BS: Ecuador

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 07:02 PM

The European Arrest warrant requires no such condition, Don.

I'd support a proper trial on the sex charges if I could be sure it was not a CIA fitup or a judas goat to lead to extradition to the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 08:12 PM

Always take your lawyer to any sexual encounter you may encounter, that way NOTHING can happen that isn't 'legal'... ;0)

And..bring back LOVE, for sex works so much better WITH it, than without it...


And, cue Richard! ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 09:37 PM

I am told by some who do it more often than I that the best sex is with people you hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: gnu
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 09:49 PM

Richard... I'd say "piss off, eh!" but you ain't my kinda girl.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Aug 12 - 02:18 AM

I thought the thread said "Ecuador".

Which has been a democracy again since the 80s, and whose constitution has made voting mandatory since 1936. Current president Rafael Correa is seen by some, because of his pro-indigenous and populist policies, to be in league with other Central and South American left-leaning leaders, including Cesar Chavez.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Aug 12 - 02:20 AM

Oops, make that Hugo Chavez.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 12 - 07:47 AM

""The European Arrest warrant requires no such condition, Don.""

Didn't say it did Richard. I said it should.

Such being the case, I would prefer he walked free.

Innocence until proven guilty seems to have given way to presumed guilt where extradition is concerned.

Not what English Law is supposed to be!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 12 - 05:15 PM

At this point the official Swedish position is that they want to question Assange. In the light of that questioning they may or may not decide that criminal charges should be levied against him.

This questioning could perfectly well have been carried out by the Swedish authorities while Assange was on British soil. They could perfectly well be carried out now in the Ecuiadorian embassy. There are legal precedents where the Swedish authoroities have questioned potential defendants on foreign soil while determining whether there are grounds for charging them. However they have declined to do so in this case.

It is not irrational to suspect that this insistance that the questioning can only be carried out in Sweden is an indication that the purpose is to get Assange into a situation where he can be dealt with for other purposes, such as cooperating with the US authorities.

It is true that in common with other civilised countries Sweden would seek a guarantee that the death penalty would not be imposed - however it is very questionable whether any such guarantee would have any legal force withn the United States - and by the time any trial would take place, God knows what kind of regime might be in power in the USA.

Moereover, even short of the death penalty, the range of illegal, quasi-legal and legal forms of abuse which the US authorities have used against those who are seen as its enemies is terrifying enough that no sane person would choose to risk it.

The fact that the word "treason" is being used by the United Sates, includng by Hilary Clinton in respect of Assange seems to indicate some kind of belief that the USA is above the law. It is of course completely impossible for anybody to commmit "treason" against a foreign country to which they owe no loyalty. It would be like committing adultery against someone you were not married to.

The fact that the UK government appears to have been on the verge of an unrecedented breach of international law and treaty obligations by invading a forign embassy is an indication that this kind of disregard of law is catching.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: CET
Date: 21 Aug 12 - 07:40 PM

McGrath and Richard between them have highlighted the thing that bugs me about this. Assange is not facing any charges. The police want to question him. Is it no longer a principle of British law that no one is obliged to speak to the police? It still is in Canada. I find it repugnant that anyone can be surrendered to a foreign country to be interrogated by the police.

I have a lot less sympathy for Assange as far as US charges are concerned. I don't think Bradley Manning would be in the trouble he is today if Assange had not exploited him. He must have known the consequences for any soldier who released classified information, and he did not have to publish those cables.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 12 - 08:36 PM

Do civilised countries hold accused citizens for months on end in solitary confinement deprived of sleep and naked? Could any citizenof a civioised country be expected to assume that the USA would behave in this fashion?

Assange may have been naive or even irresponsible so far as Bradley Manning was concerned - but the guilt for his inhumane treatment, which would be illegal in other countries, lies with the US authorities, and demonstarte why they cannot be trusted to abide by civilised standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Aug 12 - 08:50 PM

Statements from PFC Manning's lawyer indicate that, while he was in solitary confinement and on suicide watch (both of which have ended) he was required to remain awake during the day and that he was required to strip naked one morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Aug 12 - 11:31 PM

I should emphasise that (I believe) Assange was extensively interviewed by the Swedish police before he left Sweden.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 03:52 AM

"This questioning could perfectly well have been carried out by the Swedish authorities while Assange was on British soil. They could perfectly well be carried out now in the Ecuiadorian embassy. There are legal precedents where the Swedish authoroities have questioned potential defendants on foreign soil while determining whether there are grounds for charging them. However they have declined to do so in this case."

Furthermore, so far as I've read, this is the first time extradition has been sought by Sweden for the purpose of interviewing an individual about these kinds of allegations.

