- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 16,948
- Reaction score
- 6,740
- Location
- midwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Probably because he knows that he will be shot dead the second he sticks his head out in the open.
Why does an innocent person hide in an embassy for years?
Probably because he knows that he will be shot dead the second he sticks his head out in the open.
Tigerace117:
You call Mr. Assange a criminal but he has been convicted of nothing in this matter. What happened to the presumption of innocence? If an innocent person believes that his prosecution for a crime is being done for political reasons and that prosecution could result in his extradition and permanent imprisonment without due legal process by a third-party state then that seems pretty reasonable in my mind. The fact that the US Government squirrels away non-citizens in places like black prisons, on ships at sea and at Guantanamo Bay makes these suspicions more rational and less paranoia.
Did you read the details of the case against Assange which I posted above? He did not sexually assault anyone by the alleged victims' own admissions. They both consented to having sex with him and did not explicitly retract their consents to him, instead choosing to remain silent and suffer the intercourse which followed. They both allowed Mr. Assange to stay with them after the alleged sexual improprieties/assaults and one victim even hosted a party for him after the alleged sexual misconduct had occurred. Swedish authorities investigated the allegations against Mr. Assad and decided to shelve the case based on its weak merits. Then all of a sudden as Assange becomes a real problem for certain governments all around the world, the case is active again with no new evidence or new victims reporting alleged misconduct. That, in conjunction with all the other peculiar circumstances surrounding the Assange case, means that what you call paranoia may well be a rational and reasonable fear about the motives of Swedish prosecutors or their political bosses in reopening the case and going after Mr. Assange for a second time.
This was not rape in the sense of the word as most people understand it. Mr. Assange committed what might be called sexual misconduct by repeatedly refusing to use a condom even though he relented in each instance eventually and used one. The broken condom issue is down to a he said/she said evaluation and Swedish authorities realised this was an unwinnable and probably frivolous prosecution. To characterise this as rape is disingenuous and only serves to inflame the emotions of those who don't bother to read the particulars of the case.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Probably because he knows that he will be shot dead the second he sticks his head out in the open.
9/21/18
Russian officials reportedly discussed plans with an Ecuadorian minister to smuggle Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from the country's embassy in London to safe haven in Russia, according to a new report. The Guardian reports that Ecuador's former London consul, Fidel Narváez, served as Assange's top ally in the ground-floor London facility where Assange has been staying for months as he faces what he calls politically-motivated charges of sexual assault and rape in Sweden. According to The Guardian, Narváez and Russian officials discussed a plan to move Assange out of the embassy via diplomatic vehicle before eventually facilitating his travel to Russia or possibly another country. The plan, originally set for Christmas Eve 2017, was abandoned due to thoughts it was "too risky," according to the report. Assange's possibility of travel to Ecuador by boat was also discussed.
Plans to move Assange were reportedly supported by other members of Ecuador's government as well, with The Guardian reporting that the country's intelligence chief, Rommy Vallejo, traveled to London in mid-December to oversee the operation before it was abandoned.
Four separate sources told the newspaper that the Kremlin was supportive of the plan, and added that an unidentified Russian businessman served as an intermediary between the two governments.
What needs to be noted here is that London could easily make this case go away by providing back door assurances that he would be arrested for his breach of bail, quickly released and his passport returned so he could make safe passage to wherever. But London refuses to do this, since it is deeply subservient to Washington..
Right on cue, a Russian advocates bypassing the rule of law.
What I'm advocating is that London asserts its own laws, and seeks to protect Assange from extra-judicial and illegal US extradition requests.
But London is incapable of doing anything but prostrating itself before its slave master. Consequently, and uncomfortably, it is happy to continually breach human rights and ignore all criticisms of its barbaric stance.
I'm surprised you had nothing to say about the UN Working Group's fierce criticism of the UK's de facto detention of Assange.
#selectivehumanrights
Assange is hiding in the Ecuadoran embassy. He's a paranoid criminal.
Assange is hiding in the Ecuadoran embassy. He's a paranoid criminal.
The Laurel and Hardy Obama FBI failed to examine the DNC computers when this first broke. Except for possible partisanship and coverup there is no other explanation for this failure to investigate. That makes all democrat claims that Russia gave the emails to Assange nothing but speculation without support.
Here's what the UN Working Group said. Maybe people should actually read it.
Working Group on Arbitrary DetentionThe UK and Swedish governments rejected the report.[33] Then-UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Philip Hammond, said the claim was "ridiculous" and that the group was "made up of lay people", and called Assange a "fugitive from justice" who "can come out any time he chooses".[34] On 13th February 2018, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, while considering whether the arrest warrant issued against Assange should be upheld, rejected the findings of the Working Group, stating in part that "The group appears to have based its conclusions on some misunderstandings of what occurred after Mr Assange’s arrest." Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) Emma Arbuthnot did not findt that Mr Assange’s stay in the Embassy was "inappropriate, unjust, unpredictable, unreasonable, unnecessary or disproportionate." [40] [41].
Why should Assange be given preferential treatment just because of (perceived) embarrassment for the British government? Would it be justifiable to treat a suspect more harshly to avoid political embarrassment too?The Assange situation is embarrassing for London, which has been criticised widely by human rights groups.
What needs to be noted here is that London could easily make this case go away by providing back door assurances that he would be arrested for his breach of bail, quickly released and his passport returned so he could make safe passage to wherever. But London refuses to do this, since it is deeply subservient to Washington.
Assange remains as free to leave the embassy as he was from day one. Any “human rights abuses” from his being there are entirely of his own making.So this shocking human rights abuse continues.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?