Assange Will Surrender To UK Police If UN Rules Against Him

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo

Quote:
On topic, maybe there should be a new online petition: Julian Assange and Wikileaks, release all information you have right now!

I think it would be totally legendary if Anonymous were to hack Wikileaks and release what they're hiding.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

swallow wrote:
As we discussed, Milosevic was not in fact "exonerated." See thread on that topic.

As we discussed, this is you playing with words.

Quote:
The ICTY’s conclusion, that one of the most demonized figures of the modern era was innocent of the most heinous crimes he was accused of, really should have made headlines across the world. But it hasn‘t. Even the ICTY buried it, deep in its 2,590 page verdict in the trial of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic who was convicted in March of genocide (at Srebrenica), war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On page 2,472 or whatever it was, the late Slobodan Milosevic was cleared of all the serious charges. He was long dead. There was no coverage in the NYT or many other major media; the Guardian hid the story on page 50.

Milosevic cleared ... and long dead in a US-controlled dungeon

Sean in Ottawa

ikosmos wrote:

swallow wrote:
As we discussed, Milosevic was not in fact "exonerated." See thread on that topic.

As we discussed, this is you playing with words.

Quote:
The ICTY’s conclusion, that one of the most demonized figures of the modern era was innocent of the most heinous crimes he was accused of, really should have made headlines across the world. But it hasn‘t. Even the ICTY buried it, deep in its 2,590 page verdict in the trial of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic who was convicted in March of genocide (at Srebrenica), war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On page 2,472 or whatever it was, the late Slobodan Milosevic was cleared of all the serious charges. He was long dead. There was no coverage in the NYT or many other major media; the Guardian hid the story on page 50.

Milosevic cleared ... and long dead in a US-controlled dungeon

This article says that Pilger is not infallible having got it all wrong.

The lurid claims made by the US and its allies about genocide and hundreds of thousands being killed, catalogued by the great John Pilger here, had been shown to be false.

Did we not have someone singing the praises of Pilger as someone who could not be debunked?

"Journalist, film-maker and author, John Pilger is one of two to win British journalism’s highest award twice. For his documentary films, he has won an Emmy and a British Academy Award, a BAFTA. Among numerous other awards, he has won a Royal Television Society Best Documentary Award. His epic 1979 Cambodia Year Zero is ranked by the British Film Institute as one of the ten most important documentaries of the 20th century."

Knock yourself out. This Pilger guy, he's just chopped liver after all, who happens to agree with some lout (me) with delusions of superiority. It should be way easy to shred his remarks (clearly written from St. Petersberg), debunk his arguments (unlike mine that are just so loutish) and not break a sweat.

Oh, yes we did. Now who brought us this idea that Pilger is the source who can't be wrong? My, my, that would be the very same poster.

So do we say now that Pilger can be wrong and is imperfect or do we say his words must end the discussion?

I am confused.

Apparently the easier conclusion would be that any of them -- even the best -- can get things wrong meaning we would have to make our case based on logic not just through a source (here or there) that cannot be questionned. Call me what you will but this is the conclusion I am going with.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Julian Assange shreds the disgusting lies about him

 

Now that Julian Assange has finally managed to get the brutal Swedish authorities to conduct their interview of him, he now has an opportunity to speak publicly about these matters. And he really has shredde the fabricated rape claims about him.

Mind you, that hasn't prevented Western MSM from carrying out an organized, lengthy, spiteful campaign of character assassination against him. A very successful campaign, I might add, judging by all the "progressives" (here and elsewhere) who re-gurgitate the odious claims of the US State Department wrt one Julian Assange. 

"Assange’s statement is obviously partly intended to give his side of the story after years of legally enforced silence. 

As Assange rightly complains, numerous stories about him and about his case have appeared in the Western media, some undoubtedly leaked to the media by the Swedish authorities.   These leaks and stories were clearly designed to ruin his reputation, and have in fact been very effective in doing so."

Quote:
To the certain dismay of the US, British and Swedish authorities, Julian Assange has published the statement he gave to the Swedish investigators who questioned him a short while ago.

The statement sets out in detail Assange’s reasons for refusing to return to Sweden for questioning, providing a detailed account of the proceedings brought against him by the US authorities in the US, and of the contacts he alleges have taken place between the Swedish and theUS authorities to extradite him to the US should he return to Sweden.

The statement also provides an explanation of why Assange feels he has cause to fear for his safety should he be extradited to the US.  This part of the statement relies heavily on the example of the treatment meted out to Chelsea Manning, the former US soldier who was the source of the leaks published by Wikileaks of the US military’s conduct during the insurgency in Iraq which happened after the war there.

The part of the statement which however breaks the most new ground is however the part in which Assange discusses the case against him and his contacts with the woman in Sweden who he is alleged to have raped.

 

Some observations ...

Quote:
Firstly, the rush to judgment against Julian Assange on the part of some people – casting aside any pretence of due process and of the presumption of innocence and without having heard his side of the story – has been nothing short of outrageous, and must unavoidably call into question their motivations.

I have to say that I have also been dismayed at the readiness of some people to assume Assange’s guilt simply because he has been accused of rape without the full details of the case being known, and notwithstanding that it is a crime for which – as he carefully points out in his statement – he has never actually been charged [with].

Secondly, there is no doubt as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the UN Human Rights Council has correctly said, that the action of the British authorities in preventing Assange from travelling to Ecuador after he was granted asylum is in breach of international law and of his rights as a refugee.

Thirdly, the Swedish prosecutor has hugely damaged her own credibility and of that the Swedish authorities by the way in which for years she refused to have Assange questioned in Britain.

This last point, just to review. The Assange legal team has pointed out that dozens - maybe hundreds - of such questioning go on routinely, over the years that Assange has been forced to take refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy, but, out of spite (and orders from the Washington Obama regime) , Sweden has abandoned their own legal practices in this case...

 

6079_Smith_W

Of course the U.S. and Sweden are basically obstructing justice by their actions. None of that changes the fact there is a real investigation that is being delayed.

For that matter, Assange's claims about who pursued and pressured whom doesn't change the allegations either. 

In one case it allegedly involved initiating sex with someone who was asleep.

In the other, alleged forcible penetration of someone who objected because Assange was not wearing a condom.

Whatever Assange now claims happened, this is what was presented in court five years ago:

bethgranter.com/blog/2012/08/julian-assange-admitted-to-non-consensual-sex/

I think he does have grounds for complaint over the delays, and the manipulation of this case to keep him in the embassy. That does not justify his resorting to smears and lies regarding his accusers.

For that matter it doesn't justify him using what he claims as his work in an unethical way for personal benefit - specifically, interfering in an eleciton in the hopes that it will be his get out of jail card.

I don't care how long he has been in that embassy. It doesn't erase those accusations.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Of course the U.S. and Sweden are basically obstructing justice by their actions. None of that changes the fact there is a real investigation that is being delayed.

It's those brutal regimes doing the delaying. Because they have been deliberately keeping Assange in a kind of legal limbo or hell to break him. And they've failed.

The fact that you're resorting to re-gurgitating the unsubstantiated and spurious claims about interference in the US elections means you're grasping at straws.

Quote:
I don't care how long he has been in that embassy. It doesn't erase those accusations.

lol. I allege that you are a &^%*%*^&(*^ Nothing you write here can "erase those accusations". And what do my remarks mean?

Why, nothing at all. Just like your remarks about Julian Assange.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

It means ikosmos, that you are calling a woman who said she was held down and raped a liar.

And another woman who accuses that she woke up to find Assange on top of her.

That's what you calling these accusations "fabricated" and "character assassination" means.

From the 2012 court process, which I linked to above:

Quote:

“[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”

The only character assassination going on here is your linked blogger repeating Assange's claim:

Quote:

Her behaviour towards me on the night in question and in the morning made it clear that she actively and enthusiastically wanted me to have sex with her.

That's "Well, she wanted it, so it couldn't have been rape" if it needs translating.

I said already that the U.S. and Sweden are obstructing this case, and that Assange has every right to complain about his de facto arbitrary detention, because it is obviously a ploy.

So why is he also trying to undermine the women accusing him? They played no part in what the U.S. did.

Probably because he'll do anything to try and save his own skin, including misusing the organization others have trusted him to use to tell the truth.

And the fact that he has marketed his get out of jail campaign by calling women "bimbos" shows where his scruples are when it comes to misogyny, sexual assault, and using the reputations of women to his own ends.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/bill-clinton-bimbo-poll-wikileaks-mercha...

 

 

 

lagatta

Yes, of course Assange is presumed innocent like any other person, but I agree about the rapey mansplaining. Rape isn't a joke, and even if a person has agreed to have some form of sexual contact with another person, it doesn't mean that agreement is for all time, or for all sorts of sexual contact.

Nowadays a condom should be non-negotiable for casual sexual partners. AIDS isn't a joke either.

