No charges ever pressed: Assange marks three years of UK detention
WikiLeaks founder and journalist, Julian Assange, has marked the third year spent in detention in UK under constant threat of extradition to Sweden.
On December 7, 2010 Assange was taken into custody after voluntarily attending a British police station. He spent 10 days behind bars, before being released on bail with a residence requirement at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, England.
The journalist is wanted for questioning in Sweden in relation to a sexual misconduct investigation, which he labeled as politically motivated. Swedish authorities’ repeatedly refused to question Assange via video conference or personally in London, pressing for an extradition to Sweden.
After the British Supreme Court upheld the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition warrant in June 2012, he found asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he remains in a five square-meter room.
http://rt.com/news/assange-three-years-uk-892/
= new reply since forum marked as read
... and fucking "courts" are NEVER used for political or police/surveillance state purposes.
You insult anyone with a brain's intelligence.
Seriously, that was Orwellicious. j
Thank god the REAL propaganda machine has been identified! Thank goodness you are here to defend the beleaguered NSA, the struggling global banks and corporations, the quivering and impoverished government of the United States, and the bedraggled One Percent against the Massive, Orchestrated Juggernaut of Propaganda being wielded against them by....poor Americans and Julian Assange... (cough).
That was beautiful. Seriously. I think you can go home now, because you are not going to top that post...ever.
The cadre of pro-corporate, pro-police state, pro-Third Way, pro-everything One Percent shifts the entire political balance of DU (and political sites across the internet) over a period of a few years, predictably and reliably swarms *every single thread* that implicates Democrats and the administration in the persecution of whistleblowers and journalists, evidences an influx and a constant growth here that is unnatural to the point of being ridiculous**, AND demonstrates an utterly consistent set of rules and tactics for posting including the "last word" rule*...all in the service of fervently defending *every single aspect* of the growing corporate authoritarian state...
and you furrow your brow and worry Very Seriously about "propaganda" targeting the Corporate Surveillance State.
Oh, my side hurts.
Seriously, thank you for that insight on "propaganda" and how it REALLY works. That's as perfect as those jaw-dropping posts helpfully identifying the dangerous profiteer Americans should REALLY be worried about. Psst...It's not the One Percent or the corrupt politicians assisting them in looting this country into devastation. No, it's a MASTER OF GREED who threatens us ALL... by the name of Glenn Greenwald!
Glenn Greenwald is impoverishing me!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4031540
Phew! At least we know where the real powers, the real money, the real tentacles, lie. This explains EVERYTHING!
You will never top that. Never.
____________________________________
*The "last word" rule for corporate posting being in effect here, you will certainly reply with great seriousness and further absurdities. I hope you will forgive me for stopping here, though. I don't want your last delicious post to be buried or lost on ANYONE.
**
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801
Perhaps a good way to respond to the bullshit would be to post a link to this and just identify the number of the tactic in the outline being used.
It sure is textbook for what's being done here, isn't it.
Mobsters are given immunity, murderers, drug dealers for narrowly-defined crimes they admit or don't admit to doing. It can be as narrowly defined as needed to satisfy both the state and accused. That does NOT mean they can run out and murder someone. He could easily be assured that he won't be extradited for anything relating to publishing government secrets and that would have nothing to do with him running around killing someone and getting accidental immunity.
The question is raised: why are you making an argument you know is bogus? Because if you admitted to it, that would shoot the security-state argument to pieces. And you can't have that, can you?
Weak 
The only reason formal charges having been found is because the assailant is hiding out to evade charges and Sweden's legal system require the defendant be present to have a formal indictment. There is an open investigation and a standing order of extradition for Assange to face the charges. That is why the self-entitled coward is hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
I's not like women's lives matter in comparison to a great man like Assange. I might chalk this up to Assange worship syndrome if I hadn't seen you defend rape porn, Rape is important only as a form of male arousal through porn. Women just need to keep their mouths shut and understand their second-class lives are inconsequential in comparison to a great man like assange, or whoever gets off watching them violated on camera.
The Assange apologists are no different from the people in Steubenville who protected for generations the rapists they saw as too important for prosecution. After all, their accusers were only women, and it's not like they are worth anything. The law doesn't apply to just the guys you don't happen to like. A man should not be able to sexual assault women with impunity just because sycophants feed his massive ego. To enable that and willfully spread false information for that end is repulsive.
Sid
His post and yours are clear efforts to hide the truth. The actual court documents are on the wikipedia site. Amazingly, I'm going with the documents over your cherry picking of a news story from 2010, the thinnest of possible articles with absolutely no context or follow up of what has happened since.
