Oh FFS just get him a Skype connection in the embassy so he can talk to the Swedish cops and be done with it. Unless it really is about surrendering his person rather than asking questions. Because once he gets into the system…. :0

He is not wanted for questioning: he is wanted under an arrest warrant in order to charge him with rape and sexual assault. This point was comprehensively dealt with in the High Court judgement in November. If he was only wanted for questioning it would not be legal to extradite him. Really people, you need to open your eyes and not get suckered into repeating Julian Assange’s self-serving distortions and half-truths, e.g. “The Police are going to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy” and “He is only wanted for questioning.”

Christ Connolly, you have stated it exactly as it is. Well said.

Sorry CHris, I believe I have given you some attributes which were unintended.

The arrest warrant is for questioning not to be charged.

VERY rarely in a sexual offences case would there be an arrest without questioning. This is fairly standard practice in Sweden. Frankly, of all the arguments being made, the idea that there is unfair treatment of those accused of sexual offences in Sweden is ludicrous.

@Cathal: go and read paragraphs 121-153 of the November High Court judgement and then come back and say that.

That sexual assault charges are fabricated so he leaked a series of dreadful documents relating to America’s and their Allies brutal war regime and suddenly he is accused of sexual assault….hum not buying it..
He overs to speak with the Swedish authorities in the UK they refuse he agrees to go to Sweden if they commit not to deport him to US they refuse.. they are clearly not interested in the sexual charges but ratter something else otherwise why would they refuse both offers?
All this story was just a poor attempt to destroy his image making him look like a sexual offender and that way would be easier to shut him up for good, that is the price for doing some real journalism and show some truths to the world.

If you are unwilling to even consider that someone you politically support could be guilty of sexual assault, you are every bit as bad as those who covered up the Catholic Church. Statements by his DEFENCE would indicate that there is an investigatable case. I don’t know if he did it, but I find this dismissal by people who also have no idea to be fairly sickening.

@Nick, Absolutely, if Assange is accused of having unprotected sex with a woman who later stated that she asked that he uses a condom (AKA sexual assault according to Sweden) then by all means he should face questioning, a trial or whatever they see fit. Assange is agreeing to corporate with Swedish authorities if they can guarantee his personal freedom until proven guilty of sexual assault by swedish authorities, and not to be extradited to the US due to wiki leaks where he could face the death penalty. Which they haven’t it’s not even about personal freedom anymore, its basic survival.

In saying all that do you not find the sexual assault accusations timing a bit coincidental? Since when is the UK willing to break all international laws – laws and principles were even upheld during the cold war – to raid the embassy and take Assange out of there just for accusations of sexual assault? So lets be real here this has a lot more to do with wiki leaks than condoms.

Are you familiar with Swedish sexual offence law? Because I am and it is not that different. Sex with someone who told you they did not consent (for any reason, including no condom) is rape and should be investigated.

Do I find the timing coincidental? Of course. But he could have done it and they are pursuing him so vigorously due to who he is. Statements by his defence would indicate there is a substantive case to be answered. I just find people’s dismissal of the need to investigate sexual offended allegations and ignorance of fair trial rights disturbing.

Sweden, like all western democracies, is governed by the rule of law. No officials, no matter how senior, can give a guarantee as to what a court will or will not do if presented with an extradition warrant.

‘dysfunctional due to asperger’s disease’

I’ve never heard it referred to as a ‘disease’ before…

Aspergers isn’t contagious, even if it has an incubation period of 9 months.

Never heard of that before. Surprise! Surprise!

If that’s true then he cannot legally be extradited. He was set up. The age old honey trap.

Just to be clear: Assange is wanted for questioning about allegations of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion, all three of which fall into the category of sexual assault.

The rules surrounding extradition are quite clear. You can only be sent to the requesting country if the offence is recognised under UK law. If your information about the charge is correct then he cannot be extradited.

Yes – it has been shown there is clear links between one of the women and the CIA.

I would go as far as to think that these allegations may have been fabricated by the authorities in order to dirty people’s image of Assange in the hope he would lose support and it would be easier to take him. It seems suspicious that he leaks a series of dreadful stories relating to America’s brutal war regime and suddenly he is accused of sexual assault….where has this happened before?!

The link to the CIA one of the alleged victims is supposed to have is tenuous at best, and stretches credibility beyond reason, given that she is a self-described feminist leftist, and seems somewhat unlikely to be taking part in some honey trap operation for the benefit of Uncle Sam. She is supposed to have worked with the Ladies in White in Cuba, who have peacefully demonstrated in Cuba against their menfolk being rounded up and disappeared or held without trial by Castro and Co.

For more go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies_in_White

Ask yourself this though, if you take WikiLeaks out of this issue, would you still be supporting the Ecuadorian Embassy frustrating the law of the land in the UK and Sweden? Wikileaks and Assange are not one and the same, despite what he would like you to think. Wikileaks and Sexual Assault are two entirely different issues.

ah yes but one cannot “take Wikileaks out of the issue”.

But you want to pretend the rest of it doesn’t matter Giovanni? That’s a curious form of ‘justice’ you’re running with.

Its still a crime, if you break the law in the country you’re in you pay the penalty end of. There are no exceptions to this, otherwise you what’s the point of law!

@ Christine Bohan

It’s not that simple.

Following the initial police investigation, the public prosecutor determined there was no adequate case to answer. It should also be noted that there was some significant delay in the complainants coming forward. As others have said here also, the Swedish legal definition of ‘rape’ applying in this case is quite different to what we would understand here. One thing that is abundantly clear from the evidence, including the initial testimony of the complainants is that the sex was consensual.

Some 6 weeks later a different prosecutor then, out of the blue & without precedent, decided there was a case. The detail of this new intervention & the affiliations/connections suggest a high likelyhood of political interference from both within Sweden & from the US. Assange has offered to make himself available for ‘questioning’ in the UK throughout. Sweden has refused this offer.

The issue is clearly not what occurred (or not) in Sweden, rather that the US have made it abundantly clear they want Assange extradited to their jurisdiction & the process would be very much easier & likely to be successful from Sweden rather than UK.

Given that various politicians, including the US President have already declared Assange guilty & propose he face an otherwise obscure 100 year old charge of ‘espionage’, it is entirely obvious that the likelyhood of a fair trial without political interference in the US is minimal to zero. (If you are not aware of the deep politicisation of the judiciary in the US, up to & including the Supreme Court, then I suggest you do some homework.) This charge of espionage carries the death penalty. By any standards of International law & human rights this is not acceptable.

You might also care to reflect that Assange & Wikileaks role in this is that of journalist/publisher. They have gone to great lengths in their procedures dealing with leaks to ensure they cannot be accused of ‘soliciting’ information which could be construed as conspiracy or actively spying. And in this case there is no evidence to suggest such took place. The US has gone to great lengths & applied enormous pressure, clearly breaching Bradley Manning’s human rights in his appalling detention conditions in a blatant effort to get him to implicate Assange in this manner where no actual evidence exists.

Ecuador should be applauded for recognising the risk to Assange’s human rights & rights to a fair judicial process. The UK response to this, threatening to invade the sovereign territory of a country (their embassy) is a disgrace. I think you can imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed.

Really, do you want any more evidence of political motivation?

The procedure now is that Assange be granted Ecuador citizenship & diplomatic status. UK then has no right to apprehend him in any jurisdiction – the same standards every other country expects & demands.

Holemaster, there is no doubt that England can extradite him were he available to them . Inn fact they would have a duty to do so. The only point at issue here ,legally, is whether they can snatch him from the Embassy.

There is something quite disturbing about people on the internet trying this case and deciding whether or not he’s guilty. Who cares about anyone’s right to a fair trial?!

@Christine Bohan: ‘Just to be clear’ the Swedish definition of rape in this case differs to here and anywhere else in the world as having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. The Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office in August this year leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. Both women who are now screaming ‘rape’ initially boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events. It wasnt until the two women met and suddenly realised that they were being two times that the compaired notes and went to the authorities.

Maybe you will sit down and look at the entire picture and facts before you write your articles in future. Maybe you should think about your comments before your write them also!

Will, I know the facts of the case. This article is a poll about what people think the UK should do – I deliberately didn’t make any comment about the definition of the charges, I just stated what they were, so there’s no need to have a go at me. Cheers.

She’s right, you’re wrong. Can you point me to the part of the swedish criminal code prohibits consensual sex without a condom? No, because it doesn’t exist. The allegation is that he didn’t stop when asked to. That is rape everywhere.

As to the women’s behaviour, women react to sexual assault in a variety of ways, some even stay married to themir rapist. A question for poluce and jury, not a keyboard warrior.

I would have thought surprise sex, would be a raping! SURPRISE!!

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.

