Assange Says Harrods Assisting Metro Police in 'Round-the-Clock Vigil' 275
The Daily Mail reports that Julian Assange seems to have yet another foe (or at least friend of a foe) watching persistently while he stays put in the Ecuadorean embassy in London: Harrod's Department Store. The Metro Police, according to Assange, have developed a relationship with the store, and are using that relationship to facilitate their full-time observation of his roosting place in the embassy. When the founder of Wikileaks says, "We have obtained documents from Harrods [saying that] police have people stationed 24 hours a day in some of the opposing buildings Harrods controls," it seems likely that those documents actually exist.
Not all that unusual... (Score:5, Informative)
It may be unusual that its going on for such a long period of time but police (in the UK and elsewhere) regularly work with building owners to get access to vantage points overlooking suspect properties to observe what is going on.
What is UNUSUAL (Score:5, Insightful)
..is the effort they spend for Jesus Assange. They must be really scared of the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. The UK always spends millions of pounds on round-the-clock surveillance of suspected non-violent offenders.
Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score:4, Insightful)
girls?
Two grown women who lied. and admitted that they lied.
If I were one of their fathers, I'd be on Jule's side.
Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score:4, Insightful)
Both the women in question are adults and both have said that they do not wish Assange to be prosecuted. After the original complaint was filed, Assange was told he could leave Sweden, and so he went to the UK.
Then a Swedish prosecutor decided to reopen the case (exactly why has never been fully explained) and she wants him back in Sweden. For some reason it wasn't sufficient to interview him by phone or Skype, or by traveling to the UK. The prosecutor wants him in Sweden, to the point of issuing a European arrest warrant - not because he's been charged with anything, just because she wants to talk to him.
The whole thing seems quite strange. Sweden and the UK seem to be treating this as a major incident, even though the complainants have no interest in pursuing the case. In fact, the UK is complaining about the very high cost of watching the Ecuadorean embassy, which they reckon is over 15 million pounds so far.
Re: (Score:3)
Both the women in question are adults and both have said that they do not wish Assange to be prosecuted.
Can you provide a link to support this? This is one of those things that floats around on message boards but that strangely doesn't seem to have factual basis.
All that is known at this point is that some of the charges are dropped (not all) because of the statute of limitation. I have not seen a single reputable news organization publishing a story about the victims not wishing Assange to be prosecuted. I have however seen said victims on video explaining what happened (in the Netflix documentary) and how t
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, US is behind it, and other western countries do whatever they say.
Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score:4, Informative)
The two women are identified "Miss A" and "Miss W" in Sweden to protect their identities.
On 11 August 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden to speak at a seminar partly arranged by "Miss A". He had met her before but he stayed at her apartment. They had sex on 14 August 2010.
At the seminar, Assange met "Miss W" and they had sex on 17 August 2010.
On 19 August 2010 the two women (who are friends) discovered that both of them had had sex with Assange. Up to this point neither had suggested that the sex was anything other than consensual, but that day they decided to contact a journalist and complain about their sexual encounters with Assange. The journalist insisted they contact the police and the two women went to the police together. They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual, which is rape in Swedish law. The two women were interviewed together by police and this allowed contamination of their evidence.
On 20 August 2010 a warrant was issued for Assange's arrest. On 21 August it was withdrawn by Stockholm's Chief Prosecutor. On 30 August, Assange was interviewed by police.
On 1 September 2010 a different prosecutor announced that she was reopening the investigation. This is not a normal procedure in Sweden. Furthermore, the prosecutor identified Assange to the press, which is against Swedish law. On 2 September she re-interviewed the complainants, but she did did not interview Assange, which is required within a week - she said this was not done because of a police officer being sick.
On 5 September 2010 a journalist reported that the two women did not want to proceed.
On 27 September 2010 Assange left Sweden with the agreement of the authorities.
On 18 November 2010 a court approved a request to detain Assange for questioning. On 20 November an international arrest warrant was issued. It was possible to interview Assange in the UK, as there is a mutual legal assistance agreement, but the prosecutor went for the arrest warrant instead.
That's where we stand at present. Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.
Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation. It's strange that both women claimed the same thing happened, but not until they had discovered they were sharing his favors.
It appears that the prosector has an agenda, but I have no idea why.
Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score:4, Informative)
They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual
That's a gross misstatement of the facts. In one case, the woman was asleep at the time sex started. She had previously told Assange no to sex, and then went to sleep. She woke up with him inside her.
