• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Julian Assange (Wikileaks) loses Supreme Court appeal, will be extradited to Sweden

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sealda

Banned
Dec 7, 2009
2,834
1
0
Denmark
Nah you don't understand!
It's part of the human bill of right to flee the country when you're accused of rape!


Ehm, he was in Sweden for 3 weeks after his arrest in absence without the police or prosecutor taking him in for interrogation.

The second he set his foot in UK, they all of sudden sent out an european warrant...Insanely stupid...
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Yeah, the brain is incapable of keeping such information. A scientific study into the nature of keeping secrets concluded that the brain is hard-wired to release all secret information after one week. Failure to do so would usually result in the test subject imploding.

Not that I can know what the actual truth is, I can only speculate, but come on man, that is a total fallacy. As if humans really were totally incapable of keeping secrets.

Humans are terrible at keeping secrets. An individual may be good at it, sure, but the ability to keep something secret quickly diminishes with each additional person that knows.

Also in cases like this you would need people who never chose to keep a secret to keep a secret. The big bad US would have to approach police, prosecutors, judges, politicians, etc to coerce them and trust them to not tell anyone. Maybe they threatened their families and if they spill the beans, a team of assassins led by Jet Li or maybe Matt Damon will find them and make them regret it.

Life is not the movies. Without a damn good reason to suspect any of this, dismissing it at this point is just fine. And no, personal incredulity is not a good reason.
 

captainnapalm

Member
Oct 26, 2011
3,972
603
910
Yeah, the brain is incapable of keeping such information. A scientific study into the nature of keeping secrets concluded that the brain is hard-wired to release all secret information after one week. Failure to do so would usually result in the test subject imploding.

Not that I can know what the actual truth is, I can only speculate, but come on man, that is a total fallacy. As if humans really were totally incapable of keeping secrets.

Not to mention that conspiracies are protected through the pushing of a dominant ideology and mass media control. So even if someone were to tell secrets, which they often do, it doesn't penetrate or become "truth", because the mass media doesn't disseminate the information and the dominant ideology doesn't reflect it.

Spilling the beans means very little if you're effectively spilling it into a vacuum.
 

Sealda

Banned
Dec 7, 2009
2,834
1
0
Denmark
I repeat

The first prosecutor arrested Assange in absence. For 3 weeks, Assange strolled around Sweden waiting for an interrogation.

Then, there was a chief prosecutor (a woman btw) who shut it down...

Then finally there was a new prosecutor who revived the case...


Once Assange finally left Sweden, all of sudden, the last prosecutor furiously started chasing Assange , even putting him on Interpol for a crime, normally not applicable...


Fact is, Assange will never be sentenced for any crime. Still he has been sentenced by half the world as a rapist...What happened with innocent until proven guilty...
 

leadbelly

Banned
Aug 7, 2010
12,906
0
0
Humans are terrible at keeping secrets. An individual may be good at it, sure, but the ability to keep something secret quickly diminishes with each additional person that knows.

Also in cases like this you would need people who never chose to keep a secret to keep a secret. The big bad US would have to approach police, prosecutors, judges, politicians, etc to coerce them and trust them to not tell anyone. Maybe they threatened their families and if they spill the beans, a team of assassins led by Jet Li or maybe Matt Damon will find them and make them regret it.

Life is not the movies. Without a damn good reason to suspect any of this, dismissing it at this point is just fine. And no, personal incredulity is not a good reason.

So then what if team of people have top secret clearance to certain information? By your reasoning it has all been leaked. The CIA are dealing with sensitive information practically every day.

Also, the agenda doesn't have to be known by all individuals. The entire truth for why we went into Iraq, for instance, may not be fully understood by the soldiers on the ground.
 
Jul 15, 2004
19,934
0
0
38
UK
I blame others saying that some sort of human right was somehow raped in the process.

He might have been bailed, but he has been held for nearly 500 days, electronically tagged and effectively under house arrest while this all plays out... if only interpol members treated all accusations this seriously! He has not been charged with anything by the way, the Swedes want him for questioning. Put aside what we know about Anna Ardin's behaviour (online and off) leading up to the allegations, and the prosecutors hard-on for him -- imagine being held that long without being formally charged with anything.

