Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston

wat

while I approve of what Wikileaks is doing, do you really think Assange has intimate knowledge of some sort of government super conspiracy?

he hasn't done much more than facilitate the leaking of a few (thousand) semi-classified, embarrassing documents at this stage.

mind you I wouldn't be surprised to see him bumped off, but not cos he knows too much, X Files style.

Phone him and ask him if the Tigers are going to win the 2012 Premiership

So Assange is going to Sweden ...

... oh, and Hillary popped by Sweden recently : http://www.thelocal.se/41228/20120604/

Absolutely co-incidental, I'm sure.

my favourite part is how they refused to send a prosecutor to the uk to question him, but they'll send an escort to take him back....

according to wikileaks twitter, he's been assured that he'll have access to newspapers and television whilst they imprison him without charge. but swedish only, not english

Hopefully his swedish lawyer Karl Magnussen will be able to get past that hardass judge, Magnus Karlssen.

related story on 4corners, I saw the original version (mostly about Bradley Manning) a while ago and tonight's is apparently an updated version with footage not shown first time round

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/326735

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

So Assange is going to Sweden ...

... oh, and Hillary popped by Sweden recently : http://www.thelocal.se/41228/20120604/

Absolutely co-incidental, I'm sure.

Quote:

Clinton’s visit marks the first time a US Secretary of State has been in Stockholm since 1976 when Henry Kissinger visited Stockholm for a day in May.

Seems legit

If that were Presidents, you'd be asking why the Americans were ignoring Sweden (someone in the State Department would know that Switerland was a different country). Although I'd expect every US President to visit Australia, I wouldn't know whether Australia had received Condoleeza Rice (hopefully not), Colin Powell or Warren Christopher. I don't know how many of Kevin Rudd, Steven Smith, Alexander Downer and Gareth Evans visited Sweden either.

One thing that was different about tonight's Four Corners report was the strong suggestion that American security forces were not so much interested in convicting Manning, the person who was given access to military intelligence and leaked it unlawfully, but rather in getting him to provide information on Assange.

It's one thing for Fox News to rave that they want Assange dead. As Australia's then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd remarked when allegations were made about him and Arbib, it's the Americans' responsibility to keep their confidential information to themselves and it's at all not clear that someone else distributing confidential information, if it's leaked to them unsolicited, is an offence. If the United States were to create legislation outlawing distribution of such information by non-citizens outside of the United States of America, it would be dubious for another country to allow an extradition of a person alleged to have committed such an offence. It would be even more dubious were the legislation retrospective. Even if a country did oblige, it would see the extradition as covering up the Americans' own incompetent mishap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeeeeeeJ

Although I'd expect every US President to visit Australia, I wouldn't know whether Australia had received Condoleeza Rice (hopefully not), Colin Powell or Warren Christopher.

Lol wut? Every foreign minister in the developed world (and probably most of the undeveloped world) job description is basically going on massive tours of their allied countries and shaking hands with foreign politicians.

Condoleezza Rice visits and goes meets Aussie soldiers and their families.
Colin Powell visiting on the anniversary of ANSUS
Warren Christopher visits Australia, Japan, Russia etc.

The whole point of foreign ministers is that they go have talks with other countries. Of course they visit their allies to put in face time. Half their job is PR and giving their allies politicians photo ops.

Quote:

I don't know how many of Kevin Rudd, Steven Smith, Alexander Downer and Gareth Evans visited Sweden either.

Same again.

Kevin Rudd. With photo's.... for their local politicians and Kevin to show to people to give them gravitas.
Gareth Evans Europe Tour
Alexander Downer Europe Tour
Stephen Smith Europe Tour

If what that all of those articles on Clinton, Rice, Powell, Christopher, Rudd, Smith and Downer are true, that does make it strange that George Schultz never visited Sweden and Kissinger left it until the last year of his term.

Does anyone want to speculate on a reason why not or why? You need not spend any more comtemplating a reason than how long it takes to locate an erroneous apotrophe.

Don't know where you are getting your info from but yet again.... George Schultz went to Sweden twice.

George Schultz attended the opening session of the Conference on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe in 1984. Which was held in Stockholm, Sweden.

In 1986 he went to Stockholm again and attended the funeral of Prime Minister Palme and met with Soviet Premier Ryzhkov..

You were right about Kissinger though. He did only go to Sweden once but if you look he spent a lot of time in the Middle East during his run.

