5 ms·
If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.
by billswift 14y ago
If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 14y agoI would use the same terms to describe any fugitive on the run from rape charges. What on earth does Sweden have to gain or lose from this? This is just conspiracy theory.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- runako 14y ago>> he doesn't have an outstanding arrest warrant According to Wikipedia he is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (this is presumably why he's hiding in a non-EU embassy). Edit: arrest warrants don't always/usually imply that any charges have been filed. This is not unusual. The unusual part is a person accused of rape hiding out in the embassy of a country of which he is not a citizen, in a country of which he is not a citizen, while people cheer him on for being righteous.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mkramlich 14y ago> The unusual part is a person accused of rape He has NOT been accused of rape.
- runako 14y agoI think you're conflating "charged" with "accused". As I understand it, two women have accused him of nonconsensual sex acts (we call that "rape"). He has not been formally charged with rape yet (because he's on the lam).
- mkramlich 14y agoI really recommend you read the source/upstream material before making claims like that. First of all, the women have not accused him of rape. At worst, of having intercourse without a condom, against someone's momentary preference. With women who otherwise already willingly went to bed with him and became sexual partners with him. Neither woman wants charges against him. The documented reason why they approached the police originally was just to learn if he could be compelled to have an STD test performed. That's it. Also the original prosecutor who looked at it decided there wasn't anything to pursue, and not enough evidence to convict on anything. If you look at all the details of the case, and I mean ALL the details and context, I think there is only one of a few things that probably happened: either (1) it was a frame-up that the women were in on, or (2) it was not a frame-up by the women, not intentionally, they were honest, but some particular party in the Swedish government or law enforcement decided to "make hay" out of this as much as they could to hurt or impede Assange. Either of those scenarios seem to be the most consistent with everything known and observed to date. Also I'm sure there have been millions if not billions of incidents of sex across the world, to date, if not happening again every day, where one or both participants preferred, either beforehand, or during, or afterward, that a condom was used, even though it wasn't, and in 99.99% of those cases nobody considers it "rape". At most, a non-ideal incident, a risky event, or something to get angry about with one's partner, in private. But I'm sure it's a very common occurrence, both between singles and married couples, and in the vast majority of cases it doesn't turn into claims of rape or major international diplomatic incidents. It's just one of those life oopsies. I bet a lot of children were brought into this world because of this kind of oopsie, however non-ideal. Regardless, it's a fact that they went to bed with him willingly. It's a fact that neither appeared distraught or made any complaints about it to friends afterward. It's a fact that there were no signs of violence or physical harm. Also it's a fact that a large percentage of women fantasize about dominant men, sexually. Is it possible that in this case Assange was too aggressive and insensitive? Absolutely! And who's business should that be? At most, Assange and these two other individuals. Period. End of story. And ultimately, those are the only people who really know, for sure, what really happened, and how it happened. The rest is spectacle and fodder for speculation and diplomatic warfare.
- estel 14y agoWasn't evidence gathered by interviews on foreign soil inadmissible, or something?
- mootothemax 14y agoYou honestly think it's easier to extradite someone to the states from Sweden as opposed to the UK? I would kindly suggest that you yourself should consider thinking this through.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- vidarh 14y agoHow many people have the UK publicly acknowledged to have participated in the illegal rendition of? Sweden have acknowledge to have violated Swedish law and international treaties in US instigated renditions of at least two people. Get him to Sweden, and whispering the right words into the right ear might circumvent that whole pesky extradition hearing thing.
- philwelch 14y agoIf the endgame was to extradite Assange to the United States, why go through Sweden? Wouldn't it be easier just to extradite him directly from the UK to the US? It doesn't make any sense.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- devdas 14y agoExtraditing from the UK would involving a court case. Untrue for Sweden, which has a fast track extradition agreement with the US. http://thepeoplesrecord.com/post/25523258635/swedish-extradition-facts-from-christine-assange http://thepeoplesrecord.com/post/25523258635/swedish-extradi...
- philwelch 14y agoThat's not exactly the most reliable source.
- billswift 14y ago>This is just conspiracy theory. Somewhat, which is why I never weighed in on it before. But if the UK is threatening something as unusual as invading an embassy, that is evidence that there is likely to be something more to the issue.
- philwelch 14y agoIf the embassy is doing something as unusual as harboring an accused rapist, isn't that enough?
- billswift 14y agoNo. I remember a situation, though no longer the details, where someone was accused of spying during the Cold War and fled to an embassy. He was effectively trapped there, just like Assange, but whoever was after him didn't violate the embassy. Like I said, I can't remember the details, not even the country involved, but I think he ended up spending several years confined to the embassy.
- philwelch 14y agoWell the victim of espionage is the state, and the state has nothing to gain by imprisoning the spy themselves rather than letting the spy imprison himself in a foreign embassy. With rape, there's an actual victim.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- vidarh 14y ago
- kefs 14y agocharges I think you've been listening to the MSM too much. Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime in Sweden and is only wanted for questioning.
- philwelch 14y agoFair point, but he's "wanted" badly enough for a European arrest warrant and for extradition treaties to kick in.
- mootothemax 14y agoIn Sweden, you can't charge someone without questioning them first.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 14y agoWhy shouldn't it happen in Sweden? If they have the legal power to arrest him and question him, why should they bend over backwards and do it his way instead?
