Uncle Sam wants to frame the guy, Big Time.

His crime? Telling the truth.

You know, for those pesky rape and assault allegations.

I can't believe that anyone can still defend this lynching. It's repulsive.

'Lynching', my ass. His former coworkers thought he was an asshole. He has made the absolutely empty threat of revealing even MORE damaging material to the world.

He has fought extradition and lost.

These are not the actions of someone devoted to the truth. Wikileaks performs a great service. I can support them and at the same time see Assange for what he is -an idiot.

And you read somewhere on the intertubes that some people don't like him, so you want this person to be shipped off to solitary and a secret trial for charges that haven't even been filed yet? That's fucking disgusting.

That's all.

It's a well-known fact that his co-workers thought he did not use good judgment when releasing the information that might have endangered our own soldiers and spies. He refused to listen to them. They thought he would damage Wikileaks' credibility. And that's what he has done.

That is their law.

allegations of rape. So why are you spreading false rumors put out by Karl Rove's rightwing friends in Sweden?

Read the BBC story linked in the OP. 'Alleged sex crimes'. Is that a more understandable term?

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/rove-suspected-in-swedish_b_798737.html

Please answer why you are spreading right-wing lies.

Hard to believe you are completely unaware of the Rove connection in this case. It was certainly widely covered at the time.

Btw, whatever happened to Rove's subpoenas from Congress? Did he ever show up? We know he traveled to Sweden during that time as he tried to avoid those subpoenas.



Rove Might Be Trying To "Pull A Siegelman" With Julian Assange

Karl Rove was an adviser to his old friend and Swedish PM at the time Assange was in Sweden when these allegations first surface, naturally in one of Sweden's most rightwing news publications. After all charges were dropped, it seems someone wasn't happy.

The Rove allegations were all over the Swedish Media, which made poor Karl very angry along with his friend the PM. But if it looks like a duck, as the old saying goes.

What on earth was Rove doing in Sweden at that time?

Why would I since I don't care about being right or wrong? I just want to see things the way they truly are.

And I think Assange exhibits all the behaviors of a guilty man trying to avoid his accusers.

On edit: I DO care about punctuation and grammar, though.

What you provided was an opportunity to provide facts for those reading this thread who are interested in the truth. Your comments, not really taken seriously after the first few, were used very effectively to provide the facts of this story and debunk the right wing smears, (thank you for providing them so we could knock them down one after the other).

You provided a very useful service. Many more people now have facts rather than the fiction of the Right wing media thanks to your efforts, even if that was not your intention.

You should know by now that it never works on me.

But I'm glad you appreciate my 'service'.

I never saw the point of wasting opportunities to provide facts for those who actually want them.

We fundamentally disagree that facts can be interpreted more than one way. You may not believe me but I do appreciate your pointing out alternatives.

A 'fact' cannot be 'interpreted in more than one way' to turn it into a lie, that is why it is called a 'fact' not 'an opinion'.

When a lie is told, such as 'Assange is wanted on charges of rape', that is not just a wrong opinion, it is a lie.

The fact, which cannot be interpreted in more than way' is that Assange is NOT wanted on rape charges because there are no such charges and never were. That is a fact.

How do you interpret that fact in 'more than way'?

If you are Fox, there is only one way to do that, you continue to lie about it.

And who would want to 'interpret the fact in more than one way'? War criminals and their supporters. Because Assange revealed evidence of their crimes.

Ethical people otoh, regardless of their political views or dislikes want the facts and will not, once they have them, attempt to 'interpret them in more than one way'. That is how we recognize ethical people.

But since nearly every story about Assange uses the word 'charges' instead of 'allegations', it should be easy for understand why the word 'charges' gains traction.

Regardless of the semantics involved, Assange is still wanted by Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued. An extradition order was issued. Australia issued a 'declaration of abandonment' meaning they don't think the issue is worth fighting.

So if there is a conspiracy, it would need to involve the following: Karl Rove, the governments of Sweden, Australia and the United States.

And if anyone wanted to 'get' Assange, they would not have concocted this ridiculous conspiracy to 'embarrass' him, knowing he could drag the matter out for 2 years.

We are mostly not arguing about 'facts' but our interpretation of them. I can look at the same facts as you and still see Assange as a narcissistic idiot. That's my opinion of the facts.

fact telling media thankfully, in the first place. The corruption of the Corporate Media owned by huge conglomerates all over the world such as the Murdoch Empire which has inserted itself into every corner of the world.

The MSM is a propaganda tool for those whose interests do not include keeping the people informed.

So of course they distort the issue of what is going on with Assange.

And since most of us Democrats have been aware of this for a long, long time, we do not ever rely on the Corporate Media for facts. Which is why I, when this began, chose as I always do regardless of the subject matter, to look to some more credible sources for the facts. It wasn't hard, the facts were easy to find. Court documents, official statements, statements from the women etc, made you wonder why the Corporate Media got it so wrong, IF you care about truth and justice.

I assumed this is what most Democrats have been doing for a long time. I know it is what a majority of people around the globe do, which is why Assange and Wikileaks are higher in the polls Globally, than those who are wrongfully pursuing him in order to silence an International News Organization. People are no longer manipulated easily by the Corporate media, much to their chagrin.

Why did Sweden change its mind and decide to pretend they wanted to ask him a few questions but couldn't have done while he was there or by video conference, through his attorneys, or in their embassy in London?

Why, for something that is so minor, did Sweden and the US Government go to so much trouble to pursue this one individual with nothing to justify it?

The reasons are clear. It has happened before throughout history. Good people who think truth-telling is important, are rotting in jails even now, in oppressive countries. I guess their persecutors would try to excuse what they are doing also. And they too have their 'believers' and defenders.

All he had to do was to remain silent about war crimes and corruption around the globe, but especially during the Bush years, and he would be fine.

He is a political target and is viewed as such everywhere except here where the propaganda still works, although not as effectively as it once did.

The US illegally destroyed Wikileaks' business, by pressuring other businesses not to deal with them. Even China did not dare to that.

So support all this if you wish, turn a blind eye, it is your right to do so, but thankfully it is so transparent at this point, that a vast number of people see all of it for what it is.

And surely you are not surprised by Australia's neo-con lackey taking the same position as her neo-con buddies, Rove et al. Another Corporate-backed tool who hopefully will be tossed in the next election.

Assange never expected support from her, and good for him for exposing her enslavement to her corporate bosses once again, as he has done before. And that is why she hates him, Wikileaks exposed a lot about Australia's elections etc. She too has her reasons for wanting him silenced. The truth hurts.

I have not seen anything that would indicate that.

If the U.K. did not think Sweden was in the right, they would not have approved the extradition request. Unless the U.K. is also in on the conspiracy, which means they could have avoided this 2 year delay by handing him over to the U.S.

The conspiracy falls in on itself.

But I agree with you completely that the U.S. trying to shut off Wikileaks' funding was beyond the pale.

There are no charges. And when the Conspiracy Theorists are asked to prove their claims, they never can.

There are only the inconvenient facts.

And the British court decided the matter on a point that wasn't even argued before them, which apparently has never happened before. We knew the fix was in but man, what an ugly day for the British justice system.

ridiculous.

to pin Assange. Just like it was disgusting that they used a fake vaccination drive to try to get Bin Laden DNA.

It speaks to how much our government considers public health consequences, not at all.

The allegations were only for what is a misdemeanor, not wearing a condom, but Rove and his buddies in Sweden deliberately mischaracterized the allegations and now people here who should know better are using the world 'rape' also.

Why has he never been charged? Why did they not ask their questions at the Swedish Embassy, or in Sweden when he was there? He was not prevented from leaving, why not?

Classic. I'm sure the Swedish people will be interested to find that out.

ok.

Were you talking to me?

"but Rove and his buddies in Sweden " -- from your post.

your comment, buddies at the highest level of Government. Is that not a fact?

And I doubt if you do either. What I am sure of is that Rove is not running Sweden's justice department. The Swedish people would be laughing at these posts but if CTs make your day go for it.

hired Karl Rove, war criminal, neocon, liar, as his political adviser for two years. So no, most of the Swedish people did not find it amusing at all. Just as we here do not find his involvement in our politics amusing.

Links have been provided in this thread, Karl Rove most definitely has buddies in Sweden.

Why did they elect him? Please don't say Citizens United. That does not apply in Sweden and that is not how they do elections there.

Rove was a political adviser to Sweden's PM, often described as 'Sweden's Ronald Reagan'.

So now you know.

Right now, Sweden demands he be interviewed about the possible crime in Sweden. Apparently, none of their investigators can be spared to fly to London. Which is what has been requested.

He may be an asshole. I'll even go this far, I'll agree he is an asshole. Yet Sweden is hardly clean as a whistle regarding extradition. They participated in Rendition. The illegal kidnapping and torture of other people you probably consider assholes.

So why can't Sweden talk to him, interview him in London? Oh no, it must be done in Sweden. That way they can charge him. This doesn't stink to high heaven to you?

When a story doesn't add up, you don't have to know all the facts to know some of the information is missing. The story doesn't add up. If you were in California, and had been accused (NOTE accused not charged with a crime) in Florida. Florida investigators would fly to interview you in California. If they had the evidence, they could charge you in Florida, and request extradition from California. That is the NORMAL way this is done. Except with Assange is involved. The Rape charge is interesting. Many many years ago, I spent a small amount of time as a Security Guard. We were told that if we arrested someone, that we should tell any witnesses that the suspect was a rapist, a child molester, or something else heinous. No matter what crime they had actually committed. This would color the opinion of the witnesses, and change their story subtlety.

Instead of "That security guy bashed the head of that poor man with his nightstick." It became "That horrible man refused the reasonable request of that nice security man and was hit while resisting."

Everybody hates rapists, child molesters, and people who rob the elderly. So anytime I hear that claim, I am suspicious until I hear the details. I'm not saying the woman is lying, what I am saying is that there is something really strange here.

