UN rules in favour of Assange

[Sarmatian]

Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained, according to UN panel.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation

The decision should be binding, as both Sweden and UK have signed the charters, but in practice it means little so neither country appears willing to drop the issue.

What's next, do you agree with UN, is he guilty or just a political prisoner?

3, 2, 1... GO!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The arrest warrant is valid, he's using his political cover to avoid a rape accusation - if he were truly afraid of being extradited to the US he would never have entered the UK, our extradition treaty is far less likely to protect him than Sweden's.

I've seen nothing in the British press to say the ruling is binding, but the European Arrest Warrant certainly IS.

Assange is waiting out the Statute of Limitations - he only has to wait another year and the charges will have to be dropped, then he'll walk out of the Embassy to applause from his Sycophants, get on a blame to the Caribbean or somewhere and in a few decades a confidante will come forward confirming it was all true and he was a nasty sex pest.

[lars573]

Or that these women were on the US governments payroll.

[Montmorency]

Or that Julian Assange is on the US government's payroll.

[lars573]

Or some combo of all three.

[Fragony]

I have no idea, how could I

[Snowhobbit]

It will be fun to read the report, I hear the dissenting opinion is truly something.

A little by the by, the charges won't be dropped until 2020, so he is about halfway through his waiting inside an embassy. And indeed we could not extradite him to the US, we have to return him to the UK when we are done with him. He is trapped by his own sense of paranoia. Sarmatian I don't think you understand what it takes for something to be legally binding.

[Sarmatian]

Sarmatian I don't think you understand what it takes for something to be legally binding.

No? Why don't you explain it to me.

[Snowhobbit]

No? Why don't you explain it to me.

Well for one that charter is not binding. And that tribunal is not binding either. As opposed to say signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is legally binding and has a court connected with it which can make legally binding verdicts.

[Sarmatian]

Well for one that charter is not binding. And that tribunal is not binding either. As opposed to say signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is legally binding and has a court connected with it which can make legally binding verdicts.

According to Christophe Peschoux, a senior member of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, it is legally binding.

It is unenforceable, but that is another issue.

[Snowhobbit]

According to Christophe Peschoux, a senior member of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, it is legally binding.

It is unenforceable, but that is another issue.

It is not legally binding, and as far as I know Cristophe Peschoux is not a treaty.

If you lock yourself in a bathroom, can we demand that the Serbian government releases you? He is not being detained.

[Sarmatian]

It is not legally binding, and as far as I know Cristophe Peschoux is not a treaty.

If you lock yourself in a bathroom, can we demand that the Serbian government releases you? He is not being detained.

International human rights treaties are usually signed under auspices of the UN. International treaties take precedence over domestic regulations. If an UN body says it's an arbitrary detention, then it is an arbitrary detention, whether you agree with it or not.

Like most multilateral international treaties, enforcing them is hard and often impossible. In domestic law, when something is declared illegal, it is also specified who decides if it is illegal, what are possible sanctions for the offender, how the sentence is enforced and who enforces it.

Multinational treaties usually only contain who decides if something is illegal, and sometimes not even that.

It would be like if someone committed a theft (or something else illegal), but can't be detained because the police doesn't exist, and can't be tried because there are no courts and judges, and can't be sentenced because there are no prisons.

Of course, I haven't really looked at those treaties, so I can't be 100% sure, but based on how international law works, it is safe to assume that UN are right. So, I'm going with binding but non-enforceable.

[Snowhobbit]

International human rights treaties are usually signed under auspices of the UN. International treaties take precedence over domestic regulations. If an UN body says it's an arbitrary detention, then it is an arbitrary detention, whether you agree with it or not.

Like most multilateral international treaties, enforcing them is hard and often impossible. In domestic law, when something is declared illegal, it is also specified who decides if it is illegal, what are possible sanctions for the offender, how the sentence is enforced and who enforces it.

Multinational treaties usually only contain who decides if something is illegal, and sometimes not even that.

It would be like if someone committed a theft (or something else illegal), but can't be detained because the police doesn't exist, and can't be tried because there are no courts and judges, and can't be sentenced because there are no prisons.

Of course, I haven't really looked at those treaties, so I can't be 100% sure, but based on how international law works, it is safe to assume that UN are right. So, I'm going with binding but non-enforceable.

It is however not a binding treaty. A lot of non-binding things come out of the UN. Most multilateral binding treaties have systems in place to enforce the same, as for example the ECHR does, this does not, for the reason that it is not binding.

If someone commits a crime and then decides to live his life as a fugitive from justice, he is not being imprisoned. He has had a fair hearing all the way through to two Supreme courts. If he had medicated his paranoia he would be a free man today even if found guilty. But this is the same guy who refused to take an HIV test to give the women peace of mind that they did not have HIV.

[Sarmatian]

It is however not a binding treaty. A lot of non-binding things come out of the UN. Most multilateral binding treaties have systems in place to enforce the same, as for example the ECHR does, this does not, for the reason that it is not binding.


I don't think you understand what binding but not enforceable means.

[Snowhobbit]

I don't think you understand what binding but not enforceable means.

And I am certain that you do not grasp the concept of binding.

Now, if you lock yourself in the bathroom, has the Serbian government detained you?

[Sarmatian]

And I am certain that you do not grasp the concept of binding.

Really? Well, if you say so.


Now, if you lock yourself in the bathroom, has the Serbian government detained you?

What has that got do to with anything?

[Snowhobbit]

What has that got do to with anything?

It has everything to do with this. If you voluntarily of your own free will decide to stay in a house for years and years, nobody has detained you.

[Sarmatian]

It has everything to do with this. If you voluntarily of your own free will decide to stay in a house for years and years, nobody has detained you.

If I have reason to believe that my personal safety and human rights are threatened, that I won't be given a fair trial, I have every right to run away or lock myself in a safe place.

That was the standard for many political activists and western nations, UK and Sweden included, accepted that when it happened in the rest of the world. When it happened in their own country, with their own citizens, well... It again shows that democracy and human rights never had anything to do with anything, but you go on.

[Greyblades]

Noone cares what the UN says unless it aligns with their interests.


And indeed we could not extradite him to the US, we have to return him to the UK when we are done with him.
If my memory serves hes not scared that the swedes will give him up hes scared the americans will grab him in transit.

[Snowhobbit]

If I have reason to believe that my personal safety and human rights are threatened, that I won't be given a fair trial, I have every right to run away or lock myself in a safe place.

That was the standard for many political activists and western nations, UK and Sweden included, accepted that when it happened in the rest of the world. When it happened in their own country, with their own citizens, well... It again shows that democracy and human rights never had anything to do with anything, but you go on.
Like I said, he needs treatment for his mental illness that he is clearly suffering from. He has already been given 6 fair trials, there is no reason to believe the other ones would not be fair. He has no reason to believe his safety is under threat. No fair trial, really? Puhlease.
As far as I know he is neither a citizen of Sweden or the UK, but I'm sure you know better, claiming that treaties you have not read are binding.

The claimed reason is that the State of Sweden has not given the individual Assange a guarantee that we will interfere in a legal process to make illegal decisions violating actual binding international law.

[Papewaio]

It is however not a binding treaty. A lot of non-binding things come out of the UN. Most multilateral binding treaties have systems in place to enforce the same, as for example the ECHR does, this does not, for the reason that it is not binding.

If someone commits a crime and then decides to live his life as a fugitive from justice, he is not being imprisoned. He has had a fair hearing all the way through to two Supreme courts. If he had medicated his paranoia he would be a free man today even if found guilty. But this is the same guy who refused to take an HIV test to give the women peace of mind that they did not have HIV.

If you are worried about STDs it's a test you have either before having sex or up to 3-6 months afterwards.

I'm pretty sure they don't need him to leave the embassy to know if they are pregnant with his child or have a virus from him either after this length of time.

He should be tried. But after Snowden I wonder where the line of paranoia and sense is anymore.

[Snowhobbit]

If you are worried about STDs it's a test you have either before having sex or up to 3-6 months afterwards.

I'm pretty sure they don't need him to leave the embassy to know if they are pregnant with his child or have a virus from him either after this length of time.

He should be tried. But after Snowden I wonder where the line of paranoia and sense is anymore.
If you are worried about STDs yes you can get tested before, or you can insist on using a condom. Which is the one case which is still active as that is full-blown rape. At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one. He then bails out of the country and refuses to submit to a HIV test, this is long before he is even sitting in the embassy, he has not skipped bail after 6 trials yet. But yes of course he could have given a blood sample from the embassy as well, though by that time this particular aspect of doucheholery was over.

