The difference is simply in what gender the word is referring. When referring to a woman with yellow hair, you should use the feminine spelling “blonde”. When referring to a male with yellow hair, you should use the spelling “blond”.
I like how your pretend to speak for the whole of the East and like to label your opponents as speaking for all of the West. THAT is the root of the problem.
My signature perfectly suits people like you...that's the whole idea.
As for Al-Qaeda, I proudly simpathize with anybody who is considered "an enemy/a terrorist" by the USA
Do continue expressing your opinions, no matter how stupid they are, but don't accuse people of ugly things just because you disagree with them, or when they expose your stupidity & ignorance. Because once you open your mouth to accuse, you will instantly find someone's shoe inside it.
Lord Cretin tells you: welcome to the club, Sharmoo6
Well despite all this Assange is still in jail in the embassy. Must be getting pretty bored now. Good overtime for the police as well, waiting outside the embassy to arrest him.
Then Hajji, all I can say is that you'll continue putting yourself into evidence, here's how:
1. You are always spreading hate in this forum, you've been doing it for a while and you will continue to do it unless you end up getting banned and then you can open your new nickname.
2. Read your signature block.
3. You are indirectly expressing simpathy for Al Qaeda.
And so on and so forth...
In the mean time, I will continue expresing my opinions in this forum whether you like it or not, got it Lord Cretin? You should use that as your new nickname as soon as you get banned.
Any (3rd world) dictator who has political problems with the "west", would protect a "western freedom fighter" to show the world that the so called "free world" is nothing but a big joke, and that once someone starts exposing the "western" games, then this "free world" is willing to forget about freedom/human rights and to even invent sexual molestation stories
It could be the other way around: the "west" is willing to support, protect and arm organizations (Mujahideen/Al-Qaeda) in order to fight communism, although these organizations are being pictured in the western media, as "enemies"
Assange took asylum at the Embassy of Ecuador. For those who don't know Rafael Correa, he is copying Venezuela's model by suppressing freedom of speech in his country.
So my question is, what is Mr. Assange exactly defending?
He put nothing at risk. He's publicity hound, and he craves attention like a toddler. Fearing extradition to big mean Sweden to answer some questions, he's hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy and crying like a baby to get even more attention. Total nut.
Besides, Assange is proven zionist (and I'm surprised by some of his supporters on this thread).
he put his whole life, career, safety, personal interests, on the stakes in order that he provide us with facts & evidence of what goes on behind the curtains.
He was running behind the truth...and he succeeded
I salute him & have nothing but all the respect for him.
We all may have known but didnt had the balls to say it on their face. This guy has the balls to do so. Thats what makes him different and worth apreciating.
I know if it was me I would rather go to Sweden and maybe get charged and then maybe stand trial. The rape charges were dropped but he still faces sexual molestation which I guessing is a only a few years max and out quickly with good behaviour.
Instead I have indefinte detention in an embassy and then arrest by the UK, then extradtion and then possible trial.
Excellent point QDCLover. An Ecuadorian embassy is probably much worse than Swedish jail. It's also seriously hurt wikileaks reputation and credibility.
SPLITT--Re-read my post. I will help you out of your fanatical delusion. Good luck at school today.
He's in the Ecadourean embassy just to clean this up.... I guess his female victims are feeling a sense of justice. No prison in sweden but in prison in an embassy and he can never leave.
Splitt--there may not be "chargers" but he IS wanted for questioning, and the legal system allows him to be extradited. Assange is is just too much of a wimp to face the consequences of his actions, having to make up conspiracy theories about it all (and his fanatical fans falling for it). We're not talking about Iran; this is Sweden. And to avoid such questions, he is hiding in a Bolivian embassy. It makes him look guilty. If he was innocent, he'd be in Sweden answering the allegations.
But like I said, he'd going to end up in an American dungeon one way or another; so why all the fuss over this?
Activists like assange are trying to make a difference in this world by informing the public what is going on without their knowledge and consent. Information is power that's why the ruling elite are so fearful. And finally - you seriously wish to condemn a truth teller???is that your position on this?
I supported Assange and to some extent still do. I think that the charges against him were trumped up. But I was disappointed when he took asylum in the embassy..
There is no good reason why Sweden can't speak with assange in uk if they want to. To summaries:
1. Assange has already been questioned once in Sweden.
The prosecution is perfectly within its right to re-question Assange but hardly a single media outlet offers any context by mentioning the fact that he’s already been questioned once in Sweden and released without charge. Shortly after, the interview transcript was mysteriously leaked to the Swedish press. Nor does the media highlight that Assange waited for 5 weeks before being granted permission to leave the country and continue his work on the War Logs and Cablegate releases with The Guardian in the UK. Some newspapers, especially in Sweden, instead say that he “fled” the country implying that he is somehow “on the run” from the allegations.
