Assange Watch

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 13 Mar 2015, 11:04

expire under the statute of limitations in August

Sounds like the Swedes have found a handy face-saving get-out. And if Ralf is right then the public mind is that of an ass.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 13 Mar 2015, 12:31

When he was due to give a video talk at the Cambridge University debating society (The one frequented by future prime ministers) it was called off after threats of protest and invasion by feminist students for giving voice to a rapist.

The public IS an ass.

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 17 Mar 2015, 09:28

Telesur: 1,000 days: Julian Assange, Ecuador and the US War on Truth

On Monday Julian Assange marks his 1,000th day in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. 24,000 hours spent trapped in a handful of little rooms in a non-descript Knightsbridge road: tirelessly working, rarely venturing into the sunlight.
While the building appears unremarkable, the symbolism of the four walls is great. Because ironically, the inside represents the freedom offered by the Latin American country, and outside, persecution and indefinite imprisonment await. Yet the Australian national has never been charged with a crime.

This is the tale of one of the greatest battles over freedom of speech in modern history, and how the tiny nation of Ecuador became an internationally recognized champion of human rights against the opposition of two imperialist giants.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 17 Mar 2015, 11:04

After nearly 1000 days, a breakthrough on that front came earlier this week when Swedish prosecutors finally agreed to question Assange within the embassy. The move is seen as a boost to Assange’s attempt to prove his innocence. But even if the Swedish arrest warrant is dropped, it doesn’t mean Assange can walk from the embassy a free man.

“The UK has said that even if that happens they are going to arrest me anyway and you also have the U.S. case,” Assange told teleSUR.

I don't understand. Arrest him for what, exactly?

If they have actually told him this then surely the whole lie about the rape case is exposed, because his fears of extradition to the US are confirmed as the reality. But if the UK authorities have a legal reason to arrest him anyway, then what's the point in involving Sweden? Why don't the UK authorities just issue their own arrest warrant?

The situation does have to change if the Swedish case is dropped. It forces the UK's hand, unless they are going to arrest Assange for no stated reason, which is not compatible with UK law (obviously). They either have to come up with some other obviously-trumped-up reason for issuing an arrest warrant, or they have to make explicit that the reason they want him is so he can be extradited to the US. I'm no lawyer, but if they do the latter it must surely lead to a court case to establish the legitimacy of the warrant, which would be destined to end up in the European Court of Human Rights.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 17 Mar 2015, 15:22

I expect he will be arrested for breaking bail conditions. The full force of due process will be applid because in high profile cases like this where someone makes the law look like an ass they always exact their revenge. Its called being seen to be able to screw you over regardless.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 17 Mar 2015, 20:10

Is that what Grant Shapps is counting on?

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 21 Apr 2015, 13:36

In the words of the man himself - Assange: How the Guardian milked the Snowden story

In it, he discusses the journalistic qualities of both The Guardian and Luke Harding. In short, neither has any.

Julian Assange wrote:We are left with a "Bullshitter's Guide" to the world of the world's most wanted man. It is a book by someone who wasn't there, doesn't know, doesn't belong and doesn't understand.

Where the book is accurate, it is derivative. And where it is not derivative, it is not accurate. In the chapter on Snowden's exit from Hong Kong, I discover that I had been "frantically trying to make contact with Edward Snowden" and that I had "barged [my] way into [his] drama."

I was present at these events (Harding was not), and it was Edward Snowden who contacted me for help, not the other way around. This is something Snowden will happily confirm, at least to those who have access to him. The entire chapter is irredeemably specious. "Much is mysterious, but..." writes the self-styled journalist Harding, a polite way of saying that what follows has been made up.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Jul 2015, 12:20

Exiled 16th August 2012
Today is 24th July 2015

Coming up to three stolen years.

I hope Assange gets world class lawyers and sues the asses off Sweden and Britain.

Post by **clv101** » 24 Jul 2015, 12:34

raspberry-blower wrote:In the words of the man himself - Assange: How the Guardian milked the Snowden story

I read Luke Harding's book (The Snowden Files) immediately after reading Greenwald's (No Place to Hide). Harding's was massively inferior for not being a primary witness.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 06 Aug 2015, 14:41

A long but complete and accurate picture of the entire sorry saga can be found here.

What Ny fears is that the SMS messages will destroy her case against Assange. One of the messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him". She was "shocked" when they arrested him because she only "wanted him to take [an HIV] test". She "did not want to accuse JA of anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". (In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been "railroaded by police and others around her".)

Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both have denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, "I have not been raped."

Watch out for the 20th August. Obama hides his vindictive lies well.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Aug 2015, 18:32

emordnilap wrote:Exiled 16th August 2012
Today is 24th July 2015

Coming up to three stolen years.

I hope Assange gets world class lawyers and sues the asses off Sweden and Britain.

He cannot as it is his rather foolish decision to live in an Embassy. He should have gone to Sweden.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Aug 2015, 19:19

johnhemming2 wrote: He cannot as it is his rather foolish decision to live in an Embassy. He should have gone to Sweden.

That is the single most idiotic statement you've made on this forum.

He'd have to be completely f***ing mad to go to Sweden. He'd end up spending the rest of his life in solitary confinement in the United States.

I can only presume you have done no research whatsoever into this case. Anybody who had could only come to the conclusion that the entire bogus "rape" case has the sole purpose of getting him to Sweden so he can be extradited to the United States to face charges related to his whistle-blowing of war crimes comitted by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Aug 2015, 19:20

Why then can he not be extradited from the UK? Are you really saying Sweden is more compliant?

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 06 Aug 2015, 19:59

Because he's in the Ecuadorian embassy. If you mean originally, I'm not sure.

he hasn't been charged with anything from the USA, has he. He can't be extradited directly for a political crime of espionage?

------

I don't think that last bit's true. So someone remind me, why didn't USA get UK to extradite him originally. Apart from no USA charges.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Aug 2015, 20:47

johnhemming2 wrote:Why then can he not be extradited from the UK?

Because he's inside the frickin' Ecuadorian embassy!

Three years ago the UK authorities, at the behest of the US government, came very close to breaking the internationally-accepted protocol that the embassies of foreign countries are treated as part of the territory of those foreign countries. They were going to going in and get him. They stopped because it became very clear that this would be setting a precendent so dangerous that it wasn't worth the risk, and at that moment this impasse was set up. Assange CANNOT leave that embassy because the Americans are desperate to get their hands on him so they can make an example of him in the same way they've made an example of Chelsea Manning: if you expose US war crimes you will rot in jail for the rest of your life.

Are you really saying Sweden is more compliant?

Yes. Sweden has had an extradition treaty with the US, signed in 1960, which would make it much easier to get him into American hands than if an attempt was made to extradite him from the UK. Specifically, the UK will not extradite any person who can claim they are at risk of facing the death penalty in the country that wants to get hold of them, and he'd have little difficulty demonstrating that this would be a real possibility if the US ever got their hands on him.

If you are still in the slightest doubt about this, all you need to know is that Assange has already agreed to go to Sweden if Sweden gives an assurance he will not be extradited to the US. Sweden has repeatedly refused to give this assurance.