Assange to face extradition

[belboid]

It does to me.

That's nice. Care to explain? Personally, I'd have thought not letting the ruling classes most powerful agency (the US state) do whatever it likes does have some bearing upon the ability of the working class to fight and to defend itself.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fair point. Subtly comes in the effects though not the complicated number of actors required to pull it off (pull it out?)

I don't know how many actors would be required in the Assange case if it is a fit-up. Not necessarily many. The Castro case and many others illustrate several points - that the CIA is often incompetent, that they often plan rather subtle and convoluted plots, and that these plots don't always involve eliminating their target but rather are concerned with discrediting them. It's not necessarily easy just to bump off a figure with a high public profile if you need to ensure that it can never be pinned on you, and other measures are considered.

 

[JimW]

I don't know how many actors would be required in the Assange case if it is a fit-up. Not necessarily many. The Castro case and many others illustrate several points - that the CIA is often incompetent, that they often plan rather subtle and convoluted plots, and that these plots don't always involve eliminating their target but rather are concerned with discrediting them. It's not necessarily easy just to bump off a figure with a high public profile, and other measures are considered.

Yep, I've said all along I don't rule it out entirely, just that balance of probabilities here strikes me as more it's something he's done off his own bat and needs to face the consequences for - do have number of further quibbles on the CIA thing - stakes involved etc. but can see that would go round in circles.
ETA: And to repeat, by actors I mean multi-agency coordination which the Swedish plot would seem to require, whereas imagine with Castro it's all their own agents.

 

[smokedout]

I have said nothing about what 'should' happen, I've talked of what DOES happen. And it requires further evidence - none of which is public at this time.

the only reason the police statements are public is because they were leaked, there could be lots more evidence, you're just assuming there isn't because you decided its all a big conspiracy by the evil americans

and in fact, almost all of the current celebrities being arrested and in some cases charged, is in very similar circumstances to those assange is facing - allegations of abuse, from credible victims, in some cases different people alleging similar behaviour, just like the assange case - the only difference is that in the assange case the allegations are fresh and he hasnt denied them

And I have no interest in discussing your sexual fantasies.

so youve decided to ignore the other allegations as i thought, which is why i wont be fucking apologising

 

[smokedout]

I don't know how many actors would be required in the Assange case if it is a fit-up. Not necessarily many.

and yet one, whose entire life history has been raked over and could only have been an asset, rather than an agent at best, was placed at the heart of this conspiracy that if blown open would be a huge scandal in sweden bringing down several high profile figures who would have to be involved (the prosecutor, the police, the womens lawyers etc)

look at how the filth jumped through hoops to keep mark stone out of the courts, he was highly trained yet they were prepared to blow the entire operation - which was legal (ish) to make sure this didnt happen

they dont work this way - and the alternative is that this is more or less as it appears and nothing spectacular has taken place apart from assanges response (which in itself only shows him behaving exactly the way you would expect him to behave if he thought there was a reasonable chance of successful prosecution)

occams fucking razor loon

 

[littlebabyjesus]

and yet one, whose entire life history has been raked over and could only have been an asset, rather than an agent at best, was placed at the heart of this conspiracy that if blown open would be a huge scandal in sweden bringing down several high profile figures who would have to be involved (the prosecutor, the police, the womens lawyers etc)

I don't agree that the prosecutor, police and lawyers need necessarily be involved.

You've set up a strange false dichotomy on this thread - you have decided that a plot is entirely implausible, and you think anyone who disagrees with your position is a loon Assange fanboi/gurl.

 

[cesare]

That's nice. Care to explain? Personally, I'd have thought not letting the ruling classes most powerful agency (the US state) do whatever it likes does have some bearing upon the ability of the working class to fight and to defend itself.

No, I don't care to explain. I have made my position on class/women's agency and equality/male sexual domination clear already.

 

[smokedout]

how did the women trick the police into pursuing charges when that wasnt their initial intention when they reported the offence?

how did they trick the swedish authorities into replacing the prosecutor who initially dropped three of the charges?

how did they trick their lawyers into appealing the charges being dropped if the allegations werent credible?

how did they trick the new prosecutor into re-instating and pursuing the charges?

 

[smokedout]

I don't agree that the prosecutor, police and lawyers need necessarily be involved.

You've set up a strange false dichotomy on this thread - you have decided that a plot is entirely implausible, and you think anyone who disagrees with your position is a loon Assange fanboi/gurl.

and the reason this is important is because you are endorsing a message that if a woman alleges abuse by a powerful man and if that powerful man happens to be 'on our side', then the response should be to accuse the women of being cops

its fucking contemptible

 

[littlebabyjesus]

and the reason this is important is because you are endorsing a message that if a woman alleges abuse by a powerful man and if that powerful man happens to be 'on our side', then the response should be to accuse the women of being cops

its fucking contemptible

No I'm not. That is exactly the false dichotomy I'm talking about.

