to be remotely believable

Believe it or not, he could just be that kind of douche bag which is just a happy coincidence for the US government, rather than a conspiracy.

**Peregrine**

LordofHats wrote:
I'm pretty sure its about the two women who accused him of raping them (who are not the first to level such accusations, just the first to actually press charges). Would Sweden hand him over after they were done with him? Maybe. I think boiling Swedish politics down to "pawns of America who are okay with women being raped just so America can get its man" requires of a certain kind of crazy to be remotely believable

The thing you're missing in this analysis is how often rape accusations, especially rape accusations that don't involve the stereotypical "stranger jumps out of the bushes" scenario, are either ignored or not taken very seriously. I don't think anyone can very credibly argue that they'd be putting this much effort into bringing him back if he was just some random guy. He might be legitimately guilty, but the primary reason anyone cares is that the US government considers him a Bad Person for embarrassing them.

**Ahtman**

Peregrine wrote:
I don't think anyone can very credibly argue that they'd be putting this much effort into bringing him back if he was just some random guy.

If he was some random guy they wouldn't have to. Most random people don't have his resources or fools willing to drink the Kool-Aid and buy into conspiracy theories about big bad governments.

Peregrine wrote:
He might be legitimately guilty

In which case they are absolutely right in pursuing him. Buying and selling secrets doesn't absolve one of being investigated for sexual assault. You don't get a free pass because you like what he did on a different subject.

Peregrine wrote:
but the primary reason anyone cares is that the US government considers him a Bad Person for embarrassing them.

Because Sweden, Britain, and most of Europe are just sitting around doing what the US tells them to do.

**LordofHats**

Peregrine wrote:

The thing you're missing in this analysis is how often rape accusations, especially rape accusations that don't involve the stereotypical "stranger jumps out of the bushes" scenario, are either ignored or not taken very seriously. I don't think anyone can very credibly argue that they'd be putting this much effort into bringing him back if he was just some random guy. He might be legitimately guilty, but the primary reason anyone cares is that the US government considers him a Bad Person for embarrassing them.

People care because he's a celebrity. Like they cared about R. Kelly, Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson etc. So if he wasn't famous he'd be another guy accused of rape and oddly, no one would be spouting conspiracy theories about it.

Pretty good way to get police and prosecutors really on you is to be famous for some reason and then get accused of a crime, cause the police and prosecutors don't want to be seen as not doing their job while everyone is watching (and of course, if they did less people would claim the opposite, that they let Assange go because they support his activities).

Sweden is doing what Sweden has to do. There's no reason to believe in some ulterior motive on their part involving US interests (Sweden isn't exactly our best buddy).

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Ahtman wrote:
Because Sweden, Britain, and most of Europe are just sitting around doing what the US tells them to do.

Well they didn't call Britain "America's Poodle" for no reason...

**Iron_Captain**

So he has to stay in that embassy all the time? I imagine he must be quite fed up with living his life within the confines of a single building.

**LordofHats**

Iron_Captain wrote:
So he has to stay in that embassy all the time? I imagine he must be quite fed up with living his life within the confines of a single building.

Even worse, its Ecuador. If I had to be stuck in a South American embassy, I'd at least pick Brazil!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Because Sweden, Britain, and most of Europe are just sitting around doing what the US tells them to do.

Well haven't you seen how strongly they believe in our foreign policy?! Gosh Ahtman read the news

**Peregrine**

Ahtman wrote:
If he was some random guy they wouldn't have to. Most random people don't have his resources or fools willing to drink the Kool-Aid and buy into conspiracy theories about big bad governments.

And some random guy wouldn't need those resources. They'd just say "it was consensual", talk a bit about all of her previous boyfriends that she had sex with, and the whole thing would be forgotten by the end of the week. And of course if it had been the same kind of situation where the accusation doesn't happen until long after the original incident the police would probably just file the report directly into the trash and forget it happened. Unless there was significantly more evidence of a crime then the random guy would have almost nothing to worry about.

In which case they are absolutely right in pursuing him. Buying and selling secrets doesn't absolve one of being investigated for sexual assault. You don't get a free pass because you like what he did on a different subject.

No, of course it doesn't absolve him of being investigated and, if guilty, punished. But when the primary reason for pursuing the case instead of just forgetting about it is blatantly the Bad Things he did to the US it's pretty reasonable to be concerned that if he surrenders he's going to be facing a lot more than a rape trial.

Because Sweden, Britain, and most of Europe are just sitting around doing what the US tells them to do.

Telling them to do? Probably not. Asking and quietly discussing an exchange of favors, or all of the other countries being unhappy about the leaks? A lot more plausible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
People care because he's a celebrity. Like they cared about R. Kelly, Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson etc. So if he wasn't famous he'd be another guy accused of rape and oddly, no one would be spouting conspiracy theories about it.

I'm not talking about random people caring about it, I'm talking about governments caring about it. If some random frat boy decided to go hide in a foreign country because of rape accusations involving a drunken party do you really think that the victim's national government would be making such an effort to bring the guy back?

Or, let's look at someone who hasn't done Bad Things to the US government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case. He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, was tried and convicted, and fled the country before he could be thrown in prison. And now he lives and travels openly while enjoying life as a celebrity, and nobody is making any real effort to make him face the punishment for his crimes.

**Ahtman**

Peregrine wrote:
They'd just say "it was consensual", talk a bit about all of her previous boyfriends that she had sex with, and the whole thing would be forgotten by the end of the week.

You're making huge leaps in logic and credibility.

But when the primary reason for pursuing the case...

Assumptions based on nothing but conjecture.

A lot more plausible.

And also based entirely on conjecture. Truthiness in action.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
And now he lives and travels openly while enjoying life as a celebrity, and nobody is making any real effort to make him face the punishment for his crimes.

Except for the fact that the US does and he has to avoid any country with any sort of extradition treaty. In 2009 Switzerland denied an extradition request, the same accomplice that will apparently just do whatever the US tells them to do in the Assange case.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Ahtman wrote:
Because Sweden, Britain, and most of Europe are just sitting around doing what the US tells them to do.

Doing what the US tells them to do? No.
Doing what the US wants us to do without even having to ask? Yes.

You don't seem to be aware just how sycophantic British foreign policy and past Prime Ministers were to the USA over the last decade and a half. British Prime Ministers have long been obsessed with the idea of the "Special Relationship" (its actually quite one-sided and not very "Special" at all).

**Dark Apostle 666**

Meh, if he gets extradited, then our Government isn't wasting stupid money watching him sit around all day, so that's about as far as I care about this one - Sweden is welcome to him, as far as I'm concerned.

Naturally, if he's guilty, then he should be punished appropriately, as should anyone else. Whether he gets tossed to the US afterwards, well, that's between Sweden and America.

**Peregrine**

Ahtman wrote:
You're making huge leaps in logic and credibility.

No, I'm simply referring to our shameful record of taking rape accusations seriously when it isn't a clear "stranger jumps out of the bushes" scenario. We fail to take them seriously, grant the accused the benefit of the doubt at every possible opportunity, make all kinds of arguments about how she was "asking for it", etc.

Assumptions based on nothing but conjecture.

Of course it is, because nobody is going to openly say "once we get our hands on him we're taking him off to a secret prison somewhere to be held indefinitely without a trial". But when we have a case of people behaving in unusual ways it's pretty reasonable to ask if something else is going on. And the most obvious alternate explanation for why anyone is taking the accusations so much more seriously than similar cases is that the intent is to get him to face some kind of trial or punishment for his political actions.

Except for the fact that the US does and he has to avoid any country with any sort of extradition treaty. Just a few years ago when he tried to go out he was picked up but then let go because a form wasn't filled out properly, at which point he scuttled back away.

Oh please, if he was a convicted mass murderer does anyone really think that these "paperwork problems" would be happening? He's still free because rape isn't considered a "serious crime" that would be worth using all the resources required to get him.

