'I won't be cowed,' says Assange

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I wonder if a noose is in this outside traitors future.

Despite how much so called "good" he has done, he still leaked US military secrets, and should be strung up on a noose.

I am glad the far left lunatics of South America wish to support him, I wonder if a trade embargo would change their minds, Venezuela and the other commies can only give them so much money and trade. Take it out (economically) on the country who harbors this criminal, then watch thier views change.

Abolish NAFTA. Maybe there will be jobs for Americans in the usa, not Mexico and Equador.

This is where we disagree. As a journalist he should have the ability to publish freely what is made available to him, regardless of whom it embarrasses. On the other hand he does need to answer the questions of the Swedish authorities as the courts in the UK have ruled.

AFAIK the US has not made any movement to arrest or extradite Assange for any offence against US laws. If they choose to do so then your comments may have some relevance to his case. It was Bradley Manning who leaked the information NOT Assange as he was merely the publisher. In essence his actions are no different to other journalists who have published embarrassing facts leaked to them by members of government or their agencies.

AS for NAFTA, I'm buggered if I can make the mental leap you have. Well done for linking two things that have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TarJak

This is where we disagree. As a journalist he should have the ability to publish freely what is made available to him, regardless of whom it embarrasses. On the other hand he does need to answer the questions of the Swedish authorities as the courts in the UK have ruled.

Could have been done long time ago, if questioning him really would have been Sweden's priority. Questioning witnesses in diplomatic or international distorted cases like this one in a neutral setting and under dipomatic protection, has been done before, and if you go back to the beginning of thios, Assange had offered this by his own initiative. But Sweden did not show much interest in that, but put priority on getting him in its hands. Due to the dubious and highly suspicious nature of this case, the question is why. If it is a plot, a conspiracy - and secret services and foreign ministries plan such plots, don't they, this case now would in no way be a first - then Assange has all reasons to worry that the US is behind it and wants to either put him on ice eternally by putting the current pressure in him, or to get him in their own hands. The women filing the charges are dubious themselves, and not really beyond doubt about their "innocence". Sex, and claims about it, true or false, are a weapon in the arsenal of secret services and foreign ministries.

The motive and interest of the US is beyond doubt. It wants revenge for having been exposed in many things that qualify for crime and treason at highest offices. The scandal is not that these dirt was revealed - the scandal is that the dirt was done in the first, stockpiled up high, and then tried to be hidden from the American people. Instead of hating Assange, they should hate their own criminal, lying politicians right up to the ranks of the White House.

AFAIK the US has not made any movement to arrest or extradite Assange for any offence against US laws.

That means nothing, and to reapte it so often on this board is opportunistic, acted naivety. They could file and request once Assange is in a Swedish prison, and some months ago there was a short news in some papers that the Swedish have deliberatly refused to guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US. The Us knows that it would raise public opinion against itself it it files a request in advance, saying that if the swedes get Assange the Us would like to get him - the poublic outcry would be tremendous and helping Assange.

If they choose to do so then your comments may have some relevance to his case. It was Bradley Manning who leaked the information NOT Assange as he was merely the publisher. In essence his actions are no different to other journalists who have published embarrassing facts leaked to them by members of government or their agencies.

The US so I read earlier thisw years, considers to sue Assange for having hired Manning to commit acts of illegal information gathering, which then would fall under espionage laws, if I recall it correctly.

Legally, that may even be true. But the argument still stands that if politicians would not have lied in the first and get their hands deep into the dirt and betrayed the Americna people over certain issues, Manning would not have been able to collect data to give it to assange who then could uncover the faces behind the masks in a great coup.

I do not like Assange as a person, I am about the function of Wikileaks or acording organisation. I do not claim Assange has not committed rape, becasue I simply do not know the truth. But I know that the Swedish laws have some very - strange laws on what can be defined as rape under certain circumstances, which is something that has gotten international attention already before the Assange case. What I do for sure is to list why the doubts about the honest intention of the Swedes must be put into doubt, and that Assange indeed has very, very good reasons to fear that it is just an plot to get him into US custody one day, or into a prison in another country for eons to come, so that he cannot rebuild Wikileaks and start working on the funding basis of it again. Right now, it is a dead body floating in the waster - and that is definitely not to the displeasure of the US. I am sure they take grim satisfaction from it.

One thing also is clear. If one day it becomes clear that he indeed committed a rape worth the term not only by Swedish but also by international law standards, he should be serving the penalty according to Swedish laws then. And without him being extradited to the US afterwards. But until his guilt is proven and the possibility that it all is a plot, a conspiracy, is being ruled out beyond all doubt., he has to be seen as innocent. A basic principle, a pillar of Western law philosophy that is. Guild must not be assumed - it must be proven.

And when questioning him is what the Swedish police claims would help to decide whether to continue with the case or not, then one must ask why they are not interested as much in questioning him indeed as they are interested in getting him under their control and in their custody.

And one thing is clear: with so powerful enemies with long reach, like Assange has made himself, he has all reasons one could imagine to be worrying about a plot, and to be a bit paranoid.

[Oberon]

Couldn't the Swedish police question him at the Ecuadorian embassy?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Couldn't the Swedish police question him at the Ecuadorian embassy?

I am not certain, but I think that was mentioned before, like a neutral place and a protected arrangement that he had offered even before he went there. But I seem to recall the Swedes turned down the Equadorian setting, too.

It'S not about the questioning. It is about getting him into Swedish custody, no matter what. I live under the very strong impression that this is the real priority of this operation. The questioning is probably just a deceptive veil.

[August]

Skybird you make a big deal about American official lying to us but AFAIR there wasn't much in the Wikileaks to get upset about. Certainly no earth shaking revelations like you imply.

Care to detail in your usual brief fashion exactly what particular revelations in the Wikileaks we are supposed to form a lynch mob over? I mean it's a long way out to the barn for my torch and pitchfork and i'm kinda saving those for a special occasion along with my supply of tar and feathers.

[TarJak]

If the US are so hot to get hold of him why not apply to the UK courts for an extradition order? Why go through the sham of having him in Sweden? In some reports I've read it could actually be easier from the UK than Sweden.

What I'm saying is that a UK court has found cause to have him sent to Sweden. Therefore I repeat that he has to go to Sweden to answer their questions. Whether he could or could not answer those questions in the UK is irrelevant.

The bollocks about the US being after him is IMHO more about keeping him out of Sweden than it is about keeping him out of the US. But that just my opinion and as Subsim is about expressing ones opinions then I'll bloody well do so thanks.

[Cybermat47]

Perhaps they should invade the Ecuadorian embassy with cows?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TarJak

If the US are so hot to get hold of him why not apply to the UK courts for an extradition order? Why go through the sham of having him in Sweden? In some reports I've read it could actually be easier from the UK than Sweden.

What I'm saying is that a UK court has found cause to have him sent to Sweden. Therefore I repeat that he has to go to Sweden to answer their questions. Whether he could or could not answer those questions in the UK is irrelevant.

The bollocks about the US being after him is IMHO more about keeping him out of Sweden than it is about keeping him out of the US. But that just my opinion and as Subsim is about expressing ones opinions then I'll bloody well do so thanks.

Pretty much how I see it....he is in the UK and therefore answerable to the law of the land.....UK land.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TarJak

If the US are so hot to get hold of him why not apply to the UK courts for an extradition order? Why go through the sham of having him in Sweden? In some reports I've read it could actually be easier from the UK than Sweden.

Everybody would immediately point fingers at the US AND BRITAIN, giving Assange the victimization bonus. First the Swedes call, the brits arrest, the US denies, and when the Swedes don't get him, the denying US directly intervenes in Britain? A publicity armageddon.

[TarJak]

As opposed to the current debacle? I don't buy it.

[Jimbuna]

Me neither...he is currently in breach of a decision by the highest court in the UK, is in the UK and as such should be treated the same as anyone else in breach of such judgements.

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

As opposed to the current debacle? I don't buy it.

Exactly. The Obama administration would get slammed just as hard if they extradited from Sweden.

I think Assange knows that there is truth to the sex charges and he doesn't want to face the music.

[STEED]

Get the SAS to dress up as Santa and his little helpers and go in and nab him then kick his arse out of the UK.

[Jimbuna]

[joegrundman]

if you were the US on the 'get assange somehow' mission, would you even bother going through all the hassle of extradition in a circumstance like this when all you have to do is lean on the swedes to find him guilty of rape regardless of the merits of the actual case?

When the US leans on some other nations' judiciaries, those judiciaries can be made to bend easily enough. my guess is, when he gets to sweden, he will be found guilty, he will be put away, and there will be no moves by the US to extradite in the near future, not without some real espionage charge which doesn't seem to be around at the moment.

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I wonder if a noose is in this outside traitors future.

What is an "outside traitor" - is it something you could charge KSM for? Sounds like a useful legal definition for any global hegemon!