Most allegations against Julian Assange dropped

Written By: - Date published: 6:39 pm, August 18th, 2015 - 94 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, colonialism, democracy under attack, Europe, human rights, International, patriarchy, uk politics, us politics, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , , ,

I’ve always considered the handling of Julian Assange’s case by the Swedish and UK authorities as being politically motivated in the extreme. LPrent voiced the very same suspicion about the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny way back in 2010 and that has been the way things have played out. The idea has been to make an example out of Assange and to demonstrate how miserable life can quickly become for you if you cross the elite establishment as a whistleblower. Now we learn that Swedish prosecutors have let most of the allegations against Assange drift past the statute of limitations where they must be dropped.

Swedish prosecutors on Thursday officially dropped their investigation into three cases surrounding WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to a report from Agence France-Presse.

The charges being dropped involve one count of sexual assault and one count of unlawful coercion, according to reports. Swedish law stipulates that suspects must be questioned before the statute of limitations expires, otherwise they can no longer be charged for the crimes. Prosecutors had until Thursday to bring charges against Assange.

To be very clear, Assange and the Ecuadorans have left an open invitation to Swedish authorities to question him in the UK, for years now:

Ecuador 1

The fact that Swedish authorities never did, but instead allowed the allegations to legally expire, suggests to me that the prosecution had insufficient grounds or perhaps motivation, to proceed with from the very start.

This now means that there has been no justice for anyone: not for Assange who has been trapped in an office building for 5 years, nor for the female complainants in Sweden. The most serious charge of rape against Assange still stands because the statue of limitations on that allegation is 10 years. But there are few signs that Sweden is moving with any urgency to question Assange on that allegation either. The plan appears to be to simply let Assange rot away in a corner, one day at a time.

Meanwhile it has surfaced that Swedish authorities have questioned 44 other people in the UK during the course of other investigations, during the time of the Assange saga. Just not Assange himself. You cannot make this stuff up.

Meanwhile, UK human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said that by agreeing to interview 44 people in the UK, but not Assange, Sweden was “guilty of double standards and victimization,” adding they are “making an exception of him.”

“It is wrong to deny Assange the option to be interviewed in the UK, which has been extended to others and which he has been offering for five years,” the Press Association cited him as saying.

“The Swedish authorities are not applying the law about overseas interviews consistently and fairly. They are acting in an exceptional and discriminatory way towards Assange. Julian Assange has been in various forms of detention for five years, without ever having been charged with any offence. This amounts to pre-trial punishment and is a gross abuse of his human rights and the legal system.”

As I said, Assange’s case has been managed in an utterly political and cynical manner by the authorities, from the very start.

94 comments on “Most allegations against Julian Assange dropped”

  1. Tory 1

    Assange is “not trapped”, he can leave at any time.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1

      Yes he can leave for Guantanamo Bay or Fort Bragg, at any time.

      • lurgee 1.1.1

        Nonsense. He was living at an English stately home for months, under orders to report to a police station daily, before he decided he preferred Ecuadorian hospitality. If he was going to bundled into any helicopters and rendered to Bulgaria, it would have been easy enough to do it then.

        Wikileaks has done some useful work but don’t confuse the organisation with the pathetic figure of Assange.

        • Yeah sure, that’s why they spied on the ecuadorian embassy.

          I think the allegations are serious and that there’s legitimate questions to answer, but it’s also ridiculous anyone’s talking about extraditing assange to the USA, too, which seems to be what is behind the attempts to extradite Julian to Sweden.

    • Weepus beard 1.2

      …and walk straight into the 12 million quid police cordon?

  2. Tory 2

    Conspiracy theories are great as you don’t need to supply evidence, just opinion. At the end of the day all will be revealed in 2020, unless Assange chooses to leave before then.

    • Weepus beard 2.1

      What’s happening in 2020? That when you leave primary school?