He can't be extradited to the US from Sweden anyway, we have to give him back to the UK. And he was perfectly happy sitting in UK while two different Supreme courts gave him a fair hearing. The UN panel of unpaid "experts" is a joke.

[Beskar]

He should be tried. But after Snowden I wonder where the line of paranoia and sense is anymore.

Being honest, after Snowden, the movies make the security forces a lot more scary than reality.

[Gilrandir]

At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one.

So she claims that immediately before the intercourse, during it and after it before falling asleep she didn't see whether he had put the rubber on/was wearing it/took it off? That's huge!!

[Snowhobbit]

Being honest, after Snowden, the movies make the security forces a lot more scary than reality.

Yeah, turns out they really are not that bad if you are already in the limelight of the media. Shocker :D


So she claims that immediately before the intercourse, during it and after it before falling asleep she didn't see whether he had put the rubber on/was wearing it/took it off? That's huge!!

I think you need to buy some new glasses buddy.
She was asleep at the time of ehm, insertion, and upon waking up she asked him if he was wearing a condom, to which he lied and siad he was. After "completion" she of course for natural causes quickly discovered that he had in fact lied to her, I can't recall if she threw him out then and there or not.

[Gilrandir]

I think you need to buy some new glasses buddy.
She was asleep at the time of ehm, insertion, and upon waking up she asked him if he was wearing a condom, to which he lied and siad he was. After "completion" she of course for natural causes quickly discovered that he had in fact lied to her, I can't recall if she threw him out then and there or not.
I'm afraid you hadn't made it clear it the post. Let me quote you:



At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one.

I had presumed that an agreement between two people is reached when, ehm, both of them are awake and sentient.

[Snowhobbit]

I'm afraid you hadn't made it clear it the post. Let me quote you:


I had presumed that an agreement between two people is reached when, ehm, both of them are awake and sentient.
And instead of asking for clarification you jump to the most extreme conclusion you could imagine? I can see why Ukraine is in the state it is in...

An agreement had been reached prior to the night in question, when they had previously had consensual sex. People can agree to things and time can pass after said agreement was initially made.

[rory_20_uk]

So... if a woman states she is taking the Pill and is in fact lying and gets pregnant she is in breach of agreement and should be prosecuted rather than demanding child support from the father?

~:smoking:

[Snowhobbit]

So... if a woman states she is taking the Pill and is in fact lying and gets pregnant she is in breach of agreement and should be prosecuted rather than demanding child support from the father?

~:smoking:

Well, if that is what the law said, and disregarding that child support is for the child rather than the mother, sure. Though you might get a case of Pactum Turpe at which point the courts would not touch it. Do you prosecute people for breach of contract in the UK? Or maybe rape is legalized?

[rory_20_uk]

Well, if that is what the law said, and disregarding that child support is for the child rather than the mother, sure. Though you might get a case of Pactum Turpe at which point the courts would not touch it. Do you prosecute people for breach of contract in the UK? Or maybe rape is legalized?

Given that a woman can not rape a man given the definition or rape, that would not come up.

Oh yes, of course the money is for the child... but that misses the whole point: in this situation the man is closer to a sperm doner who did not consent and there is no contract in place so as such the mother should take responsibility for her actions given in the example the agreement was for sex not procreation.

~:smoking:

[Snowhobbit]

Given that a woman can not rape a man given the definition or rape, that would not come up.

Oh yes, of course the money is for the child... but that misses the whole point: in this situation the man is closer to a sperm doner who did not consent and there is no contract in place so as such the mother should take responsibility for her actions given in the example the agreement was for sex not procreation.

~:smoking:

I'm not sure how UK law works, you might be right. It is certainly possible to convict a woman of raping a man in Sweden however.

Our modern societies do not require there to be a contract in order for fatherhood to be established with all of the rights and obligations which that entails. I'm not sure of exactly how much of a legalized society you envision living in, but I'm fairly sure that even in the UK you become a father without a contract?

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not sure how UK law works, you might be right. It is certainly possible to convict a woman of raping a man in Sweden however.

Our modern societies do not require there to be a contract in order for fatherhood to be established with all of the rights and obligations which that entails. I'm not sure of exactly how much of a legalized society you envision living in, but I'm fairly sure that even in the UK you become a father without a contract?

Yes, that is the point. If you are male you pretty much need the signed paperwork beforehand as any misunderstanding means you are fighting a rape charge. If you're female and decide to keep a pregnancy you can go after the other party.

I'd like to not live in such a society but since the alternative can be 18 years of payments it does seem codifying the area is the least bad option.

~:smoking:

[Snowhobbit]

Yes, that is the point. If you are male you pretty much need the signed paperwork beforehand as any misunderstanding means you are fighting a rape charge. If you're female and decide to keep a pregnancy you can go after the other party.

I'd like to not live in such a society but since the alternative can be 18 years of payments it does seem codifying the area is the least bad option.

~:smoking:

Wow, UK must be a horrible place if men can only get laid safely if they have a signed contract beforehand. That does not sound made up in the slightest.

I guess you must really hate having money if you want to enforce contract requirements on such a level of ehrm, common transactions.

[Gilrandir]

And instead of asking for clarification you jump to the most extreme conclusion you could imagine? I can see why Ukraine is in the state it is in...


Individual peculiarities and attitudes can't be symptomatic of the state of the whole country (unless those are peculiarities and attitudes of the country's leader). Generalizing like you do is a cheap shot which does not reflect a great credit on you as a communicator and polemicist.



An agreement had been reached prior to the night in question, when they had previously had consensual sex. People can agree to things and time can pass after said agreement was initially made.

Hasn't it occurred to you that I might have been misled by the grammar mistake you made?
You said:
At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one. (the bold is mine).
while it should have been:
At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman had been that they only would have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one.

So shall I say that if Swedes are so quick to anger disregarding a beam in their own eye it is a sad future that I envisage for Sweden? No I won't. I know some Swedes here who are a complete opposite.:bow:

[Snowhobbit]

Individual peculiarities and attitudes can't be symptomatic of the state of the whole country (unless those are peculiarities and attitudes of the country's leader). Generalizing like you do is a cheap shot which does not reflect a great credit on you as a communicator and polemicist.



Hasn't it occurred to you that I might have been misled by the grammar mistake you made?
You said:
At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one. (the bold is mine).
while it should have been:
At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman had been that they only would have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one.

So shall I say that if Swedes are so quick to anger disregarding a beam in their own eye it is a sad future that I envisage for Sweden? No I won't. I know some Swedes here who are a complete opposite.:bow:

Well, I shan't say that all Ukrainians are short sighted mad men, because that would indeed be unbecoming, and I have heard that some of them are perfectly normal people.

The statement is perfectly correct grammatically, but feel free to look past the point.

[Sarmatian]

Ooh, whats this? A fight hoo haz more English skilz?

Grow up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given that a woman can not rape a man given the definition or rape, that would not come up.~:smoking:

You are confusing Rape and Sexual Assault - rape is a specific crime which can only be committed by men, and usually only against women, because of the attendant consequences.

It's like how, technically, men can't be virgins.

[Papewaio]

Being honest, after Snowden, the movies make the security forces a lot more scary than reality.

Never seen the movies.

Extraordinary rendition and non consensual water boarding and recording every international call is scary enough to ask are we in a high tech police state with a straight face.

[rory_20_uk]

You are confusing Rape and Sexual Assault - rape is a specific crime which can only be committed by men, and usually only against women, because of the attendant consequences.

It's like how, technically, men can't be virgins.

I'm not confusing the two - rape as a minimum prison sentence of 8 years. Sexual assault ranges from 4-8. So technically men can end up in jail for twice as long.

~:smoking:

[Snowhobbit]

I'm not confusing the two - rape as a minimum prison sentence of 8 years. Sexual assault ranges from 4-8. So technically men can end up in jail for twice as long.

~:smoking:

I looked up the UK definition of rape, it is quite a strange and restrictive one. The specific nature of the object used for.. penetration.. leaves it highly restrictive in how it can be interpreted.

[Beskar]

Never seen the movies.

Extraordinary rendition and non consensual water boarding and recording every international call is scary enough to ask are we in a high tech police state with a straight face.

Watch Enemy of the State (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)), 1998 movie starring Will Smith which has the NSA doing that already and more.

[Papewaio]

You had me terrified at Will Smith.

Difference is one was a worst case, over the top, dog arse eating situation.

The other is so terrible not even having two stars from Men and Black could save it.

[Fragony]

Just intended as a cooldown, wouldn't you grasp the oppertunity to have sex with a hot woman in a hotel that is situated at pretty much the exact opposite of the planet from where you live. It just stinks. Women get raped in Sweden all time, only South-Africa is worse in the universe and surroundings for women. So why he.

[Snowhobbit]

Just intended as a cooldown, wouldn't you grasp the oppertunity to have sex with a hot woman in a hotel that is situated at pretty much the exact opposite of the planet from where you live. It just stinks.

Well it all depends, is she agreeing to have sex or not?

[Fragony]

Well it all depends, is she agreeing to have sex or not?

Sure, but what do you expect if you invite a stranger in your bed, I know what would expect, and I would be angry if I was being fooled

edit, story worth sharing.

I was with my mom in Paris to watch the new exposition of oceantic-arts, and I tried to lure the cute girl at the reception to my room for a glass of wine. Was futile. What I did had comming was the hotel's manager, she started cleaning the apartment at 4AM, she really bursted in. Sorry, no. May you live in interesting times the Chinese say.

[Snowhobbit]

Sure, but what do you expect if you invite a stranger in your bed, I know what would expect, and I would be angry if I was being fooled

edit, story worth sharing.

I was with my mom in Paris to watch the new exposition of oceantic-arts, and I tried to lure the cute girl at the reception to my room for a glass of wine. Was futile. What I did had comming was the hotel's manager, she started cleaning the apartment at 4AM, she really bursted in. Sorry, no. May you live in interesting times the Chinese say.

Uhm? I would not qualify them as strangers, he was living with her while staying in Sweden. And who is fooled exactly here, the rapists who knowingly rapes or the rape victim? And indeed if I invited a stranger to my bed I would expect not to be raped. Is Netherlands full of only barbarians?

[Fragony]

Uhm? I would not qualify them as strangers, he was living with her while staying in Sweden. And who is fooled exactly here, the rapists who knowingly rapes or the rape victim? And indeed if I invited a stranger to my bed I would expect not to be raped. Is Netherlands full of only barbarians?

I am one then, can't speak for my fellow-Dutchies but i would certainly expect something to happen when invited yes. How could I not expect it, and why wouldn't you do?

[Snowhobbit]

I am one then, can't speak for my fellow-Dutchies but i would certainly expect something to happen when invited yes. How could I not expect it, and why wouldn't you do?

Did you recently convert to Islam and adopt an Arab view of sex and women? If you ever visit up here I'm afraid Finland/Norway would send you to a sex-ed class...
I have at multiple points visited other people without the intention or implication that I'd sleep with them, including sharing a room with a female friend. Heck we shared the same bed and I still managed not to rape her! :O

[Fragony]

Did you recently convert to Islam and adopt an Arab view of sex and women? If you ever visit up here I'm afraid Finland/Norway would send you to a sex-ed class...
I have at multiple points visited other people without the intention or implication that I'd sleep with them, including sharing a room with a female friend. Heck we shared the same bed and I still managed not to rape her! :O

Well I am sheltering a muslim gay syrian right now but that's not the point. Women are perfectly safe with me, can sleep in my bed with me without any trouble whatsoever, my mom would be really dissapointed if I caused any, but I wouldn't do that anyway. But I am not going to turn down a perfectly fine chance either, what would you do if you get sedducted in a hotel lobby

[Gilrandir]

Ooh, whats this? A fight hoo haz more English skilz?

Grow up.

It was not about grammar skills. It was like a person with bad handwriting snapping at those who can't read his note and branding the whole neighborhood they live in as being stupid.

[Snowhobbit]

It was not about grammar skills. It was like a person with bad handwriting snapping at those who can't read his note and branding the whole neighborhood they live in as being stupid.

And here I thought it was about a man unable to grasp logic and jumping to the most extreme conclusion the moment a hint of ambiguity was perceived.

[Gilrandir]

And here I thought it was about a man unable to grasp logic and jumping to the most extreme conclusion the moment a hint of ambiguity was perceived.

So we do see growing up. Now only ONE MAN is branded mentally deficient, not the whole country which begets such morons. And an ambiguity admitted! What an evolution!

[Montmorency]

Well I am sheltering a muslim gay syrian right now but that's not the point. Women are perfectly safe with me, can sleep in my bed with me without any trouble whatsoever, my mom would be really dissapointed if I caused any, but I wouldn't do that anyway. But I am not going to turn down a perfectly fine chance either, what would you do if you get sedducted in a hotel lobby

:laugh4::laugh4:

:laugh4:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Fragony]

That morse-code

I know a little bit more about these things than you do

[Snowhobbit]

So we do see growing up. Now only ONE MAN is branded mentally deficient, not the whole country which begets such morons. And an ambiguity admitted! What an evolution!

A man standing so close to his bottle of medicine, but again he turns and flees. One man, one struggle. See the epic conclusion next week!

[Husar]

To conclude, it seems like there are several possible ways to look at this:

1. The woman clearly didn't phrase her "no" in a grammatically correct way and everything was her fault.

2. Rape is normal in Sweden and therefore he could not know he did anything wrong, the government reportedly invites known rapists into the country.

3. He's not an immigrant, obviously he is innocent.

4. He should be hanged for betraying his culture and the country that leads it.

5. He should be hanged for jeopardizing our security.

As a known multi-opinionist I think they are all wonderful in their own way of course.

[Fragony]

There is so much wrong with that Hussie, first of all you are not understanding women. They can be nasty to a level we will never understand. We hit, they destroy.

Hell has no fury doesn't come out of nothing

[Gilrandir]

The woman clearly didn't phrase her "no" in a grammatically correct way and everything was her fault.


A USSR story: two Jews meet and one of them says:

- I don't understand why people make so much of the Beatles. They take false notes, lisp and forget the lyrics.
-Did you hear them sing?
- No, but my friend Moisha sang their "Michelle" to me.

The same here: it was not the woman whose grammar needs polishing.

[Snowhobbit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZkKf18a40k&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

The stunning genius of the legal minds behind the report, it is a matter of punctuality but not of legal questions.

[Sarmatian]

That guy has some issues speaking English.

And, yes, resolving a legal process in a reasonable time is one of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights.
We decided we don't like Assange, so we should revoke all his rights?

[Snowhobbit]

That guy has some issues speaking English.

And, yes, resolving a legal process in a reasonable time is one of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights.
We decided we don't like Assange, so we should revoke all his rights?
He has gotten two supreme courts to look at his case in a short time, I think we can safely say that he has not had his right to a fair trial (he's had 6 of them so far) have been violated.
I take it that you are not aware that Assange was asked by the prosecution to participate in a video conference hearing, something he has asked for many times over the years. Do you want to guess what his response was?

But I guess we decided that we hate women and men who rape them should be given medals, right?

[Greyblades]

But I guess we decided that we hate women and men who rape them should be given medals, right?

Seriously dude?

[Sarmatian]

He has gotten two supreme courts to look at his case in a short time, I think we can safely say that he has not had his right to a fair trial (he's had 6 of them so far) have been violated.
I take it that you are not aware that Assange was asked by the prosecution to participate in a video conference hearing, something he has asked for many times over the years. Do you want to guess what his response was?

But I guess we decided that we hate women and men who rape them should be given medals, right?

Maybe you have different information. As far as I know, Swedish prosecutor refused to take a statement from Assange for more than 4 years. For the same amount of time, Assange has been calling for an interview in the Ecuadorian embassy. That interview was supposed to take place in July last year, when Ny (the Swedish prosecutor) cancelled two days before it was supposed to take place and made no effort to set a new date.

The statement from the prosecutor


My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorian embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview, and that he would need to be present in Sweden in any case should there be a trial in the future. This assessment remains unchanged. Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies to the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward, particularly as there are no other measures on offer without Assange being present in Sweden

She is basically saying that there's no point in the interview, but she still hasn't charged him, and now the party line is the he can't be charged because there was no interview.

Come on, even someone intellectually challenged could see there's something fishy going on.

[Snowhobbit]

Seriously dude?

Is gravely misrepresenting the view of others an exclusively Eastern European privilege?

[Sarmatian]

I'm southern European.

Apparently, being oblivious of facts is a northern European privilege, and the one I'm happy to grant you exclusive rights to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Swedish law requires the suspect to be interviewed before he can be charged, at no point has there been any other "line" on that point.

In any case, the fact he's cowering in the Ecuadorian Embassy means he's either guilty or insane.