2. Assange is willing to return to Sweden but prosecutors can also question him in the UK.
Assange has stated his willingness to return to Sweden if a legal guarantee is made that he will not be extradited to the USA for his work with WikiLeaks. However, there is no compelling reason for him to be in Sweden for questioning. It is standard Swedish practice that when there is no charge and someone is merely wanted for questioning, it can be conducted anywhere in the world including over the phone and via video call. Swedish prosecutors also frequently travel to other countries to question suspects as they did recently to question a man suspected of murder in Serbia. In Assange’s case however, Swedish prosecutor Marianne Nye is insisting that Assange must physically be in Sweden to be questioned. No reason has been given for this inflexibility but Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter justifies it by saying it is “a matter of prestige” for Sweden.
3. There is mounting evidence that the US are compiling a criminal case against Assange.
There is enough to suggest that Assange’s legal team’s fears are justified. Australian diplomatic cables released to the Sydney Morning Herald under the freedom of information act reveal that the Australian government has confirmed that WikiLeaks has been the target of a US Justice Department investigation in Australia “unprecedented both in its scale and nature”. The Australian government also suggests that media reports that a secret grand jury has been convened in Alexandria, Virginia, were ”likely true”. In addition, the WikiLeaks Stratfor Intelligence releases revealed that the Stratfor vice president Fred Burton claimed that: “We have a sealed indictment on Assange“. Besides this, considering the atrocious treatment of Bradley Manning currently in a military jail in the US for allegedly leaking documents to Assange, you don’t have to wear a tin-foil hat to believe that the US will do whatever it takes to get their hands on Assange and make an example of him.
4. It’s actually easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK.
Many people dismiss Assange’s US extradition fears on the basis that if it wanted Assange, it would be easier to get him from the UK anyway. However, it’s actually considerably harder to extradite him from the UK for various reasons. One is that the UK does not have the “temporary surrender” extradition agreement that exists between Sweden and the USA which can be used to override current international extradition agreements and effectively give the US “instant” extradition powers. Another problem is that if the US were to issue an extradition order for Assange from the UK to the US, it would put the UK in a very difficult position because normally, the first extradition request received from Sweden would have to be honored first. In addition, the more diverse media and greater public support in the UK are factors that would make it harder for the US to extradite from the UK. And for all those that think that the Swedish justice system is somehow the best in the world, the Human Rights Watch archive on Sweden makes some interesting
There is no good reason why Sweden can't speak with assange in uk if they want to. To summaries:
1. Assange has already been questioned once in Sweden.
The prosecution is perfectly within its right to re-question Assange but hardly a single media outlet offers any context by mentioning the fact that he’s already been questioned once in Sweden and released without charge. Shortly after, the interview transcript was mysteriously leaked to the Swedish press. Nor does the media highlight that Assange waited for 5 weeks before being granted permission to leave the country and continue his work on the War Logs and Cablegate releases with The Guardian in the UK. Some newspapers, especially in Sweden, instead say that he “fled” the country implying that he is somehow “on the run” from the allegations.
2. Assange is willing to return to Sweden but prosecutors can also question him in the UK.
Assange has stated his willingness to return to Sweden if a legal guarantee is made that he will not be extradited to the USA for his work with WikiLeaks. However, there is no compelling reason for him to be in Sweden for questioning. It is standard Swedish practice that when there is no charge and someone is merely wanted for questioning, it can be conducted anywhere in the world including over the phone and via video call. Swedish prosecutors also frequently travel to other countries to question suspects as they did recently to question a man suspected of murder in Serbia. In Assange’s case however, Swedish prosecutor Marianne Nye is insisting that Assange must physically be in Sweden to be questioned. No reason has been given for this inflexibility but Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter justifies it by saying it is “a matter of prestige” for Sweden.
3. There is mounting evidence that the US are compiling a criminal case against Assange.
There is enough to suggest that Assange’s legal team’s fears are justified. Australian diplomatic cables released to the Sydney Morning Herald under the freedom of information act reveal that the Australian government has confirmed that WikiLeaks has been the target of a US Justice Department investigation in Australia “unprecedented both in its scale and nature”. The Australian government also suggests that media reports that a secret grand jury has been convened in Alexandria, Virginia, were ”likely true”. In addition, the WikiLeaks Stratfor Intelligence releases revealed that the Stratfor vice president Fred Burton claimed that: “We have a sealed indictment on Assange“. Besides this, considering the atrocious treatment of Bradley Manning currently in a military jail in the US for allegedly leaking documents to Assange, you don’t have to wear a tin-foil hat to believe that the US will do whatever it takes to get their hands on Assange and make an example of him.
