Assange, Ecuador, £6 million minimum

Rapscallion said:
  1. a secret trial - the trial will be held behind closed doors. the swedish authorities say this is 'private', others describe it as 'secret'. Either way, it is not open to public or journalistic scrutiny.
  2. presided over by politically appointed judges - this page states that allegation by Assange, you'll need to google translate it as it is swedish
Some critical articles of the Swedish justice system:
Click to expand...

no idea what all that means, but I'll try and maybe make a phone call or two …. sometime
 
Last edited:
crofter said:
He owes us 6 million quid, he should be set cleaning toilets until it's payed off and then handed over to the Swedes.
Click to expand...

£6m plus - I agree - I opened the thread
 
Rapscallion said:
  1. a secret trial - the trial will be held behind closed doors. the swedish authorities say this is 'private', others describe it as 'secret'. Either way, it is not open to public or journalistic scrutiny.
  2. presided over by politically appointed judges - this page states that allegation by Assange, you'll need to google translate it as it is swedish
Some critical articles of the Swedish justice system:
Click to expand...

He is going to have to leave one day

The options are:

1). Ecuador …….. if they can get him out

2). Sweden, rape charges ….. the alleged victims have a right to press charges.

3). The UK, arrested and off to Sweden

The US have not issued a request for extradition yet, in fact they are not sure what to charge him with

a). If he is in Sweden, extradition to the US is more difficult

b). If he is in the UK extradition to the US is easier

I suspect that he does not want to face charges in Sweden

The Ecuadorians are playing a political game, they have no interest in human rights or freedom of the press, but as long as they continue to play he is safe but his health seems to be suffering.

He will have to "face the music" some day and he has dug his own hole and kept digging ………….
 
I wonder how long he would be locked up for if found guilty in Sweden - my understanding is that the charges relate to forcing a woman to have unprotected sex. He's been in the Ecuadorian embassy for 2 years where there apparently isn't anywhere outside to go (or even natural light I read somewhere :thinking:). That's a pretty hefty prison sentence to give yourself as the conditions are probably worse than a real prison.
 
Rapscallion said:
So the top hit you found was from the Swedish authorities - hardly going to be a neutral voice now are they?

Come on Dave - cant you see there is next to no difference between a secret trial and a trial held in private? Surely you're not that gullible?
Click to expand...

Um, no, the top hit was from the BBC who were reporting on the matter before Assange decided to abscond to the embassy, it was reporting on the hearing held in a UK court.

Certain parts of trials in the UK can also be held in private, does that mean the UK has "secret trials" as well?

You did have a read of the link before posting? Didn't you?

BillN_33 said:
secret trials were mentioned (above) as being what happens in Sweden for rape trials …… I do not think that they are really secret, but I think that the "secret" element is to protect the woman's identity …… but I could be wrong but I thought all trials in Sweden were 'reported"
Click to expand...

You are right, as it was stated in an English court.

Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said evidence from a trial would be heard in private but the arguments would be made in public.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
Um, no, the top hit was from the BBC who were reporting on the matter before Assange decided to abscond to the embassy, it was reporting on the hearing held in a UK court.

Certain parts of trials in the UK can also be held in private, does that mean the UK has "secret trials" as well?

You did have a read of the link before posting? Didn't you?
Click to expand...
Indeed i did read the link, and the relevant text in the link, and as I said above, it is from the Swedish authorities, which you yourself have quoted.

Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities
Click to expand...

Perhaps we have our wires crossed?
 
BillN_33 said:
they seem pretty impartial ……. I don't think so

who are The Nordic News Network and what are their aims?
Click to expand...
Who are the BBC, and what are their aims?

There is no such thing as an impartial news source - we have to read both sides and take a view from there.

EDIT - From what I've read of the facts elsewhere, what they report seems accurate. Anna Ardin finding a holed condom several days later for example (you have to wonder how that could be possible). And that after providing an initial condom that testing found to be unused.

There's a whole lot of weirdness to the case.
 
Last edited:
Moadib said:
Who are the BBC, and what are their aims?

There is no such thing as an impartial news source - we have to read both sides and take a view from there.
Click to expand...

To be fair I'd hardly call NNN a news source.
 
