Julian Assange Unlawfully Detained

[beorhthelm]

... Coincidently he's then called to Sweden to face pretty spurious charges, ones which the two women apparently didn't want filed in the first place.

the main charge is that he went back with a lady who was consenting as long as he wore a condom. having done the deed, the following morning he done it again, while they were asleep and without condom. as i saw someone put it, that sounds a bit rapey.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

the main charge is that he went back with a lady who was consenting as long as he wore a condom. having done the deed, the following morning he done it again, while they were asleep and without condom. as i saw someone put it, that sounds a bit rapey.

From my understanding he said he was wearing a condom when he wasn't. This is rape is Sweden which is fair enough, but I've also read the woman involved didn't want to proceed with charges.

 

[larus]

From my understanding he said he was wearing a condom when he wasn't. This is rape is Sweden which is fair enough, but I've also read the woman involved didn't want to proceed with charges.

This whole area regarding what constitutes rape is a nightmare. In my opinion, the same crime description for not wearing a condom or dragging a woman from the street at night diminishes the trauma of the latter.

If he has done this, then this is wrong, but a fail so see how this can constitute 'rape'. Maybe the word has morphed over time from my undersanding of what rape is.

 

[beorhthelm]

From my understanding he said he was wearing a condom when he wasn't. This is rape is Sweden ...

its considered rape here too. but as she was supposedly asleep at the beginning, how could he tell her anything. recall there were 3 or 4 charages originally, some droped/expired due to their law. the main allegation of rape is still alive, otherwise he wouldnt be facing extradition. still be arrested for contempt of court of course.

 

[BadFish]

He is yet to be charged by the Swedish authorities as they have not conducted an interivew with him yet, despite it being possible for the Swedes to interview hin at the Embassy so they can formally proceed agianst him on the rape charge.

My own personal view is that if the Swedes wish to proceed against him on the rape charge, they should interview him at the Embassy, charge and then try him, if there is a case to answer. As much as I admire his whistleblowing activities, it does not buy him a pass on that. However the Swedes and Brits should make clear to the US they will not allow him to be extradited to the US on whistleblowing charges.

I do not understand why the Swedes have not agreed to this, from what I have read about this case Assange has agreed to the investigative intervew at the Embassy.

His view is certainly that the charges are there in order to get him to Sweden and then on to the US. You point certainly backs this up. The whole thing sticks to high heaven and from what I can see his paranoia is not without foundation.

 

[BadFish]

Runs a website which releases the dark secrets of the most powerful nation on the earth. Coincidently he's then called to Sweden to face pretty spurious charges, ones which the two women apparently didn't want filed in the first place. If I was him I'd hide too, if he reaches America we'll never hear about him again and no one would do anything about it because were all too passive. If Sweden really care so much they can interview him in the embassy, which they've refused to do this far.

This

 

[ferring seagull]

However, from the UK point of view, there is a European arrest warrant which needs to be adhered to.

Nothing else should matter irrespective of your view of pending charges in Sweden and whether or not he is guilty of compromising national security in the US and indeed here in the UK.

 

[matthew]

Phillip Hammond is such a prick, reminds me of Thatcher calling Mandela a terrorist. I think we'll find out in a few years that the UK was on the wrong side here.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

See the conspiracy theory loons are out in force tonight. I think it's very likely Sweden that well known right wing, authoritarian, illiberal nation is in cahoots to frame Assange ..

 

[BadFish]

However, from the UK point of view, there is a European arrest warrant which needs to be adhered to.

Nothing else should matter irrespective of your view of pending charges in Sweden and whether or not he is guilty of compromising national security in the US and indeed here in the UK.

Surey this also means that there is now a UN Ruling that should be adhered to as well?

 

[ferring seagull]

Surey this also means that there is now a UN Ruling that should be adhered to as well?

Surely one has to recognise that the UN is something of an octopus as a large organisation and as such, has many tentacles.

EG. UNHCR, UNICEF, etc. etc .

Do not confuse the significance of the importance of a mandate achieved at the UN security council which has a bit more clout and accordingly somewhat more respected.

 

[beorhthelm]

Phillip Hammond is such a prick, reminds me of Thatcher calling Mandela a terrorist. I think we'll find out in a few years that the UK was on the wrong side here.

doubtful. just seen interview with one of the members of the panel, in his opinion bail conditions of remaining at home amount to house arrest. he was clearly not familar with general due process of law. i read that one of the panel dissented the opinion, and in his remarks he apparently called it ridiculous.

 

[beorhthelm]

Surey this also means that there is now a UN Ruling that should be adhered to as well?

you are over stating the significance of the UN group involved, as Assange and his supporters want. it is not a court nor does it have any power, it is not a ruling or a judgment. its the opinion of a "working group". it has as much legal significance as NSC.