 

[smokedout]

No I'm not. That is exactly the false dichotomy I'm talking about.

yes you are, give him the benefit of the doubt, they might have been cops, we dont know, thats your position

gary glitter claimed there was a conspiracy to get him, if you were a gary glitter fan youd be inventing shit to support him

 

[weltweit]

Perhaps Assange plans to win the record for the person longest kept in an embassy. He has some way to go mind! :

Hungarian Catholic Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty spent 15 years under the protection of the US embassy in Budapest, from 1956 to 1971.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

yes you are, give him the benefit of the doubt, they might have been cops, we dont know, thats your position

gary glitter claimed there was a conspiracy to get him, if you were a gary glitter fan youd be inventing shit to support him

Again, no. Where have I said 'give him the benefit of the doubt'? Where have I said anything that would imply that I'm a fan?

What is contemptible is to fling mud at people like you're doing.

 

[sihhi]

Just to restate:

We shouldn’t take a position on Assange’s guilt or innocence, because we shouldn’t have one but Assange should properly face down the charges. As things stand because of where we're at, we have a festering situation where a figure deemed to be critical of the West, allied to another pole, can help you wear down and erode rape charges so long as you stay in an Embassy bedroom and use the courtyard as a garden. It's possible, Cardinal Mindszenty spent over 15 years in the US Embassy in Budapest, as smokedout suggests.

Attempted intercourse and penile contact whilst a partner is sleeping is still a form of sexual assault/rape, and is treated as a crime in Sweden where it took place. It is not judged as harshly as other forms of rape where the victim begins the ordeal conscious (whether that's right or not is another question).

http://www.thelocal.se/47314/20130413/#.UZzMDqKHuuI (2 year sentence, short compared to other rapes)

There is no situation where the Swedish legal system automatically accepts rape charges as this recent incident and countless others prove.
http://www.thelocal.se/47920/20130515/#.UZzL_aKHuuI

The new stuff:

The burden of argument is firmly on those who wish to suggest a CIA/MI5/SAPO connection to false allegations of rape should in this instance. Instant messaging from two GCHQ employeess is not enough:
"They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ … It is definitely a fit-up… Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate."


"He reckons he will stay in the Ecuadorian embassy for six to 12 months when the charges against him will be dropped, but that is not really how it works now is it? He's a fool… Yeah … A highly optimistic fool."


... That's it - that's all there is in Assange's latest pronouncements.

In general:


Assange applied for permanent residence and citizenship in Sweden in late 2010, this was not granted - he was seeking to be in Sweden when still a potential/hypothetical target of US justice.
Assange was happy to be in the UK, a country that regularly extradites to USA political (of various sorts) figures, and yet refused to step foot in Sweden again after 2011 (the change in outlook is the rape charges). This is not appropriate behaviour.


We ought not tolerate two systems of law for Swedish citizens - one for common as muck Swedish males charged with rape and another for jet-setting foreign celebrities (who, incidentally, do no whistleblowing themselves and fail in the case of Manning to protect their whistleblowers that make their websites so popular).

The UK judgement is here, it accedes to the Swedish request in a normal manner, not dissimilar to similar cases between other EU countries and Britian.


http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf

 

[smokedout]

Again, no. Where have I said 'give him the benefit of the doubt'? Where have I said anything that would imply that I'm a fan?

What is contemptible is to fling mud at people like you're doing.

That is my answer. Whether or not I condemn or condone his actions depends on which of those possibilities is true. Sometimes the answer to a yes/no question is 'it depends'.

but, but he might be innocent and sometimes, when i like them, its okay for someone to avoid sexual charges and smear the victims with no evidence at all, sometimes, in some circumstances, that might be okay and i refuse to condemn it outright

does that sum up what you think?

 

[sihhi]

Assange did belittle victims of sexual assault without condoms in a very general sense whilst in East Anglia on bail, instead of going to Sweden to place his defence where it matters most:

Q: All right, what do you think is probable here?
JA: What is probable? It is less probable that there was that type of involvement at the very beginning. That kind of classic Russian-Moscow thing. That is not probable.
Q: That leaves us with the fact, because you accept this, that one of those women at least did make a complaint against you.
JA: Not even a complaint. It appears, from the records that we do have, the suggestion is that they went to the police for advice and they did not want to make a complaint. What they say is that they found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had undertaken sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. They went to the police to…
Q: They wanted you to have a test as well.
JA: …to have a test.
Q: Did you have a test?
JA: Ridiculous thing to go to the police about.
Q: The allegation against you, the very broad allegation that's been made over and over again in the media over recent days is that you're some sort of sexual predator who has sex with a large number of young women, ideally without a condom, and that you do it because you can, effectively, because in some cases they're groupies or they're enthralled to your fame or whatever it is. Are you a sexual predator?
JA: That's ridiculous. Of course not.
Q: How many women have you slept with?
JA: That's a private business. Not only does a gentleman not tell, not only does a gentleman like to talk about his private life, a gentleman certainly doesn't count.
Q: Many, without being specific?
JA: I've never had a problem before with women. Women have been extremely helpful and generous.
Q: Not quite the question I asked you.
JA: No, women have been extremely helpful and generous and put up with me. But…
Q: Does put up with you mean having you in their beds?
JA: Of course on occasion, I mean I'm an adult man, but women have been generous to me over many years.