Which translates to looking for a crime to charge him with. Which is illegal.

There's nothing strange happening here. The US government wants to put him away for revealing their crimes and otherwise abhorrent conduct. It's up front and blatant, in our faces.

That's about as succinct as it gets.

How on earth do we hold the real criminals accountable if those with power stifle all of our attempts.

I don't know the answer to that. But he did lose the extradition hearing, which makes me think he's in real trouble.

This is over zealous policing due to Assange's notoriety.

don't want to pursue the case, then it's all speculation? I see some have an issue with the word "charge" as opposed to allegation, but someone should alert the media to the difference:

By David Zielenziger
June 19, 2012

Wikileaks’ Assange Flees To Ecuador London Embassy

Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, has fled to the Ecuadorean embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden, Foreign Minister Ricardo Patrino said.

Assange, 40, an Australian citizen, was ordered returned to Sweden, where he faces trial on two rape charges. Assange denied the charges but lost his last appeals against extradition in the Supreme Court of England.

retract the "charge" statement. They've been successful because saying that Assange has been charged with a crime is false.

You cannot deny non-existent charges, or even allegations. The women emphasized in an interview early in this case that there was no rape, that they had never intended for this happen, that he was not 'violent' and that they had no fear of him. What they wanted was clear. How it got so distorted is the question and always has been. Who is behind the propaganda? That is what a lot of people want to know.

For a Business and Law site, that is grossly inaccurate reporting. Pretty much discredits them as any kind of credibly source.

But put it all together and it looks to me like he has done some seriously terrible things that he needs to answer for.

The question on everyone's mind should be: "Why is Assange afraid of the truth?"

...why was Assange held without bail when he has even now not been charged with any crime? and why was Sweden unwilling to question him via telephone, a routine procedure for the kind of crime he was supposedly suspected of? and why was this misdemeanor-level crime enough to get him high on the list of the Interpol network -- higher even than many suspected terrorists? Normally, an issue such as the one claimed, would not even get on the radar of international law enforcement, and they would be unwilling to expend their time and resources on it.

We all know the answer: because the United States wants to make an example of him. In that, our country is behaving as any imperial power behaves: show anyone who dares to actually question them, how tough you can make it for them, thereby having a chilling effect on others who might be so inclined.

Yes, Wikileaks revealed secret information, some of which was arguably evidence of war crimes (in my mind, it is unarguable, but whatever). So why, again, is it a crime for a journalist to reveal secrets that have been revealed to him? Answer: it isn't, but our country's government would LIKE for it to be one, so we have conspired with authoritarian elements in Sweden and the UK to make life hard on the man. Because we can't have people going around and revealing secrets to the Great Unwashed, egad man! They might get ideas...

It is very easy to smear someone, and this is an excellent study in how it's done. Go against the most powerful state in the world, and the state will retaliate. Even though Assange is not a citizen of the U.S., and therefore one might think he would be out of reach for the U.S. for merely plying his trade. But he had the audacity to set up a system using (gasp!) encryption, for the purpose of (double gasp!!) allowing people to reveal secret information that otherwise would go unreported. For that he must be punished.

He doesn't have to be a "nice" man in order for anyone with a brain and a conscience to see how bent this is.

But he was held because an extradition order was issued and he was fighting it. He is the one who dragged this out for 2 years.

I truly doubt there is a conspiracy here. With the entire world watching what happens to him, do you really think he's going to 'disappear' or something? There must be a more plausible reason he keeps fighting this -other than 'the government is out to get me'. The most plausible reason is that he is afraid he will actually be charged with a crime.

And you admit that he has not - even 2 years later - been charged with a crime?

Doesn't that make you think for just one f'n second that something about them chasing him around for 2 years without a formal charge is conspiratorial? How could you not?

Randome wrote: "The most plausible reason is that he is afraid he will actually be charged with a crime."

Our leaders lie and hurt people in the USA and elsewhere to support the wealthy and entrenched special interests.

I am old enough to die before this is rectified (if ever which I doubt), what is your excuse?

Those were her pet names for me... Of course she's now married to a Republican, so I guess Karma is taking care of business...

human rights record is not so hot. They only got skiddish when they lost a lawsuit and were exposed worldwide.

He can commit any offense and we'll just blithely put it down as some government plot? He needs to face the music.

He hasn't been charged with a crime in Sweden. Maybe turn down your speakers.

anything remotely connected to Assange is suspect.
You can blithely trust that all is right and good and that his rights are protected. More fool you. Assange is number one with bullet on the US government's most want to get their hands on list.

I don't trust any of them.

It was so sad to see her do that.

Men who are suspected of rape and assault and do their damnedest to avoid facing their accusers -I trust them even less.

over and over. So, you can't be talking about him or you don't know the facts of this case.

that Pinochet could not be extradited or prosecuted from or in the US for Crimes Against Humanity, rape, murder, torture. The UK was on overtime not to extradite Pinochet to Spain where there was an indictment.