Any comment from the Australians on this? I know there were a few politicians speaking out in his defence.
 

KAOz

Short bus special
Mar 30, 2009
3,229
0
0
Sweden
Isn't that pretty much the same? I mean, how would you possibly prove that?

Honestly, I have no idea. Never heard of this before this case even.

So I just Googled around for a bit. Basically it just says what I said.
Our laws are pretty fucking stupid here in a sense, so yeah. But basically, if you have sex with a girl, and you both agree to not use a condom, then it's not rape.
If you have sex with a girl, and skip using a condom which is against her wishes, then it's rape.

We also have varying laws regarding sex with a condom, or sex without a condom.

Yepp.
 
Apr 3, 2007
39,588
1
0
You'll have to expand on that. Surely you can't be saying that every Swedish citizen who has ever had unprotected sex is a rapist?

Also, coercion doesn't necessarily have to be violent.

Dude, has no idea what he's talking about.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
So then what if team of people have top secret clearance to certain information? By your reasoning it has all been leaked. The CIA are dealing with sensitive information practically every day.

Also, the agenda doesn't have to be known by all individuals. The entire truth for why we went into Iraq, for instance, may not be fully understood by the soldiers on the ground.

People are not forced to obtain a clearance and having a clearance doesn't grant you access to every secret. Do you not recognize the difference between a CIA group keeping secrets and disparate civilians from various agencies being forced to keep a secret? Really?

The soldiers on the ground aren't forced to keep some grand secret.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Aug 7, 2010
12,906
0
0
People are not forced to obtain a clearance and having a clearance doesn't grant you access to every secret. Do you not recognize the difference between a CIA group keeping secrets and disparate civilians from various agencies being forced to keep a secret? Really?

The soldiers on the ground aren't forced to keep some grand secret.

Again, I don't know what the truth is. It is this notion that humans are completely incapable of keeping secrets, therefore conspiracies in this vein cannot happen. It seems like a ridiculous notion to me. The way the Assange case has been handled though is quite strange. There has been enough commentary about that. Just like the way the Lockerbie bombing case was handled was quite strange (a previous thread I remember reading).

Who says a whole group of civilians have been made privy to some diabolical scheme anyway? Surely there has been a lot of political pressure put on various countries to extradite Assange to the US? In the same way there was a lot of political pressure to make arrests and close down Megaupload. It has weight.

I hardly see it as impossible to find someone to make a false rape claim. In Russia that kind of shit used to happen. Sex scandals that were set up to ruin various politicians.
 

jaxword

Member
Apr 2, 2009
19,864
0
1,055
New York
i.imgur.com
I like how "This careless guy who goes out of his way to publicly piss off the entire world's governments is going to have a lot of enemies who want to see him fail" is a conspiracy theory.

You heard it here on neogaf: basic logic is a conspiracy theory.

I am now convinced that Assange's actions have made him the Belle of the Ball and all the world's governments just want to give him a big kiss.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Again, I don't know what the truth is. It is this notion that humans are completely incapable of keeping secrets, therefore conspiracies in this vein cannot happen. It seems like a ridiculous notion to me.

It is a ridiculous notion. Even more ridiculous is your continued belief I'm suggesting anything like it despite explicitly telling you I was not.

The way the Assange case has been handled though is quite strange. There has been enough commentary about that. Just like the way the Lockerbie bombing case was handled was quite strange (a previous thread I remember reading).

"Hmmmmm!" isn't evidence. You can believe whatever you want, just don't pretend you have a solid reason to support those beliefs.

Who says a whole group of civilians have been made privy to some diabolical scheme anyway? Surely there has been a lot of political pressure put on various countries to extradite Assange to the US? In the same way there was a lot of political pressure to make arrests and close down Megaupload. It has weight.