Either way, I think we're all better off with him there.

[Greyblades]

In any case, the fact he's cowering in the Ecuadorian Embassy means he's either guilty or insane.

...Or believes the americans will jump him in transist.

[Sarmatian]

Swedish law requires the suspect to be interviewed before he can be charged, at no point has there been any other "line" on that point.

In any case, the fact he's cowering in the Ecuadorian Embassy means he's either guilty or insane.

Either way, I think we're all better off with him there.

He was interviewed in Sweden in 2010. He offered opportunities for interview many times and got no answer. The one time the Swedish prosecutor accepted, she cancelled it two days before the interview, supposedly because she couldn't finish the paperwork on time, even though the date was agreed upon months in advance.

It really doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes.

[Snowhobbit]

He was interviewed in Sweden in 2010. He offered opportunities for interview many times and got no answer. The one time the Swedish prosecutor accepted, she cancelled it two days before the interview, supposedly because she couldn't finish the paperwork on time, even though the date was agreed upon months in advance.

It really doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes.
That he was. He is now alas refusing to do any interviews any more for some strange reason... It is as if he was guilty of some kind of crime and has fled justice... Anyway he'll have a lot of long years left of sitting in an embassy, so good for him I guess? Not sure if the embassy or a jail is more preferable in terms of facilities?


...Or believes the americans will jump him in transist.

Which goes back to the insane part.


Swedish law requires the suspect to be interviewed before he can be charged, at no point has there been any other "line" on that point.

In any case, the fact he's cowering in the Ecuadorian Embassy means he's either guilty or insane.

Either way, I think we're all better off with him there.

That depends on how much you want to pay for the police guarding the premise in case Assange were to leave it, but I fully agree with the rest of the post.



I'm southern European.

Apparently, being oblivious of facts is a northern European privilege, and the one I'm happy to grant you exclusive rights to.

Unless your maps look different from our maps Serbia is Eastern. Possibly South Eastern, but very much Eastern. Apparently being willfully ignorant of reality is a common trait over there.


Maybe you have different information. As far as I know, Swedish prosecutor refused to take a statement from Assange for more than 4 years. For the same amount of time, Assange has been calling for an interview in the Ecuadorian embassy. That interview was supposed to take place in July last year, when Ny (the Swedish prosecutor) cancelled two days before it was supposed to take place and made no effort to set a new date.

The statement from the prosecutor


She is basically saying that there's no point in the interview, but she still hasn't charged him, and now the party line is the he can't be charged because there was no interview.

Come on, even someone intellectually challenged could see there's something fishy going on.
It is true that the prosecutor was too passive for a long time. It is also true that Assange called for an interview from the embassy. However now that the prosecution has accepted these terms, Assange has decided that he doesn't want to talk anymore. Take from that what you will.

The statement from the prosecutor does not say that in any way shape or form. He will always have to be interviewed before he can be charged, that is the way things work here. In the meanwhile he is arrested in his absence, all normal parts of legal procedure. I do agree about the intellectually challenged bit though.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

That he was. He is now alas refusing to do any interviews any more for some strange reason... It is as if he was guilty of some kind of crime and has fled justice... Anyway he'll have a lot of long years left of sitting in an embassy, so good for him I guess? Not sure if the embassy or a jail is more preferable in terms of facilities?



Which goes back to the insane part.



That depends on how much you want to pay for the police guarding the premise in case Assange were to leave it, but I fully agree with the rest of the post.




Unless your maps look different from our maps Serbia is Eastern. Possibly South Eastern, but very much Eastern. Apparently being willfully ignorant of reality is a common trait over there.


It is true that the prosecutor was too passive for a long time. It is also true that Assange called for an interview from the embassy. However now that the prosecution has accepted these terms, Assange has decided that he doesn't want to talk anymore. Take from that what you will.

The statement from the prosecutor does not say that in any way shape or form. He will always have to be interviewed before he can be charged, that is the way things work here. In the meanwhile he is arrested in his absence, all normal parts of legal procedure. I do agree about the intellectually challenged bit though.

You have said, a few times now, that Assange is now refusing an interview....but the interview in the Ecuadorian embassy was cancelled by the prosecuter, not Assange. Could you offer some sort of source for your information that Assange is now refusing an interview?

It just seems there are conflicting reports here...that seems to be at the heart of this disagreement.

[Gilrandir]

Is gravely misrepresenting the view of others an exclusively Eastern European privilege?

I like this manner of debating - ignoring the subject discussed and focusing on the opponent. This tactics involves distributing mental qualities geographically and then attributing them to all inhabitants of the country/region in question. Way to go.

[Snowhobbit]

I like this manner of debating - ignoring the subject discussed and focusing on the opponent. This tactics involves distributing mental qualities geographically and then attributing them to all inhabitants of the country/region in question. Way to go.

Yes, my repeated quoting and mentioning of news reports and articles, as well as relevant laws surely is ignoring the subject discussed. Selective blindness is a Eastern trait as well?


You have said, a few times now, that Assange is now refusing an interview....but the interview in the Ecuadorian embassy was cancelled by the prosecuter, not Assange. Could you offer some sort of source for your information that Assange is now refusing an interview?

It just seems there are conflicting reports here...that seems to be at the heart of this disagreement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12147941/Julian-Assange-Swedish-prosecutors-drawing-up-new-plan-to-interview-WikiLeaks-founder.html

A former request was denied in January by Ecuador. The reports are not so much conflicting as some people are willing to turn a blind eye to a rapist because he pissed the US off.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Yes, my repeated quoting and mentioning of news reports and articles, as well as relevant laws surely is ignoring the subject discussed. Selective blindness is a Eastern trait as well?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12147941/Julian-Assange-Swedish-prosecutors-drawing-up-new-plan-to-interview-WikiLeaks-founder.html

A former request was denied in January by Ecuador. The reports are not so much conflicting as some people are willing to turn a blind eye to a rapist because he pissed the US off.

Do you know what conflicting means? First, this is a report that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador refused, not Assange (so that your claim is factually incorrect). Second, this followed an earlier acceptance for an interview which the Swedish prosecutor cancelled at short notice....which event you seem incapable of acknowledging.

This has nothing to do with defending rapists, your constant insistence on such emotive hyperbole does nothing for your argument.

[Snowhobbit]

Do you know what conflicting means? First, this is a report that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador refused, not Assange (so that your claim is factually incorrect). Second, this followed an earlier acceptance for an interview which the Swedish prosecutor cancelled at short notice....which event you seem incapable of acknowledging.

This has nothing to do with defending rapists, your constant insistence on such emotive hyperbole does nothing for your argument.

Yes I imagine that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador certainly did not consult with Assange before making his decision, in fact Assange was probably crying as he was told that there would be no interview. There are many ways that Assange could arrange for an interview from inside the embassy if he chooses, something you seem to have a hard time grasping. Do you understand what facts are?

Assange is a rapist, so this has everything to do with defending a rapist. This is not hyperbole, this is a consequence of him raping a woman.

[Husar]

Assange is a rapist, so this has everything to do with defending a rapist. This is not hyperbole, this is a consequence of him raping a woman.

This is a heinous lie with no basis in reality that defends the murderous imperialist atrocities committed by the murderer-country USA!!!! (dramatic enough?)


August 20
Two Swedish women ask police about compelling Julian to take an STD test. Over their protests, the police treat their visit as a report, and open an investigation. Text messages (SMS) from the phone of one of the women at the police station show she did ’not want to accuse him of anything’ that ’it was the police who made up the charges’, and told her friend “she felt railroaded by police”. Julian’s name is disclosed to the tabloid press by the Swedish prosecution office.
August 21
The chief prosecutor now leading the investigation, Eva Finne drops the ’rape’ accusation, saying that the description of the events does not suggest any crime at all.
August 25
The chief prosecutor Eva Finne states that "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever"" and closes the preliminary investigation into "rape".

https://justice4assange.com/Timeline.html

[Snowhobbit]

This is a heinous lie with no basis in reality that defends the murderous imperialist atrocities committed by the murderer-country USA!!!! (dramatic enough?)



https://justice4assange.com/Timeline.html
Well, you missed linking your outrage with what has actually happened. But it was a good try I suppose.

This might surprise our local German, but the police and prosecutor is required to investigate and prosecute a crime if they discover that one has been committed. This even includes when the rapist is an international super star who has pissed off the US.

