That story is almost a week old by now...

about this farce, knew that.

They also knew that this is why the Prosecutor has stalled for four years because, as even the off the wall Lawyer who appoited himself as the women's attorney and is responsible for starting up a case that was thrown out, wisely, in the beginning, said that if it did ever get to court it wouldn't hold up.

Now if you are not aware of the evidence in the case and simply cheering for the jailing of an innocent man, then you won't understand why that attorney made that claim.

The Prosecution lied and stalled for YEARS, causing this to become a Human Rights Issue.

It's truly shameful that anyone would support the use of women and of the judicial system for their own agenda.

Even if someone hated the whole concept of Whistle Blowing, no decent person could support this farce. IT is a threat to all of us when people in power treat ANYONE so unjustly.

Which have been brought to your attention multiple times.

Here again are links to some of the legal documents in the case you have insisted aren't "worth the paper they are written on":

50 Facts About Rape

Low estimate of the number of women , according to the Department of Justice, raped every year: 300,000
High estimate of the number of women raped, according to the CDC: 1.3 million
Percentage of rapes not reported: 54 percent
A woman's chance of being raped in the U.S.: 1 in 5
Chances that a raped woman conceives compared to one engaging in consensual sex: at least two times as likely
Number of women in the US impregnated against their will each year in the U.S. as a result of rape: 32,000
Number of states in which rapists can sue for custody and visitation: 31
Chances that a woman's body "shuts that whole thing down": 0 in 3.2 billion
Rank of U.S. in the world for rape: 13th
A woman's chance of being raped in college: 1 in 4 or 5
Chances that a Native American woman in the U.S. will be raped: 1 in 3
Percentage of women in Alaska who have suffered sexual assault: 37 percent
Number of rape kits untested by the Houston police force: 6,000-7,000 (Texas ranked second in nation for "forcible rape&quot
Number of adult men accused of repeatedly gang raping 11-year-old girl in Texas: 14
Quote in the New York Times regarding the rape: "They said she dressed older than her age."
Age of woman raped in Central Park in September, 2012: 73
Number of rape kits left untested in Detroit, listed by Forbes as one of two the most dangerous places for woman to live in the US: 11,303
U.S. state in which, in September 2012, mentally disabled rape victim was required to provide evidence of her "kicking, biting, scratching" in objection to her rape: Connecticut
State seeking to reduce childcare welfare benefits to women cannot provide proof of their pregnancy-causing rapes: Pennsylvannia
Percentage of sexual assault and rape victims under the age of 12: 15 percent
Percentage of men who have been raped: 3 percent
Percentage of rapists who are never incarcerated: 97 perent
Percentage of rapes that college students think are false claims: 50 percent
Percentage of rapes that studies find are false claims: 2-8 percent
Number of rapes reported in the military last year: 16,500
Pentagon's estimated percentage of military assuaults not reported: 80-90 percent
Percentage of military rape victims who were gang raped/raped more than once: 14%/20%
Percentage of military rape victims that are men: 8-37 percent
Percentage of military victims who get an "involuntarily" discharge compared to percentage of charged and accused who are discharged with honor: 90 percent involuntary to 80 percent with honor
Chances an incarcerated person is raped in the U.S.: 1 in 10
Increase in chance that LGTB prisoner is raped: 15x greater chance
Number of men raped that could be counted as legally raped before the FBI changed its definition in December of 2011: 0
Number of rapes noted in commonly used World War II statistics: 0
Number of rapes of WWII concentration camp inmates: Untallied millions
Number of rapes of German women by Russian soldiers at the end of WWII: between 1m and 2m
Number of women raped in 1990s Bosnian conflict: 60,000+
Number of women raped per hour in Congo during war: 48
Country where 12 year old was forced to participate in the rape of his mother: U.S.
Country where women are imprisoned for being raped: Afghanistan
Age of Moroccan rape victim who committed suicide after being forced to marry her rapist: 16
Worldwide number of "child brides" under the age of 18 forced to marry every day: 25,000
Ages of girls forced to marry a 59-year-old at the Tony Alamo Christian Ministry in Arkansas: 8, 14, 15
Estimated number of people, primarily children, sexually abused by priests in the U.S. versus the number of senior Catholic officials found guilty of sexual abuse related crimes in the U.S.: 10,667 to 1
Chances that a woman in the U.S. is raped versus gets breast cancer: 2 to 1
Chances that a victim is "Emergency Raped" by a stranger versus percentage of victims who consider their rapes emergencies: 7 percent versus 100 percent
Percentage of victims of rape who report the use of a weapon: 11 percent
Prison sentences for four men found guilty of participating in gang rapes of two teenage girls in France over two years: one year, six months, suspended sentence
State where in 2012 a doctor is facing the loss of her medical license for providing an abortion to a pregnant10-year old incest rape victim: Kansas
Country where doctors (but not the rapist) were excommunicated for performing a life-saving abortion to nine-year-old incest rape victim: Brazil
Country where major party's vice-presidential candidate wants to criminalize all abortions including rape-related ones, because rape is just "another method of conception": U.S.

