Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[trustbutverify]

If that makes me an ideological constipated worshipper (whatever that means)
so be it.

Okey dokey.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Article VI of Treaty 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812 with regards to extradition agreements between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Sweden may provide a loophole in this situation.

What I don't understand is how that could overrule the law and the existing agreement between UK and Swe that does not allow this without permission? This is not about a person that is simply in custody in Sweden, but someone who would have ended up in Sweden based on the law for the EAW.

More over, your own statement provides the biggest loophole, as the United States could simply issue an extradition request, on bases other than political or military offenses.

Ah, but if the US can show that JA has commited an offence according US law, that is not deemed as political, and can not carry a death sentence, and the US can show enough evidence to satisfy Swedish and UK courts then it's not a loop hole, it's the law.

From what I understand, this is the key point in Swedens and UKs "refusual" to guarantee that JA would not be extradited to the US. His request is basically saying "no extradition for any reason what so ever" - that would amount to some kind of full immunity, which I can't see that a democracy can or should offer to a person.

That Ecuador apparently does it is their business.

 

[lionking]

Okey dokey.

You have nothing significant to contribute but hatred of Assange. Fair enough.

 

[trustbutverify]

His request is basically saying "no extradition for any reason what so ever" - that would amount to some kind of full immunity, which I can't see that a democracy can or should offer to a person.

I don't know what really happened as regards to this alleged crime. But this, to me, is the most important point. Political maneuver to avoid criminal liability. Nothing new, of course.

 

[trustbutverify]

You have nothing significant to contribute but hatred of Assange.

Panties, meet bunch. Bunch, this is panties.

I'll just leave you two alone to get better acquainted.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

What I don't understand is how that could overrule the law and the existing agreement between UK and Swe that does not allow this without permission? This is not about a person that is simply in custody in Sweden, but someone who would have ended up in Sweden based on the law for the EAW.

Because it would not be considered a "normal" extradition.

"The transfer is subject to conditions agreed to in advance of the transfer."​

Ah, but if the US can show that JA has commited an offence according US law, that is not deemed as political, and can not carry a death sentence, and the US can show enough evidence to satisfy Swedish and UK courts then it's not a loop hole, it's the law.

Right, this is what is what people have been insinuating. If the United States wanted to get a hold on Assange, they would do so through collusion with Swedish authorities and taking advantage of the legal system. There will never be a legal context in which a CIA SAD operation (for example) invades allied foreign territory to expropriate not only a non-US citizen, but now a person under political asylum from a third-party, against his will.

From what I understand, this is the key point in Swedens and UKs "refusual" to guarantee that JA would not be extradited to the US. His request is basically saying "no extradition for any reason what so ever" - that would amount to some kind of full immunity, which I can't see that a democracy can or should offer to a person.

I don't understand this sentence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sorry but you're not following.

Suppose Assange is convicted of something you can call "rape".

Do you think that would make it easier or harder, politically speaking, for the government of the UK to decide to legally extradite Assange to the USA? Or to legally consent for Sweden to hand him over?

Neither. Politically the Government has nothing to do with it, they are not allowed to interfer in the actions of the Judicary, and it is the courts that will decide on any extradition, be it from the UK or Sweden, and assuming the USDoJ filed an order. That decision will also be totally unaffected by a previous criminal conviction, as it is based entirely on the evidence provided at such a supposed trial. Having a conviction doesn't magically lower the bar for what is required for extradition. For it to happen any other way, or for the Governments to get involved in it would be illegal. (Note here that the single exception is that the British Home Secretary has the authority to act on the UK's behalf in allowing Sweden to further extradite if it came to that, but once again, it'd be easier to do a legal extradition from the UK since the bar of evidence is lower there.)

 

[JihadJane]

Neither. Politically the Government has nothing to do with it, they are not allowed to interfer in the actions of the Judicary, and it is the courts that will decide on any extradition, be it from the UK or Sweden, and assuming the USDoJ filed an order. That decision will also be totally unaffected by a previous criminal conviction, as it is based entirely on the evidence provided at such a supposed trial. Having a conviction doesn't magically lower the bar for what is required for extradition. For it to happen any other way, or for the Governments to get involved in it would be illegal. (Note here that the single exception is that the British Home Secretary has the authority to act on the UK's behalf in allowing Sweden to further extradite if it came to that, but once again, it'd be easier to do a legal extradition from the UK since the bar of evidence is lower there.)