    • Draco T Bastard 2.2

      The point you seem to be missing is that the evidence that we do have is heavily indicative of an actual conspiracy against Assange.

    • lprent 2.3

      Making up bullshit theories like that is easy as well.

      The US has a strong history of extracting people illegally from other countries and shoving them in front of kangaroo courts or just holding them without any charges or court appearances. They do it with the complicity of gutless idiots like you who tend to regard accusations as being a conviction.

      And could you please be less of a idiot, and actually use the reply button.

    • Colonial Viper 2.4

      can you read? try reading the post and making a relevant comment.

    • Anne 2.5

      Colonial Viper writes a post based on the facts as we know them, and supplies links to back the evidence and Tory mumbles… Conspiracy theories are great as you don’t need to supply evidence, just opinion. The fall back position of mentally challenged ‘tories’ who can’t produce a cogent opposing argument.

  3. Chooky 3

    +100 Good Post…the consensus amongst human right groups and feminists is that he was set up…even the women concerned in Sweden deny making charges he raped them

    …here is Assange interviewed

    • just saying 3.1

      i can’t really be bothered – but links for that consensus?
      Also, the charges came from the testimony of the women….
      Still, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

        just noting that no charges have been laid against Assange by the prosecutor, even after 5 years.

        • just saying 3.1.1.1

          I was asking Chooky to verify two claims s/he made in the above comment.
          No proof has been forthcoming.

          • Chooky 3.1.1.1.1

            @ just saying…where have you been?…certainly NOT following this story

            http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

            http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-an-epic-struggle-for-justice

            http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-is-a-farce-a-special-investigation

            “According to documents released by Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. Washington’s bid to get him, say Australian diplomatic cables, is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has spent four years attempting to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers….

            “One of the women’s messages makes clear that she did not want any charges brought against Assange, “but the police were keen on getting a hold on him”. She was “shocked” when they arrested him because she only “wanted him to take [an HIV] test”. She “did not want to accuse JA of anything” and “it was the police who made up the charges”. (In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”.)

            Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both have denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, “I have not been raped.” That they were manipulated by police and their wishes ignored is evident – whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they are victims of a saga worthy of Kafka.

            For Assange, his only trial has been trial by media. On 20 August 2010, the Swedish police opened a “rape investigation” and immediately – and unlawfully – told the Stockholm tabloids that there was a warrant for Assange’s arrest for the “rape of two women”. This was the news that went round the world.

            In Washington, a smiling US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that the arrest “sounds like good news to me”. Twitter accounts associated with the Pentagon described Assange as a “rapist” and a “fugitive”.

            Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.” The file was closed.

            ….Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?”

            http://www.rt.com/op-edge/212411-assange-wikileaks-whistleblowers-usa/

            http://johnpilger.com/videos/julian-assange-in-conversation-with-john-pilger

            • just saying 3.1.1.1.1.1

              The articles you have cited were disputed at the TS and many other places at the time (and long afterwards). Feel free to use the search engine.

              Women against rape is a small group and does not constitute anything like a consensus of feminists and human rights groups.

              I think many of us are sick to death of having the same arguments over and over, like some sort of ground-hog day.

              I find it wearying that some of the same people are coming back to make the same arguments, feigning being babes in the woods – as if they had never heard the counterarguments. That strikes me as dishonest. Continue to disagree by all means, but be honest about it.

              • Chooky

                My citations and links speak for themselves and there are many , many others from the women concerned and those others sceptical of the accusations made against Assange

                ….where are your citations ?….you dont have any credible ones…they have all been discredited and that is why you refuse to put them up!….makes me think you are disingenuous and a tr..l

                …interesting that those crying rape against Julian Assange are not the women concerned or feminist groups against rape….but males with a political agenda to get Assange

                …are you putting words and false accusations into these women’s mouths and using them for your own ends?…in which case it is you who are disrespecting, if not abusing, women

                • just saying

                  interesting that those crying rape against Julian Assange are not the women concerned or feminist groups against rape….but males with a political agenda to get Assange
                  LOL

                  The women concerned have not retracted their statements – the statements from which the charges were laid. Of course they are “crying” rape.

                  But I’m not going to bother with what is rape. Google it if you’d like to know

                  • Colonial Rawshark

                    Just noting again that no charges – none at all – have been laid against Assange.

                    • McFlock

                      Only because in Sweden formal charges are laid immediately going before the courts, rather than earlier in the process as under UK law.

                      Assange tried the “no charges have been laid” gambit in his extradition hearings, and the British courts called bullshit on it.

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      No charges McFlock. And not only that, investigations are now going away too. That’s how politically motivated and hamfisted the Swedish prosecutor has been in her judgement.

                      Time is proving that the original Swedish prosecutor was right in her judgement: Assange has no case to answer to.

                    • McFlock

                      You’re recycling old propaganda:

                      Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.

                      My bold.

                      Your line that there are no charges suggests that there is no case for Assange to answer. This is patently false.

                      The investigations are not “going away”. They are becoming redundant because Assange has purposefully fled justice for longer than the period stipulated in the statute of limitations. This says nothing about the prosecutor, but much about Assange.

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      And the fierce criticisms of the poor conduct of the Swedish Prosecutor from the Swedish Bar Association, the Swedish Court of Appeals and others, McFlock?

                      Glad you hold the work of the Swedish prosecutor in high esteem though.

                    • McFlock

                      Get all the more fierce whenever you try to change the subject away from your oft-repeated inaccuracies.

                      Maybe Ny should have pursued the case with more alacrity rather than letting him sit in his self-imposed cell. That doesn’t mean there is no case to answer and no substance to the allegations.

                      But then it’s perfectly possible for someone who does good work to also be imperfect and make mistakes.

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      McFlock, you personally dislike Assange and all that he stands for; I think the criticisms of the Swedish prosecutor by legal authorities in Sweden are well founded and Assange is paying a high price for her lack of “alacrity.”

                      That doesn’t mean there is no case to answer and no substance to the allegations.

                      The case is going away bit by bit.

                      I wouldn’t be surprised if the Swedish prosecutor Ny runs down the clock on the rest of the allegations as well.

                      The first Swedish prosecutor had it right when she decided that Assange had no case to answer.

                    • McFlock

                      you personally dislike Assange and all that he stands for

                      Where do you get that from? I don’t even know the man. And wikileaks has done a tremendous global public service.
                      I just wish he had the integrity to face justice, rather than fleeing to the shelter of America’s closest ally and then jumping bail when he lost the extradition hearing.

                      Ny isn’t the one sitting in an Ecuadorean embassy. Now was Ny the one who demanded a bilateral treaty in order to arrange for the criminal interview of one individual when multiple multilateral treaties already cover the process.

                      I think I read somewhere that the UK is worried they’ll spend another ten million watching a bail-jumper, so might be chalenging the legality of the asylum claim given that the criminal investigation is not political. Assange is obviously set to stay there another five years, otherwise.

                  • les

                    didn’t the Swedish prosecutor say one of the women didn’t know what rape was …because she wasn’t a lawyer!:)

                    • McFlock

                      Don’t think so. Where did you get that tidbit?

                    • les

                      ‘Within days of the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in the city of Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically. – See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2015/07/31/julian-assange-untold-story-epic-struggle-justice#sthash.TwZN0GpV.dpuf

                      ‘Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed, citing one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, “Ah, but she is not a lawyer.” Assange’s Australian barrister, James Catlin, responded, “This is a laughing stock… it’s as if they make it up as they go along.” – See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2015/07/31/julian-assange-untold-story-epic-struggle-justice#sthash.TwZN0GpV.dpuf

                    • Tracey

                      I don’t know about Sweden’s Legal system but I know in NZ that victims don’t determine if a charge is laid, the police do, taking into account a number of things from victim’s view to definition’s under the law. perhaps that is what the prosecutor meant (not that I am in her head)

