Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Lowestoft Online Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

    Advanced search

Lowestoft Online > Community > General Community > Debating Chambers > Topic: Julian Assange - unfair harrassment?!
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this board.
Pages: [1] | Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Julian Assange - unfair harrassment?!  (Read 235 times)
JollyJapes
Guest
Julian Assange - unfair harrassment?! « Posted: 14 January 2012 at 12:54 PM »
Whilst this may be pasted from elsewhere, they encompass my own thoughts and feelings on the matter.  What do you think?! 


15 Overlooked Facts About the Assange Extradition Case


1  Julian Assange is not charged with anything in Sweden or any other country.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

8  The law firm hired in the Assange investigation is ran by Claes Borgström (politician and legal representative for both plaintiffs) and by former minister Thomas Bodström. Both are members of the Swedish Democratic Party. Bodström is a friend of police interrogator Irmeli Krans, who interrogated complainant SW.

9  Police interrogator Irmeli Krans is, in turn, friends with one of the plaintiffs, complainant AA, with whom she has political ties (Swedish Democratic Party). Krans also breached protocol by commenting negatively about Julian Assange on social media.

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.

11  Both the EAW and the Interpol red notice were issued for Julian by Sweden just before WikiLeaks began to publish Cablegate.

12  The allegations against Julian Assange do not constitute an offense in Australia or in the UK.

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.

14  The Swedish legal system features lay judges who are appointed because of their political affiliations. They have no formal legal training.

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).


Conclusion

Julian Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning. According to the law, Julian is not required to be present in the country for the interview to take place. It could instead be conducted using alternative methods, such as a simple phonecall.  On the 13th July 2011, during an extradition appeal hearing, Judges on the case asked why this did not happen:

”Why go through all of this if Mr. Assange offered to be interviewed?”
”Why does judicial corporation not entail… sensible steps to get on with it?”

Prosecution, however, continuously refuses to interview Julian in the UK, insisting he must be extradited to Sweden for interrogation. For this purpose an European Arrest Warrant was issued by Sweden, in disregard for one of its basic restrictions: an EAW is for prosecution purposes only.  The extradition to Sweden insisted upon by prosecution would facilitate subsequent extradition to the US, as Sweden never once denied a US extradition request. Therefore, the Swedish case against Julian Assange cannot be dissociated from the ongoing US Grand Jury investigation on WikiLeaks. As such, it is extremely important any opinion formed on this specific subject be based on facts.

This list of 15 facts is mostly based on information originally put together by Christine Assange (twitter account: @AssangeC), and it covers crucial aspects about irregularities and political interest in Sweden’s extradition case against Julian Assange. These important details are often ignored or misrepresented by the media.


http://notesonwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/15251907983/assange-extradition-fact-sheet
Logged
JustStu
Lowestoft Online Addict
*******
Gender: Male
Posts: 1040
Re: Julian Assange - unfair harrassment?! « Reply #1 Posted: 14 January 2012 at 04:09 PM »
If he's so innocent of all accusations, why is he so reluctant to go to Sweden for interviewing?
Logged
I told my girlfriend I had a job in a bowling alley. She said 'Tenpin?' I said, 'No, permanent.'
JollyJapes
Guest
Re: Julian Assange - unfair harrassment?! « Reply #2 Posted: 14 January 2012 at 06:20 PM »
I thought that was obvious!  lol

Sweden has a reputation for always giving in to USA requests for extradition.  Assange is worried that once on Swedish soil, he could simply 'disappear' and finally reappear held by American forces on suspicion of any number of allegations.  Under US law, they can hold anyone suspected of terrorist activities without charge or even showing any evidence, for as long as they wish. 

In other words, if he goes to Sweden, the odds are on him disappearing and not seeing freedom once more for many many years - despite no trial or even charges being brought.  In this game, justice and the moral right do not apply. 
Logged
Pages: [1] | Go Up
Print
Admin options
Jump to: