[Vagabundo]

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.

I believe so, and it only bolsters his case there there is something odd going on.

[KHarvey16]

I believe so, and it only bolsters his case there there is something odd going on.

Sweden does not want him just so they can ask questions. This is corrected time and time again yet no one pays attention.

[raining]

I believe so, and it only bolsters his case there there is something odd going on.

No, there isn't. You should read this post.

[Vagabundo]

Sweden does not want him just so they can ask questions. This is corrected time and time again yet no one pays attention.

No, there isn't. You should read this post.

Well then do the questioning via video link and then charge him. He does not

I believe a decision will be made once the questioning is done whether to charge him or not. It is not a foregone conclusion.

[raining]

Well then do the questioning via video link and then charge him. He does not I believe a decision will be made once the questioning is done whether to charge him or not. It is not a foregone conclusion.

Why does he deserve special treatment? And yes, he will be charged.

[Vagabundo]

Why does he deserve special treatment? And yes, he will be charged.

It's not special treatment, it is done in the legal system all the time.

So you're saying that under Swedish law the questioning is just a formality?

[KHarvey16]

Well then do the questioning via video link and then charge him. He does not I believe a decision will be made once the questioning is done whether to charge him or not. It is not a foregone conclusion.

The UK courts did not feel this way. In their judgment he was being extradited for the purpose of criminal prosecution. Think of the questioning like the ride in a car from the airport to the courthouse. It must be done before he is charged but the car ride is not why he was brought there. The same is true of the formal interrogation.

[raining]

It's not special treatment, it is done in the legal system all the time. So you're saying that under Swedish law the questioning is just a formality?

It's a legally necessary step.

[Vagabundo]

The UK courts did not feel this way. In their judgment he was being extradited for the purpose of criminal prosecution. Think of the questioning like the ride in a car from the airport to the courthouse. It must be done before he is charged but the car ride is not why he was brought there. The same is true of the formal interrogation.

It's a legally necessary step.

Of course, under Swedish law it is a necessary step, but your saying that it always leads to charges?

[raining]

Of course, under Swedish law it is a necessary step, but your saying that it always leads to charges?

No, I'm saying that, in this case, there is an intent to prosecute him, and that this is a necessary step that has to be done in order to do so.

[NervousXtian]

Of course, under Swedish law it is a necessary step, but your saying that it always leads to charges?

No, but it they can't press charges until the step is taken.

[MarkMclovin]

The last 12 months have certainly taken a toll on his looks. He looks 10 years younger in that photo.

[Vagabundo]

No, I'm saying that, in this case, there is an intent to prosecute him, and that this is a necessary step that has to be done in order to do so.

No, but it they can't press charges until the step is taken.

So he could be questioned and then not charged. So why not do the questioning via video link?

[KHarvey16]

So he could be questioned and then not charged.

That is not Sweden's intention. Surely you don't believe there cannot be a case in which interrogating the suspect would be seen to have little effect on the likelihood of charges being filed formally, right?

[raining]

So he could be questioned and then not charged. So why not do the questioning via video link?

Questioning does not have to lead to charges, but charging him requires questioning him first. Since there is an intent to charge him, they need to question him first.

[Vagabundo]

That is not Sweden's intention. Surely you don't believe there cannot be a case in which interrogating the suspect would be seen to have little effect on the likelihood of charges being filed formally, right?

No sure what you mean here. My understanding is that this final round of questioning is to give the suspect the chance to convince the prosecutor not to press charges.

Questioning does not have to lead to charges, but charging him requires questioning him first. Since there is an intent to charge him, they need to question him first.

And that can be done via video link and they have refused. They have done questioning via video link before I believe.

[KHarvey16]

No sure what you mean here. My understanding is that this final round of questioning is to give the suspect the chance to convince the prosecutor not to press charges. And that can be done via video link and they have refused. They have done questioning via video link before I believe.

You are simply refusing to understand. Sweden has decided to charge him. They have built their case and do not believe anything Assange says can change that.

[Vagabundo]

You are simply refusing to understand. Sweden has decided to charge him. They have built their case and do not believe anything Assange says can change that.