You're confusing political pressure to prosecute criminals with criminal pressure to prosecute unjustly. Telling a prosecutor to push ahead despite a lack of evidence or forcing a judge to uphold an illegal arrest warrant requires those individuals to know what they are doing is wrong, otherwise they wouldn't need to be convinced because the whole thing is real.

I hardly see it as impossible to find someone to make a false rape claim. In Russia that kind of shit used to happen all the time. Sex scandals that were set up to ruin various politicians.

You throw around these words like impossible. Why? Who said anything of the sort?
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
I like how "This guy who goes out of his way to publicly piss off the entire world's governments is going to have a lot of enemies who want to see him fail" is a conspiracy theory.

Who said this? I'm noticing a common theme amongst you folks: the inability to read. I can see how the world would appear quite confusing.
 

jaxword

Member
Apr 2, 2009
19,864
0
1,055
New York
i.imgur.com
Who said this? I'm noticing a common theme amongst you folks: the inability to read. I can see how the world would appear quite confusing.

Do tell me which "folks" I am a part of.

Because if it's inability to read you want to accuse people of, you need to look in the mirror since you clearly didn't even read the thread.

all sounds a bit conspiracy for me

also lol at 'worker ant countries'


Typical conspiracy theorists carving out their opponent's arguments for them. Tsk, tsk.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Do tell me which "folks" I am a part of.

Because if it's inability to read you want to accuse people of, you need to look in the mirror since you clearly didn't even read the thread.

Which one of those suggests no one is mad at Assange or wants to see him fail and go away?
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Within the first 22 posts people are dismissing the claim that Assange has enemies as conspiracy theories.

You didn't read the thread.

No, they dismiss claims he has enemies WHO ORCHESTRATED this whole charade. You know, like an actual conspiracy?
 

shanshan310

Member
Nov 16, 2008
13,123
0
750
Brisbane, Australia
Ehm, he was in Sweden for 3 weeks after his arrest in absence without the police or prosecutor taking him in for interrogation.

The second he set his foot in UK, they all of sudden sent out an european warrant...Insanely stupid...

Plus they have stubbornly refused to interrogate him in English - which he was perfectly happy to do. Insisting on taking him back to Sweden even though he hasn't been charged yet. Weird.


Any comment from the Australians on this? I know there were a few politicians speaking out in his defence.

News reports tonight said that 80% of Australians agree that the government should support Assange. Wikileaks did release some damning information about the government though (about how our former PM was knifed in the back by the current PM) so I think most of them aren't big fans of him. Oh, and we always seem to bow to whatever the US wants us to say, so there's that.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Aug 7, 2010
12,906
0
0
It is a ridiculous notion. Even more ridiculous is your continued belief I'm suggesting anything like it despite explicitly telling you I was not.

You didn't explicitly say that, no, it's just your post implied it. You were arguing that it is unlikely because humans are bad at keeping secrets.


"Hmmmmm!" isn't evidence. You can believe whatever you want, just don't pretend you have a solid reason to support those beliefs.

Interestingly, you're not reading my posts despite the fact I say it in very clear language.

Again, I don't know what the truth is.

You're confusing political pressure to prosecute criminals with criminal pressure to prosecute unjustly. Telling a prosecutor to push ahead despite a lack of evidence or forcing a judge to uphold an illegal arrest warrant requires those individuals to know what they are doing is wrong, otherwise they wouldn't need to be convinced because the whole thing is real.

The charges were initially dropped and then re-opened by a different prosecutor. There are other aspects of the case that seem rather dubious.
 

winter

Member
Oct 2, 2005
1,811
0
0
Anybody who calls this a conspiracy theory must be fucking dense. The amount of evidence pointing towards this case being bullshit is absolutely overwhelming, the fact that the former prosecutor dropped the case for it to reopened by a different one happens to reek the worst.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
You didn't explicitly say that, no, it just your post implied it. You were arguing that it is unlikely because humans are bad at keeping secrets.

Nothing about my post implied I believe it's impossible for people to keep secrets. Did you miss the conditions I explicitly mentioned? The context of this whole situation?

Interestingly, you're not reading my posts despite the fact I say it in very clear language.

