Skip to main content

View Diary: Top Swedish Prosecutor in Sexual Assault Case Against Julian Assange Quits - Accuser Fires Lawyer (332 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But Assange has said (58+ / 0-)

    he would return to Sweden to face the charges if the USG would promise publicly not to prosecute him. He's afraid of winding up in an American prison cell, and with good reason. The charges may be valid, I don't know, Assange could both be a journalistic hero and a rapist, but the only force standing in the way of justice, both for Assange and for his accusers, is the United States government. The blame lies there.

    •  I agree. Britain seems to be complicit in this too (29+ / 0-)

      Although I have to give them props for not storming the embassy to snatch up Assange and extradite him.

      The U.S. government is definitely the main persecutor here. They seem to be obsessed with making an example out of these two men, sending a loud & clear message to anyone else thinking about coming forth with damaging information that sheds light on the government.

      Even though the president has done some good things on the transparency front... his administration still has a lonnnnnggg ways to go.

      "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

      by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:02:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The UK has to weight pleasing the US... (20+ / 0-)

        ...vs. getting whatever support they still have in Latin America regarding the Falklands thrown out of the window.

        Ecuador, is doing it because they have issues with the US involving the drug war and oil exploitation. And Wikileaks is part of the picture;

        Relations between the countries have only worsened in the last year after a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks revealed that the United States ambassador to Ecuador was critical of the Correa administration, prompting the president to remove her from the role.

        “She was a woman totally against our government,” Correa tells Assange. “A woman of extreme right wing views that still lived in the Cold War of the 1960s.” According to the cables released by WikiLeaks, Correa says the former ambassador “wrote that her own Ecuadorian contacts told her that the chief of the national police was corrupt and that surely I had given him that post knowing he was corrupt so that I could control him.”

        According to Correa, reform is necessary in Latin America, especially in Ecuador where he believes that money is influencing politics to a degree that isn’t being brought to attention outside of the country’s borders. His agitation with oil companies has irritated the US in the past, but now his campaign against the banking giants that own the Ecuadorian media is causing a stir as well. Correa has praised WikiLeaks for letting the world know the true intentions of secret governments, and says that he salutes them because he has nothing to lose through another leak.

        Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

        by Shockwave on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:55:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I ponder... WHY the obsession? (3+ / 0-)
        The U.S. government is definitely the main persecutor here. They seem to be obsessed with making an example out of these two men, sending a loud & clear message to anyone else thinking about coming forth with damaging information that sheds light on the government.
        WHY persecution and prosecution of whistleblowers who have been trying to live up to "transparency in government" and "reporting crimes that have not been reported or that have been actively covered up?"

        It makes no sense unless the US is out to censor people on an international level.

        Thanks, but no thanks.  Sunshine is the best disinfectant and I'm all for bright sunlight showing off the crimes as reported by whistleblowers - in spite of the apparent organized joint media-&-government attempts to keep crimes hidden and allow the crimes to continue "if only those loudmouth whistleblowers had not reported the criminal actions."  I don't recall any great hullabaloo about bringing the perpetrators to justice..., just the whistleblowers who have acted morally and ethically correct by getting the truth "out there" for everyone to see.

        "Seems like" the rape charge in Sweden is a setup and Assange is right in thinking it would lead to his being sent or picked up by the US to jail him for no good reason.  Make no mistake: IF it could be determined in a legal court of law (not in the US with MCA '06, MCA '09, the Patriot Act, and FISA fiasco '08 still in effect, AND not in a country that seems like it's collaborating and colluding with the US for illegal shenanigans to take place) that Assange raped either or both women, I'd be clamoring for jail time.

        But THIS one time in THIS one case, it just feels like a setup for involuntary extradition..., and we all know the recent history of the US in that regard, don't we?  Especially now that Gitmo is so close and so far away and on a US military base where US laws against torture "should" apply (technically, legally).

        Why the secrecy and why the prosecution and persecution of all kinds of whistleblowers (both Assange and all the rest of the whistleblowers who have been unfairly targeted)?  It just fosters and reinforces the nagging notion that we have a corrupt government - and it doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 05:24:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The simplest answer would be they're not... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NonnyO, gooderservice

          interested in airing their proverbial dirty laundry.