ALLEGATIONS, in order to GET A WARRANT, NOT in the SWEDISH COURT, has ZERO to do with the actual case.

Is there something you don't get about this that you keep posting that same old 'list' made up with ZERO evidence, against the wishes of the women, written by, WHO AGAIN?

The UK Court does NOT have jurisdiction over this case. Is that clear enough for you?

And those 'allegations' have not been presented, understandably as they would be thrown out instantly against the ACTUAL evidence, in the Swedish Court.

Anyone, who is not an honest person, could make a list of allegations like that against YOU and the claim they are a fact.

Those claims are MEANINGLESS to this case.

It's all you've got obviously, or you would be presenting actual FACTS about the case.

I will continue to say that those who are USING WOMEN and/or supporting those who are doing it, in order to SILENCE THE PRESS, are a disgrace especially if they, in any way, claim to be supporters of Women's rights.

Such as the college cases and others - where evidence later arose documenting it was a money extortion or for fame.

Hence, those who suffer from actual cases - are given extra pain of worries of being called a faker.

It's just all so bizarre - how those who are good people - rush to judgment, due to the issue falsely presented.

rights as a human being, let alone a woman, when her statements of outrage that they had turned her simple question about STDs into RAPE, (don't forget Karl Rove had a hand in all this also) were dismissed, she was ignored and according to her friends and family SO distraught over what they are doing to her, (eg, telling her SHE doesn't now when she has been raped, the STATE WILL tell her) that she refused to speak to the authorities anymore.

There is no question what this phony case is all about unless someone has an agenda, or unless they have not taken the trouble to look at the available evidence and are just knee-jerk reacting to the word 'rape', as was intended by those who are tryiing to silence the Press.

All I said was that the OP shouldn't have been posted in LBN

Not sure why you're jumping on me for suggesting commentary/analysis for a week-old story didn't belong in LBN

Apparently I was wrong and you were not dismissing the attorney's commentary on the case, in which case my apologies.

Thanks

Publishing information? That's not a crime.

He didn't break any U.S. laws.

This is between him and Sweden.

self-serving false documents among the real ones?

Per the rumour that theres an indictment.

The rest of us who have paid attention to what Wikileaks has released don't believe that however. Its the classic confrontation we've now witnessed with the other whistleblowers.

Does the publication of government malfeasance justify the Espionage Act charges?

Those who are authoritarians would say yes. Those who believe in the exposure of government crimes would say no.

Snowden is a different matter.

Russsia because the US took away his passport so he could not board his next plane out of the stopover in Moscow. THEY forced him to remain in Russia.

Hong Kong refused US requests to hand him over.

They did not restrict him on his journey to South America.

After which the US removed his right to travel.


So how does any of this make him subject to the Espionage Act?

