Julian Assange reveals government eavesdropping messages that allegedly speculate he's being framed

reply to post by Alfie1


So when JA asks to be questioned by the swedish authorities he is avoiding them? When he does it multiple times he is trying to run away from justice? But when the authorities say no it's JA's fault now?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Perhaps read the link I post next time? I linked directly to the law. That's how it works around here.

Here's the link again.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by akushla99

 

So when a person people like is accused of a crimel, we should go with popular opinion based on people who are not involved while ignoring the person who was possibly wronged under the law?

Due respect, that determination is reserved to the courts, not the court of public opinion.

You will need to become more au fe with this case...

It is you who is reacting as planned and expected.

Å99

reply to post by akushla99


Again way to deflect...

Court of Law is the appropriate setting to determine credability of the victim claims and accusations.

Not a court of public opinion, as you want it to be.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Whis is nice however Swedish law does not allow for indefinite detentions.

When it comes to rape charges I always take the guilty until proven innocent stance. Better to believe the accuser than the accused. Some may see this as unfair and unjust but I have my reasons.

That said I have know from the start that Julian was innocent. The charges screamed set up so loudly and the whole thing just stunk. The problem is most people hear rape and don't look into the details of what went on. The media has portrayed in in a certain light so people are willing to accept with out questioning. Fortunately many have in this case but I see it all the time with other lower profile cases.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by akushla99

 

Again way to deflect...

Court of Law is the appropriate setting to determine credability of the victim claims and accusations.

Not a court of public opinion, as you want it to be.

The deflection of fake rape claims seems to have worked very well on you...but, you're not alone...

Let me repeat this (and you can find it yourself...like many other facts)...
ONE OF THE TOP CHIEF PROSECTORS (NOT defense) DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO CASE TO ANSWER.

But, in an effort to appease a climate of focus on violence towards women, all but one of the 'claims', was dropped...a misdemeanour...

There is no evidence to support the claims except intimate association...which, according to a posted tweet (posted, intercepted, deleted) that does not reflect the dubiously acquired report, which recounts, almost word for word, the conditions under which a warrant for arrest can be brought - (virtually word for word, from the legislation...coincidence?!)..one of the Top Chief Prosecutors (NOT defense)...you know the rest...

I wont provide this for you...go looking for yourself...

On investigation...the reporting of these crimes has skyrocketed; what is more spectacular are the stellar acquittals, when the cases proceed to court.

What would prompt a decision to revisit a previously 'dropped' claim?

Å99

reply to post by Xcathdra


It's your word against the swedish law. Swedish law disagrees. Some people end up sitting in jail for years.

Originally posted by akushla99

The deflection of fake rape claims seems to have worked very well on you...but, you're not alone...

Unless you were present during the claimed times you don't know if the allegations are fake or not.

Again something you need to grasp the concept of. The credibility of the victims and the evidence is up to a court of law, not public opinion.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

It's your word against the swedish law. Swedish law disagrees. Some people end up sitting in jail for years.

Are you ever going to stop intentionally misleading people in your posts in this thread? Swedish law supports my position.

A person can be charged and held until his trial comes to court. A person who has been charged and awaiting a court appearance / trial is not held indefinitely. Sweden allows for bail and uses the presumption of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Something that has been pointed out by British judges overseeing his extradition request. Its also been pointed out that in addition to remedies through Swedish law, he has access to the European court system as well.

If you are going to insist that Assange is above the law then there really is no need to recognize the requirements of the Embassy being inviolable now is there?

Quit trying to play the omission game in an effort to spin something, like indefinite detentions, into something they are not.

Are you lying on purpose here? I linked you to the law. It's a fact. You cannot argue a fact. That's how the system works around here. They put you to jail indefinately, incommunicato. You go to court at some time perhaps years later.
Dont try to lie in here.

I backed up my claim with direct source to the law. If you start arguing against that why dont you source your claim. Also of that bail word too.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Are you lying on purpose here? I linked you to the law. It's a fact.