 

[belboid]

the only reason the police statements are public is because they were leaked, there could be lots more evidence, you're just assuming there isn't because you decided its all a big conspiracy by the evil americans

I go on the evidence I know about, that is all can do. You are imagining evidence, maybe there is some, maybe there isn't. I dont know, and neither do you. So letsd stick tyo the evidence we do know about.

and in fact, almost all of the current celebrities being arrested and in some cases charged, is in very similar circumstances to those assange is facing - allegations of abuse, from credible victims, in some cases different people alleging similar behaviour, just like the assange case - the only difference is that in the assange case the allegations are fresh and he hasnt denied them

wrong yet again. The allegations against Savile et al are overwhelmingly based upon claims by the defendants that there was no sexual contact at all. That is far far easier to disprove, even after years. Its not just the corroboration evidence (although that is important) it is about describing things that could not have happened unless there was sexual contact. They are quite different to the Assange case.

so youve decided to ignore the other allegations as i thought, which is why i wont be fucking apologising

no, i chose to ignore your revoltingly lurid writing up of events. It is perfectly possible to discuss the case without having to write that shit up again and again, and I can only imagine you do so cos you get a kick out of it.

If your short-term memory wasn't so fucked, you'd be able to remember me, earlier in the thread, writing at some length about how it was indeed important for Assange to answer questions about the events in Sweden, and that what is needed now is not some pricks shouting off that he is clearly a guilty shitbag who should go hang, but to find a way to get him to be held responsible for what he did or did not do. But that does not mean he should just wander back into Sweden and let them (and the yanks) do whatever they want. You carry on posturing if you like tho.

 

[belboid]

occams fucking razor loon

you dont actuallu understand what Occams razor is about. It isnt, as is often stated, simply that 'the simplest solution is the right one' - its about cutting away the crap, the peripheral stuff around central events so that you can see the wood amidst the trees. you are looking at the trees.

 

[TruXta]

But that does not mean he should just wander back into Sweden and let them (and the yanks) do whatever they want.

Yeah god forbid they try and implement their laws eh? The cheek of it.

 

[belboid]

No, I don't care to explain. I have made my position on class/women's agency and equality/male sexual domination clear already.

Well, I'm sorry, but it still means sweet FA in this context. I am aware, in general, of your view, and would agree with most of it. But unless you are going to say that all accusations of rape must be believed, then it is still down to you to show why you think merely saying 'class' means anything. And even then, it doesnt really mean much.

 

[belboid]

Yeah god forbid they try and implement their laws eh? The cheek of it.

It would be perfectly within Swedish law to interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy. If they were desperate for a resolution, they would have done so.

 

[cesare]

Well, I'm sorry, but it still means sweet FA in this context. I am aware, in general, of your view, and would agree with most of it. But unless you are going to say that all accusations of rape must be believed, then it is still down to you to show why you think merely saying 'class' means anything. And even then, it doesnt really mean much.

I deliberately phrased that post so that you could just leave it there, but no, you're determined to respond.

 

[belboid]

I deliberately phrased that post so that you could just leave it there, but no, you're determined to respond.

oh no! Someone on a discussion board responded to something else someone said! What a cad.

I'm so fucking sorry.

 

[cesare]

oh no! Someone on a discussion board responded to something else someone said! What a cad.

I'm so fucking sorry.

This is just making you look like a bully, now.

 

[belboid]

 

[TruXta]

Funny how none of the JA fanbois care to respond to sihhi's points eh.

 

[Smyz]

I think he has a case too answer too. However, if you were charged with something for which you knew* you were innocent of, and also thought you were being set up and that the trial would be fixed, would you go back to that country? Or would you do everything you could not to do so.


*( in his head, he 'knows', and if he is innocent then he really knows)

George Galloway doesn't know what rape is. How do you know Assange does?

 

[belboid]

Funny how none of the JA fanbois care to respond to sihhi's points eh.

there arent really any other points there tho. It is just a repetition of what we already know, isnt it?

 

[TruXta]

I think you need to read it again belboid.

 

[teqniq]

From what I have read there are no fanbois.