However, there is a problem with Sweden refusing to confirm that they wouldn't hand him over to the US (on political charges that have nothing to do with sexual assault).

NDPP

'Sex Was Consensual': Assange Reveals 'Denial of Rape' Claims Given To Swedish Prosecutor

https://youtu.be/VSgA70RZQOQ

"WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange has released his full testimony to Swedish prosecuters for the first time, saying he is 'entirely innocent' regarding sexual assault claims. He has spent 4 years inside the Ecuadoriian embassy in London..."

lagatta

NDPP, that is what he is saying. No PROOF of anything either way, as of now.

And yes, I do want Sweden to agree not to deport him to the US, as that is a POLITICAL accusation.

Unionist

Julian Assange is an accused rapist.

Fidel Castro is an accused dictator and executioner.

 

lagatta

Someone being "accused" does NOT mean they are guilty; it simply means they are facing accusations. I wasn't trying to imply that accusation was proof of guilt.

On some feminist forums, participants are calling him guilty of rape - In the past I went to the trouble of explaining why that was wrong, but when places become echo chambers, there is no point.

But since Fidel is dead, wouldn't any such accusations (in a court of law) become null and void? Accusations by gusano associations and plagiaristic rightwing columnists have no legal validity whatsoever.

 

Unionist

Lagatta, I agree with everything you said there.

Here's what I meant by my post.

Individuals who stand up against the U.S. empire always get characterized in some other way - by the MSM especially. Guilt or innocence doesn't matter. Diversion and character assassination are the aim. It's such a smart manoeuvre that even some leftists are caught in the net. That's why we need to be extra vigilant, I think.

Likewise, friends of the empire get some positive irrelevant characterization - like, "the only democracy in the Middle East", or "the only gay-friendly state in the region", etc. etc. Once we start debating the truth or falsehood of the assertion - we're hooked. Then we get reeled in.

 

6079_Smith_W

But that he'd stoop to taking that argument public, rather than leaving it to the court,

and that he'd confuse this rape accusation with the completely separate issue of his grievance against the U.S. and Sweden.

(knowing that his acolytes will just take it and run with it)

And that he'd use Wikileaks to his own personal ends.

That is plenty of proof of his ethics.

That he'd cry foul over a leak in this case? That is just a fucking laugh.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Julian Assange is an accused rapist.

Fidel Castro is an accused dictator and executioner.

 

Cross posted, and that is not the issue. Nor is any MSM characterization.

The issue is him smearing the women who have accused him by saying "She wanted it".

And that is exactly what he said.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Maybe the legal genuiuses here, if they have time to take away from their weighty analysis of global affairs of state, can explain why Julian Assange has never been charged by Sweden with sexual assault.

The actual charges against him [of unlawful coercion and sexual molestation] EXPIRED after 5 years because Sweden did nothing, except obey their masters in Washington and torment him, and had to obey their own laws.He can never be prosecuted for those now.

What a pile of garbage. Brought to you by the US regime. Globocop.  Sauron's regime.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into one accusation of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion against Mr Assange because they have run out of time to question him. The more serious allegation of rape is not due to expire until 2020.

From BBC.

That help?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Read your own quote, Magoo. It says "serious allegation ..." etc., not  "serious charges".  The whole strategy is one of keeping the victim in legal limbo forever.

What a Rocket Scientist. I bow to your overwhelming intellectual brilliance.

6079_Smith_W

The quote refers to the need to question, which is what the warrant was for. When the rape accusation expires there will be no need to question, and therefore no need for any warrant.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

An accusation that expires. I can't say that I've ever seen such a document, so I can't comment on one that expires.

Rocket scientists.

6079_Smith_W

Here, knock yourself out ikosmos.

It is a European arrest warrant for "suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

Now presumably just suspicion of rape.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

fuck Assange. He deserves everything he gets except for a get out of jail free card.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I agree with Smithee. And Ikomos, an alleged sexual perpetrator is only referred to as the "victim" and the female assault complainants as the "accused" by Robin Camp, the judge who has been recommended a dismissal from the bench by the CJC. In other words, please don't use those terms for people hiding out from facing criminal charges as you did in post #68.

6079_Smith_W

I would agree that Assange is the victim of the U.S. and Sweden's interference.

That he brought the rape case into that dispute? Unnecessary, and entirely his decision.

Misfit Misfit's picture

He is under criminal investigation for espionage and sexual assault. He is a fugitive and not a victim.

Unionist

Misfit wrote:
He is under criminal investigation for espionage and sexual assault. He is a fugitive and not a victim.

