Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraw asylum

Calina

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm saying that he should be given assurances that if he is found not guilty that he will be free to leave the country.
That has nothing to do with the legal system and all to do with politics. The Swedish government can make it clear that they will not accept any request from any country as regards Assange until a day after his case ends.

They cannot. The extradition request is not a political matter. It is a legal matter. The Swedish government does not get involved.

Plus, there is a request in the UK. Already. From the US.

Maybe you don't know this.

Kidchameleon

Calina wrote: »

Any woman with an STD probably got it from a man. Let us hear what you have to say about men with STDs, right.

Any man walking around with an STD as a result of promiscuity is a filthy man w*hore.

Calina wrote: »

As for Assange, he needs to go to Sweden and face the legal system there.

He already did via video link, charges were dropped thereafter.

1641

eagle eye wrote:

I think you work for the CIA.

Nah - All the hallmarks of a red flag. GRU pretending to be CIA - or even CIA pretending to be GRU pretending to be CIA while working undercover for Wiki to help the CIA expose the GRU exposing Wiki. Something anyway.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Kidchameleon wrote: »

OK fair enough, any woman walking around with an STD as a result of promiscuity is a filthy w*hore.

You’re not doing the rest of your argument any justice.

Kidchameleon

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’re not doing the rest of your argument any justice.

What do you think of promiscuous women with STD's?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What do you think of promiscuous women with STD's?

I’m ok with them. I’ve reported your posts and when you’re gone let’s hope the conversation returns to a proper political discussion.

Hobosan

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Any man walking around with an STD as a result of promiscuity is a filthy man w*hore.

Perfectly valid opinion. Just be careful not to tie it in with groups that predominantly exhibit those behaviours or you could face severe consequences.

Kidchameleon

Hobosan wrote: »

Perfectly valid opinion. Just be careful not to tie it in with groups that predominantly exhibit those behaviours or you could face severe consequences.

Men and women are equal in my opinion. Contrary to the narrative trying to be spun here. Yes lets get back to Assange. I do not believe the women who accused him of rape. They themselves have previously stated that he did not rape them. Then their story changed when certain leaks came out. Strange that.

Billy86

Kidchameleon wrote: »

OK fair enough, any woman walking around with an STD as a result of promiscuity is a filthy w*hore.

And a guy walking around with an STD as a result of promiscuity is...?

Kidchameleon

Billy86 wrote: »

And a guy walking around with an STD as a result of promiscuity is...?

See post #513.


Men and women are equal.

Billy86

biko wrote: »

That's fine. I'm sure you can find someone famous to help you with their opinion.

Slapping up a video without giving detail as to what it discusses doesn't mean it deserves to be watched though.

That's a 26 minute video, how do you expect people to make the effort to commit to it when you're not even making the effort to give any input as to what is in it, and what your own opinion on it is in any meaningful detail?

Billy86

Kidchameleon wrote: »

See post #513.


Men and women are equal.

Yeah, should have skimmed down before replying. Can't say I agree, but have at it I guess!

Dante7

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m ok with them. I’ve reported your posts and when you’re gone let’s hope the conversation returns to a proper political discussion.

I've reported his posts too. Can't believe they are still up.

Dante7

Dante7 wrote:

I've reported his posts too. Can't believe they are still up.

He's been banned. No harm in leaving the posts up

Zorya

Chris Hedges (Pulitzer-prize winning journalist) in “The Martyrdom of Julian Assange” at TruthDig.



“Once the documents and videos provided by Manning to Assange and WikiLeaks were published and disseminated by news organizations such as The New York Times and The Guardian, the press callously, and foolishly, turned on Assange. News organizations that had run WikiLeaks material over several days soon served as conduits in a black propaganda campaign to discredit Assange and WikiLeaks. This coordinated smear campaign was detailed in a leaked Pentagon document prepared by the Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch and dated March 8, 2008. The document called on the U.S. to eradicate the ‘feeling of trust’ that is WikiLeaks’ ‘center of gravity’ and destroy Assange’s reputation.


“Assange, who with the Manning leaks had exposed the war crimes, lies and criminal manipulations of the George W. Bush administration, soon earned the ire of the Democratic Party establishment by publishing 70,000 hacked emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and senior Democratic officials. The emails were copied from the accounts of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. The Podesta emails exposed the donation of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two of the major funders of Islamic State, to the Clinton Foundation. It exposed the $657,000 that Goldman Sachs paid to Hillary Clinton to give talks, a sum so large it can only be considered a bribe. It exposed Clinton’s repeated mendacity. She was caught in the emails, for example, telling the financial elites that she wanted ‘open trade and open borders’ and believed Wall Street executives were best positioned to manage the economy, a statement that contradicted her campaign statements.