          WHY persecution and prosecution of whistleblowers who have been trying to live up to "transparency in government" and "reporting crimes that have not been reported or that have been actively covered up?"
          Of course, it's more complicated than that. National security is a factor. But the bottom line is that democracy -- or even what passes for democracy in America -- depends on transparency.
          It just fosters and reinforces the nagging notion that we have a corrupt government - and it doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
          It just seems to me that more and more our government is either ambivalent, or plain don't give a rat's ass about what We the People think about how the government is running.

          They've got their super-pacs and special interests,

          "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

          by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 06:42:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you are correct.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            markthshark, gooderservice

            ... Unfortunately.

            National Security can't be that much of a factor when I read about military maneuvers with F-22s over South Korea this past weekend (and/or this coming week?) on a Yahoo front page headline.

            I think the "national security" excuse is a crock, too.

            Seriously, who the hell cares about a long-dead ancestor who married over 100 years ago...?  However, when it comes to getting a copy of that record from a courthouse the average genealogy researcher has to jump through hoops, fill out forms, and give or send a copy of a photo ID to the county clerk before they'll sell an outrageously expensive certified copy of whatever PUBLIC documents we need for our records - records that WE the People pay for with our taxes both to get in the first place and have them store those documents indefinitely at the county courthouse (with a copy going to the state archives or state historical society, depending on the state).

            I could go on a long rant about different countries, but I don't have the energy and need some sleep....

            Here's where we're at now, repeating history:

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
            -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

            Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
            -- Benito Mussolini

            It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.
             -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

            Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.
            -- Benito Mussolini

            I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

            by NonnyO on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:33:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you, Amazing Kreshkin. (0+ / 0-)

          "Seems like" the rape charge in Sweden is a setup

          Amazing that your judicial powers lead you to know more than multiple courts in Sweden who've reviewed the evidence and heard testimony from Assange's attorney, up to and including the Swedish Supreme Court, who all ruled that there's probable cause that he committed the crime he's charged with.  What other powers do you possess?

          feels like a setup for involuntary extradition...

          Right.  From the coutnry Assange himself personally chose as the hardest to extradite from and with the best protections for whistleblowers.  With criminal charges that would severly complicate any extradition request.  Returned under an EAW which would severely complicate it even further.  For a crime which is flatly banned for extradition under Swedish law and for which Sweden has never extradited for (even the CIA double-agent Edward Lee Howards who leaked the names of all US spies in the USSR).  From Europe, all of which is banned from extraditing where any form of abuse (even supermax prison) is possible.  I could go on and on.  Oh yeah, such a setup.  The whole concept is so far into fantasyland that parents in Narnia could use it as a bedtime story for their kids.

          But hey, anything to convince yourself that a guy that you like couldn't have committed rape, right?  You know, what people ALWAYS do when they like the defendent in a rape case?  Toss some smears on the accusers while you're at it, that's a prereq!

          •  Rei - (0+ / 0-)

            We get it.

            From a diary you authored and then through several other diaries, you have made it abundantly and patently clear that you loathe Assange with a white-hot hate-filled rage, you do not wish to get to the facts of the matter, and you want us to join you in throwing stones at him and then drowning him in the sea.  You are explicitly clear about that with your acid-filled words dripping with poisonous venom against anyone willing to wait patiently for a final out come of a court case, and you're making it a personal vendetta to show each and every doubter that they deserve the same treatment you're wishing on Assange.  You'd rather a vigilante committee formed and, without a trial, just took Assange out to the nearest hanging tree, there to be hung from the neck until dead, and leave him hanging there until crows and other carrion picked his bones dry.

            Your first diaries sharing your life and new adventures in Iceland were wonderful..., but when it comes to the topic of Julian Assange you have a blind spot as big as the sun and you don't want to hear anything that would put the smallest seed of doubt in your mind about his guilt or innocence.  You just want him dead, dead, dead and then continue to heap words of loathing and more venomous hatred on him, and you furiously derail every single diary that even mentions Assange (or not), and if no one blindly joins you in your vendetta of blind hatred for Assange, you then turn around and start calling people names with almost as much sarcasm as you reserve for Assange, even if no one was writing to you in the first place with those comments (like you just did above to me).

            You have quite a Jekyll and Hyde personality when it comes to Julian Assange.  Then you carry it one step further and make it personal with the implied attitude:  "Be my friend and agree with me, or you are going to be loathed as much as I loathe Assange."

            I thought I was borderline unreasonable on the subject of rape and rapists - just in general - until you came along and directed every bit of your venomous ire at one man personally, and you turn that same venomous ire on people who have doubts because there has been no trial (you've been nasty to everyone who has doubts, not just me).  The big difference regarding the topic of rape and rapists (especially privileged jocks) is that I call for an arrest, a trial, and a verdict, especially since sometimes rapists walk free without a trial, just like certain lying war criminals are walking free without a trial right this second because no one is willing to hold them accountable for their lies and war crimes.

            Just because you venomously loathe one man who still hasn't even been questioned about the incident, let alone tried in a court of law, that does not give you carte blanche to vent your spleen on those who have doubts about the story and what happened or call them (or me) names with as much venom as you display.  It's unreasonable.

            Anyway, in your blind loathing of Assange and anyone who has doubts, you missed my main point:

            Make no mistake: IF it could be determined in a legal court of law (not in the US with MCA '06, MCA '09, the Patriot Act, and FISA fiasco '08 still in effect, AND not in a country that seems like it's collaborating and colluding with the US for illegal shenanigans to take place) that Assange raped either or both women, I'd be clamoring for jail time.

            But THIS one time in THIS one case, it just feels like a setup for involuntary extradition..., and we all know the recent history of the US in that regard, don't we?

            I can sit back, wonder what the hell set you off on such unreasonable and unhinged blind hatred of one man who has done nothing to you, personally, to make you sound so over-the-top slapstick-comedy funny in that same unreasonableness..., but, now that you've directed your ire against me, personally, and have resorted to calling me (and others) names, I no longer care..., so, instead I'm just going to caution you to back off and examine your own motives for derailing any diary (this one and others, previously) when it comes to the topic of Julian Assange.

            I am always willing to respectfully disagree with anyone (there are many here on DK whose opinions I value and respect which are opposite of my opinions, but I can easily live with that because they've not called me childish names, nor have I called them childish names)..., and normally I don't respond to anyone who stoops so low as to call me names, but you've crossed the line into a disrespectful tone and childish name-calling.

            I'm asking nicely here:  Please do not do that again.

            I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

            by NonnyO on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:16:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you really have to be shocked (0+ / 0-)

              ... that a person would take cheering on a rape fugitive personally?  Is that surprising to you?

              You'd rather a vigilante committee formed and, without a trial, just took Assange out to the nearest hanging tree, there to be hung from the neck until dead, and leave him hanging there until crows and other carrion picked his bones dry.
              No.  What I want is really, really, really simple.  That people stop the rape apologism, the victim smearing, and the supporting a rape fugitive's run from the law.
              even if no one was writing to you in the first place with those comments (like you just did above to me).
              That's how forums work.  If you want private messages, click the messages tab.
              I call for an arrest, a trial, and a verdict
              No.  You said ""Seems like" the rape charge in Sweden is a setup".  By that you declared the accusers liars and that you know more than the multiple courts which have heard the case.  Which is damned offensive.
              Just because you venomously loathe one man who still hasn't even been questioned about the incident
              He has been questioned, about three of the four charges.  He has refused to go back for subsequent questioning, and that is nobody's fault but his own.
              let alone tried in a court of law
              It has gone to two courts of law.  He appealed of the arrest warrant, first to Svea Hovrätt.  The evidence was heard.  His attorney defended him.  He lost.  His defense is absurd.  The court found probable cause that he did commit rape.  He appealed to the Supreme Court.  They upheld the lower court's finding.

              But oh no, it's a setup and they're just lying sluts paid by the CIA!  Who cares that two of the three interviewing police officers supported 5 charges, one supported 4, the first prosecutor supported 3, the second 5, the first court found probable cause for 4, the second court 4, the British lower court found no fault with what Sweden did, the British high court found no fault, and neither did the British supreme court.  No, they're all on the dole of the CIA, all to support the lying-slut-conspiracy, right?  Who cares that Assange has a long history of this sort of stuff with women?  That he wrote on his blog about how women's brains can't do math and how he's a god to women, how the former Wikileaks #2 wrote about how he routinely pinned down his tomcat (to the point of giving it a nervous tick) because "males need to learn to be dominant", that he was accused of cyberstalking a girl before he got famous, that numerous wikileaks volunteers have commented about his sexism, that he brought his friend, misogyny-incarnate Israel Shamir into Wikileaks and defended him from all criticism, that even the foremost whistleblower in UK history (Heather Brooke) accused him of trying to force her to make out with him (despite knowing she's married) .... oh no, HE couldn't have done it, heavens no, it's a setup and the girls are lying sluts, period, and thus it's okay to smear them publicly!

