Wikileaks.............

[the plastic paddy]

PP. The UK are not within their Rights to enter The Ecuadorian Embassy by Force. The rest of your Post does not warrant comment. However if we are being vulgar, allow me, if you would, to post this rather coarse, but accurate it seems, Image.

Cougar moon, the thing that marks out this case and is getting people into such a lather is that it is pitching liberals/libertarians etc one against the other.

I do not doubt that our governments, media, police, judiciary, religious leaders, scientists etc etc routinely lie to us and believe me I have always stood up to corrupt politicians. My local MP would rather I was not one of his constituents after he defrauded the British taxpayer and then shamelessly attempted to hide behind his homosexuality and his parents catholicism. Disgracefully he has not been charged with his theft because he is a prominent member of one of the parties in the coalition.

I am not green behind the ears, believe me. I have asked a few times on this thread why, if Assange has been fitted up for this crime to facilitate his extradition to the US (something I do not doubt the US wish to achieve, and which I would oppose), did the authorities not organise these girls to make their complaints in the UK which, WRONGLY, has an appallingly one sided extradition arrangement with the US? You only have to look at the disgraceful situation with poor Gary McKinnon to see the UK has precisely feck all compunction about bringing the full force of the law to bear to do the US's dirty business for it, so why with Assange are they looking to do the whole thing via Sweden????? I will accept I could well be wrong, I often am and am always perfectly happy to stand corrected but I just find it hard to believe that such a convoluted route would be used.

[the plastic paddy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sanctions.html

I will not for a second claim that this is a massively reliable piece of journalism, what is? But it does provide a teeny bit of context for Correa's rise to prominence and i don't think the closed down media outlets can be a lie. Actually, all of the political sideshow is of little concern to me but sometimes it can be helpful to read another angle.

[Cathal]

But none of that matters Niall. Firstly, the naming of rape claimants is considered wholly unacceptable in most cases, but has been freely adopted by those who would consider themselves fairly liberal in other situations.


Secondly, the issue at hand is not whether Assange is guilty. The issue is whether he is subject to due legal process. And the fact that he made a website that people like, or annoyed American conservatives, doesn't exempt him.


The Swedes have been clear that he must be questioned in Sweden in order to be charged and arrested. I see no reason to doubt that that's the case.


Assange's supporters are willing him not to be guilty, and that's fine. It's perfectly possible that he's not. But it's also perfectly possible that he is.


At what point did liberals or the left become comfortable with someone being exempted from the law because f who they are? How far do we want the system to bend around him?

Going back to this article again, that's apparently not true.

Moreover, Swedish law professor Marten Schultz, who strongly supports Assange's extradition to Sweden, has said the same [my emphasis]:
"The UK supreme court's decision means only that Assange will be transferred to Sweden for interrogation. It does not mean that he will be tried, or even charged. It is entirely possible that he will be transferred to Sweden, questioned, and released if the Swedish authorities find that there are insufficient grounds for prosecution. It is impossible – as it should be – to predict how the case will unfold."
Clearly, as Green himself used to acknowledge, Assange at this point is wanted for questioning in this case, and has not been charged. Once he's questioned, he might be charged, or the case might be dropped. That is what has made the Swedes' steadfast refusal to question him in England so mystifying, of such concern to Assange, and is the real reason that the investigation has thus far been obstructed. Indeed, Swedish legal expert Ove Bring has made clear, in the context of discussing Assange, that "under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people abroad," but that Sweden is refusing to do so simply for reasons of "prestige" (he added: "If he goes to Sweden, is interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime").

[glorob]

Don't think the Govt can. Extradition belongs to the judiciary, so it would have to come before a court.

But does extradition just involve the judiciary in any jurisdiction and especially one such as the UK?

William Hague for example appears to be taking a bit more than a passing interest in this case.

