Assange's statement

[The Todal]

Prepared and published in November last. An interesting read. I don't
know whom it's aimed at, and it hasn't had very much publicity.

https://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/assange-statement-2016.html

[John]

"The Todal" wrote

> Prepared and published in November last. An interesting read. I don't know
> whom it's aimed at, and it hasn't had very much publicity.
>
> https://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/assange-statement-2016.html

I saw it about a week (or so) ago.

John.

[F Murtz]

Definitely guilty according to many posters to this group who seem to
know all about it.

[The Todal]

Whether or not he's guilty of rape, he's definitely trying to evade any
trial in Sweden and is pretending that he fears being extradited from
Sweden to the USA.

He's not entirely honest, is he? He told the world that the American
establishment would prevent Donald Trump's election as President. He
also claimed that Russia had no part in leaking any of the Clinton
emails to the press.

Whether he's a useful idiot or a minor player in the conspiracy to
defeat Clinton, he's certainly a vain chap who likes to be the centre of
attention.

If there were no rape allegations I am quite sure he'd relish the
prospect of being extradited to the USA to face a trial, knowing that
there is plenty of money available to buy him the best defence lawyers
and to embarrass the US government by asserting a right to free speech.

[Judith]

Absolutely bloody awful.
I was not a great Assange fan - but I now have a lot of sympathy for him.

I can see why the Swedish prosecutor was not happy with the release of the
statement.

[Judith]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:30:09 +1100, F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>John wrote:
>> "The Todal" wrote
>>
>>> Prepared and published in November last. An interesting read. I don't know
>>> whom it's aimed at, and it hasn't had very much publicity.
>>>

>>> https://justice4assange.com/IMG/Ihtml/assange-statement-2016.html

>>
>> I saw it about a week (or so) ago.
>>
>> John.
>>
>>
>
>
>Definitely guilty according to many posters to this group who seem to
>know all about it.

I guess you mean the American Government - I fully agree.

If you don't - perhaps you could explain further.

"With appropriate diplomatic pressure, these governments may cooperate in
bringing Assange to justice. But if they refuse, the United States can arrest
Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval."
Legal advice from the US Department of Justice.

So if they wanted to they can come to say the UK and arrest someone without the
Government's knowledge or approval. That's nice.

[F Murtz]

I was referring to very strong comments in the past on this subject
where certain posters said assertively that he was a rapist with out
having one iota of proof except slanted reported rubbish in the media.

[Incubus]

That really adds to the discussion.

[Handsome Jack]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> posted

>On 12/12/2016 10:30, F Murtz wrote:
>>> "The Todal" wrote
>>>
>>>> Prepared and published in November last. An interesting read. I don't
>>>> know
>>>> whom it's aimed at, and it hasn't had very much publicity.
>>>>
>>>> https://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/assange-statement-2016.html

Thanks for posting this, I didn't know about it.

>> Definitely guilty according to many posters to this group who seem to
>> know all about it.
>
>Whether or not he's guilty of rape, he's definitely trying to evade any
>trial in Sweden and is pretending that he fears being extradited from
>Sweden to the USA.

It may be your *opinion* that he is trying to evade trial in Sweden, and
that he is only pretending to fear extradition to the US. But neither of
those is "definite" in the sense of being provable assertions.

>He's not entirely honest, is he? He told the world that the American
>establishment would prevent Donald Trump's election as President.

Did he? If so, he was wrong. But not necessarily dishonest.

> He also claimed that Russia had no part in leaking any of the Clinton
>emails to the press.

Nothing dishonest about that. I don't believe they did either.

>Whether he's a useful idiot or a minor player in the conspiracy to
>defeat Clinton, he's certainly a vain chap who likes to be the centre
>of attention.

So you keep saying. I can't understand why you are so convinced that
anyone here gives a fuck about Assange's alleged minor personality
defects, though.

>If there were no rape allegations I am quite sure he'd relish the
>prospect of being extradited to the USA to face a trial, knowing that
>there is plenty of money available to buy him the best defence lawyers
>and to embarrass the US government by asserting a right to free speech.

That's why he has been hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy for the last X
years is it? Nothing to do with Bradley Manning's 35-year prison
sentence? What a complete load of bollocks.

--
Jack

[The Todal]

On 12/12/2016 13:02, Judith wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:30:09 +1100, F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John wrote:
>>> "The Todal" wrote
>>>
>>>> Prepared and published in November last. An interesting read. I don't know
>>>> whom it's aimed at, and it hasn't had very much publicity.
>>>>
>>>> https://justice4assange.com/IMG/Ihtml/assange-statement-2016.html
>>>
>>> I saw it about a week (or so) ago.
>>>
>>> John.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Definitely guilty according to many posters to this group who seem to
>> know all about it.
>
> I guess you mean the American Government - I fully agree.
>
> If you don't - perhaps you could explain further.
>
> "With appropriate diplomatic pressure, these governments may cooperate in
> bringing Assange to justice. But if they refuse, the United States can arrest
> Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval."
> Legal advice from the US Department of Justice.

That, apparently, was legal advice dating from 1989 which of course
pre-dated the Assange situation. I think Assange is now trying to make
the journalist Mark Thiessen a spokesman for the US government, which
obviously he isn't.

It's certainly an interesting piece of legal advice, though.
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/olc_override.pdf

Long and complex though it is, I think the true meaning is that a US
court won't throw out a prosecution based on the argument that the
defendant was apprehended in a foreign country in circumstances that
violated the laws of that country.

>
> So if they wanted to they can come to say the UK and arrest someone without the
> Government's knowledge or approval. That's nice.
>

It seems to me that this is basically what "extraordinary rendition" is,
ie a process of kidnapping people and taking them either to the USA or
to another friendly country where they can be tortured.

The problem being that the UK has in the past colluded with the USA in
this process and the people involved have not been held to account.

Israel has kidnapped people from foreign countries in order to put them
on trial in Israel. Adolf Eichmann is the obvious example. Mordechai
Vanunu a more recent example.

If Assange genuinely believes that the USA could seize him from the
streets of the UK or Sweden, then obviously any reassurances from those
governments must be valueless. So what's his point? That Sweden should
abandon its attempts to extradite him and the UK should allow him to
leave the embassy without being arrested, all so that the CIA can creep
up on him in any London street and fly him to America?

[The Todal]

On 12/12/2016 12:58, Judith wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:37:29 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> Prepared and published in November last. An interesting read. I don't
>> know whom it's aimed at, and it hasn't had very much publicity.
>>
>> https://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/assange-statement-2016.html
>
>
> Absolutely bloody awful.
> I was not a great Assange fan - but I now have a lot of sympathy for him.

I have hardly any sympathy for him, mainly because he misrepresents the
truth. Or to put it more bluntly, in an attempt to sway public opinion
he tells fibs.

>
> I can see why the Swedish prosecutor was not happy with the release of the
> statement.
>

I know he "defied" the prosecutor by releasing the statement but I
haven't read anything to indicate that she was not happy. In fact I
can't see anything that would make her unhappy.

[Judith]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:36:20 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> I can see why the Swedish prosecutor was not happy with the release of the
>> statement.
>>
>
>I know he "defied" the prosecutor by releasing the statement but I
>haven't read anything to indicate that she was not happy. In fact I
>can't see anything that would make her unhappy.

Yes - I was wrong there - I thought I had read that they were unhappy with his
release of the statement.

What do you think about the actions that the Swedish Prosecutors have taken or
not taken regarding this case?

As I said: I was no great fan of his; but I think the statement shows some
interesting facts about the case.

eg I don't understand why they won't release the actual copies of the text
messages.

[JNugent]

On 12/12/2016 13:53, Handsome Jack wrote:

> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> posted
>> On 12/12/2016 10:30, F Murtz wrote:
>>>> "The Todal" wrote
>
>>>>> Prepared and published in November last. An interesting read. I don't
>>>>> know whom it's aimed at, and it hasn't had very much publicity.

>>>>> https://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/assange-statement-2016.html

> Thanks for posting this, I didn't know about it.

>>> Definitely guilty according to many posters to this group who seem to
>>> know all about it.

>> Whether or not he's guilty of rape, he's definitely trying to evade
>> any trial in Sweden and is pretending that he fears being extradited
>> from Sweden to the USA.

> It may be your *opinion* that he is trying to evade trial in Sweden, and
> that he is only pretending to fear extradition to the US. But neither of
> those is "definite" in the sense of being provable assertions.

