[Gez]

I don't think the US wants him. Imagine the uproar and implications if they charged him with espionage.

I was watching the ABC (Australia) yesterday and they had Joe Lieberman saying they are going to get him and shit for all his worth. There where other US Senators but i couldn't remember their names.

[KHarvey16]

It's possible the US has yet to find strong enough legal grounding to indict him. This can be supported by the fact that they have admitted to an ongoing investigation into Assange but have yet to declare any findings. In the mean time, arguably to their favour, both Assange and Wikileaks' credibility and image have been damaged by these allegations, often replacing talk of the content of the cables and war logs.

If they're willing to invent rape charges in Sweden I'm sure they could come up with something that allows them to indict and then extradite him. If someone is arguing from a position that requires the US do immoral, illegal things they cannot then have portions of their argument rely on them doing precisely the opposite and feeling obligated to build a legitimate case.

Also, if you think about it, the biggest blow possible to Assange's credibility at this point would be for the US to do nothing. We won't see him on TV anymore and no one will care.

[Simplet]

But the whole conspiracy concerning trumped up or even wholly fabricated rape accusations in Sweden has both countries, the UK and Sweden, complicit in all this. If they can get Sweden to extradite him and the UK to approve it, why couldn't the US do the same with England? The conspiracy theorists all like to allege that the evidence he committed those sexual crimes is slim to none, so why is the strength of the case suddenly important if the US wants to extradite him from a country participating in the ruse?

Because there is still a legal process you need to go through to extradite someone. You have to have some kind of case. Doesn't look like they have one at the moment.

Anyway I'm not saying all of this is exactly how it went down, I'm saying it's really not difficult to see why this process would be a lot smoother for the US than just getting the uk to grab the guy and throw him in a plane. I don't think they were planning on him locking himself up in the ecuadorian ambassy. Not to mention that it looks really bad to prevent an alleged rapist from facing justice in Sweden just so the US can settle their score with him.

[Jarmel]

Looks like a setup.

[radioheadrule83]

But even if that were the case, they've had almost 2 years of him sitting in some guys house in England under police supervision. The rape accusation was out there already, so if that's all they were interested in they could have just extradited him then. Fitting this into some conspiracy narrative is an extreme stretch. The only plausible conspiracy-like scenario would be the US simply taking advantage of the accusations, but that still doesn't explain why they don't grab him from England. I don't buy the concerns over public outcry because if they're willing to do all this they obviously don't care about that.

He's a commonwealth national... there would be resistance to giving him up from UK nationals, not to mention his friends and supporters in the UK press, and even greater resistance from Australians to the idea of the UK giving up one of THEIR nationals. And to give you an idea of how speedy extradition proceedings are when there are murky waters involved, the US have been trying to extradite Gary McKinnon since 2002. ie 10 years ago.

I don't know whether the US really want him or not, I imagine they'd take him if they could. In any case, trust me, it's easier to get him from Sweden.

I don't understand why the Swedes won't negotiate and promise not to extradite him to the US if that's the concern. If the US want him they should be made to be transparent about it and if the Swedes make such a guarantee, it means the US will have to start extradition proceedings here.

[KHarvey16]

Because there is still a legal process you need to go through to extradite someone. You have to have some kind of case. Doesn't look like they have one at the moment. Anyway I'm not saying all of this is exactly how it went down, I'm saying it's really not difficult to see why this process would be a lot smoother for the US than just getting the uk to grab the guy and throw him in a plane. I don't think they were planning on him locking himself up in the ecuadorian ambassy. Not to mention that it looks really bad to prevent an alleged rapist from facing justice in Sweden just so the US can settle their score with him.

But the conspiracy story is that the whole rape thing is the result of US pressure. Again your argument relies on the US and these other countries either following the law and being moral or not following the law and being immoral whenever is most convenient for you.

[raining]

He's a commonwealth national... there would be resistance to giving him up from UK nationals, not to mention his friends and supporters in the UK press, and even greater resistance from Australians to the idea of the UK giving up one of THEIR nationals. And to give you an idea of how speedy extradition proceedings are when there are murky waters involved, the US have been trying to extradite Gary McKinnon since 2002. ie 10 years ago. I don't know whether the US really want him or not, I imagine they'd take him if they could. In any case, trust me, it's easier to get him from Sweden. I don't understand why the Swedes won't negotiate and promise not to extradite him to the US if that's the concern. If the US want him they should be made to be transparent about it and if the Swedes make such a guarantee, it means the US will have to start extradition proceedings here.

They can't legally make such a promise.

Also, extradition from Sweden while there due to extradition from the UK would require both consent from Sweden and the UK. Unless, of course, they want to just do everything illegally, in which case, why bring up the legalities or complications in other cases of UK - US extradition?

[Simplet]

But the conspiracy story is that the whole rape thing is the result of US pressure. Again your argument relies on the US and these other countries either following the law and being moral or not following the law and being immoral whenever is most convenient for you.

Well no, if you follow the conspiracy theory, the very first step from them was to frame him, not arbitrarily detain him, which is to say that they've been "following" the law from the beginning. Just bending it.

It's hard even for the US to go completely berserk here and send the black ops to assassinate the guy, he's not Ben Laden. There are some procedures to follow. The conspiracy theory is completely coherent here, which doesn't mean that it's true of course.

[radioheadrule83]

But the conspiracy story is that the whole rape thing is the result of US pressure. Again your argument relies on the US and these other countries either following the law and being moral or not following the law and being immoral whenever is most convenient for you.

I'd put forward the idea that the rape allegation is borne of a genuine grievance towards Assange on the part of Ardin, the exchanges around the STD issue and attempted co-ercion before going to the police speak to an intense deterioration in relations between all parties concerned IMO -- I think he should answer the allegations, because frankly, I don't think they've got a leg to stand on.

It's not unreasonable to imagine that the US consulate in Sweden would want the Swedish prosecution to pursue Assange internationally, or that this case is convenient for them. It doesn't require some grand conspiracy whereby the UK, the Swedes, the US and the complainants are all in on it -- it would just require the US to see this case as a silver bullet, and to want him in one place more than another.

I think it's naive to think that the country perpetrating extraordinary renditions, and holding Manning without trial for two years, the country that held countless more in Guantanamo for years longer, and dispensed with habeas corpus, and that uses UAVs on the borders of other countries, not always with permission, to bomb targets indiscriminately and with little concern for immediate collateral damage -- I think it's naive -- to think that country wouldn't do something as simple as, say, expressing an interest in a particular outcome to the Swedes.

You're drawing up this grand conspiratorial narratilogical fallacy yourself, and then claiming other people subscribe to it, because casting aspersions and making such things sound fanciful is your only way to combat what is actually a pretty healthy skepticism towards the United States of America.

[KHarvey16]

Well no, if you follow the conspiracy theory, the very first step from them was to frame him, not arbitrarily detain him, which is to say that they've been "following" the law from the beginning. Just bending it. It's hard even for the US to go completely berserk here and send the black ops to assassinate the guy, he's not Ben Laden. There are some procedures to follow. The conspiracy theory is completely coherent here, which doesn't mean that it's true of course.

But it isn't coherent, and it's needlessly complicated given the assumed goals of those participating. If he can be framed for rape, he can be framed for any espionage charge they'd want to dream up since those don't require you to get two women to lie for you. The US could just say, "hey guys, Assange worked with Manning to steal our stuff. Here's proof right here. Extradite him, thanks."

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

If they're willing to invent rape charges in Sweden I'm sure they could come up with something that allows them to indict and then extradite him. If someone is arguing from a position that requires the US do immoral, illegal things they cannot then have portions of their argument rely on them doing precisely the opposite and feeling obligated to build a legitimate case. Also, if you think about it, the biggest blow possible to Assange's credibility at this point would be for the US to do nothing. We won't see him on TV anymore and no one will care.

I don't believe they invented the rape charges. If we look at the facts above, he was having sex with two women (unprotected it seems) and a week later they decided to determine whether they could force him to have an STD test. Everything changes however when they leave that police station whereby Assange is accused of rape. Who invoked these charges? Not the women by all accounts, but the prosecutors office. Judging from Ardin's attitude in between those two events, its difficult to envision a woman who was molested or raped by a violent Assange. If there was a conspiracy here, then it may have begun with the leaks. Then again he was an international figure, and any such allegation would have been leaked anyway. The above events, although odd, could have occurred naturally without political influence. But for rape allegations to all of a sudden appear to an international whistle-blower? Could it be a coincidence? Yes. But when the allegations are themselves inconsistent? That's a little more difficult to accept.

