Is he still news?
Assange is really just an attention whore one hit wonder basking in the fame of a single major leak by one guy. A guy he hasn't really put much effort into protecting.
What has he leaked of any relevance recently?
Supreme Court judges have rejected Julian Assange's bid to get his extradition case reopened, which means the 40-year-old WikiLeaks founder will be sent packing from Blighty in a fortnight's time. However, it's likely that Assange will now take his case to the European court of Human Rights to have one final attempt at getting …
It's an alien plot, funded by the CIA, backed by the Lizards in the British Government and overseen by the US President.
Once extradited will disappear of the radar and find himself in some out of the way US rendition lair. A doppelgänger will replace him and will be acquitted after a short trial.
He will then be mind probed using the most painful techniques, then a** probed for good measure, just in case he has a hidden USB drive on him.
Finally brainwashed, he will be released and know nothing of the terrible ordeal he has been through. He will wonder why he has developed a limp and be puzzled that each time he brushes his teeth a voice in his head sings the star spangled banner to him.
Assange is the doppelgänger of Winston Smith. Water boarding is a cage of rats strapped to Winston's face in the novel. Rendition to the secret prisons in the Eastern European members of NATO is the Ministery of Love.
When Assange is finally released: "the "false memories" that Winston has been experiencing since he was converted in Room 101 return. As he sits in the Chestnut Tree Cafe his last "false memory" is of "an armed guard at his back. The long-hoped-for bullet was entering his brain."
"Oh beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain, America, America.... "
"Assange had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother"
He's wanted in Sweeden for questioning only?
Surely no one puts this much effort into avoiding questioning unless they're really blatantly guilty of the rape and harassment charges and they know full well they don't stand a chance once the trial begins.
I'd say his efforts to avoid cooperating with the authorities so far should be more than enough to demonstrate his guilt and convict him of the crime. Let him hang!
Paranoiac? Just a little...
To be honest, I'm a little surprised he's not more fucked up given how he was raised...
Assange’s mother believed that formal education would inculcate an unhealthy respect for authority in her children and dampen their will to learn. “I didn’t want their spirits broken,” she told me... the family had moved thirty-seven times by the time Assange was fourteen...
When Assange was eight, Claire left her husband and began seeing a musician...[he] became abusive, she says, and they separated... Claire felt threatened, fearing that the musician would take away [Assange's half brother]. Assange recalled her saying, “Now we need to disappear,” and he lived on the run with her from the age of eleven to sixteen. *When I asked him about the experience, he told me that there was evidence that the man belonged to a powerful cult called the Family—its motto was “Unseen, Unknown, and Unheard.” Some members were doctors who persuaded mothers to give up their newborn children to the cult’s leader, Anne Hamilton-Byrne. The cult had moles in government, Assange suspected, who provided the musician with leads on Claire’s whereabouts.* In fact, Claire often told friends where she had gone, or hid in places where she had lived before.
From what I remember he was accused and then it was withdrawn and then he was accused again and then a charge added... all sounds a bit odd to me.
It also seems strange that the Swedish prosecutor has turned down all offers to speak to him to ask the questions they want to ask.
He doesn't strike me as a nice person but these charges do sound rather trumped up so I'm not surprised he doesn't want to go to Sweden.
This post has been deleted by its author
..unless he believes, or claims to believe, that the charges against him are politically motivated and his extraction to sweden might lead to the US filing an extradition request with the swedish government and lead to him ultimately being extradited to the US to face charges of whatever they can think up against him seeing as he can't be done for treason (not being a us citizen)?
The man might be a bit on the weird side of the spectrum, but he has plenty of reason not to leave the UK and go to Sweden, even if he didn't have the pending charges there against him.
If he is actually guilty or not of his swedish charges is not a trivial matter, but that is not why he has been able to appeal his extradition (and aparently plans to take it to the european courts).
So yeah, I see your UNLESS and raise you a BUT.
And to be clear, I'm attacking your 'if you arent guilty you have nothing to fear arguement', not standing up for the guy.. I think he's weird even without the sex crime allegations.