Well then do that, via video link. If there intention is to charge no matter what he says, then get the questioning done. And it should have been done long time ago.

[KHarvey16]

Well then do that, via video link. If there intention is to charge no matter what he says, then get the questioning done. And it should have been long time ago.

And then start the extradition process over again? Why? Why would they have any reason to believe he'd not also resist extradition then, too?

[Vagabundo]

And then start the extradition process over again? Why? Why would they have any reason to believe he'd not also resist extradition then, too?

Why would they have to start the extradition process again? He will be formally charged under the charges that he was extradited for.

[KHarvey16]

Why would they have to start the extradition process again? He will be formally charged under the charges that he was extradited for.

He isn't formally charged now under Swedish law(although again, the stage of the investigation is equivalent to being charged in most western countries). It changes the scenario and I'm sure Assange will use that to delay further.

But why would Sweden do that? They don't have to and it certainly wouldn't buy the man's cooperation.

[Oersted]

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

So basically legimate rape. Makes you wonder why he is afraid coming to US.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

So basically legimate rape. Makes you wonder why he is afraid coming to US.

Here's more of what he said.
These politicians will say anything to defend a cause they believe in.

I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them. It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, "do you mind if I do it again?". It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning.

[Vagabundo]

He isn't formally charged now under Swedish law(although again, the stage of the investigation is equivalent to being charged in most western countries). It changes the scenario and I'm sure Assange will use that to delay further. But why would Sweden do that? They don't have to and it certainly wouldn't buy the man's cooperation.

Why wouldn't they do it? He has offered to do it, why not?

Also the case has become more complicated. Having him formally charged would make a difference - you say the British court has ruled that it is equivalent, but the EU human rights court might see things differently - and it is a PR war as much as a legal battle. Ecuador asked for him be questioned and the Swedish authorities refused.

[KHarvey16]

Why wouldn't they do it? He has offered to do it, why not? Also the case has become more complicated. Having him formally charged would make a difference - you say the British court has ruled that it is equivalent, but the EU human rights court might see things differently - and it is a PR war as much as a legal battle. Ecuador asked for him be questioned and the Swedish authorities refused.

Because they don't want to just question him! I don't understand the confusion. Offering Sweden the chance to simply ask questions doesn't fulfil the goal of the extradition request. Do you think Sweden will ask question through a tv, charge him and then Assange will return willingly?

[Vagabundo]

Because they don't want to just question him! I don't understand the confusion. Offering Sweden the chance to simply ask questions doesn't fulfil the goal of the extradition request. Do you think Sweden will ask question through a tv, charge him and then Assange will return willingly?

But it is part of the process. They have to question him to charge him. So question him. Then charge him. Their refusal to do so is bizarre as this is all part of the process. You say the questioning is a formality. So get it out of the way and charge him. You are only giving him fodder for an EU human rights ruling.

Refusing to do the questioning was one of the reasons that Ecuador gave him political asylum. I find it odd that they would refuse to do the questioning when it is a trivial part of the process and would have helped them manage the situation. Maybe they are just not very politically astute.

[KHarvey16]

But it is part of the process. They have to question him to charge him. So question him. Then charge him. Their refusal to do so is bizarre as this is all part of the process. You say the questioning is a formality. So get it out of the way and charge him. You are only giving him fodder for an EU human rights ruling. Refusing to do the questioning was one of the reasons that Ecuador gave him political asylum. I find it odd that they would refuse to do the questioning when it is a trivial part of the process and would have helped them manage the situation. Maybe they are just not very politically astute.

They aren't refusing to do the questioning, they're refusing to allow Assange to dictate how and where they do the questioning.

So let's say tomorrow Sweden questions him in the Ecuadorean embassy. What changes once they formally charge him? Outline it.

[jimi_dini]

It must be done before he is charged but the car ride is not why he was brought there. The same is true of the formal interrogation.

Sweden has decided to charge him.

So is he charged? Or not?
If they already decided to charge him, but didn't then why? Because the interview could go "fine" and it would result him not being charged? What? Why not just charge him now?