"Under criminal investigation for espionage." By whom? Against whom?

I guess that would apply to that "fugitive" Snowden too, eh?

Quote:
On June 21, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed charges against Snowden of two counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and theft of government property. On June 23, he flew to Moscow, Russia, where he remained for over one month. Russian authorities granted him asylum for one year, which was later extended to three years. As of 2016, he was still living in an undisclosed location in Russia while seeking asylum elsewhere.

Oh wait - he's in Russia! Guilty as charged.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Assange made the mistake of "allowing" Wikileaks to embarrass that monster, Hilary Clinton. Now all bets are off. And it looks like the Clinton cheerleaders are "outraged" that he isn't being tortured by the peace-loving Swedish or US regimes.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Unionist, quit acting like a whacko!!! Both Snowden and Assange are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, they are hiding from facing trial which is cowardly. I may feel that hungry people need food, and my intentions are noble, but if I break into a grocery store and steal cases of food to donate to the food bank, then I may expect to face criminal charges against me for theft. Computer hacking is a form of theft, theft of information that is not yours to release to the public. Snowden and Assange are cowards who are running from the law and refuse to face the charges that are before them.

6079_Smith_W

Misfit wrote:
He is under criminal investigation for espionage and sexual assault. He is a fugitive and not a victim.

His situation is hardly that of a regular fugitive. If he leaves without a guarantee that he won't be taken to the U.S. he could spend the rest of his life in jail or windup dead. So as much as I think he is an arrogant creep who cares little for others, or for his responsibility, I don't think he has much choice but to stay where he is.

So yes, that makes him a victim, IMO It also makes his accusers victims by denying them their day in court.

But that Assange takes no responsibility for getting himself in that spot in the first place? Well, just one more example of his behaviour.

And ikosmos, deep sixing Clinton was supposed to be his way out, remember?

(edit)

And Misfit, cross posted with you.

I don't see Snowden in the same way at all, especially not the charges against him. I don't agree with everything he says, but there are many ways Assange has shown dishonesty and conflict of interest - even before these accusations - that Snowden has not. Snowden never got proprietary with his leaks, or pretended he was a journalist, or used his work unethically to his own ends. Even Anonymous gave up on Wilikeaks as "The Julian Assange Show" years ago.

 

 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

My argument is that they have a support base and an argument. Face the courts. They could be acquitted. Yes, some politicians in the US have commented about facing the death penalty, but that likely will not happen if they are convicted. Canada does not extradite to countries where the death penalty is concerned. I am sure that Sweden and the U.K. are the same.

Unionist

Misfit wrote:
Unionist, quit acting like a whacko!!!

All I can do is try harder. Thanks for the friendly advice, Misfit.

I asked you a question. Whom is Assange being accused of committing espionage against? Which country? 

I'd appreciate an answer. If in fact you have one. He didn't hack any computers, as far as I know. You made the statement. Back it up, withdraw it, ignore me, whatever. Either way, I promise to try to quit acting like a whacko. Are we good now?

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Individuals who stand up against the U.S. empire always get characterized in some other way - by the MSM especially. Guilt or innocence doesn't matter. Diversion and character assassination are the aim.

I've always felt that they reached their low point when they insinuated that Bradley Manning is a trans-woman.

But I remember similar discussions back in the day when UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter was accused of being a pedophile.  Because he embarrassed Empire, of course -- not because he actually repeatedly tried to hook up with kids online!

Anyway, I don't think it's Empire's fault -- or the MSM's fault -- if Assange thinks that "ZZZZzzzzzz" sounds like "Yesssssss".

Misfit Misfit's picture

Good then, Unionist! If he didn't commit any crimes then he has nothing to worry about. Why is he holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy? He can face whatever charges that are brought before him without any worries. I know that if I knowingly and purposely picked up canned goods from someone who stole them and then I delivered them to the food bank that I am an accessory to the crime of theft of stolen canned goods.

Unionist

Misfit wrote:
Good then, Unionist! If he didn't commit any crimes then he has nothing to worry about.

Are you fully aware of which discussion board you're posting on?

If you don't know which country he's accused of committing espionage against, you can say: "I don't know which country he's accused of committing espionage against."

If you do know, you can say: "He's accused of committing espionage against (name of country)."

It's really not that complicated. Just answer the question. Or withdraw the allegation.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The United States.

MegB

Unionist wrote:

Misfit wrote:
Unionist, quit acting like a whacko!!!

All I can do is try harder. Thanks for the friendly advice, Misfit.