4. It’s actually easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK.
Many people dismiss Assange’s US extradition fears on the basis that if it wanted Assange, it would be easier to get him from the UK anyway. However, it’s actually considerably harder to extradite him from the UK for various reasons. One is that the UK does not have the “temporary surrender” extradition agreement that exists between Sweden and the USA which can be used to override current international extradition agreements and effectively give the US “instant” extradition powers. Another problem is that if the US were to issue an extradition order for Assange from the UK to the US, it would put the UK in a very difficult position because normally, the first extradition request received from Sweden would have to be honored first. In addition, the more diverse media and greater public support in the UK are factors that would make it harder for the US to extradite from the UK. And for all those that think that the Swedish justice system is somehow the best in the world, the Human Rights Watch archive on Sweden makes some interesting
You don't understand the Swedish legal system and yes currently they are only allegations. His extradition has been approved as there is enough circumstances to warrant sending him to Sweden.
Again the US extradition thing is a red herring, it is in fact more difficult to extradite from Sweden than the UK and under the Swedish legal system the UK would need to agree as well due to the circumstances.
There cant be a trial if there aren't any chargers and there ain't any chargers. The case is as weak as piss otherwise Sweden would not hesitate in questioning him asap
You're as dishonest as your BBC corporate hack you defend. Same line, same lie. They are allocations only and assange is more than willing to be questioned in the UK. It is Sweden that dosent want this resolved by refusing to fly over to question him or speak to him over Skype at at a police station. For some reason?
I agree that journalists should be more impartial and go after the truth. However, wikileaks are mostly intra government communications between agencies
It was very interesting what he released. I like the Qatari stuff especially the bit when the PM supposedly said about Iran. They lie to us and we lie to them.
However he didn't hack the information it was given to him by a US solider who is now serving a long sentence. Sweden wants him to stand trial for sexual offences and is a country that does not have a record for making such things up. It's not Iran, n. Korea or Syria.
I don't think he is scared of being extradited to the US as they could have already applied from the UK. I think he is scared of the charges, so read into that what you will.
And? did his bravery make a any difference in the big picture? I sure don't see it.
IF one wants to attempt what he did, one has to make sure one knows the rules, the people one is playing with...otherwise one loses...bitterly. Just like Assange.
Assange is nothing but a self important, annoying little twat who thinks he can play with the big boys and win...now that he predictably got his arse whupped, he is crying....:P
I just think it is strange that SPLITT is such a fanatical supporter of a man accused of sexual assault who is afraid to answer the charges. If he didn't do it, why be afraid to go to Sweden of all places. It's not as if Sweden has a horrible human rights record.
I think Assange is just another ego maniac who thinks he should not stand trial for his crimes. To ally himself with an oppressive regime in Bolivia shows what a hypocrite he is.
Next SPLITT will be trying to make it sound like its no big deal to sexually assault women.
But, like I said, the US will get him sooner or later, and everyone including Assange knows it; so none of this really matters.
They want to charge him and for him to stand trial. For that to happen he has to be in Sweden. Being interviewed in the UK is a red herring thrown from assange.
QDCLover--we all know he'd going to end up some American dungeon sooner or later, including Assange. Otherwise, why fight extradition. No one is afraid of Swedish jail.
Splitt--it's "land of the free and home of the brave," and I'm pretty sure Assange will never see that part of America (or genuine American soil). Your buddy will be in Gitmo or some other hole the Americans use for renditions (which is great news for you, because that includes Qatar).
Nothing has been confirmed about him going to the US only for him to be extradited to Sweden to stand trial. If the US wanted him they could have applied for extradition from the UK as they have a treaty but they didn't. I suspect they find him annoying but they found the US soldier that sold him the material and Wikileaks is nothing without the leaks.
Doesn't really matter in the end. He's still going to spend his life is U.S. dungeon in the end. Beneath the thin veneer of bravado, he looked pretty scared.
Thank God we have Al Jazeera to report on the truth in Qatar and keeping us informed of what is happening in this country, as well as being backed up by the gulf times and penisular in the written press.
Splitt, exactly... She was Indirectly stating that "US Army" doesn't Torture & was quoting DOD Top Lawyer... It shows the Agenda of Corporate Media....
This is not Freedom of Speech, This is called "Manipulation of Facts"...
notice she actually took Pentagon assertions as grounds to say she needed to "correct " Assange on that point. How would that differ from a FOX News interview? A puppet hack indeed.
Zeinab did her apprenticeship on Channel 4 News, before it became Lobby Today and was pretty good. Clearly she's been castrated for COMbbc. One can only hope that the scene was left up for satirical reasons.
Assange did a masterclass of how to use the telly to say what you please, rather than be used by the hacks. Arthur Scargill used to do it and the dastardly Mark Regev is allowed to do it all the time, so how long will it be before the next time Assange is allowed on?
Yes, he is of course correct to say to her face that she is not engaged in journalism despite her pathetic attempts to say she was only trying to bring "balance" to the discourse.
Assange and his statements ARE the balance, not her smears and childish contradictions.
I didn't get that far......anyway the conditions surrounding Manning's incarceration have been discussed openly and critically before on the BBC, but I digress........I didn't continue as it was a diatribe by Assange and not an interview.....he wasn't going to answer questions posed and instead obfuscated throughout. I'm not anti Assange, just didn't want to waste my time.
Interesting that she blatantly tries to cut him off and change the subject when he starts talking about how the U.N. Rapporteur on Torture essentially found that Bradley Manning was being tortured by the Obama administration. Obviously not something you're supposed to say on the BBC, at least not so stridently and without some sort of 'mitigating' context/derisive tone.
Qatar's winter months are brimming with unmissable experiences, from the AFC Asian Cup 2023 to the World Aquatics Championships Doha 2024 and a variety of outdoor adventures and cultural delights.
Fasten your seatbelts and get ready for a sweet escape into the world of budget-friendly Mango Sticky Rice that's sure to satisfy both your cravings and your budget!
Celebrate World Vegan Day with our list of vegan food outlets offering an array of delectable options, spanning from colorful salads to savory shawarma and indulgent desserts.
Ron Paul wonders why Assange is being considered a criminal:
&feature=youtu.be
what is what, related to...which topic?
Sorry, tahsin. I found a little difference:
The difference is simply in what gender the word is referring. When referring to a woman with yellow hair, you should use the feminine spelling “blonde”. When referring to a male with yellow hair, you should use the spelling “blond”.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/05/the-words-blond-and-blonde-are-not-wholly-synonymous/
Is Sweden male or female???
blond or blonde...both way is correct
But Sweden is only Scandinavian country to call the Israeli Ambassador over the new settlement, plus they also give out the Noble Peace prize.
Sweden is a fair country!
it's not a fair country...it's blond
I also support the Dalai Lama, Tahsin
Which makes me.....ummmmm....Scandinavian
BBC Assange now Dalai Lama wow what a twist in the thread!
Yes, UKEngQatar
This is why I said Scandinavian
Are we still talking about Assange extradition to Sweden?
I proudly simpathize with anybody who is considered "an enemy/a terrorist" by the USA
No Bachus
That is NOT the root of the problem.
We have a different understanding to "roots of problems". That is the real root of the problem.
I do. Although I wound't recognize his face, because I've never seen him. ;-)
Bachus, remember the dude from the hyatt and then the diplomatic club?
Something's rotten in Denmark.
I like how your pretend to speak for the whole of the East and like to label your opponents as speaking for all of the West. THAT is the root of the problem.
Yes, terrorism is all about the love.
terrorism
resistance
hate
love
rights
invasion
democracy
human rights
freedom of speech
respect
God
Religion
Tolerance
Ethics
Morals
Principals
etc...etc..etc
There is a difference in the basic definition and understanding of these terms, between east & west. There is NO WAY we can meet.
Can't we ban Fuhrer Hajji out of here already?
I'm done, nomerci
but by all means, do enjoy the posts of the guy who is "not willing to exchange words"...and yet he says...waaahahahhaaa...OMG...this is a killer:
"I am a man of word"
WAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA
Are you guys done anytime soon?
I'm telling you, you wanna put a shoe in my mouth? Just say it and we'll make it happen. I'm a man of word.
welcome to the club, Sharmoo6
"first of all I am not willing to exchange words with people who don't know the meaning of 'respect' ..."
and now he is talking about my balls....Waaaahahahahaaa
Hajji, whose shoes, yours? I bet you don't have the balls.
Carry on, hijo de puta.
hahahaaa
My signature perfectly suits people like you...that's the whole idea.
As for Al-Qaeda, I proudly simpathize with anybody who is considered "an enemy/a terrorist" by the USA
Do continue expressing your opinions, no matter how stupid they are, but don't accuse people of ugly things just because you disagree with them, or when they expose your stupidity & ignorance. Because once you open your mouth to accuse, you will instantly find someone's shoe inside it.
