View Full Version : Assange Claims 'Vindication' After UN Ruling
arista
05-02-2016, 04:10 PM
He was Live at the time of this post
to the Worldwide Media.
Outside on the balcony at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2016/2/5/445404/default/v2/cegrab-20160205-160447-356-1-736x414.jpg
But so Fecking what
the United Nations does not care about International Law.
http://news.sky.com/story/1636437/assange-claims-vindication-after-un-ruling
He is free to walk out
but then get sent to Sweden in handcuffs
under binding laws
So Assange tries to dodge an international warrant for arrest over rape charges by hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy for three years rather than face questioning and that means he's being unlawfully detained? Crazy
smudgie
07-02-2016, 11:40 AM
You could not make it up.
He has imprisoned himself so as to avoid proving his innocence in a rape case.
His poor alleged victim must wonder why high profile people like Viv Westwood support a possible rapist who has no interest in clearing his name.:shrug:
lostalex
07-02-2016, 12:21 PM
what a ****ing loser.
he's done all of this to himself. if he had just gone to sweden and been question by authorities this would all be over.
He's probably a rapist, but there's not enough evidence to convict him, he would be a free man today, but everyone that's ever met him has said it's his own paranoia that always gets him into question. what a sad little paranoid tin foil hat wearing rapist freak. He's actually getting more punishment because of his paranoia than the swedish courts could ever give him for being a rapist. Swedish prison is probably nicer than that Ecuadorian embassy.
billy123
08-02-2016, 01:08 PM
Yes because you understand his case better than the UN panel and know better :joker::joker:
This place cracks me up so wacky.
Kizzy
08-02-2016, 05:22 PM
I thought they made up that charge just to flush him out and get him to the US?
joeysteele
08-02-2016, 06:08 PM
I thought they made up that charge just to flush him out and get him to the US?
Well that's kind of what he is saying as to the issue.
Maybe its not the case and I am usually one who calls for justice to be done but I see no reason why British taxpayers should have had to pay to ensure he didn't leave this embassy as they have done for a good while now until the relaxation of the 'observers' last year.
We clearly must still be keeping the place under some surveillance as the view is the moment he left the embassy he would be arrested.
I really don't see the problem now of letting the Ecuador embassy here, arrange for him to be flown to Ecuador, where he has been granted asylum and then let Sweden pursue the matter with them after that.
One thing I agree with the UN report on is this has gone on too long and we have got nowhere at all anyway.
arista
08-02-2016, 06:42 PM
So Assange tries to dodge an international warrant for arrest over rape charges by hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy for three years rather than face questioning and that means he's being unlawfully detained? Crazy
He would go to Sweden
but "he thinks" a USA Van will
nab him.
Then Fly him Direct to USA.
Even if Sweden does not agree.
We have an extradition treaty with Sweden. Assange was able to challenge the extradition, and when it went against him he disappeared into the embassy to avoid the legal process.
So, not really understanding how the UK are in the wrong here. They followed due legal process and Assange didn't.
Livia
09-02-2016, 01:11 PM
Yes because you understand his case better than the UN panel and know better :joker::joker:
This place cracks me up so wacky.
I understand it. So do the lawyers in this country who've handled the case. And anyway, it's not that difficult to understand.
Assange is wanted for rape in Sweden, we wanted to hand him over to face charges, but instead he went and hid. He can come out at any time and clear his name under the legal process, but no... I wonder why that should be.
joeysteele
09-02-2016, 02:18 PM
Since the UK is involved in this issue and the swedes don't have to spend a penny as to having him somewhere secure yet.
As he states his fear is, that Sweden will extradite him to the USA as to other matters.
Why doesn't the UK insist on a promise from Sweden,he will only be dealt with in Sweden as to the sexual offences charges and that there will be absolutely no way at all he would be then also sent to the USA.
Then if they gave that firm binding promise,fine.
If however Sweden would not, then for goodness sake let Ecuador take him there and leave Sweden to it.
Why will the Swedes not give such an assurance anyway or is there,like he fears more to this than the what's on the surface.
Livia
09-02-2016, 02:43 PM
I don't have a problem with him being extradited anywhere if he has charges to face.
And he does have charges to face.
DemolitionRed
09-02-2016, 03:24 PM
The rape allegations against Assange are weak if not ridiculous. Bjorn Hurtig has studied the case file that contains text messages from the complainants suggesting setting him up and making money from the press. If they really believed he'd committed this heinous crime they would of arrested him regardless of his sanctuary in the Ecuador Embassy.
