Julian Assange has rape charges dropped by Sweden

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.

**Kanluwen**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
Well, the European arrest warrant no longer stands. But his supporters no interest in justice, only in a conspiracy which has no evidence.

The evidence in favour of Assange with regards to a conspiracy, is as long as my arm:

1. Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers in US history than any other POTUS. It's risible to suggest Assange wasn't on the list.

2. There are NO rape charges against Assange in Sweden. He was wanted for questioning, which is completely different.

3. The original prosecutor in Stockholm decided that Assange had no case to answer.

I really think you need to understand something important here:
Under Swedish law, from what I can find, you cannot be charged or indicted until formally questioned and in custody.

You keep harping on the fact that he "hasn't been charged, he hasn't been charged, hasn't been chaaaaaaarged!". The Swedes are following their laws.

Kinda goes against your pants on head ridiculous "theory" that they made this whole thing up to get him and give him to the US, eh? They gave Assange warning that he was going to be arrested when he initially left Sweden.

Spoiler:

4. A New prosecutor then took up the case. The new prosecutor is known to support feminist causes and was a supporter of America's war on terror, as was a previous Swedish government.

5. The prosecutor in point 5, NOT a court, signed the European arrest warrant. UK law was CHANGED as a result of this, as the court's criteria is deemed to be higher than an individual prosecutor.

6. Assange has been questioned, but HAS STILL NOT BEEN CHARGED. Apologies for the caps, but it's worth highlighting that point.

7. Assange was questioned November 2016. This is May 2017. What's the hold up?

8. The condom that Assange allegedly wore in the incident in question with Anna Ardin, contains none of Assange's DNA.

9. Assange's DNA is present in the condom used with Sofia Wilen. Both parties agree they had consensual sex the first time, but the second time, Assange says it was consensual, Wilen says it was not. This is why it is hard for any judgement to be made one way or another.

10. After 5 years, despite the evidence being gathered, no decision was made as to Assange being charged.

11. The UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled in Assange's favour. The UN group told Sweden to put up or shut up. Sweden appealed the ruling, and lost again, then ignored it's ruling. The first time Sweden has ever done this, despite agreeing to its terms and conditions.

12. The Swedish supreme court, following legal action from Assange, told Ny, the second Swedish prosecutor, to put up or shut up.

13. After 6 years, still no charges against Assange. Sweden says it wants to question Assange, despite Assange being questioned twice.

14. I, the author of this comment, am of the opinion that that Swedes no they have no case, and rather than embarrass themselves by admitting this, they have allowed the statute of limitations to expire.

15. Jeff Sessions, that man who has zero authority in the USA, and who is definitely not part of the Trump administration, has said that arresting Assange is a priority.

But because people who believe that this man of zero authority shouldn't be taken at his word, anybody who beleives there is a conspiricacy against assange is wrong.

Never believe high ranking US officials. They just say things like arrest just for the fun of it

The point that you missed is that Assange is a man who literally cannot be taken at his word and you're taking him at his word.
He made a statement to the Obama administration that if Chelsea Manning received a commuted sentence, he'd turn himself over to Sweden and agree to questioning as part of the US investigation into leaks. That statement was made BEFORE the Trump administration was actually a thing.
He claimed that one of the two accusers isn't trustworthy because she sleeps around and is a lesbian.
Etc
Etc

There's a reason why people find it hard to believe Assange. At every turn, he has acted like a suspect on an episode of flipping Law & Order: SVU.

You also keep trying to make it sound like Sessions, the Lawn Gnome Gone Rogue, and his statements had any kind of influence prior to the Trump administration.
He didn't.

And also, once again, you're wrong. The Swedes have removed the arrest warrant. They can, at any point in time, choose to reopen the investigation into the more serious charge since it doesn't statute out until 2020.

**Spetulhu**

jhe90 wrote:
He still can be charged on beach of bail, however I'm sure that the embassy will work on some kind of deal or way to handle those charges.

Running away when on bail might not be as serious as being accused of rape, but it's still a crime. Making some sort of deal would probably be easiest for everyone - if it can be handled with a fine then handle it and leave it behind.

But whatever we might learn from watching Hollywood movies where the handsome hero evades police (escapes custody, prison etc) in order to prove his innocence, in real life crimes committed doing all that would still count. It's all nice and dandy that you found the video that proves you didn't murder your wife, but on the way you racked up "resisting arrest", "grand theft auto", "breaking and entering", "illegal wiretapping", "assault and battery" (well, it was the real bad guys henchmen so by movie logic they had it coming) and possibly killed the real bad guy which in legalese speak could even rank as "murder". No, you don't get out of jail free if you commit additional crimes in order to not go down for a crime you're - at least in your opinion - falsely accused of.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

@Kanluwen

Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?

Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?

And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.

IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.

**Peregrine**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?

Apparently not, given the people defending Assange without knowing anything about the case. Annoying the US by hosting the guy who helped leak their secrets is probably far more of a risk to Ecuador's government than whether or not Assange is guilty of a crime that the US government doesn't care about. Ecuador's decisions about Assange are almost certainly 100% based on his role in international politics, not evidence about anything related to the rape case.

**jhe90**

Spetulhu wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
He still can be charged on beach of bail, however I'm sure that the embassy will work on some kind of deal or way to handle those charges.

Running away when on bail might not be as serious as being accused of rape, but it's still a crime. Making some sort of deal would probably be easiest for everyone - if it can be handled with a fine then handle it and leave it behind.

But whatever we might learn from watching Hollywood movies where the handsome hero evades police (escapes custody, prison etc) in order to prove his innocence, in real life crimes committed doing all that would still count. It's all nice and dandy that you found the video that proves you didn't murder your wife, but on the way you racked up "resisting arrest", "grand theft auto", "breaking and entering", "illegal wiretapping", "assault and battery" (well, it was the real bad guys henchmen so by movie logic they had it coming) and possibly killed the real bad guy which in legalese speak could even rank as "murder". No, you don't get out of jail free if you commit additional crimes in order to not go down for a crime you're - at least in your opinion - falsely accused of.

Easiest way. while Sweden is off his back, do a plea deal with UK, admit guilt, attend a quick hearing at a local court and pleed guilty, judge hands down a fine and some harsh words, Mr Assange, you have broke the law, flouted it, and such, get out the UK . pay fine, apcept the words.

Part of deal, he leaves UK., but to do so answers the UK charge, and thus he is out of the hole on the UK front.
then he is free to head off for asylum and bingo Assange is out his little sqaure hole.

Just avoid Sweden and Uk for a few years as a matter of sense, and as part of UK deal to make UK look like it "won"

That would be his good endgame.
he escapes pretty unscathed considering on that plan.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Kanluwen

Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?

Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?

And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.

IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.

if they thought his guilt was true yes, they would of probbly marched him into the waiting police van...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Peregrine wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?

Apparently not, given the people defending Assange without knowing anything about the case. Annoying the US by hosting the guy who helped leak their secrets is probably far more of a risk to Ecuador's government than whether or not Assange is guilty of a crime that the US government doesn't care about. Ecuador's decisions about Assange are almost certainly 100% based on his role in international politics, not evidence about anything related to the rape case.

I'm not so sure these days. With Trump in the White House, annoying the USA and stealing American secrets doesn't seem to be a big deal to the average man in the street these days. It's accepted as standard practice in international affairs, but with rape, being the vile crime that it is, people's attitudes would be different IMO.

Yes, I accept the fact that South American nations have long resented the USA meddling in their affairs, so there is an element of Ecuador tweaking the USA's nose as payback, but even they would draw the line somewhere.

**Ouze**

I don't know whether or not Julian Assange did or did not sexually assault someone, but my feelings are:

1.) I feel like he does have a journalistic shield to publish what he does, although his sources generally do not

2.) Whistleblowing wrongdoing is the right thing to do

3.) For the most part, what Wikileaks has done isn't #2. I feel like they mostly just act as a political tool for interested parties, leaking things that aren't actually wrongdoing. "Collateral murder", for example, doesn't actually depict murder by any reasonable definition.

4.) Having charges dropped is in no way "being cleared of the charges", and OP should feel bad about failing to make this distinction

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ouze wrote:
I don't know whether or not Julian Assange did or did not sexually assault someone, but my feelings are:

1.) I feel like he does have a journalistic shield to publish what he does, although his sources generally do not

2.) Whistleblowing wrongdoing is the right thing to do

3.) For the most part, what Wikileaks has done isn't #2. I feel like they mostly just act as a political tool for interested parties, leaking things that aren't actually wrongdoing. "Collateral murder", for example, doesn't actually depict murder by any reasonable definition.

4.) Having charges dropped is in no way "being cleared of the charges", and OP should feel bad about failing to make this distinction

I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case. I totally agree that it doesn't mean he's innocent.

As for Wikileaks, they did the American people a great service by exposing facts about a person running for the USA's highest office, so that was in the public interest to have that in the open.