... which is rape in Swedish law.
Penetrating someone who is unconscious is rape in most countries.
Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.
That's also grossly misleading - in Swedish law, the charging comes at the very last stage, prior to trial, which has to commence within one week of the charging. The fact that he hasn't been charged yet is simply because he's hiding out.
Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation.
Not at all. Assange admitted during his extradition appeal to the UK High Court that he had sex with the sleeping woman, knowing that he didn't have consent. There's no "he said, she said," because everyone agrees on the facts - he penetrated her, knowing that she was unable to give consent and unable to resist. As the court said, "it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half-sleep."
Re: (Score:2)
Could you PLEASE put this summary up on the wikipedia entry. You will have opposition, but I for one will support you. You obviously care, and Wikipedia is the source of all truth these days.
You will need to flesh it out with references and details. There was a good article in the Guardian long ago.
Also add the STD issue (which was Assange being an arse hole that got him into this mess!) and the lobster dinner after.
(Reply to this thread if you do so, so that I will find out and support you.)
Re: (Score:3)
Eh, not everything the GP said has proper context.
1) It didn't "turn nonconsensual." She said "no," fell asleep, and work up with him penetrating her.
2) He didn't leave "with the agreement of the authorities." He asked if they could hold him, and they reluctantly said no, because they couldn't. He then left. "We don't have enough to hold you yet" is not the same as "you're totally fine and won't be hearing from us again." He didn't do anything wrong by leaving, but don't make it out like he was cleared in s
Re: (Score:3)
Also add the STD issue (which was Assange being an arse hole that got him into this mess!) and the lobster dinner after.
While the post you're supporting has been debunked already, I'd also like to point out something here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you would take issue with the concept of a woman "having regrets" after sex and deciding, a day later, that what was consensual sex was actually rape.
"That's outrageous," I'm sure you'd say. "How can her regrets - or anything else the next day - travel back in time to somehow make consent disappear?!"
And you'd be entirely correct. Consensual sex or non-consensu
Re: (Score:3)
The state does have the right and the ability to level charges without the permission of the victims. There are numerous reasons for that.
While it does take the morality of the prosecution down a notch, legally there is nothing odd about prosecuting a crime that the charges are leveled by the state against the victim's request.
The state may well determine that allowing the crime to go unpunished hurts the ability for order to be maintained, and it may also determine that the victim has been forced to decid
Re: (Score:3)
If you were the father or brother of those two girls your opinion on the matter would probably be different.
If you read the details of the charges, your opinion would probably be different...
Re: (Score:3)
Language is a subtle thing. The two women involved were 26 and 31 years old - but calling them 'girls' automatically makes them seem young and innocent, and in need of protection.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were the father or brother of those two girls your opinion on the matter would probably be different.
If you read the details of the charges, your opinion would probably be different...
Not likely. Raping someone while they're asleep and unable to resist tends to be frowned upon in civil society.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's what he wants you to believe.
Every time I grow concerned that I've gone from skeptic to cynic something inevitably vindicates my position.
This situation with Mr. Assange is strange enough that I'm simply going to watch what happens. I also have a hard time believing that there is no way for him to leave the Embassy if Ecuador wanted to get him out of the Embassy. I have no doubt that they have either diplomatic means to move him or they have the ability to smuggle him in a way that the Brits could not investigate without causing a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You surely remember how Europe wasn't too afraid to cause a 'major diplomatic scandal' in a similar case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
Re: (Score:3)
I also have a hard time believing that there is no way for him to leave the Embassy if Ecuador wanted to get him out of the Embassy.
When the U.S. says "jump," your only follow-up question had BETTER FUCKING BE "How high, sirs?" Ask the President of Bolivia [wikipedia.org] just how far the U.S. can and will go to stop whistleblowers.
Re: What is UNUSUAL (Score:4)
Wrong - all diplomatic passports must be approved by the hosting country before they're granted - the request can be refused at will.
Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score:4, Informative)
If he has been charged, then your comments about the US would make sense, but if he hasn't been charged, then legally the US wouldn't be able to use extradition and thus the whole conspiracy theories about a Sweden/US secret deal regarding him.
sweden (Score:2)
I thought the swedish statute of limitations had expired. Doesn't that mean the arrest warrant is moot and he is free to leave?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the "fugitive from justice" part still applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the statute of limitations on some of the charges has expired. There are other more serious charges who's statute of limitations hasn't yet run out.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of them had a five year limit while one or more has a 10 year limit so everyone has to stay comfy for another five years.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. His biggest problem is he broke his bail conditions [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, because he skipped bail (Score:4, Informative)
The validity of the charges in Sweden aren't his only problem. They could drop the case, he'd still be in trouble with the UK because he fled bail. Bail is an agreement between you and the court. You agree to appear as ordered, and they let you out of jail. Often there is also a monetary component to try and ensure your compliance. However regardless of the details, you are legally required to present yourself in court when ordered.
So when Sweden said they wanted him, the UK arrested him. In the EU there's some pretty strong extradition rules so even though the UK had no issue with him, their extradition treaty with Sweden required them to arrest him. He was granted bail, and the monetary component was paid for by supporters. At the point, he had to wait for a court date when the UK courts would determine if the extradition request was valid. At that point if they did, they'd hand him off to Sweden, give back his bail money, and would be all done as far as they were concerned.
They did find it was a valid request, he challenged that finding, and so on up to the UK's high court. They ruled that yes, it was a valid request. Remember this has nothing to do with guilt, they are not interested in that. Their only interest is if the extradition request is a valid one per the treaty. It was, so they said "Ok, you have to turn yourself in and we'll ship you off to Sweden." He decided not to, and instead fled.
Well at that point he become a criminal in the UK. They now had a criminal interest in him since he'd broken UK law by skipping bail. Doesn't matter anything about the original charges. This is a separate crime, and it is an ongoing one, so no statute of limitations.
That's how it works basically everywhere. If the court says you have to how up, and you don't, that by itself is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to know a lot about bail... I suspect your past is a little shady...0
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly major crime, skipping bail. Bonds have been forfeited, at worst he would have to spend a very few months in a British jail, no big deal under the circumstances. If Sweden ended up dropping charges, or letting them expire without ever even interviewing Assange, he would have a passable case to try to get that bail money back.
Yes? And? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a suprise? People should be outraged? Not so much.
Adds he's paranoia got the best of him years ago. Not his well founded paranoia about the USA Three Letter Agencies, but his paranoia about his place of power in The Cult of Assange.
Most of his personal issues could have been resolved years ago, his current situation are of his own making.
He needs to fly to Sweeden and take care of his personal business, you know: "man up".
The chances of him being extradited to the U.S. are slim to none at this point
Ya that part always seemed like total BS to me (Score:2)
His claims that if he went to Sweden they'd send him to the US. Ummmm, really? Because if there were a nation I would be worried about handing me off to the US clandestinely, it would be the UK. The UK and US cooperate to a ridiculous extent on international matters. So I have trouble believing that you could go there and feel like they'd protect you, but be worried about Sweden handing you over.
Re: (Score:2)
He is paranoid, no doubt. But it may be justifiable paranoia.
Forces in the US government would certainly like to see him imprisoned, but they may also be afraid of making a martyr of him. He may also be afraid that the US is applying pressure to Sweden to convict him of rape an imprison him for a long, long time for that. Most societies regard rapists as among the most vile of criminals. An prison sentence for contributing to the leaks might take him out of play, but a prison sentence for some form of sex o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He needs to fly to Sweeden and take care of his personal business, you know: "man up".
The chances of him being extradited to the U.S. are slim to none at this point.
I care not even the slightest about this character but even I wouldn't be turning myself over to Sweden. I have absolutely zero doubt he will end up in Guantanamo or worse either before he arrives in Sweden or afterwards with an apology by some official saying how they regret that the mistake made in paperwork allowed a European to hop onto an American plane accidentally and they take full responsibility for the error (which means nothing in this day and age). Of course, the deeply heartfelt apology will be
Re: (Score:2)
They can't refuse not to extradite. There's a treaty in place and breaking it is not more important than the fantasies of Assange. Don't buy into his delusions of grandeur.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Assange wasn't going to prison in Sweden, he was going directly to Gitmo, without trial, or habeus.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Assange wasn't going to prison in Sweden, he was going directly to Gitmo, without trial, or habeus.
Where - in that tween fantasy novel you're writing?
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden isn't Assange. Assange isn't wanted by the US. The plane wasn't grounded, it wasn't allowed to transit national airspace.
Your facts are irrelevant and your theory is wrong. Try thinner foil for your hat, or maybe just take it off.
Re: (Score:3)
That's only his own theory. The best possible thing for the US is to have Sweden try him, find him guilty, put him on some sort of civic duty as punishment, then let the world laugh then forget about him. It's absurdly paranoid to think that the US would jail him given the amount of hoopla Assange has generated. The US gains nothing by arresting him, and loses quite lot of it sends him to gitmo.
But that's just it, gitmo is the ultimate of the conspiracy fantasies. We've got small handful of terrorists s
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple government officials in the US, including at least one of the current presidential candidates and a former vice-presidential candidate, have called for the extrajudicial kidnapping and/or assassination of Assange. They've made these statements in public and on-record. And that's in addition to the ones that have "merely" called for him to be extradited, tried, and imprisoned or executed.
He may be a self-important duchebag; but it's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
Re: (Score:2)
Former officials, candidates for office, and even current members of the legislature aren't "government officials." They can blow as much smoke and wind as they want, it doesn't constitute policy.
There is essentially no chance any of that will happen. The only people that have been subject to that are either members or associates of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups at war with the US. Assange isn't a member of al Qaeda, or do you have some proof that he is?
Re: (Score:2)
The US political system thrives on attention. If a politician doesn't occasionally say some seriously over-the-top and outragious things, they are at a great disadvantage.
Look at the current republican primaries. Trump has stated his intention to ignore the constitution and declare children of immigrants non-citizens so he can deport them, Santorum has stated he believes possession of any contraceptive should be a criminal offense and Huckabee has expressed a desire to amend the constitution so that the gov
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure. But anyway ..... The US doesn't operate by a parliamentary system in which members of parliament become ministers in charge of government ministries after their faction is able for form a government. The executive and legislative branches are completely separate. In the US if the chairman of the House agriculture committee thinks you should be captured or killed I doubt there is much to worry about since he or she has essentially no means to enforce that. Not even the head of the armed services
Re: (Score:2)
The US has done a lot to promote the idea that people can be disappeared off to Gitmo, especially for example actually doing that repeatedly. It's not an irrational fear.
Re: (Score:2)
It has only ever done that to combatants or those it thought were combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of mistakes though (only abou5 5% captures by US forces, 80% by people wanting a bounty reward). This is what citizens were told, and even if it was a lie it's not the sort of lie politicians would want to be caught in as it would result in being voted out or jailed, plus international scandals of course. Guantanamo is a military base, not a place for random criminals.
I don't think there is any way
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The US has a history of grabbing people and then realizing later it wasn't in its own best interests, but it doesn't stop the US doing it. There are British citizens who were rendered to countries like Egypt for a few months of torture before the US realized it had the wrong person and just dumped them back in the UK. Some of the people in Gitmo have been waiting over a decade for release.
Given what the US has done and continues to do, I wouldn't want to risk my life on the off chance that it had somehow su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Given that several of his leaks were ABOUT people being whisked off without bothering over any sort of trial nonsense, I have to wonder why you don't?
But I'm sure they just mobilized all those police outside the embassy to ask him about wearing a condom that night and the breakfast she made him after.
Re: (Score:2)
The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay aren't there because of "extra-judicial imprisonment." They are being held prisoners of war in the conflict against al Qaeda and its associates. Assange isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda. There is no way he is going to end up there.
Or did somebody share a "pinky swear secret" with you, dear, dear "fellow patriot"? Please good sir, share with us your news .... make that evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
They are in prison.
They have not been imprisoned by order of a criminal court.
They may well be guilty, but the term 'extra-judicial imprisonment' still applies. Things get a bit difficult in a war where the enemy doesn't wear uniforms or maintain a formal army - it's not always clear who is an actual combatant and who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Re: (Score:2)
They are in a prisoner of war camp.
Criminal courts are completely irrelevant regarding prisoner of war status. Not even the same body of law.
Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. The question is, are they enemy combatants? Once again, not a question of criminal law.
No, the term "extra-judicial imprisonment" doesn't apply since it isn't a judicial question to begin with. All that is required is that a competent tribunal approve their detention, and that has occurred.
Would Britain have been helpless in the fa
Re:Yes? And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cold Fjord has attacked me! I declare him an enemy combatant. Can I murder him legally now?
This is why I made the comment about the uniform. Your view worked very well in conventional wars of the past, when you knew who you were fighting. Modern wars are messy. Insurgent groups do not wear uniforms - they dress as civilians and disappear into the population. Even entire armies can be denied - look at Russia's recent invasion of Crimea, spearheaded by troops who wore uniforms without insignia and which Russia denies even exist.
It's one thing to declare on the battlefield that anyone pointing a gun at you is probably the enemy and should be immediately shot. There isn't really any other option then. But it's another matter entirely to systematically disappear people into a secret prison and declare that they have no legal rights. If you resort to that, you'll be sure to catch a lot of innocent civilians who just had the misfortune to get caught up events.
Re: (Score:2)
Less than 800 prisoners in total have been held in Guantanamo, and at present there are only about 120 left there. They have been held there legally. You're taking nonsense.
It is stupid to think that Assange is going to end up in Guantanamo. He isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda, nor does anyone seriously assert that, and those are the only people that end up in Guantanamo.
I can't spare you or take from you a quality you possess.
Re: (Score:2)
without trial, or habeus.
I see we have a law scholar in our midst.
Re:Yes? And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they aren't trying to get him there for a trial, they are trying to get him there for QUESTIONING, which they very easily could do over the phone, skype or send a person to him to question him, which they have done for others in the past. They just refuse to do it for him and insist he come where he can be arrested and sent elsewhere.
How your post got modded as insightful when it isn't is pretty insightful in itself as to how misinformed people can be.
And yes, they can agree not to extradite him to the US should they attempt to do so. Something they refused to do. The main thing Assange is guilty of at this point is pissing off the US leaders by airing their dirty laundry as even the girls he is accused of raping had dropped it and said they didn't want him charged and it seems very likely that they were trumped up charges just to get him there to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Swedish legal procedures have been discussed here often enough that I have to assume you are engaging in wilful distortion. Before Assange can be tried he has to be charged, before he can be charged under Swedish law he has to be questioned. Questioning him remotely if they expect to change him does no good since he can't be arrested to face Swedish justice. Your insinuation that he would be sent to the US is nonsense, and both Sweden and the UK would have to agree. Only Assange's fantasist supporters
Re: (Score:2)
Questioning him remotely would do a lot of good because it puts that issue at rest. More pressure could be put on Ecuador as a result. And the Swedes could say that they have everything possible.
The big problem for Ny is that if she questions him after all this time it would be politically impossible for Ny to drop the charges. And then she would have to charge him with something very specific, with details handed over to Assange's defense team etc. And that would make Ny look ridiculous. So she does n
Re: (Score:2)
Ecuador isn't acting in good faith, they are acting on behalf of Assange. They are creating unnecessary hoops for Sweden to jump through.
Re: (Score:3)
which they very easily could do over the phone, skype or send a person to him to question him
Or he could go back to the country he fled and answer the fucking questions. Oh and by the way, they DID send someone to talk to him, just recently, he refused. Stop being an ignorant douche and open your eyes.
How your post got modded as insightful when it isn't is pretty insightful in itself as to how misinformed people can be.
Ironic considering I was thinking thing exact same thing.
And yes, they can agree not to extradite him to the US should they attempt to do so. Something they refused to do.
Sweden, BY LAW, does not extradite to countries that have the death penalty as an option. They can not legally agree to extradite him to the United States so there is no need to 'refuse'. They can't make the choice to refuse, its already mad
Re: (Score:3)
Fascinating article, thanks for sharing. The guy is a piece of work...
There are few subjects on which Julian would be reluctant to take what you might call a paternalistic position, but over Snowden, whom he’s never met but has chatted with and feels largely responsible for, he expressed a kind of irritable admiration. ‘Just how good is he?’ I asked.
‘He’s number nine,’ he said.
‘In the world? Among computer hackers? And where are you?’
‘I’m number three.’ He went on to say that he wondered whether Snowden was calm enough, intelligent enough, and added that he should have come to them for advice before fleeing to Hong Kong.
Re: (Score:3)
Ignore all the ad-hominem attacks on him. A lot of it is just the usual state sponsored efforts to discredit him, like the did with Snowden (remember all the bullshit about his girlfriend?)
Look at the situation objectively. No-one else wanted for questioning on this type of offence gets so much money and time spent on them. The US has a history of spreading these kinds of stories and lies about people it doesn't like, and is likely to seek his extradition.
What did he expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course they are using local resources to keep an eye on him. He's a criminal hiding in an embassy, they aren't just going to forget about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's a criminal
When was he convicted?