This man is the biggest whistleblower of all time. They may want him on some trumped up rape charge but that's merely an excuse to get him into Sweden so he can be shipped off to America where he will likely never see the light of day again.
As a bare minimum he's going to get the same treatment as his small time accomplice Bradley (Chelsea) Manning, who's now doing a 35 year stint in jail. Manning's lawyer describe his prison conditions as cruel and inhuman.
Livia
09-02-2016, 03:28 PM
He has charges to face, whether or not people think the charges are weak. And it's always dangerous ground to assume that a rape charge is not a serious one. There's usually a furore on here if someone suggests a rape charge is not serious. So we're back to people's stance reflecting their agenda.
arista
09-02-2016, 03:45 PM
We have an extradition treaty with Sweden. Assange was able to challenge the extradition, and when it went against him he disappeared into the embassy to avoid the legal process.
So, not really understanding how the UK are in the wrong here. They followed due legal process and Assange didn't.
Yes its Normal Legal Treaty,
I think when he does come out
after the final year they drop it,
he may still be pushed into a Van
and shipped fast to
USA on a Military Plane,
before it goes on the News
DemolitionRed
09-02-2016, 04:21 PM
He has charges to face, whether or not people think the charges are weak. And it's always dangerous ground to assume that a rape charge is not a serious one. There's usually a furore on here if someone suggests a rape charge is not serious. So we're back to people's stance reflecting their agenda.
I'll say it again: Bjorn Hurtig has studied the case file that contains text messages from the complainants suggesting setting him up and making money from the press.
Britain does have the power to revoke diplomatic status. In fact it could challenge that Embassy for harbouring a suspected criminal who broke bail and therefore in breach of international law. We’ve done it before so why aren’t we doing that now?
DemolitionRed
09-02-2016, 04:24 PM
Government whistleblowing is probably one of the most dangerous crimes on this god given earth. A convicted rapist goes to jail (in the UK not for long). Rapists in the western world don't risk assassination, disappearance or torture whilst that's exactly what a whistleblower risks if caught.
The question, at least for me, is, is whistleblowing important? I believe it is because we shouldn't be living in a world where our government knows a lot about its citizens whilst remaining cloaked in its own secrecy. I also believe that information that carries high risk; risk that could endanger life or entire nations needs to be passed through and scrutinized by traditional media sources and handed over to the correct authorities if necessary.
The government will never stop whistleblowers but what they can stop is hiding and even encouraging illegal activity. If someone leaked classified information that could bring about deaths, dangers to our military or put a detrimental effect on homeland security, that whistleblower deserves the full force of the law. If however, a whistleblower leaks information about the torture that went on inside Guantanamo then good for them, its right we know about it because once we do, we have the power to stop it.
Livia
09-02-2016, 04:25 PM
Assange and that idiot Bradley Manning have put both undercover agents and informants around the world in harm's way. I'm sure they'd say that wasn't true, but in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn't they. The fact is that the information they leaked put people in jeopardy. As far as I'm concerned they can both rot in jail.
DemolitionRed
09-02-2016, 04:28 PM
Yes they did, I'm not disputing that. They went too far and they need to pay the price for that; just not in America.
Livia
09-02-2016, 04:29 PM
I'll say it again: Bjorn Hurtig has studied the case file that contains text messages from the complainants suggesting setting him up and making money from the press.
Britain does have the power to revoke diplomatic status. In fact it could challenge that Embassy for harbouring a suspected criminal who broke bail and therefore in breach of international law. We’ve done it before so why aren’t we doing that now?
There's no need to repeat yourself, I read it the first time you wrote it.
Assange's lawyer claims his client is innocent.
Shock... horror.
I don't know why we aren't doing that now. Maybe because it's a highly sensitive case because some misguided people think the man is a hero instead of a zero. If diplomatic status has not been revoked there is a reason, wouldn't you think?
DemolitionRed
09-02-2016, 05:35 PM
Well all the case notes and testimonies are available online and it looks like Eva Finné, the chief prosecutor on this case, dismissed all but one allegation and that one allegation disappeared shortly after.
joeysteele
09-02-2016, 05:45 PM
Has Sweden actually charged him with these offences in his absence,if so why do they want to 'interview' him.
Are they actual charges or allegations,if they are charges how can he be charged with something before full interview.
If they are still allegations being investigated and he needs to be interviewed then they are not charges so why doesn't the UK just let him clear off to Ecuador and let Sweden take it from there.
Last I heard, investigators from Sweden were offered to come and interview him in the embassy, why isn't that being done.
However surely, there is no need for interview if he is as Livia says, already charged.
Then again if he is, what a very odd legal system in Sweden then, to charge someone in their absence and without interview and questioning in full.
Well all the case notes and testimonies are available online and it looks like Eva Finné, the chief prosecutor on this case, dismissed all but one allegation and that one allegation disappeared shortly after.
Given the level of publicity around the case, if he is innocent and has nothing to answer for, why not leave the embassy he is hiding in and let events take their course? Simple. He is guilty.
Kizzy
09-02-2016, 06:48 PM
He has charges to face, whether or not people think the charges are weak. And it's always dangerous ground to assume that a rape charge is not a serious one. There's usually a furore on here if someone suggests a rape charge is not serious. So we're back to people's stance reflecting their agenda.
Who on here has ever suggested rape charges are not serious?
DemolitionRed
09-02-2016, 06:58 PM
Has Sweden actually charged him with these offences in his absence,if so why do they want to 'interview' him.
Are they actual charges or allegations,if they are charges how can he be charged with something before full interview.
No
If they are still allegations being investigated and he needs to be interviewed then they are not charges so why doesn't the UK just let him clear off to Ecuador and let Sweden take it from there.
Because Britain will always side with the US
Last I heard, investigators from Sweden were offered to come and interview him in the embassy, why isn't that being done.
That was suggested by Assange but Sweden refused to interview him at the embassy.
However surely, there is no need for interview if he is as Livia says, already charged.
Then again if he is, what a very odd legal system in Sweden then, to charge someone in their absence and without interview and questioning in full.
His charge is breaking bail in the UK. He hasn't been charged in Sweden.
joeysteele
09-02-2016, 11:08 PM
No
Because Britain will always side with the US
That was suggested by Assange but Sweden refused to interview him at the embassy.
His charge is breaking bail in the UK. He hasn't been charged in Sweden.
Heck of a lot of flaws in that lot, it is almost a defence lawyers dream.
No charges, then for me just let the embassy of Ecuador arrange his flights to Ecuador and that's that.
Rape is a serious issue, however if it is still just allegations and not charges,why are we even bothering to entertain Sweden on this.
Especially if Sweden will not also guarantee 100% that they will not allow him to be handed over to the the USA.
Maybe he has a very valid point as to that.
If someone is suspected of having committed a crime in a country and then flits of to another to avoid criminal proceedings, then if an extradition treaty exists, the country where the crime was committed can ask for that person to be returned so that the crime can be investigated and charges brought if proof exists, followed by the usual court case.
I don't understand how this can be so hard to follow?
The UK just recently applied for the person suspected of murdering the eastenders actress and her family to be extradited. Should we just have said, oh that's fine if he had entered the Ecuadorian embassy there? I think not.
We have strict legal rules on what conditions need to be met for someone to be extradited to another country, those conditions were met by Sweden. This has nothing to do with America. This is between Sweden and the UK and relates purely to the context in Sweden. Everything else is just pure obfuscation.
Also, if the UK are such lap dogs to the Americans, and they wanted him extradited to face charges there, why didn't they apply to the UK directly for extradition? The arguments in this regard are tenuous at best.
DemolitionRed
10-02-2016, 09:03 AM
The investigation was dropped to sex molestation and coercion in 2015. Both women have since claimed they had never considered it rape and had reported coercion to have sex without a condom and both women were later concerned about catching an STD. Its been reported that both women are very upset about the trouble they have caused Assange but regardless of that, the rape charge won't be dropped until 2020.
Assange has repeatedly said that he would happily be investigated on the rape charge but because he fears the Swedish authorities would extradite him to America on a charge of espionage or conspiracy, he won't return to Sweden. Sweden will make no promise of protection.
The case of espionage or conspiracy is a tricky one because he's merely the publisher who was handed all these documents. Whether America could make a genuine case against Assange is questionable.
But all that is just obfuscation. The UK granted the extradition that Sweden applied for, and until Sweden withdraw their extradition request, the UK is duty bound to use its best efforts to return him to Sweden. Again I say, the UK has done nothing wrong.
The investigation was dropped to sex molestation and coercion in 2015. Both women have since claimed they had never considered it rape and had reported coercion to have sex without a condom and both women were later concerned about catching an STD. Its been reported that both women are very upset about the trouble they have caused Assange but regardless of that, the rape charge won't be dropped until 2020.