You posted that one earlier - but it contains the same old myths, for example that the trial would not be in secret. No - "only" the discussion of the evidence would be in secret. So the public could attend for the opening and the verdict, but discussion of the salient facts would be behind closed doors - what purpose (other than stitching up) does that serve? And even that statement we only have coming from Claire Montgomery, of Matrix Chambers (the Matrix Chambers of Cherie Blair - could she have ANY interest in supporting the US position? The Blair family of course has no history of helping the U.S.).

The Swedes first have to interview Assange to establish whether there is even a case to answer - they were offered to interview him in the London Embassy, which is very common for investigative interviewers to travel to do that. They flatly refused and continue to do so. Why? Such an interview could easily clear up the whole thing, but they insist he has to travel. Couldn't be a reason to get him out of the Embassy?

Sorry, WAY too many irregularities in this - if nothing else Assange is innocent until proven otherwise, and the Swedes are not making normal moves to progress the case. I think this document offers a far better summary of the state of play at the moment. Britain is the country with a fine tradition of law - we gave the world the concept of trial by jury. Now we are the ones denying it to Assange? We should rather thank the Ecuadoreans for reminding us of proper law.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
 
big soft moose said:
I find this a bit confusing on two levels

a) the drone program wasn't secret so what was there to out ? (Numerous ex millitary people have written about the drones in their books - Fire strike 7/9 by Damien Lewis and Bommer Graeme being a classic example )

b) the drones don't carry bombs , so it would be difficult for them to "drop them on kids" - they do carry Hellfire missiles, but these are fired by an operator with visiual and are usually used for strikes on terrorist leaders ... okay so if the terrorists insist on hiding behind kids , they could be caught in the blast , but thats hardly the same as US drones flying arround looking for kids to target

Also you beileve our government is spying on you all the time, but you are happy to say so on a public forum ?! (If you'd tried that in a police state you'd have jhad the secret police kicking your door in at 3am - thus the very fact that you can say it with impunity is evidence that they arent )
Click to expand...

I never said this was a police state were just spyed on and monitored all out email is scanned, text and phonecall metadata blah blah.....

and your extensive critique just highlights how all these threads go details and nonsense.
I hope some others stand up and continue the good work Assange has founded.
 
Last edited:
Mr Bump said:
I hope some others stand up and continue the good work Assange has founded.
Click to expand...

I kind of hope that what happened to assange makes people think twice before publishing stuff thats supposed to be secret for a reason (not that the drone flights were).

imo there are two different things here - even if we subscribe to the view that assange is a folk hero for standing up to the big bad murricans (which i don't but even if we did) he'd still be a 'folk hero' who is wanted on rape charges

Although i don't agree i can see the logic that he shouldn't be sent to america as he won't get a fair trial, I can't see any logic at all for not extraditing him to sweden to face those charges in court ( and the Ecuadorians motivations must presumably lie towards the former , as i can't see their embassies regularly harbouring people wanted on rape charges)

(oh and i don't belive all our email, phone calls etc are monitored - the govt might have the desire (from a preventing terrorism etc front) but they don't have the capability and capacity - and anyway if you arent planning anything criminal or seditious theres no problem anyway
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
Indeed i did read the link, and the relevant text in the link, and as I said above, it is from the Swedish authorities, which you yourself have quoted.

Perhaps we have our wires crossed?
Click to expand...

LOL, so you think a British QC would perjure herself in an English court by lying about the procedures to be followed?

Do you have a nice collection of tinfoil hats?
 
Claire Montgomery, of Matrix Chambers (the Matrix Chambers of Cherie Blair - could she have ANY interest in supporting the US position? The Blair family of course has no history of helping the U.S.).
Click to expand...

Yep, that would be the same C. Blair QC who is very very into human rights and instrumental in stopping the extradition of people. Lets not let assumptions get in the way of reality shall we.

The Swedes first have to interview Assange to establish whether there is even a case to answer - they were offered to interview him in the London Embassy, which is very common for investigative interviewers to travel to do that. They flatly refused and continue to do so. Why? Such an interview could easily clear up the whole thing, but they insist he has to travel. Couldn't be a reason to get him out of the Embassy?
Click to expand...

No, very rarely does that happen, and in any case it's not for Assange to dictate terms. He's wanted in Sweden, the evidence exists to justify his extradition, tough, off he should go. His defence in that country to that charge is his problem.