What?

It is *certain* that he is trying to evade (well, avoid) trial in Sweden.

If he weren't, he would not have broken his bail conditions (costing
some very silly people a lot of money in so doing) and would not have
sought "asylum" in that embassy.

[The Todal]

On 12/12/2016 15:20, pamela wrote:

> The case against Assange is thin at best but the Swedish
> authroities have thrown the book at him in a way which is
> surprising even by their own rather unusual legals standards for
> sexual assault and more so by our own. In the end a UN panel
> decided Assange's years in the Ecuadorian embassy amount to
> arbitrary detention.
>
> I suspect Assange's fears at being extradited to the U.S. are very
> real. Although Sweden prides its independence, the U.S. could
> choose to exert a lot of pressure to make the Swedes give in.
>
> The UN special rapporteur on torture formally accused the U.S.
> government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards
> Bradley Manning during his year in solitary. Assange might be
> right to expect a similar welcome from the U.S. authorities.
>

There's a huge difference between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

Manning was an employee of the US Military and was entrusted with highly
sensitive information. He wilfully leaked that information. I admire him
for doing so, but it is not surprising that he was prosecuted and
gaoled. The cruel and inhuman treatment is unfortunately typical of the
US treatment of many of its prisoners.

Assange was merely a middle-man between Manning and the editors of the
Guardian, the New York Times and other editors. It's difficult to see
how his criminality was worse than that of the editors.

[Handsome Jack]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> posted

You've ignored the possibility that he is willing to stand trial in
Sweden, but not willing to run the risk of being extradited from there
to the USA. That is a perfectly consistent explanation of why he jumped
bail and sought asylum.

--
Jack

[JNugent]

If he were willing to stand trial for alleged rape in Sweden, it would
all have happened by now.

What evidence do you have to the effect that the USA is seeking his
extradition, and what is the charge?

[Handsome Jack]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> posted
>On 12/12/2016 18:48, Handsome Jack wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> posted
>>> On 12/12/2016 13:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
>
>>>> It may be your *opinion* that he is trying to evade trial in Sweden, and
>>>> that he is only pretending to fear extradition to the US. But neither of
>>>> those is "definite" in the sense of being provable assertions.
>
>>> What?
>>> It is *certain* that he is trying to evade (well, avoid) trial in Sweden.
>>> If he weren't, he would not have broken his bail conditions (costing
>>> some very silly people a lot of money in so doing) and would not have
>>> sought "asylum" in that embassy.
>
>> You've ignored the possibility that he is willing to stand trial in
>> Sweden, but not willing to run the risk of being extradited from there
>> to the USA. That is a perfectly consistent explanation of why he jumped
>> bail and sought asylum.
>
>If he were willing to stand trial for alleged rape in Sweden, it would
>all have happened by now.

You don't seem to have addressed my point in the slightest. I wish I had
put it in plainer language, but I can't see how I could have done. I'm
sorry I can't help you any further.

>What evidence do you have to the effect that the USA is seeking his
>extradition, and what is the charge?

--
Jack

[John]

"F Murtz" wrote

> Definitely guilty according to many posters to this group who seem to know
> all about it.

I have no opinion on his guilt, just believe he should go to Sweden if only
to prove his innocence. That he won't suggests he has something to hide.

John.

[harry]

All hr has to do is convert to Islam for his get out of jail free card. Especially in Sweden.

[JNugent]

On 13/12/2016 07:53, pamela wrote:

> Based on that account by Assange of his case, the Swedish authorities
> have acted incorrectly and in bad faith.

Based on the accounts the inmates of all our prisons as to their cases,
the UK authorities have acted incorrectly and in bad faith (by
prosecuting, convicting and sentencing innocent citizens).

> I can't help but wonder if
> the Swedish authorities were long ago working to another agenda than
> the apparent investigation of two accusations of minor sexual
> assault.

So is minor sexual assault trivial irrespective of the identity of the
alleged perpetrator or is it just that kewl dudes get a pass on it?

[JNugent]

You missed that last bit, did you?

Would it, in your view, be permissible for *every* wanted suspected
offender to jump bail because he "might" be subject to non-existent
extradition proceedings for an imaginary case elsewhere?