- coopdog 14y agoBecause whether he is charged or not, found innocent our guilty if charged or let go, it's certain that he will then be extradited to the USA where he has already been found guilty of crimes that actually aren't crimes due to his nationality and status as a journalist. Sounds like pretty extenuating circumstances for a Swedish investigator to go to Britain to me, unless there's an actual law that says he MUST be questioned in Sweden Edit: parent deleted their comment
- berntb 14y agoThe problem with the Swedish police and legal system is seldom that they do bad things. The problem is rather that the employees doesn't get much done except drink coffee and administrate. There is another possibility: Theoretically, both the women might be paid by CIA when Assange is extradited for questioning. But that is just another stupid conspiracy theory. Edit: Clarity. Edit 2: It is hard to take the arguments seriously, since Assange originally went to Sweden voluntarily without fearing extradition to USA. Wikileaks should just get a saner guy as front figure.
- kmfrk 14y agoThe American government plan to fly Assange to the US at some point. That makes it an issue of foreign relations for the Swedish government.
- cjensen 14y agoIf the US wanted him, why would Sweden be more amenable to passing him along than the US's closest ally?
- vidarh 14y agoBecause as close an ally as the UK is, the UK government likes to think of themselves as a partner and don't like to be bossed around or involved in too shady stuff, and UK courts certainly don't like to be meddled with. Meanwhile, Sweden has a history of cooperating with the US on illegal renditions in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, to the point where Sweden has actually paid damages to at least one person - Muhammad al-Zery - who was tortured after Swedish police had handed him over to masked CIA officers at a Swedish airport and witnessed as he was stripped, drugged, chained and handcuffed and loaded on a plane to be flown to Egypt where he was tortured. Said person was in Sweden applying for political asylum. It caused diplomatic incidents when it was first revealed to the public and Swedish authorities "put a stop to it". Then shortly afterwards, Swedish military intelligence uncovered that it was still ongoing with the knowledge of airport personnel. At least officially without the knowledge of the Swedish government. Maybe they've stopped now. Or maybe the units that participated in it are just better at hiding it, or maybe the US government is just better at making sure said Swedish government units have better reasons to deny knowledge. But the fact remains that for sveral years, the US extracted prisoners from and/or transported prisoners through Sweden illegally to hand them over to regimes that would carry out torture in violation of both US and Swedish law and international treaties, with the complicit knowledge of the Swedish government. It's quite possible the UK did too. But which government do you think the US cares the least about jerking around?
- philwelch 14y agoIt could always be both. Assange is probably persona non grata to the British authorities, but even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden. At most, the British authorities are reacting opportunistically to an otherwise valid, legitimate charge.
- runako 14y agoI agree 100%. I wonder if those defending Assange would do so if he were accused of raping someone they care about.
- mkramlich 14y agoFact: he has not been accused of rape. He has not been charged with rape. There is no trial. There are no charges. And there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence. And if you read up on the details of the story, and the context, it's very fishy. It's at best a case of he-said vs she-said --- arguably one of the perfect ways to smear someone's reputation and cause them legal and financial hassle, without having to meet the minimum legal standards to convict someone of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Men and women have sex ALL the time, 24/7, all across the world, in all sorts of complex ways, variations, situations, and very often without condoms. It's also a fact that a large percentage of women like men to be dominant with them and it arouses them. Given all these facts, and this cultural context, it's hard to know exactly what happened behind closed doors in these incidents, and before the legal system ruins a man's life they need to be damn sure they're doing the right thing. From just what's known publicly so far this case looks so flaky and muddled and suspicious that a reasonable person could easily say those standards aren't met here.
- runako 14y agoI must admit that I'm confused. The Wikipedia page says he's been accused of rape: "In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in relation to allegations of rape and sexual assault by two women in Sweden" That seems to imply that an attorney was able to present sufficient evidence to a court to merit an arrest warrant being issued. I don't know the facts of the case in depth, but you seem to be asserting that European Arrest Warrants are issued capriciously, with no regard for due process. That would seem to be far more worrying that the specifics of this case. >> There is no trial. There are no charges. At least in the US, those typically come after the suspect is apprehended (and not in that order). Perhaps it's different in European courts. But I was not aware that trials in absentia were the norm there.
- elemeno 14y agoGranting someone asylum is a politically motivated act, wanting to arrest someone who's in breach of their bail conditions - not so much.
- billswift 14y agoThreatening to invade an embassy is.
- arrrg 14y agoOr he is someone who flees from serious charges and the British authorities don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world because they can’t do something simple like extradite him. Why is there this willingness to believe everything this idiot says? He’s a pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required. Meanwhile the idea of an anonymous leaks platform dies because everyone focuses on his stupid antics.
- naner 14y agoHe is a pompous ass and so is Kim Dotcom. The problem is that the charges against each of them appear to be completely exaggerated or made up[1]. 1: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4280532 http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4280532
- mootothemax 14y agoThat's a biased source being discussed there, along with some wishful and imaginative thinking about what various interpol notices indicate.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- saraid216 14y ago> the British authorities don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world ...they're looking like idiots right now.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago>that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated // Can you explain this? In what way is it evidence in regards to the Swedish charges. Based on recent cases of extradition to the USA examination of the charges is not made locally?
- cjensen 14y agoThe UK has a legal obligation to hand him over to Sweden per treaty. If they are to follow the law, rather than just make stuff up as they go along like a banana republic, then the legal apparatus in the UK has no discretion under which they can allow Assange to leave.