[Cougar Moon]

PP/Balla. One only has to read Niall GK's detailed post in an objective way to understand the farce that is masquerading as serious allegations in Sweden. Cathal has also made Sweden's position clear in terms of both extradition and questioning, and he is very accurate. There has previously been posted verifiable proof that The Australian Government has already prepared for Assange's extradition to the US. (yet to be commented on and this information is integral), Add to that the heavy handed and extraordinary actions of the UK, in both lack of candour and threats to storm the Embassy, to having The Met ready to intercept Diplomatic Boxes contrary to Law, and the evidence of a stitch up is completely and utterley irrefutable to any reasonably logical and objective person, whether one supports Assange or not, (I do not, but I do support Human Rights and Justice) Both of you, I would argue, have already judged Assange, (although you will naturally both deny it and you're certainly not on your own in that regard. It seems much of the UK has too) Both of you have either become personal over Assange or even challenged Correa's integrity/motives ala SKY TV. What fascinates me is Human Nature. It's incredible what lengths intelligent and reasonably aware People will go to to defend their "Team" (Team UK in this case), even when faced with a situation that could develop into a desperately self defeating one for the UK and UK Citizens abroad. Citizens that could be your Friends or Family.......Apparently when asked about the leaked Tape, many "Our Team" views are on the lines of "what did they bring those Kids into a Warzone for anyway....what did they expect?"

[the plastic paddy]

I will ask again, why would they stitch Assange up in Sweden rather than the UK? Ironically, I would have considerably less faith in 'team uk' than in the Swedish legal system. So far not one person on here can give a logical reason as to why they have stitched him up in Sweden rather than the UK which reinforces my opinion that he should go to Stockholm and answer the allegations put to him. it is not a parking offence, it is rape and should be treated with the seriousness it merits in spite of the weasel words of the anti semite Galloway.

[Balla Boy]

I've certainly not judged Assange. I'm simply amazed by the willingness of some people to give him a free pass based on who he is.

There isn't "clear and irrefutable" evidence of anything. There's a lot of Internet conjecture (by it's very nature unreliable).

The willingness of the Australian govt o extradite him to the US is irrelevant, but typical of web conspiracy theories - "someone was willing to extradite him to the US, so anything else must be a fit up". Why not fit him up in Australia then?

It is wholly unacceptable to submit two women making an allegation of rape to Internet trial. Especially one that, so predictably, had decided that one was a jealous and vengeful lover and the other a fame hungry celebrity chaser. Was he on some sort of mission to only have sex with cliches?

All the Team UK stuff is jaw dropping. All those supporting Assange's extradite have said is that there is a case for him to answer. That is simply a matter of fact, and he should be treated in exactly the same way as any other citizen in those circumstances.

The notion that it's "us" performing mental gymnastics is astounding. You've cleared him, decided the character of his accusers and outlined an international conspiracy involving three govts (one of them among the most liberal in the world) without a shred of evidence.

[Balla Boy]

To clarify - second hand reports of tweets do not constitute evidence. Neither do first hand ones, nor tweets themselves. It's all spurious ****.

[99_oK?]

I will ask again, why would they stitch Assange up in Sweden rather than the UK? Ironically, I would have considerably less faith in 'team uk' than in the Swedish legal system - Sweden has a lot of previous in such stuff. So far not one person on here can give a logical reason as to why they have stitched him up in Sweden rather than the UK which reinforces my opinion that he should go to Stockholm and answer the allegations put to him. it is not a parking offence, it is rape - ???, which tabloid did you get that from? and should be treated with the seriousness it merits in spite of the weasel words of the anti semite Galloway.

Ladies pursue JA, collude and file an 'enquiry' on not wearing a condom in one case, and the allegation that one burst in the other. These allegations were made some days after the alleged acts, and by ladies one of whom at least has well-documented links to the secret service of a country that makes no secret of their aims of getting him into their custody. Some public representatives have actually siad he should have been murdered. And you are not even suspicious; WTF...?

BTW sir the crime you seem convinced he is guilty of does not bear any relation to what seems to have gone on.

I don't care for a lot of Galloway's antics, but I do remember him pointing out that WMDs were unlikely to be found in Iraq. Why do you question the words of someone known for pointing out inconvenient facts, esp. regarding a country which was exposed as having deceived it's own people. And Galloway has quite a history of outing the plotters and liers; even won compo from the Telegraph.

