Assange

[tobyjugg2]

Now I believe any attack by one person on another is a crime, with rape being a particularly heinous form of an attack.

 

What is the background to the story of the claims of rape 'supporting' the EU arrest warrant raised by Sweden?

(ignoring for the time being any claims on whether the complainants were US CIA plants, or even the apparently evidence supported claims that the 'complainants' were attempted blackmailers)

 

The Guardian has a report with some damning detail in a very readable form:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

 

See also:

http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/european-arrest-warrant-statistics

 

 

Questions.

 

Would this detail in the hands of a UK police force warrant even the arrest of someone accused of 'Rape' (even ignoring the 'blackmail' claims) in the stated circumstances?

 

 

 

 

Now I think the UK should reasonably progress a valid EAW (European Arrest Warrant), but the UK's investment in this appears to be completely disproportionate

 

In no way do I perceive rape (by anyone of anyone) as a trivial offense, but I do think that

* the apparent complete lack of any real evidence,

* and seemingly significant evidence to the contrary in the claimants own statements

cast such severe doubts on any rape allegations that were this case not regarding Assange. this case would never make it outside the initial police station,

let alone to any legitimate court,

let alone justify a European Arrest Warrant

and a siege that in many ways put the unquestionably justified Libyan embassy siege to shame.

[unclebulgaria67]

Put it this way.

 

I am a bit suspicious of these Swedish allegations happening so soon after the US were interested in Assange being taken to the US.

 

If Assange went to Sweden and they decided not to prosecute, i suspect the US would quickly apply for extradition. Given the life prison sentence he would face, I can see why he remains in an Embassy.

 

What happens if Assanges legal team went to court to challenge the arrest warrant and it was removed. Assange then left the Embassy and could not be arrested. You can bet that another warrant would be issued within minutes, with Assange on his way to Sweden.

[tobyjugg2]

Put it this way.

 

I am a bit suspicious of these Swedish allegations happening so soon after the US were interested in Assange being taken to the US.

 

If Assange went to Sweden and they decided not to prosecute, i suspect the US would quickly apply for extradition. Given the life prison sentence he would face, I can see why he remains in an Embassy.

 

What happens if Assanges legal team went to court to challenge the arrest warrant and it was removed. Assange then left the Embassy and could not be arrested. You can bet that another warrant would be issued within minutes, with Assange on his way to Sweden.

 

 

Too true.

It seems to me that all this is just to get Assange into the hands of the Americans. but I did say ignoring the CIA and blackmail claims.

 

As a further relevant aside, The tories and the EAW outside of Assange:

"British law has been changed so that extradition can be refused for trivial offences. It can also be denied unless the partner country has reached a definite decision to charge and try the suspect"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/11216639/European-Arrest-Warrant-Tory-MPs-should-put-unity-before-emotion.html

 

 

 

BUT back to the core question - does the allegations against him as shown in the link in the first post above (which 'allegations and testimony Assange was apparently denied access to) justify the EAW (or any warrant)?

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

The answer is whether the EAW is valid based on the legal situation with the Swedish prosecutors evidence.

 

Some of the allegations don't make any sense. BUT if under Swedish law the prosecutors believe they have a legal case to put before a jury, then I guess they may have the right to request that Assange is forced to go to Sweden to give evidence under caution and stay in Sweden until the full legal process has been gone through.

 

There have been quite a few court cases in the UK involving allegations of rape or sexual assault, where there is no evidence, other than the differing statements of the two people involved. It depends whether Police and prosecutors believe the accuser and they have not found any background info that would make it difficult.

[ericsbrother]

the rape allegation is rather different to what one would commonly call rape but it is a complaint made some time after the event that Assange had sex with a woman and didnt use a condom ( as may have been requested). In Swedish law this is rape even though the act itself was consensual.

[tobyjugg2]

the rape allegation is rather different to what one would commonly call rape but it is a complaint made some time after the event that Assange had sex with a woman and didnt use a condom ( as may have been requested). In Swedish law this is rape even though the act itself was consensual.

 

I'm no expert on Swedish law, or any law for that matter, but (mis)interpretations of convoluted law aside, do you think that those claims as shown in the report justify any form of warrant, let alone an international one?

 

(Lets not forget that there has apparently NOT been any actual charge brought against Assange despite a reference to the UK assuming that a charge has been made in 'validating' the EAW and stating that a charge should have been made for a EAW to be validated)

[labrat]

Personally i cant help but wonder if the US is offering a bounty on assange

 

theres plenty of ways to get him out of the embassy and on a boat to america, especially now the police have been removed

[ericsbrother]

European arrest warrant needs no proof, just an accuser. The old extradition warrants needed a judge in this country to look at the evidence offered by the requesting country and then decide if there was a prima facie case to answer. If yes, off you went, if no, you can go home now.

With the current system it doesnt matter if you can prove you were on the moon at the time or even that the crime doesnt exist on the statute books of any country involved (can be a crime in another place that has the same arrangement) you still get carted off in chains because someone has ticked a box on an unsigned form.

[steveod]

Too true.

It seems to me that all this is just to get Assange into the hands of the Americans. but I did say ignoring the CIA and blackmail claims.

 

As a further relevant aside, The tories and the EAW outside of Assange:

"British law has been changed so that extradition can be refused for trivial offences. It can also be denied unless the partner country has reached a definite decision to charge and try the suspect"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/11216639/European-Arrest-Warrant-Tory-MPs-should-put-unity-before-emotion.html

 

 

 

BUT back to the core question - does the allegations against him as shown in the link in the first post above (which 'allegations and testimony Assange was apparently denied access to) justify the EAW (or any warrant)?