The link is to a documentary about events surrounding this case. There’s something decidedly dodgy about it all… He wasn’t charged, he was questioned after going voluntarily to the cops. The women went to the cops for legal advice to see IF they asked Assange to get an STD check and IF he refused, could they force him? The cops said he would be arrested and one of the women refused to sign the statement when she was told this. Assange left Sweden with the permission of the prosecutor. Almost immediately Sweden issued a red warrant on Interpol, Gadaffi had an orange one, Assad in Syria doesn’t even have one. A bit severe, no? Also, his legal rep in the UK is on an international watch list, couldn’t be checked onto a flight to Australia, her home country, without authorisation from somewhere. Since when do citizens need permission to go home?

It was possible to try the Lockerbie bomber under Scottish law in a building in the Netherlands but it’s suddenly difficult for Sweden to question someone without imprisoning him and making him a sitting duck for when the yanks coming looking for him? The Swedes plan to lock him up for minimum 4days before questioning by a judge…plenty of time for the Americans to seek extradition and during this time he has no possibility to seek asylum anywhere. If they get him he could get the death penalty. He may well have a charge to answer in Sweden but why would he have any confidence in the Swedish legal system when it’s been acting so bizarrely? “you’re free to leave the country” followed shortly thereafter with the kind of warrant only international terrorists get… Something stinks.

That link isn’t working and some of your story (particularly about what the women were seeking) is being stated differently by a lot of different people. I’ve heard so many conflicting facts around it. The fact that they are pursuing him so vigorously is undoubtedly because of who he is, but we on the internet don’t know and can’t have the information to determine whether or not he did it. And all sexual offence allegations should be considered seriously.

@Nick, sorry about the link, I copy pasted it but for some reason it doesn’t work. The documentary is called “sex, lies and Julian Assange”, it was on ABC Australia.

The sex allegations should be answered but by going to Sweden he risks extradition to the US, rendition, torture, spending the rest of his life in an American prison and having it end violently there. If they can find a way to try Megrahi they can do the same for Assange. His notoriety might well be the reason they’re going for him with such gusto but the consequences he could face are real and grave.

I would oppose extradition to the US if it is implemented, but it makes me very uncomfortable that you refuse to acknowledge the unfairness to the women bringing charges who are currently unable to have their allegations investigated.

If the allegations are true, then there has been real and grave consequences for these women. I don’t know if he did it, but I’m uncomfortable with allegations of sexual assault ever being ignored.

Did I say the charges should be ignored? No.

The women, if they were raped, deserve justice but they do not face anything like torture and execution. The way has to be found to provide everyone with justice. The accused too. Keyboard warriors won’t provide much comfort in a torture chamber. Under no circumstances am I saying the allegations should be ignored, and he could well be guilty, but he is dead right to be suspicious and to try to protect himself…pity he didn’t protect himself in the first place but that’s no reason to risk what he risks.

@ Nick Beard

Try this link, I have just watched the documentary and everything that Paul has said is true and is verifiable.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm&sa=U&ei=S4IuUIWRE6jT0QWW0oHgDA&ved=0CAkQFjAB&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGLmVd7CgJw9mRjD7OMHhH_dfMDPA

and if that link doesnt work heres the link to the youtube copy of the documentary

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dj0oZ8j3I2ac&sa=U&ei=S4IuUIWRE6jT0QWW0oHgDA&ved=0CAwQFjAC&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFZSsR8KGFf4_RFOIr4j_GUtgkYZg

I would have had a lot more respect for him if he had handled this in a way that was sensitive to the seriousness of sexual assault, while noting concerns about extradition. Instead, his defence team has told out and out lies about the legal situation in Sweden, misrepresented the offences (I guess you could consider rape sex by surprise – the victim certainly doesn’t anticipate it) and dismissed sexual offence laws as being the work of “feminazis.”

I politically support Wikileaks and I have no idea if he did it. But I have lost a lot of respect for the way he’s frankly belittled the right of these women to have access to justice.

And Interpol has a red alert out for a crime which is punishable by a FINE? Does anyone sane still believe that these sex offense charges (even if they are genuine) are anything but a fig leaf to cover his capture by the Americans? Kudos to Ecuador.

As has been mentioned earlier – ‘Assange is wanted for questioning about allegations of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion, all three of which fall into the category of sexual assault.’

Rape in Sweden carries a sentence of 2-10 years and molestation up to 2 years. AND a fine as well.

The clear message is don’t piss off uncle Sam. Because they will do all that is required to get their revenge. I’m just surprised they didn’t just ‘disappear’ him seeing as the CIA has plenty of practice in that. Maybe he has to high a media profile…

Why are you misleading people about the offences he is being investigated for? “Sex by surprise” is sex without consent. If someone doesn’t want to have sex, then that’s a sexual assault. You can have a problem with his extradition without minimising what sexual assault is (well, you can, I just haven’t seen it.)

