Julian Assange

I too have never liked the look of JA but what's that got to do with anything?

When the sexaul assault charges suddenly appeared after some time of Wikileaks activity I just cynically assumed they were trumped up'

If I were JA I'd be really worried about the USA. They are ruthless; look what happened with that young hacker (can't remember his name now) who was extradited some time ago.

OK. Understood, and agreed.

So now it's a case of waiting to see how the stalemate is resolved.

What I am trying – and clearly not succeeding in saying – is that Julian Assange is doing everything he can to sideline the sexual assault allegations. Having exhausted every legal process in this country, he is now using the threat of extradition to America (not made, but it could be) and the potential death penalty (total rubbish) as a means of diverting attention from the Swedish issue. He has even suggested that he was magnanimous in agreeing that the Swedish authorities could interview him in the UK on certain conditions. They need to arrest him before they can charge him and proceed further with the case. He is in no position to make conditions about how the Swedish legal system treats him. I am not claiming that he is guilty of sexual assault and rape but these are serious allegations which he is doing his best to sideline as trivial compared with his legal risks after publishing the American cables (why do they still them cables?). And as I said previously, I found playing the caring parent card devious and nauseating.

I can't stand the man (what little I know of him!) either. IRRELEVANT!

By the way, I also think Assange should go to Sweden and stand trial for the sexual assault allegations/charges, whatever they are. That's a separate issue from the Wikileaks one, but I can see why he's afraid of the USA, whether his fears are groundless or not.

I'm talking about the short speech JA made from the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy. Haven't heard anyone else talking about the case.

I suppose you could call it turgid. So what? I think anyone'd sound a bit strange in those circumstances. He was asking for the US to leave Wikileaks alone. I don't see what's so strange about that. Sorry, absent, but I don't think I understand what you're saying really.

Of course he's egotistical. Again, so what? You'd need to be to do a job like that, just to have the nerve to do it! Loads of famous people are egotistical. I wishbpeople would stop talking about his weird personality and get to grips with what Wikileaks is for! It has done something GOOD for heaven's sake!

Some simple facts.... www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Personally, I can't stand the man.

I watched it too, POGS. I didn't think George Galloway's speech was helpful to Assange - if anything it just drew attention to the way some people nit-pick about the definition of rape, or sexual assault.

Very interesting debate on Newsnight, Monday 20th Aug.

If Assange has these two men on his side, one being George Galloway, who both basically said the two women in Sweden were liars, I don't think they have earnt respect for themselves nor more favour for Assange.

I thought the woman from, I think it was, the Independant spoke very well and made rational comments.

Welll said Bags

Oh Bags I thought his speech was terrible – turgid, irrelevant and egotistical. I found the sudden burst of parental concern nauseating.

It is not surprising that the US is less than ecstatic about the publication of confidential cables but, yes, some figures are distinctly OTT about Wikileaks. I confess I read only some of the stuff and relied on the Guardian's comment pieces for most of my information when they were publishing the Wikileaks stuff in the UK.

Glad you said that, absent. It is what I had thought. Which is why I don,t understand why Swedish police can't come here and question him. Apparently that has been done in similar cases.

I listened to his speech and thought it good. He and other Wiki people think the US ia paranoid about Wikileaks (it wouldn't be surprising). Starting from that understanding (or belief), I thought the speech was bang on.

I'm not really interested in whether he's a narcissist. As far as the Wikileaks revelations (e.g. of US soldiers' abuse of prisoners) are concerned, I think Wikileaks has done the world a service. Good luck to them, I say.

Correction Julian Assange has not been charged with anything in Sweden. He is required to answer questions regarding allegations of sexual assault and rape. Apologies.

Thanks for the reply, pogs. I thought that was pretty much what you meant, but wanted to be sure. I find it difficult, as well as risky, to interpret 'poetic' phrases like "abhorrence in their blood" on political issues, that's all.

POGS I think Assange became buddies with Ecuador's President a while ago when they were both slagging off the United States on a television programme. Uniting against a shared "enemy"makes them friends.

I think it's worth pointing out that the convention of an embassy giving asylum to someone was never intended to protect that someone from the criminal law of the host country. It was designed to protect people from political or religious persecution. Assange is not facing political or religious persecution. This country is legally required to extradite Assange to Sweden to face accusations of sexual assault. There has, so far, been no request from the US for his extradition and if there were, there is no guarantee that Sweden would agree to it. It is not relevant that the Swedish charges relate to acts that would not be regarded as illegal in Ecuador.

