There is no evidence that the counter-terrorism activities concealed [in the Swedish-US counter-terrorism scandal] had any applicability whatsoever to Assange's personal case in Sweden: That insinuation comes from Assange and his legal team.
And they have the reason and grounds to be concerned. There is a precendence when it comes to how Sweden and the US's backroom deals and what you deem "routine in secret" when it comes to those the US labels as terrorists:
The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today.
In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001. The committee decided that Sweden’s involvement in the US transfer of Mohammed al-Zari to Egypt breached the absolute ban on torture, despite assurances of humane treatment provided by Egyptian authorities prior to the rendition.
(Source)
I think that comparing Assange's plight with that of
Mohammed al-Zari is a stretch. As I mentioned before, if such protocols had been in use concerning Assange he would already have taken that ride.
Is this what you meant by measuring up well?
No, as I have already noted, Assange is not a likely candidate for Special Rendition, and certainly not in the context of the rape case in Sweden.
And in a bit more detail of just how well they measure up:
In December 2001 Swedish police detained Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden. The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P. They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured according to an extensive investigate reports by Swedish programme "Kalla fakta".
(Source)
Yes, I understand how these men were mistreated. I do not think that Assange is in similar danger, because his visibility and the circumstances of his arrest are very different, now that Sweden has been through a national scandal over special rendition at U.S. behest, and now that a chastened Swedish government has
awarded these victims damages.
I don't buy into the whole spiel you're trying to flog in this thread about how safe you think Assange would be if he turned himself into Sweden.
I don't think you're comparing comparable cases here, in terms of how Sweden is likely to handle Assange. I would further argue that with what has been learned of special renditions in Sweden, it is unlikely that Sweden will be party to any similar abductions and extra-judicial abuse of terrorist suspects at the behest of the United States in the future. The notion that Assange is in danger of being treated like an obscure Arab terrorism suspect is facetious.
There would be no risk or fear of extradition to the US, and yet there is and with very good reason. The Swedish Government has proven itself to be not trustworthy.
Not in handling a case remotely comparable to the Assange warrant.
I don't think you've looked too much into this to make such a call.
Sweden is not a nation likely to repeat the mistakes they once made under the cover of a War on Terrorism that has been discredited there, in a much more highly-visible case like Assange's, that is about rape and not political terrorism.
Assange and his legal team, as well as Wikileaks have released the documents that show just how much Sweden has been complicit when it comes to what the US wants and they make sure to do it off the books, so to speak, to escape any Parliamentary or public scrutiny.
And I submit for your objective consideration that Sweden has been facing up to the excesses and injustices of the "War on Terror" that they were party to. Sweden is perceptibly out in front of the UK, in terms of putting to rest the mentality that led to the injustices you claim are likely to be repeated in the name of Assange's rape investigation warrant.
That conspiracy theory is very tenuous considering that in the USA the government is having very great difficulty, in spite of massive motive and effort, in making a viable legal case against Assange.
And as we saw in the past, they don't need to have a viable legal case to extradite someone or shift someone in the night, for lack of a better term.
Yes they do, Bells- especially now that Swedish courts and government have admitted past injustices concerning terrorism suspects, and awarded damages. Assange is in a very different situation than the abductees of years past in the War on Terror.
A note you should keep in mind the last time Sweden handed someone over in secret and off the books:
Agiza were sentensed a month ago to 25 years by a military court, that according to Human Rights Watch does "not meet international fair trial standards". Agiza testified that he had been tortured, but the court refused to investigate his claims.
You are not quoting legal precedent here. This was not a Swedish court. You may as well say that Assange must not answer the Swedish Warrant because of Zimbabwean notions of precedence in law. This note is foolish, Bells.
And keep in mind that you even had your Vice President calling him a terrorist .. So unless you're that gullible...?
Biden says many stupid things, but his thoughtless remarks do not govern Swedish law. Unless US courts can construct a case for charging Assange, and unless the UK will order Assange extradited to the US, Assange is in no jeopardy of extradition to the USA from Sweden.