What makes you think the UK, the US or Sweden care about what's legal?

What law were they obeying when they participated in a program to kidnap people and send them to countries like Syria to be tortured?

It is irrational to trust them.

 

[Aidoneus]

What makes you think the UK, the US or Sweden care about what's legal?

What law were they obeying when they participated in a program to kidnap people and send them to countries like Syria to be tortured?

It is irrational to trust them.

Mostly because in the case of Assange, the law has been consistently followed to the letter, by all parties.

 

[PhantomWolf]

"...rather than having the situation where all three justice systems can claim clean hands as they did the right thing, and the US Govt copping some more flak for continuing to do the same things it has been doing for the last 10 years since 9/11 anyway?"

You quite clearly stated that of the two options, you believe the United States government's best method of extraction would be to send a special operatives team to foreign soil to acquire a high profile, non-US citizen against his will. You then chalk up the reasoning behind it to being, "Well, we all know they do it anyway." Where is my misinterpretation?'

Your misinterpretation is in failure to read the rest of the post and note that the options given are based entirely on the CT world where the US is willing to do anything to get Assange, not the real one I live in where the evidence shows it's highly unlikely they'd attempt to do either, but rather if they really want him they'll follow actual legal channels to get to him not some shadowy conspriacy theory.

Let's get one thing straight first: the United States government continually displays that is has very little regard for its own laws... when it thinks it won't be caught. I'm still failing to comprehend how kidnapping an Australian citizen, now under asylum from another sovereign nation, outside of the legal jurisdiction of the United States government, with the eyes of the entire world watching is in any way, shape or form a good idea.

Me too, and yet some people still keep claiming that this is exactly why they want him shipped to Sweden....

Perhaps I phrased question in a confusing manner, what I meant was, if Assange went missing, or happened to die, would you believe the US government if it feigned innocence? Your "most likely senario" sets up a situation in which the United States government blatantly disregards the sovereignty of other nations... Western, allied nations at that. Even though we all know the federal government doesn't care, your set-up presents a public announcement and dangerous precedent that international borders are not at all respected, which is why the easier route is always the one that occurs in the shadows.

And what exactly happens when it's found out that the UK and Swedish courts were manipluted by the US Govt? That the justice systems in those countries are totally corrupt to political will, and by association, no western world Justice system can be considered free of such interferrance? Consider where that leaves us. Consider that blatantl disregard to the sovereignty of other nations... Western, allied nations at that. And worse, to the separation of Government and Judicary. There is a word for the type of Government that does that, and it's not Democracy. You say "if Assange went missing, or happened to die, would you believe the US government if it feigned innocence?" I ask "if Assange was illegally extradited to the US, would you believe the US government if it feigned innocence?"

How about you look up the word "assessment?" And while we're nit-picking about reading comprehension, I never said you "claimed" the US government was stupid, just that you think they are.

I think that the US Government is stupid because I don't think they would do anything illegal to get Assange? Really?

The United States government has clandestinely participated in de-stabilizing and attempting to de-stabilize South American, African, and Middle Eastern governments for the past sixty years, what makes you think they care about ramifications?

Care to note which ones it has clandestinely participated in de-stabilizing and attempting to de-stabilize in the past 20 years?

By your own admission, the government has sent special forces and CIA special operatives into countries. I seem to remember sometime last May, a small command unit entered Pakistan without the permission of their federal government, and how much controversy it caused. Except Pakistan isn't a Western country, and the mission objective wasn't an international "hero" who exposed corruption taking place within the federal government of the United States of America.

Yeah, that mission caused such a stick it brought western civilisationto it's knees as the people roited and protested their governments over it. Oh, wait, no it didn't, it barely caused a ripple.

Except it's more difficult to expose one, while the other is quite obvious. There are these words... clandestine, cover-up, secrecy, corruption... look them up.

And we all know how well the US keeps a secret.....