That would be you and no, you didn't.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You cannot argue a fact. That's how the system works around here. They put you to jail indefinately, incommunicato. You go to court at some time perhaps years later.
Dont try to lie in here.

again you are lying. A person is not held indefinitely nor incommunicado in Sweden. This issue has already been addressed by the British judges. The indefinite detention and incommunicado argument his lawyers tried to make revolved around the lie they told about Assange, Gitmo and no access tot he legal system.

There is no need for you to lie and try and spin it as if it were Sweden they were talking about..

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I backed up my claim with direct source to the law. If you start arguing against that why dont you source your claim. Also of that bail word too.

edit on 22/5/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

No really you didn't.

Häktning

Pre-trial Detention is a coercive measures that can be used to detain persons for some time suspected of felonies.



Content
[hide]1 Sweden
2 the rest of the world
3 sheet music
4 see also


Sweden [Edit]

Under Swedish law, a person who is reasonably suspected (the lower the degree of suspicion) or suspected on probable grounds (the higher the degree of suspicion) detained for crimes that can result in imprisonment for one year or more.[1]

Reasons for detention exist about it on offense, there is a statutory minimum sentence of not less than 1 year and it is clear that the reasons for detention are missing, and one of:
1.There is a risk of recidivism (Europe concerning custody pending trial), or
2.There is a risk that the suspect will destroy evidence or otherwise affect the investigation about the crime (Suppression of evidence),
3.There is a risk that the suspect hiding out prosecution or punishment (escape danger),

or in the case of "probable cause" irrespective of the nature:
1.the suspect has no fixed domicile in Sweden, and can adopt will leave the country, such as a foreign visitor. [2]
2.If he is unknown and refuses to disclose the name and residence or if his task if this can be assumed to be false. [2]

A person can be arrested by the Court and, therefore, be held in custody for a maximum period of 14 days (seven days only if the suspicion degree "reasonably suspected" exists), after which new detention hearing will be held. For the suspect who is not yet 18 years old required "clear evidence" that decisions on detention are to be granted by the Court. The first detention hearing after deprivation of liberty should have been requested not later than at 12 third day after the suspect arrested, whereupon the detention hearing must be held without delay and no later than four days after the suspect was apprehended or was derived from a decision, that is, from the time he in reality was deprived of freedom. For detention on the degree "reasonably suspected" also requires that it is of the utmost importance that the suspect be taken into custody pending further investigation into the crime.

If it because of the suspect's age or health status can be expected that the detention would cause serious but for the suspect, get detention take place only if it is clearly prudent supervision cannot be arranged. [3]

The Supreme Court has 2008-01-30 in goal (B) 466-06 lifted the detention for 16-year-old boy then he could instead be placed on particular youth home. [4]

Anyone who is detained can be subject to "restrictions", which means that the Prosecutor (investigating the leader) of the case may decide to cut off the detainees ' contacts with the outside world, in the form of access to TELEVISION, radio, newspapers, phone calls, letters or visits by relatives and others in custody. [5]

Anyone who is arrested shall be kept by the prison system, either on remand or in places of a section in a correctional facility. In most cases brought to prosecution within 14 days from the arrest warrant, after which the trial is to be held in the District Court as soon as possible and at the latest within two weeks from the day of prosecution actions.

No criminal charges are brought within two weeks to reassess the decision on remand the Court every two weeks. [6]

Detention in connection with the conviction of the person who is not in custody may not take place without rated comment in issue at the hearing in the Supreme Court's decision in 1992-08-10 in case z 2569-92. [7]

Since the detention order issued by the District Court and the Court of Appeal found to not be legally founded, has the Supreme Court 1999-08-11-99 case Ö 3425, notwithstanding that the Attorney General contends that the interrogations in detention issue would be held in the Supreme Court and the new detention hearing has been requested in appeals court, decreed that the detainee would be put on the loose. [8]

The provisions on detention has been considered not to be applicable to proceedings equal 28 Cape. section 8 of the criminal code [9] concerning the removal of probation , according to Court of law for Lower Norrland decisions 1996-05-14. [10]

The Rest Of The World [Edit]