"Would have been a whole lot easier than via Sweden so that's a duff argument"
DON'T BRING FACTS OR LOGIC INTO THIS.
We are Americans - we are the Quintessence of Evil. All that is Evil in the world, we have our hands in. No child is sick, no web site momentarily unreachable, no day cloudy but for our omnimalevelence. Of course Julian is right to be worried that extradition to Sweden is a part of our plans for his demise - after all, getting him from the UK would be easy, and thus not a worthy example of our Total Evil. We must see him extradited to the most difficult location possible, the better to demonstrate our Absolute Power for Evil. We are actually trying to get him sent to Iran, so we can then use that as an excuse to invade, but Sweden will have to do for now.
Obviously, AC, you have not been reading these fine pages, or the pages of Redit, or indeed any pages frequented by anybody not of the United States of Evil, and you have been brainwashed to be blind to our Total Reprehensibleness.
There are reasons to be concerned about America's foreign policy. However, the belief that the accusation are part of a plot to surrender Assange to America is absurd, and is void of logic.
Assange has admitted that he had sex with been alone with both women, and everything that happened was consensual. To jump to the a point to suggest that it is a wider conspiracy without dismissing the allegations demonstrates an escape from a disillusioned view.
Supporters of Assange have posted a lot of information relating to the interviews and other documents relating to the accusations. Those are the facts. Additionally, according to the EAW both countries have to agree with a extradition to a third country. That is the fact and logic.
This paranoid view of the accusations against Assange has resulted in him wasting his time and money, when this could have all ended.
With Assange's popularity and name makes the idea that this is all part of a plot by America makes it more absurd.
Yep.....absolutely. I mean, you only have to look at him. Eyes too close together. He just looks like a wrong un. Let's not worry about keeping an open mind. In fact, let's not even worry about a trial. Let's just hang him right now.
Good to know that many hundreds of years of legal due process hasn't got rid of the lynch mob!!
And people wonder why jury trial is not all its cracked up to be, when some of the commentors on here are on the jury. If I wanted someone to try me impartially, I'd choose a trained, impartial judge every time. If I was guilty and wanted to pull the wool over peoples eyes, I'd choose a jury comprised of some people on here, dress in a suit and appear very eloquent etc. and be guaranteed a not guilty regardless of the facts.
I don't disagree with you, but surely there's a reasonable expectation that you will allow the charges to be heard (social convention being by a court) so that it can be shown that you are innocent.
Without trying to pass judgement, there's a common saying that innocent me, don't run. He has every right to be presumed innocent, but it doesn't half fuel suspicion if you appear to be going out of your way to avoid trying to clear your name (almost like you believe there's a risk of it being shown you're not innocent).
People shouldn't think like that, but, in the world we live in they do. Expecting that people behave otherwise is futile, and the more he appears to resist being sent for questioning (which is, after all the official line) the more people will believe he's guilty.
I personally can't stand the guy, but I'm trying to keep an open mind on this one. I can quite believe he may well be guilty, but it's also quite possible that there is something going on. Only by him going back do we even come close to finding out, and it looks like he may not have a choice about going back.
I know what you mean. People do tend to believe the innocent don't run/avoid things. This is the same argument put around about internet monitoring, especially the new proposals and things like search warrants. I mean, what's the point of a search warrant? If a policeman turns up at your house and asks to have a look around and you refuse, you're clearly guilty of something!! Why should the policeman need to get a warrant? You don't let him, guilty. You do, well he finds out.
It's all about due process and a large section of the population don't really believe it that. They believe in kangaroo courts. Problem is, this leads to all sorts of miscarriages of justice, in both directions.
I remember that just after the Tony Martin case, a couple of lads in Peterborough found a burglar in their house at night. They proceeded to not only stop and detain him, but from all reporting, pretty much have him a right good going over. They were charged with using excessive force or some such. The jury was never, ever going to find them guilty. After the Tony Martin case, they were going to be found innocent regardless. That was clear.
I'm not saying Tony Martin wasn't wrong to do what he did, but it swung public opinion so much that other trials were seriously prejudiced by the juries not finding on the evidence presented, but by other cases and that's wrong.
