Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Democracy Simulator]

Link to all the police interviews:

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

That should keep you all going....

 

[nathan]

Link to all the police interviews:

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

That should keep you all going....

just so y'all know ...

You do know that one of the main figures behind NNN is Harald Ullman, who is the owner of the PR firm hired by Assange to fight extradition. Right?

Not the most objective site.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

just so y'all know ...

If you have a link to a website that you like that also has the police transcripts, please feel free to post it.

 

[Laeke]

So, Ecuador came forward with a proposition of safe passage for Assange either to Sweden or -I believe- Sweden embassy in London, while remaining under Ecuadorian protection.

Isn't that the only sensible way out of this mess (the only other alternative being Assange leaving Britain covertly) ?

 

[PhantomWolf]

So, Ecuador came forward with a proposition of safe passage for Assange either to Sweden or -I believe- Sweden embassy in London, while remaining under Ecuadorian protection.

Isn't that the only sensible way out of this mess (the only other alternative being Assange leaving Britain covertly) ?

I see no point in his going to the Swedish Embassy as it achieves nothing, but if they want to ship him to Sweden, I'm all for it. I'm not sure if the UK will be wanting to go after him for breaking his bail conditions or not, but I'd expect that if he went voluntarily to Sweden at this point, they'd likely drop any charges that would come from his being a fugitive currently.

 

[theprestige]

So, Ecuador came forward with a proposition of safe passage for Assange either to Sweden or -I believe- Sweden embassy in London, while remaining under Ecuadorian protection.

Isn't that the only sensible way out of this mess (the only other alternative being Assange leaving Britain covertly) ?

Was the safe passage to Sweden ever in doubt?

And wouldn't another "sensible way out of this mess" be for Assange to surrender himself to Swedish authority without further delay?

I mean, really? Really? The only sensible way out of this mess? What, exactly, do you think "this mess" is? Where do you get off, telling Sweden that Ecuadorian safe passage is the only solution?

 

[Laeke]

Was the safe passage to Sweden ever in doubt?

And wouldn't another "sensible way out of this mess" be for Assange to surrender himself to Swedish authority without further delay?

I mean, really? Really? The only sensible way out of this mess? What, exactly, do you think "this mess" is? Where do you get off, telling Sweden that Ecuadorian safe passage is the only solution?

Spare me the outrage. I'm not "shilling for Assange".
The mess is of course the diplomatic one. Whatever I think of Assange (hint: he should have faced the Swedish justice IMHO), the fact is that the situation has been blocked ever since he went into that embassy, and the UK have been less than subtle in the way they managed this thing [introduce here what you want to read about Assange being the main responsible].

We can rant at our heart's content about how petty and dishonest Assange is, but my main concern is that the case may go forward instead of him staying holed up there ad vitam eternam.

Is this a sincere proposition? I do not know. I guess it depends on what demands are put on the table.

But let's say a deal is reached and Assange abuses its safe-passage to evade Swedish justice yet again: this would only further damage his credibility.

 

[Here_to_learn]

From what I understand in Swedish press the suggestion was to move him to the Ecuador embassy in Sweden.

However, commentators seems to think that this would be against the law. Since both English and Swedish courts have decided that he should be arrested, it would be against the law in both countries to allow him free passage.

Secondly - assuming that he would be allowed to go to the Ecuador embassy in Stockholm, he would be interviewed and the prosecutor would charge him - will he then be handed over?

So it looks (at least for now) that what Ecuador has suggested is illegal, and in addition not really helping the case. But it got them some press...

 

[Laeke]

As I said, I won't vouch for the sincerity of the offer made by Ecuador: Assange has constantly tried to evade Swedish justice, so why would he accept now to confront it?

If this is illegal, this is now in pure PR territory: offer an image of willingness to comply and negotiate while offering unreasonable terms for a deal. But what then?

I have the unfortunate impression he will maybe get away scot-free to Ecuador... (Who knows, maybe he'll star in the music video for Sash even?)

 

[JihadJane]

As I said, I won't vouch for the sincerity of the offer made by Ecuador: Assange has constantly tried to evade Swedish justice, so why would he accept now to confront it?

If this is illegal, this is now in pure PR territory: offer an image of willingness to comply and negotiate while offering unreasonable terms for a deal. But what then?

I have the unfortunate impression he will maybe get away scot-free to Ecuador... (Who knows, maybe he'll star in the music video for Sash even?)

What evidence shows that Assange "has constantly tried to evade Swedish justice"?

 

[JihadJane]

From what I understand in Swedish press the suggestion was to move him to the Ecuador embassy in Sweden.

However, commentators seems to think that this would be against the law. Since both English and Swedish courts have decided that he should be arrested, it would be against the law in both countries to allow him free passage.

Secondly - assuming that he would be allowed to go to the Ecuador embassy in Stockholm, he would be interviewed and the prosecutor would charge him - will he then be handed over?

