Jump to content

Is Assange an "information terrorist"?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3064 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Storm Clarence wrote:


Arkady Arkright wrote:


Krystina Ferraris wrote:

 He is however  a pompous jerk who hides behind "freedom of speech".

Seeing that he's declared
 himself 
an 
'Enemy Of The State'
  to avoid answering rape allegations in another state...

 

FIFY

 

That is quite blatantly and deliberately untrue - so, par for the course...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Arkady Arkright wrote:


Storm Clarence wrote:


Arkady Arkright wrote:


Krystina Ferraris wrote:

 He is however  a pompous jerk who hides behind "freedom of speech".

Seeing that he's declared
 himself 
an 
'Enemy Of The State'
  to avoid answering rape allegations in another state...

 

FIFY

 

That is quite blatantly and deliberately untrue - so, par for the course...

He said so in his U.N. transmission.  "Wikileaks should be declared an enemy of state"  maybe he should have chose his words more wisely as he got what he asked for.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Canoro Philipp wrote:

he is more than an Enemy of the State. his persecution is highly political, he got an
for violating a parole in the UK, a higher level than Muammar Gaddafi. for violating a parole, the UK was going to use for the first time a law that would allow them to violate the sovereignty of another country and enter an embassy.

the United States says it has nothing against Assange, but ordered Amazon, Paypal, Visa, to stop providing their services to him.

how important is he that they have to resource to those levels of persecution?

Point of information.    

Interpol notices -- as anyone can determine who is interested in checking facts for themselves -- are colour-coded to indicate what sort of notice they are.   A Red Notice is 


To seek the location and arrest of wanted persons with a view to extradition or similar lawful action


 So that's what you would expect -- the Swedish Courts issued an arrest warrant, notified Interpol, and Interpol issued a notice requesting the police in member states to arrest him pending a Swedish request for extradition.   

I understand the notice issued about Gaddafi was an Orange Notice, which is 


To warn of an event, a person, an object or a process representing a serious and imminent threat to public safety


See the Interpol Site for further details of notices and what they indicate.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Storm Clarence wrote:

It is no longer that he is 'more' than an enemy of the state; this afternoon he was declared by the U.S. Military as being an "enemy of the state."  Which It is not the same as being on Santa's wish list.  He wrote his own death sentence.  There will be no arguments whether he can be safely harbored in any country... he is now wanted dead or alive.  He can be 'taken out' in any country, state, house, bedroom, and/or toilet of his choosing, or he can turn himself in to the U.S. Military.

 Sorry, I've missed something somewhere.    How was he declared "an enemy of the state" by the US military, and where may I see a copy of this announcement?   

All I've seen so far is something to the effect that an unnamed prosecutor, in a memo discussing charges against someone that were never proceeded with, at one point  contemplated using using Article 104 of the UMJC (assisting the enemy), but since that never went anywhere, it doesn't really amount to much.   Is there some other reference?

So far, to my knowledge, the US military have been at pains to specify, in the charges against Bradley Manning, that Wikileaks and Julian Assange aren't, for the purposes of Article 104 of the UMJC, "the enemy" in that the allegation is that he knowingly gave ntelligence to the enemy through indirect means -- that is, while Assange isn't "the enemy" and niether are Wikileaks nor the New York Times, giving him information, knowing that he'll cause it to be published by Wikileaks and the NYT, where "the enemy" may reasonably be expected to see it, amounts to passing it to them indirectly.

 If people were less focussed on Assange, they might realise, as Assange's supporter, Glenn Greenwald, argued in The Guardian recently, that this development -- prosecuting people for passing information to the enemy "indirectly" -- is far more sinister, since 


any leaks of classified information can constitute the crime of "aiding the enemy" or "communicating with the enemy" by virtue of the fact that, indirectly, "the enemy" will - like everyone else in the world - ultimately learn of what is disclosed.


Link to post
Share on other sites

goverments can do no wrong..i get it..specially the US so you better shut up or ask permission before writing anything critical and OMG telling the.people.

Luckily there are Assanges and Anonymous that put a little fear into allmighty politicians who think they can get away with anything even murder.

You might be able to mouthgag Assange with fishy alligations but like anonymous says..we dont for forgive and dont forget :-) yay

Expect them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you say that, because of who he is, Julian Assange should enjoy immunity from prosecution for allegations of rape and sexual assault?   Does this apply to other people in the public eye?  

If, for example, Rush Limbaugh found himself the object of allegations that he'd raped or molested two women, he should be able to avoid prosecution by claiming the allegations were politicially motivated and he'd never get a fair trial, or should the matter, and the reliability and truthfulness of the complainants, be left to a court to determine?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having sex without a condom is rape??? come on...then thousands should be on trial..and the investigations starting long after this has happend as these women claimed..how in hell you wanna proof this.