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, if you are a fugitive from justice then the court infers that you guilty of something. You're still presumed innocent of the accused charges; you might be hiding something even worse. But you're presumed to be a criminal, yes. There are all sorts of consequences and restrictions that fall into place. In many cases it is even possible to conduct the trial without your presence if it can be proved that you knowingly fled to avoid trial.
One way to prove that is if you had had a bail hearing
Re: (Score:2)
Do you deny he violated his bail conditions, fled to a foreign embassy, and refused to come out in response to the reasonable legal demands of his state?
I deny that he's a proven criminal. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
Re: (Score:2)
He is facing persecution for practicing journalism. Open your eyes
No, he's facing some heat for Sweden over dodging investigators looking into his alleged sexual abuse of two women.
Re: (Score:2)
In your imaginary fantasy world, wouldn't the incredibly corrupt fantasy villains your'e dreaming up simply have done any of a thousand possible things to more effectively deal with this guy? No? Right, because you're fantasizing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes even in the real world, things happen that look like they belong in a comic book. The Litvinenko assassination comes to mind - Russia openly carrying out an assassination on foreign soil as recently as 2006.
While I'm sure the US has the capability to make difficult figures vanish in the night if extreme circumstances require it, that wouldn't work on Assange. He has too high a profile - an obvious murder or simple disappearance would raise immediate suspicion. They don't want him dead - they want
Re: (Score:3)
He's a journalist how? The only persecution he is facing is prosecution based upon a detailed legal framework in place before Assange ever entered Sweden. Assange's demands that Sweden change its laws on his behalf is the height of arrogance.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's facing PROSECUTION for RAPE.
There's a big difference.
No, he's facing QUESTIONING for RAPE.
There's a big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's facing PROSECUTION for RAPE. There's a big difference.
No, he's facing QUESTIONING for RAPE. There's a big difference.
No, he's facing a final round of questioning prior to being CHARGED for RAPE, which occurs right before being TRIED for RAPE. Sweden's legal system has been discussed here often enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they'd pick up the fucking phone and question him about the alleged rape. They haven't done so. Assange has said he would return to Sweden, if the government promised him they wouldn't hand him over to the United States. They haven't done that either.
Which means, for anyone not suffering from willful blindness, that this isn't about rape. And spare us the BS of "Sweden can't promise that". The biggest paid hack on this issue, Rei, has even admitted that Sweden
Re: (Score:3)
He expected freedom of speech. He volunteered to be a spokesperson for a movement. The same thing would have happened to anyone else. Assange was chosen wisely to be spokesperson for his talent of being loud. Everyone seems to forget that Wikileaks was an unsanctioned press organization.
Six million a year to watch him? Are you kidding me. You don't spend that kind of money to help extradite a date rapist where his alleged crime occurred in another country. He is clearly being persecuted. Interested parties
Re: (Score:2)
Any high profile criminal who is in a known hiding place, totally pinned down, and giving interviews on the internet is going to be worth 24/7 surveillance until apprehended. Count on it.
Don't expect the police to care how big or small the crime is. If it is an important enough situation to make the news, then it is important for Law and Order to Prevail.
You don't need to agree with them to understand that this is their perspective, and it is actually part of their job to have this perspective.
If it is stil
Re: (Score:2)
It would create a lot of low-level but "family wage" jobs, it would be awesome for the British economy. If I was British I would support hiring 100 people to watch each brick in that embassy. Robots are replacing the factory workers. This is a chance for the little guy to get one back.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is a criminal until convicted in a court of law for committing a crime.
False. You become a criminal when you behave as a criminal. Being convicted of a crime is when you become known as a convict.
That it is not proven yet makes the criminality an accusation, not a fact. However the basic property of being related to crime, as the word "criminal" describes, is based more in truth than in formal acceptance. Nobody knows if you're factually a criminal until you are convicted, but if you are actually a criminal or not only depends on if you "did it." You can absolutely be convicte
Re: (Score:3)
Reality is that he is hiding in a closet, and will be arrested when he leaves. Even if he makes it another 5 years and escapes he Swedish warrant, he'll still be facing having skipped bail in the UK. There is no time limit in the UK while you're wanted for something and hiding.
Reality doesn't mean, "your opinion."
Name-calling doesn't make right. Durrrrrrrrrrrr
Back handed advertisement.... (Score:2)
Worse still for Assange is the knowledge that this news story only acts to promote Herrods...