Part of the problem is that high profile cases like Tony Martin are incredibly well publicised nowadays. It's a very polarising case in that most will believe that he was right, or he was wrong. There's no mid-ground really.
Part of the idea of a democratic Government is that laws are supposed to be based on what society as a whole thinks is best, and to some extent the idea of a jury using other experiences/reports could be attractive. The reality, however, is that it just doesn't work. Whether because cases are reported with bias, or because the 'crime' is of a highly emotive nature, Jurors get influenced incorrectly by all sorts.
Not that I can suggest a solution. Having trials conducted in private doesn't sound like a wise idea after all.
The double standards people apply with due process is what gets me. If you were accused of an emotive crime, and your name was publicised, even after charges were dropped (or acquittal) there'll always be those who "know" you were guilty. Yet those same people entirely expect that due process be followed for them. Really, it seems to be peoples love of drama that leads to it though.
It would be better for all parties for this to be sorted out sooner rather than later. It's dragged on for so long.
We should be grateful I suppose for two things.
1) that Mr Assange has put our extradition arrangements through a thorough test.
2) that he has brough a much-needed revenue stream to the metropolis's lawyers who, without his assistance, would have had to subsist on a meagre income from libel trials and super-injunctions.
said when this started best was to face his accusors pay the dang fine if there's one and go home.
simple .. there's no evil plot .. if they wanted him they'd have got his lil a** a long time ago.
just get on with it and be done with it .
dang ... that boyo is such a cry baby .. about par with the pfy
"Where he is sought for questioning"
Am I the only one who thinks extraditing a suspect to another country for questioning is absolutely ridiculous? Why not send a couple of people over to this country to question him in the presence of this countries law enforcement. Surely someone should only be extradited if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime?
We've been over this again and again... The way the Sweedish system works is that someone can't be charged, if they haven't been questioned. Which actually seems pretty fair to me.
They don't send a couple of Sweedish coppers to question suspects in other countries because they don't have the jurisdiction, it would be a legal minefield.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is what is established in a trial, he would have already been found guilty, in his absence, if this were the case. That's hardly a route to good justice.
This argument seems a little off, especially given the number of times British police go abroad to question witnesses or suspects. They're always jetting off to faraway or sunny places for a chat with someone or another. The latest one is those investigating the Fletcher case going to Libya. So, saying it's a question of jurisdiction and a legal minefield and such doesn't seem to apply to our cops.
Or, of course, maybe it's just an excuse for a jolly...........
Hint: We have a very different legal system to them. It may be why things are a legal minefield in one place, and why they aren't in others.
But it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some who wanted to go abroad as a jolly. From what I've seen, they often hand the suspect (and any evidence) over to the local cops before they come back. In a lot of cases, the crime happened on foreign soil, so it's up to their laws/courts etc to deal with the perpetrator. Sweden want to bring Assange back to their police, then they can use their courts to prosecute for (alleged) crimes against Swedish citizens.
The above is only a guess though...........
I spoke to a barrister once and he went through the various legal systems in the world. According to him, there are basically only 2 different legal systems (in terms of how they work), although the individual laws and penalities obviously vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
I think it also depends on the circumstances of the engagement. If they wanted to come over here and simply speak to him, he was quite willing to do this. Equally by phone or whatever. The only time jurisdiction comes into it, is when the conversation has to have legal meaning, which it doesn't necessarily have to have. In this case, the facts of the case seem reasonably fixed. Nobody denies the sex took place. The issue of the condom seems pretty much agreed. So, the question seems to be over the test.
Bearing in mind the passing of time and what the outcomes could be, the test is also pretty academic now. If he has AIDS, either it was passed on or not and they can be tested themselves for that now. if it's any other sexually transmitted disease, it would have come out by now and therefore, again, they could be tested.
It all rather seems people are persuing this just to make a point rather than for any practical purpose or end.
He's accused of having sex with a woman while she was asleep, knowing she wouldn't have consented had she been awake. I gather there is some dispute about whether she was actually asleep, or only half-asleep. (It was the morning after; she got up, then returned to bed and dozed for a bit.
