How on earth has Julian assange been arbitrarily held??

[StealthPolarBear]

Surely if you choose to resist arrest in this way then it is your choice?
Glad rhe police continue to say he will be arrested.

Alien an ass jug.

Comedy gold. I'll never his mug again without thinking of that.

"The reason he is a bit like Aung San Suu Kyi is because the same UN committee also ruled that she had been arbitrarily detained when she was placed under house arrest. So there you have it...both arbitrarily detained...peas in a pod."

Oh, yeah, I remember when she went into hiding because a European democracy wanted her in connection with rape charge, oh hang on...

Marina Hyde's article about this also makes the point that he was quite happy to travel back and forwards to Sweden (with no fear of being extradited to the US) until he faced a rape charge. It almost makes it seem like it's the rape charge he is trying to avoid and not the non-existent, imaginary extradition request from the US

Reading all the pro Assange rubbish, I can't decide if we have this underbelly of people who fervently believe in the agenda of Wikileaks or if we just have an underbelly of people willing to consistently throw women under the bus if the opportunity arises.

And, not to cast aspersions on the validity of the conspiracy nuts but does it not strike anyone as ironic that if they were going to trump up a charge against him, they went for one of sexual assault - you know, an area that is known for its low conviction rates - rather than opting for something with a higher chance of conviction.

I'm surprised he's not sloped off to Russia like Edward Snowden, since it's such an open, democratic country and all

I imagine there's a part of JA's ego that is smarting that he hasn't managed being an 'enemy of the state' as successfully as Edward Snowden. JA probably thinks Russia would be preferable to an embassy in London.

This has enraged me too.
He sounds a very unpleasant man, avoiding a serious charge. What on earth are this UN panel thinking?!

Thanks to the link that sqeaver posted:

It states regarding that the allegation of rape would not be rape under English law "The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law." This is written in the New Statesman by their legal correspondant.

It appears that he has basically admitted it twice in the UK. No wonder he doesn't want to go to Sweden. This case is fascinating into his mindset. It is like watching a teenager madly blaming everyone else and trying to get themselves out of trouble whilst creating as much attention as possible.

JA published leaked documents revealing the criminality and mendacity of the US government and we should be grateful to him for that.

But I do think he should face his accusers.

I think this is a step in the right direction. We can all say about how you should be open and be prepared to defend yourself in a court of law but when it's a kangaroo court that has already decided you're guilty, it becomes less clear cut. The timing of these charges, the way the Swedish prosecutors didn't seem to think there was any case until after the American government stick our noses in, says to me that it's a show trial and only one outcome that has been decided in advance.

JA published leaked documents revealing the criminality and mendacity of the US government and we should be grateful to him for that.

One of the aspects of this that annoys me is that JA has sacrificed the reputation and legacy of Wikileaks to try to save his own skin. There have probably been more column inches about his attempts to evade justice than about the revelations exposed by Wikileaks. He became the story.

Exposing corruption can't and shouldn't be a 'get out of jail free' card or a 'get out of the embassy and get paid' one either

I don't think that there is anything odd about the timing of these allegations. This occurred at the height of the wikileaks saga. Assange had strong links with Sweden, taking advantage of their liberal IT laws (I believe) and would have had a lot of supporters in that country. It is not surprising that some women would have found him more attractive based on that. Combine that swedish women are fairly sexually liberal with JA's obvious narcissism and sleazy ways, it was probably a disaster waiting to happen. But swedish women have a society, legal system and authorities that will support them if they are sexually mistreated.

In this whole thing has he ever said that I would never treat a woman so disrespectfully? He clearly thinks that he did nothing wrong and he is blaming sweden for being "too feminist", blaming the prosecutor (who is only going after him because she is a woman, obviously) and accusing sweden of dirty tricks to send him to the states.

I simply can't get over the fact if the US really did want him, they could have got him from the UK, but yet he willingly walked into the UK legal system and on two attempts tried to argue that the allegations in sweden would not be classified as rape in the UK. That is basically admitting that he did it.

when it's a kangaroo court that has already decided you're guilty, it becomes less clear cut

Since when did the Swedish courts become a kangaroo court that decided the outcome in advance?

'Swedish women are fairly sexually liberal'
So you speak for them all?

No of course not. Sorry for any offence caused by an overgeneralisation, but I have lived there, speak swedish, read the swedish media (in swedish) regularly, have swedish females friends and swedish family, so I have some idea. But, no you are perfectly correct that I can not possibly speak on behalf of all of them.