The four charges against him are one of sexual coercion, two of sexual molestation, and one of rape.

just not ecuadors

Just because America wants him does that mean he is immune from prosecution for rape wherever he goes?

Chris that’s not the point and you know it, he’s offered for the Swedes to question him and he said he will return to Sweden to face charges if they agree not to extradite him to the US. they wouldn’t . Does this sound to you like a country focused on the charge/accusations in question? or is it more lightly there is an alterior motive?

There’s been a lot of conflicting stories about that, Bilbo. Earlier, his defence had stated that he was unwilling to meet in face to face at all in Britain and would only communicate by Skype.

Both sides in this clearly have an agenda to make themselves look good and I’m a bit skeptical of believing either without independent confirmation. Do you have any independent confirmation for that?

@Bilbo – if he was so worried about being extradited from Sweden to the United States, why did he apply for a Swedish residence permit?

Paragraph 153 of Sir John Thomas’s judgement:
“… even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.”

The UK has a track record. How about russian who bring in billions?

I am not sure that you have your facts correct there Victoria. But even leaving that aside, is it your argument that because the House of Lords ruled that Pinochet should not be extradited, then men charged with rape and sexual assault shouldn’t either?

i am sure the uk gov has a say in what premises in the uk are and are not diplomatic premises otherwise what would stop a country declaring buck palace their mission?

Robert – of course, but you can’t just revoke diplomatic status unilaterally to a premise, and enter it without the consent of the ambassador. Otherwise what’s the point of a diplomatic status at all.

The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 basically allows the police to storm the embassy. This came into force after PC Yvonne Fletcher was killed by a shot fired from the inside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984. I’m sure the UK authorities will enact this to get their man.

The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 was designed to allow the police to enter diplomatic premises *if they are used for terrorism or violence against UK citizens* – to apply it to this case is just an excuse.

@Niall – Yes, but the UK’s Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 gives the UK government the right to revoke diplomatic status – to declare that the embassy is UK territory, and that therefore the police can legally enter. HOWEVER, this provision was drafted to prevent embassies on UK soil being used as bases from which to commit ‘terrorist acts’ or ‘acts of violence’ – grounds of national security. In other words, the UK police CAN legally enter the Ecuadorian embassy after declaring that it is UK territory, PROVIDED they can show that there is a risk to national security. If they cannot show a risk to national security, they have no legal grounds to enter, and such entry would be seen as an illegal invasion of Ecudorial territory

@Robert, Of course the UK government has a say in the granting of land for use as diplomatic premises – but this isn’t about the GRANTING of land, it’s about the revoking of diplomatic status.

@Giovanni – under the ACT, the UK CAN revoke diplomatic status unilaterally, but ONLY in cases relating to National Security

They have already threatened to enter the embassy under this legislation. And I believe the UK government are under enough pressure from their puppet masters to actually see that threat through.

Governments interpreting laws to suit themselves, shurely that would never happen…

Would never happen once in Ireland ;) [I can see the replies saying 'every day' already]

just ready the act it does not refer to any particular crime or act but mentions public safety, national security and planning rules, it use the words “all material considerations” so since he is broken bail which is a criminal act the embassy is now harbouring a known criminal.

@Ruairi – i know they have threatened to use this Act, and i’m not suggesting for a second that they WON’T use it – all im saying is that there is absolutely no legal basis for them to do so

@Robert – “public safety, national security and planning rules” – can you tell me which of these is in danger from Mr Assange claiming asylum?

@Adam, I completely agree, and I don’t believe that the UK government wants it to come to that. I believe they are hoping that Assange will give himself up peacefully before they need to call in the SAS. I but I have no doubt that they will if Assange doesn’t play ball.

@Robert, you’re misreading it completely – ‘harbouring a known criminal’ isn’t the slightest reason to enter an embassy. Unless that crime relates to national security (or, as u mentioned, public safety, plannign law, etc) which it clearly doesn’t.

@Ruairi – Once it becomes a military operation, it goes from a border violation to an act of war. I’d say it’ll be a police operation rather than an SAS one, but the problem then is that if the Ecuadorian embassy staff decide to resist, things will get nasty. The embassy staff will see it (quite rightly) as a violation of their territory, and under international law could respond with violence. The UK police, under their mis-interpretation of the 1987 Act, will see it as UK territory, and therefore any violence by the Ecuadorians would be met in kind, probably in that case by the SAS

I would think there is particular pressure on Britain to deliver in this case. The Americans will not have forgotten the Al-Megrahi compassionate release (the man convicted of blowing up a 747 over Lockerbie in 1988). I’m sure they will be watching how the UK handle this situation very closely.