[KHarvey16]

So is he charged? Or not? If they already decided to charge him, but didn't then why? Because the interview could go "fine" and it would result him not being charged? What? Why not just charge him now?

I have decided to buy steak for dinner tonight.

But Kharvey, you have to drive to the store first.

Well yes I do, you're correct, but once there I shall purchase the steak.

But which is it? Why not just buy it this instant if you already decided?

[jimi_dini]

But which is it? Why not just buy it this instant if you already decided?

Oh great. Rape charge is just like a steak dinner. smh

and btw. Sweden thinks we are stupid:

news/sweden-us-assange-extradition-209/
banned site

it's available here as well
http://www.businessinsider.com/swede...penalty-2012-8

“We will never surrender a person to the death penalty,” the deputy director of the Service for Criminal Cases and International Cooperation of Sweden’s Justice Ministry said in an interview with the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper on Tuesday. This means there should be strict guarantees from the US government that “the prisoner will not be executed in any case,” added Cecilia Riddselius. But, she added, so far her country has not received any extradition request from Washington.

Which already means that they are planning to do so. Oh sure, no death penalty - if they say so. But extradicted to US nevertheless. And maybe they are "nice" to him and put him on "suicide watch" (aka toture) for years. Or maybe put him in Guantanamo Bay.

[SilentProtagonist]

Oh great. Rape charge is just like a steak dinner. smh

That's exactly the point he was making. You're sharp.

[TRios Zen]

I find it interesting that people are so focused on what happens to him rather than what has happened to Wikileaks.

WikiLeaks should be bigger than Assange and should be the idea that is struggling to be preserved, not Assange's "freedom".

The current story right now is NOT about Assange's altruistic behavior in promoting free-speech throughout the world, rather it's about Assange asking for political refuge from a government that is absolutely against free-speech, just to keep himself from a supposed trial in America. All the while, WikiLeaks is silent. Pathetic, actually, I think.

[KHarvey16]

Oh great. Rape charge is just like a steak dinner. smh and btw. Sweden thinks we are stupid: news/sweden-us-assange-extradition-209/ banned site it's available here as well http://www.businessinsider.com/swede...penalty-2012-8 Which already means that they are planning to do so. Oh sure, no death penalty - if they say so. But extradicted to US nevertheless. And maybe they are "nice" to him and put him on "suicide watch" (aka toture) for years. Or maybe put him in Guantanamo Bay.

What? You're as good at comprehending that article as you are my analogy.

[ymmv]

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..

Of course it's easier to fake a rape case, because you don't need evidence, you only need a statement from the victims. It's their word against Assange's. And because there are two women involved the case against him is much stronger.

Personally I think the whole thing stinks. It was simply too convenient that Assange got taken out by these accusations. Whenever he gets arrested by the UK police, of course he'll be sent to the US on a one way ticket. All the US have to do is promise he won't get a death sentence and he's on a plane.

[injurai]

In other words, prudes will be prudes. Playas will be playas.

[jimi_dini]

What? You're as good at comprehending that article as you are my analogy.

"This means there should be strict guarantees from the US government that “the prisoner will not be executed in any case,” added Cecilia Riddselius."

Why add that explicitly at all? It wouldn't be needed. It's a theoretical case - some may even call it conspiracy theory, right?

And yes, of course they say that currently there is no official extradiction request. US would be pretty stupid to make a request now, don't you think?

[raining]

Of course it's easier to fake a rape case, because you don't need evidence, you only need a statement from the victims. It's their word against Assange's. And because there are two women involved the case against him is much stronger. Personally I think the whole thing stinks. It was simply too convenient that Assange got taken out by these accusations. Whenever he gets arrested by the UK police, of course he'll be sent to the US on a one way ticket. All the US have to do is promise he won't get a death sentence and he's on a plane.

So why wasn't he extradited from the UK already? Any extradition request to Sweden will have to go through UK courts as well, since he'd be in Sweden due to extradition.