You believe there is reason to not dismiss conspiracies for a lack of evidence. You think this because, well, it just sounds so fishy!

The charges were initially dropped and then re-opened by a different prosecutor. There are other aspects of the case that seem rather dubious.

The decision not to move forward with an investigation was appealed by the women's attorney.

Most of the questions seem to arise from a lack of knowledge about the case.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Aug 7, 2010
12,906
0
0
News reports tonight said that 80% of Australians agree that the government should support Assange. Wikileaks did release some damning information about the government though (about how our former PM was knifed in the back by the current PM) so I think most of them aren't big fans of him. Oh, and we always seem to bow to whatever the US wants us to say, so there's that.

I remember his mother actually being quite critical of the Australian government and calling for them to support her son.

http://www.thejournal.ie/assanges-mother-wants-australian-government-to-support-her-son-2011-02/
 

leadbelly

Banned
Aug 7, 2010
12,906
0
0
You believe there is reason to not dismiss conspiracies for a lack of evidence. You think this because, well, it just sounds so fishy!

Well, there is no substantial evidence, but that would be completely ignoring the context of the case. The fact that the case has been handled in a rather dubious manner.

And yes, you never actually said it was 'impossible' but then I was slightly exaggerating for effect.

Your initial comment:
You know what they usually call a conspiracy that involves more than 10 people keeping a secret for more than a week? A failure.

Conspiracy theorists place more faith in human ability than anyone I know.

You're clearly implying that it can't be a conspiracy because humans are not able to keep secrets. That is the point you was making.
 

Evlar

Banned
Dec 22, 2006
14,386
1
0
Humans are terrible at keeping secrets. An individual may be good at it, sure, but the ability to keep something secret quickly diminishes with each additional person that knows.

Also in cases like this you would need people who never chose to keep a secret to keep a secret. The big bad US would have to approach police, prosecutors, judges, politicians, etc to coerce them and trust them to not tell anyone. Maybe they threatened their families and if they spill the beans, a team of assassins led by Jet Li or maybe Matt Damon will find them and make them regret it.

Life is not the movies. Without a damn good reason to suspect any of this, dismissing it at this point is just fine. And no, personal incredulity is not a good reason.

I really don't see where the bolded comes from. It's quite possible to believe these are politically convenient charges without invoking any of that.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Well, there is no substantial evidence, but that would be completely ignoring the context of the case. The fact that the case has been handled in a rather dubious manner.

Again, the "hmmmmmm!" line of reasoning. Nothing more.

You're clearly implying that it can't be a conspiracy because humans are not able to keep secrets. That is the point you was making.

I never said or implied can't. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? People can keep secrets, large groups of people usually cannot. That is not only what I implied but what I said in plain terms.

I really don't see where the bolded comes from. It's quite possible to believe these are politically convenient charges without invoking any of that.

Politically convenient to a judge in the UK and a prosecutor in Sweden and police and investigators in both countries to a degree in which they ignore their duty to be honest and act with integrity. All simultaneously with no cracks. Unlikely doesn't adequately summarize the likelihood of that.
 

Evlar

Banned
Dec 22, 2006
14,386
1
0
Politically convenient to a judge in the UK and a prosecutor in Sweden and police and investigators in both countries to a degree in which they ignore their duty to be honest and act with integrity. All simultaneously with no cracks. Unlikely doesn't adequately summarize the likelihood of that.

Really? Why not?

Frankly, I don't see what would require the UK judge to be complicit with any pressure to extradite Assange, political or otherwise. YOU are the one expanding the cast of characters. From the UK's point of view this is a pretty standard extradition procedure. The Swedish prosecutor's office is the only actor behaving in an unusual manner (most obviously by elevating Assange to a subject of an Interpol bulletin).
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
Feb 19, 2008
44,007
7
0
I'll never forgive you jerks for coming up with a thread where I have to agree with KHarvey16.

No offense, Harv.
 
Jul 15, 2004
19,934
0
0
38
UK
I hardly see it as impossible to find someone to make a false rape claim. In Russia that kind of shit used to happen. Sex scandals that were set up to ruin various politicians.

