ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by LeoRoverman

No he knows he's pissed off uncle sam and doesn't think the sex charges are kosher and even if they were he'd be whisked of BY them over there. That's the nub as I understand it.

Well, as I understand it, the nub is that he's a self-obsessed, pontificating, gutless dick, whose professed moral standards ought (by rights) to have him going nowhere near a S American tinpot dictatorship under any circumstances.

Originally Posted by Pyianno

See for yourself: Julian Assange's rape case: is Sweden just making it up? Julian Assange's former lawyer writes for Crikey | Crikey

And you accuse me of conspiracy theories. Solicitors and barrsiters do different things. Or did you not know that? Hence his barrister could quite correctly refer to Assange's "lawyers" and not be referring to himself. "Lawyers" is an internationally understood term.

I was not totally wrong about the timeline of the case. The second arrest warrant - I was unaware of the first - was issued after the Iraq war logs.

So an Australian Lawyer who tried to do some work for Assange in London knows all about Swedish and EU law? Bullcrap! He shows EXACTLY what he knows by his comment about Assange's lawyers getting the papers on 18/11 and wasn't even representing him at the time of the issuing of the second arrest warrant!!! In other words, he's a sympathiser like Michael Moore and can hardly be classed as some sort of reliable "source", especially as he had been sacked by Assange before the Swedes actually issued the second warrant. Anything he says is just typical leftie crap found in many a loon in Melbourne once they get their latté out of their gobs and is merely the opinion of yet-another-mouthpiece.


And you were totally unaware of the timeline as you had no idea regarding what actually happened regarding the case against him in Sweden. And since the case in Sweden is the reason for Assange hiding out in the Ecadorian Embassy, and his paranoid rantings whilst in there, it would help if you looked at what actually went on in the build up to that and not at some crackpot "statements" which have no bearing on the actual facts of the case.

Originally Posted by Pyianno

I think he's insane to leave Europe. If ever he were going to get a sympathetic hearing it's at the ECHR.

As he is an Australian citizen and not a British citizen or permanent resident who is wanted for questioning in another EU country and was arrested under a legally-issued international arrest warrant, would the EHCR be able to do anything as the only thing they could debate on is whether UK law has been broken in any way and, since Assange has had so many appeals which have been heard and rejected, it's pretty clear he has gone through a fair and proper process.

Originally Posted by LeoRoverman

No he knows he's pissed off uncle sam and doesn't think the sex charges are kosher and even if they were he'd be whisked of BY them over there. That's the nub as I understand it.

No, that's what he BELIEVES when, in reality, the septics don't have to do a thing as Assange has managed, very successfully, to destroy Wikileaks and whatever meagre shred of any reputation he actually had. And he did that completely single-handedly, totally on his own, just by having his head so far up his arris he thought he could do anything with impunity.

Why should they waste time and money on someone who has already destroyed himself, especially as it means that putting him on trial would lead to a media circus which could harm O'Bampot's election campaign?

Seems Jules is still a poster boy to some of the usual suspects in the US

Prominent Americans urge Ecuador to accept Julian Assange's asylum request | Media | guardian.co.uk

The Ecudorians must be wishing they had kept the embassy door on the Yale ...

Originally Posted by Stonker

Well, as I understand it, the nub is that he's a self-obsessed, pontificating, gutless dick, whose professed moral standards ought (by rights) to have him going nowhere near a S American tinpot dictatorship under any circumstances.

Well that's all very well, but official secrets is a very dodgy area in the first place as the Germans found out post 1945 and we all know that even tinpost dictators are ruled by realities. Assange will end up in USA bet your life. As to Moral standards well we do have a right to expect a certain level of morality of Governance otherwise things dont work. Unfortunately we have a habit of being lied to.

Originally Posted by Stonker

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: Thanks for nothing - Telegraph

Whatever you think of Assange's politics you have to admire the man's integrity.

“Let us stop promoting this image of poor, courageous journalists, a saintly media trying to tell the truth, and tyrants and autocrats trying to stop them,” said President Correa in an interview last month. Assange, who was asking the questions, nodded obligingly. “I completely agree with your view on the media,” he beamed.

Oh, wait...

Originally Posted by hellsbrink

So an Australian Lawyer who tried to do some work for Assange in London knows all about Swedish and EU law? Bullcrap! He shows EXACTLY what he knows by his comment about Assange's lawyers getting the papers on 18/11 and wasn't even representing him at the time of the issuing of the second arrest warrant!!! In other words, he's a sympathiser like Michael Moore and can hardly be classed as some sort of reliable "source", especially as he had been sacked by Assange before the Swedes actually issued the second warrant. Anything he says is just typical leftie crap found in many a loon in Melbourne once they get their latté out of their gobs and is merely the opinion of yet-another-mouthpiece.


And you were totally unaware of the timeline as you had no idea regarding what actually happened regarding the case against him in Sweden. And since the case in Sweden is the reason for Assange hiding out in the Ecadorian Embassy, and his paranoid rantings whilst in there, it would help if you looked at what actually went on in the build up to that and not at some crackpot "statements" which have no bearing on the actual facts of the case.

What evidence have you that any of the contents of that lawyer's article are wrong? You appear simply to be trying to smear him and not dealing with the evidence, which is actually what you accuse supporters of assange (which I am not) of doing the opposite to (praising him, ignoring evidence). Instead you just keep harping on about the November 18th submission of papers to Assange's solicitors and ignoring the rest of the contents.

You sound totally convinced of Assange's guilt and will not allow such sordid notions as evidence to trouble your elevated mind.

Originally Posted by hellsbrink

As he is an Australian citizen and not a British citizen or permanent resident who is wanted for questioning in another EU country and was arrested under a legally-issued international arrest warrant, would the EHCR be able to do anything as the only thing they could debate on is whether UK law has been broken in any way and, since Assange has had so many appeals which have been heard and rejected, it's pretty clear he has gone through a fair and proper process.

Clearly you know nothing of the Convention.

The European Convention protects all within its jurisdiction. Assange does not need to be a citizen of a member state or even have (allegedly) committed a crime within one of said states to be afforded its protections.

My reason for saying that he is insane to leave Europe is I think it is extremely unlikely the Europeans would exradite him to the US given the treatment that has been metred out to Manning.