The Stratfor emails indicate quite clearly there is a possibility the United States government may attempt to gain access to Assange. It's quite easy for you to dismiss them when an entire federal government doesn't hate your guts.

Trouble is that Assange was already acting this way and making these claims well before the Stratfor emails leaks. As for the emails themselves, even if they were genuine (which is in dispute even at the top levels) we're talking a private company who shifts through vast amount of public information, not the DoJ who would actually know what is going on. A secret inditement isn't exactly secret is they tell private compaies about it, and then there is the whole US and keeping secrets thing...

Unfortunately I cannot post links as of yet, however these documents are readily available via Google.

The problem with your loophole is that it isn't. It's a section that notes that in the case of a person being in custody that they can still be extradited and sets out the conditions to do so. They still have to be eligable for extradition, and go through the courts before that. Just because a person is in custody doesn't mean that they get to throw away the rest of the rule book. It means that if they are serving a sentance in one country, and another wants him, then they can come to an arrangement under which the person serves their sentance from the first country while in the second, or that they can be sent to the other country, tried, sentanced, and then returned to finish their sentance in the first.

More over, your own statement provides the biggest loophole, as the United States could simply issue an extradition request, on bases other than political or military offenses.

As has been noted, that's not a Loophole, it's how the law works.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What makes you think the UK, the US or Sweden care about what's legal?

What law were they obeying when they participated in a program to kidnap people and send them to countries like Syria to be tortured?

It is irrational to trust them.

This...

Mostly because in the case of Assange, the law has been consistently followed to the letter, by all parties.

and the fact there is no evidence of anyone doing otherwise. All the evidence says that this is exactly what it appears, the Swedish want him to press rape and sexual molestation charges. Nothing more.

 

[Amazer]

Try the 2nd Admenment. How many trigger happy people are there in the US just waiting for the Govt there to prove it is a Tyranny that doesn't obey it's own laws?

Those trigger happy people are only too happy to justify the federal government disobeying it's own laws as long as they feel that the outcome justifies the means AND as long as they aren't affected directly. You just have to look back at the Bush presidency to know that it is so.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Those trigger happy people are only too happy to justify the federal government disobeying it's own laws as long as they feel that the outcome justifies the means AND as long as they aren't affected directly. You just have to look back at the Bush presidency to know that it is so.

Just for us southern hemisphere types, some clarification:

The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans? And Obama is as bad as Bush?

Understood.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

Your misinterpretation is in failure to read the rest of the post and note that the options given are based entirely on the CT world where the US is willing to do anything to get Assange, not the real one I live in where the evidence shows it's highly unlikely they'd attempt to do either, but rather if they really want him they'll follow actual legal channels to get to him not some shadowy conspriacy theory.

"...you believe the United States government's best method of extraction would be to send a special operatives team to foreign soil..." - me
"The whole idea that the US is acting as some evil shadowy puppet master and manipulating people and courts to its own ends where it will eventually get them to break laws to hand over Assange makes absolutely no sense when the simple extraction of an unarmed and precisely locatable target by trained operatives is much easier, and has a far larger precedent." - you

hurp durp

And what exactly happens when it's found out that the UK and Swedish courts were manipluted by the US Govt?

If the United States government is bathing with Swedish judges and prosecutors, I highly doubt it's their intention to be "found" out. Did you ever look those words up?

I ask "if Assange was illegally extradited to the US, would you believe the US government if it feigned innocence?"

The foundation of your flip-flopping argument rests on the assumption that there is no way Assange can be legally extradited to the United States. You need to catch up on the thread, bro.

I think that the US Government is stupid because I don't think they would do anything illegal to get Assange? Really?

The silliness of your cost/benefit analysis of US intervention regarding Assange can be read above. So you think either the US government is stupid, or the logical conclusion is the person doing the analysis is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Care to note which ones it has clandestinely participated in de-stabilizing and attempting to de-stabilize in the past 20 years?

I said sixty years, but for some reason you randomly want to limit the time period to the last twenty? I'm curious as to why you think limiting the me to twenty years will make your case look better?