Assange has repeatedly said that he would happily be investigated on the rape charge but because he fears the Swedish authorities would extradite him to America on a charge of espionage or conspiracy, he won't return to Sweden. Sweden will make no promise of protection.
The case of espionage or conspiracy is a tricky one because he's merely the publisher who was handed all these documents. Whether America could make a genuine case against Assange is questionable.
..I reckon the Manitowoc County police department and Wisconsin judicial system could make one ...their forensics also keep spare DNA etc for if it's ever needed to pop here and there...(probably not a great joke that, oooops..)...
DemolitionRed
10-02-2016, 10:27 AM
..I reckon the Manitowoc County police department and Wisconsin judicial system could make one ...their forensics also keep spare DNA etc for if it's ever needed to pop here and there...(probably not a great joke that, oooops..)...
:joker:
DemolitionRed
10-02-2016, 10:35 AM
But all that is just obfuscation. The UK granted the extradition that Sweden applied for, and until Sweden withdraw their extradition request, the UK is duty bound to use its best efforts to return him to Sweden. Again I say, the UK has done nothing wrong.
I don't think the UK have done anything wrong either but why does Sweden appear so intent on extraditing him to the US?
joeysteele
10-02-2016, 10:43 AM
The investigation was dropped to sex molestation and coercion in 2015. Both women have since claimed they had never considered it rape and had reported coercion to have sex without a condom and both women were later concerned about catching an STD. Its been reported that both women are very upset about the trouble they have caused Assange but regardless of that, the rape charge won't be dropped until 2020.
Assange has repeatedly said that he would happily be investigated on the rape charge but because he fears the Swedish authorities would extradite him to America on a charge of espionage or conspiracy, he won't return to Sweden. Sweden will make no promise of protection.
The case of espionage or conspiracy is a tricky one because he's merely the publisher who was handed all these documents. Whether America could make a genuine case against Assange is questionable.
Good post.
That is the bit that makes me of the view that we should not honour extradition then.
If Sweden gives a full detailed guarantee of protection against him 'ever' being sent to the USA after their dealings with him as to this issue.
Then fair enough.
The fact they will not give their guarantee leans me more to believe more is in play here than just the rape allegation investigation.
So in the absence of that guarantee from Sweden, just allow him to be taken to Ecuador and that is down to Sweden failing to give expected assurances on issues and nothing to do with us not fulfilling our obligations as to international justice.
Livia
10-02-2016, 10:45 AM
Why should anyone guarantee that Assange will not face charges in the US?
Too much time and money has been wasted on this man. Sent him straight to the US to explain himself, particularly to the families of the people he placed in danger. I wonder why no one seems to be at all worried about their rights.
DemolitionRed
10-02-2016, 11:28 AM
If Assange is to be put on trial for espionage, then the news outlets who financially supported Wikileaks with production costs and directed its readers to the Wikileaks website on the very day information was being released should also be on trial. That includes, The New York Times, the Guardian and a German newspaper called, Der Spiegel.
Livia
10-02-2016, 12:42 PM
If Assange is to be put on trial for espionage, then the news outlets who financially supported Wikileaks with production costs and directed its readers to the Wikileaks website on the very day information was being released should also be on trial. That includes, The New York Times, the Guardian and a German newspaper called, Der Spiegel.
I don't have a problem with that.
At the end of the day, the guy knows that he broke the law in at least 1 or more of his actions in 1 or more countries. If he wasn't such a criminal, he wouldn't be wanted by so many countries. He knew the issues he would face from his deeds, all he is now is a fugitive on the run. At some point his luck will run out and he will have to answer for his actions
billy123
10-02-2016, 01:20 PM
Why should anyone guarantee that Assange will not face charges in the US?
Too much time and money has been wasted on this man. Sent him straight to the US to explain himself, particularly to the families of the people he placed in danger. I wonder why no one seems to be at all worried about their rights.So in your book time and money overrides fairness? Who would have thought it? Time and money should have no relevance whatsoever when it comes to right and wrong :shrug: As has being explained he has not being charged with committing any crime and the allegations made in sweden he has already being questioned for in sweden and it was decided by the prosecutor there was no wrong doing it was only after the wikileaks releases that the allegations were resurrected by the swedish authorities against the wishes of the women involved.
You claimed earlier to know all about the charges :joker: There have been no charges made.
Come on Livia whatever your motives you seem to be blind to common sense on this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority There are a few facts here but also a lot missing when it comes to the pressure applied by the U.S. to get him to Sweden.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.