Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:33 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

The Yanks want him and will maybe get him through extraordinary rendition.

Have you ever heard my rendition of a selection from Maid of the Mountains?

Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:01 pm  

Barak Obama will personally lead Seal Team 6 to take care of business! "Yo, Assange, I'm gonna pop a cap in your Australian ass - and not in a nice way motherfu**r!"

Book, TV movie deal (I see Ice T as the President, Paul O'Grady as Assange, Steven Segal as leader of Team 6), big budget movie deal (Samual L Jackson as the President, John Malkovich as Assange, Matt Damon as leader of Team 6), Wayans Brothers parody (Marlon Wayans as the President, Andy Dick as Assange, Pamela Anderson as the leader of Team 6).

It's all gold.

Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:37 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

So anyone who skips the country having committed a serious criminal offence cannot be questioned and thus have to be charged?

He what serious criminal offence has he been proved to have committed?


Its a pretty ridiculous state of affairs, we have the Swedes wanting him for something he may or may not have done, they havent bothered to actually look at that yet but they believe he should up root and travel to Sweden just to put their minds at rest

and the USA wanting to pretend their law and jurisdiction extends across the entire world.

If Sweden dont want to charge him, why not just send two detectives to question him in this country?

I find it quite strange people are willing to forcibly extradite someone to another country on the basis of evidence which wouldnt even justify an arrest in this one.

Its sad how blase people are about other peoples freedom.

Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:09 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

He what serious criminal offence has he been proved to have committed?


Its a pretty ridiculous state of affairs, we have the Swedes wanting him for something he may or may not have done, they havent bothered to actually look at that yet but they believe he should up root and travel to Sweden just to put their minds at rest

and the USA wanting to pretend their law and jurisdiction extends across the entire world.

If Sweden dont want to charge him, why not just send two detectives to question him in this country?

I find it quite strange people are willing to forcibly extradite someone to another country on the basis of evidence which wouldnt even justify an arrest in this one.

Its sad how blase people are about other peoples freedom.

I'm fairly sure being accused of rape in this country would end up with an arrest even if released afterwards. People are arrested "on suspicion" all the time.

Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:12 pm  

Him wrote:

I'm fairly sure being accused of rape in this country would end up with an arrest even if released afterwards. People are arrested "on suspicion" all the time.

But they need to have a suspicion. There is a difference between 'on suspicion' and just an accusation.

You would think nearly two years after the accusation was made the Swedish authorities would have gathered some evidence, especially considering he has already been interviewed and the arrest warrant withdrawn once "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne.

Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:18 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

But they need to have a suspicion. There is a difference between 'on suspicion' and just an accusation.

With something like rape or sexual assault the evidence of 2 women would be more than enough to arrest someone and question them, I sadly have second hand experience of this due to the attempted rape of a very close friend a few years ago. Her evidence/accusation was enough to arrest the guy without any other evidence at the time.

Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:26 pm  

Him wrote:

With something like rape or sexual assault the evidence of 2 women would be more than enough to arrest someone and question them, I sadly have second hand experience of this due to the attempted rape of a very close friend a few years ago. Her evidence/accusation was enough to arrest the guy without any other evidence at the time.

He has been questioned.

And I think it would be wrong to arrest and detain someone purely (and i mean purely, this would be in the absence of any other corroborating evidence, i.e evidence of sexual assault/assault actually having taken place) on the accusation.

And this isnt a case of two women giving an accusation of a rape, this is one woman meeting another women, discussing two separate incidences with a journalist, then making one accusation of molestation on one occasion with only one of the women present, then one accusation of rape on another occasion with the other women present.

Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:46 pm  

It might possibly be wrong, but in many rape/sexual assault etc cases there is little other supporting evidence initially so often arrest is the only way forward initially. It was in the case of my friend. There was no-one else to witness it and there was no CCTV where it took place. As a policeman you have 2 options, ignore the accusation or arrest and question the man while gathering more evidence. I think most people would take the option of temporarily detaining someone rather than ignoring such a serious accusation.
In the case of Assange I just don't see what the Swedish authorities have to gain from making this up. It is difficult to portray the Swedish as US puppets, I see little evidence of them blindly doing the US' bidding. And by the looks of it the warrant is within the law. I really don't see why people come to the conclusion that it's all the work of the US. If the US wanted him that badly it'd be easier to get Britain to extradite him rather than go through the fuss of making up sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:56 pm  

Him wrote:

It might possibly be wrong, but in many rape/sexual assault etc cases there is little other supporting evidence initially so often arrest is the only way forward initially. It was in the case of my friend. There was no-one else to witness it and there was no CCTV where it took place. As a policeman you have 2 options, ignore the accusation or arrest and question the man while gathering more evidence. I think most people would take the option of temporarily detaining someone rather than ignoring such a serious accusation.

I could appreciate that in the immediate aftermath of an offence where evidence is fresh. That argument loses a lot of power when the accusation wasnt made for a week, and we are two years on from that point. There is no point in arrest at this point, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

In the case of Assange I just don't see what the Swedish authorities have to gain from making this up. It is difficult to portray the Swedish as US puppets, I see little evidence of them blindly doing the US' bidding. And by the looks of it the warrant is within the law. I really don't see why people come to the conclusion that it's all the work of the US. If the US wanted him that badly it'd be easier to get Britain to extradite him rather than go through the fuss of making up sexual assault charges in Sweden.

So why not guarantee that he wont be extradited to the US? If he has a trial to face in Sweden then thats what he should do, and if he does have a trial to face in Sweden why are they having such trouble putting together any kind of case?

This kind of attitude i find a little at odds with any kind of principle of presumption of innocence. It isnt up to Assange to prove his innocence but to Sweden to prove his guilt, they should surely have to prove they have some kind of chargeable case if they are going to detain him (I would argue that forcible extradition is a form of detention)

Re: Assange - the story continues : Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:06 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I could appreciate that in the immediate aftermath of an offence where evidence is fresh. That argument loses a lot of power when the accusation wasnt made for a week, and we are two years on from that point. There is no point in arrest at this point, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
So why not guarantee that he wont be extradited to the US? If he has a trial to face in Sweden then thats what he should do, and if he does have a trial to face in Sweden why are they having such trouble putting together any kind of case?

Why should they guarantee that when he might have committed a crime in the US?
I have no idea of the protocols of Swedish justice but how do we know they have no/little evidence of a case? I doubt it would be acceptable to broadcast the evidence as it would prejudice any potential trial. They've put a legal warrant together that Assange has done absolutely to try and evade, legging it to the Ecuadorian Embassy and claiming political assylum is the act of a desperate, not an innocent man, in my eyes. But even then he can go to Sweden and stand trial, if he's innocent there won't be enough evidence to convict him in Sweden.