While working for a contractor for the government, he stole confidential information and handed it over to Wikileaks. He could have brought the information to Bernie Sanders, or any other member of Congress, instead of handing it over to Assange to publish it without protecting identities of the CIA employees whose lives he was putting at risk.

No one forced him to fly to China or to Russia. Those were his choices, and he was probably influenced by Greenwald in making those choices.

But it was not his travel that makes him subject to the Espionage Act. It was his theft of government secrets and handing it over to Wikileaks. He made the mistake of trusting Greenwald and Assange instead of Bernie Sanders. So now he's stuck in Russia.

Nevermind how Wikileaks threw LulzSec under the buss once they did the dirty work.

The emails in question are purely speculatory though. There's no proof they're true in any way.

Assange.

And yes, the question is why?

90% of the stuff they come up with is speculation.

And the Christian Science Monitor and virtually every other mainstream new organizations...

Okaaaayyyy.

Only way Assange gets indicted is if Manning had accused him of helping, which they no doubt tried to do, but Manning is obviously did not do that (Manning could've even lied and said that Assange helped, for a lesser sentence, mind you).

Ecuador is not a friend of asylum seekers when the US wants them. One need only look at Barankov as an example. If the US wanted Assange they'd have him.

The US has executed US citizens without charges or a trial. They have imprisoned confirmed innocent people for decades.

They will snatch him the first chance they get. And they will hold him "pending an investigation" which will drag out for decades and be kept as far from public scrutiny as they can weasel under the pretense of national security.

So if they wanted him they'd go that route.

They have nothing on Assange or else they probably would have done something by now.

What kind of country have we become, when our Justice [sic] Department issues 'secret' indictments?

I guess it's OK, since the President is a Democrat. He must mean well.

to be despotic - OPENLY!

indictment that may or may not have been issued by a grand jury that may or may not exist anymore.

Generally, indictments can be held until a federal grand jury wraps up. Assange has speculated for years that a grand jury that was empaneled in the rocket docket is out to get him. His proof? Some emails.

Now, a jury was empaneled to investigate the Manning leak--specifically, it's linkage to a group of hackers at MIT. Manning refused to testify, and it's gone nowhere.

I don't think the US wants Assange--if they did, it would have happened while he was out on bail. Much easier to extradite from the UK than Sweden,

he will be interviewed, the prosecutor will ask for him to surrender and return to Sweden under arrest, and ........?

Free Assange!

stalling, stalling, stalling...

Assange has told her to come on down. The Swedish SC has TOLD her to get going.

Yet she doesn't.

I am sure negotiations are ongoing. I think the big issue will be whether Nye plans to arrest Assange after the interview as she has maintained since the beginning. I assume Ecuador is trying to figure out how to respond to various potential scenarios before allowing the interview to happen.

The interview isn't "let's sit down for a chat". She has to negotiate with the UK and Ecuador to have jurisdiction over Assange during the interview, and will likely try to arrest Assange after it.

This interview is not "questioning the subject" like you see in Law & Order episodes. It's the accused person's last chance to avoid being arrested. We don't have this interview in the US or UK legal system, we just arrest.

Nye can just fly to the UK and enter the embassy right now?

I've been hearing for years that Ecuador must hate Assange mustering around their embassy in his bathrobe...

So which is it? They hate the situation or are supportive? Can't have it both ways.

And the UK has spent something like 15 million pounds making sure Assange is exactly where they want him for questioning.

Yeah, I'd say both countries have agreed.

isn't it more likely that they are simply negotiating the terms of the interview and making sure that they fully understand the potential impact of any action they do?

Because Nye is coming to arrest Assange. It will set off a diplomatic uproar if the Ecuadorians refuse to recognize Swedish legal proceedings. You have to assume that this issue is being discussed at the highest levels of government and they will take their time coming to a decision. We don't even know if there is agreement in Ecuador about how to handle Assange.

the UK thinks he's guilty and want this interview to proceed asap so they can stop spending a bloody fortune guarding the Ecuadorian embassy (to make sure Assange is available yesterday).

The Ecuadorians believe Assange is innocent. They want justice for Assange. Why would they possibly prevent that? Remember not everyone believes he's guilty and will be arrested after this interview, all speculation aside.

Besides as I've been told ad nauseum on DU, those Ecuadoreans must HATE Assange puttering about their London embassy. Following that logic surely they'd be so sick of him, they're ready to jump on this interview in order to get him out? They'd welcome the chance to have him arrested?

You can't have it both ways - either way, Ecuador has no reason to prohibit this interview. The UK is even more motivated...

Nope. No one stands in Ny's way except her.

ok.

it is a good step. Progress is being made. Now we just have to hear from the UK.

after these kinds of interviews.

And Ecuador has NOT heard from Ny. That's what the official statement said. There's NO progress that been made fyi. Ecuador is in exactly the same position they've been in since Assange sought refuge there - completely open to the interview.

And really, do you think the UK is going to put up some kind of fight over this???

she wouldn't say it if she couldn't do it, now would she?

which is the gist of what you all have been saying. And I believe a prosecutor who already says they're going to indict and arrest without ever speaking to Assange or having a DNA test is already prejudiced.

So knowing you're already judged guilty without a single word spoken, exactly what rationale does Assange, the Ecuadorean embassy and his lawyers have for doing the interview at all?

Oh wait, they WANT to do interview. Have been asking for it for a few years now.

Hmm, interesting eh?

and you don't understand how a civil law judicial system works vice a common law system. Go read the trial transcripts. It will cure your ignorance.

Assange will be interviewed in due time. Nye will ask him to surrender. What do you think he will do?

Under Swedish law, she is supposed to be able to arrest Assange at the end of the interview. She can't do that if he's located in the UK, and in the Ecuadorian embassy without both country's permission.

Both countries would have to agree to give her the power to arrest.

for this interview. You really think they're blocking Ny? That's absurd.

As for the Ecuadorians what possible reason would they have to block Assange finally getting justice? Remember, they believe he's innocent. Not everyone is as convinced he's about to be arrested as anonymous internet "lawyers" (cough).

so if the Ecuadorians want Assange to get justice, they have to allow her to arrest him in the embassy and take him in custody. Because justice will happen in a Swedish courtroom.

theres no way they are debating "sovereignty". That's laughable, especially at the obscene amount of money they've spent ensuring he stays put for Ny all these years.

And as I've said, Ecuador wants justice for Assange. They aren't going to stand in his way. As is obvious they SUPPORT him. They want him to get justice. It's clear to me they don't believe he's guilty or they wouldn't harbor him.

Unless you really think that badly of Ecuador? Do you? Because they certainly don't deserve your scorn and I'd love to see you put up an argument that they're the Devils spawn (trust me on this, the U.S. Are the bad guys in their history put please proceed governor...)

things are moving at relative diplomatic light speed.

Do you think they're holding things up?

Ecuador wants justice for Assange. Clearly they believe he's innocent or they wouldn't have allowed him to stay. Why would they have any problem with Ny's actions? I'm sure they don't believe he's going to be arrested or Assange would be out of there.

Unless you believe Ecuador is scum and is harboring a person they believe is a criminal? Is that what you believe of the Ecuadoreans?

No...they haven't.

And it must be difficult. ...explaining how a wikileaks employee and apologist has done such disgusting acts with relation to a prominent whistleblower.

Go ahead. I'll even give you a few days to (not) locate it since I've never said that. Not once.

Assange himself wants the questioning. So do I. So does Ecuador.

And Ecuador hasn't agreed to anything since Ny hasn't even approached them yet - and I reiterate, unless you are privy to information otherwise then share it. Because as of now Ecuador hasn't heard from her.

Edited to add can you provide the link that states that these types of interviews mandatorily lead to arrest under Swedish law? I can't seem to find that in the Swedish legal code. Thanks.