For starters, we can begin with the most obvious regional US-led initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq, then we can move on to the CIA's alleged involvement in Venezuelan (2002, I believe) and Palestinian (2007) attempted coup d'états. From then, the government decided to turn Somalia back into a hell hole because they didn't like the name of the "Islamic Courts Union" that was bringing stability back to the region. And let's not forget the Libyan and Syrian "revolutions"... which the mainstream media is finally acquiescing that, hmmm, there may have been CIA involvement in fighting alongside "rebels."

It was only last week that a US Marine was arrested in Venezuela after entering illegally from Colombia, how could you have missed that? Maybe you should've said 'past two days' or something? Then you would've had me.

Yeah, that mission caused such a stick it brought western civilisationto it's knees as the people roited and protested their governments over it. Oh, wait, no it didn't, it barely caused a ripple.

Speaking of an inability to clearly comprehend written material... or maybe you just don't consider Pakistanis or other brown-skins 'civilized' people?

Trouble is that Assange was already acting this way and making these claims well before the Stratfor emails leaks.

-________________________________________________-

It's a section that notes that in the case of a person being in custody that they can still be extradited and sets out the conditions to do so. They still have to be eligable for extradition, and go through the courts before that. Just because a person is in custody doesn't mean that they get to throw away the rest of the rule book. It means that if they are serving a sentance in one country, and another wants him, then they can come to an arrangement under which the person serves their sentance from the first country while in the second, or that they can be sent to the other country, tried, sentanced, and then returned to finish their sentance in the first.

Yup, this statement from you confirms quite clearly that you cannot read.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Because it would not be considered a "normal" extradition.

"The transfer is subject to conditions agreed to in advance of the transfer."​

No, that does not answer the question. For Sweden to be able to extradite JA from the UK, Sweden must follow the EAW law. That law forbids onwards extradition to another country, and also does not allow Sweden to charge JA with anything that was not included in the EAW (without additional permission from UK.

This means that the treaty you are quoting cannot be used directly. JA would be in Sweden due to the EAW, and would then be protected by the EAW conditions.

If the text you quoted are to be applied, you have to show how that treaty would overrule the EAW.

Right, this is what is what people have been insinuating. If the United States wanted to get a hold on Assange, they would do so through collusion with Swedish authorities and taking advantage of the legal system.

AKA - following the law. Yes that is what at least I want's to see. JA (or anyone else) should not be above the law.

I don't understand this sentence.

Apologies - I'll try to rephrase myself.

JA has said that he would be willing to come to Sweden if Sweden would guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US. This was also included in Ecuadors statement when JA was granted asylum - that the UK and SE had refused to promise not to extradite him.

A page or two back in the thread, I quoted a Swedish professor talking about why Sweden cannot give such a guarantee. Any request from for example the US should be handled according to the law, meaning that it will be reviewed from a legal perspective (for example regarding if it's a political crime, or a crime that might lead to a death sentence). If the judicial procedures find the extradition request legal the government then have ability to stop the extradition.

Now, for JA (or Ecuador) to ask Sweden to promise never to extradite to the US would be the same as telling the Swedish courts - regardless of what the request contains you should deny it. That would be same thing as granting JA full immunity for anything and everything.

Giving somebody the rights to act above the law is not good for a democracy.


(I hope it's easier to understand what I'm trying to say now - if not, I'll try again!)

 

[Noztradamus]

Just for us southern hemisphere types, some clarification:

The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans? And Obama is as bad as Bush?

Understood.

With the example of "Fast & Furious", I'd say, worse.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

No, that does not answer the question. For Sweden to be able to extradite JA from the UK, Sweden must follow the EAW law. That law forbids onwards extradition to another country, and also does not allow Sweden to charge JA with anything that was not included in the EAW (without additional permission from UK.

This means that the treaty you are quoting cannot be used directly. JA would be in Sweden due to the EAW, and would then be protected by the EAW conditions.

If the text you quoted are to be applied, you have to show how that treaty would overrule the EAW.

The addition of the European Union complicates law within European countries immensely, however, I picked this up from a reading of the full text of European Arrest Warrant.