And no! its not because of Assange as a person it for people like him to have the courage to speak out..I admire him and his courage..This is a bad movie..good against evil come to life..and the evil isnt Assange or wikileaks in this case

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aww the feeds only show 99+ messages unread, what a downer :smileysad:

But wait! Where's the missing garbage?

nothings fun anymore :smileyfrustrated:

Assange's exile is akin to rejected SL users I suppose :matte-motes-asleep-2:

But people actually listen to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people/governments get to bloody big for their britches, I like to see them called out to face the truth.


Maryanne Solo wrote:

Assange's exile is akin to rejected SL users I suppose :matte-motes-asleep-2:

But people actually listen to him.



Link to post
Share on other sites


Hermione Lefevre wrote:

Having sex without a condom is rape??? come on...then thousands should be on trial..and the investigations starting long after this has happend as these women claimed..how in hell you wanna proof this.

And no! its not because of Assange as a person it for people like him to have the courage to speak out..I admire him and his courage..This is a bad movie..good against evil come to life..and the evil isnt Assange or wikileaks in this case

The rape allegation is that the complainant agreed to have sex with him provided he used a condom, having made it clear to him that she didn't agree to unprotected sex.

The following morning, she says, she awoke to find him inside her, without a condom.

That is, she says, he penetrated her while she was asleep, and thus unable to consent or not, and in circumstances in which he can't reasonably have believed she consented (since she had told him the night before she only consented if he used a condom).

In other words, the allegation is that he penetrated her without her consent and without reasonably believing she consented.     That is certainly an allegation of rape in England (where I live) and, it would seem, in Sweden too.

Whether or not the prosecution can make the court sure to the criminal standard that's what happened is a matter for the  court.   However, certainly, to my mind, people alleged to have committed serious offences should get a fair trial, regardless of their politics or their being public figures, whether they want a trial or not.   

If similar allegations had been made against the soccer correspondent of my local newspaper after he returned from a vacation in Sweden there would be no question but he'd be extradited to face trial.   The same should be true, to my mind, of Julian Assange.

Link to post
Share on other sites


DQ Darwin wrote:

Some people/governments get to bloody big for their britches, I like to see them called out to face the truth.

 
Most definately. No Kumbaya here. It must be a particularly Australian trait, followed closely by some of our dear cousins, to confront those who hide behind the veil of credibility and just like the german stock exchanges performance of recent years, watch ze dax fall in public, exposing the underhanded tactics for all to see.

Unfortunately the rest of the world is basically already privy to such manipulations and calls it for what it is. The self perpetuating machinations of relentless propoganda must continue however, In order to support the "machine" so the convulsions of self denial repeat ad infinitum.

A sad state of affairs indeed. The cool aid of the afflicted is best consumed with a sizeable helping of fruit cake, in the company of like minded charlatans whilst spruiking from the lectern of self obsession.

Eternal war anyone? It has to be financed somehow. Woe betide those prepared to call "it" for what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting.. she said in her report that she only had sex with Assange once, and once Julian was aware that she wanted to use a condom he put it on and continued to have sex with the condom on until they finished.

------------------------

The chief interrogator rings claimant Anna Ardin (hereafter 'Anna') for the purpose of conducting an interrogation because of the event described above ('rape or sexual molestation at Tjurbergsgatan 36 up to 2010-08-14 12:00').

Anna says she's worked as a press secretary and political secretary for Sweden's christian social democrats - the brotherhood movement. Anna says she was involved in organising a seminar that was to take place on 14 August where Julian Assange had been invited in as a lecturer.

Because Anna would be out of town 11 - 14 August she lent her flat to Assange. But Anna returned to Stockholm already Friday 13 August because she had a lot of work to do for the seminar. Anna and Assange have never before met personally but only had contact via mail and the telephone.

The Friday in question Assange and Anna went out and ate dinner together. They'd agreed that Assange would go on living in Anna's flat despite her coming home a day early. After their dinner on the town they went back to Anna's flat and drank tea.

In answer to a question Anna says that neither she nor Assange drank alcohol that evening. When they sat and drank tea Assange began caressing her leg. In answer to a question Anna says Assange earlier in the evening had not made any physical approaches save now which Anna initially welcomed. But it felt 'uncomfortable from the get-go' as Assange was rough and impatient. According to Anna, 'everything happened so fast'. He ripped off her clothes and in conjunction with this pulled at and broke her necklace. Anna tried to put some clothes back on again because things were going too fast and it felt uncomfortable but Assange immediately took her clothes off again. Anna says that she thought she actually didn't want to go any further but it was too late to say 'stop' to Assange when she'd 'gone along with it this far'. She thought she 'could blame herself'. So she let Assange fully undress her.

Then they lay in the bed. Anna was on her back and Assange was on top of her. Anna thought Assange wanted to immediately put his **bleep** in her **bleep** which she didn't want as he didn't have a condom on. So she tried to twist her hips to the side and squeeze her legs together to prevent a penetration. Anna tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange stopped her from doing by holding her arms and prying open her legs and trying nevertheless to penetrate her with his **bleep** without a condom. Anna says that in the end she was ready to cry because she was pinned and couldn't reach a condom and thought 'this might not end well'. In answer to a question Anna says Assange must have known she was trying to reach for a condom and he was holding her arms to stop her.

Assange asked after a while what Anna was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Assange released her arms and put on the condom Anna got for him. Anna felt a huge unexpressed reluctance from Assange to using a condom which led to her getting the feeling he didn't put on the condom she'd given him. She therefore reached down with her hand to Assange's **bleep** to check if he'd really put the condom on. She could feel that the edge of the condom was where it should be at the root of Assange's **bleep**. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says she thought 'hope it's over soon'.

Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his **bleep** with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.

After a while Assange ejaculates inside her and thereafter withdraws. Anna saw that the condom didn't have **bleep** in it when Assange took it off. When Anna began moving her body she noticed how things were running out of her **bleep**. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's **bleep**. She pointed this out for Assange but he denied this and told her it was she who was wet with her own juices. Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broken the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation. In answer to a question Anna says she didn't look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it. She says that even the bed sheets used on that occasion are most likely still in her hamper.

After the above mentioned incident Anna says she and Assange didn't have any more sex. Yet Assange went on living with her up to and including Friday 20 August. According to Anna Assange made sexual overtures every day after that evening when they'd had sex. For example by touching her breasts. Anna rebuffed Assange on all these occasions and Assange accepted it. On one occasion, Wednesday 18 August, he'd suddenly removed all his clothing on his lower body and thereafter rubbed his lower body and his erect **bleep** against Anna. Anna says she thought this was strange behaviour and uncomfortable and had therefore moved down to a mattress on the floor and slept there instead of up in the bed with Assange. The next night Anna stayed with a friend because she didn't want to be around Assange because of his strange behaviour. She even pointed out after Wednesday 18 August that she didn't want Assange staying any longer in her flat which he didn't respond to until Friday when he took his things and returned her flat key.

In answer to a question Anna says Assange lived with her but they hardly slept together because Assange was up at night working with his computer. She mostly got up in the morning about 07:00 when he went to sleep.

In answer to a question Anna says she knew of Sofia when she'd been in contact with Anna before the above mentioned seminar and been part of the audience. According to Anna Sofia had purchased electrical cables for Assange and been with Anna and Assange at the lunch after the seminar. Anna noticed Assange flirted with Sofia during the lunch and understood that they'd afterwards begun some sort of relationship when Assange rang Sofia later in the evening when he was at Anna's at the crayfish party.

She received an email message from Sofia Friday 20 August where she wonders if she can reach Assange as she had something important to tell him. Anna understood immediately what it was about and contacted Sofia who then told her what had happened to her, that she and Assange had had sex and that he didn't want to use a condom etc. Sofia wanted to follow this up with the police and Anna decided to follow along, foremost as support.

Anna says she already heard from several sources that Assange 'chases all women who cross his path'. Considering Assange's reputation Anna felt it very important that they used a condom the time they had sex, that is the day before the seminar.

Anna says she's felt terrible after the occasion when she and Assange had sex. Foremost because of the worry she'd been infected by HIV or some other STD. Anna says she freely consented to have sex with Assange but she couldn't have let it happen if she'd known he didn't have a condom. Anna has been in contact with the health centre and been given a time for tests next week. Anna approves of the police having the results of these tests.

Anna does not want any help from the crime victims unit but will get back to us if she feels it's necessary.

Interrogation read back and approved.
------------------------

is also interesting to notice that Anna Ardin had in her twitter account that she works for the CIA.

anna ardin

her relationship with the U.S. government is what makes me doubt her, since is a great casuality that she make the allegations after the release of the U.S. government documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell that tweet translates to, "CIA agent, rabid feminist/Muslim lover, Christian fundamentalist, flat and madly in love with a man - can you be all these things at the same time?" Sounds like she's describing all the things she's been CALLED and noting how contradictory many of them are. My thinking? If you're a CIA agent you don't tweet that you're a CIA agent, and if you want to destroy someone you come up with a much jucier story than she has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all very interesting but has nothing much to do with the rape complaint (item 4 in the European Arrest Warrant), which was made by a woman whose initals are SW, not AA.

AA is the complainant in the first three counts  ("Unlawful Coercion" and "Sexual molestation" x 2).  