The Ecuadorian embassy is UK territory; people are under the misapprehension that sovereignty of an embassy or consular mission is transferred from the host nation to the envoy nation. It is not.

Secondly, there is nothing in the 1987 Act that says recognition can only be invoked for reasons of national security. In fact, the only time it has ever been used was to evict a bunch of squatters from the Cambodian embassy in order to prevent them from gaining title to it as adverse possessors, after the Cambodian government handed the keys over to the FCO following Pol Pot’s victory in 1975.

What the relevant part of the Act says is:

(4)The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law.
(5)In determining whether to do so he shall have regard to all material considerations, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection—
(a)to the safety of the public;
(b)to national security; and
(c)to town and country planning.

It is highly arguable that the presence of Julian Assange on the premises is not a material consideration, and that as such to remove recognition for that purpose may be ultra vires.

Nonetheless, what a lot of people here fail to understand is that after the Supreme Court decision rejecting Assange’s challenge, the British government is under a legal obligation to extradite him.

@Ruairi, that can only be invoked if there is a fear for the safety of the citizens of the country in which the embassy is situated.

Sorry for late reply…. @Chris Connolly and Adam..

I agree that the UK would be opening a whole can of worms if they revoked the embassy diplomatic status and i am sure that the Gov really dont want to do that but i think its important to realise that the law says….
(5)In determining whether to do so he shall have regard to all material considerations, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection— etc. etc.

The fact that he has committed a criminal offence now by breaching his bail conditions IS a material consideration. The act also says WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the generality ….. i think this means that the material consideration are not limited to public safety, national security etc.
I could be wrg but thats what lawyers are for. :-)

Sweden cannot legally hand him over to the US as it is against their own laws and the EU charter they signed that prevents them from extraditing anyone to a country where he may face the death penalty.

I don’t imagine that he will so much as put a toe outside the door of the embassy for fear of rendition. Uncle Sam has no problem in kidnapping people off the streets of independent sovereign nations under their HS act. They absolutely ignored international law when they entered Pakistan on a covert operation to capture/execute BL, so snatching someone off the street is a piece of cake.

However I dont believe that should he be captured and extradited to the States that he would be given the death penalty as the public outcry would be deafening and instead be given solitary confinement in prison to see out the rest of his days.

I don’t imagine that he will so much as put a toe outside the door of the embassy for fear of rendition.
He’s going to make statement outside the embassy on Sunday.

Uncle Sam has no problem in kidnapping people off the streets of independent sovereign nations under their HS act.
In broad daylight? At a press conference?

I’ll rephrase my comment for the pendantic annonymous trolls

JA will not put so much as a toe outside the embassies “grounds”, as shoud he do so he would be arrested immediately and on a flight back to Sweden straight away. Given that Sweden does not extradite its citizens to countries where they are at risk of execution Assange will be put on a non existent rendition flight to the US to face charges of espionage.

Well, if that’s your logic, then they’ll probably “get him” in Ecuador anyway. So if they’re planning rendition, why would the US be pursuing legal extradition? So why not have him answer some questions about allegations of sexual offences in the meantime? I’m sorry, your logic is not internally consistent…

Ann,

Someone disgreeing with you isn’t necessarily a troll. The only person who genuinely seems to think like that is James Delingpole.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9480944/Julian-Assange-to-issue-statement-in-front-of-embassy-haven.html

Last night WikiLeaks said he would give a “live” statement “in front of” the embassy on Sunday, two months since he entered it. He could be seized if it is deemed he has stepped outside the building’s diplomatically protected zone.

(Oh and it’s “pedantic”, if you’re going to accuse me of such. And “anonymous”.)

Nick,

they’ll probably “get him” in Ecuador anyway

How will he get to Ecuador? If he leaves the embassy he’ll be nicked.

You’re right that this does seem to be the situation, but I’m a bit curious as to Ann’s logic that the US government would prefer to grab him in the middle of a press conference rather than in a quiet corner of South America? And why, if they are planning rendition, would the US government (as other people on here have claimed) be advocating legal extradition?

Nick it really depends on what you think the US government is capable of. If you take what I like to think of as the “Left Wing Student Activist” view then the US government is the Evil Empire, even under cuddly Mr Obama.

If the US is the Evil Empire then they’ll happily pursue legal routes while plotting to snatch Assange from:

Inside the Ecuadorian Embassy
Outside the Ecuadorian Embassy
British Custody
Between the Ecuadorian Embassy and the airport
Ecuador
Sweden
Anywhere he might be.

They’re the Evil Empire, they’ll do anything!

Do I have to hand in my lefty student activist card because I think all allegations of sexual assault should be taken seriously and investigated? ;-)

When neither of the women have come out and claimed they were raped, abused or ill treated in any way but boasted of their celebrity conquest then yeah its a little much to ask some people here to understand the ramification of him returning to Sweden when it’s clearly a political pushed issue. Also the US does not have to openly admit that such charges will be dealt with the dealth penelty but merely state he is wanted to face charges and seek imprisonment. All the same, I’d prefer the Swedes to to meet me for their questioning in person on the grounds of the Ecuadorian embassy or over Skype if what they only seek is questioning but they issue the highest red alert in the book to have him sent back immediately for questioning which is highly dubious and if it were you knowing the US plans to lock you up for the rest of your life in a 2m sq. box with 24hr bright lights I’d be damn insistent of knowing their intentions for such a serious extradition.

Damocles

excuse the clumsy fingers and small keyboard. You are missing the point re rendition. It is illegal under Swedish law to extradite citizens to countries where the death penalty is in place and their lives are put at risk. Therefore the only other way to get JA to America would be via rendition. Sweden has already be proven guilty of turning a blind eye to the two previous episodes of renditon to Egypt, and has been fined for allowing it to take place and has been ordered by the courts to pay compensation to the men in question..

If you doubt what I am saying I suggest you google “Sex, lies and Juliean Assange” and watch the 4 Corners documentary.

@ The Journal

Can we please have an edit button!!!

The women have made statements saying that they were raped, most notably that he refused to stop when asked. While we don’t know if this is true or not, if it is, it is indeed rape.

And as someone who works with survivors of sexual assault, I am frankly appalled by anyone who says allegations should be ignored because a woman didn’t react the way you think she should have. Many women who are raped are in denial or traumatised. The issue of the women’s reaction should be considered by the police and the jury, it’s really not for you with limited information to decide if their reaction was valid.

Nick

again I say watch the documentary, what occured in the police station is down in black and white. One of the woman point blankly refused to sign her statement. And please, I know all I need to know about sexual assault and how it affects the victim and their family, that is if they are not too busy feeling deeply humiliated, ashamed and blaming themselves.

These 2 women went to the police station to make enquiries and not press charges.

Really? You have the police report, which you have received in an untainted chain of evidence? If not, then it’s disputed speculation. And again, while the government has plenty of reasons for ulterior motives, Assange’s defence team have made categorically untrue statements about the Swedish legal system.

And I would think that if you understood the pain sexual assault can cause, you would want all allegations fully investigated. I know I do.

I’d like to add that if you could provide me with a link to any interview with these two women stating that they went to the police station with the sole intention of having him arrested for charges of rape, I would greatly appreciate it.

There is no interview with the women, just statements by their attorney (as they wish to retain their legal right of anonymity). However, the timeline the attorney gave to the Washington Post, it was always an investigation into sexual offences.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/08/AR2010090803240_2.html?sid=ST2010102206224

I also can’t find a single article which states this STD test thing from any source other than Assange’s legal team. Do you have any?

Nick

while you may have worked with victims of sexual assault I have first hand experience and am well aware of the dreadful impact it has on the victim and their family. As for a link for an article regarding the matter of the STD test, it is clearly covered in the Austrailian documentary “Sex, Lies and Julien Assange”. If you google the title you will find a link for the ABC newsroom and it can also be found in full on Youtube or better yet scroll up the page as I have already posted the link. It is only 45 minutes long and wether we agree or disagree it is very interesting and well worth a watch.

With relation to the article in the Telegraph, the journalist in question may have been correct when she stated that their is no pending court case, but lied by omitting that a grand jury was convened in Virginia in 2010 investigating Wikileaks and Julien Assange . The investigation is ongoing and the GJ is still in situ.

- *** no pending court case in the U.S”****

The Washington post has told blatant lies. The names of the two women is public and the journalist in the documentary uses both of their names when he is speaking to the public prosecutor and the womens legal representatives.

Well, I guess it’s easy to dismiss any conflicting opinion as blatant lies. Easy to believe what you want to believe rather than questioning. I’m baffled as to how people like you and the supporters of the Catholic Church (pretty similar in this instance) don’t think every complaint should be investigated fully. It’s easy to say you care, but by indicating that these women should not be granted a fair and full investigation, your actions don’t match your words.

And they used the name? Wow, that speaks horribly of the documentary. Under Swedish law, people making claims of sexual offences have the right to anonymity and no responsible journalist would violate that. So your only source is a documentary with no consideration of Swedish law? You can’t find me a single impartial source backing up his story? Interesting.

