To show others that they better keep their mouth shut...and money is no object after all it is not their money they are spending, it comes from us. They use our own money to hide the truth from us.

This is about shutting anyone up who dares question and making an example out of. A chilling reminder

strikes back during the Bush days, and graphically described what he saw. And back then, there was unanimous opposition to Bush's use of drones.

He has not been wrong about anything over the past decade and a half, predicted most of where we are now, long ago.

And he is absolutely correct about the phony allegations regarding Assange.

The minute Assange revealed he had info on a 'big bank' and when asked 'could it bring them down' he replied 'possibly', he became a target.

The info he had was stolen, those Banks will stop at nothing to cover their crimes, and one month later, these allegations appeared.

Anyone who believes it was anything other than an attempt to protect the criminals, is either complicit and themselves have something to hide, or just plain blind.

No charges have ever been filed, which many of us predicted long ago.

To continue to hold him, though he may be safer there, is to continue the facade, which if it ever went to an actual court, would be exposed for what it is.

Family, job, reputation, freedom.

That's the message and it's an effective one.

Assange is subject to an extradition order, against which he appealed, and lost. He is not wanted for questioning, he is wanted for arrest and trial. Formal charges (or more precisely the filing of an indictment) in the Swedish legal system are not made until the accused is arrested and in custody. Sweden is not a common law country and they do not do things the same way.

http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Well said.

Sid

You mean "accused rapist sought for arrest and extradition jumps bail and hides in Ecuadorean embassy"? That sort of political repsonse? I don't especially see a problem with the Metropolitan Police maintaining a watch on a wanted fugitive from justice. Other things that are nonsensical: Assange and his claque of noisy supporters trying to pretend that his being sought for extradition to Sweden on charges of rape are some sort of political manouevre meant to cover for his onward extradition to the USA. (Because, I don't know, the UK would never extradite to the US? Hah.)

You call him a rapest...frameing it like that is a political act when that is not what he did...the sex was consensual and you know it but you keep repeating it was rape.
And that right there proves your political motive, because no just minded person would do that...so it is not about justice it is about politics...what ever the politicians want to do you will help them do it.

That is how I see the situation...and I see it every time Assange comes up as a topic.

if what happened happened as described by the accuser, it's rape. There is a case to answer, anyway. (It was also found, although not a relevant point to the extradition, that the accusation would lead to charges of rape under the laws of England and Wales.)

And you can spin it any way you want but that is what happened.
And he is not wanted for rape but for questioning...well they know where he is and they could question him any time they wanted to, but that is not what they want, they want to get him on that plane so they can fly him to the US where he will be indicted under the espionage act and be sent to federal prison with Chelsey Manning.

Which has been explained countless times by people who have actually bothered to look at the Swedish legal system. And if the point was to embarrass Wikileaks and extradite Assange to the USA, why not do it in the UK where Assange had been for some time and where the government would have happily handed him over? The idea that it constituted some sort of "entrapment" is frankly bizarre.

The point is to make an example out of Assange so that others will think twice about telling on the criminal acts of our government.

And you are naive if you believe that there is no entrapment used to protect their interists...The CIA has been dong that for decades...Pollyanistic thinking at best.

You can respond in seconds with cut and paste...why is that?
No don't bother to answer because I am through with this.

It's annoying to keep hearing people say that Assange is the victim of a conspiracy because people knowingly or unknowingly misinterpret Swedish law.

Such a long list of rape suspects that are pursued with this fervency across the world.

What a vile propaganda state we live in now. No despicable tactic is out of bounds when the morally bankrupt police state will exploit even the issue of rape to persecute those who expose its crimes against its own citizens.

Because no one knows what really happens in the bedroom...it is the easiest one...requires only one accuser and no facts.
And rape is a loaded charge, that can influence lots of people with.
Yep, we are now in a police state, and full of propaganda and deceptions.

The relentlessness of the smear and propaganda machine is directly proportional to the gravity of crimes revealed to have been committed by the government against its own citizens.

And the swarm will continue until we all knuckle under and learn to love Big Brother.

Until I see the ranting screeds on DU by the usual suspects.

And oh my the fact that he is imbedded so deeply under their skins makes me smile.

I know that the UK charged him, and that is why he is where he is.
But did Sweden charge him with rape?
Well you did, and you seem to know all about it and declared him guilty and the government who wants to punish him for something different to be OK with you.

You will not convince me with that nonsense...But I suspect it is not me you want to convince.

from my link

Not from propaganda...which can be manufactured by people in powerful positions of authority.
And it is not like this is a new thing.

If you can live with that then there is not much more to say, is there?

If I don't agree with it and believe the propaganda I am a supporter of rape.
That type of thing is so common among the right wingers...the false dichotomy and manipulation.

you can only arrive at your position by discounting what the victims said - lets hear your rationalization for that.

Is being used to course people into believing that he is guilty and discount any evidence to the contrary.
I don't know the woman that made the accusations and neither do you, but you act like you do.
Sorry but I don't fall for that manipulation...perhaps some will though.

because their alleged rapist is a powerful man that you admire. Ok - at least you are honest about it.

