Assange looks for asylum in Ecuador

Lets hope assange gets asylum the fact that the women were swedish christian democrats makes the whole thing seem fishy.

While TECHNICALLY the sexual assault allegations have nothing to do with wikileaks, lets be honest this has everything to do with wikileaks. Otherwise this wouldn't be so well publicized and Britain probably wouldn't have even looked for extradition. But they heard Assange and they jumped on a chance to lock him up.

Can you link me to an article or something about this change in strategy, because I can't find info on it.

Just look up China USSR relations, it would be all over there.

Or Stalinism, i think that was what it was called eventually

I'm making a habit of getting into these things late, but I am very surprised at the level of misinformation and ignorance there is surrounding the Assange affair in this forum.

I detest getting into the whole 'did Julian Assange Rape two women' debate because it is completely irrelevant to what the Debate should really be about. Anyone with a shred of intelligence is able to see that this is a prototypical ploy set about to get Julian Assange into hands of the U.S. government where a secret indictment has been drafted against him (as the recent Stratfor Leaks attest to).

But for those of you who still insist/are confused/ or think he is guilty of a rape crime - The facts are as follows:

1) Julian Assange is not charged with anything in Sweden or any other country.
[Source: @wikileaks]


2) Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.
[Source: Undue delay for Julian Assange’s interrogation]


3) The case against Julian Assange was initially dropped, and deemed so weak it could not warrant investigation. After the intervention of a Swedish politician close to American diplomats, it was revived by a different prosecutor. [Source: Why is Julian Assange in jail?]


4) In all instances, the 2 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange. [Sources: Swedish Police Report and The offences described in the EAW are not extradition offences]


5) A condom submitted as evidence by complainant AA, who claimed it had been deliberately torn by Julian Assange during sexual intercourse, contains no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian. [Source: Overlooked evidence in the Assange trial]


6) Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends contradict the factual allegations in the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued for Julian Assange and cast doubt on the allegations.
[Source: Brief to Canberra Meeting of MPs]


7) After the date of the alleged sexual misconduct: a) Complainant AA created then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating she was enjoying Julian Assange’s company; b) AA went as far as suggesting one of her friends (Witness C) should be intimate with Julian as well.
[Sources: AA: The Twitter Trail, Göran Rudling Witness Statement and Police Statement of Witness C]


8) The law firm hired in the Assange investigation is run by Claes Borgström (politician and legal representative for both plaintiffs) and by former minister Thomas Bodström. Both are members of the Social Democrat Party in Sweden. Bodström is a friend of police interrogator Irmeli Krans, who interrogated complainant SW. [Source: Irmeli Krans: The Facebook Trail]


9) Police interrogator Irmeli Krans is, in turn, friends with the other plaintiff, complainant AA, with whom she has political ties (Social Democrat Party). Krans also breached protocol by commenting negatively about Julian Assange on social media. [Source: Irmeli Krans: The Facebook Trail]


10) Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, refused to provide Julian Assange or his lawyers with information on the allegations against him in writing. This violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5), and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights.
Prosecution also refused all voluntary offers for cooperation that fit under Mutual Legal Assistance protocol, such as making use of alternative methods to interview Julian Assange.
[Sources: Fair Trial for Julian Assange? and Abuse of Process: Disproportionate use of EAW and INTERPOL Red Notice]


11) Both the EAW and the Interpol red notice were issued for Julian by Sweden just before WikiLeaks began to publish Cablegate. [Source: Brief to Canberra Meeting of MPs]


12) The allegations against Julian Assange do not constitute an offense in Australia or in the UK. [Source: The offences described in the EAW are not extradition offences]


13) If extradited to Sweden: still without charge, Julian Assange would be held incommunicado and placed under solitary confinement. Pre-trial detention would last for an indefinite period. Trial in Sweden would be held in secret. [Source: Fair Trial for Julian Assange?]


14) The Swedish legal system features lay judges who are appointed because of their political affiliations. They have no formal legal training. [Source: Lay Judges]


15) Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial). [Source: Fair Trial for Julian Assange?]


The real debate is about whether Julian Assange's Wikileaks Organisation has a right to exist. Only upon consensus on this subject can we argue whether or not his claim for asylum in Ecuador is justified.

Whether or not it has a right to exist (and for that matter, whether or not his claim for asylum is "justified") is irrelevant. His actions pose a direct threat to the international status quo, and particularly to US soft power. As a state, the US will act within its power to negate that threat, and whether or not they employ purely legal methods does not influence the correctness and effectiveness of their action. Take off the rose colored glasses for a moment and understand the position he's put us in. Assange is a dangerous man who is accountable to no one. His organization, by its nature, is accountable to no one. Even if you think what he's doing is "right", there's no question that he was aware of the consequences of his actions, and there's no doubt about the validity of that response.

He violated US Law, and he should therefore be made an enemy of the state, however, morally speaking and legally speaking, America steps outside of it's rights and powers to persecute him.