You know what Nick – all any of us have regarding JA is what we read about in the papers and see on the news. I have suggested several times that you watch the video of the documentary that was aired on the Austrailias ABC news channel ( much like Panorama on BBC) and you are not willing to watch it, funny that, because if it was about a pervert priest, or Sean Quinn or Bertie Aherne you probably would and rightfully so, believe any allegations made against them. You have obviously decided that the man is guilty of rape, regardless of the fact that the victims did not go to the police station to make such complaints. So you believe what you want, you obviously have a very closed mind.

shrien’s extardition has been agreed by the home sec. The courts ordered it to be halted until his mental condition was deemed by the courts to be able to stand trial.

In addition the former public prosecutor for Stockholm has described the extradition request as ludicrous.

so chris your mom (example) was raped your devastated. her world is blown apart as is yours cos its such close family. The guards say the lad that done it is living in London but there is no power for our police to arrests in another jurisdiction and you CAN NOT question someone over a serious crime when not under arrest ( trust me on that one i should know)

you cant charge someone without first arresting and questioning someone (again i should know) or would you think its right that someone walks into garda station says this chris day lad awful man deals drugs ( i know you dont just example of your logic) and the guards just come with charge sheet for you without any evidence.

Come on…… Seriously

So how exactly would you recommend that these women receive their fair trial rights?

@Nick, Assange has already agreed to go to Sweden to answer these charges once he is given assurances that he will not be extradited to the U.S. afterwards. They have refused to give this assurance. If the Swedish authorities were seriously concerned with the rights of their own citizens they would proffer these assurances and let justice take its course. Their ultimate aim appears to be to get Assange to Sweden in order to then hand him over to the U.S. Again, if they were interested in gaining justice for the complainants then they would give assurances that he will not be handed over to the U.S., in reality, the Swedish authorities are denying their own citizens justice in order to kowtow to the U.S.

Do you have a neutral news source for that claim, as it doesn’t quite fit with what I’ve heard his defence claim?

would the uk just not hand him over to the US being the biggest ally?? kinda a bit of a conspiracy theory going on there.

Besides even if the USA did want him i’d be all for that he released top secret information that put lives at risk. Someone breaks into government buildings and releases what our lads have been saying about the world we would not be happy either.

@Nick, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0816/Will-WikiLeaks-founder-Assange-go-free http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0816/Will-WikiLeaks-founder-Assange-go-free http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/assange-to-go-public-as-britain-stands-firm-on-extradition-20120817-24c85.html

Ok, other sources indicate that he was given a guarantee that he could not be extradited for political offences.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9482907/Wikileaks-Swedish-minister-says-Ecuador-living-in-fantasy-world.html

To be honest, both sides have an agenda to present themselves well in this. I tend to be a bit skeptical as to both claims of what Assange would and would not agree to, frankly.

It is also in Britains best interest that JA be extradited or renditioned to the US as they are not too enamoured with the leaking of confidential information and no doubt the have a lot to hide. As regards justice for the two women, neither of them asked that he face rape charges. They contacted the police to find out if they could compel Assange to have an STD checkup. When the police told the ladies that they would be bringing charges of rape and sexual molestation against Assange, they refused to sign the statements they had made and left the police station, as that was not their intention. I suggest you click on the working links I have provided, and watch the Four Corners documentary.

That is disputed by the women’s attorneys. I don’t know who’s telling the truth, but I’m not going to take one side’s view as fact. Assange has plenty of reason to mislead to make himself look better, just as the government has plenty of reason to vigorously pursue this for their own motives.

I support the embassy’s independence, but you willingness to try this case by keyboard is a problem for fair trial right. What happened to a right to to access justice?

This isn’t about justice. It’s about recognizing another country’s rights. What if you were in Saudi Arabia and you were wanted for a moral crime (being alone with a man, or even a woman driving a car) and you seeked refuge in the Irish embassy but the Saudis were having done of it.

My problem is that when someone with an incomplete knowlege of facts (facts which are very much disputed in this case) makes statements like, “I think he’s guilty and being set up”, it perverts the course of justice.

Rape is not a moral crime. It’s a serious offence. I don’t know if he did it (and think it would be inappropriate to comment, as I believe in these women’s right to a fair trial), but if he did, he should be treated like any other rapist.

You are not getting my point Nick. I do believe Assange is set-up, but even if there was absolute proof of his guilt, or my opinion of it, that would be irrelevant. The UK should respect the embassies of other countries, and that includes countries like Ecuador that have little international clout.