JA may be lacking some social manners and may even have a few serious personal flaws, but he has published some very inconvenient facts about some powerful governments and countries. It has been the aim of some of these to get him for quite a while (he's not safe in his native Oz either). None of this is secret, yet you doubt that anyone would do anything underhand to get him?

Suppose Saddam's WMDs were just hard to find and David Kelly suddenly developing a very rare heart complaint was just convenient too. But you are right on one thing; UK is just as compliant to Uncle Sam as anyone. So what is the possibility of Assange developing a rare disorder overnight and being found dead in the future?

As for Sweden being a liberal haven......? Yeah, just ask about how inconvenient Prime Minister's end, or how liberal they were to 2 asylum-seekers afraid of being lifted by the US secret service. Actually, they keep secret files on their own citizens who like to consume alcohol.

[Jenta]

This is really heading for tinfoil hat territory. A warrant was issued for his arrest in Sweden on suspicion of rape along with a number of lesser sexual crimes, a valid European Arrest warrant subsequently issued. He has extremely serious questions to answer and should answer them. He's not being targeted because of his political beliefs and the fact that he would seek asylum like this makes a mockery of a system which saves the lives of thousands of genuinely persecuted people all over the world each year.

He should man the **** up, accept that he needs to return to Sweden and trust that the Swedish authorities have no ulterior motive than to get to the bottom of the allegations made.

[masterchief]

He should man the **** up, accept that he needs to return to Sweden and trust that the Swedish authorities have no ulterior motive than to get to the bottom of the allegations made.

In fairness Jenta, he said he's happy to go back and answer any questions and cooperate fully with Swedish authorities, if, they state that he won't be extradited to the US. Given his position as head honcho of wikileaks, that's hardly unreasonable now is it?

[scotscor]

Thats the thing though. Why is Assange not going back to Sweden? is it because of the Rape accusation or the fear of extradition. From what little I know of the case its not the strongest against him.
Theres a nice post on the huffington post site, where a woman says if having consensual sex, followed by sex with a sleeping partner is rape, then she has repeatedly raped her partner. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1818518.html
Then there is the bit about the charges being dropped (within 24 hours?), and restarted after supposedly a pol got involved
Then there is the bit about both women sticking with him for a while after the events, the fact that he wandering around Sweden for weeks afterwards without any charge against him, it does all seem a bit mad.
I think hold out until Sweden says that they won't extradite you to the states, if they say that then head back. Seems fair enough to me.

[the plastic paddy]

Ladies pursue JA, collude and file an 'enquiry' on not wearing a condom in one case, and the allegation that one burst in the other. These allegations were made some days after the alleged acts, and by ladies one of whom at least has well-documented links to the secret service of a country that makes no secret of their aims of getting him into their custody. Some public representatives have actually siad he should have been murdered. And you are not even suspicious; WTF...?

BTW sir the crime you seem convinced he is guilty of does not bear any relation to what seems to have gone on.

I don't care for a lot of Galloway's antics, but I do remember him pointing out that WMDs were unlikely to be found in Iraq. Why do you question the words of someone known for pointing out inconvenient facts, esp. regarding a country which was exposed as having deceived it's own people. And Galloway has quite a history of outing the plotters and liers; even won compo from the Telegraph.

JA may be lacking some social manners and may even have a few serious personal flaws, but he has published some very inconvenient facts about some powerful governments and countries. It has been the aim of some of these to get him for quite a while (he's not safe in his native Oz either). None of this is secret, yet you doubt that anyone would do anything underhand to get him?

Suppose Saddam's WMDs were just hard to find and David Kelly suddenly developing a very rare heart complaint was just convenient too. But you are right on one thing; UK is just as compliant to Uncle Sam as anyone. So what is the possibility of Assange developing a rare disorder overnight and being found dead in the future?

As for Sweden being a liberal haven......? Yeah, just ask about how inconvenient Prime Minister's end, or how liberal they were to 2 asylum-seekers afraid of being lifted by the US secret service. Actually, they keep secret files on their own citizens who like to consume alcohol.