Lord Cretin tells you: welcome to the club, Sharmoo6
Well despite all this Assange is still in jail in the embassy. Must be getting pretty bored now. Good overtime for the police as well, waiting outside the embassy to arrest him.
Then Hajji, all I can say is that you'll continue putting yourself into evidence, here's how:
1. You are always spreading hate in this forum, you've been doing it for a while and you will continue to do it unless you end up getting banned and then you can open your new nickname.
2. Read your signature block.
3. You are indirectly expressing simpathy for Al Qaeda.
And so on and so forth...
In the mean time, I will continue expresing my opinions in this forum whether you like it or not, got it Lord Cretin? You should use that as your new nickname as soon as you get banned.
Mike
My respect goes to those who have self-respect, which is definitely not you.
Please use your few brain cells and go read about "west", before posting your rubbish (Western Hemisphere), here
Hajji, first of all I am not willing to exchange words with people who don't know the meaning of 'respect'
West is only that: WEST! Geez... is it that difficult for you to understand?
when you have no brains to understand, the easiest thing is to accuse people of being hatefull...how typical of you?
Are you saying that the "west" is a term related to location & directions (western hemisphere)?
Are Chile/Pinochet, Venezuela/Chaves & Panama/Noriega, considered "west"?
Is Australia not icluded in the term "west"?
Please use all the few bain cells you have
Hajji, just to clear your confusion: Venezuela and Ecuador are both located in South America, which is part of the Western Hemisphere.
Politically speaking, all these countries are affiliated through the Organization of American States.
What else would you like me to tell you? Your post has nothing new... same old hate speech.
But that's only normal, Mike.
Any (3rd world) dictator who has political problems with the "west", would protect a "western freedom fighter" to show the world that the so called "free world" is nothing but a big joke, and that once someone starts exposing the "western" games, then this "free world" is willing to forget about freedom/human rights and to even invent sexual molestation stories
It could be the other way around: the "west" is willing to support, protect and arm organizations (Mujahideen/Al-Qaeda) in order to fight communism, although these organizations are being pictured in the western media, as "enemies"
You post has nothing new
Bachus, exactly.
He just wants to be remembered as the Robin Hood of the XXI century.
Mike--his own pretty arse. He's not about freedom; he's only about himself and his ego.
Brit, spot on!
Assange took asylum at the Embassy of Ecuador. For those who don't know Rafael Correa, he is copying Venezuela's model by suppressing freedom of speech in his country.
So my question is, what is Mr. Assange exactly defending?
it's not how I, or the US wish. We are talking facts here. He is either a Zionist, or not.
But by your logic the US would be happy if he was a Zionist. You can't have it both ways.
I checked the web. There was no prove that Assange is a Zionist.
Maybe some would accuse him of such dirty things (Zionism) just because he caused them damages with the documents he leaked
He put nothing at risk. He's publicity hound, and he craves attention like a toddler. Fearing extradition to big mean Sweden to answer some questions, he's hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy and crying like a baby to get even more attention. Total nut.
Besides, Assange is proven zionist (and I'm surprised by some of his supporters on this thread).
http://algerienetwork.com/usa/julian-assange-proven-zionist-israeli-mossad-agent-prove-it/
http://www.maskofzion.com/2010/10/wikileaks-is-zionist-poison.html
he put his whole life, career, safety, personal interests, on the stakes in order that he provide us with facts & evidence of what goes on behind the curtains.
He was running behind the truth...and he succeeded
I salute him & have nothing but all the respect for him.
We all may have known but didnt had the balls to say it on their face. This guy has the balls to do so. Thats what makes him different and worth apreciating.
Not to me he is not. We found out what we already knew, politicans, kings and presidents tell lies to each other and to the world.
Ah yes....:P
Lauging at him?
The whole world is appreciating & being gratefull to what he has achieved.
He succeeded in exposing the games of the "elite"
This guy is an int'l hero
IF this guy had done serious damage in any way, he would not be alive today.
Instead, he is alive and the whole world is laughing at him.
I know if it was me I would rather go to Sweden and maybe get charged and then maybe stand trial. The rape charges were dropped but he still faces sexual molestation which I guessing is a only a few years max and out quickly with good behaviour.
Instead I have indefinte detention in an embassy and then arrest by the UK, then extradtion and then possible trial.
Excellent point QDCLover. An Ecuadorian embassy is probably much worse than Swedish jail. It's also seriously hurt wikileaks reputation and credibility.
SPLITT--Re-read my post. I will help you out of your fanatical delusion. Good luck at school today.