"This means there should be strict guarantees from the US government that “the prisoner will not be executed in any case,” added Cecilia Riddselius." Why add that explicitly at all? It wouldn't be needed. It's a theoretical case - some may even call it conspiracy theory, right? And yes, of course they say that currently there is no official extradiction request. US would be pretty stupid to make a request now, don't you think?

Possibly because the question was asked?

[KHarvey16]

Of course it's easier to fake a rape case, because you don't need evidence, you only need a statement from the victims. It's their word against Assange's. And because there are two women involved the case against him is much stronger. Personally I think the whole thing stinks. It was simply too convenient that Assange got taken out by these accusations. Whenever he gets arrested by the UK police, of course he'll be sent to the US on a one way ticket. All the US have to do is promise he won't get a death sentence and he's on a plane.

He's been under arrest in the UK for nearly two years.

"This means there should be strict guarantees from the US government that “the prisoner will not be executed in any case,” added Cecilia Riddselius." Why add that explicitly at all? It wouldn't be needed. It's a theoretical case - some may even call it conspiracy theory, right? And yes, of course they say that currently there is no official extradiction request. US would be pretty stupid to make a request now, don't you think?

Did someone not ask a question?

[Elvin Atombender]

The ultimate humiliation the US can cause Assange by now is NOT to request an extradition if he is sent to Sweden. His ego would be deflated and he would really look like a fool after all this.

[jimi_dini]

Possibly because the question was asked?

The linked article doesn't contain any interview.
Would like to read the actual questions.

Did someone not ask a question?

So what was the question?

[666]

Is that a leather shirt?

[KHarvey16]

So what was the question?

The linked interview is in German. Also, it's your job to provide proper context for the items you're using to support your argument, not mine.

[jimi_dini]

The linked interview is in German.

Uh sorry. But there is no interview.

[KHarvey16]

Uh sorry. But there is no interview.

Did you actually read the article you posted? It references an interview conducted by a German newspaper and then provides a link.

[GManDH]

do we simply care bout this because he is the whistleblower for wikileaks?

[Maxrunner]

Sweden are such a pussies, apparentely you cant touch kids to educate them. They are control freaks...

[shagg_187]

Blah, who cares.

I hope this shit happens to you.

[shagg_187]

Blah, who cares.

I hope this shit happens to you.

Seriously, this is as ridiculous as saying TL;DR.

[IrrelevantNotch]

I can not be the only one who thinks that this just smells like one huge setup from everyone Assange used to piss off, right?

No, there are plenty of paranoid lunatics on this site.

[Computer]

Police ordered to arrest Assange 'under all circumstances' if he leaves embassy Police have been ordered to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange “under all circumstances” if he leaves the Ecuadorean embassy, where he has been holed-up for more than two months while claiming asylum. A briefing note handed to officers orders them to make the arrest if he attempts to leave in a diplomatic bag or vehicle. The emergence of the note underlines the determination of the British to arrest Mr Assange once he leaves land protected by diplomatic immunity and carry out his extradition regardless of his asylum status. An image of the document detailing the orders was captured by press photographer Lewis Whyld today. They were in the hands of a police officer outside the Ecuadorean Embassy. Inside this afternoon, 20 ambassadors to London from South American nations gathered in a show of solidarity with the nation which has granted Mr Assange asylum. Their meeting was timed to coincide with a meeting of the Organization of American States called to discuss the WikiLeaks founder’s case. [sic] A spokesman for the Ecuadorean government said: “This display of support by South American Ambassadors is a clear indication of the level of support Ecuador has amongst counties in America and a clear statement opposing the UK Government’s threats against the integrity and sovereignty of its embassy in London.” The meeting is being held in Washington DC this afternoon and the decision to place Mr Assange on the agenda has attracted the anger of the American government, which insisted it was not the appropriate forum to discuss the issue. The US government has steadfastly refused to divulge whether or not it will seek Mr Assange’s extradition but a spokesman this week criticised him for spreading what she called “wild assertions” about the its position. A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police confirmed the documents were the officer's notes taken during a briefing. The spokesman said: "Our objective is to arrest Julian Assange for breach of bail. Under no circumstances would any arrest be made which was in breach of diplomatic immunity."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-8079342.html