Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A highly relevant hour long interview about the very inner working of the world law and court systems, from an economic and international cultural power perspective. Assange speaks to world renowned journalist John Pilger.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/julian-assange-in-conversation-with-john-pilger/

Of course, I don't expect half the people here to give this interview any credence from the get go, despite it's overarching veracity.
 
I can however provide the transcript word by word if people find it easier to first digest by associating it with my avatar, if Julians face is so hard to digest as a source.
 
theprestige said:
"It is possible for officers from the foreign state to be present during the interview" != "it is possible for officers from the foreign state to conduct the interview themselves".

So that's pretty much fail for that argument, S_G: phone/video interviews have a precedent of being thrown out in Swedish courts. In-person interviews are not permitted by UK law, only in-person observation of an interview conducted by UK authorities.

These aren't excuses, these are facts. For Ny to conduct a satisfactory interview in accordance with Swedish jurisprudence, she must have Assange in Sweden. A conclusion upheld repeatedly by UK courts. And an outcome strenuously avoided by Julian Assange.

Ny doesn't need to make excuses. She needs to demand what is Sweden's lawful right. And Assange needs to comply.
Click to expand...

It goes even beyond this which I am sure that Skeptic Ginger knows, since as a good skeptic she must have read the sources of the article she linked to and keeps pointing to. In fact to even just attend the interview, Ny would actually have had to apply to the UK Police and tell them why her being there as they interviewed Assange would be necessary, and if they didn't accept that reasoning, they could have simply denied her the right to even watch the interview. On top of that, there is no guarentee of when such an interview would even occur, because requests are just added to the list in their order of priority, so the UK police could have decided that it wasn't a high priority compared to their normal workload and other requests, and so it could wait for... oh some time in 2015.

But hey, it's far easier to wave your hands and point to a article (and even then ignore what it actually says) where the author has tried their best to twist things to your bias, and claim that no one else knows anything.
 
Hello again phantom wolf.

Can you spare a few minutes to comment on the video interview?

Thanks.
 
I see nothing discrediting my link, PW. I also see a lot of unsupported assertions by you and others in the thread whose posts make them look like they can't look past their dislike of Assange to actually weigh the evidence.

I remind you before my views are falsely dismissed, I think Assange is creepy. But that doesn't make the women's stories any more credible.
 
Did I assume correctly, that it would be easier for me to transcribe the interview for skeptical discourse here, an interview made from the very person this entire thread is about?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Did I assume correctly, that it would be easier for me to transcribe the interview for skeptical discourse here, an interview made from the very person this entire thread is about?
Click to expand...
Quoting a few key points is about all that anyone is going to read.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
To be fair, I wouldn't listen to Assange for an hour either.
Click to expand...


I didn't think I would wan't to either, but in spirit of educating myself about the subject at hand I started watching to get his perspective on the matter and have now watched it all. He explains the entire situation extremely well and succinctly.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I see nothing discrediting my link, PW. I also see a lot of unsupported assertions by you and others in the thread whose posts make them look like they can't look past their dislike of Assange to actually weigh the evidence.

I remind you before my views are falsely dismissed, I think Assange is creepy. But that doesn't make the women's stories any more credible.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to discredit your link Ginger, I'm trying to get you to actually read what it says instead of what you want it to say. To go and read the sources it links to instead of just accepting what the author of the link says they say. This is Skeptic 101 stuff.

I don't think it can be any clearer. UK Law allows for foreign LE to either directly contact a suspect or witness by phone, email etc, if that person is willing to accept the contact. Or that LE can apply to the UK police to get the witness/suspect and have the UK police interview them with a list of pre-determined questions. The UK Police reserve the right to do this based on a priority that they determine the case to have. Further, the LE can apply to send someone to observe the UK Police doing the interview, but they cannot take an active role in the process, and the UK Police have the right to deny even that access is they don't find the reason for allowing it to be compelling. This is all directly out of the Mutual Legal Assistance rules that are quoted from and is linked to in the article you keep pointing at. You can click on the link and read it for yourself to see that I'm not making it up, heck your own article even gives you the page numbers to go and look at!

See this is what we are trying to get you to understand, and you are being incredibly bloodyminded in refusing to even acknowledge the fact it even says so in your own quotes.

Ny couldn't telephone or videolink because the Swedish Courts won't accept it, she stated that from the word go, other Swedish cases have shown a precedent for this by the Courts throwing them out, but the only other option she had is blocked by UK law, because the UK will not allow foreign LE to do interviews on UK soil. This isn't some we are making up, you can read it for yourself. Under the MLA the UK Police must do the interview based on the information given to them by the LE requesting it.

The one and only way that is acceptable to BOTH Swedish Law and UK Law that allows Ny herself to conduct the interview, is for it to be done face-to-face in Sweden. She can't do it face-to-face in the UK because UK Law is very clear on it and says no. She can't do it non face-to-face because Swedish law says no. What other choice is there?
 
