Assange Claims 'Vindication' After UN Ruling
 

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/image...-1-736x414.jpg


But so Fecking what
the United Nations does not care about International Law.


http://news.sky.com/story/1636437/as...fter-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

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:

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.

Yes because you understand his case better than the UN panel and know better :joker::joker:
This place cracks me up so wacky.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't have a problem with him being extradited anywhere if he has charges to face.

And he does have charges to face.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Who on here has ever suggested rape charges are not serious?

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.