WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

CJ - A point of clarification and a note.

The warrant issued by Sweden was issued by a second prosecutor. It wasn't the same person who issued the first warrant for Assange. I'm not sure if it's been pointed out that it's a different person leading investigation.

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for Assange was issued on Dec 7 (time unknown, timezone CEST?). This is probably why Assange turned himself in. If a person surrenders themselves the State has only 10 days to decide whether to extradite the person. If arrested, the State has 90 days. At the close of today, it will have been 10 days. Assange will either be extradited to Sweden in the next ~4hrs (~5hrs if by GMT) or the EAW expires. I'm not sure what the limits are on re-filing for a EAW are or if Sweden can. It looks less and less like Assange will be going to Sweden.

Thank you for the clarification. I thought the prosecutor to the Swedish
government is one entity and since the senior prosecutor dismissed Assange, I did not think, that another state prosecutor could overrule said decision. Interesting.

Also, thank you for that information on EAW procedures. It was strategically important for Assange to turn himself in, as he would know
within 10 days what will happen. It will be very interesting to see what
will happen now. It's 9 pm in Europe now - either the EAW was already
filed or dropped.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Except for a brief response to Finn, i've just been reading along. I put my oar in at the point at which i became tired of ridiculous assertions which are not being offered as opinions, but which also aren't substantiated.

When was that? I think I missed your oar.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

For sure. To Assange's credit (and perhaps to his lawyer's credit) he has done well not to name the women.

It would be a public service to all men to be warn about women who are willing to bring criminal charges of not using a condoms against their sexual partners.

Somehow I question if a large percents of men would be eager to jump into bed with such women.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

It would be a public service to all men to be warn about women who are willing to bring criminal charges of not using a condoms against their sexual partners.

It is my understanding that the women (or woman) consented to have sex with Assange until she suggested he use a condom. He then held the woman down and "raped . " her. Would you agree that was rape?

3 Replies

@failures art,

I don't understand this. Why is he under house arrest until sometime in January for the next court hearing if it's all moot in a matter of hours?

1 Reply

@Pemerson,

Oh, please.... please take this to the rape thread.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

The warrant issued by Sweden was issued by a second prosecutor. It wasn't the same person who issued the first warrant for Assange. I'm not sure if it's been pointed out that it's a different person leading investigation.

I read that there were three fa, and all women, presumably of a certain age. On the say so of the narrator in King Solomon's Mines women are the same the world over, and he was speaking of Foulata, that wonderful example of womanhood, it could be said, if a bit fancifully, that there was really only one. They would tend to think alike for bureaucratic reasons as well.

It's an interesting point you raise about the rules. That must be why the news broadcasts said that he turned himself in and was arrested. I can't see how "turning oneself in" has legal status. It implies arresting oneself and as only police officers arrest people it constitutes, it seems to me, impersonating a police officer. Supposing he was turning himself in with all the media scrum outside and changed his mind at the last moment. A great deal might hinge on minds being changed at the last moment. He is either arrested or he is not. Until he is he's free. It's an interesting glimpse into the fine print.

I hope my fate never hangs upon so slender a thread.

0 Replies

@Pemerson,

That is not my understanding but that he promised to used a condom and then did not do so a fact that she was unaware of until he came inside of her.

That is rape when a woman lying to a man about being on the pill is rape.

Second he is not charge with rape to this day he is being look at for a charge of "sex by surprise" or some such silliness and if he held her down it would had been rape and he would had been charge in any country in the world with rape.

0 Replies

@Pemerson,

Pemerson wrote:

It is my understanding that the women (or woman) consented to have sex with Assange until she suggested he use a condom. He then held the woman down and "raped . " her.

Well, your Swedish certainly seems to be better than that of those who translated it for the non-Swedish media. And for the Swedish news-pages in English.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Despite some claims that nobody is trying to intimidate Assange's accusors, it appears that groups of Assange's supporters are aiming to do exactly that. I doubt Assange would want this, so it's good he's not publicaly named Ms A and Ms W.

But their names were public knowledge surely. He gets the gallantry free.

On your NYT quote ---our enemies will always use the weapons we have made when they have advantages over their own and we show them how they work. I'm not sure the Popes would have allowed that.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I put my oar in after i had responded to you. It's hardly my fault if you weren't paying attention when i responded to you.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta's right about that. It wasn't his fault. It never is.

I was paying attention and I read Setanta's post. I read all the posts on the threads I contribute to. Not that I can remember what it was about.

It probably meant that none of us know what we are talking about and are thus, it follows logically, wasting our time discussing the case.

And I can't honestly say that isn't true. Although having fun might not be wasting time.

0 Replies

I just heard Assange on the radio. He is saying, basically, that the Swedes dusted off old charges in attempt to get him to Sweden, from whence they would extradite him to the United States.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Never thought Sweden was a puppet state for the US. How disgusting!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Never thought Sweden was a puppet state for the US. How disgusting!

They are cozying up to the US in large part to try and deflect attention from recent inquiries into their secret banking system.

Cyclotpichorn

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Who said anything was your fault?

When did you respond to me? Recently or earlier in the thread?

I see that you recently responded to F ART, but can't find one, during the same time period, directed to me.

You should feel flattered that I'm interested in what you have to post, but if you don't care to assist me in finding it, no sweat off my nose.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I don't understand this. Why is he under house arrest until sometime in January for the next court hearing if it's all moot in a matter of hours?

House arrest was something the UK did. The EAW was the work of the Swedes. The EAW is a document of the EU. As another note on the EAW, it only allows for extradition from one EU state to another. The house arrest and the filing for the EAW are separate actions.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

I've been searching around trying to understand this, f_art, but I'm not seeing anything in media reports that talks about a 10 day expiration of the EAW. He's what the Guardian was saying yesterday...

Quote:

What happens next?

A full extradition hearing should normally take place within 21 days of the arrest. Mr Assange was arrested on 7 December, so this should be by 28 December.

However, in a case as high profile as this, it is possible that a full extradition hearing will not take place for several months.

At that hearing Mr Assange will be able to challenge the warrant and raise any defences to the extradition request.

The key grounds on which a court can refuse an extradition request under the EAW scheme are technical.

For example, that you are not the person named in the EAW, that it has not been properly completed, or that the time limit for prosecuting the offence has expired. More Issues with the EAW

1 Reply

@failures art,

That doesn't help, really. Why is he under house arrest if not to wait for his hearing for extradition to Sweden?

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

Of course, claiming "politics" is a typical legal strategy for public figures accused of a crime.

Yes, defending yourself when you are innocent is also a sure sign of an autistic paranoid.

0 Replies

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know