General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Swedish Prosecutor Lied As Charged. Admits No Legal Impediment to London Interview w/Assange.
WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said the Swedish decision was "a victory for Julian," but criticized the delay.
"I think it's absolutely outrageous that it took the Swedish prosecutor 4 1/2 years to come to this conclusion after maintaining that she couldn't come to London because it would be illegal to do so," he said. "Obviously that was a bogus argument."
Under heavy criticism, worldwide AND from within the Swedish Government itself, Prosecutor Marianne Ny tries to cover the lie she has been telling for nearly four years now, claiming NOW that she is concerned the statute of limitations will run out on some of the allegations.
Well, YES, so why did she refuse to do this right away? Why did she lie and claim there was a Legal Impediment to doing so?
Marianne Ny's name will go down in infamy for her egregious cooperation with those who had a vested interest in silencing the press.
For years, the Swedish Prosecutor and those who were part of the plot to silence Wikileaks and Julian Assange made the false claim that they could not file charges against Assange without taking the 'final step' under Swedish Law, an interview with the accused and falsely claimed that interview could only be conducted in Sweden.
That was an outright LIE.
Never mind that Assange had tried to obtain that interview while in Sweden, staying longer than he intended while the Prosecutors repeatedly put off that interview.
Never mind either than Assange DID speak to the Swedish Police, something that was constantly ignored by the propagandists whose mission was certainly NOT the facts, but to smear someone personally when they could not contradict the facts released by Wikileaks, a Whistle Blowing Web Site.
And also do not forget that the first Prosecutor threw out the case after which this prosecutor was installed in order to overturn that decision.
For years, people interested in the FACTS, stated over and over again that there was NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT to the Prosecutor interviewing Assange in London.
And for years, they were told they were wrong.
Clearly they were RIGHT.
One other thing to remember about this particular Prosecutor.
She spent her career insisting that any case related to sex crimes, MUST BE PROSECUTED INSTANTLY, as quickly as possible for the sake of the women involved.
Why, then did she LIE about this CASE? Clearly the interests of the women were no longer her concern.
So what WAS her concern if it wasn't the women?
I think most people around the globe figured that out a long time ago.
From as far back as 2010 people around the world knew this whole thing was nothing more than a smear campaign intended to silence the press.
Here's an example of the many articles that were on to the scam that long ago:
Marianne Ny: Making an arse of Swedish law
The shameful treatment of Whistle Blowers throughout this era will also go down in history.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)or ever repeated them over and over and over...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026359179
K&R!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)interview him in London.
I know, I was attacked constantly here for 'not knowing Swedish law' and probably would have no problem finding those posts, IF everyone has suddenly developed amnesia about their own claims, now proven to be egregiously wrong.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Facts and logic are unimportant.
LuvNewcastle
(16,847 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)A certain misanthropic poster tried that line out on me even there as you can see. It's getting pretty tiresome.
Hope you're feeling a certain sense of vindication... You certainly deserve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts, does Assange now wait out the clock til August? Seeing as how this prosecutor hasn't shown herself entirely ethical, I'd be worried about a fair trial if I were him.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)filled with attacks on those of us who were telling the FACTS about the false claims. I never pay attention to personal attacks when I know I am telling the truth.
Just keep on telling it and sooner or later the facts WILL emerge, as they have now in this case.
Lol, yes, I do recall the 'legal' arguments here. All now proven to be false arguments.
I am sure we will receive apologies from those who genuinely were simply misinformed! 
erronis
(15,303 posts)And won't apologize - but you know that.
Anyone who is a real person and participates in these discussions is not misinformed. They are usually "playing a position", whether for profit or fun - I don't know.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to 'we didn't say that' or whatever. I was hoping a few would be big enough to stand up and admit they were wrong.
However, it appears the new talking points have been circulated and we are going to be treated to a DIFFERENT round of obfuscations and distractions etc.
But, the world has witnessed the lies and few now believe there ever was a case against Assange.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)As soon as the war effort fell apart, all the drum-bangers suddenly wanted to pretend they were on the side of diplomacy.
Interesting that people who were for diplomacy all among remained banned from the clubhouse, though 
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I am glad I wasn't one of them
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)just flip flop around based on what we are told to believe at any given time.
I remember the Syria debacle. I believe they have harmed this President's efforts to try to resolve all these issues diplomatically. They have believed HE wanted to arm the 'Syrian Rebels' so jumped off the diplomacy wagon right onto the War wagon.
I believe neocons are undermining this President's efforts, and if those who don't think for themselves want to help him, they should join those of us who remain consistent regarding Neocon polices in the ME.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Sam said...and it is true here today...4 years before truth got it's pants on.
And I remember the attacks well too...you are vindicated IMO...
But those who were seriously misled by it don't need to apologize if they will just admit they were fooled by the lie...you know the prodigal son metaphor, he is lost and now he is found and we are thankful for it.
1monster
(11,012 posts)A fleeting thought has crossed my mind here: What stand to those posters take on Snowden and Greenwald? I can probably guess, but won't.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)any actual investigative journalist, from Chris Hedges to John Pilger, to Greg Palast, Uermey Scahill, Matt Taibi or anyone who dares to report FACTS that appear to be 'inconvenient', yes, the same few.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)is that things like this are not forgotten or scrubbed.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)websites certainly are."
In answer to Marmars question ~
Are Liberals Too Eager to Believe Sex Charges Against Julian Assange?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a Far Right Wing Tabloid Rag in Sweden, just a few weeks AFTER Assange revealed that Wikileaks had information on a 'big bank' that 'could bring it down'. The Bank in question was BOA we later learned. Instantly the powers that control these things went into action.
One tactic was that contract bids went out to 'security contractors' to begin 'smear campaigns' against ANYONE on the Left mostly, bloggers, journalists, Wikileaks etc to try to discredit them.
Fortunately that part of the scam to silence journalists and whistle blowers was exposed by Anonymous when they dumped HB Gary's (one of the bidders) emails, Stratfor also, on to the internet, and we got to see the chilling lengths these Big Banks will go to try to silence the truth.
Assange's 'case' began just weeks after his revelations in that interview, and began with the Right Wing Rag in Sweden, then picked up by other Right Wing propagandists and the games began.
But there still no charges against him. And the propaganda machine is falling apart as more and more people realize that nothing in the Corporate media can be believed, and certainly not in Right Wing Tabloid Media.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)This is important news. That Ny would engage in this type of disingenuity begs the questions "why?" and "at whose request?"
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)interview until November....
The court also said Swedish prosecutors had not made enough effort to interrogate Assange outside Sweden and said the "failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/20/us-sweden-assange-idUSKCN0J41EU20141120
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Quelle surprise.
OP should delete her debunked OP
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Let the OP think they're on to something.
It's cute!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have yet been filed against Assange by the Swedish Prosecutor, since we now know, actually we ALWAYS knew, that there was NO 'legal impediment' to interviewing Assange in London, as she, and her fans have claimed for nearly five years.
I'll check back for something of substance to explain why this claim was made when it was clearly a lie.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Way to double down for the Authoritarian Police/Surveillance State cause!
Bravo!
U da man!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)who truly thought that Swedish law required Assange to be in Sweden for questioning?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)several years, they are attempting to extricate her from the now global exposure of her lies, by claiming she KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT SWEDISH LAW, and had to be instructed, years later, by a court ruling.
And THIS is the prosecutor they think is to be believed about ANYTHING.
I knew they would take a little while to come up with something, anything, to try to distract from the facts of this case.
Now they have a choice.
The Prosecutor DID know the law and she LIEd .... or
This has to be THE most incompetent Prosecutor in Sweden, which maybe why she was chosen in the first place.
But the FACTS have not changed. Assange has never been charged with anything. Nothing can change that fact.
I see they are trying to use the bogus 'allegations' used to get a warrant as 'charges'.
Allegations that have been debunked many times, btw.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)not a common law jurisdiction. Therefore, you seem to be conflating this interview with "questioning" that would be found in common law jurisdictions. That is incorrect...Spider Jerusalem's old post on Swedish process outlines what you need to know...down thread.
A better question, and one presented, is "Does Ny have jurisdiction within the UK (within and without the embassy) to affect arrest?"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)truth? Now you are questioning what you were using to try to defend her?
Apparently she has been properly instructed in Swedish Law and afaik, is now claiming she is finally complying with the law because 'the state may run out'..
There is simply no polite way to describe the sham she has conducted for years now. She lied, period.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)So I guess that answering it ain't happening?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)FYI...the question you asked me is ill-defined because you you are assuming Sweden is common law. That is not the case.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)If Ny's behavior stems from the workings of Swedish law, I'm all ears.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Plus...the Belmarsh ruling is also available on this thread. Once you read up, I am more than happy to discuss the case with you.
1monster
(11,012 posts)from your post:
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)made by the Swedish Prosecutor who apparently, we are now told, was just 'unaware of her own country's laws'. However I don't suffer from amnesia and know that the same people now trying to get her off the hook for those lies, told us throughout the years, that she was 'adhering to Swedish law' and that we 'were not familiar with Swedish'. It's hard for them now I suppose to have to admit we DID know Swedish law. And that she was either lying or incompetent.
What I'm trying to figure out is this, is it better to have KNOWN the law and LIED about it, or to be so ignorant of the Law that no matter how often over the years she was INFORMED of that law, she simply was too incompetent to grasp it?
I will give her more credit than to try to claim now she was ignorant of the law.
I will stick with her being a bit more intelligent than that and simply decided to twist the law to excuse her reluctance to file charges in a case she knew had no basis in fact.
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rooftops 'he fled Sweden to avoid an interview which would allow the prosecutors to FILE CHARGES', would be to apologize to HIM first, to his attorneys who tried to shout down the right wing noise, in Sweden and elsewhere, but were consistently shouted down themselves with nothing but lies.
AND to all those millions of people who ignored the noise machine and sought the facts.
But to expect that apology would mean believing they were merely misinformed.
I expect to see headlines across the globe now, demanding that this charade end.
The allegations were nothing more than a transparent attempt to smear a News Medium that was not under the control of the propagandists.
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #8)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I'm sure. But I never doubt the ability of those who are not interested in the facts to find a way.
It's going to be hard to use the OLD lies regarding Swedish Law.
I remember predicting years ago, seeing how hard the Prosecution was working to NOT file charges, that there never would be any charges filed in this case.
I may still be proven wrong, but I still believe that will be the case. And they will blame Assange for 'delaying the interview' or some such garbage.
My predictions are 'they will make demands he can not possibly agree to' knowing they are just as egregious as the rest of their 'case' hoping we are all so stupid as to fall for any more of their tricks.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)because the next step after interview is arrest. And you know that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)charges'? That is the question. THAT is the necessary step she has NEVER taken and everyone has been waiting for for nearly five years now.
Why do YOU think she has never filed any charges?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)About Assange having to be in Sweden for questioning.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'fans', the effort to try to avoid simply admitting they were lied to for so long, is intense.
pa28
(6,145 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)grain of salt.
Eg, we are told today by one legal expert that we can simply 'know a criminal when we see one'. Lol!
pa28
(6,145 posts)They were nice enough to speak very, very slowly so non-lawyers could comprehend principles FAR beyond the scope of their understanding.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026182077#post3
When I encounter that much pompous self importance in one place I'm definitely being tube fed a steady diet of B.S.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)lay low for a while and maybe people will forget the years long 'legal advice' they gave to us 'non lawyers' because it must be very hard to have the wind completely knocked out of their 'expertise' so completely, and by the Prosecutor herself no less. That woman now needs to be removed for this non case. She should also be investigated for prosecutorial misconduct.
Great OP and article for one of the best journalists around today, John Pilger. I see the 'experts' hard at work, but not really getting anywhere even before this latest news confirming what we 'non lawyers' have stated from the beginning of this farce.
Sweden should be ashamed and I think they are, which is why they finally told this Prosecutor to cut the crap, get off her rearend and go to London, (never forget our legal experts AND she, claimed this could not be done) OR end this charade.
Their system is has become a mockery, and one wonders, why did they allow this to happen when they are way too smart a people to not know what it was all about from the start?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)We should take all of the "internet's legal experts with a grain of salt".
Especially those "experts" who, like yourself, have absolutely NO expertise, nor experience in the field.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)actually have legal expertise.
However, not to disappoint you or anything, but I do have experience in the field.
Some, not necessarily legal advice, although no good lawyer I have ever observed, would disagree, never make a statement about someone or something you nothing about.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... makes about as much sense as your OP.
Apparently, your "experience in the field" hasn't taught you very much - as your posts about the law have proven time and again.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It will be interesting to see if she can get the Ecuadorians to agree.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that order by the courts to instruct her on Swedish Law, and order her to put an end to this sham of a 'case' and to the lie that there ever was a 'legal impediment' to her interviewing Assange YEARS AGO, in London.
Sweden's Judicial System has been trashed around the Globe as a result of this fake 'case' that has never resulted in any CHARGES. THAT is why some adult had to step in to try to save face after all these years of lies and obfuscations and still NO CHARGES.
1monster
(11,012 posts)a la the US Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush vs Gore?
Or is the Swedish Court merely upholding existing law?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)London. So those who claimed all along that Swedish law did not require the interview be conducted in Sweden were correct. It has been done before, and airc, even when provided with that evidence, it was denied. Now that they have been proven wrong, they are moving goal posts frantically.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that there are two victims, and the prosecution needs to try to extend jurisdiction for their benefit.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for all these years that she 'could not interview Assange in London'?? No one explained anything to me.
But I wish they would.
Maybe YOU can explain why she lied about the 'Swedish Process'?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)what the judges ordered? Is it that you don't understand that she had no legal power to arrest Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy?
You've also been told repeatedly that the reason Ny didn't interview him in London was because she has no power to arrest him--which she intends to do. I hope Ecuador does the right thing, and brings him to justice.
James Blond can end this tomorrow. What hasn't he?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)claiming, and I believe YOU insisted, as she did, that I was wrong when I stated many times that there was no Legal Impediment to Assange beiing interviewed in London.
Why did YOU continue to say that?
It's not true, just as we stated for years.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)answer your question.
I truly think your arguments would be best served by reading the material, Sabrina.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)taking the step required by Swedish Law, an interview with the accused' which they claimed COULD NOT BE CONDUCTED IN LONDON!
Yes or no, has that not been an excuse for four years going on five, for NO CHARGES BEING FILED?
Did YOU make that claim?
Be careful, I see the attempts to wiggle out of all those claims that this WAS an impediment now that it is NOT anymore. Google remembers also.