Thank you, fyi, for revealing that you have not read the seminal fact-finding document on the case......where Assange's own lawyer testified to his flight.

You should also read that document for Swedish process...Sweden is not a common law country...and Assange is not going to be "questioned." He already has been. He is being interviewed prior to arrest.

Read the Belmarsh verdict......Sid gave the link in the OP.

I'm not going to re-hash that argument. Sabrina has laid it out numerous times and I'm entirely unwilling to get into it AGAIN when it's false.

I'm asking YOU to provide the section of Swedish legal code that stipulates that these types of interviews always lead to an arrest.

Lastly, laserhass is the author of the OP here. I have no idea what you're talking about with Sid

Are you confused counselor?

Lol

arrested post interview---and Assange fled. Was he free to go? Sure--he wasn't custodial. But that's never been a charge against Assange. The fact is, as the extradition court found, Assange had a date with the prosecutor, was advised by his attorney, Mr. Hurtig, that he would arrested, and he got on a plane. That's not what an innocent person does.....

Here---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1053216

Look, I can't make you read the Belmarsh court decision.....but it does answer all the legal questions you are asking.

Specifically, the Belmarsh court goes into detail on the Swedish system, noting its differences with English common law. It reviews the Swedish procedure of interview and arrest. It reviews the sworn testimony of the prosecutors. It details the validity of the EAW.

So you don't have to take it from me--you can read the actual findings of fact from a court. And isn't that more reliable than internet posters and a bail-jumping rapist?

Bluntly.....I don't see HOW one argues this case, at all, without being familiar with what the fact-finder found.

Assange's Swedish attorney didn't try to get in touch with him and admits he never told Assange he might be arrested because he didn't think it was a real probability.

And like I said.....read the seminal finding of facts on the case you are discussing!!! The judge details the Swedish system quite nicely, and then, we can discuss it.

I'm not going to do homework for you.....especially since this nearly 4 years past the court's findings.

How does one discuss the facts of the case without reading the seminal document on the case?????

you're on record over and over and over that these types of interviews precede arrest. I can't find that.

Please give me the relevant section to read that says what you think it says.

And link the section where Hurtig retracts that testimony too while you're at it.

I'm not taking anyone's word for it any more. Since you know exactly where the sections are that say what you think they say (even as you linked a completely contrary statement above trying to demonstrate that Assange's lawyer says he fled to avoid arrest), I'm not doing your homework for YOU. You made the statements. Prove it. I want the legal code and now I'd like the statement from Hurtig retracting his testimony.

whole decision, but don't you think you should know the actual fact-finding in the case?

Why do you hate Sweden?

she's had 4 years to prepare for this day.

Assange has said to come on down!

Yet she stalls...

and the Ecuadorians have to agree to give her access to the embassy. I suspect negotiations are ongoing. I am sure Assange will try to set conditions on the interview - no reason to think he will just roll over and quit now.

she can't just fly to Britain and walk into the embassy. As far as I can see, neither has agreed to the interview.

At the very least you would expect them to formally agree to holding the interview in London in the Embassy. I am sure there are sovereignty issues to be resolved, especially if Nye plans to arrest Assange.

the UK thinks he's guilty and want this interview to proceed asap so they can stop spending a bloody fortune guarding the Ecuadorian embassy (to make sure Assange is available yesterday).

The Ecuadorians believe Assange is innocent. They want justice for Assange. Why would they possibly prevent that? Remember not everyone believes he's guilty and will be arrested after this interview, all speculation aside.

Besides as I've been told ad nauseum on DU, those Ecuadoreans must HATE Assange puttering about their London embassy. Following that logic surely they'd be so sick of him, they're ready to jump on this interview in order to get him out? They'd welcome the chance to have him arrested?

You can't have it both ways - either way, Ecuador has no reason to prohibit this interview. The UK is even more motivated...