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      My lawyers in Sweden, Per E. Samuelson and Thomas Olsson, were able to review the phone records that are part of the investigation, including SMS traffic between the two women and between SW and some of the witnesses. My lawyers notified me via email on 8 December 2011 of the content of twenty-two of these messages.109

                      While the younger woman was at the police station on 20 August 2010, her phone records show that she wrote that she:

                      did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him (sv: få tag på honom) (14:26);110

                      and that

                      she was “chocked [sic: shocked] when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test (17:06)”.111

                      The woman concerned told a friend that she felt that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”, according to the latter’s police statement.112

                      According to the younger woman’s phone records, who the ‘rape’ allegation is associated to, she wrote at 07:27 on 21 August 2010 that she

                      “did not want to accuse JA for anything”;

                      and at 22:25 that

                      “it was the police who made up the charges”.113

                      Although the police initially opened an investigation into ‘rape’ in relation to woman AA, there was no allegation in her testimony that she had been raped. She expressed in her statement to the police that she consented to sex (“frivilligt gått med på att ha sex med Assange”) and subsequently tweeted on 22 April in 2013 “I have not been raped”.114

                      This was from an affadavit submitted by Julian Assange and his legal team.

                      https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#efmNdPNvM

                    • McFlock

                      So no, the prosecutor did not say that.

                    • les

                      no the prosecutor did not actually say that.The lawyer that advocated for Ny to become prosecutor said it.@Tracey ,the Police surely have to determine the likelihood of a prosecution succeeding if a charge is laid on the basis of hard evidence pertaining to a complaint/allegation.

                    • McFlock

                      The women’s own lawyer said that, yes.

                      Of course, maybe the legal definition of rape is not the same as the popular definition in sweden, so it’s perfectly possible for both to be correct. Maybe she thought she could consent to sex while unconscious, or something.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                +1

  4. McFlock 4

    Hey, those other 44 people interviewed in the UK: how many had diplomats insisting on written terms before a simple interview?

    If Assange wants to confine himself for another five years, who cares. Running to the UK because you’re afraid of rendition is pretty unbelievable, IMO. Germany, France maybe. The USA’s closest ally? yeah, nah.

    edit: BTW, “dropped” is a bit inaccurate. The official investigations have been stopped because he’s waited for the stature of limitations to expire.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1

      the prosecution waited for the statute of limitations to expire. You should be asking why the Swedish Prosecutor made such a huge deal of the case when she re-launched it then sat on her hands waiting for the clock to run down. Then again it was crystal clear back in 2010 that she was acting as if she was politically compromised and had no interest in justice per se.

      Now time has shown that with these allegations she apparently had no real case to proceed with (which by the way is exactly as the original Swedish prosecutor had determined).

      • McFlock 4.1.1

        That’s a lot of tea-leaf reading you have there.

        BTW, how many of those 44 interviews were of people in UK police custody, rather than being sheltered in an embassy?

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

          i included the diplomatic communique from Ecuador to Sweden, just for you, McFlock. Obviously, the Swedish prosecutor has run the clock down on Assange, while seeing fit to interview dozens of others in the UK during the very same time period.

          Its almost like Swedish authorities travelling to London were instructed NOT to question Assange, even though he was literally just a cab ride away.

          • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1

            Almost but not quite.

            Protip: nonsensical demands are not a sign of diplomatic good faith.

            • Pascals bookie 4.1.1.1.1.1

              Oh, weird how that wasn’t in the OP.

              • Colonial Viper

                thats just the Swedes making last moment noises with no evidence, to save face on their many years of compounding prosecutorial errors.

                Julian Assange has never, and would never seek, asylum in Sweden because he views that country as being thoroughly under US influence with a politically compromised legal system.

                • Pascals bookie

                  Funny how the Ecuadorian Embassy had no comment to rebut it then. I guess rt news is more reliable than Reuters?

                  • Colonial Viper

                    i have no doubt Reuters correctly reproduced what the Swedish official claimed.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      Why no rebuttal though? If it’s just spin, and the Embassy didn’t turn the prosecutor away, why the silence about it?

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      Reuters didn’t do any independent fact checking of the Swedish claims – they just repeated them.

                      As for Ecuador – why would they play games of megaphone tag in the media with Sweden, which appears desperate to save face on their 5 year prosecutorial fuck up.

                  • Arbed

                    Ecuador did make a rebuttal, a very strong one.

                    http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/deputy-foreign-minister-xavier-lasso-rejects-statements-made-by-british-minister-swire/

                    Assange had agreed in April interview dates of 17/18 June. However, the Swedish prosecutor sent her formal request to Ecuador to enter its embassy and use its premises on 12 June, at 17:35 after the working day was over. Following the weekend, this gave Ecuador 2 days in which to process it. The prosecutor knew on 16 June that the formal permission was not yet in place. We know all this because the correspondence between the prosecutor and Assange’s defence team and between Ny and Ecuador has been released under FOIA requests:


                    (as you can see, she is trying to set all sorts of obstructive pre-conditions, ie. wanting a 2nd DNA sample instead of using the one held on the UK’s database since Assange was arrested in December 2010)

                    Despite the fact she knew her request to Ecuador had been too late, she decided to send a junior prosecutor anyway, together with tipping off a photographer from Swedish tabloid Expressen to capture the moment her junior was “turned away”. Things didn’t go according to Ny’s plan, however:

                    https://justice4assange.com/Prosecutor-cancels-Assange-meeting.html

                    Eyewitness account of the Expressen paparazzi photographer: http://wiseupaction.info/2015/07/16/sweden-fails-to-call-another-chapter-in-the-pre-trial-punishment-of-julian-assange/

                    She herself had booked a long holiday beginning 18 June and not returning to work until 8 July (although her spokesman in Sweden was claiming she was still on holiday and unavailable to comment on 24 July). What sort of prosecutor books herself a 5-week holiday if she knows the statute of limitations on a career-defining case of global significance is about to run out?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      A prosecutor who never had any intention of delivering justice either to Assange or the complainants.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      Well I’m confused, I thought the story was that Ecuador was willing and all set to go and the Prosecutors were refusing to interview him; but now you’re telling me that the prosecutors were too eager to interview and the Embassy hadn’t given the right permissions.

                      Which is it? Does it all depend on which needs to be said to make Assange more victimy at any given moment?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Who cares PB; the Swedes and the US would like to see Assange rot without freedom a day at a time and they are getting their wish.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      So you admit you argue different lines depending on need, good oh.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      If you can see past your animus toward Assange, you would understand that the actions of the Swedish prosecutor have precluded the possibility of justice for everyone involved in the case.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      So my confusion about the fact your story keeps swinging through 180 degree shifts would be resolved if I just assume that Assange is a saint and interpret all and any facts to fit that?

                      I mean which is it? Was the Prosecutor refusing to do an interview that was completley ready to go without condition, or did the Prosecutor demand an interview without proper invitation?

                      Or both? Or either depending on your rhetorical need of the moment?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      If you have a point PB, make it. As I said, get past your personal animus towards Assange and it is easy to see that his case has been handled politically and exceptionally, precluding justice for all.

                    • greywarshark

                      PBs lost her cool! Normally PB is the epitome of thoughtful analysis and clear eyed argument.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      I made my point a few times.

                      I’m wondering why the story flips between:

                      a) The prosecutor refused an open offer to interview Assange in London,

                      and

                      b) the prosecutor denmanded to interview Assange without being properly invited.

                      Which is it?

                      All I’m getting response is weird claims that I can only see an inconsistency because I want to, or that I have lost my cool, or whatever. These are rubbish arguments. If there is a simple explanation ofwhy the story changes, I’d be keen to hear it. Not that keen on hearing about fantasies about what what I might be thinkng or why I think it.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      It’s interesting that you want to make it about me and all. I get that I’m fascinating, but why not stick to the subject?

            • dukeofurl 4.1.1.1.1.2

              And the letter reproduced further up, on official Ecuador embassy letterhead is another obstacle too ?

              He wants to be interviewed and they put in writing they want to help.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.2

          Tea-leaf reading – not to mention the wishful thinking (or is it just plain ol’ editorial dishonesty?) indicated by the use of the word “dropped”.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2.1

            the Swedish prosecutor sat in her office and watched the clock run down for 5 years. I presume she knows Swedish law on the statute of limitations. As I said it indicates the Swedes had no substantial grounds or perhaps no substantial motivation to press actual charges, from the start.

            This would match the judgement of the original prosecutor who determined that Assange had nothing further to answer.

            • McFlock 4.1.1.2.1.1

              Given that he’s been a self-imposed shut-in for longer than the maximum penalties for the offences that have just expired, I’m not sure the prosecutor is all that bothered.

              • Colonial Rawshark

                Exactly. Which is why there have been many calls in Sweden from legal and judicial commentators opposing her conduct in this case.

                • McFlock

                  The prosecutor should be bothered because a suspect locks himself up for longer than the potential penalty?

                  What are those people and organisations in sweden calling for in relation to Assange’s conduct in jumping bail?

                  • Colonial Rawshark

                    This post is about the Swedish criminal investigations being dropped, not about Assange’s UK legal situation.

                    Having said that, Assange jumped bail in order to seek asylum from political persecution. The Ecuadoran Government considered that his position had merit and granted him political asylum.

                    As I said above, many in the Swedish legal fraternity have been scathing about the Swedish prosecutor’s conduct in this case.

                    • McFlock

                      And how do “many in the Swedish legal fraternity” regard Assange’s conduct in this case?

                      Even in NZ sometimes diplomats decide that diplomatic expedience means that accused rapists needn’t face justice. Maybe Ecuador just wanted a bargaining chip. He’s nicely placed where they can find him if they want to make nice with somebody he pissed off.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2.2

            btw if you dont like the word “drop” blame Politico. They used it first. Maybe its your fanciful thinking accusing them of pro Assange editorial dishonesty?

            • McFlock 4.1.1.2.2.1

              Hmm. So you repeated it without checking its accuracy?

              • Colonial Rawshark

                If I were a journalist working with the resources of a multinational news service, I would have.

            • Tracey 4.1.1.2.2.2

              And you did repeat it. You could have made your headline Deadline for charging Assange expires…

              You didn’t, which is your choice, but do’t get annoyed with McFlock and blame Politico, own it brother.

        • dukeofurl 4.1.1.3

          Heres a BBC timeline of the Assange situation

          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341

          This bit is interesting

          20 November 2014
          Sweden’s Court of Appeal upholds the arrest warrant against Mr Assange, but criticises prosecutors for failing to move the investigation forward.

  5. vto 5

    The reality of conspiracy

    Is that everyone does it

    Every day

    Always have

    It is a base human trait

    Needed for hunting

    Or rugby

    And especially politics

    And power

    It is only a fool

    Who dismisses conspiracy theories

  6. infused 6

    Misleading to the extreme. Charges were not dropped. They expired.

    He’s a douchebag anyway. Yea yea comment i am as well. Dont care. He should come out of hiding and face up. Hes not locked in there.

    • dukeofurl 6.1

      hes not hiding, hes welcomed them in to talk to him, Ecuador has said it will help.

      Even the Swedish courts are saying to their prosecutors, why the delays

    • RedLogix 6.2

      Prosecutor fails to pursue charges in timely manner = Dropped.

    • Morrissey 6.3

      He’s a douchebag anyway.

      Yes, he should have been a sport and should not have co-operated with a conscience-stricken U.S. soldier, and should not have released this top secret to the world….

      • marty mars 6.3.1

        so chilling to see that again – good work from julian in getting it out there

        • Colonial Rawshark 6.3.1.1

          I get that a lot of people don’t like Assange. To that extent, the MSM smear campaign led against him by The Powers That Be worked beautifully.

          What I am surprised about is how obviously Assange has been set up from the start in terms of a political prosecution. And now it is all the more obvious with the prosecution falling over with investigations being dropped and no charges laid. No justice or due process for anyone. Not Assange, not the Swedish complainants, not Manning.

          Yet people still refuse to reconsider what they think they know about Assange and his case.

          It really demonstrates how powerful the MSM influence is in feeding and manipulating pre-existing personal prejudices.

          • McFlock 6.3.1.1.1

            Oh come on – you know damned well that the only reason he wasn’t put on trial was because he skipped bail when he lost the extradition hearings. Hearings which called bullshit on the “no charges laid” claim simply because “charges” occur at different ends of the investigation process in Sweden and the UK.

            The only reason the investigations are no longer happening is because he chose to skip bail for half a decade until the statute of limitations on thos offences expired.

          • Tracey 6.3.1.1.2

            On what basis do you completely dismiss the notion that a man who does “Good” on the one hand (Wikileaks) can do “Bad” (possibly sexually assault women) on the other?

            I don’t know Assange. Never met him. But I have met good men who have done bad things. Men who can throw a claok of well meaning social good over a darker side of their personalities.

            I also get that the US wants him, and wants him bad.

            WHY do you think Sweden bother laying the trumped up charges if they weren’t going to follow through, just to smear his name?

            • Colonial Rawshark 6.3.1.1.2.1

              On what basis do you completely dismiss the notion that a man who does “Good” on the one hand (Wikileaks) can do “Bad” (possibly sexually assault women) on the other?

              Where have I done this (“completely dismiss the notion” that a man can have good and bad sides) Tracey?

              WHY do you think Sweden bother laying the trumped up charges if they weren’t going to follow through, just to smear his name?

              The facts over time speak for themselves. Sweden has NOT followed through.

              But I have no idea why the Swedish prosecutors office flipped from saying Assange had no case to answer, to saying that Assange faces serious criminal allegations, to then sitting on their hands and letting the investigations expire.

              The main result has been to make Assange’s life miserable and limited under virtual house arrest – mission success?

              • Tracey

                I am glad that you don’t dismiss the notion and yet you seemed VERY convinced that Mr Assange did not unlawfully sexually connect with these two women, or it is strongly inferred in your post (above) and past by not allowing for that possibility in your comments and assuming with absolute certainty that it is all trumped up by the US to get him into their version of Gulag.

                You may be right, but to completely leave aside the possibility that 2 women were violated by Assange suggests you leave no room for the possibility I outlined above.

                IF Equador has not been as cooperative as they publicly stated they would be, then it would be very hard for the Prosecutor to advance the case with the offender safely behind closed diplomatic doors. You accept that sometimes countries say one thing publicly and do another when the spotlight moves?

                • Colonial Rawshark

                  I am glad that you don’t dismiss the notion and yet you seemed VERY convinced that Mr Assange did not unlawfully sexually connect with these two women

                  Where the hell did you draw that from?

                  FFS Tracey, the Swedish Prosecutor has dropped the investigations and has come under intense fire from the Swedish legal fraternity and others for her conduct in this case.

                  That’s what I wrote this post about: there has been no justice for anybody given what Sweden has done.

    • Tracey 6.4

      yup… just like Banks

  7. greywarshark 7

    The Swedish don’t always make a stand against creeping fascism etc. The other Scandinavian countries were conflicted about Sweden’s neutrality in WW2. Was it overall a valuable diplomatic move for the area, or should they have fought back against the Nazis and end up as occupied territory like the others?

    It seems the Swedes are conflicted now too. Are they for all the good things that western democracy is supposed to believe in and stand by like transparency and as much open and fair dealing as possible, or, on the other hand, ambivalent.

    • Tracey 7.1

      And then there is the USA who has a history of being only very vaguely dismissive of facism IF they are making money from it, or agree with it…

    • Chooky 8.1

      +100 Raf…very interesting…lets hope justice is now meted out to the Swedish prosecutor and all the others who have played a part in this miscarriage of justice

      …”Sweden’s legal community is practically unanimous that the Assange case has been mishandled and driven by the prosecutor’s attempts to save face. The Secretary General of the Swedish Bar Association Anne Ramberg has said: “The Assange story has become a less than flattering adventure not only for the English courts’ handling of the case, but also for the Swedish prosecutor”. Svante Thorsell, an eminent defence lawyer and columnist, wrote that: “Something is rotten in the Assange case… the prosecutor’s passivity in this case is a crime against decency.” Former prosecutor Rolf Hillegren has called for her removal, stating that Julian Assange has been “discriminated against”. The editor of the Law journal Dagens Juridik, Stefan Wahlberg, told Swedish Radio that “the bottom line is it’s the prosecutor who has the responsibility, no one else!” and that “Prestige has played a big part.”…”

  8. Exile 9

    And why should the Swedish prosecutor travel to London?
    Because Assange is special? Because he deserves special treatment? Because he as the accused choose where he gets interviewed and how?
    Nah, were all equal in front of the law thank you. He has put himself in a very bad position. Its likely that the prosecutor would have dropped the rape-case should Assange had showed up, however the minor charges is likely to have stayed.

    The question then comes down to this, would a prosecutor, who has read the case and realised that Assange in general is an arsehole to women who helps him (nothing illegal in that) grant him special favours?
    Does she believe that h deserve this special favour or would she simply let him choose between the two alternatives that Swedish law states:
    A. Rot away at the embassy, an embassy who is more than fed up with Assange and his demands for special food from different restaurants everyday etc
    etc. A place where he isnt popular at all and thus dont enjoy his life.
    B. Travel to Sweden and be interviewed by the prosecutors office.

    if i was a prosecutor I sure would not give special treatment to someone whose behaviour towards women is what Assanges was. Probably because I don’t believe that men such as Assange deserve special considerations?
    What do you think?

    Lets remember this, Assange has been accused of a rape and inappropriate sexual behaviour by two left wing ladies with a background in the Labour and feminist movements. Had they been from NZ, at least one of them would likely have been a frequent poster on The Standard. These two ladies were part of his support network, were supporters of his movement and came from the entities that oppose the right in Sweden. This is hardly the evil US empire striking back against a whistleblower…
    My opinion; Assange is avoiding this because he knows that the lesser charges would probably (my speculation) have been proven correct and seen Assange sentenced to a year or two in a Swedish prison. A prison system that used to be humane but today is rather harsh and where ethnic minority gangs rule the prisonwings. A place where a blonde, proud and stubborn Australian would have suffered. Suffered a lot. I don’t blame Assange for avoiding that, I probably would have to.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1

      And why should the Swedish prosecutor travel to London?
      Because Assange is special? Because he deserves special treatment? Because he as the accused choose where he gets interviewed and how?
      Nah, were all equal in front of the law thank you.

      Do you really believe that we should all be equal in front of the law?

      Do you? I doubt it, despite your high and mighty protestations.

      Because if you had read the post instead of shooting your mouth off from the hip, you would have noted that the Swedish authorities have indeed travelled to the UK to question 44 other people regarding criminal investigations, during the time the Assange saga has in been in process, just not Assange himself.

      It seems clear that Assange is being treated very differently, and probably for politically motivated reasons.

      And you seem perfectly OK with that, despite mouthing that you think “we’re all equal in front of the law.”

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    1 week ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    2 weeks ago