"Surely someone should only be extradited if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime?"
In order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime, then the entire case would have to be heard - in which case, you can proceed straight to sentencing. Extradition treaties vary but typically require that some evidence is presented which implicates the suspect, to demonstrate that they should be extradited to face trial. The European Arrest Warrant (under which Sweden sought Assange) requires little more than the declaration that someone is wanted in another EU member state.
Which makes no sense at all.
Think about it, has the US had serious issues extraditing anyone from the UK in living memory?
There is no need for them to work via a proxy - especially when that proxy and the UK would have to agree to an extradition, and he may be ineligable for extradition from Sweden as the US charges appear politically motivated.
This whole sorry saga is clearly NOT motivated by politics
It is motivated by the requirement that a nation whose foreign policy is nothing but rank bullshit must persecute and hound anyone who brings those lies to the attention of the community of nations.
This will not conceal the lies that have already been exposed, but it might act as a deterrent to the revelation of more and greater lies in the future and, of course, will keep Matt Bryant's blood pressure out of the danger zone.
LOL! I hope you work in comedy, Local Fruitloop, 'cos you're either very funny or very, very tragic.
".....anyone who brings those lies...." What lies? A$$nut has revealed a big fat zilch. Please do show us the "lies" that he has exposed (well, hidden behind his paywall).
"......but it might act as a deterrent...." Which is one of the reasons we prosecute criminals, to discourage other criminals. Sorry, did I use too many long words explaining that?
Everyone knows that Sweden has been in hock to the U.S. since the 70s, when we made the strategic decision to embrace ABBA and adopt The Swedish Chef as a cultural ambassador. The latest deal over Assange is obviously a quid-pro-quo for letting Tempurpedic bombard America with memory foam mattress commercials! And don't even get me started on Ikea! America buying all that shoddy "some assembly required" furniture must involve at least a deal with Lucifer, Hitler clones or the Freemasons!
Reading the "He's guilty - hang him. He's got to be guilty otherwise why is he so scared. He's a git and therefore he's guilty." is a great incentive for me to live a crime-free life.
Heaven forbid I should put myself in a situation where I'm at the mercy of any of you clowns in the 'jury of my peers'.
Oh my god, yes. I've never personally been on a jury, but I've spoken to many people who have. Between the 'he must be guilty, just look at him' brigade and those that just want to get out of there and will say anything the majority want to get a verdict, justice is well and truly dead. Personally, I'd rather not have a jury judge me as the result seems to be pretty much pot luck.
I'm sure each jury varies and some will be very good and some very bad. I might even suggest that it may depend to some extent on the area etc. I can understand the bias to acquit as most people don't like the responsiblity of potentially finding someone guilty and don't like the partial responsibility for the sentence, especially in serious cases where the sentence could be long/large.
As I said, I've never served on a jury, so can't offer first hand testimony. However, the people I've spoken to that have, pretty much to a man, were dissatisfied in some way with at least some of the jurors attitudes. I live in hope that they're the exception, but I have grave doubts this is the case.
Call me naive, but I rather thought one of the main points of a justice system was to give people an incentive to lead a crime-free life. After all moral exhortations to lead a better life seem to be ineffective in some circles.
Obviously in practice that principle comes in a way behind "to provide congenial and well paid employment to the legal profession", but I think that's how its sold to us plebs.
The purpose of a justice system is to make people obey a set of rules that define acceptable society. These rules are known as laws. The idea of jail was to remove people from society if they refused to abide by societies rules. This is an important distinction and being very much lost these days. The judicial system effectively throws people out of society (by incarcerating them) on behalf of society as a whole.
This is what's wrong with the EU prisoner voting thought process. Prisoners have been removed from society due to misdeeds and therefore, if they're outside, how can they have a vote on said society. Giving them the vote is entirely illogical unless you forget what prison was created to do. Now today, people tend to think of prison in a whole different way and talk about rehabilitation, but it wasn't really about that. It was about protecting society by removing the transgressor.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021