He's in the Ecadourean embassy just to clean this up.... I guess his female victims are feeling a sense of justice. No prison in sweden but in prison in an embassy and he can never leave.
I guess even the US is laughing at that one.
We know where his is and its not Bolivia embassy. In reply please read points 1-4. It does help.
Splitt--there may not be "chargers" but he IS wanted for questioning, and the legal system allows him to be extradited. Assange is is just too much of a wimp to face the consequences of his actions, having to make up conspiracy theories about it all (and his fanatical fans falling for it). We're not talking about Iran; this is Sweden. And to avoid such questions, he is hiding in a Bolivian embassy. It makes him look guilty. If he was innocent, he'd be in Sweden answering the allegations.
But like I said, he'd going to end up in an American dungeon one way or another; so why all the fuss over this?
Agree with Brit....
Wikileaks created Havoc Within the Intelligence Communities world wide....
Keep up the Good Work!
"for the love of god"
You must specify which of the 7000 gods that QDCLover mentioned
Forr the love of god - there are no chargers
Activists like assange are trying to make a difference in this world by informing the public what is going on without their knowledge and consent. Information is power that's why the ruling elite are so fearful. And finally - you seriously wish to condemn a truth teller???is that your position on this?
I supported Assange and to some extent still do. I think that the charges against him were trumped up. But I was disappointed when he took asylum in the embassy..
There is no good reason why Sweden can't speak with assange in uk if they want to. To summaries:
1. Assange has already been questioned once in Sweden.
The prosecution is perfectly within its right to re-question Assange but hardly a single media outlet offers any context by mentioning the fact that he’s already been questioned once in Sweden and released without charge. Shortly after, the interview transcript was mysteriously leaked to the Swedish press. Nor does the media highlight that Assange waited for 5 weeks before being granted permission to leave the country and continue his work on the War Logs and Cablegate releases with The Guardian in the UK. Some newspapers, especially in Sweden, instead say that he “fled” the country implying that he is somehow “on the run” from the allegations.
2. Assange is willing to return to Sweden but prosecutors can also question him in the UK.
Assange has stated his willingness to return to Sweden if a legal guarantee is made that he will not be extradited to the USA for his work with WikiLeaks. However, there is no compelling reason for him to be in Sweden for questioning. It is standard Swedish practice that when there is no charge and someone is merely wanted for questioning, it can be conducted anywhere in the world including over the phone and via video call. Swedish prosecutors also frequently travel to other countries to question suspects as they did recently to question a man suspected of murder in Serbia. In Assange’s case however, Swedish prosecutor Marianne Nye is insisting that Assange must physically be in Sweden to be questioned. No reason has been given for this inflexibility but Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter justifies it by saying it is “a matter of prestige” for Sweden.
3. There is mounting evidence that the US are compiling a criminal case against Assange.
There is enough to suggest that Assange’s legal team’s fears are justified. Australian diplomatic cables released to the Sydney Morning Herald under the freedom of information act reveal that the Australian government has confirmed that WikiLeaks has been the target of a US Justice Department investigation in Australia “unprecedented both in its scale and nature”. The Australian government also suggests that media reports that a secret grand jury has been convened in Alexandria, Virginia, were ”likely true”. In addition, the WikiLeaks Stratfor Intelligence releases revealed that the Stratfor vice president Fred Burton claimed that: “We have a sealed indictment on Assange“. Besides this, considering the atrocious treatment of Bradley Manning currently in a military jail in the US for allegedly leaking documents to Assange, you don’t have to wear a tin-foil hat to believe that the US will do whatever it takes to get their hands on Assange and make an example of him.
4. It’s actually easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK.
Many people dismiss Assange’s US extradition fears on the basis that if it wanted Assange, it would be easier to get him from the UK anyway. However, it’s actually considerably harder to extradite him from the UK for various reasons. One is that the UK does not have the “temporary surrender” extradition agreement that exists between Sweden and the USA which can be used to override current international extradition agreements and effectively give the US “instant” extradition powers. Another problem is that if the US were to issue an extradition order for Assange from the UK to the US, it would put the UK in a very difficult position because normally, the first extradition request received from Sweden would have to be honored first. In addition, the more diverse media and greater public support in the UK are factors that would make it harder for the US to extradite from the UK. And for all those that think that the Swedish justice system is somehow the best in the world, the Human Rights Watch archive on Sweden makes some interesting
There is no good reason why Sweden can't speak with assange in uk if they want to. To summaries:
1. Assange has already been questioned once in Sweden.
The prosecution is perfectly within its right to re-question Assange but hardly a single media outlet offers any context by mentioning the fact that he’s already been questioned once in Sweden and released without charge. Shortly after, the interview transcript was mysteriously leaked to the Swedish press. Nor does the media highlight that Assange waited for 5 weeks before being granted permission to leave the country and continue his work on the War Logs and Cablegate releases with The Guardian in the UK. Some newspapers, especially in Sweden, instead say that he “fled” the country implying that he is somehow “on the run” from the allegations.
2. Assange is willing to return to Sweden but prosecutors can also question him in the UK.
Assange has stated his willingness to return to Sweden if a legal guarantee is made that he will not be extradited to the USA for his work with WikiLeaks. However, there is no compelling reason for him to be in Sweden for questioning. It is standard Swedish practice that when there is no charge and someone is merely wanted for questioning, it can be conducted anywhere in the world including over the phone and via video call. Swedish prosecutors also frequently travel to other countries to question suspects as they did recently to question a man suspected of murder in Serbia. In Assange’s case however, Swedish prosecutor Marianne Nye is insisting that Assange must physically be in Sweden to be questioned. No reason has been given for this inflexibility but Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter justifies it by saying it is “a matter of prestige” for Sweden.
3. There is mounting evidence that the US are compiling a criminal case against Assange.
There is enough to suggest that Assange’s legal team’s fears are justified. Australian diplomatic cables released to the Sydney Morning Herald under the freedom of information act reveal that the Australian government has confirmed that WikiLeaks has been the target of a US Justice Department investigation in Australia “unprecedented both in its scale and nature”. The Australian government also suggests that media reports that a secret grand jury has been convened in Alexandria, Virginia, were ”likely true”. In addition, the WikiLeaks Stratfor Intelligence releases revealed that the Stratfor vice president Fred Burton claimed that: “We have a sealed indictment on Assange“. Besides this, considering the atrocious treatment of Bradley Manning currently in a military jail in the US for allegedly leaking documents to Assange, you don’t have to wear a tin-foil hat to believe that the US will do whatever it takes to get their hands on Assange and make an example of him.
4. It’s actually easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK.
Many people dismiss Assange’s US extradition fears on the basis that if it wanted Assange, it would be easier to get him from the UK anyway. However, it’s actually considerably harder to extradite him from the UK for various reasons. One is that the UK does not have the “temporary surrender” extradition agreement that exists between Sweden and the USA which can be used to override current international extradition agreements and effectively give the US “instant” extradition powers. Another problem is that if the US were to issue an extradition order for Assange from the UK to the US, it would put the UK in a very difficult position because normally, the first extradition request received from Sweden would have to be honored first. In addition, the more diverse media and greater public support in the UK are factors that would make it harder for the US to extradite from the UK. And for all those that think that the Swedish justice system is somehow the best in the world, the Human Rights Watch archive on Sweden makes some interesting
Splitt, sure. But it is as it is. As simple as that.
That gave Assange an opportunity for fame...he got that and he still lost.
Sun Tzu said : Know your enemy.
Assange , and many others in this world, did not. And he, as well as the others ,lost.
Games like those have rules.
You don't understand the Swedish legal system and yes currently they are only allegations. His extradition has been approved as there is enough circumstances to warrant sending him to Sweden.
Again the US extradition thing is a red herring, it is in fact more difficult to extradite from Sweden than the UK and under the Swedish legal system the UK would need to agree as well due to the circumstances.
If he has done nothing wrong why is he hiding?
There cant be a trial if there aren't any chargers and there ain't any chargers. The case is as weak as piss otherwise Sweden would not hesitate in questioning him asap
You're as dishonest as your BBC corporate hack you defend. Same line, same lie. They are allocations only and assange is more than willing to be questioned in the UK. It is Sweden that dosent want this resolved by refusing to fly over to question him or speak to him over Skype at at a police station. For some reason?
I agree that journalists should be more impartial and go after the truth. However, wikileaks are mostly intra government communications between agencies
Have you ever considered the fact that if those so called journalists actually did their job as such there would be no need for Wikileaks.
It was very interesting what he released. I like the Qatari stuff especially the bit when the PM supposedly said about Iran. They lie to us and we lie to them.
However he didn't hack the information it was given to him by a US solider who is now serving a long sentence. Sweden wants him to stand trial for sexual offences and is a country that does not have a record for making such things up. It's not Iran, n. Korea or Syria.
I don't think he is scared of being extradited to the US as they could have already applied from the UK. I think he is scared of the charges, so read into that what you will.
Yes good points, nomerci.
Splitt--just as I thought. You'd like to see the sexual assault go unanswered. Oh to have such blindly devoted followers like you.
And? did his bravery make a any difference in the big picture? I sure don't see it.