The problem is that he is not an American citizen, and he hasn't commited a crime on US soil, therefore The US has no right or means to persecute him, and ergo it is not correct to try and do this. I do agree it is in the US gov's best interest to silence him and preferably make him an example. But you fail to ascend petty 'personal' fight and see that bassically The US is Bullying someone into submission and that this is wrong.

I understand what you're saying, and it's well within my power to rebut it, but I simply don't care. An elevated sense of self-righteousness does nothing for me. If "morality" is all you've got, then it's just not worth it to bother correcting you.

That still doesn't make sense. Your point was that the US was entirely responsible for causing the Cold War, and yet this change in Soviet strategy apparently happened well after the Cold War already started, which means they are just as responsible for the Cold War as we are(it had already begun long before the Sino-Chinese split).

I was talking about the placing of right wing radical, often bordering nazi fuck American puppets being installed to make sure that the local (communist) populace wouldn't declare independance and join the east-blok.

Wich occured after this split, and wich actually relatesmtomthe topic due to the fact that the taliban and saddam are actually remnants of this, and the Iran situation was one an example of a complete failure to do this.

I'm having a lot of trouble reading your comment, but I think you are saying because we had puppet governments, we are at fault for the Cold War?

If that's the case then that's stupid, because the Soviets installed just as many puppets as we did.

My point is, afghanistan & iraq where those puppets, so to say we went in their to liberate the people, is retarded, because due to America they where put into that horrible situation in the first place, and then to be surprised that these people don't really like you and therefore justify a secret war with them, is well, immoral to say the least.

This was the point i was trying to make was, a shitty decision to try and control the world has come back to bite you in the ass (terrorism) so you plan too fight this threst by making the same shitty decision, and then justify it once more as protecting the safety of US citizens, whilst they weren't at risk or only because the government put them at risk.

First of all, when the hell was this the point you were trying to make? You were saying the US was solely responsible for the Cold war, and know you are just up and changing the subject.

Our main goal in the middle east was not to free the population(although that was a secondary goal). It was to hunt down those responsible for 9/11(at least in Afghanistan). Obviously there were other reasons, increasing the our influence in the region, ousting Sadddam and the Taliban (We never installed the Taliban, so how can that be coming back to bite us if we had nothing to do with them gaining power), and stabilizing the region. And I think if you ask the average afghan citizen they are alot happier under a democracy then they were under the Taliban.

Not really, being the lone super power has a lot of benefits, and we have basically crippled Al Queada. Terrorist attacks were a great risk(9/11?) and still are(but not nearly as big a threat as they were a decade ago). So our "shitty decisions" have seemed to pay off.

Thats what you all said after rhe cold war, and you supported the extremist resistance against the commies wich then formed the taliban, so yes you did pretty much install them. And I seriously was never talking about the entire dold war dipshit, we were talking about 'strongmen' being placed in countries to stop them becoming commie, you must of heard pf some guy named Diem in vietnam right? This was a tactic that was plainly retarded, and now you're paying the price.

I was merely stating that the only reason the US has a 'casus-belli' is because they themselves planted and watered the seed there. So get the point or stop going off-topic.

Wich in turn meant that you shouldn't be all like my country was attacked viciously for no reason lets kill them all, NO you guys were put in danger by your gov, for no reason, so why should you trust the gov, and give them unlimited powers to do the same thing. By basically letting them get away with war crimes etc.

Because frankly, there are 2 outcomes in afghanistan, return to the status quo, orreturn to the status quo 2-5 years after you guys leave. If you dont see this, than you need a lesson on afghan history...

Please specify which US Law he has violated. As far as I'm aware Assange has not violated or been charged of any crime with regard to his activities at Wikileaks.

I need to clarify the argument here; are you saying that the US, by virtue of the fact they are in power and that they maintain the status quo, are not subject to correctness or some sense of drawn out morality regarding their actions?

spreading classified documents is a felony right?

Stealing classified documents can, in some instances, deemed to be a felony. Publishing classified documents publicly is not.

Really,mcause i thought it was, ell mymbad iguess, then i withdraw all my support for Kali in this matter fuck it

We had nothing to do with the Taliban gaining power, they were supported and funded by Pakistan. The communist regime in Afghanistan had already fallen when the Taliban was formed, we were not supporting them and did have any hand in there formation.. Here do a little reading on the Taliban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Emergence

And yes, you were in fact talking about the Entire Cold War, remember this?

You were clearly talking about how you thought the US was responsible for the Cold War.

Look above, and when exactly have I been going of topic? All I have been doing is refuting the points you bring up.

Not really. How was our government responsible for 9/11 in any way? What war crimes has our government condoned? Can you give an example?

Those two points are the same. Your forgetting a third outcome where the democracy we helped set up succeeds, that's not impossible believe it or not. In fact it's a hell of alot more likely that would happen, then the Taliban regaining power.

lol you're right. Instead we funded and supported the Mujaheddin, who later turned into the Taliban. Ergo, we funded and armed the Taliban.