Printable View
Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained, according to UN panel.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-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!
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.
Or that these women were on the US governments payroll.
Or that Julian Assange is on the US government's payroll.
Or some combo of all three.
I have no idea, how could I
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.
No? Why don't you explain it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
According to Christophe Peschoux, a senior member of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, it is legally binding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
I don't think you understand what binding but not enforceable means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
And I am certain that you do not grasp the concept of binding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Now, if you lock yourself in the bathroom, has the Serbian government detained you?
Really? Well, if you say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
What has that got do to with anything?Quote:
Now, if you lock yourself in the bathroom, has the Serbian government detained you?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.
Noone cares what the UN says unless it aligns with their interests.
If my memory serves hes not scared that the swedes will give him up hes scared the americans will grab him in transit.Quote:
And indeed we could not extradite him to the US, we have to return him to the UK when we are done with him.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
If you are worried about STDs it's a test you have either before having sex or up to 3-6 months afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.
Being honest, after Snowden, the movies make the security forces a lot more scary than reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
Yeah, turns out they really are not that bad if you are already in the limelight of the media. Shocker :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I think you need to buy some new glasses buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
I had presumed that an agreement between two people is reached when, ehm, both of them are awake and sentient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Given that a woman can not rape a man given the definition or rape, that would not come up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I guess you must really hate having money if you want to enforce contract requirements on such a level of ehrm, common transactions.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
Hasn't it occurred to you that I might have been misled by the grammar mistake you made?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The statement is perfectly correct grammatically, but feel free to look past the point.
Ooh, whats this? A fight hoo haz more English skilz?
Grow up.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It's like how, technically, men can't be virgins.
Never seen the movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
~: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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Watch Enemy of the State, 1998 movie starring Will Smith which has the NSA doing that already and more.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Well it all depends, is she agreeing to have sex or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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 fooledQuote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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 lobbyQuote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
:laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
:laugh4:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
That morse-code
I know a little bit more about these things than you do
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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.
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
A USSR story: two Jews meet and one of them says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
- 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZkK...be&app=desktop
The stunning genius of the legal minds behind the report, it is a matter of punctuality but not of legal questions.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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?
Seriously dude?Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.Quote:
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
Come on, even someone intellectually challenged could see there's something fishy going on.
Is gravely misrepresenting the view of others an exclusively Eastern European privilege?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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.
...Or believes the americans will jump him in transist.Quote:
In any case, the fact he's cowering in the Ecuadorian Embassy means he's either guilty or insane.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Which goes back to the insane part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
It just seems there are conflicting reports here...that seems to be at the heart of this disagreement.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-founder.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
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?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
https://justice4assange.com/Timeline.htmlQuote:
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".
Well, you missed linking your outrage with what has actually happened. But it was a good try I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
...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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
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!