 

 

 

except that the CIA aspect cannot be ignored. who are these women's employers after all (highly likely the CIA)

[renegadeimp]

There is no rape case to answer. even the woman who made the claim tried to get it withdrawn but strangely the authorities wouldnt listen, and the decision not to revoke coincided with the US's interest in him.

[Conniff]

None of the above matters, the man is a traitor and should be put against the wall and tarred and feathered.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Conniff

[renegadeimp]

None of the above matters, the man is a traitor and should be put against the wall and shot.

 

He isnt though. The government or the ones behind the scenes are the traitors. And for pretty obvious reasons. Sure, he and snowdon shouldnt have released troop movements around the world, but everything else should be known

[tobyjugg2]

He isnt though. The government or the ones behind the scenes are the traitors. And for pretty obvious reasons. Sure, he and snowdon shouldnt have released troop movements around the world, but everything else should be known

 

+1

and he also isn't a traitor as he isn't American, He's Australian.

[Conniff]

+1

and he also isn't a traitor as he isn't American, He's Australian.

 

That makes him a thief as well as a traitor.

[steveod]

None of the above matters, the man is a traitor and should be put against the wall and shot.

 

No. That would actually be Bush, Obama, Blair, Brown that are the real traitors. Traitors to democracy and rule of law.

[tobyjugg2]

No. That would actually be Bush, Obama, Blair, Brown that are the real traitors. Traitors to democracy and rule of law.

+1

but you forgot Cameron on who's back this current abuse of political power, state resources, tax payers money and international justice sits.

[citizenB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092

 

Much of the criticism of Wikileaks, though, revolves around the notion that releasing such information risks lives.

 

Identities of informants could be compromised, spies exposed, and the safety of human rights activists, journalists and dissidents jeopardised when information of their activities is made public, the argument goes.

 

US military officials contend that allowing enemies access to their strategic and operational documents creates a dangerous environment for American troops serving abroad.

 

On Saturday, US state department legal adviser Harold Koh wrote in a letter to Wikileaks that the most recent document dump "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" as well as "ongoing military operations".

 

 

If the above is true and lives were put at risk, then it was inappropriate of Assange to publicise. In fact, why did he do this - has he said ?

[unclebulgaria67]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092

 

 

 

If the above is true and lives were put at risk, then it was inappropriate of Assange to publicise. In fact, why did he do this - has he said ?

 

I seem to remember wikileaks were careful not to release information which put lifes of operatives and informants at risk. There was then an argument about this, with no actual proof that someones life was endagered by the leaked information.

 

The leak was more of an embarrassment for the US, as it confirmed that US were involved in some acts which were illegal under international law.

 

Also this leak has not been the only occasion, highlighting a lack of IT security at the highest level in the US.

 

If anything, the Edward Snowden leak was more damaging as it highlighted how security services were obtaining information. This may have caused terrorists to change communication methods to those which are difficult to intercept and record.

[tobyjugg2]

I seem to remember wikileaks were careful not to release information which put lifes of operatives and informants at risk. There was then an argument about this, with no actual proof that someones life was endagered by the leaked information.

 

The leak was more of an embarrassment for the US, as it confirmed that US were involved in some acts which were illegal under international law.

 

Also this leak has not been the only occasion, highlighting a lack of IT security at the highest level in the US.

 

If anything, the Edward Snowden leak was more damaging as it highlighted how security services were obtaining information. This may have caused terrorists to change communication methods to those which are difficult to intercept and record.

 

 

All very true Unclebulgaria,

It comes down to the simple facts that if they weren't

 

Illegally and immorally spying on and betraying their allies,

Illegally and immorally intercepting their own citizens private communications

Illegally and immorally Committing war crimes and Illegally and immorally abusing power by covering it up

- and compounded them by Illegally and immorally persecuting those that exposed the abuses of what might have been a few - PROVING that it is the abuses of establishment.

 

- then support for the government would outweigh the sympathy and support for Snowden and Assange .

and neither Snowden or Assange would have been likely to release the information (what information?) even if they could.

 

If the governments involved had addressed the abuses and criminal activity highlighted rather than visibly compound the abuses and crimes, then the issue would be seen very differently by most.

[labrat]

personally its simple

 

he seems to give talks on the balcony fairly often.

there's a multistory building opposite that has several different occupants which is a god-send for gaining access by complaining to be a lost employee

one person on the roof, one round each corner

single gunshot to the upper thigh - meaty part can usually be hurt without permanent damage.

embassy insists on ambulance assistance.

co-workers around corner intercept ambulance, replacement one rolls into place

makes show of treating him at scene but in end states he needs hospital treatment

police will have likely arrived at this point so agreement will need to be made that he could be arrested at hospital later

police occupant of ambulance overpowered + incapacitated

ambulance diverted to boat

transfer made off shore to larger boat for direct transfer to america via cuba

 

alternatively the shot could be a few feet higher and end the issue

[renegadeimp]

And in doing so labrat, you just started a war as you shot someone on foreign territory and under the legal protection of the state. It's stupid yeah, but wars don't need to be started right now

[labrat]

Ok honest response here

 

1. America won't admit they have him

2. Equidor is also a member of nato. They can't declare war on us due to mutual assistance treaty

3. America same

4. Equidor's army is approx 200 tanks. 150 aircraft. And 3-4 frigates

 

If they declare war on us then they have no way to project it.

 

If they declare war on America then it's maybe 1-2 weeks tops. Plus Peru would move in if they moved troops from the border

 

Economical sanctions are a no go we have no real import's or exports for Equidor

 

The only real risk is that Argentina would use it as a reason to move on the Falklands again

 

Personal unqualified opinion he would be in guantanimo. Information extracted and disposed before any international investigation could find him.