**Ahtman**

Peregrine wrote:
No, I'm simply referring to our shameful record of taking rape accusations seriously when it isn't a clear "stranger jumps out of the bushes" scenario. We fail to take them seriously, grant the accused the benefit of the doubt at every possible opportunity, make all kinds of arguments about how she was "asking for it", etc.

Oh please, if he was a convicted mass murderer does anyone really think that these "paperwork problems" would be happening? He's still free because rape isn't considered a "serious crime" that would be worth using all the resources required to get him.

It sounded more like you were arguing that we shouldn't take it seriously than that to often it is not. There is a still a huge leap between "we don't take it seriously enough" and "we don't take seriously enough so it must always be the case that there is an intergovernmental conspiracy going on since it is being pursued". Just because there are often issues doesn't mean there aren't many people who do take it seriously, and with a high profile celebrity you certainly can't give the impression of ignoring it when it is public knowledge. Polanski is tricky because of the citizenship issues as well as changing mores over the years, but at last check most French felt he should be sent to the US to face the charges.

**LordofHats**

Peregrine wrote:

No, I'm simply referring to our shameful record of taking rape accusations seriously when it isn't a clear "stranger jumps out of the bushes" scenario. We fail to take them seriously, grant the accused the benefit of the doubt at every possible opportunity, make all kinds of arguments about how she was "asking for it", etc.

So your argument is that rape isn't taken seriously? Who here claimed that wasn't the case and what does that really have to do with the Assange case? I'm not sure there's much point in hijacking one discussion to highlight the travesties of a separate tangent discussion.

He's still free because rape isn't considered a "serious crime" that would be worth using all the resources required to get him.

So, now your argument is what? That the British should storm the Ecuadorian Embassy?

Do you have an argument or are you just swinging wild here

You don't seem to be aware just how sycophantic British foreign policy and past Prime Ministers were to the USA over the last decade and a half. British Prime Ministers have long been obsessed with the idea of the "Special Relationship" (its actually quite one-sided and not very "Special" at all).

Which would matter, maybe, if Britain wanted to extradite him to the US but they don't. They want to extradite him to Sweden, who may or may not extradite him to the US after they're done with him. The US hasn't filed for extradition yet and Sweden hasn't stated an opinion on whether they'd grant it.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
Meh, if he gets extradited, then our Government isn't wasting stupid money watching him sit around all day, so that's about as far as I care about this one - Sweden is welcome to him, as far as I'm concerned.

Naturally, if he's guilty, then he should be punished appropriately, as should anyone else. Whether he gets tossed to the US afterwards, well, that's between Sweden and America.

No its not. By law, the British Government cannot extradite a person if their Human Rights are likely to be violated. It took years to extradite Abu Hamza to the USA, and Abu Qatada to Jordan. If it appears likely that Sweden will in turn extradite him to the USA, then there could well be a case made that his Human Rights won't be protected.

Just look at the poor treatment Chelsea (Bradley) Manning received. Does anyone here seriously believe that Assange's human rights as defined by European law will be respected by America?

We don't get to ignore Human Rights laws whenever we find it convenient, just because we don't like the person in question.

**LordofHats**

That might be a valid argument if extradition to US from Sweden was certain, but it's not. It's not even certain he'd be convicted of his crimes once indited. No court is really in the business of making decisions based on a chain series of assumptions about events that might lead to human rights violations.

**Peregrine**

LordofHats wrote:
Who here claimed that wasn't the case and what does that really have to do with the Assange case?

It has to do with the Assange case because it involves governments taking rape accusations very seriously. This is a case where, if it had been a random non-celebrity, the police report would have been filed directly in the trash and charges never would have been considered. So which is the more likely explanation for why the governments involved are so concerned about ensuring that he faces justice: that they've had a sudden revelation that we suck at handling rape accusations and feel a moral obligation to protect the victims, or that the target of the accusations is an unpopular political figure that a lot of governments would love to have tossed in prison?