So, DID they use this for years, only to now admit it NEVER WAS and impediment?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)this thread pointed out to you, you've been given countless primers on Swedish legal procedure, an you still inaccurately characterize it.
I've given you the link to the Court of Appeals article, I can't make you read it.....
I get it, though. The more facts applied to this case, the more Assange's guilt is evident.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You are attempting to change the conversation, I can't say I blame you since you insisted that this was the case for so long.
The right thing to do now would be to admit, you were WRONG.
The Swedish Prosecution lied.
And since you were so wrong so often about this case, there is no reason for me to take anything you are now trying to say seriously, is there?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)We can't make you read the information if you don't want to.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for nearly five years, to try to excuse her REFUSAL to file charges against Assange, ie, 'we cannot interview him in London.
Try to stay focused.
NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST ASSANGE. The excuse (lie) for nearly five years was 'we cannot interview him in London due to a legal impediment'. There was no such thing.
Why did the Prosecutor lie and why did YOU not know Swedish Law and continue to claim her excuse was a fact?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and one that doesn't say what you think it does...
"If you don't do it now, the arrest warrant will go next time, that is how it looks, like a warning," he said of the court's comments.
So the court is basically telling Ny to get moving, that her foot dragging has to stop or even the arrest warrant will go away.
And that Ny has been lying all these years is now readily apparent.
Ny should be ecstatic about getting on a plane since Assange has agreed to be interviewed. She should be on that plane tonight! Why wait, especially since the court just told her to get cracking. She's had 4+ years to get ready. Time for the show.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)his client, and he's spinning it. The appeals court clarified the jurisdiction issue, and not to Assange's benefit.
The purpose of this interview is to arrest Assange. There's nothing in the ruling that indicates dismissal.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and can now drag Assange to justice!
Someone's spinning here...
Look, Ny lied. For years. She's completely untrustworthy on this case. Period.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)date.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)1monster
(11,012 posts)make sure he doesn't make a run for it.
Why would Ecuador deny approval since Assange has been open to this all along, and I'm sure the Embassy would love to have their room back.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)there was a 'legal impediment' to her making that trip, and where did the 'legal impediment' go all of a sudden?
hack89
(39,171 posts)he has been charged. He has not been indicted. In the Swedish system that happens last, not first like in America. But you know that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)refuse to acknowledge FACTS.
That old 'list of allegations' has zero to do with Charges filed against Assange.
In fact, it may one day be the basis of a major lawsuit filed by Assange for sheer lies and other made up claims that both women theselves DENIED.
Aside from the diversion of attempting once again to USE that piece of long ago debunked garbage, 'cobbled together' in order to get a warrant, written by WHO? No one knows, the FACT REMAINS, there are NO CHARGES FILED in nearly FIVE YEARS against Assange.
Why not? There is just no excuse for this, is there, now that we know the prosecutor was lying all along.
randome
(34,845 posts)...that means that Sweden, the UK, Australia, the UK's appeals court, the women in Sweden and the US are all in cohoots to 'get' Assange.
That's a conspiracy theory of monumental proportions. Your problem is that you stake out a position based on emotion without taking it to its logical extremes.
Is this what you are saying: that the facts are as plain as day and all these countries are cooperating against Assange?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)anyone who actually wants the facts about this case, would now drop the pretense and simply admit, the Prosecutor Lied for nearly five years.
Australia has awarded Wikileaks and Assange multiple Journalistic Awards.
The UK court is the same court that protected a REAL WAR CRIMINAL by refusing to hand HIM over for extradition to his own country where he was wanted for War Crimes. That court totally discredited by allowing that genocidal maniac to escape justice and die comfortably in his bed.
Sweden has demanded that this Prosecutor stop the games and either file Charges or drop this charade.
Any more questions you need clarification on?
randome
(34,845 posts)It's not normal procedure so of course she didn't do it before now. And Australia agreed not to contest Assange's 'problems' with Sweden.
So we're back to the same premise. No matter what kind of past missteps you find for all the players involved, you must agree that all these countries have conspired to 'get' Assange.
That's right up there with Obama planning to turn America over to the Muslim Brotherhood.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)suspects in foreign countries, and that fact was established YEARS AGO.
I notice that YOU never deal with the facts. Why is that? You go far off into the wilderness trying ANYTHING to avoid the very simple facts of this case.
Eg, is 'the US behind' EVERY prosecution in this country?
Do you see how ridiculous your off the wall claim that a prosecution means the entire GOVERNMENT is behind every single one?
You played the same games with OWS..
Why do you not like Liberals questioning clear attempts to silence the press and highlighting, as OWS does, gross corruption in our economic system?
Why do you support using women as political footballs, when they have over and over again requested that they be RESPECTED and LISTENED to. That they DO know when they have been raped and when they have not.
Why are YOU refusing to listen to those women? Do you agree with that lunatic attorney who told them 'you don't know when you have been raped, the STATE will tell you when you have been raped'??
This whole charade has been a huge assault on women besides all the other lies, and yet you have supported and defended it from the beginning. WHY?
randome
(34,845 posts)Any ideas?
And now that Assange has insulted as many countries as he could, of course Sweden wants to conclude the case without having a wanted suspect being able to wait out the clock. It sets a terrible precedent.
Bringing up what that attorney said is irrelevant because no one on DU is going to agree with that. But I imagine it's a little like domestic violence laws in some states: even if a spouse recants, the case goes forward. For the attorney to have stated it that way is bizarre but it doesn't detract from the FACTS (remember that word) that Assange is doing anything he can to avoid being interviewed by Sweden before being arrested.
And even if he gets out of the embassy, he'll go on trial in the UK for jumping bail so it doesn't matter how the Swedish case is resolved, Assange is in trouble for some time to come.
And it's all of his own making.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I don't know, I don't understand liars especially when there is no need to lie, assuming she had a case.
Maybe YOU can explain it, since you seem to support what she did?
I'm for being honest. If you don't have a case then your duty is, as she has now been told, to drop it.
And no, Assange sought Political Asylum and got it. That is not 'jumping bail'.
It's very intriguing to see that you so hate this person who you don't, I presume, know, that you are wishing for him to suffer, even if he is found innocent.
Do you know how that makes YOU look?
Assange has been demanding to speak to the Prosecutor since he was in Sweden and since then, for nearly FIVE YEARS now.
Why are you trying so hard to deny the facts of this case?
The prosecutor has no more excuses, All her lies have been swept away. Let's see if she comes up with some other way to avoid bringing this case to a court of law.
randome
(34,845 posts)As Assange has. If he wants to spend the rest of his life in an Ecuadorian embassy, that's his choice. If you want to believe that there is a multi-country conspiracy against him, that's your choice.
But I don't need to convince you or anyone else because the writing is on the wall as to how this will turn out.
And if it takes a surprising turn that I didn't anticipate, I'm okay with that, too.
So this is me signing off from this thread. Have a good evening, everyone.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about the innocent victims of these lying 'players' and about the rights of the people to a Free and Open Press. That 'players' I dont care about other than I hope one day to see them all prosecuted and put away for a long time for the destruction and corruption they are responsible for.
Your predictions are not credible due to your support for a prosecutor who has been lying for five years.
I trust the judgement of those who have been right from the beginning, who knew the law and knew she was lying more than four years ago.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have been debunked, which is WHY no charges have been filed. Do you know the difference between 'charges' and 'allegations'?
Once again, show us the CHARGES filed by the SWEDISH PROSECUTOR in the only court that matters.
Btw, before you waste any time, the Prosecutor has tried to explain WHY she has not filed charges. The problem is SHE LIED.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and how that is different from the four charges a judge approved for his arrest warrant.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)allegations made OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the Swedish Court and LEGAL CHARGES filed in the court itself?
As I thought you are woefully uninformed about, not just THIS case, but legal procedures in general.
So, NO CHARGES have ever been filed against Assange.
A bunch of 'allegations' with zero evidence to back the up were not only drafted to get a warrant but were made public and then debunked by actual legal experts.
So again, where are the charges and why did the Prosecutor lie?
hack89
(39,171 posts)I can't wait to see your meltdown.
hack89
(39,171 posts)He has not been indicted. That can only happen in the Swedish system after he is interviewed and arrested. But you know that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)All you have to do is to link to them. If you cannot, then all you are doing is demonstrating the desperate attempts that have been made to try to justify this sham.
Link to the indictment/charges filed in the jurisdiction where they are supposed to be.
The ONLY court that matters here is the Swedish Court.
Please list the charges FILED IN THAT COURT. Nothing else is relevant.
Fyi, there ARE no charges against Assange, after nearly five years.
What a disgrace that anyone would even try to defend this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You'll note that the Swedish Court of Appeals directed Ny to try a London interview and arrest......
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/20/us-sweden-assange-idUSKCN0J41EU20141120
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Someone who claims to be a lawyer should know better.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)think what he did are crimes.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)but you knew that right? Being an anonymous internet "lawyer" (cough)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How does someone who is a lawyer 'just know a criminal when they see one'?
'I KNOW a criminal when I see one'.
What an amazing legal opinion!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...someone has to be convicted of RAPE before you get to call them a "Rapist" in public.
Its an old thing here in the US,
"Innocent until Proven Guilty".
You must have been sick that day in "Law School".
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)call him that, because this is the United States of America.
Mr. Bush is a war criminal. Do you dispute that? I mean......he hasn't been convicted.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It IS embarrassing for you to have your whole argument for 4 years shot down.
You're spinning your wheels alot, but not getting any traction.
The best thing for you to do would be to disappear for a couple or weeks,
and hope we have forgotten.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Indeed and anyone who sincerely wanted the truth about the case would now admit to being wrong and try not to be fooled like that again.
Which begs the question. Why is there ANYONE on a Democratic forum defending this obvious persecution of Whistle Blowers and Journalists when not so long ago they were condemning the exact same persecution when it began in earnest under Bush?
randome
(34,845 posts)...is that you realize Assange will find a reason to keep from being interviewed and everyone will realize that was his object all along.
By taking away the last excuse he has, more people will come to understand that he is not the 'beautiful mind' you want to believe him to be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)defective.
Ny's EXCUSE for four+ years has now been taken away by the court in Sweden.
Now let's see what excuses she comes up with.
I am very intense, and proud of it, about FACTS.
I don't use crystal balls to 'speculate'. Facts trump speculation every time.
Already your speculations and CTs have been debunked by the Swedish Prosecutor and the court that ORDERED her to either 's$%t or get of the pot and stop lying to excuse her nearly five year long odyssey of lies and obfuscations.
Does you crystal ball tell you anything about what she will do now that her last excuse has been destroyed?
randome
(34,845 posts)She will try to arrange with both the UK and Ecuador to interview Assange with the condition that he be handed over for arrest if the interview satisfies Swedish law that he stand trial.
It's always possible the interview will take place and Assange will not be arrested. It's even possible he will be arrested, stand trial and then found not guilty and released. Unlike you, I'm willing to admit that the outcome may not be what I think should occur.
And that's because:
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Wouldn't you think that she would never have put those women through nearly five years of emotional trauma, allow THEM to say in court what they said initially regarding all of this?
Why would the Swedish Judicial system be so CRUEL to women?
One of the women according to her, her close friends and her brother has been traumatized by having her questions regarding STDs turned into allegations of sexual assault.
I can well understand as a woman who merely asked a question, being USED this way like a political football, being completely disrespected and ignored, having to go to the expense of trying to defend herself, from the Prosecution.
Anyone who claims to care about women would be completely on the side of that unfortunate and innocent woman who has been cruelly treated, told by the wacko lawyer who inserted himself into the case that 'she doesn't know whether or not she was raped, that the STATE will decide that'.
Is this for real? Are people on the Left actually defending this nightmare perpetrated on that woman by Patriarchal morons like that?
One thing this case does on regular basis, it continues to expose the phony 'women supporters' and those pretending to 'care' about Civil Rights.
If nothing else, it has been extremely useful in separating those who are sincerely supportive of facts and those who have an agenda.
Number23
(24,544 posts)This whole thread is just... classic. I fear if I say more that my obvious (and almost painful) laughter will become apparent.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)a rapist a rapist, lest we injure him.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of the facts to try to explain away the fact that there is now no further doubt that as most of us here on DU have always stated, knowing Swedish Law as we did, that this Prosecutor LIED repeatedly to try to excuse her refusal to FILE CHARGES against Assange.
Now she has been told to end this charade and go do what she claimed she could not do, speak to Assange, as he has requested for five years, where he has been available since he was in Sweden and she refused to speak to him THERE.
Thankfully someone in Sweden has forced her to follow the law. But for the women, she has dragged them through 5 years of using them as political footballs, traumatizing the one woman whose family were horrified at how she was being used, causing her to refuse to speak to the police for fear of being used again.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Just YOUR opinion. I hope all lawyers don't allow their own biases to enter into legal matters, in fact thankfully, I know they don't.
I think you've pretty much discredited any future 'legal' commentary you might have on this case with these statements.
They do actually say that you never had any evidence and that you never needed it.
To be honest, that is what I always thought.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)always has. Why are you making MORE claims that are not true?
Can you not defend your position with FACTS?
I can. It's easier to stick to facts, because you don't have to keep jumping through hoops to try to defend, as you appear to be doing now, why you SUPPORTED, eg, the Swedish Prosecutor lying about WHY she has not filed charges years after she took charge of this 'case', or non case which is the truth.
Response to msanthrope (Reply #93)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)take your pick, she had to be instructed in the law by the courts.
How shameful to think that such a liar, OR incompetent prosecutor was allowed to conduct this costly sham for nearly five years.
Keep posting that, it is an INDICTMENT of Sweden's judicial system, and the reason why their own parliament, shamed by this process, have demanded of Ny that she either FILE CHARGES or drop this case.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts) 
pa28
(6,145 posts)If the Swedish authorities were sincere about serving justice they would have accepted Assanges' invitation to interview him at the embassy years ago.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because after the interview, the prosecutor plans to arrest him. She said that years ago. That is why he ran.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'there is a legal impediment to interviewing Assange in London'. But that was a lie. So now she has give some other reason for her refusal to file charges since there never was such an impediment.
Why do YOU think, now you know she lied about her reasons, she refused to do that?
hack89
(39,171 posts)but you know that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)No CHARGES have EVER BEEN FILED against Assange. What you are referring to are MERE allegations, not filed in any court because as everyone suspected from day one, these are unprovable allegations, there is no way they would hold up in a court of law.
Those of us who said four years ago the the prosecutor would stall and stall because she KNEW she had no case, were CORRECT.