Character assassination is straight-up more effective than actual assassination. The KGB/FSB know this, and I doubtless know that other agencies do as well.

The Dominique Strauss-Kahn case is amazing. He has been cleared of charges for attempted rape in New York, but the whole affair brought him down as head of the IMF, ceased any hope of involvement in this years French Presidential elections, and Francois Hollande has said he has no future in French politics... now, for a man innocent until proven guilty, isn't that something? It's a lot of change and punishment. And when you read the details of the case, it does raise a lot of questions: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/nov/28/dominique-strauss-kahn-conspiracy-theory

Of course, I'm open minded enough to believe that actually it could have been crossed wires, or he could have gotten away with something there...

My point is though, our 'civilised' sensibilities are as such that we will denigrate, ignore, ostracise and shut out people we believe to have violated those sensibilities... bring the correct charges, or even just launch an investigation, and you can crush someone. This whole thing, in conjunction with the American based VISA/Mastercard and Paypal moves against Wikileaks, has basically silenced them or at the very least, distracted their focus. If he did fall for a honeypot, or someone dug up someone who had an axe to grind, then it's been very very effective.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Really? Why not?

Frankly, I don't see what would require the UK judge to be complicit with any pressure to extradite Assange, political or otherwise. YOU are the one expanding the cast of characters. From the UK's point of view this is a pretty standard extradition procedure. The Swedish prosecutor's office is the only actor behaving in an unusual manner (most obviously by elevating Assange to a subject of an Interpol bulletin).

The panel of judges ruled on the validity of the warrant. If the prosecution in Sweden acted improperly and issued a warrant that was improper the supreme court could deny extradition. Unless...someone got to them first!
 

nib95

Banned
Feb 26, 2007
34,612
2
0
Though the English-speaking world had lost interest in the details of the accusations against him, furious debate had continued in the country where Assange would be questioned and possibly charged. Much of this was due to the argument Assange's legal team had mounted against extradition - that Sweden's politically appointed judges, in-camera sex crime trials and freewheeling prosecutors were at variance with EU standards, and neither process nor eventual trial was fair.

That line of argument hasn't gone down well in Sweden, where many people are getting tetchy about the country's reputation as an authoritarian madhouse. Yet by mid-year, the case was increasingly in question. Anna Ardin, one of the complainants, had added an accusation of physical sexual coercion, though she had earlier told a newspaper that Assange was ''not violent''. Tweets indicating a continued relationship with Assange vanished from the record, and were retrieved by bloggers; a leaked police file had a witness recalling one complainant saying she had been railroaded into making an accusation by the police and others.

When the leaked police report went into wider circulation, it did not take long for people to notice that the name of the initial investigating officer, Irmeli Krans, was familiar from somewhere else. In fact she was one of the links listed on the blogroll of Anna Ardin, the first complainant and organiser of Assange's visit to Sweden in August last year. That was unusual, though of itself not impossible - Stockholm is, in many ways, a small town. But the links rapidly proved beyond coincidence, many of them unearthed by Sweden's libertarian Flashback mega-blog.

Krans and Ardin were not merely connected online, they were both members of the Social Democratic Party and had run together as candidates for the city council elections some months before. Connected through gay and lesbian networks in the party, Krans had visited Club Febber, the fetish nightclub that Ardin set up on Gotland, a residential island off the Swedish coast. Ardin had also commented on Krans's blog a year earlier, on a post about racism and sexism, criticising ''women who claim they're not oppressed and therefore think it's OK to trash feminists''. Responding to the post, Krans noted: ''Usually I only get negative posts on this blog … but this post puts its finger on the matter, and speaks for itself.'' ''Thanks for the props,'' Ardin replied. ''The cultural elite often think it is OK to be a little racist and sexist.''

