Julian Assange

[NickStone]

With the news that Julian Assange has applied for political asylum to the country of Equador and is currently hiding in the Equadorian embassy in London. The reason why he has applied for asylum in Equador is because he is scared that should he be extradited to Sweden to answer the rape cases against him, he will be forwarded on to the US to answer allegations that he published secret material on the Wikileaks site and threaten US security.

What I was thinking was, if the US authorities want to have him extradited to the US why wait until he gets to Sweden? Why not simply ask the British Government to extradite him? I would have thought that it would have been easier for the US to get him from the UK than from Sweden because of this "special relationship" that supposedly exists between the two nations.

[GreyGeek]

Because in America he faces the death penalty, and Britain will not release a fugitive to America without assurances he won't be executed.

I investigated the two rape accusations when they were first lodged. IMO, from the public reports about the incidents, and statements by the two women involved, the charged are totally bogus. Trumped up..

[vw72]

Because in America he faces the death penalty, and Britain will not release a fugitive to America without assurances he won't be executed.

I investigated the two rape accusations when they were first lodged. IMO, from the public reports about the incidents, and statements by the two women involved, the charged are totally bogus. Trumped up..

You conducted an investigation or just read what you could find about it on the internet? I know that many on the internet feel the charges are manufactured, but then again, most rape victims are made to look like they are fabricating the story. That is a common defense tactic. That's why so many women (and men) do not come forward about rape or proceed to trial.

Regardless of what one thinks of what Assange did with leaking information. He shouldn't just be let off the hook on rape charges. While it seems very coincidental that the charges were levied after the leak of military information, it doesn't mean the charges are false.

[NickStone]

Because in America he faces the death penalty, and Britain will not release a fugitive to America without assurances he won't be executed.

Fugitive? He hasn't even had a trial yet! Wait, does being a fugitive mean that they are a criminal or a suspect under US law?

[claydoh]

Looking at Guantanamo, who needs to press charges formally right away?

[GreyGeek]

You conducted an investigation or just read what you could find about it on the internet? ....

In our Politically Correct environment accusation is equated to guilt. Trials are becoming a formality. But, perhaps the prosecutors statements will suffice.

JA stayed with a gal from Aug 11-14, 2010, and they attended the Social Democrats' Brotherhood Movement, at which the he was the key speaker. He had consensual sex with her on the 14th. On the 17th he had consensual sex with another women whom he met on the 14th at that event. Between the 17th and 20th the two women discussed their relationship. One of them claimed that during or after intercourse she "discovered" that he had not used a condom. On the 20th they filed a charge of rape and a warrant was issued. One day later, on the 21st, the rape warrant was withdrawn for lack of evidence. However, the "molestation" charge remained. Apparently not using a condom is "molestation" if, after the fact, the woman decides it is.

"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," Finne said in a brief statement.Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remains suspected of molestation, a less serious charge that would not lead to an arrest warrant.


"The prosecutor hasn't made a decision" on that count, Rosander told The Associated Press. "The investigation continues."

Curiously, also on the 18th, JA is denied residency in Sweden with no reason given. And people ask why he doesn't return to Sweden to face charges?

But then politics takes over, and a month later, on Nov 18th, the Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain the WikiLeaks founder for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Notice how that "suspicion" contrasts with the statement made a month earlier. Then an Interpol arrest warrant and "red flag" is issued.

Basically, the US is mad because the leaked State Dept cables to and from Mrs Clinton show a devious, belligerent and untrustworthy atmosphere in US international politics. Clinton is recorded threatening foreign countries with economic sanctions if they do not unilaterally enforce US IP and copyright law in their countries, even without reciprocity agreements.

JA also has an axe to grind because he is a Far Left Socialist in his politics and while he lets atrocities by Russia, China and Middle East countries slide, he is always hammering on the US, regardless of the issue or position the US takes. But, attacking the US is a relatively safe activity. The US usually doesn't react with lethal sanctions the way those countries do. The US hasn't used Polonium or Ricin to kill protesters after they are tracked down in foreign countries. Guantanamo? A club med. Inmates fair better there than incarcerated politicians at Federal club med prisons. Air conditioning, three squares a day, all the religious paraphernalia and activities they want to engage in, exercise & weight rooms and fields, TV & movies, lawyers who carry things in and out for them. Free health and dental care. Did I leave anything out? Abuse them legally? Certainly, and I disagree with housing them without a speedy trial. If they are guilty and the Federal prosecutors can prove it them try them. Otherwise, let them go.

Besides, the guilty party in the US cable leaks was an American.

[bra|10n]

Is this not simply a battle of freedom of speech v's preservation of the (US) state. History suggests Assange will pay for his actions with his life; either dead or imprisoned.

[vw72]

Is this not simply a battle of freedom of speech v's preservation of the (US) state. History suggests Assange will pay for his actions with his life; either dead or imprisoned.

Freedom of speech, is not all encompassing. For instance, yelling fire in a theatre or shooting up a movie theatre in Colorodo are all examples where such freedom is limited. Assange would be better served in a US court trying to fall under freedom of the press, versus freedom of speech. The press tends to be one expression that the courts have upheld, at least more so than an individual's right. Freedom of press allows ill-begotten information to still be printed. One's individual right to such information, on the other hand, does not allow dissemination.

As to whether or not WikiLeaks is considered covered under the notion of the press and JA is considered a journalist will take a court to decide. However, they won't even attempt to decide it until there is a trial.

Even if he meets the criteria, it does not mean he is off the hook. Even the press, however, is limited. The NY Times, for instance, would not be allowed to publish Romney's tax returns if they were obtained from the IRS illegaly.

Basically, the excercise of one's free speech cannot impinge on another's rights. And even if morally correct, it does not mean such an action is not without consequences.

[Qqmike]

Oh boy, another hot topic here! Here's my one and only inflammatory statement, and I'm out of here on this thread. If the lightweight sissy-boy is courageous and strong enough to (essentially) declare himself an enemy, and he acts on it (as he did), let's hope he is courageous and strong enough to face the consequences, be they overt or covert against him. As for the rape charges, more often than not (but certainly not always), where there's smoke, there's usually some fire.

[dibl]

Assange gets no sympathy from me -- a life term in Equador seems like a fair outcome, for what he did. It has one of the least free presses in the hemisphere, so they deserve each other.