Interpol issued a Red Notice on Assange thereby putting Assange on their "most wanted list" - any doubters should really think about that "Most Wanted" Most wanted for what? Organising terrorist bombings? Assassination? Being a Mafia boss? Nope, Assange is on Interpols Most Wanted list, for being a man *alleged* to have split a condom and also (I believe) pressed his penis against a woman he was lying naked with.

I'm deeply comforted to know just how incredibly seriously Interpol takes allegations of split condoms. Right up there with terrorist bombers, mass murderers and bank robbers.

Yes RB, Assange has already been interviewed by Swedish police over these allegations on 30th August 2010. And also, as we know according to Sweden's Chief Prosecutor who dropped the case, there was so far as she was concerned, no case to answer to.

The case was reopened after a Swedish Politician decided to intervene. A Politician, one of those breed of men known the world over as champions of honesty, integrity and justice:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/julian-assange-lawyers-being-watched

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Musket
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 04:14 AM

Interesting; My original comments on this thread were at the opposite end of the argument to that of Bridge. I just caught myself nodding in agreement with one of his posts.

This just won't do....

Very saddened to read Lizzie Cornish blindly defending the guy on the allegations of unlawful sex on the basis that his company does some good work in the political field.

If The USA wanted him, they had every opportunity to ask for extradition before now. If they still want him, neither UK nor Sweden will extradite on the terms Clinton et al have been spouting. Treason is a capital crime in many less civilised countries which is why more progressive countries such as UK and Sweden will never allow extradition where the threat of state murder is possible.

Luckily for Assange, the only country that could ever charge him with treason is Australia, and they a) are civilised (or at least domesticated) enough to not kill their citizens, and b) they are pissing themselves laughing that he is someone else's problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 08:47 AM

The British government should invite the Swedidh police to come over to the UK for another chat with Assange - inside the Ecuador Embassy.
Maybe that might sort things out!
BTW, the Swedes, the UK Government and the U.S. are drawing so much negative publicity over this matter that somebody better sort it out before too many average Joe's start questioning what the hell is going on!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 09:43 AM

Talk about the death penalty is probably beside the point. The likelihood is that if the US authorities get hold of Assange they willbang him up in some deomestic Abu Ghraib for the rest of his life. After all he published evidence about the ways in which the USA has acted as a rogue state, organising murder and sedition around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 11:45 AM

LizzieC: "The two women concerned, who seem to have had 'one night stands' with him, are saying he refused to use contraception when they asked. But it seems they still went ahead."

Not quite. Ms A appears to be accusing Assange of splitting a condom during fully (from beginning to end) consensual sex.

Assange wore a condom, per her request, but she suspects him of splitting it during coitus and not informing her.

At no point was the sex between then non-consensual.

The allegation consists of the possibility that the condom may have split during fully consensual coitus, and he failed to communicate the fact that the condom had split.

As George Galloway said, poor sexual conduct, but not rape.
Rape is non-consensual sex, not consensual sex "so long as you're not married" so long as you've "had the snip" so long as "you're a millionaire" etc.

In the case of Miss A, if true, then Assanges wrong, was deceitful behaviour during consensual sex, not rape.

Considering how tough it is to get a proper conviction for 'non-consensual sex', I don't like to see the term "rape" made a complete nonsense of for deeply dubious political purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 12:28 PM

Funny, this all reminds me of a discussion with a feminist friend of mine some years ago, who argued (wrongly in my view) that a man who failed to pay a prostitute for (willing) sexual services, was as guilty of rape as a man who had forced a woman to have non-consensual sex.

I had to explain to her the difference between non-consensual sex between adults and the breaking of a contract or verbal agreement between same. My analogy being the man she had to fit her double glazing. He fit her double glazing willingly, without the need for force or coercion, on the understanding that she would pay him after completion. Her failure to pay him, did not constitute force or coercion, but the breaking of an agreement. I don't think she ever got it though.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 02:21 PM

If the allegations about starting sex while the woman was asleep are true, it was rape. Assange should be tried on that allegation (if the evidence is any good - a decision taken every day in criminal matters).

I can't see why the USA would fit Assange up on the sex charges or at least sex charges as iffy as these. Why not fit him up for something more likely to stick?

I also don't see clearly why the risk of extradition from Sweden is much greater than that from the UK.

It does look very odd the way teh Swedish prosecution changed tack after probably political interference, but I gather that each senior prosecutor is independent so the decision of one to drop an investigation in no way prevents another from taking it on.

What I don't for a moment buy is the assertion that merely because the relevant extradition treaties reject extradition to face teh death penalty that would protect Assange once in the USA. The USA would merely extradite on a non-death penalty charge and then file fresh charges that did carry the death penalty.

Here is a list of 41 federal capital crimes. I suspect some of the recent extensions of state power may have added to the list.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001172#1

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 03:15 PM

The future of the world is definately not safe in American hands!
The ordinary people might be the salt of the earth, but alot of those in position of power are very,very dodgy!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 03:55 PM

"Why not fit him up for something more likely to stick?"