Sorry, WAY too many irregularities in this - if nothing else Assange is innocent until proven otherwise, and the Swedes are not making normal moves to progress the case. I think this document offers a far better summary of the state of play at the moment. Britain is the country with a fine tradition of law - we gave the world the concept of trial by jury. Now we are the ones denying it to Assange? We should rather thank the Ecuadoreans for reminding us of proper law.
Click to expand...

I don't see any irregularities. Nor did the UK Courts, who err very much on the side of caution in these cases. Different Countries have different systems, just because we have jury trial for some offences, doesn't mean everywhere else has too. In any case Juries can and do return perverse decisions, so maybe it's not that great a system.

What I do see is someone who wants things his way. He wasn't leaping to defend those who he got the information from. He wasn't rushing to share the burden of the charges, or to justify his actions in the only forum that matters. Of course not because he's a self serving egotist.
 
Assange in not a whistleblower, he's just a document dumping hacker.

He's a coward who talks utter crap to avoid investigation into his alleged actions.

He can't go to Sweden because they will extradite him to the USA, so we're did he go. To the country with the easiest extradition policy in the world to the USA, he came here. He was here for over 500 days, and the USA tried to get him not once. Just a bulls***ing sex offender on the run.
 
Last edited:
acetone said:
Assange in not a whistleblower, he's just a document dumping hacker.

He's a coward who talks utter crap to avoid investigation into his alleged actions.

He can't go to Sweden because they will extradite him to the USA, so we're did he go. To the country with the easiest extradition policy in the world to the USA, he came here. He was here for over 500 days, and the USA tried to get him not once. Just a bulls***ing sex offender on the run.
Click to expand...


Deluded does not even begin to describe this post.
 
BillN_33 said:
If he is sincere in his beliefs he should stand up and face the world.
If his supporters also believe in what he has done they should encourage him to do so.
If they do not believe that he will be treated fairly they should allow the process to happen and expose what they believe to be a corrupt process

He is a coward; he should face his accusers.

Because of his actions over’s the past few years he deserves little respect.

He cannot hide forever.
Click to expand...

My, what a sheltered life you have appear to have had:oops: :$
 
I must confess to not knowing much about Julian Assange and his activities except for what I’ve read in various media outlets. As far as the alleged Swedish rape case is concerned, there seems to be more than just a hint of ‘hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ about this. Perhaps he should man up and face his accusers although in the face of being on trial behind closed doors I can understand his concerns about being treated fairly. Some have said that if has nothing to hide then he has nothing to worry about (which is simply naïve in my opinion) but it could also be argued that if the Swedish judicial system feels it has a genuine case then why hold it behind closed doors without a jury anyway. It’s not as if national security is involved.


As for the extradition to America and the prospect of facing espionage charges there, one of Sweden’s top judges, Justice Stefan Lindskog, has already publicly stated that this is highly unlikely for a number of reasons. Obviously the American government would love to have him for exposing their extremely dubious intelligence gathering practices but it would seem unlikely that Sweden would hand him over.


See here - http://www.news.com.au/national/jul...-stefan-lindskog/story-fncynjr2-1226612062993




Personally, I think both he and his organisation did the public and the world a service by exposing American hypocrisy. They’re just miffed because their double standards have been put on show for the world to see.
 
They’re just miffed because their double standards have been put on show for the world to see.
Click to expand...

Not that miffed, they haven't even tried to get him extradited to the US. If they really were and did want him he'd have gone a very long time ago, when this all started.

Personally, I think both he and his organisation did the public and the world a service by exposing American hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

he didn't reveal anything much. Some low grade classified material, diplomatic chit chat. A few bits that might well get some people killed, but not much of that either. little he published was anything that any other Government doesn't do or think.

Lets face facts, he is a publicity hunting. Rather than being some form of 'hero', he's simply a sex offender who is doing his best to prevent himself being extradited with the prospect of being branded a nonce and going into obscurity.
 
Dave1 said:
LOL, so you think a British QC would perjure herself in an English court by lying about the procedures to be followed?

Do you have a nice collection of tinfoil hats?
Click to expand...
Why make it about tinfoil hats and name calling? It's about a proper understanding of the facts.

For example Assange's QC clearly stated in court (in the extradition hearing) that the trial in Sweden would be held in secret. He is also a British QC (Geoffrey Robertson QC), and can therefore be assumed equally "perjury free". So now we have two "reliable" QCs both able to make a seemingly opposite claim in court. Is one of them perjuring themselves? No. The point is the court hearing in Sweden can be claimed to be both - the key parts (evidence presentation) are secret, but enough is public that it can be claimed so.
 
Why make it about tinfoil hats and name calling? It's about a proper understanding of the facts.

For example Assange's QC clearly stated in court (in the extradition hearing) that the trial in Sweden would be held in secret. He is also a British QC (Geoffrey Robertson QC), and can therefore be assumed equally "perjury free". So now we have two "reliable" QCs both able to make a seemingly opposite claim in court. Is one of them perjuring themselves? No. The point is the court hearing in Sweden can be claimed to be both - the key parts (evidence presentation) are secret, but enough is public that it can be claimed so.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never watched a Barrister at work! There is truth and then there's spin on truth.

The Court of appeal obviously found that he was able to face fair trial, a QC saying that he wouldn't, does not mean it is fact. He's paid to say what his client instructs, he has, the courts don't agree.
 
Bernie174 said:
Not that miffed, they haven't even tried to get him extradited to the US. If they really were and did want him he'd have gone a very long time ago, when this all started.



he didn't reveal anything much. Some low grade classified material, diplomatic chit chat. A few bits that might well get some people killed, but not much of that either. little he published was anything that any other Government doesn't do or think.

Lets face facts, he is a publicity hunting. Rather than being some form of 'hero', he's simply an alleged sex offender who is doing his best to prevent himself being extradited with the prospect of being branded a nonce and going into obscurity.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
Bernie174 said:
he's simply a sex offender who is doing his best to prevent himself being extradited with the prospect of being branded a nonce and going into obscurity.
Click to expand...

You of all people should be aware of the process of law, so I am surprised to hear you call him a "sex offender", based on the evidence which we have read so far.
He could be termed a "gigolo" or "playboy", and was considered so by BOTH the women, who both wanted to bed him. It is not as though Assange stalked the two women, if anything it was the other way around.
 
JA

This situation does just not seem to add up

1). We assume that JA is a reasonably intelligent person and he would have received “good advice” from his supporters.

2). He would have known after Wikileaks that there was a good chance that the US would come after him and if they did they would never give up.

3). He would also have known that once he was “wanted” in Sweden they would always pursue him and also never give up.

4). He has significant support around the world that would have “helped” him in any legal action against him.

5). From the evidence presented on here it would appear that the case against him in Sweden is weak.

6). The Swedish Authorities have said that they will not automatically hand him over to the US, who in any case have not (yet) requested his extradition.


So he takes the following action:

a). Leaves Sweden and comes to the UK were he is more likely to be extradited to the US.

b). Decides effectively to go into “house arrest” for two years away from his family with no certaincy that this will ever change……. he could be there forever

c). Chooses the Ecuadorian Embassy who record of “civil rights” is not great.

d). Put’s himself in a “catch 22” situation were he is at an impasse, as the UK, Swedish and US Governments will never give up on their domestic and international obligations.


If he “gets” away and the US decides they want him they will pursue him forever. He is wanted in Sweden and his situation is almost as bad from a UK standpoint.


Knowing the above

Why did he come to the UK and leave Sweden?

Why did he choose the Ecuadorian Embassy and put himself into an effective confinement situation?

Why did he not go directly to a country were he would have been safer to live a more normal life and continue his work?

What was his Plan B?

Who is financing him?

Maybe someone can help me understand what's going on?
 
Last edited:
Bill, to answer your questions will be guesswork and supposition, but lets have a go at one of them:-

Why did he come to the UK and leave Sweden?
Click to expand...

Possibly his thoughts were 'if i am under detention in sweden for an indefinite duration, i am unable to avoid extradition. if i maintain freedom of movement by leaving Sweden, i mitigate this possibility'

Also, since IANAL, i am unsure which countries extradition process to the USA is 'easier'.
 
Rapscallion said:
Bill, to answer your questions will be guesswork and supposition, but lets have a go at one of them:-



Possibly his thoughts were 'if i am under detention in sweden for an indefinite duration, i am unable to avoid extradition. if i maintain freedom of movement by leaving Sweden, i mitigate this possibility'

Also, since IANAL, i am unsure which countries extradition process to the USA is 'easier'.
Click to expand...