Assuming there has been no conspiracy, then everything has fallen perfectly into place for the United States. Wikileaks no longer carries the recognition or credibility it had 12 months ago, and Assange's face is associated with controversy of an unsavoury manner. Excellent damage control.

[KHarvey16]

I'd put forward the idea that the rape allegation is borne of a genuine grievance towards Assange on the part of Ardin, the exchanges around the STD issue and attempted co-ercion before going to the police speak to an intense deterioration in relations between all parties IMO -- I think he should answer the allegations, because frankly, I don't think they've got a leg to stand on. It's not unreasonable to imagine that the consulate in Sweden would want the Swedish prosecution to pursue Assange internationally, it doesn't require some grand conspiracy where the UK, the Swedes, the US and the complainants are all in on it -- it would just require the US to want him in one place more than another. I think it's naive to think that the country perpetrating extraordinary renditions, and holding Manning without trial for two years, the country that held countless more in Guantanamo for years longer, and dispensed with habeas corpus, and that uses UAVs on the borders of other countries, not always with permission, to bomb targets indiscriminately and with little concern for immediate collateral damage -- I think it's naive to think that country wouldn't do something as simple as, say, expressing an interest in a particular outcome to the Swedes. You're drawing up this grand conspiratorial narratilogical fallacy yourself, and then claiming other people subscribe to it, because casting aspersions and making such things sound fanciful is your only way to combat what is actually a pretty healthy skepticism towards the United States of America.

All 5 threads about Assange started in the last couple days have examples of the type of conspiracy theories I'm describing. You cannot disagree with that seriously. The general idea is that the rape charges are a setup, perpetrated by or on behalf of the US, so that he may then be extradited to the US to face espionage charges(or whatever else they imagine the US is plotting, be it torture, Guantanamo or both). Extradition from Sweden to the US is treated with as much certainty as the idea the rape allegations are false. These are NOT simply my imaginings.

[Simplet]

But it isn't coherent, and it's needlessly complicated given the assumed goals of those participating. If he can be framed for rape, he can be framed for any espionage charge they'd want to dream up since those don't require you to get two women to lie for you. The US could just say, "hey guys, Assange worked with Manning to steal our stuff. Here's proof right here. Extradite him, thanks."

It's probably a lot easier to frame him for rape than for espionnage, especially if there is already a complicated situation with some women with whom he actually had sex. I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound for the US to forge evidence that Assange himself was spying on the US and not just making public informations that he got from someone else. And it just looks really bad.

Again, it's a lot easier to wait for the guy to get in some complicated court procedures in Sweden and work on his case in the meantime. And why not? It's not like they expected Assange to create an international incident like he did, he was under house arrest. The conspiracy theory is still completely coherent.

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

It has to be said, the extraordinary "threat" of entering the embassy and arresting Assange regardless has done nothing to quell the suspicion this being political.

[KHarvey16]

It's probably a lot easier to frame him for rape than for espionnage, especially if there is already a complicated situation with some women with whom he actually had sex. I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound for the US to forge evidence that Assange himself was spying on the US and not just making public informations that he got from someone else. And it just looks really bad. Again, it's a lot easier to wait for the guy to get in some complicated court procedures in Sweden and work on his case in the meantime. And why not? It's not like they expected Assange to create an international incident like he did, he was under house arrest.

You can only say these things because they must be true for your presuppositions to hold out. It's certainly not easier to fake a rape case than it is to fake some nebulous charge regarding espionage. And again, the country or countries you need to convince with this fictitious evidence are in on it with you! They're participants! You don't have to convince them, you just need to put together a bunch of stuff that people without security clearances can't question.

It has to be said, the extraordinary "threat" of entering the embassy and arresting Assange regardless has done nothing to quell the suspicion this being political.

We can certainly agree the reference to that was ill-advised.

[radioheadrule83]

It has to be said, the extraordinary "threat" of entering the embassy and arresting Assange regardless has done nothing to quell the suspicion this being political.