You might also want to choose more credible sources for your claims, unless we shall start discussing if Obama is American based on what is posted on birther websites.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Yes I imagine that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador certainly did not consult with Assange before making his decision, in fact Assange was probably crying as he was told that there would be no interview. There are many ways that Assange could arrange for an interview from inside the embassy if he chooses, something you seem to have a hard time grasping. Do you understand what facts are?

Assange is a rapist, so this has everything to do with defending a rapist. This is not hyperbole, this is a consequence of him raping a woman.

Lol..are you saying that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador takes his orders from Assange? The claim as you make it is factually incorrect. Again you ignore that Assange had previously agreed to an interview which the Swedish Prosecutor cancelled at the last minute.

You know how the law works, right? You are calling someone a rapist before they have been found guilty of such a charge. You're calling someone a rapist before they have even been charged with that offence. Yo are calling someone that without the evidence being tested. It is hyperbole because nobody here is defending Assange's right to rape, so your claim is - again - factually incorrect. The argument is to whether there is actually any substance to the claim or whether it is being used to get Assange into the hands of the government of the USA.

You haven't, as far as can be seen, managed to make one legitimate point in any of your posts on this thread....well done :rolleyes:

[Snowhobbit]

Lol..are you saying that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador takes his orders from Assange? The claim as you make it is factually incorrect. Again you ignore that Assange had previously agreed to an interview which the Swedish Prosecutor cancelled at the last minute.

You know how the law works, right? You are calling someone a rapist before they have been found guilty of such a charge. You're calling someone a rapist before they have even been charged with that offence. Yo are calling someone that without the evidence being tested. It is hyperbole because nobody here is defending Assange's right to rape, so your claim is - again - factually incorrect. The argument is to whether there is actually any substance to the claim or whether it is being used to get Assange into the hands of the government of the USA.

You haven't, as far as can be seen, managed to make one legitimate point in any of your posts on this thread....well done :rolleyes:

No no, I am saying the prosecutor-general of Ecuador is spitefully keeping our beloved angel rapist Assange under detention in their embassy because he is the reincarnation of Hitler, duh. Again you ignore that Assange has refused to cooperate in having interviews this year, what happened 4 years ago is by comparison not as important to the situation today.

I do know how the law works, do you? A rapist is a man who rapes women, just like Assange. The evidence would have been tested years ago, if Assange was man enough to take responsibility for his behaviour. But as we all know our dear rapist is a big coward. There is no basis for the notion that he would be extradited to the US, but you'd have to know law to understand that. If you would like me to explain this to you in simple terms then do let me know.

You have at no point been able to touch base with reality in your posts in this thread, most impressive.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

No no, I am saying the prosecutor-general of Ecuador is spitefully keeping our beloved angel rapist Assange under detention in their embassy because he is the reincarnation of Hitler, duh. Again you ignore that Assange has refused to cooperate in having interviews this year, what happened 4 years ago is by comparison not as important to the situation today.

I do know how the law works, do you? A rapist is a man who rapes women, just like Assange. The evidence would have been tested years ago, if Assange was man enough to take responsibility for his behaviour. But as we all know our dear rapist is a big coward. There is no basis for the notion that he would be extradited to the US, but you'd have to know law to understand that. If you would like me to explain this to you in simple terms then do let me know.

You have at no point been able to touch base with reality in your posts in this thread, most impressive.

If I accuse you of stealing something you must, by your own understanding of law, be a thief. You reveal only that you have no understanding of law. In response to my question as to whether you are claiming the Prosecutor-General is taking orders from Assange you respond with some incoherent drivel about him being the re-incarnation of Hitler (rather then accepting that your initial claim is factually incorrect.....which it is)

...and after this incoherent ramble you suggest that I cannot touch base with reality...?

You clearly have nothing of any import to say on this matter. Good day to you.

[Snowhobbit]

If I accuse you of stealing something you must, by your own understanding of law, be a thief. You reveal only that you have no understanding of law. In response to my question as to whether you are claiming the Prosecutor-General is taking orders from Assange you respond with some incoherent drivel about him being the re-incarnation of Hitler (rather then accepting that your initial claim is factually incorrect.....which it is)

...and after this incoherent ramble you suggest that I cannot touch base with reality...?

You clearly have nothing of any import to say on this matter. Good day to you.

I can see you are again confused by what is imagined and what is real. If there is clear evidence of me stealing your bike, you are fully entitled to call me a bike thief as I lock myself in the bathroom for 10 years to avoid facing charges in a court. A good day to you as well.

As for the horrible Swedish cancellation of the interview, from the "unbiased" freedomforassange website:
But Ny (prosecutor) said the meeting would have to be called off because she had not received official permission from Ecuador to enter its London embassy.

Bad Sweden for not showing up where they are not allowed to be! Bad Sweden!

[Sarmatian]

Unless your maps look different from our maps Serbia is Eastern. Possibly South Eastern, but very much Eastern. Apparently being willfully ignorant of reality is a common trait over there.


No. Serbia is sometimes qualified as being in eastern Europe because of whole Orthodox Slavs and ex-communist thingy, by ignorant people who don't know anything about geography, but as southern Europe is comprised of three peninsulas and islands, and since most of Serbia lies in the Balkan peninsula, Serbia is in southern Europe.


No no, I am saying the prosecutor-general of Ecuador is spitefully keeping our beloved angel rapist Assange under detention in their embassy because he is the reincarnation of Hitler, duh. Again you ignore that Assange has refused to cooperate in having interviews this year, what happened 4 years ago is by comparison not as important to the situation today.

I do know how the law works, do you? A rapist is a man who rapes women, just like Assange. The evidence would have been tested years ago, if Assange was man enough to take responsibility for his behaviour. But as we all know our dear rapist is a big coward. There is no basis for the notion that he would be extradited to the US, but you'd have to know law to understand that. If you would like me to explain this to you in simple terms then do let me know.

You have at no point been able to touch base with reality in your posts in this thread, most impressive.

So you have decided that Assange is a rapist before he was even charged with rape. You ignore the facts you don't like so that you may cling to your view. Now you've decided that Ecuadorian prosecutor general is a puppet of Assange.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0RoJz7Tno

You are... really special.

[Snowhobbit]

No. Serbia is sometimes qualified as being in eastern Europe because of whole Orthodox Slavs and ex-communist thingy, by ignorant people who don't know anything about geography, but as southern Europe is comprised of three peninsulas and islands, and since most of Serbia lies in the Balkan peninsula, Serbia is in southern Europe.



So you have decided that Assange is a rapist before he was even charged with rape. You ignore the facts you don't like so that you may cling to your view. Now you've decided that Ecuadorian prosecutor general is a puppet of Assange.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0RoJz7Tno

You are... really special.

Well lets just say that you have a very... Eastern.. way of thinking :)

I understand that you have 0 understanding of legal systems, but I would think that even you would grasp that a when a man engages in sex with a woman without her consent, that is rape. Or is that legal in the glorious land of Serbia?

[Sarmatian]

Well lets just say that you have a very... Eastern.. way of thinking :)

Well, I do find some aspects of Buddhism and Confucianism fascinating.


I understand that you have 0 understanding of legal systems, but I would think that even you would grasp that a when a man engages in sex with a woman without her consent, that is rape. Or is that legal in the glorious land of Serbia?

Well, in glorious land of Serbia there is a court which deals with that. Our system is also slightly more complicated, which is probably why I don't understand your legal system. We have something called presumption of innocence here, which is a concept that every person is innocent until proven guilty. And only a court decides whether a person's guilty after examining all evidence, hearing both sides and any possible witnesses.

How do you guys do it over there? Do tell, old chap, I find this very interesting. I'm learning new things. Yay me!

[Snowhobbit]

Well, I do find some aspects of Buddhism and Confucianism fascinating.



Well, in glorious land of Serbia there is a court which deals with that. Our system is also slightly more complicated, which is probably why I don't understand your legal system. We have something called presumption of innocence here, which is a concept that every person is innocent until proven guilty. And only a court decides whether a person's guilty after examining all evidence, hearing both sides and any possible witnesses.

How do you guys do it over there? Do tell, old chap, I find this very interesting. I'm learning new things. Yay me!

We also have a system with these things known as courts. However before a person can be brought before the court for him to be charged with a crime, the prosecutor needs to conduct an interview with the person. It might be after all that he is not only innocent, but is able to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of the prosecutor at which point he need not even be brought before the court. This is a measure which saves cost for both parties and reduces the likelihood of someone being falsely convicted. Me calling someone a rapist is based on his actions, not on a conviction or lack thereof, and has no legal bearing anyway. I presume that you have this newfangled notion of "Free speech" in Serbia?

[Sarmatian]

We also have a system with these things known as courts. However before a person can be brought before the court for him to be charged with a crime, the prosecutor needs to conduct an interview with the person. It might be after all that he is not only innocent, but is able to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of the prosecutor at which point he need not even be brought before the court. This is a measure which saves cost for both parties and reduces the likelihood of someone being falsely convicted. Me calling someone a rapist is based on his actions, not on a conviction or lack thereof, and has no legal bearing anyway. I presume that you have this newfangled notion of "Free speech" in Serbia?

Indeed. And if a person believes his rights and safety are in danger, he has a right to demand an asylum. If one is granted to him, he can laugh off any and all accusations against him. Contrary to that, Assange is the one who has asked for an interview on multiple occasions, in the place he feels his safety is guaranteed, and it was the Swedish prosecutor who has been rejecting, time after time, and who has also refused to take a statement.

So, instead of getting off her northern behind and flying off to that western island, so she can interview that southern man, if that was the goal, she chose to keep sitting on her northern behind and do nothing. With your vast knowledge of legal systems, I assume you know that Sweden can charge and put to trial a person in absentia, just like they have ordered him detained in absentia. They have the statements from the victims, they have the original interview with Assange, the physical investigation is over, so they should have enough evidence to decide either way. Basically, an interview only helps Assange's case. Certainly no one expects him to incriminate himself, even if guilty. If we accept your point of view, that he has refused an opportunity to tell his side of the story, court could have very well continued on, to the detriment of Assange's case. Why didn't it?

Now if the problem is the interview, she could have conducted it multiple times already. But the problem is what happens afterwards - she either has to charge him or let him go, and both solutions would be acceptable if there weren't more at play than just legal issues.

So, one would have to wonder what's the reason this case has been in limbo for such a long time.

[Snowhobbit]

Indeed. And if a person believes his rights and safety are in danger, he has a right to demand an asylum. If one is granted to him, he can laugh off any and all accusations against him. Contrary to that, Assange is the one who has asked for an interview on multiple occasions, in the place he feels his safety is guaranteed, and it was the Swedish prosecutor who has been rejecting, time after time, and who has also refused to take a statement.

So, instead of getting off her northern behind and flying off to that western island, so she can interview that southern man, if that was the goal, she chose to keep sitting on her northern behind and do nothing. With your vast knowledge of legal systems, I assume you know that Sweden can charge and put to trial a person in absentia, just like they have ordered him detained in absentia. They have the statements from the victims, they have the original interview with Assange, the physical investigation is over, so they should have enough evidence to decide either way. Basically, an interview only helps Assange's case. Certainly no one expects him to incriminate himself, even if guilty. If we accept your point of view, that he has refused an opportunity to tell his side of the story, court could have very well continued on, to the detriment of Assange's case. Why didn't it?

Now if the problem is the interview, she could have conducted it multiple times already. But the problem is what happens afterwards - she either has to charge him or let him go, and both solutions would be acceptable if there weren't more at play than just legal issues.

So, one would have to wonder what's the reason this case has been in limbo for such a long time.

Asylum is usually something requested to avoid persecution, not prosecution. Assange is the one who is currently refusing interviews, the prosecutor has after being told by the supreme court moved to conduct interviews. This being unlike Assange who is too great and mighty to respect the decision of two (!) supreme courts. His mental illness is not relevant to the case.

They have gotten off their "northern behind" and flown off to that western island, but since the embassy did not wish to allow them to enter the embassy it all became moot. The formality of legal procedure requires for Assange to be presented with the prosecutions side of the story and give his own version before he can be brought to trial. He is of course not required to incriminate himself, such a claim is just ridiculous. Legal proceedings are required for a reason and cannot be exempted even for superstar rapists.

Ever since the prosecution changed its tune (and decided to do its damn job) the Assange side has refused to participate in an interview and have done everything they can to prevent such a thing from taking place.

The reason for this being in limbo is one of a few. 1, his lawyers are lying to him about the risk of extradition. 2, he is mentally ill and believes the CIA will send in a strike team the moment he steps outside of the embassy. 3, He is a rapist and prefers to sit in an Ecuadorian embassy over a Swedish jail.

[Sarmatian]

Asylum is usually something requested to avoid persecution, not prosecution.

That is up to him and the country he requested asylum from. A person can be persecuted by being prosecuted.


Assange is the one who is currently refusing interviews, the prosecutor has after being told by the supreme court moved to conduct interviews. This being unlike Assange who is too great and mighty to respect the decision of two (!) supreme courts. His mental illness is not relevant to the case.

No, Ecuador is, and we don't know the reason. Is it technical, is it legal? My google fu failed me, so if anyone has a link to the statement explaining why they declined, I'd like to read it.


The formality of legal procedure requires for Assange to be presented with the prosecutions side of the story and give his own version before he can be brought to trial. He is of course not required to incriminate himself, such a claim is just ridiculous. Legal proceedings are required for a reason and cannot be exempted even for superstar rapists.

No it isn't. If I sue you, the court is obliged to inform you of the proceedings and offer you the chance tell your side of the story and prepare a defence. If you refuse to do so, it is not mine or the court's problem. Assange has appointed legal counsel who represent him in this case so the prosecutor could have informed them of the "their side of the story". Also, there's this thing called the mail. Julian Assange, Ecuador embassy, 3 Hans Crescent, Knightsbridge, London, UK.


Dear Mr. Assange.

We wish to inform you that since you refused to give an interview which would only help your case, we have decided to formally charge you with rape of Name1 and Name2, under Swedish law, article X. The first hearing will be conducted at Date and Time.

It is a complete bollox that they have to interview him. What if he was detained in Sweden and chose to defend himself by being silent? No one can force him to talk, either at the interview or at the trial. Would they drop the case then? Well, we tried to interview him but he refused to say anything.

So, Mr. Northern Lawyer, your case, like theirs, is paper thin.


Ever since the prosecution changed its tune (and decided to do its damn job) the Assange side has refused to participate in an interview and have done everything they can to prevent such a thing from taking place.

Not Assange. You're acting like he's the ruler of Ecuador.


The reason for this being in limbo is one of a few. 1, his lawyers are lying to him about the risk of extradition. 2, he is mentally ill and believes the CIA will send in a strike team the moment he steps outside of the embassy. 3, He is a rapist and prefers to sit in an Ecuadorian embassy over a Swedish jail.

1. Really? I don't see it that way.
2. Let's say he is innocent for the moment and that he did receive a text message from a woman he supposedly raped telling him the police twisted her story. Would he really need to be mentally ill to fear he's being persecuted?
3. Possible, but more far fetched. Why would he agree to an interview at any time, then? If the evidence is so overwhelming, why wasn't he charged and tried in absentia already?

You only have two scenarios. He is either guilty or innocent. His behaviour has been more consistent with the latter, so if we assume he is innocent, he's behaviour so far has been perfectly rational. If we assume he is guilty and that the prosecutor has enough evidence to think that, why wasn't he charged and/or tried in absentia and why wasn't every effort taken to interview him, so they can at least say "look we've been trying to interview him for four years, and he's been refusing for four years."

[Beskar]

If I remember correctly, Assange received a guarantee early on that he wouldn't be shipped out to the USA and ignored it anyway?

[Sarmatian]

If I remember correctly, Assange received a guarantee early on that he wouldn't be shipped out to the USA and ignored it anyway?

From Britain, not from Sweden, iirc.

USA and Sweden have an extradition treaty, so the USA has to only charge him for hacking and poof, Sweden is obligated to extradite him.

Sweden can refuse, theoretically, citing that real reason is not some cyber crime or theft but a political crime, and legally refuse to extradite him, but Swedish record of "loosely" interpreting laws when under US pressure is not that great, like in 2002 or during police raid of The Pirate Bay servers.

[Gilrandir]

...and after this incoherent ramble you suggest that I cannot touch base with reality...?



It is because you gave insufficient information on where you come from. If you did, you would learn a lot about the peculiarities of cognitive processes symtomatic of the natives and of the whole region to boot.

[Husar]

Well, you missed linking your outrage with what has actually happened. But it was a good try I suppose.

This might surprise our local German, but the police and prosecutor is required to investigate and prosecute a crime if they discover that one has been committed. This even includes when the rapist is an international super star who has pissed off the US.

You might also want to choose more credible sources for your claims, unless we shall start discussing if Obama is American based on what is posted on birther websites.

You mean I should link to one of the British, state-obeying falsepapers that omit the Swedish government changing the prosecutor two times until they found one who is ready to pretend a crime actually happened?

This may surprise you but your second paragraph has nothing to do with what I quoted.

As for credible sources, show me one that is as detailed about the events as the one I linked but disagrees about the prosecutor being changed several times. Then we can talk about which one is more credible and I might even agree with you. Just derailing my source based on sources that give a very superficial overview of the events (or just your word) is hardly helpful.

[Snowhobbit]

It is because you gave insufficient information on where you come from. If you did, you would learn a lot about the peculiarities of cognitive processes symtomatic of the natives and of the whole region to boot.
Hey man, it's not your fault you were raised in a Ukrainian culture, you can fight it!


From Britain, not from Sweden, iirc.

USA and Sweden have an extradition treaty, so the USA has to only charge him for hacking and poof, Sweden is obligated to extradite him.

Sweden can refuse, theoretically, citing that real reason is not some cyber crime or theft but a political crime, and legally refuse to extradite him, but Swedish record of "loosely" interpreting laws when under US pressure is not that great, like in 2002 or during police raid of The Pirate Bay servers.
Well here's the funny thing about a EAW, once Sweden is done with him then we are obliged to send him back as soon as possible to UK. This is quite crystal clear from the treaties which are present. Additionally he would theoretically face the death penalty in the US right? Or otherwise very lengthy unproportional jail time? In which case again there is grounds to not extradite him. Plus unlike the terror brothers, the media light is shining quite brightly on him.

That is up to him and the country he requested asylum from. A person can be persecuted by being prosecuted.



No, Ecuador is, and we don't know the reason. Is it technical, is it legal? My google fu failed me, so if anyone has a link to the statement explaining why they declined, I'd like to read it.



No it isn't. If I sue you, the court is obliged to inform you of the proceedings and offer you the chance tell your side of the story and prepare a defence. If you refuse to do so, it is not mine or the court's problem. Assange has appointed legal counsel who represent him in this case so the prosecutor could have informed them of the "their side of the story". Also, there's this thing called the mail. Julian Assange, Ecuador embassy, 3 Hans Crescent, Knightsbridge, London, UK.



It is a complete bollox that they have to interview him. What if he was detained in Sweden and chose to defend himself by being silent? No one can force him to talk, either at the interview or at the trial. Would they drop the case then? Well, we tried to interview him but he refused to say anything.

So, Mr. Northern Lawyer, your case, like theirs, is paper thin.



Not Assange. You're acting like he's the ruler of Ecuador.



1. Really? I don't see it that way.
2. Let's say he is innocent for the moment and that he did receive a text message from a woman he supposedly raped telling him the police twisted her story. Would he really need to be mentally ill to fear he's being persecuted?
3. Possible, but more far fetched. Why would he agree to an interview at any time, then? If the evidence is so overwhelming, why wasn't he charged and tried in absentia already?

You only have two scenarios. He is either guilty or innocent. His behaviour has been more consistent with the latter, so if we assume he is innocent, he's behaviour so far has been perfectly rational. If we assume he is guilty and that the prosecutor has enough evidence to think that, why wasn't he charged and/or tried in absentia and why wasn't every effort taken to interview him, so they can at least say "look we've been trying to interview him for four years, and he's been refusing for four years."

Well no, it is also up to international law, but we all know Assange is beyond such petty things as law.
As we can be sure, Assange never has any influence on whether Assange participates in an interview, I am sure he has been banned by the embassy to speak to the prosecution and would jump at the chance if only he could, angel that he is. I don't have a link to that and I presume it would be in Spanish, if someone else finds a statement that would of course be interesting to read. I would expect it to be full of finger pointing.

That is not how criminal cases work. But by all means lets tear up our entire judicial system for the sake a chicken-shit rapist. If they interview him and he chooses to remain silent, and even cover his ears, that is fine by the law. The main thing is that he has been given the full treatment that the law dictates, much more than simply paper thin.

I presume that Assange is a grown man with the full access to his vocal facilities. Or do his vocal cords only function when he gets permission from Ecuador? He should probably get examined by a doctor then.

You are right, the lawyers probably did not lie to him, though their statements in public would lead you to think otherwise.
Yes, because he is not being prosecuted, not persecuted, by a banana republic. He has had two supreme courts telling him that enough is enough, but he is too insane to listen.
Has he agreed to an interview at any time? Currently he is the one who is saying no to an interview? He cannot be charged in absentia and he most certainly cannot be tried in absentia, that would truly make the legal systems a shamble and turn us into a banana republic. Seriously, can you be tried in criminal cases and sent to jail in absentia in Serbia?!

I agree, it is binary, he is either guilty or innocent. If he was innocent he would presumably prefer proving that in court rather than spend 10 years of his life in an Embassy. His behaviour is entirely consistent with a guilty man refusing to face justice.

[Snowhobbit]

You mean I should link to one of the British, state-obeying falsepapers that omit the Swedish government changing the prosecutor two times until they found one who is ready to pretend a crime actually happened?

This may surprise you but your second paragraph has nothing to do with what I quoted.

As for credible sources, show me one that is as detailed about the events as the one I linked but disagrees about the prosecutor being changed several times. Then we can talk about which one is more credible and I might even agree with you. Just derailing my source based on sources that give a very superficial overview of the events (or just your word) is hardly helpful.
Why don't we discuss abortion using a website like Abortion is murder? Or maybe right-wing ideologies based on Northfront or whatever that crap is called? How about a gun debate based on NRA alone? Or maybe lets discuss Brexit using only European Union websites?

[Husar]

Why don't we discuss abortion using a website like Abortion is murder? Or maybe right-wing ideologies based on Northfront or whatever that crap is called? How about a gun debate based on NRA alone? Or maybe lets discuss Brexit using only European Union websites?

So you have nothing?

[Snowhobbit]

So you have nothing?

I believe I provided multiple quotes from cites not named "assangeisarapist.com" or equivalent. Did you skip the classes on critiquing your own sources in school?

[Husar]

I believe I provided multiple quotes from cites not named "assangeisarapist.com" or equivalent. Did you skip the classes on critiquing your own sources in school?

How many of them explained why the rape charges were at first discarded by a prosecutor or two for being irrelevant and then picked up again by another?

[Snowhobbit]

How many of them explained why the rape charges were at first discarded by a prosecutor or two for being irrelevant and then picked up again by another?

For that you are free to read the statements by the prosecutor. To put it simply, either new evidence was presented, or the evidence present was interpreted as likely to result in a conviction. Or you can of course believe that the US government decides how the Swedish prosecution works. Of course that puts you in the same class of people as those who believe "The Jews" rule the world and are out to eradicate the Aryan race.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

For that you are free to read the statements by the prosecutor. To put it simply, either new evidence was presented, or the evidence present was interpreted as likely to result in a conviction. Or you can of course believe that the US government decides how the Swedish prosecution works. Of course that puts you in the same class of people as those who believe "The Jews" rule the world and are out to eradicate the Aryan race.

So...you have nothing then (given that the best you can come up with is an either/or possibility for what the prosecutor might have said - so no actual evidence of what the prosecutor has said, or that such statements are available)...except the usual (illogical) ad-hominem hyperbole and misplaced hubris.

[Snowhobbit]

So...you have nothing then (given that the best you can come up with is an either/or possibility for what the prosecutor might have said - so no actual evidence of what the prosecutor has said, or that such statements are available)...except the usual (illogical) ad-hominem hyperbole and misplaced hubris.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not the one claiming we are being ruled from the Lizard people on the moon.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not the one claiming we are being ruled from the Lizard people on the moon.

Oddly...nobody has claimed anything about Lizard people on the moon,did you post this is the wrong thread? Any argument, if it is to be taken seriously, requires a framework of evidence. You have so far offered nothing of any value. Whenever you are asked for material supporting your position you have nothing, you just jump off into some whacked out notion of what you think the question means ....as opposed to it being a request for some corroboration of your position.

So...your argument cannot be taken seriously. You have nothing of any value to say on the issue and. You have made, by your own machinations, the position that you hold simply laughable. I am sure that is not what you intended...but maybe I'm wrong.Maybe you are actually a very clever satirist.

[Greyblades]

You mean I should link to one of the British, state-obeying falsepapers that omit the Swedish government changing the prosecutor two times until they found one who is ready to pretend a crime actually happened?

Could we get a link?

[Husar]

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not the one claiming we are being ruled from the Lizard people on the moon.

You are however calling a man guilty before he has even been charged, according to our justice system that is not just extraordinary, it is plain wrong. You have to show why he is guilty, I do not have to prove that he is innocent. So far you have nothing but your own guilty verdic that you obviously reached without even knowing much about the case...


Could we get a link?
Already linked to that page that Snowhobbit tries to decry, but the info is also available on the BBC for example: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11049316


The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.
In a brief statement Eva Finne said: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

Later another prosecutor did apparently find a reason to attempt to charge him, but the question remains why the first one didn't, the websaite linked earlier mentions another prosecutor who saw no reason to press charges. It's funny how we live in the "information age", yet nothing is clear anymore and the rest is all lies.

[Snowhobbit]

You are however calling a man guilty before he has even been charged, according to our justice system that is not just extraordinary, it is plain wrong. You have to show why he is guilty, I do not have to prove that he is innocent. So far you have nothing but your own guilty verdic that you obviously reached without even knowing much about the case...

Do you have another word to use for a man who sleeps with a woman without her consent? My dictionary calls that rapist, yours spells hero? I was unaware that the Backroom functioned as a court, have we sent Assange to jail yet?


Oddly...nobody has claimed anything about Lizard people on the moon,did you post this is the wrong thread? Any argument, if it is to be taken seriously, requires a framework of evidence. You have so far offered nothing of any value. Whenever you are asked for material supporting your position you have nothing, you just jump off into some whacked out notion of what you think the question means ....as opposed to it being a request for some corroboration of your position.

So...your argument cannot be taken seriously. You have nothing of any value to say on the issue and. You have made, by your own machinations, the position that you hold simply laughable. I am sure that is not what you intended...but maybe I'm wrong.Maybe you are actually a very clever satirist.

Yes, prosecutor statements and news articles and interviews is nothing. Mad fantasies about the massive reach and scope of US intelligence forces is hard data. Thanks for playing, do try again.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Do you have another word to use for a man who sleeps with a woman without her consent? My dictionary calls that rapist, yours spells hero? I was unaware that the Backroom functioned as a court, have we sent Assange to jail yet?

You are the one who has claimed that he is guilty....which is a decision to be made by a court. That is the function of a court, and until such a decision has been made the accused is presumed innocent. You are the only one here who has seen fit to function as a court.

You really don't understand the law do you?



Yes, prosecutor statements and news articles and interviews is nothing. Mad fantasies about the massive reach and scope of US intelligence forces is hard data. Thanks for playing, do try again.

What prosecutor statements?You clearly don't have access to such. Do you know how I figured that out? Because the best you could offer in support of that was that either they had received new evidence or that the evidence presented was likely to produce a conviction......so which is it? If you had access to such a statement then you would know......The idea you have in your head that a statement might exist which should clear the matter up is not real..it is not evidence of information, it is..it is an idea you have made up in your head.

You really don't understand what evidence is, do you?

[Snowhobbit]

You are the one who has claimed that he is guilty....which is a decision to be made by a court. That is the function of a court, and until such a decision has been made the accused is presumed innocent. You are the only one here who has seen fit to function as a court.

You really don't understand the law do you?




What prosecutor statements?You clearly don't have access to such. Do you know how I figured that out? Because the best you could offer in support of that was that either they had received new evidence or that the evidence presented was likely to produce a conviction......so which is it? If you had access to such a statement then you would know......The idea you have in your head that a statement might exist which should clear the matter up is not real..it is not evidence of information, it is..it is an idea you have made up in your head.

You really don't understand what evidence is, do you?

Oh I see. You are mistaking me for a judge, and the Backroom for a court of law. Let me assure you that neither of those things are true. Do you understand what an internet forum is? Do you understand what an opinion based on the facts of the matter are?

The prosecutor statements (otherwise known as things said by the prosecutor) can be found all over the media. I am simply offering the logical explanation for why two different prosecutors came to two different decisions. This is what is known as logic based on known facts, as opposed to figments of imagination to protect the "honour" of a rapist. Do you grasp the concept of rape?

[Husar]

Oh I see. You are mistaking me for a judge, and the Backroom for a court of law. Let me assure you that neither of those things are true. Do you understand what an internet forum is? Do you understand what an opinion based on the facts of the matter are?

Yes, the problem is that your opinion does not seem to be based on the facts of the matter as you fail so far to mention or recognize most of the important facts. Take your earlier reply:


Do you have another word to use for a man who sleeps with a woman without her consent? My dictionary calls that rapist, yours spells hero? I was unaware that the Backroom functioned as a court, have we sent Assange to jail yet?

Show me the fact that says he slept with another woman without her consent. A prosecutor thinking that he may have done so or a woman saying so does NOT make it a fact that he slept with a woman without her consent.
The tripe about dictionaries does not change that, it's just baseless accusations. In fact you seem more and more like a troll.

[Snowhobbit]

Yes, the problem is that your opinion does not seem to be based on the facts of the matter as you fail so far to mention or recognize most of the important facts. Take your earlier reply:



Show me the fact that says he slept with another woman without her consent. A prosecutor thinking that he may have done so or a woman saying so does NOT make it a fact that he slept with a woman without her consent.
The tripe about dictionaries does not change that, it's just baseless accusations. In fact you seem more and more like a troll.
No I think the problem is that you believe a rapist over the woman he raped and the police investigating it along with the prosecutor in charge of the case. His behaviour and refusal to participate in the criminal case speaks volumes about his "innocence and credibility". Going through your post history it is quite clear who is trolling here, and it is not me.

[Husar]

No I think the problem is that you believe a rapist over the woman he raped and the police investigating it along with the prosecutor in charge of the case.

The prosecutor in charge of the case said there is no case.
Your sentence about me believing the rapist even more is incredibly loaded, did you miss the lessons in school about stating something as fact that isn't?


His behaviour and refusal to participate in the criminal case speaks volumes about his "innocence and credibility".

Your presented lack of knowledge and terrible bias regarding the case makes it hard to believe your version of events however.


Going through your post history it is quite clear who is trolling here, and it is not me.

I'm not trolling, you keep making non-arguments, stating non-existant facts and putting words into my mouth.
I've told you earlier that if you can show some concrete evidence for why he is a rapist, I may even believe so, too. Since then you have only responded with stuff like "you support a rapist over a victim", haven't presented a single piece of evidence for your claims and just keep on attacking and stating "facts" you have no proof for. THAT is trolling because you just keep making us turn in circles and if you want to continue that way, you can discuss this with yourself or someone else.

[Snowhobbit]

The prosecutor in charge of the case said there is no case.
Your sentence about me believing the rapist even more is incredibly loaded, did you miss the lessons in school about stating something as fact that isn't?



Your presented lack of knowledge and terrible bias regarding the case makes it hard to believe your version of events however.



I'm not trolling, you keep making non-arguments, stating non-existant facts and putting words into my mouth.
I've told you earlier that if you can show some concrete evidence for why he is a rapist, I may even believe so, too. Since then you have only responded with stuff like "you support a rapist over a victim", haven't presented a single piece of evidence for your claims and just keep on attacking and stating "facts" you have no proof for. THAT is trolling because you just keep making us turn in circles and if you want to continue that way, you can discuss this with yourself or someone else.

The prosecutor in charge of the case is Marianne Ny. Have you eaten some funny shrooms?
The sentence about who you believe is based on the posts you have made on the forum, don't blame me that you are putting yourself out there on a controversial issue.

Yes, my presented lack of knowledge regarding the legal proceedings, the facts of the matter and the quoting of actually relevant news articles is truly astonishing.

If you want to see evidence, you are more than welcome to read the prosecutors case. As for the initial statement of the woman, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the term victim blaming (in particularly the notion of the victim blaming herself), shame and guilt, as well as trying to be nice (something mr I can't give a blood test so you don't have to go on HIV medicine hasn't understood the value of).

[Sarmatian]

You're making less and less sense and now you're looking really desperate to have people accept your point of view. I can't waste my time talking to the likes of you, so you kids have fun.

[Snowhobbit]

You're making less and less sense and now you're looking really desperate to have people accept your point of view. I can't waste my time talking to the likes of you, so you kids have fun.

Yep, actually getting answers to your questions and being asked questions to answer in turn is really hard.

[Gilrandir]

Hey man, it's not your fault you were raised in a Ukrainian culture, you can fight it!


I greatly doubt that you have a deep (if any) awareness of Ukrainian culture, still less any information of the culture I was raised in, and even still less of how much my personal "culture" bears upon mainstream Ukrainian culture.