So it looks (at least for now) that what Ecuador has suggested is illegal, and in addition not really helping the case. But it got them some press...

Conspiracy theory.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Conspiracy theory.

I felt that such a well-reasoned and well-sourced post required a response, so let's see what I posted, and how well it holds up:

From what I understand in Swedish press the suggestion was to move him to the Ecuador embassy in Sweden.

Well, my two sources are still there, and I can find multiple other sources all reporting that Ricardo Patini did suggest this. So no conspiracy theory there.

However, commentators seems to think that this would be against the law. Since both English and Swedish courts have decided that he should be arrested, it would be against the law in both countries to allow him free passage.

That commentators think it's against the law is still in the sources I gave. One of them being Pål Wrange. So no conspiray theory that I can see.

Secondly - assuming that he would be allowed to go to the Ecuador embassy in Stockholm, he would be interviewed and the prosecutor would charge him - will he then be handed over?

This is a question I asked - I have not found anything that says that Ecuador would be willing to hand him over if he would be charged - in fact Patino apparently said that JA would remain under Quito's protection. Can't see any conspiracy theory there either.

So it looks (at least for now) that what Ecuador has suggested is illegal, and in addition not really helping the case. But it got them some press...

So, the summary. I specifically pointed out that from what has been described at the time of the post, it looked illegal, and I still haven't seen anything that says it's not, so that one still holds. I also couldn't see it helping the case, unless Ecuador would be willing to hand him over if charged - again I haven't seen anything that speaks against this.

Finally, it did in fact give them press.

So, I can't find the conspiracy theory in my post.

Maybe your post was just to troll, in which case you were successful, however if you really wanted to argue something, you should try again.

 

[JihadJane]

I felt that such a well-reasoned and well-sourced post required a response, so let's see what I posted, and how well it holds up:

Well, my two sources are still there, and I can find multiple other sources all reporting that Ricardo Patini did suggest this. So no conspiracy theory there.

That commentators think it's against the law is still in the sources I gave. One of them being Pål Wrange. So no conspiray theory that I can see.

This is a question I asked - I have not found anything that says that Ecuador would be willing to hand him over if he would be charged - in fact Patino apparently said that JA would remain under Quito's protection. Can't see any conspiracy theory there either.

So, the summary. I specifically pointed out that from what has been described at the time of the post, it looked illegal, and I still haven't seen anything that says it's not, so that one still holds. I also couldn't see it helping the case, unless Ecuador would be willing to hand him over if charged - again I haven't seen anything that speaks against this.

Finally, it did in fact give them press.

So, I can't find the conspiracy theory in my post.

Maybe your post was just to troll, in which case you were successful, however if you really wanted to argue something, you should try again.

So, unsurprisingly, you have no evidence to support your conspiracy theory that the suggestion to transfer Assange to Ecuador's embassy in Sweden was just a ruse to get some press.

 

[Here_to_learn]

So, unsurprisingly, you have no evidence to support your conspiracy theory that the suggestion to transfer Assange to Ecuador's embassy in Sweden was just a ruse to get some press.

Ah, so let's see what I said again:

So it looks (at least for now) that what Ecuador has suggested is illegal, and in addition not really helping the case. But it got them some press...

So do I say this was a "ruse to get some press"? No, actually I didn't, and everything I said was backed by sourced facts, so again you fail.

I can see many reasons that they said it:

• They didn't check the legality, so they actually think it would work.
• They didn't think it through, so they didn't realize that it would not help all the way.
• They actually believe what they have been told, that "several elements of proof have been dismissed" and think that the case will be dismissed.
• They wanted to get PR.
• They wanted to try something out in the public opinion, so see what the reaction would be.

I'm sure there could be many reasons, and I don't have the facts to dismiss any of them. What facts do you have to dismiss one of them as a conspiracy theory?

 

[tsig]

What evidence shows that Assange "has constantly tried to evade Swedish justice"?

The fact that he's hiding out in a foreign embassy to evade Swedish justice does it for me.

 

[Laeke]

What evidence shows that Assange "has constantly tried to evade Swedish justice"?

Yes, my apologies, he is obviously eager to submit himself to Swedish justice, as evidenced by his actions and statements in the last 2 years.

 

[The Big Dog]

The fact that he's hiding out in a foreign embassy to evade Swedish justice does it for me.

Yeah, I read JJ's post and I was like what the hell is she talking about? He went through the entire extradition process and AFTER that was completed, went running into the Embassy.

Oh well, JJ's a true believer. Words don't mean the same thing to her that they mean to the rest of the human race.

 

[Noztradamus]

So, basically, JA is getting on the nerves of the ambassador, and His Excellency wants him out.

 

[tsig]

So, basically, JA is getting on the nerves of the ambassador, and His Excellency wants him out.

JA's getting on my nerves.

 

[Mycroft]

What evidence shows that Assange "has constantly tried to evade Swedish justice"?

For just a second there I though you were joking, but you're not.