Were such connections sufficient for Krans to recuse herself from the case? There is no record that she raised the matter. Instead, immediately after Ardin and the other complainant, Sofia Wilen, walked into a central Stockholm police station on August 20 last year, Krans conducted an interview with Wilen. Contrary to police guidelines, the interview was neither taped nor transcribed. A half-hour into the interview, police had already consulted the prosecutor's office, and a rape investigation was opened. Krans was almost immediately removed from the case, but a leaked email reveals she subsequently queried whether rape charges had been laid. Two days later she attempted to access the interview file on the police computer but was refused access. A leaked email exchange between Krans and her superior indicates that she was attempting to revise the summary of Wilen's statement, because she had taken it down incompletely at the time.

By the most generous assessment, the initial handling of the case was a mess. An internal police inquiry would later find that Krans's conduct had not affected the case - even though Krans, a potential witness in any future trial, had subsequently broadcast an extraordinary stream of anti-Assange commentary on her Facebook page and over Twitter, complaining that the official accusation of ''minor rape'' was insufficient, and cheering on Claes Borgstrom, the complainants' lawyer.

Her Facebook account shows Harald Ullman, a member of the Stockholm police board, logged on to express his disbelief at her conduct. Krans's involvement in the interview with Wilen has certainly complicated its status as evidence - all the more so, since Wilen never verified it as a true record with her signature.

Yet there were also problems with the allegations against Assange by Anna Ardin herself. During her interview, conducted by phone - also against police guidelines on sex crime cases - the day after Wilen's interview, Ardin had given an account of her encounter with Assange, from which two misdemeanour ''annoyance'' charges were made. That day, the senior prosecutor quashed the rape investigation commenced the day before during Wilen's interview. Two days later, Claes Borgstrom had become both women's lawyer, and appealed the decision not to prosecute. Two days after that, on August 25, Ardin handed over to police a condom that she claimed had been the one used during her encounter with Assange 10 days earlier. As with everything in this case, the forensic report on this item eventually leaked. For a condom allegedly used in a sex act, it had little to give up, the lab report telling the investigation that no DNA had been recovered from it in an initial series of tests, though they did not rule out the possibility that some might be found. The police had also requested one other test, to see if the rip at the top of the condom was a tear or a blade cut. The delay in securing a potentially vital piece of evidence remained unexplained, as did the process by which Ardin's accusation changed from a misdemeanour crime of annoyance to a felony, sexual coercion. The question as to why Ardin would have kept a torn condom for a week when she had no initial intention of going to the police also remained unanswered.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/moment-of-truth-20111001-1l2lt.html

Sweden has this law whereby even consensual sex, without a condom, is classed as rape

That is some BS law, and my guess is these are most probably some BS charges.
 

Evlar

Banned
Dec 22, 2006
14,386
1
0
The panel of judges ruled on the validity of the warrant. If the prosecution in Sweden acted improperly and issued a warrant that was improper the supreme court could deny extradition. Unless...someone got to them first!

Or, they could simply choose to respect the justice system of a long-term close ally without commenting on the minutiae of the Swedish case, considering they only ruled on the validity of the warrant.

Now... Given these two opposing theories, which of us sounds like your typical crazy conspiracy theorist?
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Or, they could simply choose to respect the justice system of a long-term close ally without commenting on the minutiae of the Swedish case, considering they only ruled on the validity of the warrant.

Now... Given these two opposing theories, which of us sounds like your typical crazy conspiracy theorist?

The conspiracy "theorists" point is the whole thing is a fabrication and the warrant is baseless and improper. Maybe the judges are just stupid.
 

dojokun

Banned
Feb 6, 2009
5,202
0
0
The only people that would need to know it's a conspiracy would be the women themselves, whatever government official that is bribing them, and maybe one higher up government official that ordered it. So this "LOLZ OMG YOU CAN'T HAVE TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE KEEP A SECRET" argument is completely off the mark.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
The only people that would need to know it's a conspiracy would be the women themselves, whatever government official that is bribing them, and maybe one higher up government official that ordered it. So this "LOLZ OMG YOU CAN'T HAVE TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE KEEP A SECRET" argument is completely off the mark.

Is this how government works in your experience? And you're ignoring that this elaborate conspiracy requires leadership or judiciary being complicit in more than one country. Could it be the world government operated by the lizardmen? Who's to say.
 