IF one wants to attempt what he did, one has to make sure one knows the rules, the people one is playing with...otherwise one loses...bitterly. Just like Assange.
Nobody gives a hoot about a loser.
he is brave
I salute him
he allowed the public to know very important hidden information
Assange is nothing but a self important, annoying little twat who thinks he can play with the big boys and win...now that he predictably got his arse whupped, he is crying....:P
there are no charges
QDCLover--very good question.
I just think it is strange that SPLITT is such a fanatical supporter of a man accused of sexual assault who is afraid to answer the charges. If he didn't do it, why be afraid to go to Sweden of all places. It's not as if Sweden has a horrible human rights record.
I think Assange is just another ego maniac who thinks he should not stand trial for his crimes. To ally himself with an oppressive regime in Bolivia shows what a hypocrite he is.
Next SPLITT will be trying to make it sound like its no big deal to sexually assault women.
But, like I said, the US will get him sooner or later, and everyone including Assange knows it; so none of this really matters.
They want to charge him and for him to stand trial. For that to happen he has to be in Sweden. Being interviewed in the UK is a red herring thrown from assange.
Why do you say if??
he could not have done what he did in the UK (seek asylum) in Sweden.
there is no reason why Sweden cant interview him in the UK which he has requested numerous times
If the grand jury has already been selected why didn't they try to extradite him from the UK? Do they believe Sweden will be easier, makes no sense.
If the Swedes find him guilty he will serve time in a Swedish jail before any extradition can happen, if approved by the courts.
LOL Bachus, nuff said
Is it my impression or has there been a larger than usual number of threads deleted by the Mods recently?
What does that tell you about America's claim to be a champion of human rights and the "good" guys???
QDCLover--we all know he'd going to end up some American dungeon sooner or later, including Assange. Otherwise, why fight extradition. No one is afraid of Swedish jail.
Splitt--it's "land of the free and home of the brave," and I'm pretty sure Assange will never see that part of America (or genuine American soil). Your buddy will be in Gitmo or some other hole the Americans use for renditions (which is great news for you, because that includes Qatar).
That's false. It is confirmed with grand jury in place. Americans were outraged when Ecuador gave him asylum. Wonder why?
even if the US will throw him in a dungeon, he will manage to "leak" out of it
Nothing has been confirmed about him going to the US only for him to be extradited to Sweden to stand trial. If the US wanted him they could have applied for extradition from the UK as they have a treaty but they didn't. I suspect they find him annoying but they found the US soldier that sold him the material and Wikileaks is nothing without the leaks.
in the land of the "brave and the free". Yeah.
Doesn't really matter in the end. He's still going to spend his life is U.S. dungeon in the end. Beneath the thin veneer of bravado, he looked pretty scared.
Thank God we have Al Jazeera to report on the truth in Qatar and keeping us informed of what is happening in this country, as well as being backed up by the gulf times and penisular in the written press.
Splitt, exactly... She was Indirectly stating that "US Army" doesn't Torture & was quoting DOD Top Lawyer... It shows the Agenda of Corporate Media....
This is not Freedom of Speech, This is called "Manipulation of Facts"...
notice she actually took Pentagon assertions as grounds to say she needed to "correct " Assange on that point. How would that differ from a FOX News interview? A puppet hack indeed.
What do you expect from BBC? They are Puppets of "Elites"...
Zeinab did her apprenticeship on Channel 4 News, before it became Lobby Today and was pretty good. Clearly she's been castrated for COMbbc. One can only hope that the scene was left up for satirical reasons.
Assange did a masterclass of how to use the telly to say what you please, rather than be used by the hacks. Arthur Scargill used to do it and the dastardly Mark Regev is allowed to do it all the time, so how long will it be before the next time Assange is allowed on?
Yes, he is of course correct to say to her face that she is not engaged in journalism despite her pathetic attempts to say she was only trying to bring "balance" to the discourse.
Assange and his statements ARE the balance, not her smears and childish contradictions.
I didn't get that far......anyway the conditions surrounding Manning's incarceration have been discussed openly and critically before on the BBC, but I digress........I didn't continue as it was a diatribe by Assange and not an interview.....he wasn't going to answer questions posed and instead obfuscated throughout. I'm not anti Assange, just didn't want to waste my time.
Interesting that she blatantly tries to cut him off and change the subject when he starts talking about how the U.N. Rapporteur on Torture essentially found that Bradley Manning was being tortured by the Obama administration. Obviously not something you're supposed to say on the BBC, at least not so stridently and without some sort of 'mitigating' context/derisive tone.
Zainab Badawi is hardly a 'hack'