Now after coming under fire from Human Rights groups all over the world, and finally from her own Government, 'EITHER FILE YOUR CHARGES OR END THIS CHARADE' She is NOW doing what she LIED and said SHE COULD NOT DO FOR YEARS.
She is a LIAR which the world now knows.
This was a smear campaign and nothing else to try to silence the press, period.
hack89
(39,171 posts)there are four charges on his arrest warrant that were filed by the prosecutor and accepted by the judge.
So now she interviews Assange. She says she wants to arrest him. Will he surrender?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the Swedish Prosecutor in the jurisdiction where the allegations were made? Hint, Britain cannot file charges in Britain for Sweden. Eg, if a murder occurs in the US, where would the charges be filed? London? Lol!
Four and a half years later and STILL no charges filed.
And now a prosecutor exposed as a liar, claiming she could not file charges without interviewing Assange in SWEDEN.
Do you understand this now? She claimed she could not interview Assange in London.
NOW she says she can, after years of claiming she could not.
It's useless to try to defend this, seriously.
Sweden's judicial system has been mocked all over the world as a result of her actions, which is why their own parliament has stated she either needs to 'file charges or drop the case'.
hack89
(39,171 posts)isn't that the only real question left unanswered? The Swedish legal system does not appear to share your concerns.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Assange and the prosecutor HAS been lying about the reasons why.
As for Sweden's concerns? Clearly they are VERY concerned which is why they have ORDERED the Prosecutor to do what she claimed she could not after the world has mocked their judicial system.
AND members of Sweden's Parliament have similarly admonished the Prosecutor, demanding that either she 'file charges' or drop this sham of a case.
It pays to know what you are talking about when you decide to offer an 'opinion' on issues like this.
As for speculation about the future, lol, I see you are now moving away from the FACTS that have been established, admitting your 'questions' were not relevant in the face of established facts, and trying to predict the future.
I don't do 'speculation'. I deal with known facts.
So far, the fact is, the Swedish Prosecutor still has not hopped on a plane to go to London. That's all we KNOW.
When she does, hopefully the interview will monitored by a neutral third party so we are not treated to MORE lies and allegations. But we'll have to wait to see what happens.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 14, 2015, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)
which is the process is moving forward and if Assange agrees to the interview he will be arrested, taken to Sweden, indicted and tried. Nothing you say changes those basic facts, don't you agree?
There is no chance Sweden is going to say " we screwed up, you can go free". You need to accept that basic fact.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)speculation so far, has been thoroughly debunked.
It will depend on what the Prosecutor does now that her MAIN EXCUSE for NOT FILING CHARGES has been removed by the courts.
So far, she has managed to waste four + years of everyone's time and money by lying about why she could not file charges.
If past behavior predicts future behavior, my guess is she will continue to do what she has been doing, knowing she has no case, and try to delay everything AGAIN, then attempt to 'blame Assange' when she lets the Statute run out.
It's hard to present a successful case when the main witnesses, one refusing to cooperate with the police due to the lies told about her 'question', the other already caught red handed presenting fake 'evidence'.
I'm glad it's not MY 'case', I wouldn't dare try to bring it to a jury and make a total idiot of myself, which is why SHE hasn't done so either.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I will look forward to your reaction.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)while! No charges filed, when WILL they be filed, that's still up to the Prosecutor.
Now that all her excuses have been taken away, it's anyone's guess what she will do now.
hack89
(39,171 posts)He will not surrender and nothing will change. The ball will be in Assange ' s court. He has a tough choice to make.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as anything but speculations.
But patience does pay off. People have asked me why I bother even responding to people who refuse to acknowledge glaring facts.
At least you finally got that there never were charges filed.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I have predicted all along that Assange will never voluntarily leave the embassy. So far I have been correct.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the police who interviewed him, contacted that Prosecutor multiple times asking for an interview, which she repeatedly refused. Made himself available for nearly five years, while she lied claiming he had to be in Sweden for her to talk to him. Wrong, a lie and her credibility is totally shot.
And then you wrongfully claimed that charges had been filed against him.
So yes, wrong about everything, but finally acknowledging at least one fact.
Now you are speculating, again.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Then he left the next day. Go read the High Court trial transcript.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)just how wrong you are about this AGAIN.
I'll just say this, for now. The Prosecutor scheduled NO interview WITH ASSANGE, which has long ago been established.
See you keep returning to the old debunked lies and each time you only lose more credibility because a whole lot of people actually FOLLOWED this case and don't just use 'talking points' to try to 'win' when the only thing that wins is the TRUTH.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You never read the trial transcript did you?
hack89
(39,171 posts)I have said all along that she did not want to interview him in London because she could not arrest him. Which is true. You know as well as I do that Assange will not surrender to Nye. He has no intention of going to Sweden. He fought extradition for two years and then jumped bail to hide in the embassy. She will interview him due to statute of limitations reasons and then go back to Sweden to wait him out.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)so called case either. There IS no case, never was, but she dragged out this deception to keep the Press silent on the Big Banks.
THAT is why she has not filed any charges, even their own lawyer has stated, 'this case is so weak it is unlikely it would ever hold up in a court of law'. And that's from THEIR side.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Can't wait to see your reaction when she tries to arrest him.
pa28
(6,145 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)now the question is whether he will surrender if arrested.
pa28
(6,145 posts)That's only fair.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2015, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)
he could have conducted the interview anytime he wanted. He certainly didn't seem to be in a big hurry.
Lets not forget that he fled Sweden the day after the prosecutor notified his lawyer that she wanted to interview Assange.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that s/he is the last person to look to for facts about this case.
She has continually supported the Swedish Prosecutor's false claim that 'she cannot interview Assange in London 'under Swedish Law'.
THAT WAS A LIE told by the Prosecutor. It was a KNOWN lie from the beginning and it was proven to be a lie as soon as it was asserted.
It was proven by Swedish legal experts, and by the FACT that Swedish Prosecutors HAVE interviewed people wanted for questioning in other countries.
Msanthrope repeatedly supported what has now been totally debanked, without any more question.
Not that there ever was.
So please if you want any credibility on this case, find someone who has established credibility themselves over the years by being RIGHT about Swedish law.
The Swedish Prosecutor LIED. There is not a shred of doubt about that anymore.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)so maybe she was lying then also about that?
hack89
(39,171 posts)the Swedish system is radically different than ours. This interview is not to get his side of the story. It is to notify him of the case against him and to then arrest him.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Makes you wonder, did she have a case? NOT, according to many legal experts especially when one of the women presented false evidence in the form of a condom, and the other woman refused to speak to the police AFTER she claimed, the lied when they said she was raped.
Hard to prosecute a 'rape case' when both women deny they were raped, and one of them presents a condom with no DNA putting even the claim of 'sex by surprise' in doubt.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And also because she knew Assange was trapped like a rat and was going nowhere.
1monster
(11,012 posts)If not, then how can you claim that he has not accepted the offer yet? If so, please link it.
BTW, Assange was the one who offered to be interviewed in Ecuador's Embassy, and before that, in London or elsewhere in the UK.
It was Ny who refused the interview in those circumstances, not Assange.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because he knows he can't be arrested in the embassy. So his was not a good faith offer unless he also promised to surrender if arrested.
1monster
(11,012 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)his lawyer testified to that under oath in a British court. He then spent two years fighting extradition. He then fled to the embassy. Sure looks like a man doing everything in this power to avoid arrest.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and let this thing die once and for all?
Of course the obvious question is IF there is a DNA match and the Swedes decide to prosecute, does Assange go to Stockholm to face the music, or does he concoct some other justification to stay put?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that her excuses all along were LIES.
Why do YOU think she has failed to do so for all these years?
No charges have been filed.
She could have done that four years ago.
But she didn't.
Why?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I don't know if the Swedes have a direct equivalent of that, though...
I just want the silliness to be over, either way...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)it.
And what we should want is the TRUTH, not 'for it to be over'.
False accusations that take away a person's freedom should be the concern of every Democrat at least.
Human Rights Groups have stated that there are many Human Rights issues in this case that need to be addressed.
Many of us were never fooled by these false allegations because WE READ THE 'EVIDENCE' years ago and listened to the FACTS.
At this point there is no question that this was a smear campaign filled with lies from the beginning. And it's time to stop pretending it was ever anything more than that.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and defense attorneys do the same...It's all a song-and-dance until the trial starts; then the bullshit stops and both sides lay their cards on the table...
If Ny's conduct is that grossly unprofessional, I'd expect millions of Swedes to be calling for her job today...But as far as I can see nobody is doing that...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)SHE TRIED, but she DIDN'T get away with. I guess you are not familiar with this case?
What should happen to a Prosecutor who makes up her/his own laws for the purpose of fooling the public?
And no they do not 'lie' all the time.
Unbelievable. So the goal posts are shifting already.
I was told for years SHE WAS NOT LYING.
NOW the story is 'it's okay for prosecutors to lie'.
I wondered what the talking points would be once the lies were finally exposed.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Seems like on DU, the honest believability of prosecuting attorneys is completely dependent on who's on trial for what...
But my earlier question still stands -- If what she did was supposedly so beyond the pale, why is she still employed? Because it's an accepted tactic that goes with the territory...I promise you that bullshit McCullough pulled in St.L was a hundred times worse, and nobody is calling for HIS job...
Not sure why you're so snippy and snarling with your responses...Just because I hate Snow-Wald with the heat of a thousand suns doesn't mean I hate Assange, whom I mostly feel indifferent about these days...Whether he's convicted or the charges get thrown out, I just want this to be over (like I stated in my first post)...
But I can see you're in one of those hyper-defensive moods we get in when our personal heroes are under fire (I'm not immune to this, either)...So I'll quietly back out and post no more on your thread...Adeiu
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)because the next step is for Assange to be arrested. Do you really think he is going to surrender?
hack89
(39,171 posts)don't they have to be filed before the warrant is issued?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)confused as to why they are asking for it again.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Are filed. BEFORE the questioning.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Dig it, dude...dig it dig it dig it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Lying Prosecutors. What on earth were thinking to even QUESTION any of this?
She lied, period, and many of our 'legal experts' supported her.
It's hard when even SHE has now been forced to admit she lied.
I wouldn't want to be in the position of trying to 'splain all that away either.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)They told us why it shouldn't, couldn't, yada yada. Now sit back and watch the hit dogs holler
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)if they even remotely thought their 'case' would hold up in court, it WOULD have happened years ago.
For those of us interested in the truth, we knew that one of the women was outraged that she was being misrepresented and the other, gave FALSE 'evidence' in the form of a condom she claimed was the infamous one he ripped, to the police. The condom was actually NEW, with no rips and most of all, no DNA from Assange.
Hard to go forward with a case when the defense has that kind of material to go with.
Not to mention, the radical lawyer who inserted himself into the case AFTER it had been dismissed, admitted that if 'this ever goes to court it will lose'.
Every piece of evidence that favored Assange, was suppressed and/or dismissed.
But for those who wanted the truth it was always available which is why the world in general pegged this long ago for what it always was, a blatant attempt to silence the press.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I just want to see what will happen now that the prosecutor has to do something. The statute of limitations seems set to expire and Sweden appears desperate
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But hey, we're talking about people who claim the UK wouldn't extradite Assange to the US, but Sweden would.
Our closest ally with nearly-identical legal system wouldn't help, but a friendly-but-neutral country is all excited to help the US. Because reasons.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)It is political. For instance, their parliament back stabbed Obama on bombing Syria. Their prime ministers tend to be lapdogs in the Churchillian tradition, but the British public is very different, and so are the politics within their parliament. Extraditing Assange for political reasons to the US is a political hot potato for Brits.
If they were total lapdogs, they would have simply gone along with the Syria vote and not embarrassed Cameron and Obama.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So they're so unwilling to extradite Assange that THEY AGREED TO EXTRADITE HIM TO SWEDEN.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)British voters would question it, but Cameron could deflect by saying he's complying with European law. That can be sold to voters, and Cameron could keep face by cloaking himself in the mantle of women's rights. Extraditing him directly to the US for a political crime humiliates the UK.
Assange and Snowden are not irrational actors. They went to places they believed wouldn't extradite them. Snowden calculated correctly, which wasn't hard to do considering China's position. Assange calculated correctly that the UK could not send him to the US, but obviously was wrong on their willingness to extradite him to Sweden.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's why Snowden went to Hong Kong! He was so certain he wouldn't be extradited that he had to quickly flee to Russia!
And that's why Assange went to the UK! His getting stuck in the UK had absolutely nothing with the extradition order from Sweden, and there wasn't a UK court case that went to their highest court!
Seriously, stop trying to rewrite history to fit your hero worship.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the scandalous demands from a member of their Parliament that the UK 'storm the Equadoran Embassy' and 'drag him out' cause a global reaction to the very notion of invading the territory of a Foriegn Nation's Embassy in violation of International Law.
That pretty much exposed the UK's 'warm and friendly' willingness to even violate Internatonal Law to cooperate with the US. That ended any public showing that they were willing to do so.
Are you denying that the condom provided by one of the women was found to be NEW and had no DNA as she had claimed?
Lol, it's astounding how willing people are to go any lengths to try to defend this international disaster that has only made the Western Powers look like they are desperate to try to hide what they are up to.
Facts are facts. It's better not to dispute facts because, as in this case, they WILL come out.
Now we KNOW the Swedish Prosecutor has been lying about Swedish law for years. There is simply no disputing that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You are aware that time runs in one direction, right?
See, the bullshit you have been pushing is that the Sweden would help the US, and the UK wouldn't. Which means the "Sweden Plan" would have to start because a "UK Plan" wasn't possible.
So until this post, your bullshit theory flowed like this:
"Sweden Plan" starts -> Assange is charged in Sweden -> UK Extradition Case -> Assange loses, flees to Ecuadorian embassy.
Now, you are attempting to claim that the last event in that chain caused the first event in that chain.
Are you aware that Sweden has trial by jury, who would easily acquit Assange if such a claim was true?
Yes, you should really stop embarrassing yourself.
The only one lying is you. Because you want Assange to get into the "investment banker" justice system. Eh, it's only a little rape and Assange is so dreamy!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You're having a hard time accepting some simple, indisputable facts, I have no idea why, it's not my concern.
You're spending a lot of time on attempting to divert attention AWAY from the facts with all kinds of 'suppositions', which is a useless exercise in the face of the facts.
I know nothing beyond the facts that are known and will continue to present them. YOU can continue to ignore them, that is your choice, but it won't change them.
This OP is about the lies told by the Swedish Prosecutor for more than four years.