“It exposed the Clinton campaign’s efforts to influence the Republican primaries to ensure that Trump was the Republican nominee. It exposed Clinton’s advance knowledge of questions in a primary debate. It exposed Clinton as the primary architect of the war in Libya, a war she believed would burnish her credentials as a presidential candidate. Journalists can argue that this information, like the war logs, should have remained hidden, but they can’t then call themselves journalists.

The Democratic leadership, intent on blaming Russia for its election loss, charges that the Podesta emails were obtained by Russian government hackers, although James Comey, the former FBI director, has conceded that the emails were probably delivered to WikiLeaks by an intermediary. Assange has said the emails were not provided by ‘state actors.’

“WikiLeaks has done more to expose the abuses of power and crimes of the American Empire than any other news organization. In addition to the war logs and the Podesta emails, it made public the hacking tools used by the CIA and the National Security Agency and their interference in foreign elections, including in the French elections. It disclosed the internal conspiracy against British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn by Labour members of Parliament. It intervened to save Edward Snowden, who made public the wholesale surveillance of the American public by our intelligence agencies, from extradition to the United States by helping him flee from Hong Kong to Moscow. The Snowden leaks also revealed that Assange was on a U.S. ‘manhunt target list.'”

1641

Zorya wrote: »

Chris Hedges (Pulitzer-prize winning journalist) in “The Martyrdom of Julian Assange” at TruthDig.

I don't think there is anything new in that polemic. You should note that Hedges has long been associated with Assange (along with Pilger) so it is hardly surprising that he would come out with this. He doesn't seem to mention the extradition request - or Assange running away from answering the rape allegations. No doubt given his (Hedges) history he would dismiss them both.


His reference to the New York Times and Guardian "callously" abandoning Assange is a strange one. He fails to mention that this followed the unredacted dump of the Afghan files, which seriously endangered ordinary Afghani lives, and Assanges refusal to accept any responsibility. It is difficult to see how any responsible Journal could have stood by this. Instead Hedges seems to link it to a Pentagon document from 2008 - two years before the dump and in which interval these papers actively engaged with and supported Wikileaks. Is he seriously trying to suggest this engagement was a ruse? It looks more like a typical Wikileaks/Assange slur - as they do against anyone who questions them.


You refer to Hedges as a Pulizer winning journalist - which he was while working for the New York Times in 2002. Just to add a bit more to his CV. He was effectively dismissed from the NY Times a year or so later. In more recent years he has wanderd around various radical left fringe groups and activists (eg David North, Trotskyist/Marxist and former leader of the International Committee of the Fourth International). He also hosts a programme on Russia Today. A few years ago he described ISIS as the "new Israel". Oh, and he has faced serious allegations of plagiarism :


https://newrepublic.com/article/118114/chris-hedges-pulitzer-winner-lefty-hero-plagiarist


He does seem a well meaning guy though. I just wouldn't take him too seriously - well certainly not as (an even slightly) impartial voice.

Manic Moran

The so-called "rape" was something to with Assange not using a condom during consensual sex.

I believe the surreptitious deletion of the condom during what was supposed consensual sex suddenly changes it to non-consensual if the condom use was a condition. What's another word for 'non-consensual sex', I wonder?

eagle eye

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe the surreptitious deletion of the condom during what was supposed consensual sex suddenly changes it to non-consensual if the condom use was a condition. What's another word for 'non-consensual sex', I wonder?

So it's not about penetration being refused?

recedite

What if the condom is accidentally damaged by somebody's fingernail, is that RAPE through negligence?
I think its obvious that the general <ahem> thrust of the oft repeated rape allegation is to paint a picture in the public's mind of Assange as The Pervert Criminal.



Anyway, if we're going to talk about ethics, it might be worth viewing the "collateral murder" video again, which is much more the root cause of why Assange is on the run than any rape allegation.
I think it puts Assange's "crimes" in perspective.
Reuters journalists with bodyguards being targeted, incapacitated badly wounded guys being finished off with heavy machine gun fire, and people arriving to give medical assistance to the wounded also being targeted.


Assange has never been forgiven for publishing that video, and certain people won't rest until he is locked up alongside Bradley Manning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw

ohnonotgmail

eagle eye wrote: »

So it's not about penetration being refused?

penetration without consent is rape. very simple

Manic Moran

recedite wrote: »

What if the condom is accidentally damaged by somebody's fingernail, is that RAPE through negligence?

Mens Rea.

Which, incidentally, also applies in the case of the video you link.

1641

recedite wrote: »

What if the condom is accidentally damaged by somebody's fingernail, is that RAPE through negligence?
I think its obvious that the general <ahem> thrust of the oft repeated rape allegation is to paint a picture in the public's mind of Assange as The Pervert Criminal. .......

