Discussion in 'World Politics' started by Centrehalf, Sep 27, 2012.
I read a rumor that there is a sealed indictment against him. Supposedly leaked by Stratfor.
Jullian Assanige, has not even been charged in Sweden. He is wanted for Questioning. When is the words of the two women become proof.
Really? You think he hasn't been charged?
From the article:
Bolding added by me. You were saying?
Yeah, I've heard that too. I found an article from Rolling Stone about this from earlier this year.
Centrehalf, In the article you quote in the Telegraph all it says is "He believes the Swedish charges, levied by two women, will be dropped in "months"
There is no mention of charges made by the government or prosecutor just charges made by some women. I do not necessary support Assange but the fact is that he is only wanted for questioning. The Swedish government can send people to question him in London. His main problem is that he thinks he is too white.
This is an outright lie, I pulled a quote directly from the article for you. You have apparently chosen to ignore it. I also don't really care if a fugitive from justice believes the charges will be dropped.
Now you're getting to the meat of the matter. The Swedish justice system works a little differently than other Western nations. Technically you're correct, the phase of the investigation he is wanted for is referred to as questioning, as are other phases. However, this particular phase is roughly equivalent to what's known in the US as a pre-trial conference.
The reason Sweden doesn't need to send investigators to London is because Assange has already been questioned in Sweden. Here is an English language copy of the interviews with Assange and others involved in the case:
The pdf is a pretty interesting read. My take is that not only will Assange be charged with sexual assault, he should also be charged with witness tampering.
Here's an article for you. It's a British opinion piece but it does have a good bit in here about Swedish law so I'll quote that part for you:
So, technically you're right about not being charged with rape yet but he's already passed through a phase which in the US is called indictment, not sure what you call it in Austrailia. That is why the quote in my other post was worded the way it was by that paper, UK and American readers would understand Assange's current legal standing as indicted, not as wanted for questioning. For a UK or American paper to list Assanges status as "wanted for questioning" would be misleading and intellectually dishonest given the audience they report to and their understanding of the legal system.
You should also now be a little peeved with Assange because he, his legal team, and his supporters are lying to you. His assertion, in addition to fearing extradition to the US, is that he need not appear in Sweden because no official charges have been filed, yet he and his attorneys know full well that he can't be arrested and officially charged until he sets foot on Swedish soil.
As for no official government documentation; an arrest warrant was issued in Sweden for Assange and the case hasn't been concluded yet. Sweden has asked for his extradition. The assertion that the government hasn't done anything in this case doesn't hold water.
Assange has already been questioned, Sweden wants him for trial.
Correction to my post above. Replace the word "indictment" with "arraignment". (It's early, I used the wrong word. I need coffee )
In a more "enlightened time"--the CIA would have put a stop to all the Assange problem with a sniper.
We have to go through all this bullshit because we can no longer think logically.
three Hail Mary's and 5 Our Fathers for this indiscretion. go forth and sin no more !
And--a GOOD Act of Contrition.
Triumviration--being important in this arena.
I was just thinking the other day that what this Assange clown needs is a one-way flight across half of the Atlantic.
Whatever American law says, Swedish law calls this stage questioning. In Australia this is before any trial. Of course it it not important. Even if prove guilty in Sweden the penalty would not be high. But once in Sweden he can be sent to the USA where the penalty would be higher. Of course he has not yet even been charged in the USA. There is a film on Australia TV tonight that may give more information. I have written on my own web site there should be limits on free speech. Assange revelations have not just done harm to the US by releasing confidential data but many other countries as well.Whether this is justified to reveal corruption is debatable.
Where is General Pinochet when you need him?
I've already explained why this is an extremely dishonest position to take. One more time, this isn't about interviewing Assange, he's already been interviewed and Sweden wants him now for trial. He fled prosecution. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore on that point. If you can't accept it, tough.
As far as an Austrailian documentary about Assange, I don't care. Here's all I need to know; The US Military calls Assange an enemy of our state and rated him on the wanted list as highly bin Laden and al Queda were rated. Do you know what you have to do in order to be rated that highly? This isn't about "diplomatic cables" or whistleblowing. To be number one on that list you have to do something which results in the deaths of American servicemen, and I'm not talking about just one time or accidently. Or, you have to engage in some very high level espionage, the kind of information that can change the balance of power in an theatre in which the military is currently engaged. This isn't about WikiLeaks.
Although you may not be interested in the documentary and film others might. It seemed a well balance presentation. Assange did break the Australian law by scanning and publishing confidential information but he claim his motives was to reveal war crimes like the shooting of civilians by Americans. He seems to be assess by hacking into many sites not just American. When caught in Australia he was just fined. If the American s think he did something more serious they should produce evidence.
He is no saint and the documentary shows he ruled his followers with an iron hand removing their right to speak. He had a troubled childhood and appears very arrogant.He is also a liar. His sex crimes were not using a condom when requested. I do not know if he cause the death of Americans or informers. This has to be proved
He broke more than Australian law but because the issue was handled in Australia he was only subject to Australian law.
True, however he has stated and shown many times that America is his primary target.
If it's related to National Security there's zero chance of that happening in public although I'm sure various governments would be informed.
Not true, he did more than that. I've posted the interviews from Sweden earlier in this thread. Even if that were all he did, are you suggesting that that's not serious enough to send him to Sweden?
Yep, this was a guess on my part. But, once again, the only way to officially prove it is a trial and at this point all we really have is the military declaring him an enemy and rumors of a sealed indictment.
I know that you've said in this thread that you're not really leaning one way or the other on this issue, it's just mindblowing to me how many Australians are equating this Assange clown to their national sovereignty.
Accusations of rape or misconduct are the usual fate for whistleblowers the who reveal the misdeeds of the rich and powerful.
"..00:12 ONN: Hello. We’re here today at the home of Craig Murray, the whistleblower and former ambassador to Uzbekistan. Craig, thank you for being here with us on ON today. On Sunday you spoke out publicly defending Julian Assange in giving a speech in front of the Ecuadorean assembly. What made you want to stand up and be counted as among his supporters?
CRAIG MURRAY: Well, the main reason is that I’ve been a whistleblower myself and active with other whistleblowers, and I’ve seen so many whistleblowers fitted up with false charges, and as soon as anybody blows the whistle, particularly on any aspects of, if you like, neoconservative foreign policy and war, you’re going to get fitted up and you’re going to get defamed with false charges, and if you’re male I think in every case those charges are going to involve sexual allegations. So I could just see, if you like, a miscarriage of justice in the process of being done, and I wanted to do anything I can to help stop it.
01:16 ONN: You said that individual whistleblowers are not charged with political offenses, they are fit up with criminal ones. Would you care to elaborate on that?
CRAIG MURRAY: Yes, certainly, and I’ll give a few examples. James Yee, who was a chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, he blew the whistle on torture and mistreatment of inmates at Guantanamo Bay. He was first of all charged with espionage and acts of espionage benefiting a foreign country. Then those charges were dropped and he was charged with adultery, which apparently under US military law is an offense, and he was charged with having pornography on his government computer at work, and he was convicted of both of those, and then later the conviction was overturned.
Brigadier Janis Karpinski was the lady in charge of all Iraqi prisoners of war in Iraq, not just at Abu Ghraib. She was in charge of all military installations. She wasn’t actually at Abu Ghraib, and actually she’d only ever been to Abu Ghraib once. When the story broke about all the torture at Abu Ghraib, she came forward and she said that she had personally seen a document signed by Donald Rumsfeld detailing forms of torture to be used at Abu Ghraib, including stress positions, including threatening naked prisoners with dogs. She said those techniques were detailed in the document which was signed by Donald Rumsfeld. She was recalled to the United States, and the day after she returned to the United States she was allegedly caught shoplifting and charged with shoplifting.
Scott Ritter was an Iraqi weapons inspector on the same UN team as David Kelly. He was a captain in the US Marines. He stated that there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. On his return to the United States he was entrapped in a computer sex honey trap by an FBI agent, and this was admitted in court, that it was an FBI agent who entrapped him.
03:51 ONN: For those who don’t know, what does this term “honey trap” refer to?
CRAIG MURRAY: Honey trap is where you put, if you like, sexual bait in order to catch someone, to entice someone into a sexual act which they otherwise might not have committed had you not put the temptation right in their way. It’s a term frequently used in espionage and diplomatic circles because it’s a well-known technique of the security services. And Scott Ritter fell for this honey trap and he was actually convicted of pedophilia, because although the agent in concern was an adult female, she was using an Internet persona of an underage person. But — and Scott Ritter’s case is the only one where I think there may be any truth at all in the allegations, and in his case it wouldn’t have happened, the whole thing wouldn’t have happened had the FBI not set up the situation and gone out to get him.
And I should say these are all people I knew personally. Two of them are people I knew before they were accused. And it happens to everyone. And the same thing happened to me. I blew the whistle on British complicity in torture, MI6′s complicity with torture in Uzbekistan and on extraordinary rendition. I was immediately charged with sexual allegations, in effect with extorting sex from visa applicants. It took me, you know, 18 months of real hell, to be honest, to clear my name. Because, you know, I know once people throw those kind of allegations at you, it tarnishes your name forever. It’s very easy to destroy someone’s reputation by sexual allegations.
So, for me, the absolutely extraordinary thing is that, you know, after this has happened to James Yee, happened to me, happened to Scott Ritter, happened to Janis Karpinski, they pulled the same trick again and again, and now it’s pulling it with Julian Assange, and anybody taking seriously these accusations astonishes me, because the idea that people just can’t see what is happening in the world and the way that whistleblowers are being persecuted, to me it’s astonishing. And the fact that none of what I’ve just said to you will you find reported in the mainstream media, you know, ought to really, really alarm people about the kind of world we live in.
Centrehalf, Australians are divided on Julian Assange. The Labor Prime Minister said he should face the charges in Sweden and refuse to help him. For this she is being sued by Assange. Letters published o0n the film also show a dived view. Some see him as a hero others just an attention seeker. Stalin it is true that most whistle blowers are charged with sexual crimes. This is the easiest way to silence a troublemaker.
You know who else is charged with sexual crimes? People who commit sexual crimes. Sweden is hardly a neo-con nation.
I am not sure what harm Assange did to the USA, when China is doing the same hacking today
Separate names with a comma.