There should be no fear of extradition to the US, but we have documentation from the US itself that Sweden has been happy to keep all terrorism discussions and investigations away from Parliamentary scrutiny.
Instead of focusing on that, you're saying he should go back to Sweden?
Yes. The sooner, the better- especially if Assange is (as I hope) innocent.
Who gives a shit if he does?
I think it matters if Assange is a sexual predator: If so, then he should be punished sufficiently to deter the behavior. I think it matters if Assange is innocent of the charges: If so, then we can move on with substantive investigations instead of insinuations of a conspiracy to frame him (if such evidence ever arises).
It has nothing to do with this topic and is a private matter.
This thread is about Assange's legal problems.
Unless of course you think Assange not putting a condom on his penis is an attempt to advance democracy...?
Bells, this is the sort of leading questions that amount to trolling in my opinion. You know that the allegations are about forced sex without a woman's consent.
Here you are changing subject again, and I consider this trolling as well. It is very difficult for any readers to wade through this sort of drive-by questioning. It is also very difficult for me to answer in context, and I suspect that this is a game of rope-a-dope, and not a sincere examination of what I'm expressing here.
As I have pointed out (repeatedly without your acknowledgement) WikiLeaks is in structural turmoil, and WikiLeaks mission is in continual compromise as a direct result of Assange's personal issues.
Any turmoil would be the result of their founder being hounded by the media and Swedish police, being called a terrorist by high level members of the US Government and other Governments, etc. His allegation of rape is a personal matter that has no bearing on the release of the documents - which have continued and which have been ignored due to all of you being so rapt up on whether he used a condom or not.
I have made no such assertions, as you are suggesting here. If you are not going to read my posts with comprehension, or if you wish to mischaracterize them to such an unrecognizeable extent, please don't post here. I've not disrespected you in this way.
I'll repeat my earlier request:
Could you elaborate on "people such as myself" please in a PM?
You're casting a lot of off-topic aspersions on me here, but won't talk them over with me in private. Why is that, Bells? Because what followed here in your post amounts to blatant ad-hominem and trolling, I'll invite you to discuss what I'm skipping of your above post in private channels.
And as has been asserted several times now, the "charge" does not exist. He was wanted for questioning. The court would never make it to court as the evidence has not changed and it was thrown out of court a few months ago because of a lack of evidence, something the judge in the UK commented on with the expectation that the charges would be dropped as before - hence granting him bail..
You do not know what evidence the Swedish prosecution has gathered.
Bells said:
The articles you have linked shows a journalistic zeal that indicates a complete lack of professionalism amongst the journalists breaking the rape story and investigating it.
That's quite a sweeping assertion there, Bells. I challenge it.
You are challenging that the media is more concerned with where he puts his penis than with the documents?
You are attempting to dismiss all that I have offered you as unprofessional work of zealots. You are also attempting to turn around a point on which we agree (and that I have well indicated throughout this thread) that Assange's personal problems are distracting from issues with even wider implications than these charges of rape.
You've been following their lead here in this thread.
Either do not understand my posts, or do not wish to. Please do not comment on my remarks if you are not willing to review your comprehension of them when repeatedly asked politely.
If we persist in trollish appeals to emotion over Assange's being accused of rape, we cannot go very deep in this discussion. The place for getting to the bottom of this is in court, and the time is now.
The previous Swedish prosecutor discredited the charges, as did the Swedish courts when they threw the charges out a mere few months ago.
We do not know why there has been a reversal, except for assurances from the Prosecutor that the warrant is not politically motivated.
You have had a parade of individuals from your government and supposed journalists and commentators in the US calling for his rendition, extradition and assasination for his release of the documents.
None of that has been shown to have anything to do with the Swedish Prosecutor's agenda, or mine for that matter.
More ad-hominem trolling, and ignoring of my discussion with you ensued from this point in your above post. Skipping on down...
Hype, you are writing one thing and then linking articles that completely contradict what you write.
I challenge that: Please drop the ad-hominems, and let's get back on topic, Bells.
We have provided you with countless links and quotes of interviews of just how much he refuses to discuss his rape allegations and how much he wants to discuss the documents released by Wikileaks and you ignore it, going back again to how he's not nice to women..