It is about her having to be ORDERED to do what she could have done years ago, while she denied she could do it.
That is all this is about. Dispute that if you can. You can't so now you're all over the place trying to distract from the facts.
It's not working, the Prosecutor Lied, nothing that woman says from now on can be trusted.
She should be removed from this case for prosecutorial misconduct.
You want to go wandering off into far left field, by my guest.
I am focused on the facts we know, not speculation.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because the next step after the interview is his arrest. That is what the prosecutor has been saying for years now.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)She's doing it now because a court told her to do so, as the SOL is over in 5 months
If I were in his shoes, I'd have told Sweden to go fuck themselves and wait out 5 months.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and if he did, do you think he will surrender if arrested?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)remain in Sweden to talk to the prosecutor, DID conduct an interview with the Police which has always been on record, and did speak to prosecutors many times, but was REBUFFED when he asked for an interview.
In the face of all this years long evidence of lies and obfuscations, anyone who now blames Assange, has to have an agenda imo.
For years many people even here on DU, claimed the Prosecutor was NOT lying about being unable to conduct an interview in London.
Now she herself has finally admitted that this was a lie, as WE did for years.
So, why do you think the Prosecutor LIED?
hack89
(39,171 posts)we know that because his lawyer testified to that fact under oath in a British court.
So you must be happy - Assange gets his interview. Do you think this is good for him?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)because a man such as Assange should not have to comply with normal laws and procedures. He must be served, catered to, despite fleeing from questioning for sexual assault allegations. Another victory for rapists the the great men who are above the law, especially when it comes to allegations of violating lowly women.
And it truly is amazing to see celebration of a two procedures of justice--one for the great men of the world and another for mere mortals.
Rape culture must be protected at all costs, or before long more than 3 percent of rapists will have to do jail time, and 25 percent of women in this world might not experience sexual assault. With that kind of disorder, with women considered equal human beings, white male supremacy might disintegrate. Lord knows we couldn't have that.
Yeah, yeah, You'll claim Assange really isn't a rapist, just like the football players in Steubenville weren't really rapists according to their fan club. We live in a world where rape proliferates yet astounding there are no rapists. The purpose of a criminal investigation and trial is to determine guilt, and since Assange has fled that investigation for four years, he has willfully forsaken the opportunity to clear his name.
Because the same people insist on ignoring all legal evidence in the case and repeatedly and falsely insist there is no legal charge against Assange, I am posting the warrant for his arrest and the UK court decision that made clear what his standing is under UK law.
The link below goes to a PDF of the international arrest warrant.
here are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are
described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
UK appellate court ruling on extradition of Assange to Sweden and his standing under Swedish law.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
None of the actual evidence in the case matters of course for those who insist the great men of the world be immune from the laws where lowly women are accusers. That is precisely how power, patriarchy, and violence against women are perpetuated.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)And with money comes...
BTW, nice gif. I'm stealing it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And you are referring to the same British Court that refused to hand Pinochet over to his own country for Crimes against Humanity, allowing that genocidal maniac to escape the justice he so richly deserved and die comfortably in his bed with all his ill-gotten gains intact.
Those ALLEGATIONS you just posted are not worth the paper they are written on.
Why were charges NOT filed by this Prosecutor?
Now that they have been caught in the most serious lie, everything else they say is worthless.
And fyi, the women did NOT want this happen and both stated, though they were ignored by the misogynist radical 'lawyer' who took over their case WITHOUT their consent, claiming 'women do not KNOW when they have been raped, it is for the STATE to let them know when that happens'
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)The Chicago Trib article you yourself link to says this"
"My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean 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," Ny said in a statement.
"Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-sweden-julian-assange-embassy-20150313-story.html
That is not a lie. You have deliberately distorted the circumstances. Because the fugitive has been hiding from justice for four years, the statute of limitations are close to expiring. She felt the need to do something, and naturally you make up BS and engage in character assassination because the truth is meaningless compared to protecting Great and Powerful men like Assange.
You promote concierge justice for the few, for great men. You show that you believe that justice should not be equal, Mere mortals are expected to turn themselves over for prosecution. Not Assange. He is too important for that. Why should ordinary laws of justice pertain to the great and powerful men of the world, the men you have determined matter more than the rest of us?
Your BS about the British courts is a transparent effort to deny the evidence. You constantly natter on about facts and evidence but you ignore all of it. No legal ruling by a British court could possibly be valid because you didn't like the finding on Pinochet. I guess the British courts just have to give up on prosecuting crime because you say their laws are invalid. What a transparent and cynically self serving argument, entirely devoid of principle.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)WHY would she let the statute of limitations run out on such a 'serious' case? WHY?
Why was her excuse 'because we can't interview him in London' when clearly she CAN?
She LIED..
All the rest is meaningless.
YOU say there is a case.. Then where are the CHARGES filed in the Swedish Court and WHY have then not been filed?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)just as there are statute of limitations on rape here.
She is not the liar, Sabrina. You have repeatedly falsified the state of this case. You have insisted repeatedly there are not charges against Assange. You have time and time again ignored legal evidence in the case. I posted the international arrest warrant, and you made an excuse about anything out of a British court being invalid because of the Pinochet appellate ruling. The warant was issued by the Swedish govt, not the UK. What you think of the courts has no bearing on the fact that there is a standing arrest warrant for Assange for sexual assault, a point you have repeatedly denied by saying there are no charges (check your own my posts box for links). The British court ruled on extradition. I read that rather long legal ruling in its entirety more than year ago because I wanted to know what the legal findings were. Meanwhile, you ignore all evidence in the case.
You also gave a false account of the very article you link to. Your claims that she lied are a complete fabrication. The fact is the accused rapist has been evading justice for four years. You will make up any excuse and any diversion to get away from the truth, all to persuade people an accused rapist should not face justice. Your whole argument that he shouldn't have to go to Sweden to face charges like any other defendant amounts to advocating for a society and judicial system based on inequality, where the men you think important get concierge justice and their victims are reviled.
There is a lot of dishonesty here, and it is not on the prosecutor's part. You really ought to be more careful before you call people liars.
There is no principle for you to advance. The Wikileaks info is in the public domain. This all about protecting one man, a man you think too important to be subject to the laws and procedures the rest of us follow. You then accuse someone of being a lair because she refused to treat your King to the concierge justice you think him entitled to. Swedish taxpayers should pay to send prosecutors to London because Assange is too important to have to move. Four years evading justice, showing clear consciousness of guilt.
You argue against equality before the law. You argue against equal treatment before the law, and you argue against the prosecution of an accused rapist. None of that is principled. Rather, it is unjust and anti-egalitarian. It is fundamentally an elitist attitude that advocates one set of laws and procedures for great men and another for the rest of us.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that is all. They were drawn up to get an Interpol Warrant, WITH NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED, no notification to the Defense. But after finally gaining access to them, ALL have been CHALLENGED, but NOT IN THE COURT WHERE THEY NEED to be challenged, in SWEDEN.
BECAUSE NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED. Allegations are NOT CHARGES.
Do NOT call me a liar. Show me the charges filed by the Swedish Prosecutor IN SWEDEN.
The made up nonsense presented to the same British Court which allowed Pinochet to go free, the BIASED court that requires no PROOF of allegations, is IRRELEVANT to this case.
The Prosecutor LIED for several years claiming she COULD NOT INTERVIEW ASSANGE IN LONDON. THAT was a LIE.
Of couse the Statute is running out because SHE FAILED TO FILE CHARGES.
You are either completely unaware of the facts of this case or deliberately trying to continue the years long charade that NO ONE believes any longer.
Your personal attacks, and attempts to use the same old 'you love Assange' to substitute for FACTS, are wasted on me.
I love THE TRUTH. Period. I don't deal in personalities. So stop lying about me, I will not hesitate to correct any and all lies told about me.
And btw, the fact that you WOULD try to smear someone who is just an ordinary person with no power to change anything, by claiming I care PERSONALLY about Assange, who I do not know, is indicative to ME of how far they will go when someone actually DOES have the power to expose the corrupt Banks and Governments.
So thanks for the demonstration of what all this is REALLY about.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Here again are the charges you insist don't exist. I and others have provided you with these documents in the past, and you have ignored them. I have already posted them in response to you today, and you continue to deny they exist.
From the International Arrest Warrant issued by the Swedish court:
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are
described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
UK appellate court ruling on extradition of Assange to Sweden and his standing under Swedish law.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
The legal documents provide the evidence in the case. Truth is not what you want to believe. It is what the evidence establishes and the UK appellate court clearly ruled that Assange is not merely a suspect but an accused rapist with a valid arrest warrant. Respect for the truth requires examining that evidence, something you have repeatedly refused to do. It requires forming views based on evidence rather than deciding someone you admire cannot possibly be guilty and therefore ignoring anything that doesn't promote that view. That is precisely what you have done in regard to Assange. You assume the truth is what you want it to be and ignore all the legal evidence in the case.
Claiming the documents aren't worth the paper they are written on is a transparent attempt to avoid evidence. We are talking about a legal case, Assange's standing before the law. We are not even talking about guilt or innocence. That is determined through a trial, something Assange has hidden out for four years to avoid. The courts are THE source for legal standing in a case. Ignoring them doesn't change the facts in evidence.
Your claim that there is "no evidence" requires a complete dismissal of the victims' testimony. Those women are not nothing. Their testimony matters, and victim testimony is the crucial evidence in any sexual assault case. That you insist there is no evidence shows that you see their word as meaningless, equivalent to nothing. Meanwhile, you demand concierge justice for Assange.
The prosecutor did not lie. Near the end of last year, the Swedish appellate court directed her to interrogate Assange by whatever means necessary. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/20/us-sweden-assange-idUSKCN0J41EU20141120. As the very article you link to above shows, the prosecutor still says that interrogating Assange in his hide out in London is not the best situation, but she considers it better than allowing the statute of limitations to expire so that the victims are denied justice for the violent crimes committed against them. Your claim that she lied is a complete distortion. Not only that, you think it an outrage that Assange might have to be treated like a mere mortal and appear in the court of the jurisdiction where he is charged. He is too important for that. The Swedish taxpayers must pay for prosecutors to be sent to the UK to accommodate the great and powerful man you insist is too good to be held to the laws of justice.
The problem with deciding that people one admires cannot possibly be guilty is it makes a farce of justice. You are not being honest with yourself that you aren't concerned with individuals. This is all about your desire to protect an individual from facing justice, and you have repeated false claims and ignored evidence to do so. All kinds of men commit rape, and if there is a legal accusation, the victims deserve to see that accused assailant brought to justice. In arguing that some men are above that, that you know they must be innocent simply because you admire them, it means that no rapist can ever be held to account because they always have supporters. That is why we have a situation where rapists operate with virtual impunity.
How far "they will go? How far the Swedish courts will go to bring rapists to justice? Sweden takes rape very seriously, which is among the reasons it has one of the lowest gender gaps in the world. The question is how far will you and the rest of Assange's apologists go to continue to go to protect this accused rapist from prosecution? How long will you continue to ignore the evidence and make claims that are shown to be false by the legal findings in the case?
I haven't smeared you Sabrina. I challenged your false claims. I have provided primary legal documents with evidence, and you provide no evidence. You have smeared yourself by repeating making false claims and turning to character assassination of a prosecutor in order to protect an accused rapist. I have every right to challenge false statements, and I will continue to do so.
Additionally, Assange is not a whistle blower. Manning was the whistle blower. Assange published the documents on a website. There is a difference. For me, however, this is not about Wikileaks. It is about rape, and it galls me how many are willing to do everything to shelter an accused rapist from justice. I do not care if the accused is Assange, the Dalai Lama or my own brother. Everyone who is facing legal allegations of rape must face the justice system. Assange is not better than the rest of humanity, no more than the Steubenville football players were. The size of their fan base doesn't matter. What matters is the victims have a right to justice. Assange has had every opportunity to clear his name and instead chosen to evade justice. That reveals consciousness of guilt, a legally admissible argument in court.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)(you can post that garbage drawn up with ZERO evidence, debunked long ago, as often as you wish in order to avoid answering the question, why would a prosecutor REFUSE to file charges for nearly FIVE years, and LIE about her reasons for that refusal.
You appear to know NOTHING about WHY she could not file those charges.
Here's a hint ... both women have DENIED being raped, and that was NEVER the accusation to begin with.
Your attempt to alter the meaning of the allegations is despicable. Women are HARMED by these kinds of false claims, especially when the WORLD has the information apparently you prefer to ignore, though the women themselves have not.
So again, I am interested in only one thing, WHY HAS THE SWEDISH PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO FILE CHARGES for nearaly FIVE YEARS, and why did she LIE about her reasons for refusing to do so?
I can see you are struggling very hard not to answer that question.
What you posted has zero to do with the case because so far, THERE HAS BEEN NO CASE.
It's a simple question, WHERE ARE THE CHARGES FILED IN SWEDEN?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)changing their mind with facts. It's an authoritarian problem where some seem to have been raised to never question authority or at least the authority they've decided is golden. We all have different levels of reality that we can handle and some do not want to know that everything in their "Camelot" isn't peaches and cream.
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)self-appointed Doctor of Authoritarian Psychology weighs in at last. The final missing element in this whole ludicrous little bonfire of the vanities. Thanks.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)presented over and over again here and elsewhere, over several years, yet there are few here clearly refusing to accept those facts.
Why do YOU think they are struggling so hard to deny these facts?
Rhett offered his opinion, an opinion he is entitled to.
I have no idea frankly why people faced with irrefutable facts will blindly deny them, change the subject and attempt to drag everyone off in a different direction, or, a favorite, call people vile names, like 'rape apologists' or 'Assange groupies' etc.
What is your opinion on those who engage in such tactics when faced with facts?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that is close-minded and use name-calling and ridicule to stifle discussion. Plus alerts, hides, and locks.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is using the vile smear 'rape apologists' to name names. I believe if you use that smear you need to let people know who you are talking about. Otherwise, you are essentially calling EVERYONE you don't agree with a despicable and baseless accessory to one of the worst crimes against women.
I am waiting for an answer but so far, it appears, it takes too much courage to name names, assuming such people exist on DU, OR, my best guess, it is simply a nasty personal attack when the facts are too much to take.
randome
(34,845 posts)Facts that apparently Sweden, Australia, the UK, the UK appeals process, the Swedish women and the US have all agreed to ignore.