This is what happened in the Swedish investigation since the pawltry article you dug up was published:
On 1 September 2010, Överåklagare (Director of Public Prosecution) Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations.[20]
On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden.[21][22] On 18 October 2010, his request was denied.[21][22][23] He left Sweden on 27 September 2010.[24] The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest.[25]
On 18 November 2010, the Stockholm District Court ordered Assange detained in absentia, on request by prosecutor Marianne Ny. As basis for the ruling, the court stated Julian Assange to be suspected on reasonable grounds to have committed våldtäkt, olaga tvång, and three cases of sexuellt ofredande[26][27] — which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation",[28] "sexual assault",[29] "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment".[23][30][26][31][32]
As special reasons for the detention, the court named a risk of the suspect absconding or avoiding justice; that the penalty for the alleged crimes is at least two years imprisonment; and the lack of any obvious reason not to detain.[33]
The decision was appealed by Assange on 22 November to the Svea Court of Appeal, which two days later upheld the warrant but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three.[3][34][35][30] On 30 November Assange appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden which decided not to consider a further appeal as no principle was at stake.[5]
On 6 December 2010, Scotland Yard notified Assange that a valid European arrest warrant had been received.[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
That you could do a search for news articles and not find more recent information is impossible. That tells me you are purposefully selecting outdated and now false information to distort readers understanding of the actual legal case.
If what you say were true, there would be no order of extradition, and Assange would not be hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. There are ZERO charges against him from the US or any order of extraditing from the US. He could just as easily go to Sweden and face charges and if the US tries something, seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in Sweden at that time. Of course that doesn't have the added benefit of skipping out on prosecution for violating two women. Even the maker of the recent documentary about Assange who started by believing the apologist propaganda realized during the course of the film that the man was hiding because of the extradition order for sexual assault. He said Assange has such an enormous ego, he believes himself above the law, though he respects his earlier activities at Wikileaks.
Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
Court finding from Assange's appeal to overturn extradition, dated one year AFTER your BBC article, which you use to create a false impression that no charges are pending. The appeal was denied.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
Mr Assange's contention was that he had not been accused of an offence in Sweden. For that to happen a decision to prosecute had to be made and none had been. Criminal proceedings had not commenced. Lord Steyn, in Ismail in the passage at page 327 (which we have highlighted in italics at paragraph 133 above), had approved the approach of the Divisional Court in asking in that case whether the authorities had taken a step which could fairly be described as the commencement of proceedings. Reliance was placed on the following by Mr Assange:
i)
ii) There were numerous statements by Ms Ny that the proceedings were still at the investigative stage.
She had said on 19 November 2010; "We have come to a point in the investigation where we cannot go further without speaking to Julian Assange." She had written to the Australian Ambassador in December 2010 making it clear that she was engaged in an "on going investigation". In a conversation with the Ambassador on 16 December 2010, she had confirmed that no decision had been made to prosecute Mr Assange. It was only when such a decision was made that Mr Assange would be granted access to all the documents in the case.
iii) In the Prosecutor's submission to the Svea Court of Appeal when it was considering the appeal of Mr Assange against the decision to issue a warrant for his arrest (to which we have referred at paragraph 51 above), the Prosecutor had stated that the reason for the arrest of Mr Assange was "in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution". In rejecting the appeal the Court had stated in its reasons that Mr Assange was "suspected with probable cause of' the four offences to which we referred at paragraph 3.
The Senior District Judge found on the basis of the extraneous evidence that the fact some further pre-trial evidential investigation might result in no trial taking place did not mean Mr Assange was suspected as opposed to accused; and the fact that under Swedish law a person had to be interrogated before a decision to charge was made was not determinative. Clear and specific allegations had been made against Mr Assange. Although he could not say when or what step had been taken which could fairly be described as the commencement of the prosecution, the boundary between suspicion and investigation and prosecution had been crossed. Looking at the matter in the round, Mr Assange passed the threshold of being wanted for prosecution.
It is clear on the extrinsic evidence that a decision has not been taken to charge him. Under the law of Sweden that decision will only be made after he has been questioned again. Under Swedish procedure, that decision is made at the conclusion of the investigation and, according to the evidence before the Senior District Judge. The defendant will then be given the right to examine all the documents relating to the case.
Note that court documents are public record and not subject to copyright.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
But don't let facts get it the way of distorting the truth for an accused sexual predator.
I don't care if an accused sexual assailant is Assange, a football player, the President, or someone in my own family. He needs to face the allegation rather than hiding out. I would NEVER sink to the low of lying to protect an accused sexual predator. Assange deserves his day in court to make his case, but to do that he must come out of hiding and face the court.
This discussion has left me ill.
as shown by his refusal to return in October, his extensive litigation, and his jumping bail
Sid
if you can. I enjoy this immensely. I expect NO response other than the little roly poly smiley guy because as the whole word knows, no charges have ever been filed against Assange because there is zero evidence to back them up.
But, being a fair person, as you KNOW I am, I am giving you an opportunity to provide evidence of charges in a Swedish Court, something even the Swedish prosecutor doesn't claim.
I will check bank later for your proof of charges filed.
I just love this stuff.
Still waiting after nearly four years to see the charges and the evidence.
Sid is about to provide it for us finally.
if you can. I enjoy this immensely. I expect NO response other than the little roly poly smiley guy because as the whole word knows, no charges have ever been filed against Assange because there is zero evidence to back them up.
But, being a fair person, as you KNOW I am, I am giving you an opportunity to provide evidence of charges in a Swedish Court, something even the Swedish prosecutor doesn't claim.
I will check bank later for your proof of charges filed.
I just love this stuff.
Still waiting after nearly four years to see the charges and the evidence.
Sid is about to provide it for us finally.
What I got so far are long diatribes about the EXTRADITION HEARINgS IN A UK COURT. Lots of allegations in that request, but the UK CANNOT LITIGATE charges from another country, got it??
They granted request for extradition, THAT IS ALL.
Even after having the EXTRADITION REQUEST granted, the SWEDISH PROSECUTOR has failed after nearly three years to file charges against Assange in Sweden. Why do you think that is?
I'm afraid YOU are the one who got pwn4d.
I'm having fun though, it's always fun to play with people who have no clue what they are talking about.
Being called to answer in Sweden, where he could still be acquitted, full appeals in the British courts regarding his extradition, non-existent arrest warrants from the USA. Has anyone ever suffered so much?
but they'll go on and on and on and on, as if the Swedish justice system and the US justice system were exactly the same.
Sid
You're a gem 
Sid
noticed. 
They are deliberately false in some cases from people who know the facts but work to distort them as most people can see. I know most people here have grown tired of dealing with it but to me it is important to correct lies and false statements, no matter how often it has to be done.
As you probably noticed I don't bother with links when dealing with this because I know that they know the facts but for some reason continue to post non-facts, or try to distract, distort, or personally attack, or whatever they can do to try to cover up the fact that Journalists, Whistle Blowers and any Independent media are under attack the Western Powers.
I suppose you can't blame them in a way, it is shameful what our government has been doing for over a decade now but trying to cover it up won't work. It won't hide the truth which most of the world knows.
I don't spend much time on it, I just refute the false information so that people readingat least won't take that information as fact due to the fact it is posted on DU where we used to be able to depend on some level of truth.
Thank you for your comment, Matariki, I appreciate it very much.
shred of evidence are fascinating to me Polly. I can't help wanting to hear more!
Amazing isn't it? And then they wonder why women no longer identify with the so-called 'women's movement'.
I know Rt isn't considered unbiased and actually looked for something else...
Sid
Julian published stolen documents, which is always good. The US is Evil, and anything it classifies is obviously classified only to hide bad behavior of its employees.
So they decided to persecute Poor Julian. They hired a couple of women to charge him with sexual misconduct in Sweden, even though their ultimate aim is the death penalty in the U.S. But then the plan went awry, and they let him get away to the UK.
So they had to start extradition proceedings and get Sweden to do it. Sweden is a bad place, because they once did something that can be considered a Bad Thing. The US is of course the Evil of All Evil.
So the UK said it was OK to extradite Julian to Sweden, even in appeals! But the UK courts failed to pin down a corrupt Chilean dictator once, so now, nothing they do counts at all. Anyway the US is making them do it, like a puppet, along with Sweden.
The big bad Evil US even says it will not press any charges against Julian. That can't be true. It just can't be true. The US must be lying, in order to lull Julian into going to Sweden to clear up with false charges. Once in Sweden, the US will press charges, file for extradition and bingo, Julian will be in Washington tried for Espionage and get the death penalty! This intent is a clear as mud.
Sid
(who is still somehow, someway claiming VICTORY after the thorough and highly visible pwnage they sustained in this thread) is simply astonishing.
Meanwhile, Assange's Wikileaks Party went down in flames before it barely got going, he is still hiding out in an embassy to avoid charges that his ardent supporters claim are "nonexistent" (would you hide in an embassy for years over something that was nonexistent?) and the movie they made about him featuring that weird looking guy that played Khan in the Star Trek movie has been a massive, SPECTACULAR flop seemingly because few people like or care about its subject matter. But knowing some of the Assange is God crowd, that's probably all part of the conspiracy too. 
Just wow....
What a bizarre display. 