If you are a tourist in London and have any interest in Julian Assange, he's easy enough to find across the street from Herrod's!
Now they are using him as a commercial billboard, which really adds insult to injury.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Herrod was only interested in Baby Jesus? https://youtu.be/ywJdWNRwQBg [youtu.be]
News flash (Score:2)
Julian Assange is getting sad nobody is mentioning him in the media anymore.
Don't worry, more documents have been leaked! The cops are still keeping an eye on him!
Drama queen (Score:2, Insightful)
Willfully obtuse (Score:2)
Don't leave your house for the next five years because you have every reason to fear you will be made a political prisoner, and tell us how awesome it was.
well (Score:2)
What's with the shills? (Score:2)
A lot of US government shills in the comments today. Did you think you wouldn't be noticed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the government mind control satellite radio turns on whenever slashdot posts about Asshat.
OR, some people just have a different position than you. Gosh, wow, impossible right? Everybody agrees with Ramdom Asshat Supporter #1234567. You must just be so shocked. Usually everybody agrees with you, right? Turn on the TV, everybody agrees. Radio, everybody agrees. Coffee shop, everybody agrees. You're so used to everybody agreeing with your anti-establishment position, that the mere existence of people d
I wonder why they don't revoke the embasy. (Score:2)
They could easily expunge the embassy legally. Maybe move it to another property. Assange couldn't follow and they could legally then go in after him.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK and US loved setting up all kinds of embassy or consulate like building globally that have a nice geographic locations.
So a lot of work goes into location, cooling, electrical and ability to collect all signals in another country. Great for the NSA and GCHQ. The idea that a building with its computer systems could be closed down quickly is not a nice thought so the legal protections for embassy
Re: (Score:2)
They can "legally" go after him at any time. The stuff about embassies being the territory of the country they represent is a hollywood fiction. There is not a legal restriction preventing them from entering the embassy and arresting somebody. What is keeping them out is a sense of polite diplomacy. 24/7 surveillance is cheap compared to creating an "incident" that gets newspapers in a tizzy for weeks. If he was more important, they would just go in after him. As it is, he's basically under self-imposed hou
Read an article - saying outside he's a dead man (Score:2)
That if Assange were to go outside a drone would most likely take him out.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/... [express.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
If he dies now, he becomes a martyr. Even his critics do not want that. They'd much rather see him discredited. A rape conviction would be ideal for that.
Re:Timothy needs round-the-clock medical help (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe because of this
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
Re: (Score:2)
You mean this tired historical revisionism? The helicopter crew straight up murdered a bunch of civilians minding their own business. There is nothing in the unedited video that gave them cause to open fire on people who weren't posing a threat to anyone, much less those who tried
Re: (Score:2)
To be careful, nobody from Harrod's should pass judgment on anyone else's sense of style. The store is absolutely garish.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's all groovy and exciting to think of this whole story as a conspiracy led by the US intelligence agencies. But why don't you document yourself before taking sides?
The guy *sold* most of these cables to the newspapers and other media (including stuff that sent OTHER people to prison). Just the copy he sold to Al-Jazeera brought in $1.3 million. How much do you think the New-York Times or Guardian paid? While he's promoting "information without border", releasing private documents that endangered t
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide one link to support your "facts"? Of course not. You just rehash the same bullshit and when you get called on it you try to spin things around.
Did you read this account from the guy that was supposed to help him write his autobiography?
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/a... [lrb.co.uk]
And as expected Assange already started to turn against his last allies.
He told me about a failed siege by the police and about some projects they were getting off the ground, but quickly, as always, turned to demolishing one of his supporters. He continued with his habit of biting the hand that fed him, satirising or undermining those who came to his aid. He said the Ecuadorian ambassador was mad and ‘stalked the corridor’. He said she thought she was fat and went on a ludicrous diet because she didn’t like the way she looked in the photographs taken by the Daily Mail.
But of course this is yet another plant by the CIA or something.
Re: (Score:2)
You did worse than a spelling mistake, you misunderstood a common colloquialism as actually being a rule. But no, using a shorthand other than your preferred system is not an "innacuracy." Or an inaccuracy either. Perhaps freedom of speech is too American a concept, but I think choosing your own neutral colloquialism would be a recognized liberty anywhere.
It isn't exactly Finnegan's Wake.