Are you really stipulating that all these players are willfully ignoring the facts? Or is it more likely that they see the facts differently than you? One doesn't need to know one iota about this case to know which is the more likely scenario.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why do you think that some people are so bothered when others speak out against authority? Why do some people defend pedophilia in the church? Or the abuse of whistle-blowers? And yet nod ok when Gen Petraeus gets a hand slap.
Authoritarian behavior is really bully behavior that we are all familiar with. There are the dominant bullies and their cowardly little bully followers. Heaven help you if you try to point out to the followers that their leader is a bully. The followers feel comfortable following the bully because they think they are immune to the wrath. Of course that's not true.
There's a great book available for free on the intertubes, "The Authoritarians" by bob altemeyer. It's really not that hard to follow. Pun not intended.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Why did she NOT file charges in such a 'serious' case, using the lie that she could not comply with Swedish Law by interviewing Assange in London, when she knew that was a LIE. EVeryone knew it was a lie, because it was not unusual at all for this happen.
I see you are reluctant to stand by your years long claim that 'she could not interview Assange in London' anymore.
That's understandable since the Swedish Prosecutor has been forced to admit the lie, as she allowed the statute to run out in an attempt to KEEP ASSANGE SILENCED.
Best to join a majority of people around the globe who long ago recognized this for what it was, a smear campaign with NO CASE, admitted by the women's 'unwanted' lawyer' who said 'this case would fall apart if it ever went to court'. Yet, he dragged it back out of the legal dumpster AFTER the real Prosecutor tossed it out as baseless.
It is hard to keep trying to defend something that has been falling apart for years now.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Wikilleaks is operating. He gives interviews and statements to the press all the time. Nothing is stopping him from blogging or publishing. Even if he is convicted, Wikleaks can continue to operate. It runs now without his direction. No one is silencing him. He has chosen to evade justice for years. He is legally accused under Swedish law, as the documents in the case I have posted numerous times in this thread demonstrate. The documents show that the case is not falling apart, as you claim, but stalled because Assange has been a fugitive from justice.
Your entire argument is that people on the web think the charges are made up. What people with no connection to the case think is not evidence. In any given rape case, the accused will find all kinds of defenders, Assange all the more so because he is high profile. Justice is not based on popularity. It is based on legal evidence, something you consistently refuse to examine.
This obsequious attitude toward a rich and prominent man is really something to behold. You have no shame in demanding he be treated differently from every other defendant on earth, that he receive concierge justice, or better yet not face justice at all. After all, there is "no evidence." Sexual assault victims are nothing. Their word amounts to nothing, certainly not in comparison to the great man you are falling all over yourselves to shield from justice.
This is a profoundly antidemocratic and anti-egalitarian position, one that promotes elitism and contributes to the ability of rapists to operate with impunity. It is utterly shameful.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
But I guess it's okay if the accused is someone you have a crush on...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Otherwise you might miss practice!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)People who are facinated with the NSA also try to limit the discussion by silencing other DUers. Interesting.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Personally i alert maybe once or twice a week. At this point it has to really annoy me to alert.
When I was on mirt I used to alert more often.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)A pretty obvious trap, imho. And just loads of crappy alerts. I think every single alert I've had in the past year is somehow related to the NSA issue not being number one in my mind- as it is for Greenwald, Snowden, and a few very vocal Obama haters.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I'll bring the tequila.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Just do it openly and courageously so we know who you are leveling that most vile of false allegations at, and then we can totally demolish your false, vile personal attacks on those who are asking for nothing more than the facts.
Go ahead, name these 'rape apologists' or retract that vile statement from this thread.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)clear. It is calling ALL DUers 'rape apologists'. Since you are now his spokesperson, kindly clarify that statement so we can address it like adults.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)direct, pointed, and unmistakable. And it was a 1-6 leave.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and I think your understanding of Swedish procedure is laughably lacking.
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)years when it was clearly a lie?? Which was pointed out over and over even by experts in Swedish law?
How did the 'legal impediment' suddenly disappear?
When did Swedish law CHANGE, Sid?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Ad hominem attacks like: "I think your understanding of Swedish procedure is laughably lacking." is all you can expect.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Assange and WikiLeaks used the US Government's own documents to show the world the criminal nature of the US Government.
Too bad the American people just hear Assange is a rapist who also happens to be a leaker.
erronis
(15,303 posts)I thought that was what the CIA/NSA was in charge of.
With a lot of help from the nimwit Huckleberries (uglicans).
The best things to the future of this country and the rest of those wanting democracy and freedom are the whistleblowers, the independent press, the government workers with integrity (and most of them are that way.)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)War is big business. It's an insider's game. It's why we have so much secret government.
The last remaining enormous wads of cash in the Treasury are to be had for purchasing today's modern military industrial intel complex.
There's more than a trillion to be grabbed -- just for the Lockheed-Martin F-35.
Now keeping tabs on us -- people interested in using some of the nation's treasure for more peaceful purposes -- are for-hire spies. How do I know this? Julian Assange and Anonymous:
WikiLeaks' Stratfor Dump Lifts Lid on Intelligence-Industrial Complex
WikiLeaks' latest release, of hacked emails from Stratfor, shines light on the murky world of private intelligence-gathering
by Pratap Chatterjee
Published on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 by The Guardian/UK
What price bad intelligence? Some 5m internal emails from Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based company that brands itself as a "global intelligence" provider, were recently obtained by Anonymous, the hacker collective, and are being released in batches by WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website, starting Monday.
The most striking revelation from the latest disclosure is not simply the military-industrial complex that conspires to spy on citizens, activists and trouble-causers, but the extremely low quality of the information available to the highest bidder. Clients of the company include Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, as well as US government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Marines.
SNIP...
Assange notes that Stratfor is also seeking to profit directly from this information by partnering in an apparent hedge-fund venture with Shea Morenz, a former Goldman Sachs managing director. He points to an August 2011 document, marked "DO NOT SHARE OR DISCUSS", from Stratfor CEO George Friedman, which says:
"What StratCap will do is use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currencies and the like."
CONTINUED...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/28-10?print
If it weren't for Anonymous and WikiLeaks, we probably wouldn't know about any of that.
It's no joke. It's no unimportant story. It's no boring history. Run by insiders, the secret government is key to making the system run on behalf of the few -- the 1-percent of 1-percent. Central to that is intelligence -- economically, politically and military useful information.
Which brings up the nation's purported free press, the only business mentioned by name in the entire United States Constitution, and how the organizations therein have miserably failed to feature prominently the sundry and myriad ways the insiders on Wall Street and their toadies in Washington do the work for Them.
The problem is systemic. The corruption is systemic.
Because it involves oversight of secret organizations -- the Pentagon, Homeland Security, CIA, etc -- Congress and the Administration often have no clue, let alone oversight, to what is happening because the corruption is marked "Top Secret."
Secret government also means We the People can't do our job as citizens, which is to hold them accountable and find the ones responsible in order to vote the crooks out and, it is hoped, the honest ones in.
With no citizen oversight, anything goes. And it doesn't stop.
Remember this fine fellow, US Navy fighter ace Randy "Duke" Cunningham?
Later a member of the United States Congress, he used his position to feather his nest, Big Time.
In his political career, Cunningham was a member of the Appropriations and Intelligence committees, and chaired the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence during the 109th Congress. He was considered a leading Republican expert on national security issues.
Currently, he's in USP Tuscon or another fine facility where he gets three squares, medical and dental.
He's due for release in a year or so. He'll be able to pick up his pension.
"The Duke Cunningham Act, also known as the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act, was introduced by U.S. Senator John F. Kerry in 2006. The bill would have denied pension benefits to any members of Congress convicted of bribery, conspiracy or perjury. The bill died in committee. (Source: The Press Enterprise)
Duke wasn't alone. He really was just one snake in a long line of snakes. Remember Dusty Foggo, Number 3 at CIA and close associate of CIA Director and former Congressman Porter Goss? Swells sitting atop the peak of political and military secrecy and power.
Unfortunately, when it comes to modern governance, no oversight means means the insiders are getting away with murder, and warmongering and treason and all the power that they bring. Appointed pretzeldent George W Bush on Valentine's Day 2007 put it in words: "Money trumps peace."
Secret government warmongering and war profiteering are systemic. Secret government is rotten to the core. What's more, in a democracy that once really was land of the free and home of the brave, secret government poses the greatest threat to true national security.
2012 OP
What gets weird is how it's so obvious, even a republican can figure this out. More to the point:
U.S. Judge Mark E. Fuller, the guy who helped railroad Gov. Don Siegelman.
Fuller just happens to be the owner of a company that's made a huge fortune off the Pentagon and War Inc via no-bid crony War on Terror largesse.
The Pork Barrel World of Judge Mark Fuller
By Scott Horton
Harper's August 6, 2007, 5:14 pm
For the last week, we’ve been examining the role played by Judge Mark Everett Fuller in the trial, conviction, and sentencing of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman. Today, we examine a post-trial motion, filed in April 2007, asking Fuller to recuse himself based on his extensive private business interests, which turn very heavily on contracts with the United States Government, including the Department of Justice.
The recusal motion rested upon details about Fuller’s personal business interests. On February 22, 2007, defense attorneys obtained information that Judge Fuller held a controlling 43.75% interest in government contractor Doss Aviation, Inc. After investigating these claims for over a month, the attorneys filed a motion for Fuller’s recusal on April 18, 2007. The motion stated that Fuller’s total stake in Doss Aviation was worth between $1-5 million, and that Fuller’s income from his stock for 2004 was between $100,001 and $1 million dollars.
In other words, Judge Fuller likely made more from his business income, derived from U.S. Government contracts, than as a judge. Fuller is shown on one filing as President of the principal business, Doss Aviation, and his address is shown as One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama, the address of the Frank M. Johnson Federal Courthouse, in which his chambers are located.
SNIP...
Doss Aviation and its subsidiaries also held contracts with the FBI. This is problematic when one considers that FBI agents were present at Siegelman’s trial, and that Fuller took the extraordinary step of inviting them to sit at counsel’s table throughout trial. Moreover, while the case was pending, Doss Aviation received a $178 million contract from the federal government.
CONTINUED...
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000762
Which brings us full circle to why secret government is so undemocratic: It's very profitable for those with the secrets.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to release devastating information on BOA when it became imperative to shut them down.
The Stratfor leaks by Anonymous, showed the desperation to hide what Wikileaks was about to reveal.
Contract bids to SMEAR everyone, bloggers, Liberal Orgs, all those who were asking questions, Glenn Greenwald was a blogger at the time, but his relentless pursuit of the facts, his support for Whistle Blowers, put him on the radar of Stratfor.
It is CHILLING to learn how even WE who were simply discussing the events at the time, were potential targets of these contracted smear campaigns.
Assange of course was the main target.
He actually had PROOF, documents, something he revealed in an interview just one month prior to the phony smear campaign against him began.
In fact, Wikileaks had posted a CIA document (leak) where 'how to get him' was discussed. They settled on a 'sex scandal' hoping to turn the 'Left' against him.
But it hasn't worked. All that money spent and they couldn't convince people that HE was the 'bad guy'.
Great post Octafish, it should be an OP on its own.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Keiser calls it: ''The Self-lRex
(65,616 posts)The US cannot stop other governments from reporting what they want, yet so far I have not heard or read of any irreparable damage done to America. You would think our enemies would be crowing from the rooftops about all the dirty little secrets exposed to them about us from all this supposed highly damaging information.
Also, the CIA/MI8 alleged setup is all wrong and completely out of character for those agencies imo. That is not to say some kind of druggery was not involved (by a foreign agency)...just strange that they didn't grab his ass early on and throw him in a cell in Syria.
IOW, why drug him and set him up when you can drug him and just rendition the shit away to a black ops site? We know for a fact the CIA doesn't have a problem breaking international law.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)mention the Far Right 'news' rag that 'broke' the 'case'. Against Swedish law btw.
The truth comes out, eventually.
I see those who argued that Swedish Law forbade an interview in London, are now moving the goal posts and attempting to make other claims!
It's fun to watch actually.
Sweden's judicial system has been thoroughly disgraced around the world at this point. Nothing they have to say now, can be viewed with any trust.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She is, in fact, breaking the law by interviewing Assange in London. Apparently, they've decided Assange doesn't have to comply with the laws for the little people in order to actually move the case forward.
It's nice to see that Assange has ascended to the investment banker legal system.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)So the lead prosecutor is going to BREAK THE LAW to question Assange yet she won't irrevocably damage her case against him by doing that?
Seriously? The defense would have a field day with that fact alone and I would bet the case would be thrown out immediately on day one of a trial if the prosecutor broke the law to "get" Assange.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because it is abundantly clear Assange was not going to comply with the law. The judge decided it was better to get the formal interview out of the way so that the case can actually start against him.
Swedish Law is not US law. You make the same mistake as Sabrina1 above in attempting to apply US law to a Swedish court.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And I'm not confused.
The defense will ask to have the case thrown out if the prosecutor can be demonstrated to have broken the law in pursuit of its prosecution.
It taints the entire prosecution and strains credulity to the impossible.
Unless you're saying Ny wants to throw the case...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ny explore interviewing him in London--
The court also said Swedish prosecutors had not made enough effort to interrogate Assange outside Sweden and said the "failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/20/us-sweden-assange-idUSKCN0J41EU20141120
Rex
(65,616 posts)and takes him back to her own country. Does that invalidate the entire case? Sorry, just read bits about this and someone said Swedish judicial systems are very different from ours.
Also, okay so you are not obligated, but the SOL are running out so what do you do? You go and make an illegal interview?
Strange stuff, glad I don't have to deal with the law to make my money, I'd be dirt poor.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)primarily an "arrest" as opposed to an "interview."
The interview is the due process afforded prior to the arrest in Sweden. Ny may not have felt she had the jurisdiction to effect an arrest in Britain prior to the Appeals Court indicating that she should explore it. Assange would not be able to the get the arrest invalidated, because I can't think that any of his rights have been violated.
The way I see this? Ny has a SOL that runs out in August. But she stops that---effectively tolls it, if she interviews and attempts arrest of Assange. The Brits will hand him over--now it's up to the Ecuadorians to submit.
Rex
(65,616 posts)but in the Ecuadorian embassy. So she has to deal with two foreign powers and time is running out. Thanks for the explanation. I hope he goes back with her and puts this issue to rest one way or another.
I have no idea what he did, but me personally, I would NOT like to have the reputation of a maybe rapist following me around the planet. I'm innocent, innocent people want closure. And the bullshit about the CIA/Swedish government setting him up is...well I said it bullshit.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)though.