As a result of all this, Assange has managed to present himself as some kind of potential political martyr rather than a man accused of sexual assault. The sexual assault charges have been completely sidelined. If they are spurious, it would be better to have the whole matter openly examined and Assange clearly exonerated.

William Hague has made the UK look stupid and dishonourable with his burblings about being able to withdraw diplomatic status from the embassy. Ecuadorean politicians, plus allies such as Venezuela, have happily jumped on the bash Britain bandwagon as a proxy for the US, thanks to his silliness.

It is in Assange's interest (and character) to keep up the media interest. It would be better if the media found something more interesting to write about and photograph and left bored policeman to hang around the embassy building.

Bags.

Sorry you don't follow. I think I would being patronising to tell you or else I am just an ignorant thicko and used the wrong terminology but here goes.

I thought I was making a point that Assange (and Wikileaks) have an abhorrence in their blood and beleifs for countries that have poor human rights violations. Given Equador is one of those countries why would he elect to look at Equador for asylum.

Is that better.

What does "abhorrent to his DNA" mean?

I was interested to hear a B.B.C Reporter talking about the cheek of the Equadorian P.M. He said he has jailed an author for writing a book about his brother and his finances. He has nationalised some T.V. stations who spoke out against him and not in so many words accused him of stifiling newspapers who are anti his government.

I rest my case, why did he choose a country that would be abhorant to his D.N.A.

It is a good job he is in Britain, had he made comments about Equador whilst on it's soil he could have been dangling from a lamp post now, not in a bed in it's embasy.

I haven't seen it yet but I can't believe that he actually came out for a balcony moment.

Yes I can.

I, too, have just watched Assange's speech from the Ecuadorian Embassy. He made no reference whatsoever to Sweden which, after all, is the country that has sought his extradition from the UK. He made no reference at all to the charges of sexual assault, but rather tried to align himself with other people he regards as being political prisoners in the United States. He simply harangued the US and a wide variety of other countries, while heaping praise on South American countries (two of them twice) for their support of his cause (without specifying what that actually is), regardless of their human rights record.

Publishing the double speak of a powerful country is a dangerous, but valuable thing to do. Believing yourself to be an infallible super-human hero is a dangerous and daft thing to do. It is also stupid to deny easily provable facts, such as saying that he has been "abandoned" by Australia.

I think this whole business has been badly handled by the UK Government and it was a piece of wanton stupidity to mention the law, put in place after and as a result of the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy (a very different situation) that contravenes the Vienna conventions. It would not be appropriate to use that law in this instance and would only play into Assange's publicity campaign.

Well said POGS

Well I am sorry to offend some of you but I have just watched Assange on the balcony of the Equadorian Embassy. I still think he is a narcissist, it was annoying to watch him wait for his adulation.

He was supposed to be barred from making a political speech.He obviously feels he is above keeping that promise and also the Equadorians. Both he and Equador have now widened the countries involved Russia, Bahrain, Britain, America,Sweden. He also involved all of the South American countries claiming he has their backing too. He is a devicive,dangerous man and those countries should take the time to sit back and think why he has mentioned them if they have not given their permission.

Assange is trying to devide the world by his antics, he knows only too well what he is doing. He should have gone to Sweden, faced the allegations and cleared his name. Whilst on Swedish soil he could have started this charade all over again and stayed there for months on end going through the international appeal system.

Assange is a fugitive of our laws, not a prisoner. He came to this country of his own free will, knowing he would have been dealt with fairly. By choosing Euador as his country of choice for asylum he proves the point he is a hypocrite. Equador has an appalling human rights agenda. Equador is known to give safe haven for criminals, Nazi's etc., yet he chooses this country to run to for help. Why, because he knows they hate America and he could manipulate them easily.

I struggle to understand why those who under any other circumstance would be shouting from the roof tops against a man evading a judicial trial for rape thinks he is above the law. It is not upto us to decide his guilt or not, that is upto the Swedish courts. The women involved have been disgracefully mailgned by the press and his supporters and I ruddy well feel mad about it.

HOME

With all due respect to autistic people everywhere, of course!

I think he's probably on the autistic spectrum.