I suppose my simple reply would be

why did he not fly to South America and join the other guy who disclosed information?
 
Rapscallion said:
No idea!

But while reading around the subject, i came across this interesting article:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...pirited-away-in-a-diplomatic-bag-8061664.html
Click to expand...

That is what I suggested could happen in an earlier post, but I'm not sure that would suit the Ecuadorians ……….. maybe if he died in the Embassy because of not being allowed out to be treated that would suit them.

As far as I am concerned it all "stinks" from both the JA and the Ecuadorian sides ……. he could have easily evaded "anybody" or anything with the "friends" and resources at his disposal but a decision was made not to do that and for some reason to "stage" his antics on British Territory.

I still maintain that he his a coward, totally untrustworthy and a man of little concern for anything other than his own ego …….. he has done a dis-service to many by the way that he has acted

The sooner he is "whisked off" to some unholy place the better then at least he will not be allowed to consume valuable time and resources to satisfy his own ego and maybe some other political purpose - just IMHO, of course
 
BillN_33 said:
The sooner he is "whisked off" to some unholy place the better then at least he will not be allowed to consume valuable time and resources to satisfy his own ego and maybe some other political purpose - just IMHO, of course
Click to expand...
That's about as diametrically opposed as it's possible to be from "he should stand up and face the rule of law"! Now we're judge and jury, and he's to be simply Guantanamo'ed. If there's any question as to why he's acting as he is, in all likelihood it is in case some people in world governments, supposedly also bound by the rule of law, are having the same James Bond wishes to ignore the laws that are there specifically to limit them.
 
Sorry, meant to add (getting back to the topic of the thread) - I don't see why we think he owes us money. It's our decision to spend money on policing, spying, surveillance, whatever. The money is taken in taxation, and politicians are (supposedly) in office to control spending and do so in the will of the people. It's not as though he has broken in and stolen it! Legally speaking he's in Ecuador, and we've chosen to spend pots of money around that. Our money, our politicos, our choice.

Money well spent or not we can argue, but the American public might as well blame Germany for the cost of the NSA spying - it's not Merkel's choice to have her phone tapped.
 
Last edited:
Moadib said:
Sorry, meant to add (getting back to the topic of the thread) - I don't see why we think he owes us money. It's our decision to spend money on policing, spying, surveillance, whatever. The money is taken in taxation, and politicians are (supposedly) in office to control spending and do so in the will of the people. It's not as though he has broken in and stolen it! Legally speaking he's in Ecuador, and we've chosen to spend pots of money around that. Our money, oil politicos, our choice.

Money well spent or not we can argue, but the American public might as well blame Germany for the cost of the NSA spying - it's not Merkel's choice to have her phone tapped.
Click to expand...

Sometimes "like" just isn't enough (y)
 
Moadib said:
That's about as diametrically opposed as it's possible to be from "he should stand up and face the rule of law"! Now we're judge and jury, and he's to be simply Guantanamo'ed. If there's any question as to why he's acting as he is, in all likelihood it is in case some people in world governments, supposedly also bound by the rule of law, are having the same James Bond wishes to ignore the laws that are there specifically to limit them.
Click to expand...

I did not mean "whisked off" to the UK/US/Swedish Government - I mean't to Ecuador …… to end this sad saga ……… it is clear that he does not want to face any law
 
BillN_33 said:
The sooner he is "whisked off" to some unholy place the better then at least he will not be allowed to consume valuable time and resources to satisfy his own ego and maybe some other political purpose - just IMHO, of course
Click to expand...

Do you realise that it is this attitude, and not the whistleblowing of people like Assange which is the BIG problem?
It is this attitude, that the West is laying down the law for others, but actually ignoring due process of the law, which is causing so many deaths around the World.
Every time the US (or for that matter any country) carries out a drone strike and kills innocent people, or puts a bag over someone's head and whisks them off to Guantanamo, or takes them to an undisclosed place in Africa or Eastern Europe to torture them, this behaviour causes more people to hate the West, and in turn helps recruit more terrorists for organisations like ISIS.
You would like to see this kind of behaviour continue, so I take it that you would have no objection if someone "made a mistake" and had you or someone you care for "whisked off to some unholy place", where you will be presumed guilty and held there for an indefinite period without legal representation or trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top