In some other countries, even in Europe, can a suspect be held in custody for far longer than in Sweden. This applies, inter alia, Belgium and Italy. In many countries, intas detained person at regular prison Department, where he is listed along with those already convicted of crimes. Because detention can be extended free number of times even in Sweden, this is of less importance in practice

Häktning (Swedish law) [edit]

Häktning is a pre-trial supervision measure pursuant to Swedish law, meaning that a suspect can be detained by a court in the case of crimes for which there is a prison term of one year or more. There are two degrees of suspicion:
reasonable suspicion (the lower level of suspicion), or
probable cause (the higher level of suspicion).[7]

Reason for detention is if the crime is a statutory minimum penalty of at least 1 year, and one of:
1.risk of recidivism;
2.risk that the suspect will destroy evidence or otherwise affect the investigation of the crime (e.g. suppression of evidence );
3.risk that the suspect will flee prosecution or punishment,

or, for "probable cause" suspicion and also for lesser crimes:
1.the suspect is without permanent residence in Sweden, and can be assumed wanting to leave Sweden.[8]
2.the identity of the suspect is not established, if he refuses to say it or has given a false identity.

A person may be held in custody for a period of normally not more than 14 days (seven days if only the degree of suspicion "reasonable suspicion" exists), then normally new remand hearing should be held. For suspect who has not yet turned 18 needed "serious reasons" for detention decisions are to be notified of the court.

A person, with less serious crimes, they are given by prosecutors a summary penalty order.[9]

A person who was häktad but was not charged (or was freed after trial) is entitled to financial compensation, with an amount determined by the Chancellor of Justice. It is usually around 500 SEK (US$80) per day for the suffering, somewhat more if there was media attention, plus compensation for lost work income. 1200 people were compensated in 2007.[10] If the prisoner is sentenced, the time as häktad counts as a part of the prison time, so that less time will remain after the trial.

The Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe has repeatedly criticized pre-trial detention in Sweden for the high percentage of cases where restrictions on communication are applied.[11] Such communication restrictions means in Sweden no visits, no telephone calls, no newspapers and no TV.

I can link you to the Swedish court cases that defined the law you keep trying to pass off as valid on its face, when in fact its not.

Every 2 weeks a person is in custody the courts must approve continued detention. As for restricting, it applies to the same things it does in Europe and the US when a person is in custody. The exception would be access to legal councel, which is guaranteed in Sweden, as it is in Europe and the US.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by akushla99

The deflection of fake rape claims seems to have worked very well on you...but, you're not alone...

Unless you were present during the claimed times you don't know if the allegations are fake or not.

Again something you need to grasp the concept of. The credibility of the victims and the evidence is up to a court of law, not public opinion.

Of course not...

Again, something you really need to grasp the concept of...
...and the implication is that one of THE TOP CHIEF PROSECUTORS - not defense - decided there was no question to answer...is/was part of the court of public opinion...

I can skirt the 'well, the court will decide' bleat...the fact remains, see above...

Pray that you never get caught in this type of scam...I will have no sympathy...and I hazard a guess that you are not known internationally, which would amuse me even more...(well, maybe not amusement)...

Julian Assange is not Bjorn Berstrem from the little town of Falstrom...
He has a profile that has attracted more than its fair share of animosity around the world...he is not above the law, that is a given...but, there appears to be no requirement for ANY evidence to be presented to make such a claim...this will backfire on many people...and society, in general...

Å99

This guy is innocent and being falsely accused. Anyone who thinks otherwise must have an empty milk carton for a brain.

Originally posted by McCool
This guy is innocent and being falsely accused. Anyone who thinks otherwise must have an empty milk carton for a brain.

...and should have the mandatory 'have you seen this brain' printed on its side...

Å99

reply to post by Xcathdra


Perhaps you should review a cases such as Gottfrid Svartholm before you post. You do realise that every two weeks the prosecutor only has to say that it's still under investigatio and vóila. Before you know you'll be in jail for a year or more. That's the very definition of the word indefinite.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Perhaps you should review a cases such as Gottfrid Svartholm before you post. You do realise that every two weeks the prosecutor only has to say that it's still under investigatio and vóila. Before you know you'll be in jail for a year or more. That's the very definition of the word indefinite.