Because he embarrassed the US by revealing their crimes...and honesty requires us to consider that.

There is a very strong motive for them to arrest Assange...they have the motive now you want to give them the opportunity to punish the whistle blowers.

as his extradition process played out. In all that time the US never once requested that England extradite him. Why is that? If America was so hell bent on arresting Assange why would they go through all the trouble of having the CIA get a couple of women to lie about him?

But you go where the assets are...perhaps they did not use them in the UK because they did not have a reliable asset.
And this saves the UK from the embarrassment of turning him over for espionage to the US...and diversion is always a part of any plan.
And they did not lie about him they set him up...or at least one of them did...the first woman that approached him at a speech he was giving and offered him to stay at here place because she was going out of town, only to cancel it and spend the night with him.
It was the second woman that the first introduced to him that made was worried about STDs and wanted him to get checked and the first one told her she should.

Now did I get that story right?... that is how I understood it...and it sounds like the first one was the asset.

But we will never know will we?...who would tell us?...another whistle blower that would have to flee to Russia?

lets have a trial and get to the bottom of it. Because you are delusional if you think there will be any other outcome. Assange is not going to walk out of the embassy and spend the rest of his life on a beach in Ecuador. It is more likely that he will have a health emergency that requires hospitalization and will lead to his arrest. Either that or the government of Ecuador changes and the new guys politely suggest he find a new place to live.

Investigation is where the evidence is discovered...and if the investigation is flawed so is the evedence...Need I mention Mike Brown?

Now if he is arrested and charged in the US under the espionage act will you feel any remorse?
Or will you say he got what he deserved for telling on us?

the threat of espionage charges does not justify him getting away with rape.

I doubt that the US would arrest him - it would be a politically risky trial with a very good chance of him being acquitted. No one has ever presented a clear legal analysis that he has even broken US law (which is what I personally think).

The present situation is the best one for Obama and the US. Assange is neutralized and fading from the public's perception. I wouldn't be surprised if the US is slipping the Brits some extra cash to pay for the surveillance.

Well I will trust his judgment on that, and he thinks and there is evidence to show that there is a grand jury in Virgina that has him on the menue...and I would trust his lawyers to give him advice and not rely on trust in the US government who has a score to settle with him.

he gets to avoid a messy issue and Assange is neutralized.

history has shown time and time again that men get away with rape due to cultural and legal bias that tilts the playing field against women. Time and time again the victims are attacked as liars and sluts despite the fact that false rape charges are very rare.

Known in layman's terms as 'hero worship'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

But to deny that women can and do lie, and that the government has the motive and opportunity to set up a honey trap to catch someone they really want to catch?
I consider it a strong possibility, but we are left to the press to tell us the truth, and if you believe they do I got a bridge for sale.

don't you think?

"When you hear hoof beats, think horses not Zebras"

Turn one of them into a whistle blower?...and send him off to Russia to be called a spy like Snowden?

We will never know, unless some fundamental things change in this sick society.

there can never be evidence that proves me wrong because it is all secret.

Congratulations - you have built the perfect self licking ice cream cone. An argument impervious to evidence and logic.

That is a sure trump card that can apply broadly to anything but the official story.
We must never be allowed to speculate.

The evidence is in the past if you chose to look there...the exploits of the CIA are legend.
But no, an agency that has a history of doing such things would never do it to Assange, the one that blew the whistle on them...you got to believe.

that does not constitute proof that they are actual responsible for everything bad that happens. That is where actual evidence comes in. Evidence you are lacking.

And it is so secret that if anyone tells the secrets they can be put in prison for life like Manning.
The penalty for divulging their secrets is sever...and that is what this is all about...revealing their secret doings.

But we DO know that they have done and are probably still doing some bad things...and they control the evidence of it and you and I can't see it...we are just supposed to trust them.

because it is all so secret. That truly is the CT mindset in a nut shell.

It is the essence of the CT...but it is not a mindset but a set of conditions that are imposed...
If it is a theory it must be wrong unless it proves the official story...then the theory becomes fact.

To act as if they do is to 1) dismiss the admission of rape that Assange's own court documents prove 2) pretend as if nothing happened at all.

His problem is he seems to think he is above the law, and so do his supporters.

trying to bring them to justice for a rape charge? None? How about 1 Million pounds? Still none?

The money and manpower spent on Assange suggests there is more to this than just a rape charge.

he's an absconder, they know where he is, they're not going to let him just walk out. There's a valid warrant for his arrest. In any other case that was similarly high profile I expect the same thing would happen.

Ever heard of any, then? Got an example handy? Or are 'your expectations' the be all and end-all of what's going on here?

take your assumptions as golden, got it. Out of this thread, it's just the same old same old.

Why do you think that any government or police force is NOT going to maintain a round the clock watch on premises where a wanted fugitive has temporarily escaped justice through use of a loophole? (NB that "diplomatic asylum" is not recognised by either the UK or the US.)

I think they will do so only inasmuch as they feel the effort spent is money well invested. I don't expect them to simply throw money away forever for someone short of a war crime. What actual penalty does he face if he returns to Sweden and is found guilty? A few years in jail? You think a government is truly going to throw away $10M to go after someone for that?

Anyway, don't look for further replies, as I said, I'm leaving and trashing this thread as being the pointless hate on Assange thread it is.

when that fugitive's location is known. If there were a warrant for Assange and he were somewhere other than the Ecuadorean embassy and he were stopped by police and identified he'd be arrested. They know where he is. They have a valid arrest warrant and a treaty obligation to extradite. The extradition request was appealed; the appeal was rejected. (Pointing out the actual facts in the case isn't "pointless Assange hate". Wilful ignorance of those facts, though, looks quite a lot like mindless hero worship.)

Apparently trashing a thread doesn't stop replies from showing up on your comment list.

But for the 'mindless hero worship line, it really is no more replies, because it's off to the ignore list for you.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to be petty; so far as I can tell I have been quite reasonable and haven't said anything that could be construed as "Assange hate"...apparently not thinking of Assange as a martyr for the cause of, I don't know, freedom of the press, or whatever he's meant to be a martyr for, and finding absurd the idea that the crimes he's charged with are part of a CIA plot, constitutes "pointless hate". Before removing the mote in thy neighbour's eye, tend to the beam in thine own, and all that.

but would have been on the first plane to Sweden.

Are you suggesting that England just let him walk away?

Give him the promises that neither England or Sweden will extradite him to the US, and send him to Sweden.

If they aren't going to extradite him anyway, as everyone keeps saying, then it's a simple and meaningless thing to do, doesn't cost anyone anything, and gets him immediately to face the rape charges.

the governments can promise what they want but it is not legally binding to a judge, who would consider any extradition request in light of the law and nothing more.

that would happen to just anyone accused of what he has been accused of.

"Claque of noisy supporters." C'mon Spider Jerusalem, you are usually better than that.

At this point with a sympathetic judge he may not even have to serve prison time, by arguing that his "time" in the embassy was prison enough. The woman he raped will likely never see justice.

An Ecuadorean Assange would be in prison. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/ecuador#.VNO4J1e2KLU

that is why the Brits don't have to respect it.

As for Ecuador, they did it to tweak both the US and Britain - the US for their foreign policy in South America and Britain for the Falklands. I just think they underestimated the resolve of Sweden and Britain - they really thought they were going to be able to take Assange to Ecuador following a huge ground swell of public support for Assange. They discounted the notion that most people could care less about him.

He once wrote the following in a piece titled "Assange Hate Is The Real Cult":

... our Democratic President does? The same ones who defend drones and war, and attack Venezuela?

He wrote in the same article I posted above:

Assange and his lawyers idiotically thought that penetrating a sleeping woman without a condom was consensual when the woman was 1) asleep and 2) preconditioned penetration on a condom.

they also defend a regime that won't even prosecute for the war crimes of torture and rape of children in Iraq. I highly doubt they are that concerned about the false charges against Assange.

...then you must also admit the possibility that 'crimes of torture and rape of children in Iraq' could also be false. I mean, that's where this logically goes, doesn't it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

I'm concerned about you, randome.

...we agree that both Assange and torturers should be prosecuted? (I understand, however, the political calculation that goes into not prosecuting a previous administration.)

But what's Assange's excuse? That the U.S. has been scheming for years to 'get' him, along with Australia, Sweden and the U.K.? No one is that important. Wikileaks is not that important.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

Not the issue.

The ones who defend his every move are the ones ranting about absurd CTs and blaming the CIA for everything. That could be said too.

Like a million dead Iraqis never happened. Like Carlyle Group doesn't own Booz Allen Hamilton. Like Silverado Neil Bush never happened.

Right.

or explain why he is above the law.

They are hard at work right here hoping readers look at their comments rather than the story itself.

One of them stated publicly. "I have not been raped."

..... allowed me to identify a couple more idiots for my ignore list.

Feel free to add me if you think that Assange penetrating a person without a condom, when a condom was a condition of consent, isn't rape!

.... to follow the twists and turns of this case knows what is up. Those who have not should STFU.

The supposed victims don't want to press charges. End of story. And I am going to fulfill your request.

Ask almost any woman. It's SOP, having absolutely nothing political about it.

Same with the posts on this thread.

DU's right is nothing if not consistently entertaining.

accused of in terms of rape? If so, I could not disagree more. The zeal of several governments is not typical of your average pursuit of an accused rapist, a confessed rapist or even a convicted rapist.

Neither is the obsession and vitriol on this board.

FYI, the bit about the condom in otherwise consensual sex was Josh's not mine. Josh asserted that Assange admitted to that one. Ergo, at this point, it's not a mere accusation, but, to josh, a confession of rape. So, I responded to josh in the terms he had himself set up.

Please explain to us why these acts should not be crimes.