Hillary Clinton: Australia 1, Sweden 0 but there's still time.
Condaleeza Rice: Australia 3, Sweden 1
Colin Powell:Australia 1, Sweden 1
Madeleine Albright:Australia 1, Sweden 0

OMG! Those Democrats never go to see the socialists in Sweden! The GOP are all closet commies!

I'm reading Flathead's post. He's quoting a news website, with an article about Hillary Clinton visiting Stockholm.

whoa, hadn't seen this coming, Assange seeks political asylum from the Ecuadorian government.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/persecut...620-20moh.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

whoa, hadn't seen this coming, Assange seeks political asylum from the Ecuadorian government.

It's pretty disgraceful really that he can't walk into the Australian embassy and request the same thing.

Just when I thought he had run out of options. Hope he's successful.

he'll be successful, the rapport he had with the ecuadorian president on the assange show a few weeks ago was very strong. wikileaks twitter said this morning that ecuador had offered assange asylum as far back as late 2010.

edit - forbes says correa denied the 2010 offer

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygree...ge-persecuted/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lambretta

Phone him and ask him if the Tigers are going to win the 2012 Premiership

I don't need to ask some spotty Melbourne nerd about what the Mayan Calender, the Leveson inquiry and the International Council of Astrologers have already confirmed

It's funny, I never noticed before how evil Ecuador is

I hope there's an axis they can be part of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston

It's funny, I never noticed before how evil Ecuador is

I hope there's an axis they can be part of.

Mexico: Took arrr jewbs!
Brazil: Cheesy house music.

There. That didn't take long at all.

top article

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/20/...lomatic-storm/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gruso

Just when I thought he had run out of options. Hope he's successful.

I'm all for Assange being afforded the full-weight of the Australian Government's support, even more so if America are trying to weazel an extradition out of the Swedes on some trumped up terrorism charge all based on the fact that America seems unwilling to recognise that it was the weakness of their security apparatus that lead to the leaks ( wasn't it something like 3000 people had access to certain info, and a further 750 000 government employees had access to other kinds of info).

Having said that, surely Assange does have charges to answer to in Sweden. If a Swedish person tried evading criminal charges in Australia we'd be pissed off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

I'm all for Assange being afforded the full-weight of the Australian Government's support, even more so if America are trying to weazel an extradition out of the Swedes on some trumped up terrorism charge all based on the fact that America seems unwilling to recognise that it was the weakness of their security apparatus that lead to the leaks ( wasn't it something like 3000 people had access to certain info, and a further 750 000 government employees had access to other kinds of info).

Having said that, surely Assange does have charges to answer to in Sweden. If a Swedish person tried evading criminal charges in Australia we'd be pissed off.

But he hasn't been charged, they just want a friendly chat, and based on what we all know of the circumstances, I'd be surprised if he ever came to be charged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

But he hasn't been charged, they just want a friendly chat, and based on what we all know of the circumstances, I'd be surprised if he ever came to be charged.

So then what's the problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

So then what's the problem?

he's forced to go to Sweden against his will

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

he's forced to go to Sweden against his will

And he is alleged to have forced his unsheathed cock into a woman against her will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

And he is alleged to have forced his unsheathed cock into a woman against her will.

the case was also closed and he was told he was free to leave sweden. then suddenly a new prosecutor decides she wants to reopen the case, refuses to question him by any other means than him in swedish custody, and decides a european arrest warrant is the only way to do so.

strange, no?

What I don't get is why Sweden still hasn't actually pressed charges yet. That's the primary element that makes their entire case look so suspect.

If they charged him then he would be allowed the legal protections afforded a person being charged with a crime in their country. Since they refuse to charge him, you have to worry about what they are afraid of.

And the obvious thing they have to be afraid of is that if they charge him they may not actually be allowed to extradite him to the USA under their rendition laws.

And at the same time the US won't confirm or deny charges against him either.

If governments are too gutless to actually press charges or issue indictments it's because they know they are in the wrong. There can be no other reason for it, in such a high profile case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

the case was also closed and he was told he was free to leave sweden. then suddenly a new prosecutor decides she wants to reopen the case, refuses to question him by any other means than him in swedish custody, and decides a european arrest warrant is the only way to do so.

strange, no?

