Assange free. Granted bail

reply to post by blupblup


Yeh I saw this too, I thought it was quite cool but was hoping for some revelations

Simples.

Edit. Listen to them all go quiet when he says " to all members of the press who havnt been taken in"

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
reply to post by blupblup

 

Yeh I saw this too, I thought it was quite cool but was hoping for some revelations

Simples.

Yeah I know man.... in time I'm sure.
He's probably been advised not to be too specific and not to say anything to revelatory.... leave all that for the website.


Posted this yesterday but It's quite interesting.

Also this

reply to post by blupblup


Yes. Thank you for this. and thanks to everyone who posted here for keeping this thread a constant source of information as opposed to drama and off topic non sense. It has functioned and allowed me as well as everyone else to keep an eye on the circumstances of Assange's release.
Thanks again,
Gogovicmorrow.

The Judiciary Committee assembled what appears to be a diverse panel of witnesses based on a quick Google of them.

Ralph Nader a witness for Judiciary Committee's WikiLeaks hearing

thehill.com...

Mr. Abbe Lowell, partner at McDermott, Will & Emery
Mr. Geoffrey Stone, professor of law and former dean, University of Chicago Law School
Mr. Thomas Blanton, director, National Security Archive, George Washington University
Mr. Kenneth Wainstein, partner at O’Melveny and Myers
Mr. Gabriel Schoenfeld, Hudson Institute
Mr. Steve Vladeck, professor of law, American University
Mr. Ralph Nader, legal advocate and author

I have to wonder if this is more show. Most of these hearings are useless. I doubt anyone is going to heed the words and warnings of this panel once the hearing is complete. I'm to cynical to believe it will do any good.

the words he spoke were awesome
he said we should also support other prisoners held in worse conditions then him
wat a thing to say after being held so lon on bogus charges
hes my first real hero i ever saw

the words he spoke were awesome
he said we should also support other prisoners held in worse conditions then him
wat a thing to say after being held so long on bogus charges
hes my first real hero i ever saw

The Walkin' Dude...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ec200908c30.jpg[/atsimg]

Just saw a new clip a couple minutes ago. Assange interview. He said he has heard a grand jury in US is putting together charges for espionage against him and that there is some shady plans bein made to move him in a strange way to Sweden, meaning in a way that could see him in a district that would have authority to extradite him to the US.
This Asssange is either the real deal or this is a beautiful con on the people.

Take this as a test for Wikileaks enemies.

They now saw:

Wikileaks is not dead.
Wikileaks works on without The Face.
It is not true, that Wikileaks split and is not able to continue.
It is not true, that with Assange's imprisonement all others lost control and contacts.

In a very short time, people guaranteed for 200 000 pounds plus 40 000.
All over the world people stood up and payed for the bail. Prominent people spoke in the name of Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

I started to name some, but I deleted them again since that would be unfair to all those, who's names I don't know. (And the paranoids could think, it is a black list.)
So all the unnamend supporters have my full respect.

reply to post by TheFonz


I think Assange has too much integrity to leave the guy who's inconveniencing his family to put him up and also all those who showed financial support for his bail, to do a runner.
If he is whisked off somewhere, it won't be of his own doing.

As JA said in an interview with BBC, he is expecting another attack within the next hours.

BBC

He should go to Sweden to defend himself.

news.yahoo.com...

But no one knows that for sure. Some observers worry that there is a subterranean current of sexual violence running beneath Sweden's seemingly placid public image. (Swedish crime fiction, for example, is famous for its lurid descriptions of sexual violence - the literal translation of the Swedish title for the first book in Stieg Larsson's popular Millennium trilogy is Men Who Hate Women.) In a report in 2007, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on violence against women wrote, "While the equal opportunity agenda has paved the way for significant advances in the public representation of women ... the Swedish experience is less effective in countering the unequal power relations between women and men in the private sphere, thus resulting in the normalization of violence." Indeed, it's not just police reports that paint a troubling picture. A government survey in 2001 found that almost half of the women who responded said they had been the victim of a violent or sexual assault by a man since their 15th birthday.

Concerned particularly about the low rates of conviction following rape reports, the government launched a three-year program in 2007 designed to educate elements in the criminal-justice system on how to more aggressively pursue rape claims, since victims often drop their charges out of fear, shame or loyalty to the accused. And in 1998 and 2005, the definition of rape in Sweden was broadened to include, for instance, forcing sex through the threat of violence and having sex with a sleeping or unconscious woman. (Comment on this story.)

It is under this wider definition of the word that police wish to question Assange. Police reports state that the allegations against Assange center around claims by two Swedish women who say that on separate occasions each had consented to have sex with Assange, but that sometime during or after the encounter, he engaged in sexual behavior against their will. According to the Swedish branch of Interpol, a recent arrest warrant for Assange states that the rape accusation stems from a sexual encounter in which the woman "was asleep and in a helpless state." There is also a sexual-molestation allegation based on claims that in a different incident, "the pair [were] sleeping naked together and the suspect [pushed] his naked erect penis into her body." And prosecutors also want to question Assange in relation to the suspicion that he sexually coerced one of the women by "lying on top of [her], using his weight to prevent her from moving, and forcefully spreading her legs," and that he sexually molested both women by "having sex without the use of a condom, without the woman's knowledge."

No one could have predicted that Assange would become one of Sweden's most wanted when he traveled to the country in August to hold a series of lectures on WikiLeaks and received a rapturous welcome. According to Thomas Mattsson, editor of the Swedish daily Expressen, the nation's affinity for Assange came naturally: Swedes share his love of technology and his belief in open government. But Mattsson says Swedes have another passion that is equally important. "We are very moral in terms of how well-known and powerful men may behave with women in all kinds of situations, romantically or professionally," he says. (See TIME's video "WikiLeaks Founder on History's Top Leaks.")

reply to post by deltaboy


They would love him to. They want him to go to Sweden, that is likely where they will extradite him to the U.S. from.

They will have him on technicalities eventually, it could take a while though (6months-1 year) since it appears Assange has a fully functional brain (he's well advised by his lawyers i presume) but that'll not be enough i say.
I can't wait for the bank leaks !

Originally posted by spikey
It's an obscure Swedish law, that requires a man to wear a condom during intercourse, which apparently Assange either did not wear, or wore one which slipped or came off during sex.

almost mate, but not quite!

No! there is not any Law that requires a man to wear a condom during intercourse in general, if both agree to have sex without a condom.

So it's not illegal to have intercourse without any condom!

I think these crazy Swedish Laws involved with this crazy case actually came to life to protect young women from being taken advantage of sexually in various situations.

I think It goes something like this:

The woman agree to have sex with you, but she ONLY agree to have sex with you if you're wearing a condom during the act (maybe she is worried about any STD's and she don't know you well enough - since you both met for the first time the same night out clubbing.)

So you wear a condom and everyone is happy! but...If you later during the night want to have sex again and penetrate her without a condom while she is still half asleep - then you're apparently in some deep crap like Assange, if the woman later decides to go to the police and tell them that you banged her a second time later that night, but without the promised condom.