[JNugent]

Exactly.

[Handsome Jack]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> posted

>There's a huge difference between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

No doubt, but it is the similarities that matter to the US
administration, not the differences. Both were closely involved in
executing the biggest leak of American military and diplomatic
information since the Pentagon Papers.

>Manning was an employee of the US Military and was entrusted with
>highly sensitive information. He wilfully leaked that information. I
>admire him for doing so, but it is not surprising that he was
>prosecuted and gaoled. The cruel and inhuman treatment is unfortunately
>typical of the US treatment of many of its prisoners.
>
>Assange was merely a middle-man between Manning and the editors of the
>Guardian, the New York Times and other editors. It's difficult to see
>how his criminality was worse than that of the editors.

Why would that bother the US? He's a high profile enemy of the US
military establishment, and neutralising him would be a big coup for
them.

--
Jack

[Handsome Jack]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> posted
>On 12/12/2016 21:57, Handsome Jack wrote:
>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> posted
>>> On 12/12/2016 18:48, Handsome Jack wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> posted
>>>

>>>>> It is *certain* that he is trying to evade (well, avoid) trial in
>>>>> Sweden.
>>>>> If he weren't, he would not have broken his bail conditions (costing
>>>>> some very silly people a lot of money in so doing) and would not have
>>>>> sought "asylum" in that embassy.
>>>
>>>> You've ignored the possibility that he is willing to stand trial in
>>>> Sweden, but not willing to run the risk of being extradited from there
>>>> to the USA. That is a perfectly consistent explanation of why he jumped
>>>> bail and sought asylum.
>>>
>>> If he were willing to stand trial for alleged rape in Sweden, it would
>>> all have happened by now.
>>
>> You don't seem to have addressed my point in the slightest. I wish I had
>> put it in plainer language, but I can't see how I could have done. I'm
>> sorry I can't help you any further.
>>
>>> What evidence do you have to the effect that the USA is seeking his
>>> extradition, and what is the charge?
>
>You missed that last bit, did you?

*You* seem to have missed my point (see above), so I assumed you
probably wouldn't read a reply if I made one. However, if you really
want one: The evidence that the USA is seeking his extradition (or
rendition) is that that's what they've done in the past. And the charge
would be either espionage or some trumped-up PATRIOT violation that
would be swiftly amended to espionage once he is in the USA.

>Would it, in your view, be permissible for *every* wanted suspected
>offender to jump bail because he "might" be subject to non-existent
>extradition proceedings for an imaginary case elsewhere?

"Permissible" is a meaningless word in this context. If you mean do I
sympathise with Assange in the circumstances, the answer is yes, because
I would have done pretty much the same in his place.

--
Jack

[R. Mark Clayton]

They banged up Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning, for 35 years for leaking stuff to Assange. Assange published to stuff, so it would be naive in the extreme to think the USA don't want him [as well].

Long list of possible charges* including "Aiding the Enemy" punishable by death.


* 22 altogether including Violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act etc.

[The Todal]

Neutralising him?

A prolonged trial in a US court with freedom of speech issues would not
be neutralising him, it would be an acute embarrassment.

And Wikileaks isn't just Julian Assange. Putting him in prison would be
creating a martyr and would cause even more Wikileaks activity.

Assange's importance is only in his own mind.

[The Todal]

On 13/12/2016 07:53, pamela wrote:
> On 12:58 12 Dec 2016, Judith wrote:
>

> Based on that account by Assange of his case, the Swedish authorities

> have acted incorrectly and in bad faith. I can't help but wonder if

> the Swedish authorities were long ago working to another agenda than
> the apparent investigation of two accusations of minor sexual
> assault.
>

I don't call rape "minor sexual assault". A rapist who says that his
victim was gagging for it isn't a reliable witness of truth.

Our courts had several hearings to decide whether the alleged crimes
were trivial or serious and they decided that the crimes were serious
enough to justify extradition.