The idea that our foreign office threatened to invade the embassy makes me ashamed to be British. If we don't respect a nation, we shouldn't be hosting their embassy in the first place and they shouldn't be hosting ours. It's like we want ALL of South America to hate us.

[Simplet]

You can only say these things because they must be true for your presuppositions to hold out. It's certainly not easier to fake a rape case than it is to fake some nebulous charge regarding espionage. And again, the country or countries you need to convince with this fictitious evidence are in on it with you! They're participants! You don't have to convince them, you just need to put together a bunch of stuff that people without security clearances can't question.

Well no, you have to file an extradition request, a lot of people have access to these documents. If it's obviously bogus, the US look like fools. And the other countries being in on it does not mean that they'll accept to make a mockery of their own institutions (though the UK threatening to storm an ambassy certainly makes them look like they don't give a shit.)

Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that all of this is completely coherent, let's just agree to disagree. I'm going to bed.

[KHarvey16]

Well no, you have to file an extradition request, a lot of people have access to these documents. If it's obviously bogus, the US look like fools. And the countries being in on it does not mean that they'll accept to make a mockery of their own institutions (though the UK threatening to storm an ambassy certainly makes them look like they don't give a shit.) Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that all of this is completely coherent, let's just agree to disagree. I'm going to bed.

They wouldn't make them obviously bogus. People will have access to those documents but no way to show they aren't what the US claims they are. Or whatever evidence they present. They won't conduct the trial at the extradition hearing so the quality of the evidence isn't important aside from it being there and it being not fictitious on its face.

[Pachterballs]

doens't sound like rape. doesn't sound like it was handled well.

[Palette Swap]

On the 30th of August, Assange of his own accord went to the police and expressed his fears of anything he said in questioning would end up in the tabloids. The interviewing officer responded: “I’m not going to leak anything”. The interview was then leaked.

That's so poetic.

[Meadows]

thanks for the right up Meus

[skinnyrattler]

How did the US convince the girls to file charges?

[K.Sabot]

Is that shirt made out of trash bags?

[Az987]

The following day, August 16th, Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen at her apartment. According to police reports, Ardin was aware that he had slept with Sofia. A witness tells police that he had contacted Anna Ardin looking for Assange, to which she texted back: “He’s not here. He plans to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening”. That same day, the witness asked Ardin: “Is it cool he’s living there? Do you want me to fix something else?”. She replied back: “He has a problem with his hygiene, but its okay, he lives with me. It’s no problem”. {Note: The tweets would later be deleted}

Hmm...

Very interesting.

We talking dick cheese or just BO?

[akira28]

Arrest him for wearing what looks like a leather shirt.

Cannot unequip leather shirt.

leather shirt is cursed

[iNvid02]

How did the US convince the girls to file charges?

[pgtl_10]

What is the burden of proof in Britain to find someone guilty?

[Partial Gamification]

How did the US convince the girls to file charges?

For pure speculation, because I feel like waxing crazy:
1) Money
2) Threats
3) Ever received a unfamiliar picture of yourself sleeping, in your own bed (on any given night when you thought you were alone)?

[TheSeks]

Hmm... Very interesting. We talking dick cheese or just BO?

It can't be both?

[reptilescorpio]

This is what I will point at as an example to my son in 15 years time and say, "Son, don't go sleeping with two different women at the same time. That does NOT work out." Well, I also have a instance from my best mate of the same kind of thing that ended in a lot of tears and anger too but the Assange case is a lot more alarming what with the whole jail/public persecution thing.

[Az987]

It can't be both?

True, true.

He kind of looks like he stinks.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

oh man.... unbelievable.
George Galloway says having sex with a sleeping woman without her consent isn't rape.

"Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100% true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape," Galloway said. "At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this. "Woman A met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him, claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know. I mean, not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...n-assange-rape

[Steelrain]

oh man.... unbelievable. George Galloway says having sex with a sleeping woman without her consent isn't rape. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...n-assange-rape

lol what the fuck

[ChiTownBuffalo]

He's a douche. He should just go face charges.

I doubt Swedish prisons are like US prisons.

[leadbelly]

She wasn't asleep anyway, she was 'half asleep'.

[Salvor.Hardin]

oh man.... unbelievable. George Galloway says having sex with a sleeping woman without her consent isn't rape. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...n-assange-rape

Lol. Galloway you so crazy.

[JessicaPadkin]

Not sure anyone should rely on George Fucking Galloway for moral guidance anyway. But really... insertion is likely to be bloody painful when you're not ready for a start, so yeah, it is kinda important to establish that consent each time...

[SmokeMaxX]

May he was doing his thing but she was so bored that she fell asleep during. When she woke up, he was still going at it.

[ChiTownBuffalo]

She wasn't asleep anyway, she was 'half asleep'.

Oh, well this doesn't sound like a legitimate rape, so she wouldn't have gotten pregnant.

[Kinitari]

The sleeping thing is iffy, super iffy. Lets shed some more light on it:

1. This occurred the morning after they had sex, and they had a regular sexual relationship
2. She did not claim to be asleep, but only 'half asleep' ie, that drowsy way you are in the morning
3. She realized what was happening, and did not voice any concern or show any resistance - she says that she was not feeling like having sex, but didn't want to say anything and went along with it, I think even 'engaging' at one point.


Considering -all- those things, if they are accurate, the worst thing Assange did was act a bit presumptuously. It is terrible if she conducted in sexual intercourse if she did not want to actually have sex, but it's difficult to fault Assange knowing that this is the full context of the situation.

[shanshan310]

Man Assange looks a lot younger (and attractive) in those OP pics, compared to at his balcony appearance a few days ago. Less hair, more weight. He looks seriously stressed.

He's a douche. He should just go face charges.

There are no charges, he's wanted for questioning iirc.

(Why are you a junior member?! D: I will miss your Korean threads..)

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Man Assange looks a lot younger (and attractive) in those OP pics, compared to at his balcony appearance a few days ago. Less hair, more weight. He looks seriously stressed. There are no charges, he's wanted for questioning iirc. (Why are you a junior member?! D: I will miss your Korean threads..)

I can still make thread.

The junior thing is my comeuppance.

[Vagabundo]

There are no charges, he's wanted for questioning iirc.

I still don't know why they won't question him over video link or promise him no extradition to the US.

All very strange.

[ChiTownBuffalo]

I still don't know why they won't question him over video link or promise him no extradition to the US. All very strange.

I think the Swedish prosecutor said that they do not extradite people to countries with the death penalty.

[Vagabundo]

I think the Swedish prosecutor said that they do not extradite people to countries with the death penalty.

The Ecuadorians tried to broker something with the Swedish authorities, but they would not give that commitment.

[shanshan310]

So you aren't a REAL junior then :p

I still don't know why they won't question him over video link or promise him no extradition to the US. All very strange.

Didn't he offer to go to the Swedish embassy in Britain for questioning, and they refused? Its all a bit weird, to say the least.

[raining]

They don't just want him for questioning, they want him for questioning in order to charge him, because questioning him is something they have to do first in order to charge him.

They also cannot legally give him any assurances with regards to extradition. Nothing weird about either of these things.

[Dynamite Shikoku]

He should just go. Looks like a wimp.

[Phat Michael]

Blah, who cares.

are u fukn serious? lots of people who fight for freedom of the press, the people who gave assange his awards, the people in the ecuador embassy. jesus, if you dont care dont fucking come in here and post!

[leadbelly]

The sleeping thing is iffy, super iffy. Lets shed some more light on it: 1. This occurred the morning after they had sex, and they had a regular sexual relationship 2. She did not claim to be asleep, but only 'half asleep' ie, that drowsy way you are in the morning 3. She realized what was happening, and did not voice any concern or show any resistance - she says that she was not feeling like having sex, but didn't want to say anything and went along with it, I think even 'engaging' at one point. Considering -all- those things, if they are accurate, the worst thing Assange did was act a bit presumptuously. It is terrible if she conducted in sexual intercourse if she did not want to actually have sex, but it's difficult to fault Assange knowing that this is the full context of the situation.

Pretty much. The way it has been presented and the way it actually happened is quite different.

Man Assange looks a lot younger (and attractive) in those OP pics, compared to at his balcony appearance a few days ago. Less hair, more weight. He looks seriously stressed.

I never watched the balcony speech. He doesn't look too bad in pictures, but then a still image can be a bit deceiving sometimes. His hairstyle looks quite bad though, I agree.

Stress can have quite a big affect on your health though.