Come off it RB, sexual slurs (or threats about seeding same) have ever been the recourse of the crooks on high when they want to reign in an individual they're scared of.

What has happened is that the powers that be, are still relying on official news sources to inform the public of these "shocking revelations". They just haven't caught up yet.

Just like H. Clinton said about the increasing problem of publicly available international news sources, the US are "losing the information war".

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 04:25 PM

But, CS - not using, or splitting a condom, or sex with a sleeping partner - these are not the the accusations of which mass vilification are made. Paedophilia, bestiality, munging, felching, anilingus, assaults on the geriatric - these have the puke factor.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 04:35 PM

Eewey!
Thanks for the Googlebleurgh RB..
Munging? Maybe Hillary aught to win that war on information after all..

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 05:34 PM

Oh, come on people. It's obvious. The poor bloke did nothing. This is all about the US government putting innocent people in prison just because they are different. Native American? Swedish? Australian? Ecudorian? Who cares. They are all pinko liberal commies who want to destroy Uncle Sam. They are happy with the British government already because they have thought police who destroy all joy and make people sing dirges in dark cellars. Bring back the good old days when everyone smiled at each other, ate ice creams on day trips to Bangor and castrated unmarried fathers.

We never had rape or child abuse before facebook and it's evil minnions took over the world! Children danced around maypoles on village greens and American servicemen in smart uniforms tipped their hats while calling our rosey cheeked, giggling girlies "Ma'am". Funnily enough I don't recall having to wear my tinfoil hat back in 19-Larks Vomit to Candlewick either...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 22 Aug 12 - 05:45 PM

Oh dear..

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:28 AM

Yes, miss W's case is founded on the allegation that after having had consensual sex together a few hours previously, Assange initiated a second sexual encounter with her while she was (quote) "half asleep" she asked him if he was wearing a condom, to which he replied he was not, but she says she couldn't be bothered to get him to put one on, so they continued to have (evidently consensual at this point) sex together and he ejaculated inside her. Assange and W proceed to have sex together at another later point.

Initially both women only sought Assange to get an HIV test. Which he rejected. That to my mind is the biggest offence he committed.

Initiating sex with a sexual partner while they are half asleep, is a muddy area in my mind. It may technically constitute rape, but on the basis that sexual foreplay can take a variety of forms while a couple are naked and (both literally and metaphorically) sleeping together, some women may feel assaulted, while many others (me included) will not and instead experience it as a normal part of sexual foreplay (or in the words of Ian Dury "It's lovely when you're sleeping, but wide awake is best!)

I think the fact that when W asked if he was wearing a condom or not, she did not ask him to withdraw, did not ask him to put a condom on, or even shift her bum a few inches away from the pokey thing. And also the fact that she proceed to have sex with him again after this alleged incident, would tend to indicate that she didn't feel assaulted at the time.

The rape allegations only arose subsequent to A & W discussing their experiences with a journalist and each other. And we are told there are (unreleased) electronic messages between A & W discussing the money they could make in selling their stories to the press. Which would tend to cast doubt on the motives of A & W making such allegations at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:47 AM

"But, CS - not using, or splitting a condom, or sex with a sleeping partner - these are not the the accusations of which mass vilification are made."

I think it's the power of the word "Rape" (whether a technicality or not in these alleged instances is ultimately irrelevant) here, that matters. It's a word that carries a great deal of weight. It's a word that provokes images of sadism and violence.

I don't like Assange, by all accounts he's a bit of a creep, but I do believe he's being made a scapegoat of here. The internet is an incredible political tool, governments are being brought down by it, their hypocritical shit is being exposed on it, they're afraid of it. And they're afraid of high profile public figures who symbolise the power that the internet has to inform, expose and inspire action in the people. Like Hillary Clinton said they're (quote) "losing the information WAR". It's a war, and an individual like Assange represents the face of the enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 12 - 03:14 PM

Why not fit him up for something more likely to stick?

The present accusation seem to work very well so far as alienating a lot of people and media. And of course, if the suspicions about plans for extradition to America for wikileaks related accusations, there is no need for the sex accusations to stick, once they have got him to Sweden.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: ollaimh
Date: 23 Aug 12 - 03:26 PM

so q supports rendition. yikes, those albertan neo cons have drifted all they way to american neo con fascism. they seem prepared to violate evry human and civl right in the world.

and in addition to the reva;ations about the on going persecution of natives in the americas, which is continuation of the genocide, assange revealed essential information about the murders in iraq by private armies and many other things. he deserves to be pardoned for his public service.

i was on vacation--miss me?

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 12 - 04:38 PM

Assange did what vitally needs to be done in exposing the US government's dirty linen. He ought to get a medal for it.