              While you're out smearing people who there's a finding of probable cause that they were victims of sex crimes, one of them rape, why don't you take the time to burn my car or hit my parrot?  I mean, if you want to find ways to drive the knife in deeper...

      •  The President has engaged in some good talk (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        markthshark, gooderservice, Tam in CA

        on the transparency front.

        In practice, he's literally the worst President we've ever had on that issue, classifying anything embarrassing and refusing to even investigate a huge range of crimes while jailing more whistleblowers in 5 years than all previous Presidents combined.

        On some stuff, he's been a mixed bag.  But he's run the most opaque Administration in US history and shown the most aggressive response to those would inform the public that we've ever seen.

        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

        by JesseCW on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 07:57:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the irony of a Constitutionally-trained... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gooderservice

          Democratic president using the arcane [and antiquated] Espionage Act more than any other -- is not at all lost on me.

          "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

          by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:13:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The US government's sum total of activity in (0+ / 0-)

        this case can be summed up as "nothing".  Barring a small handful of exceptions it hasn't even commented on it.  So "doing essentially nothing" equals "the main persecutor here"?  With that sort of logic, the main persecutor here could just as well be an ethiopian goatherder.

        •  You need to read more. Or read other stuff... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gooderservice

          Perhaps do some research.

          Our freakin' government has had EVERYTHING to do with this case. Just because you don't see them moving the pieces around the board doesn't mean they're not playing the game.

          Done

          "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

          by markthshark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:42:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You need to read more. Or read other stuff... (0+ / 0-)

            Perhaps do some research.

            The freaking Ethiopian goatherder has had EVERYTHING to do with the case.  Just because you don't see him moving the pieces around the board doesn't mean he's not playing the game.

            Done

            •  I love intelligent conversations... (0+ / 0-)

              Think I'll go find one.

              But thanks for participating.

              "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

              by markthshark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:43:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If the post sounds idiotic... (0+ / 0-)

                remember that it was simply mirroring your argument back at you.  So if you want to say "the person in my mirror looks dumb!", by all means, be my guest.

                Or you could, you know, actually try to defend your point with actual arguments and facts instead of having your argument basically be "'Cause I say so and if you don't agree then you're ignorant!".

    •  ? (5+ / 0-)

      I don't recall reading that State Dept. or the Justice Dept. had issued a warrant for his arrest, nor had they said they wanted to question him.  Let's be honest, if the US wanted this guy they would've had him by now.  Implying that all of this was concocted by our government because of some ridiculous dreamed up reason is very Mission:Impossible-esque.

      The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

      by lcj98 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:42:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that makes sense to me. I have very mixed feelings (11+ / 0-)

      about Assange. I have no idea whether he did some of the things he was accused of (and it was not only about condoms, from what I read). I've also heard an interview with someone on the NY Times who was responsible for publishing the Wikileaks material and he had serious concerns about Assange's ethics (specifically: about protecting the anonymity of vulnerable people exposed through the leaks).
      That said, I think overall we need groups like Wikileaks to expose what governments are doing.
      People like Bradly Manning who took a terrible risk to show people what was happening are crucial to democracy. (I don't have mixed feelings about Manning).

      While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

      by Tamar on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:47:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And you believe him? It's a stupid question, of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      course you do. It's Assange we are talking about.

      •  No, what's stupid here is not following the (6+ / 0-)

        the facts.  You don't have to believe Assange. Believe the Swedish authorities and the U.S.  ... if you're even following the events here.

        Post a link where the Swedish government has put in writing they won't extradite Assange anywhere if he returns to Sweden.  Pretty simple.

        •  Why would governments guarantee anything (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, sviscusi, duhban

          to rape suspects in writing? Any examples of any governments doing that?

        •  Why the %#$ should they? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sviscusi, duhban

          Suspects in criminal charges are not the people who set the terms. Why should Mr Assange be treated above and beyond the law?

          (Rhetorical question. I know the answer.)

        •  Which would be *illegal* in Sweden. (0+ / 0-)

          Swedish extradition law spells out the order in which things must happen.  It'd be illegal for the government to issue even an advisory opinion before the court ruled (probably a violation of the Swedish constitution as well).  The order spelled out by the law is:

          1) A request is made and the accused appeals.
          2) The courts take up the case
          3) The government issues an advisory opinion
          4) The courts review and rule on the case.  If they rule against the appeal, then...
          5) The government "may" extradite the accused.  This is the government's chance to sidestep the extradition.

          Right now we're at step "0".  There's not even a request.

          And FYI, it is illegal in Sweden to extradite for intelligence or military crimes.  It's never happened.  Sweden has harbored over 400 US defectors, including Edward Lee Howard, the CIA double-agent who undermined the entire US spy op in the USSR.  Think the US didnt really want him?  Couldn't touch him.  Oh, and FYI, the prime minister at the time?  The same Carl Bildt who's know the foreign minister that Assange rails against.

    •  exactly (6+ / 0-)

      This is the key point for me.

      If Sweden is so keen to prosecute, they should be willing to agree not to extradite to the US.

      Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

      by GideonAB on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi, duhban

        Why should Mr Assange be granted his demands before any findings of guilt? Why does is this man held above the law?

        •  Why not? (5+ / 0-)

          If the country of Sweden is so eager to learn the facts and try the case, if the facts are to be believed, why wouldn't Sweden care enough about their own case to agree to not extradite Assange to any country?

          Deals are made every day in prosecutions.  This is no different... except it is, isn't it?  

          •  No that is exactly the point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban

            Deals are NOT made BEFORE the suspect deigns to allow Himself to be interviewed.

            Deals ARE made in some cases before cases go to trail ... but as a condition of the suspect being subject to the legal system entirely.

            •  The deal had nothing to do with the charges. (4+ / 0-)

              So yeah, deals are made all the time, and in this case had nothing to do with the charges.  "Charges."  

            •  You're joking, right? The suspect is more than (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              markthshark, gooderservice

              happy to be interviewed and Swedish prosecutors are welcome at the embassy any time.

              He's even offered to be relocated to the embassy in Sweden.

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:00:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He refuses to agree to what he *knows* (0+ / 0-)

                is the goal of the prosecutor.  From the sworn statement submitted to the British lower court:

                Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
                He can't be indicted (åtalad) outside of Swedish custody.  Once indicted, the trial must commence within two weeks.

                There's absolutely no way he doesn't know all this.  Remember when Jemima Khan (who posted a big chunk of his bail) turned from Assange supporter to opponent?  Remember the reason?  She confronted him about this, about how it's illegal to extradite from Sweden, and so forth.  And he refused to answer the questions, outright changed the subject.  He knows that what he's saying is BS.  

                •  Let's try a touch of critical reading. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gooderservice
                  Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter.
                  The Prosecutor has refused to question him.  Nothing in Swedish law prevents them from doing this tomorrow.  If they decided to proceed after such questioning, that would be a different conversation.
                  it's illegal to extradite from Sweden,
                  You have now abandoned the last remaining pretense of honesty or credibility.  You can no longer be taken seriously by people of good will or integrity.

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:28:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's try a touch of *actual* reading. (0+ / 0-)

                    The Prosecutor has refused to question him.

                    Because:

                    It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
                    What part of this is difficult for you?  Is the word "enquiries" the problem, too complicated of a word?  Here, let me help you with that, "help with our enquiries" means "questioning".
                    it's illegal to extradite from Sweden,
                     You have now abandoned the last remaining pretense of honesty or credibility.
                    Oh, I'm sorry, is this the first time you've learned that it's illegal in Sweden to extradite for military, political, or intelligence crimes?  The US couldn't even touch Edward Lee Howard, the CIA double agent who unraveled the entire US spy op in the USSR.  And the prime minister then is the same Carl Bildt who Assange has been railing against.  Sweden has harbored hundreds of US defectors and never once turned one over for military, political, or intelligence crimes.

                    There's a reason Assange called Sweden his "shield" before and was moving Wikileaks' center of operations there.

                    Go have a fun read.  Here, you know, perhaps you should simply begin with a primer.

    •  Which is an absurdity. (0+ / 0-)

      What the USG says or not has no bearing on whether or not he raped a girl in Sweden.  Let me get this straight, if someone wants to avoid a prosecution somewhere, all they have to do is rape a girl in one country, flee the country, and then the third party country must promise not to prosecute them for the unrelated crime in order for them to stand trial for rape?  Is that the sort of system you're advocating here?

      but the only force standing in the way of justice, both for Assange and for his accusers, is the United States government.

      No, the only force standing in the way of justice is Julian Assange and his run from the law.  This could end today if he walked out that door and stood trial for what he did in Sweden.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (172)
  • Baltimore (88)
  • Community (84)
  • Bernie Sanders (66)
  • Freddie Gray (60)
  • Civil Rights (58)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Racism (33)
  • Law (32)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Politics (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site