[Nick]

On 13/12/2016 11:35, The Todal wrote:
> On 13/12/2016 10:49, Handsome Jack wrote:
>> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> posted
>>> There's a huge difference between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.
>>
>> No doubt, but it is the similarities that matter to the US
>> administration, not the differences. Both were closely involved in
>> executing the biggest leak of American military and diplomatic
>> information since the Pentagon Papers.
>>
>>> Manning was an employee of the US Military and was entrusted with
>>> highly sensitive information. He wilfully leaked that information. I
>>> admire him for doing so, but it is not surprising that he was
>>> prosecuted and gaoled. The cruel and inhuman treatment is
>>> unfortunately typical of the US treatment of many of its prisoners.
>>>
>>> Assange was merely a middle-man between Manning and the editors of the
>>> Guardian, the New York Times and other editors. It's difficult to see
>>> how his criminality was worse than that of the editors.
>>
>> Why would that bother the US? He's a high profile enemy of the US
>> military establishment, and neutralising him would be a big coup for
>> them.
>>
>
> Neutralising him?
>
> A prolonged trial in a US court with freedom of speech issues would not
> be neutralising him, it would be an acute embarrassment.
>

Yes the same could have been said about Mordechai Vanunu but Israel went
ahead with a secret trial. Even now he is banned from talking to the
press. So much for acute embarrassment.

Guantanamo teaches us that the USA have little respect for justice or
appearances.

> And Wikileaks isn't just Julian Assange. Putting him in prison would be
> creating a martyr and would cause even more Wikileaks activity.
>

He is already a martyr like the suffragettes, like Martin Luther King
and like Nelson Mandela.

> Assange's importance is only in his own mind.

And that is why governments have wasted so much money smearing him and
preventing his freedom.

[Dan S. MacAbre]

I've not much interest in Assange, but I don't think being holed up in
an embassy is what many people associate with being a martyr. I've a
strange feeling that he is being used to somehow discredit wikileaks,
which is surely bigger than one person.

[JNugent]

It is *your* unsupported assertion that the USA want to extradite
Assange for some unspecified offence.

> However, if you really
> want one: The evidence that the USA is seeking his extradition (or
> rendition) is that that's what they've done in the past. And the charge
> would be either espionage or some trumped-up PATRIOT violation that
> would be swiftly amended to espionage once he is in the USA.

And your evidence for that is ... ?

>> Would it, in your view, be permissible for *every* wanted suspected
>> offender to jump bail because he "might" be subject to non-existent
>> extradition proceedings for an imaginary case elsewhere?

> "Permissible" is a meaningless word in this context. If you mean do I
> sympathise with Assange in the circumstances, the answer is yes, because
> I would have done pretty much the same in his place.

That isn't what I asked you, is it? You don't like answering questions
with proper responses, do you? You prefer to answer irrelevant questions
which haven't been asked.

[JNugent]

On 13/12/2016 11:19, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Monday, 12 December 2016 19:54:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 12/12/2016 18:48, Handsome Jack wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> posted
>>>> On 12/12/2016 13:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
>>
>>>>> It may be your *opinion* that he is trying to evade trial in Sweden, and
>>>>> that he is only pretending to fear extradition to the US. But neither of
>>>>> those is "definite" in the sense of being provable assertions.
>>
>>>> What?
>>>> It is *certain* that he is trying to evade (well, avoid) trial in Sweden.
>>>> If he weren't, he would not have broken his bail conditions (costing
>>>> some very silly people a lot of money in so doing) and would not have
>>>> sought "asylum" in that embassy.
>>
>>> You've ignored the possibility that he is willing to stand trial in
>>> Sweden, but not willing to run the risk of being extradited from there
>>> to the USA. That is a perfectly consistent explanation of why he jumped
>>> bail and sought asylum.
>>
>> If he were willing to stand trial for alleged rape in Sweden, it would
>> all have happened by now.
>>
>> What evidence do you have to the effect that the USA is seeking his
>> extradition, and what is the charge?

> They banged up Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning, for 35 years for leaking stuff to Assange. Assange published to stuff, so it would be naive in the extreme to think the USA don't want him [as well].

Nonsense.

The USA is not the Soviet Union. If there were an American charge
outstanding against Assange he (and many others) would know about it and
would be able to point to it rather than merely inviting gullible people
to consider the posibility.

Manning was in a position of trust, which he abused. That always makes
offences worse. He has only himself to blame.

> Long list of possible charges* including "Aiding the Enemy" punishable by death.
> * 22 altogether including Violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act etc.