I can't work out how Assange thinks this will end. It obviously hasn't gone according to his plan so far but he must know unless he is completely in denial that the UK cannot ignore his arrest warrant simply because an UN working group found in his favour.

A legal expert was saying that if he (Assange) had wanted to put his case before a court that could make a legally binding decision then he would have taken it to the ECHR. The lawyer felt Assange didn't do that because he knew he didn't stand a chance of the ECHR finding in his favour.

But, is Assange hoping he can just stay in the Embassy until the statute of limitations runs out on the rape charge? Is there even a statute of limitations on rape in Sweden?

And if ultimately, at some point, Assange ends up in the US, won't he be wishing he'd gone under Obama and not potentially Trump

But, is Assange hoping he can just stay in the Embassy until the statute of limitations runs out on the rape charge? Is there even a statute of limitations on rape in Sweden?

Immaterial, really, since he is now also wanted for jumping bail (a criminal offence in the UK). And rather annoyingly, UK law has no statute of limitations - ask Rolf Harris.

Irrespective of the Swedish dimension, there's a UK jail cell reserved for him for two years (if I recall the penalty for refusing to surrender). It's unlikely JA would get any special favours from a legal system he has stuck two fingers up to. The most serious offence in any court is to disrespect it.

I can't work out how Assange thinks this will end.

Didn't he say that if the panel 'found against him' he would step out and cooperate with the UK authorities? Perhaps that's what he actually wanted to happen, because he's realised there's no way out and he's too damned proud to appear to step down and give himself up. So he submitted to the panel and wanted them to 'force' him to do it. But they were such idiots they found 'for' him, and now he's stuck in the Ecuadorean Embassy forever and ever.

And if ultimately, at some point, Assange ends up in the US, won't he be wishing he'd gone under Obama

Actually, I hadn't considered that until now, but it's a good point. As someone immersed in his own ego the nature of PR, it may have just dawned on JA that a newly installed US president - of any stripe - would have a ready made opportunity to show how "tough" they are by addressing the JA issue. (It's a shame working to eradicate poverty, inequality and oppression isn't seen as tough ).

Either way, my reading of the past week has been JA squirming - whatever the WGAD may have said.

Of course there's another school of thought which says Assange is exactly where the US want him. Out of the way, and not really bothering anyone.

Is it true Tom Hanks is signed up to play Assange in the biopic ?

Jessica yy the day before the announcement of the UN's finding, Assange did say that he would comply if they found against him. The lawyer I was reading said he thought Assange already knew the outcome when he said that. He thought if the judgement had gone against Assange then Assange wouldn't have drawn anyone's attention to it at all and if he had wanted a higher court to find against him, all he had to do was go to the ECHR rather than the UN.

Lurking wouldn't it be ironic if he was where the US wanted him? I'm now imagining some US spy acting as a friend to Julian and directing him to the Ecuadorean Embassy whilst secretly cackling, 'it has small rooms and no garden hahahahaha' in an evil villain stylee

Although regardless of whether this suits the US or not, what I hate about this case is how it has made it acceptable to belittle sexual assault and made a game out of evading questioning for an alleged rape. John Pilger has written a fawning piece about JA which Naomi Wolf has publicised on her facebook.

APlaceOnTheCouch

wouldn't it be ironic if he was where the US wanted him?

www.imdb.com/title/tt4442462/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_5

....

It hasn't made it acceptable to belittle sexual assault or make it a game. In my opinion the charges are very obviously fabricated, cooked up out of spite to get revenge on Assange for the amount of US "dirty laundry" he's made public. Evading questioning for a suspected rape is nothing to applaud, but evading trumped up charges is. It happens all over the world in countries with even less human rights, you see opposition figures having lots of charges thrown at them and sooner or later something sticks and they get locked up in a cell for the rest of their days. Some of them go on the run to evade that.

Whilst you're busy applauding JA for evading what you perceive to be 'trumped up charges' please do read the comments on newspaper sites, twitter and public forums where lots of people who share your position are also positing that it 'wasn't rape because she consented before she fell asleep' 'she only said it was rape because he didn't use a condom' and lots of other statements commonly said by rape apologists. That is now part of JA's 'legacy'.

APlaceOnTheCouch

You're wasting your typing. The canonisation of St. Julian, for "sticking it to da man" continues apace. And like all religious movements has little need for truth.

Sadly, people like chilledwarmth get the vote - although the saving grace is they rarely use it, as it perpetuates "the system".