Rape apologia is always bullshit, IMO.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I knew already (because I was there) if they were innocent or not. I noticed innocent friends always want to end the crisis and move on...they feel like victims. However guilty friends seemed to want to string things along with police and take as long as possible to come to a conclusion.
Again, no idea if he did it but that is the behavior I've noticed as well in RL growing up as a teen.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1monster
(11,012 posts)a plea bargain simply because they could no longer afford, econmically, mentally, and emotionally to fight the charges when they were plastered with extranous charges that would ensure many years in prison if they lost the case. The extra charges were always included to either breaK down the defendant or to ensure that something stuck.
It happens many times EVERY DAY in this country.
If you are innocent or guilty, you fight if you have the resources. You are grossly simplfiying the legal process that our criminal "justice" system employs in this day and age. And, if you are a practicing lawyer, you know it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to make sure he never got his day in court.
First she refused to meet with him IN SWEDEN, over and over again, claiming she 'was busy', 'didn't have the cop who was sick' (Sweden only has one cop :eyes
Meantime he spoke to the Police in Sweden when they asked and cooperated fully with them.
Still trying to get the Prosecutor to meet with him, he extended his stay in Sweden. Still she refused to allow him to have his day in court.
Finally she told his attorneys he was free to leave Sweden and she would contact him when 'she had time'.
He in turn, hesitated, worried that she would not be able to do that. So he made sure she had his contact number in London.
Still she could not find the time to talk to him.
Until she began the lies.
The radical extremist lawyer for the women, stated that he was 'free to leave Sweden because no evidence of a crime had been presented in COURT.
COURT! Imagine, presenting evidence in COURT.
Lol, I just laugh now at those struggling so hard against the facts. I admit, I have a warped sense of humor when it comes to internet forums.
1monster
(11,012 posts)competent) how is it rape?
Defense Attny: Madame, were you raped by **** on **** at ***?
Rape Victim: No sir/madam, I was not!
What would your next move be as Defense Attny?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1monster
(11,012 posts)overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of the women they've nearly killed.
1monster
(11,012 posts)contrary" that I was speaking about.
There is no such evidence, especially not "overwhelming" in the Assange case. Bring on the evidence that is so overwhelming that it drowns out the so called victim's voice in saying she was not raped. Or as the Swedish Courts suggested in more elegant words to Ny, Put up or shut up.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)The wheels of justice grind slowly......but exceedingly fine.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)there was a STATUTE of limitations on these trumped up allegations, which is all they STILL are?
How come when millions of people across the globe KNEW?
And a Prosecutor who based their career on the claim: Sex Crimes need to be prosecuted as SWIFTLY AS POSSIBLE.
Yet she waits five years to even FILE ANY CHARGES?
She has made a mockery of the Swedish System of Justice, which she has been told now so often, she certainly had plenty of time to LEARN the laws of her own country.
And to think, someone THIS incompetent should be taken seriously by ANYONE?
Stop trying to excuse this disaster, the only ones like to buy it are those who have a vested interest in silencing the Press.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)make you understand that Sweden is not a common law country, and therefore, it's charging procedure is different.
Mr. Assange is a rapist. The wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)If the upper court has directed her to go, then it's legal and has been all along despite Ny's lies to the contrary.
I also find it interesting you keep leaving off this part of the article in your repetitive posting of that snip :
"If you don't do it now, the arrest warrant will go next time, that is how it looks, like a warning," he said of the court's comments.
The court is basically admonishing her for dragging her feet. That doesn't sound like a slam dunk case to me at all - sounds like she's been happy to,let him twist in the winds of public opinion. Soon the court is going to drop the arrest warrant if she doesn't get to it.
Well Assange has agreed to the interview. The ball is now firmly in Ny's court. Hope she flies down tonight. No reason to wait!
And you know, you aren't linking the Court of Appeals either - just a Reuters news story.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)jurisdiction, which was at issue....since he's in the embassy. The purpose of the interview is to arrest Mr. Assange...which tolls the SOL. So we'll see if Ecuador follows the law.
The defense attorney you quoted is doing a defense attorney's job, making it seem that a ruling against his client actually benefits his client.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)but you keep glossing over that inconvenient truth.
Ny has no credibility on this case any more.
Assange is getting exactly what he's asked for all along - the interview. Nothing holding Ny back now. She should be on that plane as we speak... Lol.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In fact it seems to be saying the prosecutors have been remiss in fulfilling their obligations.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Could Ny exercise Swedish jurisdiction in London, which has been an outstanding issue. This interview is a pre-arrest due process right of the accused, as opposed to what an interview might be in a common law system. What the court is saying is that she should attempt to exercise jurisdiction. ...technically, bring Sweden's jurisdiction to the embassy.
They are saying she should press is....although it seems to be unprecedented.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)she will interview him. She will then try to arrest him. What happens next is up to Assange.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)by continuing to claim that Swedish law runs like UK and US law. You've been reminded hundreds of times that in Sweden, a formal interview by the police proceeds filing of criminal charges.
You were even reminded of this when Assange had your very tactic thrown out by UK's highest court. They ruled that Sweden was at the equivalent point to where charges would be filed in the UK. At which point Assange fled.
Yet you cling to the story. Apparently, you think Assange deserves the investment banker justice system instead of the one the rest of us get. You know, the "well, sure he broke the law, but he's really sorry so we shouldn't punish him".
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)with facts.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She'll eventually back down if enough people point out her freedom-from-factual-basis claims. Until a new story comes up and it's like Groundhog Day.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)there is a reason Assange is hiding in a place where he can't be arrested.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)That very statement willfully misrepresents the facts. The statue of limitations are expiring, which the very article you linked to says. You are not being truthful.
"My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean 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," Ny said in a statement.
"Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-sweden-julian-assange-embassy-20150313-story.html
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Better late than never, I guess.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)intend on interviewing him and arresting him. The problem becomes this---will Assange submit to their authority? Will the Ecuadorians.
And he's still got to face the British courts, too.
erronis
(15,303 posts)I would not trust any of the western intelligence agencies any further than Putin's.
What is your choice of poison, dear?
brooklynite
(94,600 posts)...why be subtle about it?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Stating that it is against Swedish law seems to be. Those statements aren't the same. Assange needs to answer questions. This will be very interesting. If they show up, question him and try to arrest him, will Ecuador harbor someone with an arrest warrant for possible charges as have been discussed. I can fully understand why the prosecutor wouldn't want the interview to occur at the embassy. That is common sense. That doesn't mean it goes against Swedish law. I want to see him questioned on the accusations and see what happens. I am not a part of the cult of personality where there is the belief that his is innocent. Accusations such as this should have the upmost of priority. After his lack of actions with respect to Chelsea Manning it is very easy for one to see his complete lack of morals. I highly doubt anyone would be surprised if some of the claims made against him were true. Seems like we might have a standoff between two highly questionable characters. Seems a little odd that people think the prosecutor has been doing this for this long without approval.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
Sid
hack89
(39,171 posts)if he wanted to be interviewed, nothing has stopped him from being interviewed. Even if she did lie, it will not stop Assange from being interviewed. The step after that will be for him to be taken into custody. If he refuses then we are back where we started.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)This is in the very article the OP linked to, before she distorted it.
Lead prosecutor Marianne Ny explained the change in position by saying some of the crimes the 43-year-old Australian is accused of will reach their statute of limitations in August.
"My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean 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," Ny said in a statement.
"Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward."
Statute of Limitations. Get it! Yeah, it's a really bummer a rapist might actually face prosecution after four years on the lam. So cover up and attack the prosecutor to make she great men are not held to the laws of mere mortals, and certainly not for anything as trivial as sexual assault against a woman.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)The court also said Swedish prosecutors had not made enough effort to interrogate Assange outside Sweden and said the "failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/20/us-sweden-assange-idUSKCN0J41EU20141120
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)The laws and procedures of mere mortals don't apply to the great and powerful.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)defense attorney, I find that disgusting......
1monster
(11,012 posts)It is now half way through March of the following year and she hasn't yet gone to London to interview him?
Why is she dragging her feet? If she is so sure that she is correct, why hasn't she at least requested the interview by now. Why isn't she in London banging on the Ecuadoran Embassy doors?
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)The law in England & Wales doesn't have a statue of limitations in regards to sex crimes. IMO this should be the same worldwide.
But this aside.... I don't understand the Julian Assange affair and if it required some kind of interview to be done before charges could be placed then surely a visit to the Ecuadorian embassy in London with a few lawyers present should meet the Swedish requirements. Obviously it hasn't until now for some reason.
But then back to my sidebar... statute of limitations for sex crimes shouldn't exist IMO.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In the US and UK, you file charges, indict the person and head off to trial.
In Sweden, you file charges, conduct a formal interview, indict the person and head off to trial. The interview has to take place under Swedish jurisdiction.
Assange is thwarting that last part in order to prevent being indicted.
The judge in this case has asked the prosecutor to try and interview him in the UK, with her presence being a pseudo-Swedish jurisdiction, if the UK agrees.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Me, from the US? Assange shouldn't have to obey the law as it is. It is everyone else's responsibility to cater to him.
The charges are in Sweden. Most mortals obey orders of extradition and don't expect prosecutors offices to travel to them. You are advocating separate justice for some, the great and powerful men. Not only should the prosecutors expend resources from Swedish tax payers to cater to a megalomaniac and his sycophants, but now you insist I, an American woman, should change Swedish law in order for an accused rapist to obey it. Do you have no conception that you are arguing for fundamental inequality before the law? He is responsible for obeying the law as it existed at the time the incident occurred. People here think he is too important to be held to the laws of mere mortals. They will dissemble and distort to ensure an accused rapist doesn't face justice. He is a great man. His accusers are lowly women. Who could possibly think their lives matter?
There is a lot of information on this case that you are unfamiliar with. The accused's defenders willfully ignore evidence that has has been posted repeatedly and falsely insist there is no legal charge against Assange. I am posting the warrant for his arrest and the UK court decision that made clear what his standing is under Swedish law.
The link below goes to a PDF of the international arrest warrant.
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are
described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
UK appellate court ruling on extradition of Assange to Sweden and his standing under Swedish law.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)... on sex crimes.
England and Wales doesn't have such a statute of limitations like this. Many US states also have a statute. Yes, those states should change their laws to remove such limitations IMO.
That is all.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)The article plainly states that it's a far-from-ideal compromise as far as the Swedish legal system is concerned, but necessary to keep the case active.
Still, the Assange fan club have been using "why does Sweden refuse to charge/interview Assange?" as bedrock for their conspiracy theories, so it will we interesting to see what they turn to next.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's only fair that Sweden give up their case because...because...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)to avoid prosecution. I don't care if it's Assange, the Dalai Lama, or my own brother. If someone is faced with a legal accusation of rape, he is obligated to appear for quiestioning. This notion that anyone people like or respect couldn't possibly be guilty of rape is what rape culture is about. If people only allow the prosecution of those they dislike, that means that rapists can operate at will. That people here are not only defending that, but insisting Assange should benefit from concierge jutice shows an attitude diametrically opposed to equality before the law. It is reprehensible.
I will also add that four years as a fugitive for justice displays a consciousness of guilt and could be used in court (at least US courts) as just that.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)let's accept that she lied. OK - she is still going to interview Assange and try to arrest him. Did you want him arrested years ago? Not sure why you think this is meaningful in any way.
randome
(34,845 posts)He'll delay until August, I bet, when the statute of limitations runs out. Of course then he still has the U.K. to deal with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)suggested she try the London interview.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/20/us-sweden-assange-idUSKCN0J41EU20141120
So she's going to do that. She tolls the SOL with interview and attempt to arrest. Whether or not he's in her physical custody, Ny is going to be able to argue to a court that his due process rights have been upheld, and the charges should stand. She can toll the limitations, and keep the warrant going.
randome
(34,845 posts)You know, until he and his attorneys have had time to go over the specifications. I guess that much of a delay wouldn't be allowed to stand, would it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Assange's lawyer is resisting the DNA test. I wonder why?
randome
(34,845 posts)Because that's how totalitarian governments work, don't-cha-know?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Like guilty people do?
I'm sorry. I cannot recommend your services.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)courts, then bail jumping. He could end it tomorrow......
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)59 International Organizations Call Upon UN to Remedy Human Rights Violations in Pre-Charge Detention of Wikileaks Publisher Julian Assange
For Immediate Release: 16 June 2014
59 International Organizations Call Upon UN to Remedy Human Rights Violations in Pre-Charge Detention of Wikileaks Publisher Julian Assange
Groups Submit Reports to UN Universal Periodic Review Citing Sweden’s Human Rights & Procedural Violations in Treatment of Julian Assange
**Report Details Linked Below**
Geneva, Switzerland - Before the United Nations this Sunday, 26 international human rights, fair trial, and jurist organizations, and 33 Latin American civil society organisations, condemned Sweden’s violation of the fundamental human rights of WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, who has experienced protracted pre-charge detention stemming from a Swedish investigation which has yet to charge him. Mr. Assange’s pre-charge detention has spanned nearly four years as US Federal Grand Jury prepares a criminal case against WikiLeaks and it’s officers.
Two Swedish organizations, as well as jurist organizations from around the world including the American Association of Jurists (AAJ), the National Lawyer’s Guild (NLG), the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), and the Indian Association of Lawyers submitted two reports —one in English and one in Spanish— each highlighting various procedural rights violations of Julian Assange, Sweden’s longest running case of pre-trial deprivation of liberty.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)for him in the UK.....
He hasn't a legal argument left. So he's stringing this along, because he's facing prison for real.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)so what is this supposed pre-charge detention nonsense?
hack89
(39,171 posts)fugitives cannot run out the clock once they have been indicted. He will still have to answer to Swedish law.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
treestar
(82,383 posts)And the statute does not run while they are on the lam.
So in Swedish law, they let the perp get away with evading them for the period of the statute of limitations, apparently.
Rex
(65,616 posts)about their legal system. My question is, how does this effect his case overall? Say she does this illegal interview, takes him back to Sweden under arrest...illegally? Once there it is legal?
I don't even understand why she lied. If she cannot do something by law, she cannot do something by law. A judge sending her to break the law sounds so strange. Unless their system is so different from our court system - that I am just ignorant of how it works.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)then it isn't breaking the law. This narrative is getting so bizarre.
The judge told her that she wasn't making a good enough effort for an interview. I would like to see a single reputable link stating that a Swedish judge ordered a prosecutor to break the law. It obviously wasn't illegal for her to do the interview in the embassy.