**Ouze**

Well, I'd like to respond to that, but I can't, so suffice it to say I disagree.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I don't know whether or not Julian Assange did or did not sexually assault someone, but my feelings are:

1.) I feel like he does have a journalistic shield to publish what he does, although his sources generally do not

2.) Whistleblowing wrongdoing is the right thing to do

3.) For the most part, what Wikileaks has done isn't #2. I feel like they mostly just act as a political tool for interested parties, leaking things that aren't actually wrongdoing. "Collateral murder", for example, doesn't actually depict murder by any reasonable definition.

4.) Having charges dropped is in no way "being cleared of the charges", and OP should feel bad about failing to make this distinction

I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case. I totally agree that it doesn't mean he's innocent.

As for Wikileaks, they did the American people a great service by exposing facts about a person running for the USA's highest office, so that was in the public interest to have that in the open.

That trolling is underhanded now that we can't have US politics discussions any more.

**Disciple of Fate**

Lets not forget Assange also publicized people's medical records, social security and financial information and even outed homosexuals in the always tolerant Saudi Arabia. This man has no journalistic integrity, he depends on the hard work of others so he can stroke his own ego. Remember the champion of transparency mention his talks with Farage or his organisation's connections to the Trump campaign. What a hypocrite. He also suspiciously only leaks certain information from even more suspicious 'sources', who knows how long ago he sold out. Might not be long before he has an accident. Now that he has outlived his usefulness to certain people.

**jhe90**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Lets not forget Assange also publicized people's medical records, social security and financial information and even outed homosexuals in the always tolerant Saudi Arabia. This man has no journalistic integrity, he depends on the hard work of others so he can stroke his own ego. Remember the champion of transparency mention his talks with Farage or his organisation's connections to the Trump campaign. What a hypocrite. He also suspiciously only leaks certain information from even more suspicious 'sources', who knows how long ago he sold out. Might not be long before he has an accident. Now that he has outlived his usefulness to certain people.

that has one fair point, if you release information that causes x result you are the cause good or ill for whatever happens.
at end of day you do reep what you sow, yes he did that others who deserved it but it can happen to you as well/

**Steve steveson**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?

Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?

The Ecuadorean government were not interested in his guilt or not. They accepted him to capitalise on the anti US sentiment in south and Central America. They are using him, and the two women, as a political pawn.

And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.

I would love to know how you think the Ecuadorean government came to such an accurate decision with the only evidence being the word of the accused. They accepted him for political reasons. Nothing more nothing less. To claim they are standing up to the big mean USA and gain votes and prestige with zero risk.

**Spetulhu**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case.

And ofc he still skipped bail in the UK - it's a legal agreement that you can remain free waiting for legal proceedings in exchange for putting up (usually) a sum of money as security for your good behavior. It was probably "only" police bail if he hadn't been formally charged yet (which he couldn't have been if Swedish law requires hearing him too before filing charges in a case like this) but still skipping bail.

It's a separate crime, though I'm not well enough versed in UK law to tell if it's serious enough that they'd want him arrested and put in jail, fined, or losing the deposit is enough punishment. But still a crime he undeniably committed and should have to clear up with the British.

**jhe90**

Spetulhu wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case.

And ofc he still skipped bail in the UK - it's a legal agreement that you can remain free waiting for legal proceedings in exchange for putting up (usually) a sum of money as security for your good behavior. It was probably "only" police bail if he hadn't been formally charged yet (which he couldn't have been if Swedish law requires hearing him too before filing charges in a case like this) but still skipping bail.

It's a separate crime, though I'm not well enough versed in UK law to tell if it's serious enough that they'd want him arrested and put in jail, fined, or losing the deposit is enough punishment. But still a crime he undeniably committed and should have to clear up with the British.

The punishment is listed as a fine or up to a year in jail.
He already lost the deposit when he failed to show and broke his bail agreement I believe.
If there was a separate charge, and was arrested. He would not get bail and have to pending in a UK jail unto his trial date. Course pleed guilty and he would get a slap on wrist, its somthibf like 50% off tariff.. Likely result in a fine or harsh words. I doubt he would see jail, maybe suspended sentence or such.

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Kanluwen

Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?

Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?

And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.

IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.

That's like a meta-meta-meta interpretation. The Swedes haven't released any evidence because Assange hasn't been arraigned, and your judgement is based on the Ecuadorian judgement of the non-existent Swedish judgement.

I mean WTF, really?