Anyway, if we're going to talk about ethics, it might be worth viewing the "collateral murder" video again, which is much more the root cause of why Assange is on the run than any rape allegation.
I think it puts Assange's "crimes" in perspective.

It is not why he went on the run. That was pure bogus bull**** put out by Assange to justify he refusal to face a trial for rape.
He was in the UK - he was at least as vulnerable to extradition to the US from there as he would have been from Sweden. In fact he would have been safer in Sweden as extradition to the US from there would have required not only Sweden's approval but also UK approval. Instead he ran like a rat into his hole in the Ecudorian embassy.
Don't attempt to conduct his rape trial here (and acquit) with selective evidence and conjecture. That is for a court where all the evidence can be tested and contested.
Anyway I don't think he will ever face the rape trial now, unfortunately.



Here is an interesting take on Assange :
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-assange-got-what-he-deserved/587008/


Or for a more sympathetic -but still critical - take from a former collaborator :https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-assange-arrested-journalists-defend/586936/

recedite

1641 wrote: »

He was in the UK - he was at least as vulnerable to extradition to the US from there as he would have been from Sweden.

No, politically its a problem for many in the UK, especially in the Labour party. The Swedes have much less qualms about handing him over to the Americans, especially when RAPE has been shouted in Sweden.


Even now, UK MPs are desperately trying to persuade Sweden to take him, which would solve their problem.
But if the UK gets stuck with him, they will probably extradite him to the US in the end.

recedite

So currently Assange has been arrested in the UK, but not yet extradited.


It reminds me a bit of the time Puigdemont (the Catalan leader) was arrested in Germany on foot of a Spanish arrest warrant and a tip-off by the Spanish.
They had to arrest him, but politically, that created a problem for the Germans. After a while, they let him slip away across the border.
https://www.thelocal.es/20180522/german-court-again-refuses-to-jail-puigdemont

1641

recedite wrote:

No, politically its a problem for many in the UK, especially in the Labour party. The Swedes have much less qualms about handing him over to the Americans, especially when RAPE has been shouted in Sweden.

If the UK extradite him to Sweden the Swedes can't extradite him on to the US without first getting UK approval. So its a double lock.
I don't think he will face Swedish extradition now, though, because of their statute of limitations.

recedite

1641 wrote: »

If the UK extradite him to Sweden the Swedes can't extradite him on to the US without first getting UK approval.

You sure about that? I never heard that one before.

1641

recedite wrote: »

You sure about that? I never heard that one before.

One source :


"The New Statesman’s legal correspondent, David Allen Green, expended quite a lot of energy back in 2012 swatting down every unfounded assertion and conspiracy theory for why Assange could not stand before his accusers in Scandinavia without being instantly rendered to Guantanamo Bay. Ironically, as Green noted, going to Stockholm would make it harder for Assange to be sent on to Washington because “any extradition from Sweden … would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom” instead of just the latter country. Nevertheless, Assange ran and hid and self-pityingly professed himself a “political prisoner.”


Another:


"The Swedish government exclusively makes decisions in extradition cases to countries outside the EU.
In short, the country that wants a person extradited needs to hand in a formal request to the Ministry of Justice.
Every extradition case is to be judged on its own individual merits. For that reason the Swedish government cannot provide a guarantee in advance that Julian Assange would not be subject to further extradition to the USA.

Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country." https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter--press/media/the-assange-matter/kan-assange-utlamnas-fran-sverige-till-usa/

recedite

1641 wrote: »

"The Swedish government exclusively makes decisions in extradition cases to countries outside the EU.


Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK.

The above seems a bit contradictory.
IMO it means that Sweden does not need permission from the UK to extradite him to the USA.
But if the UK sends him to Sweden on condition that he be tried for rape and then returned if found innocent, then that is what the Swedes would have to do.


But if the UK sent him to Sweden with no preconditions and then shut the door on him, they would no longer be involved in any way. Which is exactly the outcome they are hoping for.

Tow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1efOs0BsE0g

1641

recedite wrote: »

The above seems a bit contradictory.
IMO it means that Sweden does not need permission from the UK to extradite him to the USA.
But if the UK sends him to Sweden on condition that he be tried for rape and then returned if found innocent, then that is what the Swedes would have to do.

But if the UK sent him to Sweden with no preconditions and then shut the door on him, they would no longer be involved in any way. Which is exactly the outcome they are hoping for.

If the UK agree to extradite him to Sweden it has to be on the basis of a charge - in this case a charge of rape. That is the condition. They cannot extradite with no pre-conditions, ie, on the basis of no charge.