Evlar

Banned
Dec 22, 2006
14,386
1
0
Is this how government works in your experience? And you're ignoring that this elaborate conspiracy requires leadership or judiciary being complicit in more than one country. Could it be the world government operated by the lizardmen? Who's to say.

Is this your only trick? Stating this over and over without merit?
 
Jul 15, 2004
19,934
0
0
38
UK
The panel of judges ruled on the validity of the warrant. If the prosecution in Sweden acted improperly and issued a warrant that was improper the supreme court could deny extradition. Unless...someone got to them first!

The UK CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) has denied a Freedom of Information Act request in relation to communication with other States regarding the potential extradition of Assange. The Australian government has denied similar requests relating to possible extradition or temporary surrender of Assange to the US too. They did release a document eventually (right click > save as), after delaying and delaying, and breaching their own legal deadlines - and the document was filled with comical amounts of redaction.

The emails unearthed from US intel consultant, Stratfor, have already told us that there is a sealed indictment waiting for him in some countries... and if their attitude is indicative of how others in the intelligence community feel, that can't bode too well for him either. "The owner is a peacnik, he needs his head dunked in a toilet at gitmo"... another says he should be waterboarded until he gives up the AES key to the insurance file torrented a while back. Like he's memorised it!

Before the European Arrest Warrent, Sweden put out a Red Notice through Interpol -- Muammar Gaddafi had only achieved Orange. Either the Swedes REAAALLY wanna nail this guy, or they are bowing to international pressure to see him pinned.

His appeal against the EAW was because:
  • there was and still are no charges brought against him,
  • the timing was suspect, and
  • the EAW is based upon an investigation that he believes was carried out improperly.

He has lost that appeal now so he's gonna have to go out there and defend himself, but I personally won't be surprised if he doesn't get a fair trial, or if an indictment sees him whisked off to the US. He has said all along that he is prepared to face questioning -- in my view, he (quite understandably) doesn't want to be surrendered to a country and a system that may be rigged against him.

I don't blame him. Supposing the Swedes do conspire to hand him over to the US, or even temporarily surrender him for questioning, here is the kind of vitriol his enemies have for him:

"Assange is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands... Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" - Sarah Palin

"I would look at this very much as a military issue. With potentially military action against him and his organization." - Tony Shaffer, former DIA

"anything less than execution is too kind a penalty" - Mike Huckabee

"Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. ... I would not feel unhappy if Assange ’disappeared’." - Tom Flanagan, ex adviser to Canadian PM Stephen Harper, lecturer at University of Calgary.

""We’re at war. I hope Eric Holder, who’s a good man, will start showing some leadership here and get our laws in line with being at war." - Sen Lindsey Graham

[Assange should be] "prosecuted as a terrorist" - Rick Santorum

"I’d like to see a little drone hit Julian Assange. I think he is a bad man. If he lived in Britain 007 would take care of him." - Bill O' Reilly, Fox News

"I think the man is a [...] terrorist and [...] needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and if this becomes a problem you need to change the law." - Sen Mitch McConnell

"Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant [Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, torture]. WikiLeaks should be closed down permanently and decisively." - Newt Gingrich

"A dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I’m not for the death penalty, so... there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." - Bob Beckel, Fox News

"Julian Assange should be on a kill or capture list"
[he is] "a maggot", "guilty of sabotage, espionage, crimes against humanity, he should be killed"
,
"we have people in Guantanamo Bay that have done less harm to this country than Julian Assange",
"Wikileaks abets terror"
"we should execute leakers" - Lt Col. Ralph Peters

[Assange is] "a high tech terrorist" - Joe Biden​


It'll be a fascinating case to be sure. The world will be watching.
 

empty vessel

Member
Apr 20, 2008
11,520
6
800
You know what they usually call a conspiracy that involves more than 10 people keeping a secret for more than a week? A failure.

Conspiracy theorists place more faith in human ability than anyone I know.

You must not believe in the US government, then. Or any government for that matter. Plenty of secrets are kept and kept well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.