I don’t think they should storm the embassy, I just have problems with people who create an environment where they state that sexual offence allegations are wrong. We have a trial by jury system for a reason and trying it by internet compromises that.

Are you really equating raping a Swedish woman with Saudi women not being allowed to drive?

Yes. Because the sovereignty of ANY embassy is paramount.

The question isn’t about the sovereignty of embassies, it’s about people using the option of asylum to their own ends.

So you support a suspected paedophile misusing asylum to avoid justice.

How is he fighting for me… I neither asked for nor wanted him to release the documents he did. He released them for his own private/political motivations. Did he ask any one if they wanted the documents released, did he ask anyone if they wanted to know what secrets the their government was keeping? NO of cause he did not.
I also dont think he has changed the world one bit. governments still keep secrets and always will do.

Sweden will do whatever the U.S. requests, be under no illusion.

It has been known for a long time that Sweden will do anything the US requests. Sweden ain’t no angel, it is one of the biggest arms suppliers in the world and doesn’t care what despot they sell them to.

Donal you and Nick have put the facts very well. However you may notice on this site that FACTS never get in the way of people’s prejudices.

Thank you for bringing that to light James.

From which country does that article come James?

http://studentactivism.net/credits/

America. Somehow I doubt it’s a sockpuppet for the US government, to pre-empt anyone who wants to claim that.

Totally irrelevant to the topic. It doesn’t help when people muddy the waters, Stick to the case in question. It is far more sinister than you realise.

why is it any different?? oh right i get ya one law for one man and another law for different man. I like how you think there

Different? Man wanted by police for possible crime hides in embassy.

Exactly the same.

Oh … it’s Julian Assange … he’s a bit of a hero to you … so that makes possible rape ok … oh … I see …

There more than a good chance all charges of rape will be dropped soon after he arrives in sweden in order for the US to extradite him as the Americans couldnt afford him being handed down a custodial sentence that he would have to serve out in Sweden. This is political game the alleged rape victims if thats what they are, would get no justice, getting JA to the USA is the only thing that matters to Sweden , UK and the Americans.

i would love to know how you know this. Have you insight into the Swedish justice system?? now it could be that after he gives his side during investigation that he wont be charged with lack of evidence.

and its not charges will be dropped. he is not charged till its investigated if there is enough evidence putt forward by the police the countries DPP will decide if or not to charge him. If he is then charged and before the court its at THAT point charged can be dropped if there was lack of evidence such a witness refusing to give evidence.

sorry to be so sticky on this just so many people so completely misinformed on how a justice system works.

and like i keep saying it would be far far more easy just to get him in the UK rather then Sweden

Based on statements his own defence lawyer has made, there is certainly an arguable case to be made (his description of the event). There is a chance he did it as well. And I’m not willing to ignore allegations of sexual assault because he might not have done it. That’s what the system is there for, to hear both sides within the legal framework. I certainly care about their access to a fair trial and that’s denied if Swedish officials just ignore the allegations.

Its logical that Sweden can’t go through with sentencing him to a prison term in Sweden , which would deny the US access to him until he served his time. It makes complete sence that the US will lean on Sweden to make him available for them to extradite. Which would be impossible if he was convicted of those sexual assault charges.

Unless Sweden has a free judiciary, which will hear his case on the merits. It seems the appropriate response would be to oppose extradition to the US and urge Sweden to make a full investigation on sexual offence claims, rather than sweeping them under the carpet?

“Not using a condom when asked” is potentially rape in the UK as well as in Sweden.

He is not wanted for questioning – he is wanted under a warrant for his arrest in order to charge and prosecute him.

So if I tell a man to stop because he’s not wearing a condom and he doesn’t, you don’t see that as rape?

Clarification: if I tell a man to stop (for any reason) and he doesn’t, that’s not rape? You have a very, very scary view of consent.

Again, we don’t know if these charges are true. But if that is true, that is rape. I’m astounded by the many men on here who seem to think it would be fine and dandy to have sex with someone who has said no. You seem to be among them.

Nick,You’ve just misrepresented what i said and conflated the arguement .

And Nick, What you when having sex with men is your own business .

A Grand Jury was set up in the US in 2010 in Alexandria, Virginia to investigate Wikileaks and wether or not JA has charges to face. The ref number for the case contains the digits 10 GJ 3 793 which refer to the year 2010, GJ – Grand Jury, the number 3 rerpresents the conspiracy statute in the U.S while 793 is the espionage statute. If convicted of these crimes the death penalty can be handed down. This grand jury is ongoing and has yet to be wound down and until it is the Americans can not be believed when they say they are not looking for him to be extradited.