I did read what the article said PW. I quoted it verbatim. It couldn't have been more clear. It continues to appear you are doing contortions to make the article fit your confirmation bias, not to mention you are simply making an unsupported assertion Ny was legally prohibited, yadda yadda.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I did read what the article said PW. I quoted it verbatim. It couldn't have been more clear. It continues to appear you are doing contortions to make the article fit your confirmation bias, not to mention you are simply making an unsupported assertion Ny was legally prohibited, yadda yadda.
Click to expand...

Help me out here, SG. I read the material you quoted. Where exactly does it say that Swedish prosecutors are permitted to interview suspects within UK jurisdiction?
 
theprestige said:
Help me out here, SG. I read the material you quoted. Where exactly does it say that Swedish prosecutors are permitted to interview suspects within UK jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
You and PW are unbelievable:
(see Mutual Legal Assistance Guidelines for the United Kingdom, 8th edition, pp. 15, 20 and 29). If the latter option is used, it is possible for officers from the foreign state to be present during the interview. In fact, Ms. Ny had a wide range of options for interrogating Assange in the UK: by telephone, video link or by interviewing him in person, together with British police. As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad.
Click to expand...

And now Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy. I do believe that means Ecuador can grant Ny any access to Assange for an interview she wants, not subject to UK law because embassies are sovereign.
 
Quotes from your own article, which you seem to be unable to understand.

[a] foreign prosecutor can question a suspect in the UK by telephone, videolink, or through British police
Click to expand...

Get it? Through the British Police, ie the British Police are the ones doing the interviewing which is based on questions supplied to them, if you read the MLA this is very clearly spelled out.

If the latter option is used, it is possible for officers from the foreign state to be present during the interview
Click to expand...

The MLA shows that this is both a requested position that may be granted or denied, and an observational one. They may be present, they may not participate.

Then your author throws away her own sources and states...

Ms. Ny had a wide range of options for interrogating Assange in the UK: by telephone, video link or by interviewing him in person, together with British police.
Click to expand...

We already know that the Swedish courts say no to telephone and video link, so no she didn't have those options even if the UK allows them. And the author herself just noted what the MLA says, but then amazingly manages to totally reverse what she just said. Ny does not have the option of "interviewing him in person, together with British police" she has the option of the British Police interviewing him in person while if allowed, she watches.

The author is actually quite clever in what she says, and other than the statement that Ny had the option of "interviewing [Assange] in person, together with British police" what she says is true.

1) Ny claimed that she couldn't interview by phone or videolink because it is unacceptable in Swedish Courts. This is true.

2) The UK allows Telephone of Videolink interviews - This is true, but useless since Sweden does not.

3) Ny can be there when the UK Police can do the Interview for her (if allowed to) - True, but she can't take part in it.

4) There is nothing in Swedish law stopping Ny doing an interview in the UK - Again true, it is UK Law that stops her from doing so.

This quick slip step between what UK and Swedish law allows is very fancy, and she hopes that in the middle of it, with a little twisting of the truth by claiming that Ny can be part of the interview rather then just an observer as in the MLA, the author hopes that people will think that Ny is being silly and egotistical for demanding that Assange goes back to Sweden. In reality, the conflict between Swedish and UK laws means that if Ny is to do the interview herself, it must be done in Sweden. There is no other choice, and even your own author, who tries to avoid that conclusion to the point of twisting her own sources right after quoting them, admits each point with her article (though then dishonestly ignores her own sources and quotes to claim otherwise.)
 
Last edited:
Go ahead with your contortions PW. Who cares if a UK PD guy was there? Like I said, If I were paying the tax bill for Ny's folly, I'd be pissed.
 
I thought perhaps visually this might help, a simple Logic Table.

Interview by Ny using|Phone|Videolink|Face-to-face in UK|Face-to-face in Sweden
Allowable by Swedish Law|N|N|Y|Y
Allowable by British Law|Y|Y|N|Y
Allowable by Both Laws|N|N|N|Y
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Go ahead with your contortions PW. Who cares if a UK PD guy was there? Like I said, If I were paying the tax bill for Ny's folly, I'd be pissed.
Click to expand...

Um, UK Law does, have you read the MLA? No, I thought not, I have. It is very, very, very clear. The UK Police and only the UK Police are allowed to do the interview, but may, may, on request allow someone from the requesting LEA to be present as an observer at the time. The UK PD guy HAS to be there, the UK PD guy is the ONLY one who can legally interview Assange in the UK, what part of this can't you understand?

Read this really slowly.

The UK will only allow British Police to interview people in the UK. If a request to do so is accepted by the UK, then foreign LE members can observe the British Police acting to complete their MLA request, but cannot be active participants in the acting of a MLA.

Do you get it yet?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom