- 28 April 2019 at 10:11 amSo Where is the Swedish Warrant?by CRAIG MURRAY, Apr. 27, 2019If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.What is the point of demanding Assange be extradited to Sweden when there is no extradition request from Sweden? What is the point in demanding he face justice in Sweden when there are no charges? Where are the charges from Sweden?The answer to that is silence.Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA. And now they don’t need it, so Sweden has quietly gone away. All the false left who were taken in by the security services playing upon a feminist mantra should take a very hard look at themselves. ….Read more….https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-the-swedish-warrant/
Psycho Milt2.1
28 April 2019 at 11:46 amWelcome to another Morrissey rape culture special.Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA.We have to assume you endorse that offensive claim, given that you troubled yourself to post it here. You now need to support it, in two ways:1. Demonstrate that the two women complainants made false complaints and were participants in a criminal conspiracy (hence this being another Morrissey "rape culture" special).2. Come up with a plausible explanation for why the US government couldn't request Assange's extradition from the UK seven years ago and instead needed him extradited to Sweden first, but now can simply request extradition from the UK (This one's not rape culture, just the usual Morrissey nutbar conspiracy theory).greywarshark2.1.1
28 April 2019 at 12:46 pmThe amount of stuff written about Assange may soon match the size of the Wikileaks release.Morrissey2.1.2
28 April 2019 at 1:00 pmSmearing is no argument. That won't deter the likes of you, of course.- 28 April 2019 at 1:08 pmIn other words, no you can't support your claim.
- 28 April 2019 at 1:30 pmYou're the one who has to support your sleazy allegations.
- 28 April 2019 at 2:12 pmI was the one who posted comment 2? Best go back for another look, it's got your name on it. Comment 2 makes a bold claim with nothing to support it, hence the 2.x comments underneath it asking for the poster of that claim to support it with evidence. If you need to have this stuff explained to you, maybe you should just leave your computer switched off.
- 28 April 2019 at 2:20 pmNo, it was posted yesterday by Craig Murray, one of the most credible and respected independent commentators in Britain.
- 28 April 2019 at 3:56 pmLeaving aside for a moment the comical notion that Craig Murray is one of the most respected commentators in Britain (not least because you're making an implied argument from authority and we've been over that ground so many times before), Craig Murray didn't post that assertion here, you did.Unless you were just dropping some random spam on the thread because you don't have voluntary control over your actions, you posted that claim here as an endorsement of it. That means it's effectively your claim on this thread. If you can't support it, just say so.
- 28 April 2019 at 6:20 pm"Comical". Craig Murray is “comical”. Coming from a Russiagate truther, that really is comical.
- 28 April 2019 at 6:35 pmYou're free to hold whatever opinions of me you like. At issue is whether you can offer anything to support the claim you posted in comment 2. I note that the answer is still "No."
mauī…
28 April 2019 at 5:41 pmMorrissey, 100% absolutely correct. Thank you.
Brigid2.1.3
28 April 2019 at 2:34 pm"You now need to…1. Demonstrate that etc2. Come up with a plausible explanation etc"And if Morrisey doesn't, will he get lines?What a bossy bitches you are Psycho.- 28 April 2019 at 3:48 pmPerhaps you should leave it to PM and Morrissey to argue about and hold your own thoughts in abeyance Brigid.
- 28 April 2019 at 4:01 pmAny of us is free to demand that people making bold and unlikely assertions provide some supporting evidence for them. There's no penalty for failure to comply, beyond the embarrassment of having been exposed as a bullshitter – assuming one feels embarrassment at such exposure, that is. I think Morrissey's impervious to it.
- 28 April 2019 at 8:11 pm"that people making bold and unlikely assertions… "That is only you at this point. Anyone with some nous long ago worked out this was about journalism, not rape culture. Hence why any decent independent journo has dismissed your talking point.
- 28 April 2019 at 8:25 pmIn that case, any decent independent journo would be able to substantiate the claim "Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA." Where is the support for this assertion?
francesca2.2
28 April 2019 at 12:29 pmMorrisseyThis is a long one but its a serious essay and the most comprehensive I've read so farhttp://www.thepolemicist.net/2019/04/avoiding-assange.html- 28 April 2019 at 1:01 pmThanks very much, Francesca.
Drowsy M. Kram2.2.2
28 April 2019 at 2:30 pmThanks francesca; insightful links within links within links.RedLogix2.2.3
28 April 2019 at 2:54 pmThank you francesca for that link. An admirable piece, well written, meticulously argued and above all … correct in it's conclusions.- 28 April 2019 at 4:08 pmThe sex allegation from Sweden … is just a doorway to his extradition to the United States.I keep seeing this asserted as an article of faith, with no supporting evidence for the assertion. Is there anything, other than that some people fervently believe it?
- 28 April 2019 at 4:36 pmwith no supporting evidence for the assertion.https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/438709-pentagon-papers-lawyer-indictment-of-assange-snare-and-delusionhttps://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-gave-verbal-pledge-death-penalty-assange-sources/story?id=62414643We cannot know what the US Justice Dept plans to do, but we can know for certain what they have not ruled out.Besides a 'verbal' commitment from the Trump govt would have to be worth less than the paper it was not written on.
- 28 April 2019 at 6:34 pmThe indictment is, however, a snare and a delusion. It is surprisingly spare and seems to have been written with a particular purpose in mind — to extradite Assange from England. Once he is here, he will be hit, no doubt, with multiple charges.Again, this is opinion. All of these opinions assert that the Swedish request to extradite Assange was made on behalf of the USA, with no basis other than that the author firmly believes it.
- 28 April 2019 at 7:31 pmThe USG is not going to signal in advance any charges that carry the death penalty or imply 'political reasons'. Otherwise extradition to the USA will likely fail legally in the UK and quite possibly Sweden as well. Demanding the production of impossible evidence is a logical fallacy akin to demanding one perfect piece of evidence to support climate change.What I can rely on is the preponderance of evidence, the reasonable balance of probabilities given what they've already done to Manning (and would do to Snowden if they could) … and the indisputable fact that the Justice Dept has unsealed one charge already. An act that only makes sense if they intend to extradite when the opportunity avails itself.
- 28 April 2019 at 8:36 pmSure, a reasonable person wouldn't put any duplicity past the US government. However, the claim that the Swedish complaints were a conspiracy on behalf of the US government is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. And any evidence presented has a severe uphill struggle ahead of it, against the fact that the US could just have requested Assange's extradition from the UK back then, just like it has now.
Andre2.2.3.1.1.2
28 April 2019 at 7:27 pmThe Justice Department has 60 days from the time of the request for extradition to add any charges and would not comment on future charges.According to the doctrine of specialty protection, once he's extradited he can only be tried on the charges in the extradition paperwork. Or if the US really really wants to add more charges, the rules say they have to get approved by the same UK courts that approved the extradition.https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-wikileaks-assange-could-beat-the-us-and-stay-out-of-jail?ref=homeIf Assange ends up going to Sweden before winding up in the US, then he's got the extra protection that both the UK and Sweden have to agree to what he gets charged with.https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter–press/media/the-assange-matter/kan-assange-utlamnas-fran-sverige-till-usa/Of course, wannabe Dictator Donny might just slap on the extra charges after they get their hands on him and say to the UK and/or Sweden "waddaya gonna do abouddit?".There's that irony that the Tinyfingers Tyrant that Assange was so keen and active in helping elect is much more likely to just blow off international norms and obligations than Hillary would have been. Let alone that Obama and Holder decided way back in 2013 that trying to prosecute Assange would have a real and seriously chilling effect on real journalism, so the national interest was best served by not prosecuting. The so-called "New York Times" problem. Hillary would most likely have respected and gone along with that prior assessment.- 28 April 2019 at 7:50 pmA legal process that will be dragged out for years. The USG doesn't need to get to a conviction as long as they have Assange in prison somewhere.The entire game has been a cynical abuse of legal process from the outset. What makes you think anything will change once they have their hands on him? Read this story from another whistle-blower and let us know what you think his chances are:https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/56007-rsn-the-railroad-that-awaits-julian-assangehttp://www.thepolemicist.net/2019/04/avoiding-assange.html
- 28 April 2019 at 8:09 pmThe entire game has been a cynical abuse of legal process from the outset.Yeah, it might look that way if you don't attach any significance to the allegations Assange scarpered from Sweden the same day his lawyers learned he was about to be arrested, nor to the way he scarpered to the Ecuadorean Embassy when he learned he lost his fight not to be extradited to Sweden.Note that while all this was going on in 2010 through 2012, the doctrine of specialty protection would made him safer from the US if he had been extradited back to Sweden from the UK. Because then both the UK and Sweden would have to OK him getting sent to the US, rather than just the UK. According to some pieces I've seen, extraditing him to Sweden from the UK would also give him recourse to an EU court to fight a further extradition to the US, which he wouldn't have in a direct UK to US extradition.
- 28 April 2019 at 8:28 pmIf Assange had fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy to escape Swedish justice, then logically he would have left that Embassy when the Swedish investigation was dropped and no charges laid. But of course that was never the reason why he sought asylum; it was always about escaping American injustice.And please stop pretending the Americans will be satisfied with a minor 'hacking' charge that carries a five year (out in three) sentence. That just insults everyone's intelligence.
- 28 April 2019 at 8:33 pmAnd please stop pretending the Americans will be satisfied with a minor 'hacking' charge that carries a five year (out in three) sentence. That just insults everyone's intelligence.Please link to where I have made any claim that might be interpreted like that.Misrepresenting someone else's position like that does you no credit.