 You will see all this if you read the transcript of the judgment in the English High Court  where, among other things, the charges on the EAW were discussed at some length.

   Paragraphs 122 and 123 read:


Her [sW's] statement then describes in some detail the conduct that forms the basis of Offence 4 [Rape]. She fell asleep, but was woken up by his penetration of her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered to the effect that he was not. She felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. She had never had unprotected sex. He then ejaculated inside her.

The essential complaint made [by Julian Assange's lawyers] about the fairness and accuracy of the description of the offence is that it did not set out the context to which we have referred from which it was contended that the offence of rape could not be inferred. The context would have made clear that she either consented or he had reasonable belief in her consent.


I am fascinated by the screenshot you reproduce.    As far as I can make out, with the aid of Google translation and a Swedish dictionary, not only does she describe herself as being not only a CIA agent, but also as being a rabid feminist, a "muslim lover", a Christian fundamentalist,  fatally in love with a man, and as being a "flata," which is apparently a vulgar colloquial term that gets bleeped out by the filter here.

You are certain it's authentic and not a spoof, aren't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting information.

I only have bits an pieces of the facts.

Media, made it sound like, "a woman who never met Assange, was found half dead in a dumpster, near an abandoned warehouse, beaten, bruised and left for dead; Her violent attacker, fled the scene. Later, Police were able to put the pieces together, and to the woman's shock and horror, she had been violated by a wealthy man."

 

Her statement, makes it sound like they were Dating.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you should form your opinion based on the diverse legal documents that exist. and even then, your opinion is worthless to the case.

is Julian Assange a rapist? we dont know, because there isnt enough proof as the document you linked point out, the truthfulness of the acusations would only be decided by a judge, as for now, we can only speculate, since no physical proof exist of the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Canoro Philipp wrote:

you should form your opinion based on the diverse legal documents that exist. and even then, your opinion is worthless to the case.

is Julian Assange a rapist? we dont know, because there isnt enough proof as the document you linked point out, the truthfulness of the acusations would only be decided by a judge, as for now, we can only speculate, since no physical proof exist of the matter.

Exactly.  All I am saying is that these are serious allegations and that, like anyone else in his position, he should answer the charges in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been pretty widely reported in the UK. 

However, I find the transcripts of the judgements in the three hearings very useful:  hearing before the District Judge, hearing before the High Court, hearing before the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, the only time Assange and his legal team raised his fears about the Swedish request for extradition being a ploy to simplify his extradiction to the USA, should a request ever be made, was at the first hearing, before the District Judge.   

Sven-Eric Alhem,  one of Julian Assange's expert witnesses on Swedish law and proceedure, 


was then asked about extradition from Sweden to the United States. He is not an expert on what happens but had brought a Guide and had considered the specialty principle. His reading was that normally there could not be a further surrender to a country outside the European Union but there are exceptions. It would be “completely impossible to extradite Mr Assange to the USA without a media storm”. It is quite right to say that he would not be extradited to the USA.


The District Judge comments, 

 


There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor).
The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing.
It may be worth adding that I do not know if Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States of America. There has been no evidence regarding this. I would expect that there is such a treaty. If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued.


That's the only time this issue, which so now concerns Assange and his supporters, was raised in any of the three hearings, and Assange's own witness dismissed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

It's been pretty widely reported in the UK. 

However, I find the transcripts of the judgements in the three hearings very useful:  hearing
, hearing
, hearing
.

Interestingly, the only time Assange and his legal team raised his fears about the Swedish request for extradition being a ploy to simplify his extradiction to the USA, should a request ever be made, was at the first hearing, before the District Judge.   

Sven-Eric Alhem,  one of Julian Assange's expert witnesses on Swedish law and proceedure, 

was then asked about extradition from Sweden to the United States. He is not an expert on what happens but had brought a Guide and had considered the specialty principle. His reading was that normally there could not be a further surrender to a country outside the European Union but there are exceptions. It would be “completely impossible to extradite Mr Assange to the USA without a media storm”. It is quite right to say that he would not be extradited to the USA.


The District Judge comments, 

 

There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor).
The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing.
It may be worth adding that I do not know if Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States of America. There has been no evidence regarding this. I would expect that there is such a treaty. If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued.


That's the only time this issue, which so now concerns Assange and his supporters, was raised in any of the three hearings, and Assange's own witness dismissed it.

It was never brought up prior because 'it' did not exist.  If the U.S. wanted him at that point they could have snatched him from the streets of London.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a Zionist plant, he has hidden all the bank details he got from that Swiss banker, so that info has been suppressed by him, also he claims to have given the press details of Israeli involvement in terrorist attacks and claims it is the press that refuses to print them, in all he has allowed out info that ONLY suited the Zionist and their need to stirs up the middle east.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3064 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...