Do you know what the word "snide" means?

[JNugent]

There's your problem right there.

You didn't know that the USA and israel are separate countries.

[Handsome Jack]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> posted

>If Assange genuinely believes that the USA could seize him from the
>streets of the UK or Sweden, then obviously any reassurances from those
>governments must be valueless. So what's his point? That Sweden should
>abandon its attempts to extradite him and the UK should allow him to
>leave the embassy without being arrested, all so that the CIA can creep
>up on him in any London street and fly him to America?

If the Swedish prosecutor drops the investigation and warrant, and the
UK releases Assange, he is unlikely to stay in the UK. He will be free
to go wherever he wants - presumably somewhere the CIA won't easily be
able to get him.

--
Jack

[JNugent]

On 13/12/2016 15:06, pamela wrote:

> On 10:40 13 Dec 2016, JNugent wrote:
>> On 13/12/2016 07:53, pamela wrote:
>>> On 12:58 12 Dec 2016, Judith wrote:
>>>> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:

>>>>> Prepared and published in November last. An interesting read.
>>>>> I don't know whom it's aimed at, and it hasn't had very much
>>>>> publicity.
>>>>> https://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/assange-
>>>>> statement-2016.html
>
>>>> Absolutely bloody awful.
>>>> I was not a great Assange fan - but I now have a lot of
>>>> sympathy for him.
>>>> I can see why the Swedish prosecutor was not happy with the
>>>> release of the statement.
>
>>> Based on that account by Assange of his case, the Swedish
>>> authorities have acted incorrectly and in bad faith.
>
>> Based on the accounts the inmates of all our prisons as to their
>> cases, the UK authorities have acted incorrectly and in bad
>> faith (by prosecuting, convicting and sentencing innocent
>> citizens).
>

> Does that mean everyone who makes such a claim is necessarily
> lying?

It means that the account of an accused - let alone a convicted - person
cannot just be taken to be the truth. It may *be* true, but his merely
saying it will not make it so.

>>> I can't help but wonder if
>>> the Swedish authorities were long ago working to another agenda
>>> than the apparent investigation of two accusations of minor
>>> sexual assault.

>> So is minor sexual assault trivial irrespective of the identity
>> of the alleged perpetrator or is it just that kewl dudes get a
>> pass on it?

> Quite the opposite. The "kewl dudes" you mention might get a
> harder time.

So why is Assange getting such an easy time from the usual suspects with
respect to these accusations (which, it has to be remembered, remain to
be proven)?

[JNugent]

In such an eventuality, why would the UK release Assange in the
immediate future?

He has *definitely* committed an offence here by refusing to surrender
to bail - and offences of that sort (comparable to contempt of court)
are noted for the severe punishment usually handed down.

[JNugent]

On 13/12/2016 22:19, pamela wrote:

> That would be true for anyone. As usual, the accused is innocent
> until proven guilty.

But that does not mean that the accused is necessarily free to walk
amongst us.

Assange is officially subject to custody of the court in London.

He was (IMHO, foolishly, as I said here at the time) trusted with bail.

>>>>> I can't help but wonder if
>>>>> the Swedish authorities were long ago working to another
>>>>> agenda than the apparent investigation of two accusations of
>>>>> minor sexual assault.
>
>>>> So is minor sexual assault trivial irrespective of the
>>>> identity of the alleged perpetrator or is it just that kewl
>>>> dudes get a pass on it?
>
>>> Quite the opposite. The "kewl dudes" you mention might get a
>>> harder time.
>
>> So why is Assange getting such an easy time from the usual
>> suspects with respect to these accusations (which, it has to be
>> remembered, remain to be proven)?
>

> I'm not clear who it is you're saying is giving Assange an "easy
> time".

Those who would be incandescent with rage if an accused rapist happened
to be a Member of Parliament (as an example).
>

[Handsome Jack]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> posted

If all charges are dropped because there is no case to answer, it would
seem unjust to prosecute him for not answering them. It would also be
politically embarrassing.

--
Jack

[JNugent]

You think so?

Many would take the oppsite view: that Assange's antics show his
contempt for British law and its operation (which amounts to contempt
for Britain and its people).

It would be politically embarrassing *not* to make sure that the
appropriate legal action is taken in respect of his contempt of court.