Wikileaks' Julian Assange seeks Supreme Court hearing

[Jimbuna]

Ecuador asks whether Assange can leave their embassy to receive medical treatment, if he keeps his fingers crossed so it doesn't count...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/ecu...-1226483303150

[Jimbuna]

The Ecuadorians wanted him, they can have him...sickness and in health...for richer for poorer...etc etc. I hear tell Stockholm has some magnificent Medical Facilities and of course the Majestic Moose

[BossMark]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Ecuador asks whether Assange can leave their embassy to receive medical treatment, if he keeps his fingers crossed so it doesn't count...

This after or before he slips down those stairs

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by BossMark

This after or before he slips down those stairs

Either, I'm not really bothered either way...he lost any sympathy I may have had for him when he jumped bail.

[Gerald]

[Tchocky]

Nah Julian, you're a villain because you jumped bail and won't face justice in Sweden. Innocent or guilty, hiding out in an embassy doesn't prove anything.

[Gerald]

^That's right, good move

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Nah Julian, you're a villain because you jumped bail and won't face justice in Sweden. Innocent or guilty, hiding out in an embassy doesn't prove anything.

Precisely and as posted in #18

[Gerald]

Glad you corrected it so that no misunderstandings arise in the future,

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Nah Julian, you're a villain because you jumped bail and won't face justice in Sweden.

Even if it is just a stageact in order to trap you - you must play by the rules and allow getting trapped. Be stupid. Play by your enemy'S rules. "Justice" demands it.

Innocent or guilty, hiding out in an embassy doesn't prove anything.

Which he must not, since he is not formally charged. They want to question him on highly dubious claims risen against him, and on basis of a Swedish law that in principle allows any women unsatisfied with the sex she had to sue her lover over claims of rape - becasue she just felt bad afterwards. When I read that law the fist time and read a lawyers explanation of it, I just did not trust my eyes. It is hilarious. But hey, its Sweden, the home of gender-engineering and denial of any biological differences between male and female, so one should not be surprised, maybe.

If they only want to question him, they could have met him on neutral territory, or even in London. It would not have been the first time that in this sort of constellation such a solution has been practiced. That the Swedish rules that out shows that this never has been about questioning him, but that they want him in their fangs and this can only be reasonably explained by the US making pressure and wanting to take revenge against him. It is also part of a basic campaign to destroy Wikileaks and reducing if not eliminating Assange's freedom to act, in order to take him out of action. This part of the plot without doubt has worked until here.

[Gerald]

What is true in the case of Assange, it is that when he was here last, so messed the Swedish prosecutor's office to take him to court, and Assange left the country, that is a legal mistake, that Sweden did not choose to interview him on neutral half of the field is very prestigious.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Even if it is just a stageact in order to trap you - you must play by the rules and allow getting trapped. Be stupid. Play by your enemy'S rules. "Justice" demands it.



Which he must not, since he is not formally charged. They want to question him on highly dubious claims risen against him, and on basis of a Swedish law that in principle allows any women unsatisfied with the sex she had to sue her lover over claims of rape - becasue she just felt bad afterwards. When I read that law the fist time and read a lawyers explanation of it, I just did not trust my eyes. It is hilarious. But hey, its Sweden, the home of gender-engineering and denial of any biological differences between male and female, so one should not be surprised, maybe.

If they only want to question him, they could have met him on neutral territory, or even in London. It would not have been the first time that in this sort of constellation such a solution has been practiced. That the Swedish rules that out shows that this never has been about questioning him, but that they want him in their fangs and this can only be reasonably explained by the US making pressure and wanting to take revenge against him. It is also part of a basic campaign to destroy Wikileaks and reducing if not eliminating Assange's freedom to act, in order to take him out of action. This part of the plot without doubt has worked until here.

As our US cousins say..."He's done, stick a fork in him".

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Which he must not, since he is not formally charged.

Nor should he be, that's how it works in Sweden. The questioning first, the charge comes later, much later than in the UK or US system. Regardless of the allegations at hand, Assange is not at the stage of being charged yet. The fact that he hasn't been charged doesn't have nearly the same argumentative relevance as it would in the UK.

Originally Posted by Skybird

They want to question him on highly dubious claims risen against him, and on basis of a Swedish law that in principle allows any women unsatisfied with the sex she had to sue her lover over claims of rape - becasue she just felt bad afterwards.

How about addressing the actual allegations and not what the law might possibly allow for in theory?

http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/...julian-assange

Originally Posted by SwedishWire

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

Those silly Swedes

Originally Posted by Skybird

When I read that law the fist time and read a lawyers explanation of it, I just did not trust my eyes. It is hilarious. But hey, its Sweden, the home of gender-engineering and denial of any biological differences between male and female, so one should not be surprised, maybe.

Again, this has precisely nothing to do with the alleged conduct.

Originally Posted by Skybird

If they only want to question him, they could have met him on neutral territory, or even in London. It would not have been the first time that in this sort of constellation such a solution has been practiced. That the Swedish rules that out shows that this never has been about questioning him, but that they want him in their fangs and this can only be reasonably explained by the US making pressure and wanting to take revenge against him.

This comes up against the issue of "charging" as before. He's not wanted for something so innocent as "only" questioning; the questioning is part of a process, the end result of which may or may not result in a charge. It's not just a chat and I don't see why it should be held over Skype or any other of Wikileaks's silly suggestions. Neither you nor I could play the same games that he is playing if faced with the same kind of allegations.

I don't see why they should go out of their way to accommodate him, to be honest. His defence team have already misled the UK courts over the extradition matter, Assange has tried to put himself out of the reach of both UK and Swedish law. I don't see the point of extending any particular privilege in this case.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...e-judgment.pdf

It would be a lot more difficult to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US than it would be from the UK, and now any such extradition would still require the consent of the UK government.

It is also part of a basic campaign to destroy Wikileaks and reducing if not eliminating Assange's freedom to act, in order to take him out of action. This part of the plot without doubt has worked until here.

Assange has voluntarily reduced his freedom to act by jumping bail and seeking refuge in a political mess that ensures he cannot leave a single building. This is of his own making.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Vendor

You missed Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook:
"I give out all private information to security services and companies, and i am a hero!"



But interesting again, the messenger gets the bad press, while what he found out is not an issue.

"My country is murdering civilians ?
Does not matter, as a patriot i kill the one who found that out."
Hypocritic retards.

[Platapus]

Honestly, I am not overly concerned with the likes of Assange. It is the Mannings that I want the government to go after.

Assange never held a position of trust in the United States and therefore legally had no responsibility to protect the information.

Manning, on the other hand did. Without the Mannings the Assanges of the world would be nothing.