Conspiracy theories are nearly impossible to contradict so i am not even going to try. One thing I would like to make clear though is that I do not know if Assange is guilty. That is the point of a legal process, to ascertain guilt or innocence.

Galloway would certainly have known the whereabouts of Saddam's WMDs given he was such a great fan of the man's 'indefatiguability'. You could ask the people of Halabja whether Saddam ever had and used chemical weapons. That WMDs and the dirty dossier were used to con the UK into going to war and labour MPs were bribed with a hunting bill to vote for the invasion to go ahead angers me, I would confidently say, considerably more than most. Apart from anything else it gave a*seholes like Galloway the ammunition with which to defend the completely indefensible, Saddam Hussain.

Funnily enough I don't doubt that people might be capable of doing underhand things to entrap Assange, my point is that I don't think they would do it via Sweden. Assange developing a rare disorder could well be on the cards although didn't he suggest that his hair has gone white because of the stress of it all?

As for the secret files, how does anyone know, they are secret?

[the plastic paddy]

In fairness Jenta, he said he's happy to go back and answer any questions and cooperate fully with Swedish authorities, if, they state that he won't be extradited to the US. Given his position as head honcho of wikileaks, that's hardly unreasonable now is it?

Sweden is a democracy and as such cannot give guarantees over judicial matters, nor can any country signatory to the European Court of human rights.

[Viigand]

I had thought they wanted to question him, with no arrest warrant issued, is that incorrect.

[Jenta]

In fairness Jenta, he said he's happy to go back and answer any questions and cooperate fully with Swedish authorities, if, they state that he won't be extradited to the US. Given his position as head honcho of wikileaks, that's hardly unreasonable now is it?

That's not a guarantee that can be given by either the Swedish Government or Judiciary. I suspect Assange knows this.


Viigand - A warrant issued for his arrest in Sweden to facilitate questioning in respect of the allegations, he hasn't been formally charged with anything at this point but is almost certain to be on his return to Sweden.

[99_oK?]

........

Galloway would certainly have known the whereabouts of Saddam's WMDs given he was such a great fan of the man's 'indefatiguability'. You could ask the people of Halabja whether Saddam ever had and used chemical weapons. That WMDs and the dirty dossier were used to con the UK into going to war and labour MPs were bribed with a hunting bill to vote for the invasion to go ahead angers me, I would confidently say, considerably more than most. Apart from anything else it gave a*seholes like Galloway the ammunition with which to defend the completely indefensible, Saddam Hussain.

........

p p, are you seriously saying you believe/believed the WMD excuse for the Iraqi invasion?

Lol, suppose you can join 70% of the US population......

Of course the Kurds were attacked, you know the US attributed the act to Iran, yet they knew exactly what was involved as they had supplied most of the stuff to SH. Maybe you have forgotten SH was an ally of 'the West' in the war against Iran on-going at that time. Don't know how you can say MPs were bribed in the leadup to the Iraqi invasion; I don't consider presenting falsehoods as facts to be bribery; there's another term for it.......

If having (or having had...) chemical weapons was a valid excuse to declare war on and invade a country, then why not attack Saudi, Syria or even Israel who have far greater stocks of more potent stuff? As for Saddam Hussein; yep, he wasn't very defensible as a democratic leader, but you seem to forget he was a dictator who was setup & supported by the West. The reason Galloway was contacted, was because he had been critical of SH, and also because they reckoned (correctly) that Galloway couldn't be bought. It was SH playing games against his former allies and using the MP as a method of showing the world who actually was fabricating the lies.

In this case, Galloway bluntly put it that 'it has all the hallmarks of a setup', and from a man who has seen enough of 'em (& won a bit of compo from 1 or 2...), I'd put more than a grain of interest.

But if you put more credence in Fox news, go for it. You have to make up your own mind on the evidence; point is all the evidence available points to something more sinister here; the charge he seems to have been already convicted by most of the US media would be laughed out of court were it ever to even go to trial according to the last Swedish chief prosecutor, and was previously dismissed by the original prosecutor.