I do not dispute that Assange avoids addressing the rape allegations. As I have said, I think the place for that is in court, and as soon as possible. Please try and comprehend what I write, or do not comment on it.
You are distorting yourself.
I think we have ample evidence here that you are attempting distortion, while offering something less (I'm being charitable) of substance of your own here.
Assange's personal problem with accountability is deeply compromising the important WikiLeaks mission of holding prominent people accountable.
And he is holding the Swedish Government accountable for their actions in the past which could put his life in jeapordy.
I submit for your kind consideration that that would be best accomplished in court, and I challenge you to substantiate your allegation that the Swedish Government is jeopardizing Assange's life.
Wikileaks and other leading journalists and human rights advocates and lawyerse are saying that the actions of the Swedish Government appears to be highly politically motivated.
I am aware of those allegations, Bells- Can you substantiate them, or are you only distracting conversation here as a troll?
[s said:
Bells[/s]]Why does leadership of WikiLeaks provide Assange shelter from charges of rape?
That's right- You didn't ask me that. But can you answer?
Maybe because like the rest of the world, they can see that the charges appear to be politically motivated (as linked in a previous post in this thread)?
I have never been disputing that appearance with you. I am asking you about credible evidence for the conspiracy you are alleging.
Could that be it, do you think?
No, I have very carefully reviewed your posts, and I see no credible evidence of a conspiracy to frame Assange for rape. If I missed something credible, please point it out to me.
I agree with the mission statement of WikiLeaks. I have shown ample proof that Assange has come to interfere severely with that mission, in a pattern of irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.
And also personal that has nothing to do with Wikileaks at all..
Nonsense: Assange's behavior has a great deal to do with his professional effectiveness. You are not reading my patient responses and explanations to you with even basic comprehension. Since you are certainly not stupid, I consider this trolling.
God, you remind me of the Republicans who gunned for Clinton because of a blue dress..
Well I'm not like them. Clinton was never accused of raping Monica Lewinsky. To equate the allegations of these cases is not harmless intellectual laziness.
I am certain that (considering more than only this thread) I have addressed not a few WikiLeaks releases, and [with] a respectable attention to detail. I won't characterize your contributions in comparison to mine, because that's not the sort of contest I'm interested in. If you would read my posts with a little more effort at comprehension, you would already understand this.
Good, thank you.
Because everyone else in this thread and elsewhere around the world who have stated and shown why he should be concerned about returning to Sweden because of what we know about the 'special relationship' between Sweden and the US are wrong and you are right.
Yes, that is what I am trying to show: That there is no credible evidence that Sweden will deliver Assange for treatment like an unknown Arab Terrorist (special rendition); that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy to frame Assange for rape. That is my challenge to you: Please substantiate these theories, and please do not ignore and distort evidence I present here to the contrary, and please do not make ad-hominum appeals and insults, because doing those things is disrespectful to me, is against our Forum Rules, and is a lousy example to be setting as a staff member. I hope to discuss this problem in more detail with you privately, where it is not off topic.
There has been no credible proof that the timing was other than coincidental. I challenge you to produce evidence here supporting your assertion.
The previous allegation of rape (which was subsequently thrown out and dropped due to lack of evidence that it was rape) came about after the previous document dump.
I know that there was vague simulteneity. That is not evidence of a link. I can appeal for respect and attention to information presented here, and carefully read your posts, all in a similar window of time as you degenerate this thread- but that does not make me responsible for your refusal to reciprocate.
The allegations and hounding of Assange by the Swedish Government comes about after the release of diplomatic cables..
That does not establish a credible link, Bells. Many different things are happening around the world at this moment. This does not mean that they are all connected in some conspiratorial way.
For normal people, 2x2 is usually answered with 4. You're coming up with 3 and demand evidence that has been provided in this and the other thread about the timing..
No, you are presenting a logical fallacy and accusing me of being the troll. Please stop it.
I think that if we would take specific issues one at a time, it would be better. It is a common variation of "trolling" to pepper a target of personal attack with a series of leading questions, without following up in any substantive way. You are using hit-and-run tactics to avoid and distract from a substantive discussion here.