(And when you answer this question keep in mind that there has not been any improvement in how we handle other rape cases.)

So, now your argument is what? That the British should storm the Ecuadorian Embassy?

...

Go back and read that again, that quote about "not trying very hard" was about Polanski, not Assange.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
That might be a valid argument if extradition to US from Sweden was certain, but it's not. It's not even certain he'd be convicted of his crimes once indited. No court is really in the business of making decisions based on a chain series of assumptions about events that might lead to human rights violations.

There's a difference between "certain" and "openly admitted in public statements". Of course everyone is going to say "we don't know", even if the plane to the secret prison is already waiting as soon as they get the handcuffs on him. Obviously we don't know what the truth is, but there's a pretty significant chance that nobody intends to give him a fair trial that is limited to the rape accusations.

**LordofHats**

Go back and read that again, that quote about "not trying very hard" was about Polanski, not Assange.

I fail to see it's relevance... Sweden has done everything it legally can to get Assange, as have the British. Maybe you should actually make a thread about this subject instead of shoehorning it into another one? It's not like the issue of Assange isn't heated enough as it is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Obviously we don't know what the truth is, but there's a pretty significant chance that nobody intends to give him a fair trial that is limited to the rape accusations.

I don't know the truth but trust me this is what will happen.

A better argument I've never seen. The courts are certain to make their decision on such fine logic.

**Relapse**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Let's be honest here, this isn't really about whatever sexual misdemeanors he may or may not be guilty of. The women he's accused of abusing, even if their allegations are true, are just pawns. This is about luring him out of that Embassy so America can get its hands on him.

Rape is, to you, a misdemeanor, and the woman that he possibly raped are just pawns? It seems like you are suggesting that rape isn't that big a deal and the women should just forget about it and let him go.

**Ketara**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You don't seem to be aware just how sycophantic British foreign policy and past Prime Ministers were to the USA over the last decade and a half. British Prime Ministers have long been obsessed with the idea of the "Special Relationship" (its actually quite one-sided and not very "Special" at all).

'How little advantage is to be gained by making such efforts to conciliate American opinion. Whatever may have been done at enormous cost and sacrifice to keep up friendship is apparently swept away by the smallest little tiff or misunderstanding, and you have to start again and placate the Americans with another batch of substantial or even vital concessions....The great mass of the British Public do not wish to see England obseqious to the United States'.

~Winston Churchill, Cabinet Memorandum, 19th November 1928~

**Peregrine**

LordofHats wrote:
I fail to see it's relevance... Sweden has done everything it legally can to get Assange, as have the British. Maybe you should actually make a thread about this subject instead of shoehorning it into another one?

The relevance is the difference in how the two of them are being treated.

Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, admitted it and was convicted, and fled the country to avoid going to prison. Now, despite the fact that his attempts at avoiding capture are limited to not traveling to countries where he could easily be extradited back to the US, he is still free and enjoying support for his continued freedom. Why? Because he's an Important Artist, and it would be so tragic to see his Important Art interrupted by a prison sentence.

Assange has been accused of rape and fled the country to avoid capture. Now he's hiding in an embassy while various countries make a serious attempt to capture him, and he will almost certainly be arrested and extradited the moment he leaves the building.

So we have one clear example of a rape conviction not being taken very seriously, and another example of an accusation being taken very seriously. We have to ask why Polanski is free, while Assange is forced to hide in an embassy for the foreseeable future. Which is more likely: that the governments involved decided the Polanski-style approach is immoral, or that Assange's status as an unpopular political figure is making everyone try exceptionally hard to get him into prison?

I don't know the truth but trust me, I do know.

I never said that I know for sure. I said that it is reasonable to be concerned about that outcome, and that it is not reasonable to pretend that this is just a straightforward case of rape accusations being handled just like any other similar case.

**LordofHats**

Relapse wrote:

Rape is, to you, a misdemeanor, and the woman that he possibly raped are just pawns? It seems like you are suggesting that rape isn't that big a deal and the women should just forget about it and let him go.

Not to mention, that it's one thing to make a claim the the US is secretly arranging for his extradition (which it's most certainly attempting to do). It's a more outlandish one to claim the entire case is fake somehow. Dozens of public officials in two countries at all levels of government is a lot of people to keep quiet about the secret plan to throw Assange in a pit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
reasonable to be concerned

Whoever claimed the concern is unreasonable? Pointing out that extradition isn't a certainty, isn't the same as saying Assange has a rational reason to fear that extradition to Sweden may result in future extradition to the US.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Ketara wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You don't seem to be aware just how sycophantic British foreign policy and past Prime Ministers were to the USA over the last decade and a half. British Prime Ministers have long been obsessed with the idea of the "Special Relationship" (its actually quite one-sided and not very "Special" at all).

'How little advantage is to be gained by making such efforts to conciliate American opinion. Whatever may have been done at enormous cost and sacrifice to keep up friendship is apparently swept away by the smallest little tiff or misunderstanding, and you have to start again and placate the Americans with another batch of substantial or even vital concessions....The great mass of the British Public do not wish to see England obseqious to the United States'.

~Winston Churchill, Cabinet Memorandum, 19th November 1928~

Its a shame Tony Blair didn't feel the same way.

**Peregrine**

LordofHats wrote:
It's a more outlandish one to claim the entire case is fake somehow. Dozens of public officials in two countries at all levels of government is a lot of people to keep quiet about the secret plan to throw Assange in a pit.

Fortunately nobody has done that. The original quote doesn't make that claim at all, it just says that the women are being used as pawns. I'm sure the accusations are genuine (at least in that they were actually made by the women involved with no government coercion), but it's pretty obvious that the governments are eagerly taking advantage of the opportunity they provided to deal with a political figure that they really don't like.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Whoever claimed the concern is unreasonable?

You did, back in the first post that I responded to. You said that it's all about the women and their accusations, which implies that the concerns about the accusations being nothing more than an excuse to extradite him are unjustified.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Relapse wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Let's be honest here, this isn't really about whatever sexual misdemeanors he may or may not be guilty of. The women he's accused of abusing, even if their allegations are true, are just pawns. This is about luring him out of that Embassy so America can get its hands on him.

Rape is, to you, a misdemeanor, and the woman that he possibly raped are just pawns? It seems like you are suggesting that rape isn't that big a deal and the women should just forget about it and let him go.

No.

it was a poor choice of words. I was unfamiliar with the definition, I thought "misdemeanor" was a neutral catch all term, not something that specifically indicated a minor offence. My intention certainly wasn't to downplay it.

What I do think, is that Assange should not go to Sweden until the Swedish government can give him a legally binding guarantee that they will not extradite him to the USA, whatever the verdict of the trial.

**LordofHats**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You don't seem to be aware just how sycophantic British foreign policy and past Prime Ministers were to the USA over the last decade and a half. British Prime Ministers have long been obsessed with the idea of the "Special Relationship" (its actually quite one-sided and not very "Special" at all).

'How little advantage is to be gained by making such efforts to conciliate American opinion. Whatever may have been done at enormous cost and sacrifice to keep up friendship is apparently swept away by the smallest little tiff or misunderstanding, and you have to start again and placate the Americans with another batch of substantial or even vital concessions....The great mass of the British Public do not wish to see England obseqious to the United States'.

~Winston Churchill, Cabinet Memorandum, 19th November 1928~

Its a shame Tony Blair didn't feel the same way.

Because all of our opinions should be based on century old political rhetoric from Winston Churchill

The original quote doesn't make that claim at all, it just says that the women are being used as pawns.

Which might fly if no rape anywhere was ever prosecuted unless someone famous and disliked by world governments happened to be involved. Given that that's not the case, I find your argument rather poor. The problems with how rape is handled in society are severe, but you seem to be taking that to an extremely outlandish end.