Assange Watch

[johnhemming2]

But, then, you knew that. The danger to Assange, is worse than that, though. Both Sweden and the UK are more or less equally dangerous to him. Hence his current enforced situation as political prisoner in the Ecuadorian embassy.

I would think from the perspective of being extradited to the USA that the UK is more dangerous than Sweden.

If, however, they are equally dangerous then why not simply go to Sweden during the period before he went to the Ecuadorian embassy.

[johnhemming2]

Really? I thought he was trying to cover up that he didn't have a clue about something that was a major news event in his own country.

Little John has agreed with me that there is no increase in hazard of extradition to the USA in Assange going to Sweden. That is essentially the view I have which has not been disproven.

[Little John]

But, then, you knew that. The danger to Assange, is worse than that, though. Both Sweden and the UK are more or less equally dangerous to him. Hence his current enforced situation as political prisoner in the Ecuadorian embassy.

I would think from the perspective of being extradited to the USA that the UK is more dangerous than Sweden.

If, however, they are equally dangerous then why not simply go to Sweden during the period before he went to the Ecuadorian embassy.

He did, voluntarily, and all investigations led to the investigation being entirely dropped. But, then, of course, the entire farce was resurrected by a right wing, politician with close tied to the US, in the face of both of the women going on record to state he had not committed a crime. Or had you forgotten? Or had you merely hoped we had?

[johnhemming2]

If, however, they are equally dangerous then why not simply go to Sweden during the period before he went to the Ecuadorian embassy.

He did, voluntarily, and all investigations led to the investigation being entirely dropped. Or had you forgotten?

I don't think you are factually right.

[Little John]

If, however, they are equally dangerous then why not simply go to Sweden during the period before he went to the Ecuadorian embassy.

He did, voluntarily, and all investigations led to the investigation being entirely dropped. Or had you forgotten?

I don't think you are factually right.

You either don't know what you are talking about or you are being deliberately disingenuous. These facts on ON THE RECORD.

[johnhemming2]

He did, voluntarily, and all investigations led to the investigation being entirely dropped. Or had you forgotten?

I don't think you are factually right.

You either don't know what you are talking about or you are being deliberately disingenuous. These facts on ON THE RECORD.

Provide a link that substantiates your case that he left the UK and went back to Sweden and they dropped allegations of an assault which I am not sure myself stand up anyway.

[johnhemming2]

Sounds like you cannot find the evidence to substantiate that the Swedes dropped the charges.

[johnhemming2]

Oh dear
Wikipedia agrees with me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

[Little John]

Full facts of Assange case with sources:

https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

In short, the Assange case facts are:

1) Julian Assange is not charged with anything in Sweden or any other country.
2) Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid Questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.
3) The case against Julian Assange was initially dropped, and deemed so weak it could not warrant investigation. After the intervention of a Swedish politician close to American diplomats, it was revived by a different prosecutor.
4) In all instances, the 3 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange.
5) A condom submitted as evidence by complainant AA, who claimed it had been deliberately torn by Julian Assange during sexual intercourse, contains no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian Assange.
6) Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends contradict the factual allegations in the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued for Julian Assange and cast doubt on the allegations.
7) After the date of the alleged sexual misconduct: a) Complainant AA created then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating that she was enjoying Julian Assange's company: b) AA went as far as suggesting one of her friends (Witness C) should be intimate with Julian Assange as well.
8.) The law firm hired in the Assange investigation is run by Claes Borgstrm (politician and legal representative for both plaintiffs) and by former minister Thomas Bodsrtm. Both are members of the Social Democrat Party in Sweden. Bodstrm is a friend of police interrogator Irmeli Krans, who interrogated complainant SW.
9) Police interrogator Irmeli Krans is, in turn, friends with the other plaintiff, complainant AA, with whom she has political ties (Social Democrat Party). Krans also breached protocol by commenting negatively about Julian Assange on social media.
10) Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, refused to provide Julian Assange or his lawyers with information on the allegations against him in writing. This violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18.) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5) and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights. Prosecution also refused all voluntary offers for cooperation that fit under the Mutual Legal Assistance Protocol, such as making use of alternative methods to interview Julian Assange.
11) Both the EAW and the Interpol red-notice were issued for Julian Assange by Sweden just before Wiki leaks began to publish Cablegate.
12) The allegations against Julian Assange do not constitute an offence in Australia or the UK.
13) If extradited to Sweden; still without charge, Juylian Assange would be held incommunicado and placed under solitary confinement. Pre-trial detention would last for an indefinite period. The trial in Sweden would be held in secret.
14) The Swedish legal system features lay judges who are appointed because of their political affiliation. They have no formal legal training.
15) Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial)

[johnhemming2]

I am not arguing that the case against him in Sweden is strong.