Article 27
Possible prosecution for other offences
1. Each Member State may notify the General Secretariat of the Council that, in its relations with other Member States that have given the same notification, consent is presumed to have been given for the prosecution, sentencing or detention with a view to the carrying out of a custodial sentence or detention order for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender, other than that for which he or she was surrendered, unless in a particular case the executing judicial authority states otherwise in its decision on surrender.
2. Except in the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3, a person surrendered may not be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered.
3. Paragraph 2 does not apply in the following cases:
(a) when the person having had an opportunity to leave the territory of the Member State to which he or she has been surrendered has not done so within 45 days of his or her final discharge, or has returned to that territory after leaving it;
(b) the offence is not punishable by a custodial sentence or detention order;
(c) the criminal proceedings do not give rise to the application of a measure restricting personal liberty;
(d) when the person could be liable to a penalty or a measure not involving the deprivation of liberty, in particular a financial penalty or a measure in lieu thereof, even if the penalty or measure may give rise to a restriction of his or her personal liberty;
(e) when the person consented to be surrendered, where appropriate at the same time as he or she renounced the speciality rule, in accordance with Article 13;
(f) when the person, after his/her surrender, has expressly renounced entitlement to the speciality rule with regard to specific offences preceding his/her surrender. Renunciation shall be given before the competent judicial authorities of the issuing Member State and shall be recorded in accordance with that State's domestic law. The renunciation shall be drawn up in such a way as to make clear that the person has given it voluntarily and in full awareness of the consequences. To that end, the person shall have the right to legal counsel;
(g) where the executing judicial authority which surrendered the person gives its consent in accordance with paragraph 4.
4. A request for consent shall be submitted to the executing judicial authority, accompanied by the information mentioned in Article 8(1) and a translation as referred to in Article 8(2). Consent shall be given when the offence for which it is requested is itself subject to surrender in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision. Consent shall be refused on the grounds referred to in Article 3 and otherwise may be refused only on the grounds referred to in Article 4. The decision shall be taken no later than 30 days after receipt of the request.
For the situations mentioned in Article 5 the issuing Member State must give the guarantees provided for therein.
Article 28
Surrender or subsequent extradition
1. Each Member State may notify the General Secretariat of the Council that, in its relations with other Member States which have given the same notification, the consent for the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the executing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender is presumed to have been given, unless in a particular case the executing judicial authority states otherwise in its decision on surrender.
2. In any case, a person who has been surrendered to the issuing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant may, without the consent of the executing Member State, be surrendered to a Member State other than the executing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for any offence committed prior to his or her surrender in the following cases:
(a) where the requested person, having had an opportunity to leave the territory of the Member State to which he or she has been surrendered, has not done so within 45 days of his final discharge, or has returned to that territory after leaving it;
(b) where the requested person consents to be surrendered to a Member State other than the executing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant. Consent shall be given before the competent judicial authorities of the issuing Member State and shall be recorded in accordance with that State's national law. It shall be drawn up in such a way as to make clear that the person concerned has given it voluntarily and in full awareness of the consequences. To that end, the requested person shall have the right to legal counsel;
(c) where the requested person is not subject to the speciality rule, in accordance with Article 27(3)(a), (e), (f) and (g).
3. The executing judicial authority consents to the surrender to another Member State according to the following rules:
(a) the request for consent shall be submitted in accordance with Article 9, accompanied by the information mentioned in Article 8(1) and a translation as stated in Article 8(2);
(b) consent shall be given when the offence for which it is requested is itself subject to surrender in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision;
(c) the decision shall be taken no later than 30 days after receipt of the request;
(d) consent shall be refused on the grounds referred to in Article 3 and otherwise may be refused only on the grounds referred to in Article 4.
For the situations referred to in Article 5, the issuing Member State must give the guarantees provided for therein.
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law.​

Furthermore, pursuant to the Extradition Act 2003 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Article 58 states:

58 Consent to further extradition to category 2 territory

(1)This section applies if—
(a)a person is extradited to a category 1 territory (the requesting territory) in accordance with this Part;
(b)the Secretary of State receives a request for consent to the person’s extradition to a category 2 territory for an offence;
(c)the request is certified under this section by the designated authority.
(2)The designated authority may certify a request for consent under this section if it believes that the authority making the request—
(a)is a judicial authority of the requesting territory, and
(b)has the function of making requests for the consent referred to in subsection (1)(b) in that territory.
(3)A certificate under subsection (2) must certify that the authority making the request falls within paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection.
(4)The Secretary of State must serve notice on the person that he has received the request for consent, unless he is satisfied that it would not be practicable to do so.
(5)The Secretary of State must decide whether the offence is an extradition offence within the meaning given by section 137 in relation to the category 2 territory.
(6)If the Secretary of State decides the question in subsection (5) in the negative he must refuse consent.
(7)If the Secretary of State decides that question in the affirmative he must decide whether the appropriate judge would send the case to him (for his decision whether the person was to be extradited) under sections 79 to 91 if—
(a)the person were in the United Kingdom, and
(b)the judge were required to proceed under section 79 in respect of the offence for which the Secretary of State’s consent is requested.
(8)If the Secretary of State decides the question in subsection (7) in the negative he must refuse his consent.
(9)If the Secretary of State decides that question in the affirmative he must decide whether, if the person were in the United Kingdom, his extradition to the category 2 territory in respect of the offence would be prohibited under section 94, 95 or 96.
(10)If the Secretary of State decides the question in subsection (9) in the negative he may give consent.
(11)If the Secretary of State decides that question in the affirmative he must refuse consent.
(12)This section applies in relation to any function which falls under this section to be exercised in relation to Scotland only as if the references in this section to the Secretary of State were to the Scottish Ministers.​

Temporary Surrender (Article 9) of the "Handbook on the practical application of the EU-U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition Agreements" acts similar to the European Arrest Warrant, just between signatories of the United States and other governments, rather than European states. It would allow the United States government to circumvent the normal extradition process in favor of transferring defendants as quickly as possible for prosecution.

AKA - following the law. Yes that is what at least I want's to see. JA (or anyone else) should not be above the law.

I am unaware that it is lawful in any context for the United States government to secretly collude with or coerce international court systems to extradite to the US persons of interest. That is the concern.

JA has said that he would be willing to come to Sweden if Sweden would guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US. This was also included in Ecuadors statement when JA was granted asylum - that the UK and SE had refused to promise not to extradite him.

A page or two back in the thread, I quoted a Swedish professor talking about why Sweden cannot give such a guarantee. Any request from for example the US should be handled according to the law, meaning that it will be reviewed from a legal perspective (for example regarding if it's a political crime, or a crime that might lead to a death sentence). If the judicial procedures find the extradition request legal the government then have ability to stop the extradition.

Now, for JA (or Ecuador) to ask Sweden to promise never to extradite to the US would be the same as telling the Swedish courts - regardless of what the request contains you should deny it. That would be same thing as granting JA full immunity for anything and everything.

Giving somebody the rights to act above the law is not good for a democracy.

I would agree with these statements, I find nothing wrong with your analysis. What I find supremely annoying is the attitude displayed by many here who somehow witnessed Julian Assange rape two Swedish women when he has not been found guilty by anyone other than the finger-warriors of the Internet. It's also immensely annoying having to read through tons of trolls absentmindedly stating that the United States government has no interest in Assange, and that he is merely looking to skip out on a sexual assault trial (when he hasn't been formally charged.)

 

[Korren]

I am unaware that it is lawful in any context for the United States government to secretly collude with or coerce international court systems to extradite to the US persons of interest. That is the concern.

No, that would be a concern if there was any actual evidence of them actually doing that. There isn't. There's just wild speculations and paranoia.

 

[Noztradamus]

It was only last week that a US Marine was arrested in Venezuela after entering illegally from Colombia, how could you have missed that? Maybe you should've said 'past two days' or something? Then you would've had me.

Shock! Horror! One month before the election Hugo de Chavez announces only that he has captured a guy who has confesed only to being a former US Marine and nothing else. Not even his name {cough}Marinus van der Lubbe {/cough}.

 

[BenBurch]

There is no reason to have him.

He knows nothing. He has nothing. We proved that if he has a source, we have that source, too.

What you fail to realize is that neutralizing Assange was the only thing of interest.

That bell has been rung.