...and given the 'all of a sudden we will pursue this claim on Assange further'...the arrest warrant can still be actionable, despite one of the top Chief Prosecutors (not defense) saying no claim was answerable...

...and one would assume that this would be because new evidence was brought to bear...but, of course...arrest before charge...and in the case of the definition of r*pe under Swedish law, you could just look at a woman the wrong way...and it would have to go through the court system, on heresay alone...this might be the reason acquittals have shot through the roof on these matters...

...and should be a requirement of law, that, once acquitted, a court signed document is published in the national papers to COMPLETELY absolve a falsely accused person, so that the 'court of public opinion' does not wreck this persons life...

Å99

reply to post by akushla99


Its Swedish law.. Its not relevant what you or others think is valid or not. Its only valid to Sweden.

And yes, as others pointed out Assange is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Ironic really.. A man who goes on a quest to hold people accountible behaves in the very manner he disdains.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Swedish law does not allow for indefinite detention...
Swedish law does not prevent a person from speaking with their legal counsel...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by akushla99

 

Its Swedish law.. Its not relevant what you or others think is valid or not. Its only valid to Sweden.

And yes, as others pointed out Assange is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Ironic really.. A man who goes on a quest to hold people accountible behaves in the very manner he disdains.

...or a set-up that puts a man (who goes on a quest to hold people accountable) into a position where he needs to be held accountable for something that appears to have not happened the way false, and falsely acquired reports, describe...but, yes...Swedish law...

'Irony' can also be created. That you fall victim to a creation of irony, reflects on the creator of the irony, not the recipient...correct! What an embarrassing episode for this man. That's your little opinion, right there...

If the Swedish and U.S. government instrumentalities are serious in thier point of NOT 'renditioning' Assange (since this is the meat of all this, the rape claims are a red herring) they will produce full page advertisements averring this FACT...under any conditions...I will not hold my breath...

Furthermore...I would be supremely surprised to find (if all this were done - Acquittal acquired) that any and all involved in fabrication were pursued for falsely reporting a false series of events...so-called 'victims', police etc...not holding my breath...

Å99

Originally posted by akushla99


...or a set-up that puts a man (who goes on a quest to hold people accountable) into a position where he needs to be held accountable for something that appears to have not happened the way false, and falsely acquired reports, describe...but, yes...Swedish law...

The same can be said about the release of the documents since we are only seeing bits and pieces of a larger story... That didn't seem to matter to Assange or his followers though.

As for how the case has evolved its within the confines of Swedish law, so again, what you or I think about how the case has proceeded is not relevant.

Originally posted by akushla99
'Irony' can also be created. That you fall victim to a creation of irony, reflects on the creator of the irony, not the recipient...correct! What an embarrassing episode for this man. That's your little opinion, right there...

Its not an opinion, but fact.. Assange demands accountability, yet refuses to submit to the same standard he demands others do.

that is in fact Irony...

Originally posted by akushla99

If the Swedish and U.S. government instrumentalities are serious in thier point of NOT 'renditioning' Assange (since this is the meat of all this, the rape claims are a red herring) they will produce full page advertisements averring this FACT...under any conditions...I will not hold my breath...

A straw man argument since Assanges situation has nothing to do with US law or rendition. The British courts have addressed those false claims by assanges legal teams. his issues in Sweden have nothing to do with wikileaks and the US.

Simply repeating over and over they are related don't make it so. Assanges legal team lied when they made their case against sending Assange to Sweden by claiming he could face the death penalty in the US (He cant), that he would be sent to Gitmo (he cant), that he could be charged with treason (he cant, he's not a US citizen), that he could be labeled and enemy combatant (he cant). None of which has anything to do with rape allegations against him in Sweden.

Originally posted by akushla99
Furthermore...I would be supremely surprised to find (if all this were done - Acquittal acquired) that any and all involved in fabrication were pursued for falsely reporting a false series of events...so-called 'victims', police etc...not holding my breath...

Å99

As for false reporting I completely and totally agree... however, holding a person accountable for false reporting is a bit hard when Assange ignores the very laws that would be used against any such person.

You don't get it both ways.