Ny's own spokesperson told the press that this was her own decision and that nobody ordered her to do it:
Karin Rosander, Ny’s spokeswoman, said the decision to go to London was entirely her own. She said: “Swedish prosecutors are independent in their decision-making and nobody, not even the prosecutor general, can order a prosecutor what steps to take.”
So it is really bizarre to take the position that a judge is forcing a prosecutor to break the law. I share your confusion, Rex. There was never an impassable legal impediment to interviewing Assange in the embassy.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Like I said, I won't pretend to understand another countries laws, but speculating on it - a judge would be in trouble with his superiors if he told a prosecutor to knowingly break the law...imo. No matter what country.
He needs to go back to Sweden and stand trial. Anyone that knows me here, knows I am not shy about saying what I think of the CIA (not a big fan)...but claiming this is some sort of MI8/CIA/Swedish Royal Guard setup is total bullshit and does not fit CIA SOP.
IOW, if the CIA or MI8 wanted his ass in a dark cell in an unknown place he would have awoken there sometimes in the last 4 1/2 years.
IMHO.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Why wasn't this done years ago? Ny could have taken his interview, got a DNA swab, and then put the onus on him to face charges by releasing strong evidence against him. That would have put tremendous pressure on him and the embassy harboring him.
She's only doing this now because the higher ups in the government are getting embarrassed by it, and the judges have determined that she didn't seem particularly interested in furthering the case. 5 months from now, the SOL runs out.
If this is strictly down to her discretion, why wasn't it done years ago? A prosecutor with strong evidence doesn't force London police to spend £15m surrounding an embassy for 3 years.
Rex
(65,616 posts)None of it adds up to me. And YES I noticed that too...so what if she is not obligated to go after him, what prosecutor on the planet just lets the SOL run out on such a high profile case? A world renown case?
Lots of pieces missing from this puzzle imo.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and she didn't lie. Read the article, not Sabrina's interpretation of it. It clearly states why the prosecutor did not go to London and why she is going now.
One reason she didn't want to interview him in London is because she could not arrest him at the conclusion of the interview. The Swedish legal system is not like the US. This interview is not part of an investigation to get his side of the story. It was so the prosecutor could present her case to him before arresting him. She has stated several times that her intent was to arrest him after the interview. Now she has to interview him because there is a statute of limitations on some of the charges - she has to interview him so she can indict him before the clock runs out. It is unlikely, however, that Assange will allow himself to be arrested so after the interview we are back to where we started, waiting until Assange emerges from the embassy.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Can you imagine someone being allowed to decide on if they can be arrest or not? Not in this lifetime. Not in America.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In Swedish law, they have a formal interview before indictment. It's generally a pro-forma interview, because someone who was going to plead guilty will have done so by that point. Then they indict and they head off to court.
In US law, we just indict and head off to court.
Assange has been blocking the interview in an attempt to avoid being indicted. Technically, the interview must be held in Swedish jurisdiction, so the prosecutor has been unable to do it while he's in the UK and then the Ecuadorian embassy.
The judge is allowing this prosecutor to consider the interview in her physical presence to count as in Swedish jurisdiction, if the UK agrees, because it has become clear that Assange is trying to wait out the statute of limitations.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Even if he does not go with them? Thinking the embassy will finally throw him out and then the UK can grab him? That makes sense to me.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If she tries to arrest and indict, she can claim she did what she had to do within the SOL. At that point, the SOL is moot because it's Assange that is dragging out the case - the state says they want to start the trial now, and he's refusing to go.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt
Rex
(65,616 posts)No SOL so he can be tried 20-200 years from now. Thanks I have a better grasp on what is going on now.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which she still has not done, she had to interview Assange in SWEDEN. Many legal experts through the years have pointed out that this is NOT the case. Yet she, and her 'fans' continued to make that false claim.
Assange and his attorneys AND the Equadoran Embassy have offered to accomodate the Swedish Prosecutor taking a 30 minute flight to conduct that last phase of the required steps in order to finally FILE CHARGES. She has refused consistently, lying about her reasons why.
Now a court of appeals in Sweden has ORDERED her to do what she claimed she could not do, because Sweden's judicial system has been mocked around the globe and someone had to do something.
So there are two facts regarding this non case.
1) No charges have ever been filed against Assange.
2) The Swedish Prosecutor apparently didn't know the laws of her own country, OR, she has been lying about them.
Her excuse has now been taken away. Let's see if this 'case' ever gets to court. The lawyer for the women eg, stated that if it ever did, it would not stand a chance of a conviction. Maybe because when a vital piece of evidence provided by one of the women, the condom she claimed Assange used, was found to be NEW, with no 'rips' as she contended, and no DNA.
So knowing they had no case, they used these tactics to keep Assange confined to London.
It is a despicable misuse of the legal system of ANY country.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You know as well as I do both groups have no problem breaking international law to get what they want. So why set this man up in some semi-elaborate ruse, when you can just rendition his ass to Syria and be done with it? The excuses don't jibe; they were trying to ruin his reputation? Why? Wikileaks supporters will always believe it was a government setup and the opponents of wiki are going to believe he raped that women no matter what. So there is no gain there. Minds are already made up in this case.
That's why I said he should go back and face the court. If all this evidence is tampered with or fake, then there is no case. It doesn't even look like Sweden cared about this case until the SOL issue came up.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)after an interview he gave in which he stated that Wikileaks had received documents they would be releasing that 'could bring down a major Bank'. That bank was presumed to be BOA.
This was at a time when they were working hard to hide the corruption that had brought down the World Economy, desperately trying to avoid prosecutions, as happened in Iceland.
Not to mention it was Wikileaks who exposed the Corrupt Bankers and Politicians in Iceland, causing them to be arrested and charged.
When that happened, the rest of the Banks and Politicians who aided and abetted them jumped into action to ensure there would be no more Icelands.
As far as the CIA, Wikileaks posted a leaked document from the CIA years ago in which they discussed 'how to bring down Wikileaks'. They discarded the notion of physical harm and settled on 'a sexual smear campaign'.
Whether they were involved in this or not, doesn't really matter. We KNOW from Anonymous leaks, that BOA had contract bids out on Left bloggers, whistle blowers and journalists, who were digging into the corruption, and that 'security contractors' were bidding on those contracts. There is simply no doubt about that.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Yeah he fucked with someone more powerful than the CIA, global investment bankers. That actually would explain the failed ruse if that's what it was, BOA is not the CIA and probably outsourced to some morans to do the job.
Global investment bankers are the financial terrorists of this day and age.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Indeed.
malaise
(269,058 posts)Great post
elias49
(4,259 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)She should resign.
elias49
(4,259 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)so that Assange would go to Sweden, from which he would be extraordinarily rendered to the US? I have to say this seems like one of the more convoluted schemes hatched by the evil United States. They couldn't simply extradite him from the UK because........?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)This way, they can pretend the rape charges are a false pretext and ignore them.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Some expert guy on this very forum told me almost the exact opposite. Can't remember his handle...
.... hmmm, I think it started with a S?
goldent
(1,582 posts)holed up in that Embassy (assuming he would have been convicted, which is by no means certain). At that point, the Swedish gov. might just drop it.
elias49
(4,259 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)It's only rape, right?
elias49
(4,259 posts)Are you the judge or the jury?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And I don't think the charges should be dropped.
Do you?
elias49
(4,259 posts)They should close the case as was advised in 2010
"1.
Two girls walked into a police station in downtown Stockholm in the early afternoon of Friday 20 August 2010 and started the whole thing off. What followed after their arrival is still the subject of debate, but it's clear the Swedish police drew up a formal complaint by the state against Julian Assange.
2.
Contrary to rules of office, the on-duty prosecutor then issued a warrant in absentia for Assange as well as an 'all points bulletin' for the police to apprehend him. The spouse of an assistant to minister for justice Beatrice Ask, she followed this up by disclosing details of the case to the yellow press, including the name 'Julian Assange' and the number and nature of complaints - all without having herself seen any paperwork in the matter and despite such disclosures being a breach of office.
3.
The following day, prosecutor-general Anders Perklev was given explicit orders to clear up the mess; he called on what many regard as one of the finest and sharpest prosecutors in the country: Eva Finné. Eva was out in the country at her summer cottage, and the case dossier was sent to her by messenger that same day.
4.
Eva Finné didn't need even until 5:00 PM that same day to close the case as regards its most serious implications, telling the media that although she found the witness testimony believable, the events related did not in fact constitute criminal activity. A few days later, this part of the case was formally closed.
5.
Enter Claes Borgström, infamous for his part in the Quick corruption scandal. He was contacted by the two girls and suggested he try to get his colleague Marianne Ny to reopen the case, something possible if further 'evidence' could be 'found'. One of the girls supplied this further 'evidence', a condom later proven to be falsified for the occasion. Borgström also stated on camera that the idea to reopen the case was his, that the girls hadn't even known such a thing was possible, making it clear the meeting occurred after Eva Finné's announcement, and that the girls had appealed to him for a different unspecified (as yet unknown) reason.
6.
Marianne Ny was called in to reopen the case; Ny works with a 'development centre' on the west coast, and it's believed she planned to prosecute Assange on a legislative proposal not yet brought before the parliament, much less enacted into law...."
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And Assange should not be interviewed about them.
Got it.
elias49
(4,259 posts)I'd be glad to pursue this line of discussion elsewhere.
Goodnight.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts) hack89
(39,171 posts)because he knows it is the last formal step before he is arrested. They are not interviewing him to get his side of the story - that is what the trial is for. They have to present their case to him before they arrest him.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Makes sense.
Yeah, I didn't know we WELCOMED an interview.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)be arrested at his scheduled interview in Sweden.
He got on a plane to the UK.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Five years later and still NO CHARGES FILED. Do you know why?
Well, for years we were told by the Swedish Prosecutor that 'we need to interview Assange as required by Swedish law, and there is a legal impediment to interviewing him in London'. Right? Remember that? Remember those of us who KNEW that was a lie saying so and being attacked for telling the truth?
There HAS been an investigation, EVIDENCE has been produced. And THAT is why no charges have ever been, nor ever will be, filed.
Because the evidence shows that the allegations were false.
So, what to do once that was established? Make a false claim to drag it out, that Sweden's Law forbade interviewing Assange in London! LOL! What a crock that was considering how often this had been done in the past.
And now, the Prosecutor has been exposed as the liar she is.
As members of the Swedish Parliament said recently, either FILE YOUR CHARGES or END THIS CHARADE.
He had to be silenced once he revealed that Wikileaks was about to exposse massive corruption wrt to a 'major bank', which it is now established was BOA.
Coincidentally, BOA was taking bids on contracts to SMEAR those who were pursuing this story, including then blogger, Glenn Greenwald.
This was a scam from day one. The first prosecutor got it right.
The presence of Karl Rove in all this should have been enough for Democrats at least, but strange things have been happening regarding these issues since Bush left office.
elias49
(4,259 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)They are the protectors of our democracy.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)cause their no damn good. Assange exposed the murderers and torturers and that cannot ever be taken back. Its always the same people defending the surveillance state.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Surely he's lived in Knightsbridge long enough to qualify for UK citizenship
He's dedicated to the area, having promised he plans never to leave the Hans Crescent flat that has been so long his home
And he's had many years to draft flagship legislation for the UK: the Open-Embassies-to-Bail-Skippers Act, the Fuck-Swedish-Feminazis Act, and the No-More-US-Drones-over-Central-London Act
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Although I'm thinking he'll have to run for office in Ecuador, not the UK, right?
Since that gig in Australia didn't work out due to the rightwing elements there embracing him for some reason. Well, I know it, but I'm barely awake as it is...
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... not the path to enlightenment in our society. Exposing the vilification helps greatly.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Oktober
(1,488 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)
... Was to escape RAPE charges.
Edit:damn auto correct
Scuba
(53,475 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have done a good job, or thought they had, of villifying those who have tried to do their job. But the truth always prevails in the end, and I am thrilled to see that so many millions of people world wide, have refused to accept the lies and propaganda and continue to question them.
Even Sweden's own legal experts and government, have realized what a mockery of their system this has been and finally stepped in to FORCE this prosecutor to 'either file her charges, stop pretending she can't interview Assange in London, or end this charade'.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)that DU "juries" love to support. How many Assange hit-pieces have been posted here? My guess would be in the 1000s.
The dumbest thing about the entire Assange affair is that the truth has been known since day 1. He's broken no laws and the entire supposed discussion about him has been yet another long, drawn out propaganda premise supported only by sellout whores, corrupted politicos and the easily duped lemmings that cheer lead for whatever Orwellian chant is fed to them by their masters.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sham that this non case has been from the beginning, is exposed for what it was.
They cannot change the FACT that the Swedish Prosecutor LIED about her reasons for NOT filing charges which has now been made crystal clear.
I see the attempt to try to confuse those not familiar with the non case, by attempting to conflate the 'allegations made to get a warrant and charges.
Bottom line, after more than four years, there are STILL no charges filed against Assange and any decent person regardless of their own biases, would find that to be unacceptable from a Human and Civil Rights pov.
Response to Corruption Inc (Reply #255)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Corruption Inc (Reply #255)
Post removed
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Millions of pounds, so the area around the Ecuadorean embassy can be surrounded and surveilled.
An awful lot of trouble for what is, if what Assange's esteemed critics on DU say is true, a run-of-the-mill date rape.
But they don't spend millions of pounds/euros/dollars and countless man-hours of law-enforcement time on every frathead douchebag that violates a woman without consent. Just ask the victims of date rape - getting law enforcement to do anything at all makes a root canal look like a walk in the park - the way law enforcement treats rape victims is pretty awful.
But somehow, they decided that this alleged case was worth a multinational manhunt, all those countless man-hours of law-enforcement time, international attention.
Smells like a honeytrap to me.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)they are USING women, an attempt to 'get the Left to distance themselves from Assange', the Right ALWAYS hated him.
And that is a further insult to women and to those of us on the Left who are not so easily emotionally manipulated.
They DO think women are just so 'emotional' that all they have to hear is the word 'rape' and they will lose all sense of rational thinking.
THAT I find to be reprehensible. As a woman I am outraged that women are views as such 'emotional airheads' that they will fall for these tactics.
It must have come as a shock to them to learn that their stereotypical image of women turned out not to be true.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I say again, it might be a good time to view the award winning, Citizen Four on HBO, if you can. Shining light on what these persons have been trying to do is needed more than ever…
To quote Edward Snowden... The balance of power between the citizenry and the government is becoming that of the ruling and ruled… as opposed to the elected and the electorate…
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)His lawyers should come up with some delaying tactics, which I'm sure exist.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)The Swedish Prosecutor FINALLY filing charges is the necessary step everyone has been waiting for for almost five years.