Nope. No one stands in Ny's way except her.

the Swedish court order gives that to her? Interesting legal theory there.

after these sorts of interviews? You and msanthrope (sic) obviously have a link since you repeat this as "fact" so often.

Msanthrope (sic) appears to be shy about producing that so I thought maybe you'd provide it.

TIA

I am assuming you have read the High Court transcripts since all the issues we are discussing were hashed out in court.

This is what Nye said in a sworn written statement:

and this is ok in your eyes? Before she's had a single word with him?

Furthermore, I don't read this as an arrest is imminent. It reads that "criminal proceedings" would ensue. What exactly does that mean under Swedish law? I'd like to read their law, not your assumption that this means arrest. Speaking of which...

Again, I ask you for the section of the Swedish legal code that mandates arrest after these types of interviews. Since you are insistent that's what must happen, I'd like to read that myself.

Guilt or innocence will be determined at trial.

Go read the trial transcripts. It is all explained there. I am surprised you haven't already - you have strong opinions so I assumed they were based on in depth knowledge. It is not my job to fix your ignorance.

And that the interview is just a formality.

Can you link where Ny says she has enough evidence to arrest and indict? Not even the former senior investigator on the case Eva Finne believes that.

her sworn written statement where she states she will arrest and indict Assange is quoted verbatim in both the transcript and the decision. Go look again.

Government over reaches abound - beyond compare.

Are you aware of Lavabit encryption and the demand for all passwords of Ladar Levinson's customers.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/ladar-levison

We ARE Alone!

He hasn't broken the US espionage law.

To break the US espionage law, you have to:
1) Have official access to classified and thus waived your first amendment rights.
2) Either sell classified information or give it to a foreign country.
3) Not be in group #1 and buy classified information from someone with official access.

Assange hasn't done any of those. It is not illegal to publish classified information that was leaked to you. That's why Greenwald has not been prosecuted.

The second part is why the government had so much trouble prosecuting Ellsberg. He didn't give the Pentagon Papers to another country, nor did he accept any money for leaking them. If Snowden had remained in the US, he would have ended up in the same situation: The government could harass the fuck out of him for a while, but would not be able to make a case. However, Snowden has now accepted something of value for his leak - shelter, food, etc. from Russia.

Manning was subject to the UCMJ when she leaked the information to Assange, and the UCMJ espionage laws are broader. That allowed her to be successfully prosecuted.

The second he's no longer protected by public outrage, a CIA-team will kidnap him off the streets and he will be shipped off to a black site.

Innocent people have died in Guantanamo Bay.
The US willfully has no safeguards in place that prevent torture of detainees.
Julian Assange is no US-citizen.
The US has black-sites all over this planet for letting people disappear.

Do you REALLY think that being factually innocent is any protection when the US is out to get you?

Julian Assange walks out of the embassy.
Gives interviews.
Out of fear from intelligence services, he goes into recluse.
He stops personal appearances, using livestreaming instead.
You stop hearing from him for some time.
Without the hype, the media moves on.
The end.


What happens if nobody has seen Glenn Greenwald in a year? That will be noticed, because it's unexpected.
What happens if nobody has seen Julian Assange in a year? That will go unnoticed, because that's what you expect.

I realize you really want to tell a particular story here, but you've got the same problem as religious fundamentalists - you've got a contradiction in your cannon.

One option would be to look at your story and realize it is flawed.

Another option is to invent some more super powers for the person your story is about - the "mysterious ways" cop-out.

The third option is to deflect, distract and go into a rage.

Which one do you want to do?

"No true Scotsman would leave Greenwald unarrested, therefore your claim is false."
You see? Easy-peasy.

You claim that Evil Shadow Government (tm) is waiting to drag Assange off to torture him.

You claim that Greenwald is protected from Evil Shadow Government (tm) by being public.

You have provided no reason why Assange can not do the same thing. Instead, you assert that Evil Shadow Government (tm) will appear when he leaves the embassy and whisk him away.

I realized I got pushed into making a point a didn't intend to make.