Of course but that isn't to say that Assange doesn't have a case to answer. But you and Horst and Griggle are right, he should be charged with something.

The Swedes should be doing this in a proper manner, it raises doubts to the veracity of what is being claimed by them not doing so, and in that sense I agree that Assange has the right to be skeptical about the motives behind the extradition and non-charging.

At the same time I think that if what is alleged to have taken place did actually happen then he does have a case to answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

Having said that, surely Assange does have charges to answer to in Sweden. If a Swedish person tried evading criminal charges in Australia we'd be pissed off.

I don't think you realise how many people just leave the country to avoid being arrested. getting extradited it a very expensive process and for someone without the celebrity status that Assange has i doubt the Swede's would be doing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

Of course but that isn't to say that Assange doesn't have a case to answer. But you and Horst and Griggle are right, he should be charged with something.

The Swedes should be doing this in a proper manner, it raises doubts to the veracity of what is being claimed by them not doing so, and in that sense I agree that Assange has the right to be skeptical about the motives behind the extradition and non-charging.

At the same time I think that if what is alleged to have taken place did actually happen then he does have a case to answer.

what raises serious doubts is their refusal to send anyone to the UK for the 'questioning' he's wanted for. before they issued the EAW he said he'd happily sit down for questioning, but being that he'd already left sweden with their approval he saw no reason why he should return. what's so difficult about sending someone to question him in the UK? yet they're capable of sending someone to accompany him back....

i mean shit, we have skype and all sorts of communication means at anyone's fingertips for questioning, it's absurd they wasted a shit load of resources and court time in an attempt toforce someone to appear in person on their soil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

what raises serious doubts is their refusal to send anyone to the UK for the 'questioning' he's wanted for. before they issued the EAW he said he'd happily sit down for questioning, but being that he'd already left sweden with their approval he saw no reason why he should return. what's so difficult about sending someone to question him in the UK? yet they're capable of sending someone to accompany him back....

i mean shit, we have skype and all sorts of communication means at anyone's fingertips for questioning, it's absurd they wasted a shit load of resources and court time in an attempt toforce someone to appear in person on their soil.

Good points .

If there wasn't a secret U.S. indictment that potentially carried the death penalty then I'm sure Assange wouldn't be so reluctant to return to Sweden for questioning.

Quick legal question(s); is there some statute of limitations that Assange could ride out to avoid either sets of charges ex ante? Also, wouldn't it be difficult to guarantee an impartial trial with all the media hyperbole? Surely he could get off on such a technicality.

as if the US gives a shit about due process

Quote:

Originally Posted by moojins

Quick legal question(s); is there some statute of limitations that Assange could ride out to avoid either sets of charges ex ante? Also, wouldn't it be difficult to guarantee an impartial trial with all the media hyperbole? Surely he could get off on such a technicality.

The technicality route was already attempted, namely that a prosecutor has the same gravitas as a judge in Sweden, far as extradition requests go. A pity this sort of pragmatic thinking didn't extend to having him questioned in the UK or via electronic link.
Waiting for the statute of limitations to expire is not really an option for about a dozen reasons.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/as...620-20oku.html

Australians think they are a so ready to become a republic because they are a sovereign nation. Then start acting like it. It is a fucking disgrace that Australia is going to the extent of bootlicking America so hard that the Government is allowing a fucking Australian to face the death penalty in the US despite not committing a crime.

Opening a US base on Australian soil was a radically retarded and insulting move, but holy fuck does this take it too another level and shows that Australian sovereignty doesn't exist, Australia is closer to the US Administration than the fucking Republican states.

some good quotes here

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-2...-words/4086402

Judging by the comments from Correa I'd be surprised to see his application refused, and rightly so. Every government is sitting around on its hands waiting for his return to Sweden and it's fairly clear there's a shadow indictment order that's been issued by the US which they're refusing to comment on. I'm sitting back with my popcorn waiting for a leaked cable to surface from Ecuador's embassy that reads something like "Approve the application, let's burn the fuckers, hor hor hor "

http://swartz.typepad.com/texplorer/...-sweden-2.html

a good clarification of who's actually accusing him of 'sex crimes'. the 'victims' made no accusations of crimes, the prosecution made the accusations based on testimonies of 2 groupies who were worried they'd caught STDs from a playaaaaa.