**Kanluwen**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I don't know whether or not Julian Assange did or did not sexually assault someone, but my feelings are:

1.) I feel like he does have a journalistic shield to publish what he does, although his sources generally do not

2.) Whistleblowing wrongdoing is the right thing to do

3.) For the most part, what Wikileaks has done isn't #2. I feel like they mostly just act as a political tool for interested parties, leaking things that aren't actually wrongdoing. "Collateral murder", for example, doesn't actually depict murder by any reasonable definition.

4.) Having charges dropped is in no way "being cleared of the charges", and OP should feel bad about failing to make this distinction

I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case. I totally agree that it doesn't mean he's innocent.

The presumption of innocence does not mean that you are exempted from the rule of law.

As for Wikileaks, they did the American people a great service by exposing facts about a person running for the USA's highest office, so that was in the public interest to have that in the open.

I really don't know how you can spout nonsense like this and take yourself seriously.

Nothing that WikiLeaks or Assange did during the 2016 election was "a great service" to the American people. It was a great service to the dumpsterfire that is the current administration, which any idiot could have seen would be openly hostile towards him once in office as the Republicans were the main advocates of the whole "traitor" narrative during the Obama administration when it came to Assange.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Kanluwen

Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?

Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?

Funny you should say that, because one of the Ecuadorian Presidential candidates said that he would do exactly that...

Quoting from Wikipedia, cause it's fairly easy to find citable sources that way:

n the run-up to 2017 Ecuador's presidential elections, conservative candidate Guillermo Lasso promised that he "will cordially ask Senor Assange to leave" within 30 days of assuming office, should he be elected. The pro-business candidate said the country's London embassy "isn't a hotel" and that Ecuador is in no position to finance the Australian's stay there.

After preliminary results in the second round of Ecuador's presidential election showed that Lasso is poised to lose – the WikiLeaks founder responded using the same language."I cordially invite Lasso to leave Ecuador within 30 days (with or without his tax haven millions)," Assange tweeted, referring to the revelations made shortly before the vote.

And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.

IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.

And an important point that you're overlooking is that if they wanted to offer him safe haven from political posturing/witch hunts--they could just do that.

They don't need to pretend that he's not guilty of sexual assault or any other nonsense.

**Kovnik Obama**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Kanluwen

Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?

This isn't to be glib or appear obtuse, but honestly, what reputation? Assange's extended couch-surfing must be the reason why that country appears in about half the newspaper it does, nowadays.

And Ecuador have in the past refused extradition requests despite having treaties saying they must.

Also, to keep this current :

World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”

Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”

How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?

**Humble Guardsman**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”

Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”

How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?

What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.

And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I'd be the first to admit that Assange is not a likeable person, an egomaniac, unpleasant etc etc

But we're going to condemn him for that?

By that logic, half the world's population would need to be jailed.

Put aside your view of Assange the man, and judge this case on its own merits. That's what I'm doing, and that's what any court of law would do.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge. I have no legal background. I go only what I've read in the media and I balance that against my own knowledge and world viewpoint.

IMO, Assange has no case to answer. Is a he a rapist? I don't know, and I suspect we'll never know, because there are only two people who know the truth, and both are contradicting each other.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Kanluwen

Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?

Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?

And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.

IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.

That's like a meta-meta-meta interpretation. The Swedes haven't released any evidence because Assange hasn't been arraigned, and your judgement is based on the Ecuadorian judgement of the non-existent Swedish judgement.

I mean WTF, really?

Has the following occurred to you:

1. As the interview happened in the Ecuadorian embassy, we can deduce that a representative of the Ecuadorian government sat in as a neutral observer, and thus, were able to obtain information on what was said and drawn their own conclusions from this.

2. Ecuador would have read and followed the same newspapers and information as everybody else. Therefore, they would know, that the original prosecutor decided that Assange had no case to answer.
Ecuador again, may have drawn its own conclusions from this.

3. In its various diplomatic exchanges with Sweden, Ecuador may have access to information that Is denied to ordinary people like us.

To conclude, it is possible that the Ecuadorian decisions to keep Assange in their embassy is based on the above.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'd be the first to admit that Assange is not a likeable person, an egomaniac, unpleasant etc etc

But we're going to condemn him for that? By that logic, half the world's population would need to be jailed.

Put aside your view of Assange the man, and judge this case on its own merits. That's what I'm doing, and that's what any court of law would do.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge. I have no legal background. I go only what I've read in the media and I balance that against my own knowledge and world viewpoint.

IMO, Assange has no case to answer. Is a he a rapist? I don't know, and I suspect we'll never know, because there are only two people who know the truth, and both are contradicting each other.

If only there was some kind of system in which this sort of thing could he decided

**Disciple of Fate**

Humble Guardsman wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”

Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”

How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?

What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.

And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.

He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.

This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.

**jhe90**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Humble Guardsman wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”

Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”

How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?

What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.

And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.

He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.

This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time an cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.

As said before he ain't exactly the nicest guy out there by any stretch.
Long as he answers the UK charges he is free to go however. Right now that's all that's got him trapped and stuck.
Its all on him to decide what to do next.

**Disciple of Fate**

jhe90 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Humble Guardsman wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”

Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”

How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?

What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.

And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.

He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.

This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time an cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.

As said before he ain't exactly the nicest guy out there by any stretch.
Long as he answers the UK charges he is free to go however. Right now that's all that's got him trapped and stuck.
Its all on him to decide what to do next.

True he managed to get the warrant dropped. I can see him staying in the embassy though. There is always the risk they put the warrant back up if hes out before the statue of limitations comes up again. Of course there might also be a risk on his life, he might know more than certain people like and then I'm not talking about the US.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Does anybody here seriously believe the American government and intelligence/security services do not want to extradite Assange? Or that Theresa May's government, with its fetish for Pro-Statist surveillance and authoritarianism, would not enthusiastically cooperate?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Does anybody here seriously believe the American government and intelligence/security services do not want to extradite Assange? Or that Theresa May's government, with its fetish for Pro-Statist surveillance and authoritarianism, would not enthusiastically cooperate?

Exactly. Have an exalt sir.

We know from recent media reports that potentially, the CIA has lost a major spying ring in China. Is it true? We may never know for years, if ever.

What has that to do with Assange? Well, you add the potential losses in China, and add that to whoever is leaking to WikiLeaks in the USA

and you have a climate of somebody in Washington wanting to clean house and make somebody carry the can for these setbacks.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Assange will be caught up in the cross-fire.

**ulgurstasta**

To the people here saying that it would be unconstitutional for Sweden to extradite people to the US, the Swedish government has a long history of not giving a crap about that little rule. We are the first to bend over when the CIA comes knocking

**jhe90**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Humble Guardsman wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”

Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”

How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?

What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.

And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.

He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.

This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time an cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.

As said before he ain't exactly the nicest guy out there by any stretch.
Long as he answers the UK charges he is free to go however. Right now that's all that's got him trapped and stuck.
Its all on him to decide what to do next.

True he managed to get the warrant dropped. I can see him staying in the embassy though. There is always the risk they put the warrant back up if hes out before the statue of limitations comes up again. Of course there might also be a risk on his life, he might know more than certain people like and then I'm not talking about the US.

True but he still has thr whole technically he would be arrested thr momment he shows his passport at Heathrow etc.
He is absconding from bail, so he has to answer/remove that one before his scot free escape can succeed. That's asuming his is valid in first place and if not he would need help from Australian embassy or maybe get somthibf like a refugee travel document, or in a real dick move make him a citizen at embassy and protect him under own passport/maybe diplomatic protection. Of course I doubt that trick would work at allm UK would never grant him immunity if pending charges.
And yes he aired alot of nations dirty Landry for all to see.
That's never gonna win you many friends in shadowy places.

**AlmightyWalrus**

ulgurstasta wrote:
To the people here saying that it would be unconstitutional for Sweden to extradite people to the US, the Swedish government has a long history of not giving a crap about that little rule. We are the first to bend over when the CIA comes knocking

That was my bad, I put one "unconstitutional" too many in my post. It's not actually unconstitutional for the Swedish government to extradite Assange to the US, but it is to give any guarantees prior to trying his case.

**Humble Guardsman**

Disciple of Fate wrote:

He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.

If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.

This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.

And if the rape case is a complete fabrication, which is seeming more likely with the distinct lack of evidence Sweden has had forthcoming, is it still douchey to be upset about that? Victims of false rape accusations are going to be upset even if the allegation doesn't have any political motivation at all.

Would the current Swedish or UK governments stand up to US pressure to hand over Assange to them on a silver platter? Don't even kid yourself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
ulgurstasta wrote:
To the people here saying that it would be unconstitutional for Sweden to extradite people to the US, the Swedish government has a long history of not giving a crap about that little rule. We are the first to bend over when the CIA comes knocking

That was my bad, I put one "unconstitutional" too many in my post. It's not actually unconstitutional for the Swedish government to extradite Assange to the US, but it is to give any guarantees prior to trying his case.

More ridiculous matters regarding extradition have occured.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/649964/Islamic-terrorists-not-extradited-Britain-fears-might-tortured