I said, the US kidnapps people unless "public outrage" is expected.
You said, "but Greenwald".
I said, Greenwald is protected by "publicity".

I see it this way: Even though Assange is a fame-hungry character, he nevertheless understands the importance of secrecy and protection. That's his profession. He WILL step out of the spotlight, at least to some degree. Once not being seen in person becomes his pattern, once not generating headlines becomes his pattern, he is vulnerable.

You know who else is invulnerable thanks to publicity? Petraeus.








Not arresting a particular critic off the streets doesn't look to me like a guarantee that it won't happen to other critics.

You don't see enemies of Putin dying left and right either. Kill one as a warning from time to time, in a case that will never truly be solved (e.g. Litvinenko, Politkowskaja, Nemtsov...), and you get all the self-censorship you need from your critics.

who signed a confidentiality agreement. It would be like prosecuting the Washington Post for publishing info from Snowden.

The only thing is he legally accused of is sexual assault, and because he is has been a fugitive from justice for four years, the statute of limitations is close to expiring. Everyone is lining up to protect an accused rapist. Let's not pretend this is about anything other than seeing a man evade justice for allegedly sexually assaulting women, who rate as less than nothing to people who elevate accused rapists---whether website owners or football players--over their victims.

People advocate concierge justice for the few, the rich and great, while their victims are vilified and treated as insignificant. They actively argue for a society based on rampant inequality where a someone like Assange shouldn't have to obey the laws and procedures of mere mortals. He is too important to appear in the jurisdiction, to produce his DNA. The Swedish government must serve him, just as the women he violated exist to serve him. Deference for this one great man is about promoting inequality and power of the few, justice system and society based on rampant inequality where a few are treated as Kings and their victims discarded as nothing. It shows complete contempt for social justice and principles of equality before the law. Instead, it actively promotes patriarchy, inequality, and rape culture.

There is nothing liberal, leftist or just about arguing that one man should be immune from laws prohibiting sexual assault, treated to concierge justice, and his victims treated as less than nothing. No wonder only 3 percent of rapists ever do jail time when people line up to ensure those accused of rape escape justice. Whether that accused rapist is a football player or website publisher, the story, actions, and goals are the same.

Contractors get security clearances all the time, and that requires waiving first amendment rights and confidentiality agreements.

He is a man who runs a website, which published leaked documents, who is evading justice for sexual assault--nothing more, nothing less.

ETA: A civilian US government employee would be subject to the same laws as a contractor, and as Assange.

not the contractor. He was doing no work for the US government in any capacity. He wasn't even in the US at the time he published the documents, and his website wasn't hosted in the US.

There is a reason the US government focused on Manning and not Assange. Assange violated no US law, at least not in regard to Wikileaks.

I'm agreeing with you. All I'm pointing out is there is no special consideration for civilians with security clearances or civilian government employees.

Why wait for years? He could have interrogated Assange outside of Sweden: It was done before Assange and it obviously is possible now. He could have interrogated Assange inside the embassy there and then, get on with the case and clear this up. Assange would have become either an innocent man or an international fugitive.

If this truly is about up the allegations and nothing else, THEN WHY THE WAIT?

It isn't standard procedure so the Swedish supreme court had to finally weigh in on the matter.

If that doesn't sound plausible, then ask the question yourself: Why the wait?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

now she's been called on it by her very own Supreme Court who have ordered her to go. Swedish prosecutors have NEVER been restricted to Sweden to carry out their prosecutorial duties and have certainly conducted these interviews outside of Sweden.

This has been hashed out on that gargantuan thread already and you know this.

...adopting your word of 'lie', why do you think she's been lying all this time? What's more plausible, that she wanted to pretend to arrest Assange for some reason or that there were obstacles in her way that have now been cleared by the supreme court?

What do you think she gains by delaying the proceedings?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

the ones who'll excuse Assange of the rape he admitted to, aren't interested in facts.

Sid