And you are concentrating on where he puts his penis instead of addressing how he will be punished for attempting to advance democracy.
You are using vulgar repetition to misrepresent what I have posted here. This is just not up to snuff, Bells.
Now, unless it is your assertion that the rape allegations are a punishment for his releasing the documents, you really have no cause or reason to call me a troll...
Patent nonsense and fallacy.
you really have no cause or reason to call me a troll for trying to keep you on topic and questioning you about your motives in this thread.
I have been trying very hard to stay on topic, and I think that upon review, it shows. My motives are not the subject of this thread. If you would like to learn about my motives, then ask me about them where it is more appropriate and i will fully explain anything about my motives that interests you.
It is clear that you don't like the man personally.
I don't know Julian Assange personally. I don't like him as leader of WikiLeaks: I thing he's run it into the gutter, and I've explained here why I think that.
You have accused him of disregarding Wikileaks mission - without proof -
That is not true, Bells.
You want him to face charges in Sweden for rape...
Yes. Thank you for comprehending that; I know that I'm not always easy to follow.
(again, [the rape allegations against Assange are] completely unrelated to this thread)
That is not true, Bells.
You want him to face charges in Sweden for rape... when all evidence points to the dangers to himself if he does so.
I've looked carefully, through this rambling thread several times, but I've seen no credible evidence here to support your assertion. Please point it out.
You then went on to accuse him of not protecting his sources and putting them in danger...
Good- that's right. As various of his former associates have corroborated, Assange's obsession with massive releases of sensational war logs has been irresponsible, because it is difficult to impossible to protect sources from large-dump forensics, and problematic to redact names and situations identifying people for retribution and victimization. I too want the stories out mind you, but I want them out through responsible source-protective channels, that can best protect sources and bystanders in events described.
...and all proof points to his never once naming [Bradley Manning] as an associate...
I have not accused Assange of outing Manning by name. In my opinion legal defense funds that should rightfully be put to work for Manning are being squandered in the evasion of the Swedish investigation into allegations of rape by Assange.
that may be true- I have not challenged that.
You have repeatedly failed to meet any standards of proof - for example, your assertion that his former staff and associates leaving because they don't like him ignoring their allegations against him personally...
Bells, this isn't even close to anything I've posted. Please quote me and don't paraphrase, because you are having a very hard time understanding what I have written. I will try to be more clear, and I will be happy to make what I write clearer, if you will please just quote what I have written in situations like this instead of writing what you think I said.
...your own links showed that [Daniel Domscheit-Berg and others] were starting a rival organisation (which you then went on to deny they were doing even though your own links stated they were)..
I disagreed with your characterization of OpenLeaks. This is not the same thing as denying what has transpired. OpenLeaks shares the same mission as WikiLeaks, but is using selected journalists as the retailers or front-end. People involved in this movement trend toward idealism, and overall there is not an atmospheric of economic or political competition. Although Assange's poor performance has created bad personal feelings, there has never been expressed a vendetta against the Wikileaks organization by past WL associates.
And you accuse me of hit and run tactics and trolling?
Indeed.
The subject of this thread is how would he be punished for trying to advance democracy and you come out with he's bad to women?
The premise of the OP is that Assange is being smeared in order to discourage "bringing important news and information to the public... [provision of] an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. [Publishing of] material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of ... sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices" (as expressed in the WL mission statement).
What the hell Hype?[]/quote]Hells, Bells: The thread was started alleging conspiracies. It is legitimate to challenge them here.
I point out to you that the allegations have all appearances of being politically motivated...
That's not evidence, my dear Bells.
...and you go on and on about his being charged with rape (even though he hasn't even been charged yet)..
You're repeatedly playing at semantics while repeatedly missing the point.
Now, unless it is your assertion that the rape allegations is his punishment, it is you who have been consistently off topic in this thread.
Nonsense; fallacy.
And you accuse me of trolling and using hit and run tactics?
Yes. Please stop it.
Love,
-hypewaders