 

[BadFish]

you are over stating the significance of the UN group involved, as Assange and his supporters want. it is not a court nor does it have any power, it is not a ruling or a judgment. its the opinion of a "working group". it has as much legal significance as NSC.

To my mind it suggests that a significant international organisation is of the opinion that the situation has been handled poorly. It seems only reasonable that if one is to recognise the agreements made in the EU then one should also recognise the views of the UN.

If the Swedes really wanted to interview him for the rape charges then surely they would have agreed to interview him at the Embassy? I would have thought this was a reasonable request give Assange's fears about being extradited to the US.

 

[GT49er]

To my mind it suggests that a significant international organisation is of the opinion that the situation has been handled poorly. It seems only reasonable that if one is to recognise the agreements made in the EU then one should also recognise the views of the UN.

If the Swedes really wanted to interview him for the rape charges then surely they would have agreed to interview him at the Embassy? I would have thought this was a reasonable request give Assange's fears about being extradited to the US.

This. As far as I can recollect it, the US wanted Assange to take revenge on him for what he published in WikiLeaks. The UK Government correctly identified this as a charge which did not warrant extradition. Then suddenly a load of dodgy sexual impropriety accusations came in from Sweden, who were, it seems, quite happy to hand over Assange to the USA - before the had been 'tried' for the dubious allegations.
The USA is out for revenge. They don' care how it happens.

 

[beorhthelm]

To my mind it suggests that a significant international organisation is of the opinion that the situation has been handled poorly. It seems only reasonable that if one is to recognise the agreements made in the EU then one should also recognise the views of the UN.

please look up and indeed recognise the the difference between the terms you use yourself. one, a legally binding agreement, another a view from committe. its been recognised, as meaningless. i cant say i fully understand the interview situation, originally it was due to any evidence being inadmissable (bit of a problem), then there was some issue with Ecuador saying they wouldnt allow prosectors in, and last i read was an arrangment for the Ecuadorians to pose questions set by the Swedes. it seems they have tried to find a way that would work within legal bounds. its odd how some seem to think the process of various legal systems should be suspended for this one person, especially when the whole issue is that he "fears" the suspension of all legal procedure to his detriment elsewhere.

This. As far as I can recollect it, the US wanted Assange to take revenge on him for what he published in WikiLeaks

you recall incorrectly, there has never been any case or charge against Assange from the US. they prosecuted Manning for the theft of data and treason, but nothing was ever raised about Assange. its widlly commentated by the sensible americans that he's not commited any offence, he'd be protected under 1st amendment if anyone tried to say otherwise.

oh yes, and on the link with Manning there was a defense fund several hundred thousand raised by Assange, but never made its way to Manning or his defense team.

 

[heathgate]

Phillip Hammond is such a prick, reminds me of Thatcher calling Mandela a terrorist. I think we'll find out in a few years that the UK was on the wrong side here.

The UK isn't on any side you halfwit....they are simply upholding a Swedish and EU arrest warrant.....

Fookin conspiracy a-holes.... grow up.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

they arent interested.

Really? are you forgetting that it was Assange and Wikileaks who released footage showing US soldiers shooting dead 18 civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.

 

[BadFish]

please look up and indeed recognise the the difference between the terms you use yourself. one, a legally binding agreement, another a view from committe. its been recognised, as meaningless. i cant say i fully understand the interview situation, originally it was due to any evidence being inadmissable (bit of a problem), then there was some issue with Ecuador saying they wouldnt allow prosectors in, and last i read was an arrangment for the Ecuadorians to pose questions set by the Swedes. it seems they have tried to find a way that would work within legal bounds. its odd how some seem to think the process of various legal systems should be suspended for this one person, especially when the whole issue is that he "fears" the suspension of all legal procedure to his detriment elsewhere.



you recall incorrectly, there has never been any case or charge against Assange from the US. they prosecuted Manning for the theft of data and treason, but nothing was ever raised about Assange. its widlly commentated by the sensible americans that he's not commited any offence, he'd be protected under 1st amendment if anyone tried to say otherwise.

oh yes, and on the link with Manning there was a defense fund several hundred thousand raised by Assange, but never made its way to Manning or his defense team.

I understand the the differences and similarities and beleive my point still stands.

I would say that the crux of this discussion lies in if you think that his 'fears' are founded or not.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Unfortunately for all concerned in this case, Americas interest in this man has made it politicised beyond the norm. Thier recent disregard for due process in political cases has caused the issue as much as the alleged assault. You can't lock poeple up without a trial and continue to expect suspects to hand themselves over.

Yes but nothing to do with he OP. The UN statement/decision is absurd. He's a fugitive. How can it be deemed that we are (whatever it said we are doing)? We ain't doing nuffink!