At least you now accept that I was right in that Sweden have not dropped the issue.

I don't, however, believe that the reports to the police were driven by the swedish security apparatus.

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh dear
Wikipedia agrees with me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

About what, exactly?

It is not at all obvious what point you are trying to make. It is completely obvious to anyone with half a brain that the rape case in Sweden is trumped up, and it is equally obvious that the US would do anything in their power to get hold of Assange for exposing serious war crimes committed by the US armed forces.

Your initial comment in this thread was a strange remark about how Assange has "chosen to live in an Embassy", as if there was no sensible reason why he should be doing this, and that "he should have gone to Sweden." That can only mean that you think if he goes to Sweden, he'll be safe from being extradited to the US, even though he's repeatedly asked for Swedish assurance that this will not happen, and that assurance has not been given.

It is not at all clear what you believe about this case, or why you believe it. It just looks like you are trying to score points, even if this point-scoring is not part of a coherent argument about anything.

Put another way: you appear to be focusing very closely on tiny details, while completely failing to see the bigger picture, or at least pretending you don't see the bigger picture. Funny, that.

[johnhemming2]

On this issue I agree with the stopped clock that his risk of extradition is no greater in Sweden than the UK and hence I take the view that he would be better responding to the charge in Sweden. In a strict sense at this point it is only an investigation anyway. They have agreed to interview him in the UK (one presumes not in the Ecuadorian embassy).

They are probably having a laugh about him sitting in the Embassy.

You should remember that I deal with a lot of people who are actually persecuted by the UK state (some of whom are UK nationals some of whom are not). For example today I have been trying to get permission to appeal in a case to the Supreme Court. I do have quite a bit of experience as to how these systems work.

[UndercoverElephant]

John Hemming you are ******* disgrace of a human being

and why. Is it because I am normally factually right.

In this case, it is because you appear to be intentionally trying to mislead readers of this thread about why a person who exposed very serious war crimes by US armed forces has been forced to stay in the Ecuadorian embassy for the last three years.

You are trying, in a roundabout way, to re-inforce the false impression that Assange is hiding from Swedish justice regarding acccusations of rape.

If you had any conscience or sense of human decency, you would be defending Assange instead of helping to re-inforce the propaganda designed to mislead the public about his case. You are, in effect, siding with the US war criminals, and those who take revenge against whistleblowers. This is indeed disgraceful. It is deeply immoral.

[UndercoverElephant]

On this issue I agree with the stopped clock that his risk of extradition is no greater in Sweden than the UK and hence I take the view that he would be better responding to the charge in Sweden. In a strict sense at this point it is only an investigation anyway. They have agreed to interview him in the UK (one presumes not in the Ecuadorian embassy).

They are probably having a laugh about him sitting in the Embassy.

You should remember that I deal with a lot of people who are actually persecuted by the UK state (some of whom are UK nationals some of whom are not). For example today I have been trying to get permission to appeal in a case to the Supreme Court. I do have quite a bit of experience as to how these systems work.

You are a thoroughly unpleasant human being.

I don't know whether you are posting here solely for your own amusement, or whether there's something else going on, but either way your comments on many topics, but this one especially, show you to have no conscience and to take pleasure in cruelty and human rights abuses.

Julian Assange is a defender of human rights and someone who has bravely stood up to illegal and immoral behaviour by the United States. For this, he has been forced to spend the last three years incarcerated in the Ecuadorian embassy as the only way of avoiding ending up in a US prison like Chelsea Manning.

You think this is suitable topic to crack jokes about? You want to have a laugh at Assange's expense?

I'll take Jonny2Mad over you every time. At least he's got some sort of morality, even if it is a bit f***ed up.

[johnhemming2]

I deal with people who really are persecuted by the UK state. This is not an example of this.

I had hoped people who were worried about resource depletion might be concerned about facts. I am sure that many are, but there are clearly some who believe that personal abuse is a substitute for debate.

Should I bother or should I simply allow your prejudices and errors of fact to go unchallenged. For the moment I will continue.