- 28 April 2019 at 8:39 pmPrecisely where you say this:Or if the US really really wants to add more charges, the rules say they have to get approved by the same UK courts that approved the extradition.
- 28 April 2019 at 8:44 pmThat's a statement of what the rules require. It's not expressing an opinion that the Drumpf administration will be satisfied with just the one charge that has so far been unsealed.
- 28 April 2019 at 8:52 pmIf you don't want to be misrepresented, be clear on what you mean. Can I take it that you now accept the USG will likely lay more charges once they have their hands on him, regardless of any 'specialty protection'?Lets be real here, the USG doesn't give a shit about how long this process takes; as long as they have Assange in a prison somewhere, they have the outcome they want.
- 28 April 2019 at 9:16 pmI have no doubt the likes of Barr and the loofah-faced shitgibbon would like to nail Assange on a huge array of charges. On any useful facts, and completely fabricated too if they think they can get away with it. For the express purpose of getting convictions to set precedents expanding dictatorial presidential powers. Assange sitting in a UK or Swedish prison is useless for that.From that point of view, time is of the essence for them. They will be well aware that Obama and his admin decided in 2013 that they weren't going to try to prosecute Assange. (edit: Assange should have been aware of that in 2013 toohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?utm_term=.7ac6ab87cd23 sorry about the messy link added in). And that the next Dem prez may be inclined to take the same view. So their opportunity to get the convictions and set the precedents might be just the next 21 months.But the point of getting convictions to set precedents is one aspect where specialty protection might play a role. Because if specialty protection provisions are violated, those are solid grounds for appealing a conviction. Because correct judicial processes were not followed. By the time an appeal rolls through, there may be a new prez and AG not inclined to fight the appeal and uphold the conviction. And if a conviction is overturned on appeal, then it's not a precedent.
- 29 April 2019 at 6:01 amSo their opportunity to get the convictions and set the precedents might be just the next 21 months.There's a big assumption right there; it assumes a sympathetic Democrat will be elected. If you were Assange I doubt very much you'd bet you life on that.And even less likely that you'd bet on a fair hearing in a secret trial held in an East Virginia 'espionage court' that has never acquitted a defendant in all of it's history.The only reason why we're talking about Assange all these years later has nothing to do with Sweden or the UK … it's absolutely been all about the USG's desire to make an example of Assange, to punish him for exposing their own illegal behaviour.We abrogate our personal right to violent defense and retribution to the nation state. We have a legal system, police, courts and prisons to defend us within the state, and a military system to act outside of it. These systems are legally created and empowered to commit violence on our collective behalf. In an ideal world there would be no criminals, no aggressor states and we could disband them, but for the time being we are stuck with this morally ambiguous compromise. We may personally abhor violence as much as we like, but collectively we cannot abandon it. We justify this by placing rules and conventions on these systems; we require they act within the law, lest we become no better than the criminals, terrorists and invaders we pursue.Yet the crucial irony is that Assange is being punished by the USG for exposing it's own illegal behaviour. You are pirouetting on a very thin patch of legal ice indeed, if you imagine the same govt will give one tiny shit what you or I think when they do finally get their hands on him.
- 28 April 2019 at 8:29 pmThat Polemicist piece is certainly a polemic. But I don't find it very credible when it misrepresents things like how the Swedish system works by trying to make a big deal out of the fact Assange hadn't been charged.
The Chairman3
28 April 2019 at 12:45 pmWhile elections aren't generally based upon one policy, CGT was a big policy that Labour spent many years building up support for.Its potential to produce a strong revenue stream is not easily overlooked Nor is its potential to enable the Government to do more good.Therefore, to throw it all away without a bat of an eyelid, how much damage to the party do you think Jacinda has caused?Will their be a drop in support for Labour in the next poll?This nationwide Horizon Research Poll – taken between February 28 and March 15 – found 44 per cent of New Zealand adults supported introducing a capital gains tax and 35 per cent opposed it.A further 16 per cent are neutral on the new tax, while 6 per cent did not know.Polling by political leaning showed 60% of Labour voters supported it.https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12217405 cleangreen4
28 April 2019 at 1:52 pmMorrissey,Thanks for the Swedish stuff as we were suspicious of them, and now it is laid bare they were complicit.Ignore Psyhco-Milt he is off his rocker today.- 28 April 2019 at 2:03 pmThanks, cleangreen. I don't think he's off his rocker; it's hard to admit for anyone to admit one has been completely wrong. He has to come to terms with it.Poor fellow backed Hillary and her mad Russiagate conspiracy too.
- 28 April 2019 at 4:10 pmIgnore Psyhco-Milt he is off his rocker today.I've refrained from publicly drawing a fairly obvious conclusion from some the stuff you post here – could the same courtesy perhaps be extended?