Did you read?
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Wouldn't he be off the hook after 5 years, if nothing happens? That seems to be the implication.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It is SHE who has tried to delay filing charges on a case that has been falling apart from the minute it began, and it began in a Right Wing Tabloid Rag in Sweden when someone in their Police Dept illegally leaked a 'story' to the rag. The case was dismissed almost immediately by the initial lead Prosecutor.
She was overruled by a zany radical attorney who inserted himself into the case, without the women's knowledge, one of whom was outraged that lies were being told about her and she publicly denied being raped.
This radical attorney when asked about the women stating they had not been raped, made the outrageous statement that 'women don't know when they have been raped, that is for the STATE to decide'.
Amazing that anyone with that patriarchal view of women should have been allowed anywhere near this case.
He also admitted later that 'if this case ever gets to a court, it doesn't stand a chance'.
What a circus this has been.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)'women don't know when they have been raped, that is for the STATE to decide'
Say that in any other context here and you are justifiably either hidden or gone.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a reputation in Sweden for his zany, wacko views. I have read that the woman who allowed him to represent her has since fired him. Haven't double checked that, but that sure would be a good move.
Inbetweendays
(34 posts)That is why they want him so badly. I always thought the charges were trumped up.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)A consistent theme about Wikileaks, Greenwald, etc is that when the truth is exposed, the focus becomes WHO leaked it, rather than WHAT was revealed.
randome
(34,845 posts)This is about Assange and his attempt to flee Swedish justice.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Even when this response wasn't aimed at welcoming you.
But, since you highjacked this response, I have a suggestion… Why don't you start a new thread about how no one gives a shit about Wikileaks?
randome
(34,845 posts)My point is that you're trying to make this about Wikileaks and whistleblowers when the case before Sweden has nothing to do with that.
Unless you want to join your fellow conspiracy theorists and contend that Sweden, Australia, the UK, the UK's appeals process, the Swedish women and the US have all conspired to 'get' Assange in some way.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wing pals of Karl Rove, yes the Swedish 'Ronald Reagan' is a close pall of Karl Rove who FLED TO SWEDEN to avoid responding to subpoenas from the US CONGRESS, where he happened to be when the Right Wing rag in Sweden 'broke' the 'story', and it was a story, illegally right after Assange revealed Wikileaks had damaging info on the Big Banks, or ONE Big Bank in particular, BOA.
So many coincidences in this case. So many lies ...
randome
(34,845 posts)That's one hell of a conspiracy theory! How did they convince all the players to cooperate? Chemtrails?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)It doesn't matter what came as proof from Hawaii. Only the birther conspiracy theories matter.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)
This is why you can't be taken seriously.
But, thanks, yes it is a perfect analogy. Birthers = conspiracy theorists, something you revel in.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we might look at to judge how seriously YOU should be taken?
So far all I'm seeing are personal attacks on anonymous DUers. That generally means 'I know nothing about this, so let me giggle and post emoticons'.
I'm not taking you very seriously so far.
But you did give me a good analogy for those who cover their ears and eyes to they don't have to look at the documentation that has been presented to them over the years, and now, the final blow to their 'legal expertise', confirmation from a Swedish Court that the Prosecutor WAS lying, as we have stated for nearly five years now.
THAT is called 'irrefutable documentation' and totally blows away all the false claims made here over the years.
But we knew that anyhow.
I look forward to YOUR legal expertise on this case.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)about conspiracy theories. As far as I can see, you're the one who turned this personal.
Anyway, I've seen enough of these deceptive tactics of yours on threads and the conspiracy theories, which is why it reminded me of the birthers.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Still no answer to randome about your conspiracy theories. I see. Good to know.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)interviews, official statements from the prosecution and from the lawyers in the case, who have seen documents related to the forensic evidence, would have to NOT believe the documentation in order to be compared to Birthers.
You have still made not a single statement to show you have a shred of knowledge about this case, despite being given several opportunities to show us why anyone should take your opinions on the case, even remotely seriously.
Personally attacking those who DO have knowledge of the case only emphasizes YOUR OWN lack of knowledge.
Which is why so far, nothing you have said so far, mostly attempts at personal insults, weak ones at that, says your opinions should be taken even remotely seriously.
So thanks again I suppose. People reading the thread need to know who to take seriously and who not to take seriously.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)rank in the top 5 or are the top of the justice system rankings list though I wonder what inspirations motivated the Lisbeth Salender novels which suggest a very corrupt "dark force" within the system, to discredit & keep within someone who knows something they'd prefer the public didn't know about it.
The only thing that seemed doubtful or very unlikely was she was a world class hacker who could prove her innocence & prove their corruption. I remember the journalist, trying to reach out to her left a note on his computer in the likely event she would hack his computer at one point or another.
The novels don't significantly color my perception of Sweden because I understood how possible, especially under the control of sociopaths in a medical setting with diagnoses to justify continued power over her life.
Don't know why I bring it up except it is my favorite series of books because it is very real in terms of the way sociopaths operate or game life's rules & misdirect suspicion elsewhere, the newspapers had headlines claiming she was a member of a "Lesbian Satanic Cult" on a murder spree but for 90 lb woman she was the toughest & smartest character I ever read. Shot in the head & buried, dug herself out (a couple things made it possible) gave them like a supernatural fear when they saw her return after them & she had a brother who literally couldn't feel pain, a medical condition and she brilliantly unplugged the nail gun.
Hypothetically, if he factually didn't do what he was accused of, given the entirety of the circumstances including the US is actively trying to shut down Wikileaks I wouldn't trust & avoid court or feeling strongly of a set-up if it wasn't true. I don't know either way, I don't follow gurus or idol worship as rule so I didn't have a personal interest into him as a person because it was irrelevant to the terrific achievement of Wikileaks, who as I understand, was achieved by a team from several backgrounds including US citizens for whatever reason would prefer to remain anonymous and OK with him Assange as the public face that adds enormous risk by doing so.
It just reeks but the whole era is very shameful. MSM recently reporting "Snowden wants to come back to US" Uhhh, he said he wanted to do very early but doesn't feel he'll get a fair trial under the Espionage Act which was only originally created to curtail the free speech of lefty activist & political groups but led the era led to Zechariah Chafee who we badly need right now.
A lot of people put Daniel Ellsburg into a special category but when it comes to public statements Ellsburg has made since Bradley Manning, they continue to argue they aren't true whistle-blowers or deserve to be punished & ridiculed. 1 DUer did actually criticize Ellsburgh for releasing the Pentagon Papers but without a call-out, a DUer that will go at lengths much like NJMaverick to twist themselves into justifying literally everything from the President is the correct decision.
hack89
(39,171 posts)his lawyer said this in court under oath. That doesn't sound like a man cooperating with the police. And if it was a misunderstanding why didn't he immediately return to conduct the interviews - besides the fact that he knew he would be arrested?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to talk to him when he tried, over and over again, to get her to meet with him, that he was free to leave and she would contact him in London.
Right in this thread that old 'story' has been debunked. So why are you ignoring it and attempting to drag it up again when it has been debunked over and over again? Do you have some reason for doing something so disingenuous?
You KNOW that this OLD smear won't work, it never has, and it never will because it was completely debunked so often.
So why are you unable to stick to the FACTS?
When you can't refute the FACTS, resort to baseless false smears.
Do you know that when you do that, it makes people wonder 'why would someone do that'?
hack89
(39,171 posts)but you know that.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)actually believes there was any rape, which both women denied. So why would a prosecutor refuse to listen to women in the first place?
That seems to be a willingness to use a really horrible crime for political purposes.
And IF she actually DOESN'T believe the women and THINKS there was such a crime, why has she never filed charges against Assange?
You are right, 'rape' has always been a 'weapon of war', sadly.
And it's shameful to see it used even when the women themselves say there was no rape, to ignore them, to tell them, as the lawyer who inserted himself into the case 'women do not know when they have been raped. The State will decide that for them'.
Don't you find that horrifically patriarchal statement to be literally unbelievable in this day and age and in a country that once prided itself on its advanced views on women's issues?
JEB
(4,748 posts)than all our presidents for the last 100 years combined.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's the laziest form of 'journalism' there is: print whatever someone else steals for you. Brilliant business plan.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
JEB
(4,748 posts)is parroting the prescribed narrative and avoiding the inconvenient facts. Journalism, with very few exceptions, has been reduced to nothing more than a business.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)open press, they die when secret courts and secret warrants and secret 'citizen lists' are allowed to fester.
Thanks to all the actual Journalists, publishers, bloggers, Liberal Organizations, the Civil Liberties Union, Eff, and the growing number of courageous Whistle Blowers, like Snowden, Binney, Drake, Tice among others, this Democracy is surviving, despite all the attempts to silence the Press. And of course to Wikileaks who published the first leaked documents on the Global Corruption among the Big Banks which eventually toppled the World's economies, except for Iceland's thanks to Assange and Wikileaks and the leakers. Iceland arrested and prosecuted their corrupt Bankers and Politicians, and then the campaign to prevent Journalists from doing it again, began.
Which is why the phony 'case' against Assange came to be. And the attempted smear campaign against other Liberal ORgs, and bloggers, like Greenwald, exposed by Anonymous.
They cannot silence people, though they are working hard to do so. They shut one up, like Chelsea Manning, and another one emerges.
Secrecy destroys Democracy.
1monster
(11,012 posts)work on Watergate, et als. (I don't ask about Manning or Snowden -- I think I can guess. )
By that one phrase "by being a fence for stolen goods?" you pretty much exposed probably more than you meant to do.
randome
(34,845 posts)The media back in Ellsberg's time at least had the decency to analyze the data and even to redact what they thought was appropriate. Assange has evidenced no such skills.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Watching the bugs scramble when the rock is lifted.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)It's like the "Who Can Post The Most Asinine Non Sequitur" thread. Sheesh!
My personal favorite is the meme to label folks "rape apologist". Right up there with "haters". Classy.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I think he's got some deep personality flaws, like with the need to control everything (eg the WikiLeaks Party in the federal election) and the paranoia, but when I read all this stuff about Sweden and stuff and knowing what the US planned for him and did happen to Chelsea Manning, the shutting down of WikiLeaks on Paypal, FaceBook and a bunch of other sites, his paranoia about Sweden extraditing him to the US is one paranoia I can kind of understand. I'm assuming that Sweden may have the same rule about extradition as we have here, which is that they refuse to extradite to a country where the charges carry the death penalty unless that country takes the DP off the table, but there's nothing to stop a country like the US saying they won't seek the death penalty and then turning round and flipping the extraditing country the finger because as those 47 Republican senators have told the world, agreements that the US makes aren't worth the paper they're written on 
And if anyone in this thread has forgotten what politicians in the US were saying about wanting Assange executed, here's the full page letter me and 92,896 other Australians had in the New York Times....
But, yeah. I couldn't give a shit if someone wants to call someone who has questions about the whole thing a rape enabler. If they get bored of that, I can help them come up with some other names to call me, coz no name-calling is going to stop me thinking there's something a bit stinky about this whole thing...
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Wonderful post. You gave my comment far more thought than it deserved.
I should also say I agree with your assessment of Assange from the little I know of him sounds like a massive asshole with an ego to match. But the vitriol and fury I have seen on DU is frankly gobsmacking.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I am not too concerned about being called a 'rape apologist' either.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Marianne Ny has never stated nor maintained that she "couldn't come to London because it would be illegal to do so."
This nonsense started with an interview of Ny published in Time magazine on December 3, 2010, wherein she said:
"We had a case in the southern Swedish city of Helsingborg where a suspect was heard via telephone, and it was heavily criticised by the Ombudsmen for Justice as not being in accordance with existing law. The Swedish embassy in London is not Swedish territory in the sense that we can hold interrogations there without formal approval of British authorities."
Ny's remarks, as you an plainly see, speak to the legal impediments that exist to interviewing Assange in the UK, because an arrest - which follows such an interview in Sweden - cannot be effected in a foreign country. BTW, a "legal impediment" is not the same as "illegality". I should think someone such as yourself, who claims to be a legal expert, would have known that right off the top.
Being that Ny never claimed that her "going to London would be illegal", your claims that she told this "lie" and has repeated it for four years falls flatly on its face. "
"The excuse (lie) for nearly five years was 'we cannot interview him in London due to a legal impediment'. There was no such thing."
Again, the legal impediment is that Ny is not able to arrest Assange so long as he resides in the Ecuadorian embassy. THAT WAS, and STILL IS, the legal impediment - which does exist, whether you recognize it or not, to Ny carrying out her duties as she would were Assange on Swedish soil. Again, despite your self-proclaimed legal expertise, you apparently don't understand the nature of "legal impediments", nor the definition thereof.
"She (Ny) had to be 'ordered' to finally stop lying as to why she has failed to file charges."
Do you have a link to an order by a Swedish judge "ordering Ny to stop lying"? Of course you don't, because no such judicial order has been rendered, and no such inference has been made. So much for your "facts", which you fabricate at will.
There are lawyers on DU, and many of them have tried to educate you on this case, and many others. You have often gone off on a tangent about your "knowledge" of US law, and have been corrected time and again by people who actually studied the law, are licensed to practice it, and actually do so for a living. And instead of learning from them, you invariably insist that you know more about the law than they do.
Apparently, holding yourself out as an expert in US law was not enough - you are now an expert in Swedish law, as well as international law. One wonders why people bother graduating law school, when all one really needs to do is to claim they know the law better than those fools who wasted their time getting a legal degree.
You might want to rethink that position, sabrina. You might want to actually READ the links you are invariably offered by REAL lawyers, and learn from them - instead of embarrassing yourself by claiming that you have some kind of expertise in a field you so obviously know very little about.
You are, of course, free to buy into whatever conspiracy theories you want to re Assange - in the same way you are free to buy into any other CT that the internetz offers up on a daily basis.
However, you are not entitled to your own "facts". And the fact IS that Ny NEVER stated that going to London to interview Assange was "illegal", no Swedish judge has ever "ordered Ny to stop lying", and legal impediments DO exist to Ny carrying out her obligation to interview and THEN ARREST Assange in the UK/Ecuadorian Embassy because she cannot complete her obligations under Swedish law, i.e. arresting Assange at the conclusion of said interview. which is not possible under the circumstances.
So as you lecture people about knowing the FACTS, you might want to actually acquaint yourself with what the FACTS are before you hold yourself out as an expert on this, or any other topic.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