Besides sex in Sweden is like breathing isn't it? All the girls over want it all the time, you can see it in their eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

Besides sex in Sweden is like breathing isn't it? All the girls over want it all the time, you can see it in their eyes.

yes but unfortunately for the males, women who aren't lawyers are incapable of determining when they've been sexually assaulted.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226409526369
I found this interesting, entitled "Entourage of idiots fuelling Assange's narcissism"...

Quote:

NARCISSISTS saturate our media. Our voyeurism fuels their narcissism. Witness the new Australian television series Being Lara Bingle. Happily, the target audience of 16-year-old girls watch it and laugh at the self-centred, look-at-me antics of Bingle. But if Bingle's narcissism attracts 16-year-olds smart enough to mock the model, then Julian Assange, a class-A narcissist, has collected quite an entourage of adoring, useful idiots around him.

Huh, looks like you have to log in to view?

Quote:

This cheering audience seems not to have noticed that the Assange story has become a media miniseries where, in each episode, the pale computer hacker is the producer, the director and the star. Any reality checks are rejected as interference. Hence, look at me, little Julian, pull the strings of prestigious newspapers such as The Guardian and The New York Times as they trip over themselves to publish my trove of WikiLeaks exposures. Look at me fall out with these duplicitous newspapers that dared to run stories about me that didn't further my hero-image. Look at me in the British courts being pursued by dark forces trying to extradite me to Sweden under a European arrest warrant so that the evil empire, the US, can grab hold of me. Watch me in the High Court in London battle the Great Satan. Watch me in the British Supreme Court go another round in this David-and-Goliath battle. Watch me go to Strasbourg to seek a better outcome from the European Court of Human Rights. Wait. Scrap that. Now watch me walk through the doors of the embassy of Ecuador to claim political persecution by Sweden for launching a perfectly legal European arrest warrant; by British courts for not overturning the warrant; by Australia for not doing more to help me; and of course, by America for being America.

is basically the guts of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smorchika

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226409526369
I found this interesting, entitled "Entourage of idiots fuelling Assange's narcissism"...


Huh, looks like you have to log in to view?

is basically the guts of it.

I just find that a load of pointless speculation to be honest.

wow... the writing style is an... interesting outlook on the Age. Was it written by Bolt?

written by JANET ALBRECHTSEN.

i've seen similar opinion pieces/smears in other murdoch papers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smorchika

Huh, looks like you have to log in to view?

Nah Murdoch fail at IT.

Just take the page address and copy it into a google search. The story then comes up in full if directed there by Google.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Just take the page address and copy it into a google search. The story then comes up in full if directed there by Google.

awesome, cheers. after reading the full article...

Sweden has tough laws about non-consensual sex. Agree or disagree, these are the laws enacted in a democracy. Assange ought to face those charges.

no charges to face, janet.

Writing in The Guardian last year, Cohen reported that when Assange was confronted by a journalist about the refusal by WikiLeaks to excise such information, Assange replied: "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."

quoting a journalist who quoted a journalist....

There were real consequences to this reckless dump of data. The Taliban made it known that Afghan insurgents were sifting through the information and drawing up a list of those names released by WikiLeaks.

proof? or is she just quoting a media source with questionable sources?

WikiLeaks is nothing like the 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg.

ellsberg has repeatedly said it's exactly like the pentagon papers.

Recall too that when media interest was waning, Assange signed a TV deal with the Kremlin-propaganda channel Russia Today, where his anti-Americanism overlapped with the Kremlin's deep loathing of the US. Assange interviewed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, designated as a terrorist organisation by Australia. Assange described him as a freedom fighter who had "fought against the hegemony of the United States". Let's not forget also that Assange interviewed the US-hating President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa.

fails to mention his third program guest was Moncef Marzouki. i do love it how the term prograganda channel is always thrown in for good measure. i guess the abc is a propaganda channel too.

i know that these shitty opinion pieces are just to annoy 'lefties' and his supporters and give the conservatives something to cheer for, but this is exactly the shitty faux journalism that a new breed of journalists (assange et al) and traditional quality journalists (glenn greenwald being one relevant to the assange/wikileaks/manning saga) are hoping to call out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

Writing in The Guardian last year, Cohen reported that when Assange was confronted by a journalist about the refusal by WikiLeaks to excise such information, Assange replied: "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."

quoting a journalist who quoted a journalist....

a sweet burn on 'journalists' like cohen

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/27/cnn_..._dont_be_nosy/