I asked you a question. Whom is Assange being accused of committing espionage against? Which country? 

I'd appreciate an answer. If in fact you have one. He didn't hack any computers, as far as I know. You made the statement. Back it up, withdraw it, ignore me, whatever. Either way, I promise to try to quit acting like a whacko. Are we good now?

I think that what Unionist is trying to say in the most passive-agressive way possible, is that calling into question his mental health is a personal attack. I tend to agree.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I didn't call him a whacko. I told him to quit acting like a whacko. I meant to say feuna hierna dinger, but whacko was shorter.

Unionist

MegB wrote:
I think that what Unionist is trying to say in the most passive-agressive way possible, is that calling into question his mental health is a personal attack. I tend to agree.

Thanks, Meg. It's not easy replying to someone who calls Assange a coward for not surrendering to the U.S. to face espionage charges - because if he's innocent, what does he have to fear, right?

So with respect to this particular babbler, I will be going from passive/aggressive to silent. I just ask our community to recall which side we're on.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Trump is happy too.

Misfit Misfit's picture

BTW, passive aggressiveness and active silent treatment in an interpersonal discourse are recognized as forms of abusive behaviour. Happy to see Rabble mods condone such actions.

6079_Smith_W

If I had to frame it as "sides" (kind of complex in this situation, but possible) , the only side I am clearly in on is the side of Assange's accusers who have now seen the clock run down on two accusations that won't make it to court.

And I am clearly against the United States' presumed action to pressure Sweden in insisting on extradition.

That doesn't put me on Assange's side; I am not. I stop short of saying he is getting what he deserves, because I don't think that. And I don't call him a coward because I think it is the only reasonable decision he could have made.

But I am in no way on his side except to defend him against that action by the U.S. I don't need to repeat things, but he stopped being an honest broker years ago. And he had a hand in doing this to himself.

Not to equate the two exactly, but I also think Roman Polanski had little choice but to leave the country after the judge broke their agreement once he had a confession in hand. So yes, I can say someone is a victim of injustice, and still have little or no sympathy.

In this case my opinion would be radically different if Assange had a bit of sensitivity to the issue of undermining rape accusations which happens all the time.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Thank you Smith, and I find myself almost in complete agreement. The last straw for me was the alleged tampering in the US election. I felt that was totally uncalled for. I also don't think that the US has much of a case against Assange, either. I don't think that they have any case against him at all.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Misfit wrote:
BTW, passive aggressiveness and active silent treatment in an interpersonal discourse are recognized as forms of abusive behaviour. Happy to see Rabble mods condone such actions.

Do you mean to say that if I choose not to engage in conversation with various posters I am being abusive to them? What an odd notion.

MegB

Misfit wrote:
BTW, passive aggressiveness and active silent treatment in an interpersonal discourse are recognized as forms of abusive behaviour. Happy to see Rabble mods condone such actions.
Would you prefer that babblers be forced to react to what you post? Not happening. If someone chooses to ignore you, it's probably a good thing.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Unionist's behaviour was childish and aggressive and then followed with a statement that he was going to henceforth give the silent treatment because don't forget what side everyone needs to be on. He could have simply and quietly walked away. This behaviour is endorsed by the moderators, which I find disappointing. It is a temper tantrum and a statement of insults and power vs simply walking away. So yes, there is a difference. I have walked away from many discussions but I haven't done so with dramatic fanfare.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

I'm a few months behind on this thread.

Quote:
"Did you ever wipe your server?"

“What? Like with a cloth or something?...I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”

And now we have reports Secretary Clinton had software specifically designed to do just that.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-25/fbi-admits-clinton-used-softwar...

It seems that the folks at Bleachbit are having some fun with this.

And they have some advice for future Hillary Clintons.

Bleachbit BTW, is software that is "free as in freedom and free as in free beer". Cool

 

 

 

lagatta4

And we all know: "there's no such thing as a free beer".

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

More metachat. Lovely.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

And we all know: "there's no such thing as a free beer".

Actually, there is a such thing as free beer

kropotkin1951

Misfit wrote:

Unionist, quit acting like a whacko!!! 

Misfit wrote:

BTW, passive aggressiveness and active silent treatment in an interpersonal discourse are recognized as forms of abusive behaviour. Happy to see Rabble mods condone such actions.

So do you propose that the mods ban you for your use of a mental illness as an insult to bait Unionist and then your audacity to whine at the push back because if you want to talk passive aggressive that seems to me to be a classic example.

LMAOROF

Pages