So one has to ask the question as to what is really going on here.

[99_oK?]

btw,
This has recently come to my attention: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...ef=mostpopular

Now I'd love to know what JA is really up to behind those walls, or why he is out in the Essex countryside frightening young ladies with his nocturnal roaring.......

[the plastic paddy]

Read what I said, I didn't for a second believe the WMDs line or the spin put on it by Campbell etc. As it happen, I believe the world is probably a better place for Saddam Hussain not being the leader of Iraq anymore but that does not mean I do not disagree profoundly with the arguments given by the Bliar (copywright OD) government to justify the invasion. If they had said we are invading Iraq to get rid of an evil bastard dictator the same as we did with great success, and to great acclaim, in Sierra Leone then I think a lot more people would have supported the action and the likes of Galloway would have had their sheeps clothes well and truly removed. We all know George W was after SH because, "he tried to kill my daddy" and it suited the neo con agenda very well etc etc etc etc

But that is all completely off topic which is probably my fault as I brought up Galloway in the first place. I really can't be bothered to get into an argument about Saddam Hussain as the line that the Americans put him there in the first place always willfully ignores the fact that his promotion was in the context of the Cold War. The observation of history without an appreciation of context is a complete waste of time and is the tactic invariably applied by rabble rousing fascists like Galloway. But this is not a thread about Galloway and if there was a thread about Galloway I would completely ignore it because even thinking about the man makes me feel unwell.

One thing I will say is I have never watched Fox news in my life and I never will.

[mr chips]

If they had said we are invading Iraq to get rid of an evil bastard dictator the same as we did with great success, and to great acclaim, in Sierra Leone then I think a lot more people would have supported the action and the likes of Galloway would have had their sheeps clothes well and truly removed.

I appreciate you don't want to continue too far down this line of discussion but just on this point - AFAIR, there was no legal basis for using regime change as grounds for an invasion. Hence the "need" for the dirty dossier etc.

[Balla Boy]

In this case, Galloway bluntly put it that 'it has all the hallmarks of a setup', and from a man who has seen enough of 'em (& won a bit of compo from 1 or 2...), I'd put more than a grain of interest.

But if you put more credence in Fox news, go for it. You have to make up your own mind on the evidence; point is all the evidence available points to something more sinister here; the charge he seems to have been already convicted by most of the US media would be laughed out of court were it ever to even go to trial according to the last Swedish chief prosecutor, and was previously dismissed by the original prosecutor.

So one has to ask the question as to what is really going on here.

There's no evidence of anything. Just internet meanderings. They're not the same thing. Evidence is for investigators, judges and people with due process - not for people on internet fora who don't even really understand the nature of the law being discussed. None of us has a clue, frankly, but some of us are happy to admit it. Of course it looks suspicious that someone in his situation finds themselves in this position, but would you really grant immunity from investigation on that basis?


And, for the record, George Galloway is a conniving, ego driven, bombastic, corrupt bastard. A vile man and a vile politician. An obfuscator, a liar, an anti-semite, a blow hard. I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sun would rise tomorrow. I'm surprised he has time to comment on Assange when his old friend is so busy defending the "last castle of arab dignity".

[the plastic paddy]

I appreciate you don't want to continue too far down this line of discussion but just on this point - AFAIR, there was no legal basis for using regime change as grounds for an invasion. Hence the "need" for the dirty dossier etc.

I know Mr Chips, my point was that I did not appreciate all the lies and BS but I am happy to admit I am not sad that Saddam and his hideous family are not still in charge and my views on the regime are based on amnesty international reports not what I was told by Dubya and Murdoch.

[Old Dog]

And, for the record, George Galloway is a conniving, ego driven, bombastic, corrupt bastard. A vile man and a vile politician. An obfuscator, a liar, an anti-semite, a blow hard. I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sun would rise tomorrow.

Just change anti-semite to Israeli-pandering and you have described your former heartthrob Phony Bliar to a T!

[the plastic paddy]

But does extradition just involve the judiciary in any jurisdiction and especially one such as the UK?

William Hague for example appears to be taking a bit more than a passing interest in this case.

Hague as Foreign secretary is involved in negotiations with Ecuador. The extradition to Sweden is a matter for Theresa May, the home secretary. But I believe the European arrest warrant is a supra national piece of legislation.

[Balla Boy]

Just change anti-semite to Israeli-pandering and you have described your former heartthrob Phony Bliar to a T!

Blair was never a hear throb of mine, OD. It's Tony Benn posters I have pinned to my wall.

I'd add "deluded" to Blair as well. Galloway knows what he is. You can see it in him. Blair genuinely believed in his "mission".

That said, Blair also did some good things - built hospitals, built schools, introduced the minimum wage. A far more complex character than Galloway, who is a Tammany Hall schyster of the first water. Blair is a far stranger beast, and I'd be reluctant to lump them in together. My comparators for Tony B would be Clinton and Kennedy rather than Gorgeous George. Blair sits in the "morally flawed political genius" school for me.

[the plastic paddy]

Blair was never a hear throb of mine, OD. It's Tony Benn posters I have pinned to my wall.

I'd add "deluded" to Blair as well. Galloway knows what he is. You can see it in him. Blair genuinely believed in his "mission".

That said, Blair also did some good things - built hospitals, built schools, introduced the minimum wage. A far more complex character than Galloway, who is a Tammany Hall schyster of the first water. Blair is a far stranger beast, and I'd be reluctant to lump them in together. My comparators for Tony B would be Clinton and Kennedy rather than Gorgeous George. Blair sits in the "morally flawed political genius" school for me.

I think "genius" would be stretching it but he certainly knew how to play the game, of that there is no doubt.

[Balla Boy]

I think "genius" would be stretching it but he certainly knew how to play the game, of that there is no doubt.

I really don't, and I'm not a fan. I suppose a technical appreciation would be the closest I'd get to regard for him. When you look at the scale of his achievements, I honestly believe he'll be seen retrospectively as one of the major political figures of the latter 20th century.

He took a party that was, frankly, unelectable in Britain (the missed open goal of 94 proved that, I think). He turned it upside down, abandoning clause 4, completely reworking its relationship with the media and fundamentally changing its internal structures to allow a small group of like minded individuals to (and there's no better term for it) seize control of the party from the members.

He proceeded to win three general elections, and in the first two remained the primary reason that his party won. He (temporarily at least) changed the UK's relationship with Europe, won the battle on public spending that had raged for twenty years (though, crucially, ducked the battle of how to fund it), and remained in one of the most senior political offices in the world for a decade.

While we think of the UK as a bit of a local neighbour, it's worth remembering that he did this in one of the five or six largest economies in the world.

Bar the inevitably messy end of his career (all of them, of course, ending in failure), I don't think "political genius" is too strong a term. The sense that he (and Clinton) had for what the mainstream responds to in politicians was flawless for years.

[munsterforever]

Blair is a war criminal Balla Boy

[Balla Boy]

Blair is a war criminal Balla Boy

That doesn't preclude him from being a political genius does it?

[Evil Omer]

In fairness Jenta, he said he's happy to go back and answer any questions and cooperate fully with Swedish authorities, if, they state that he won't be extradited to the US. Given his position as head honcho of wikileaks, that's hardly unreasonable now is it?

so what we're saying is that someone subject to serious accusations should be allowed to dictate terms (relating to a separate matter) before answering questions to clear his name? Sorry but this is not as simple as the Swedish "authorities" giving him a free ride for any other investigations. What if he subsequently breaks the law relating to an issue the US has every right to request extradition for? He could sit there and flash immunity in front of them. Wording it so that couldn't happen would be a legal nightmare and would just drag things out even further. Which as others have pointed out, is probably what he intends. It's the classic of appearing to be reasonable by making a condition against your reasonableness that you know the other side cannot meet.

As many people have pointed out, for a man so enamoured of freedom of speech he seems very keen to cosy up to a government on a par with the US when it comes to suppressing that and very keen to be treated as a special case when it suits.