Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official

reply to post by leosnake


Which ones?

Common or Embassy police?

Also -source

Russian diplomats expressed regret over the conduct of London police who they said had arrived at the scene but "failed to take proper measures to neutralise the unsanctioned demonstration which was under way and detain the attackers".

Britain doesn't "neutralize" protestors.. Thats a Putin thing....

reply to post by Seagle


I read them.. I also listened to the lawyer for the girls and Assange, and seriously, all they wanted him for was more questioning.

I have seen in my career many times where a suspect was released only to be picked up again 2 months later for more questioning because something else came out. We are not in that room where they made the decision and we certainly don't have the right to know every aspect of a case, you are basing your opinion solely on interviews, which are only a part of an investigation, there's much more and with out a discovery motion, the defense just doesn't get to see it.

See it from the investigators point of view for a second.

We have a suspect, we think he's done something, we do interviews and say at the end, "we may need you back for more questioning but you are free to go at this point"

We ask said suspect to come back for more questioning, they refuse.

A material witness warrant is issued to compel the questioning,

Suspect flees jurisdiction.

Interpol is contacted.

Suspect desperately wants asylum from something that hadn't been even stated by any party involved,only by talking heads on TV.

Suspect goes to court to fight extradition.

Suspect loses and loses appeal.

Suspect holes up in some embassy to avoid due process.

When you look at it like that, what's he so afraid of? Why would someone run away from a bogus charge if it's bogus, prove it, and again we don't have all the facts, all we can see are interviews, which are only about 25% of a case, in fact we used to use them as only 10% of weight.

If this were anyone else, people would be screaming to know what the person was hiding...Just because it's Asange he's above suspicion. Doesn't fly in my book. He fought the extradition, he appealed it, he lost both times, it's over, he has used the legal system, just go back and answer more questions, there's a good chance that he could have cleared this up already.

Originally posted by leosnake
17.08.2012
Damage inflicted to the Russian Embassy in London as a result of 16/17 August attack

In the night 16/17 August 2012 the consular section of the Russian Embassy in London was attacked by a mob chanting slogans against the Syrian government and throwing stones towards the building. Several windows were broken, there has been a significant damage to the house. Fortunately none of the Embassy staff were injured.

www.pravda.ru...://www.rusemblon.org/
where police was at that moment?

As stated in my post -
The term "embassy" is often used to refer to the building or compound housing an ambassador's offices and staff. Technically, however, "embassy" refers to the diplomatic delegation itself, while the office building in which they work is known as a chancery.


I am well aware that most people refer to the building as an Embassy but it is not technically correct and when someone is acting as if they are the Denny Krane of international diplomacy its a bit hard to take them seriously when don't even understand the basic principals.

em·bas·sy   /ˈɛmbəsi/ Show Spelled[em-buh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural em·bas·sies.
a body of persons entrusted with a mission to a sovereign or government, especially an ambassador and his or her staff.

reply to post by vkey08


JA was never under any oblication to return to sweden. Swedish authorities had every oblication to conduct the interview they want in UK. They refuse and by that act ignore the letter of the law. The EAW issued was direct result of swedish authorities failure to follow the law.
Also as if this private lawyer would even know what backroom deals they have in place. Like one silly comment made here stated that "US has great relationship with sweden when it comes to extradition." Great history like letting people get snatched for torture.

Originally posted by vkey08
Suspect flees jurisdiction.

...and here you fail totally. Never fled anywhere.

reply to post by PsykoOps


The Swedes did not have to by law conduct the interview in the UK, they could legally ask for him to be returned to Stockholm for further questioning. It happens all the time, police usually wish to question in their own territory so as not to get into a jurisdictional pissing contest..

It is a common misconception that the cops have to go to you and that they cannot ask you to come to them.

And anytime you leave a jurisdiction when you are a person of interest in a case, then you have fled it, plain and simple. Try it sometime even on a small traffic ticket in the US, a bench warrant is then issued and you must return to the state that you got the ticket in, not vice versa..

That's bs. The charges were dropped. They asked if JA was free to leave. He was not a person of interest in anything.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by leosnake

 

Which ones?

Common or Embassy police?

Also -source

Russian diplomats expressed regret over the conduct of London police who they said had arrived at the scene but "failed to take proper measures to neutralise the unsanctioned demonstration which was under way and detain the attackers".

Britain doesn't "neutralize" protestors.. Thats a Putin thing....

edit on 17-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

as far as I understood you if tomorrow so-called patriots start breaking the Windows of the Embassy of great Britain in Moscow, the Moscow police should not oppose them?

Originally posted by leosnake
as far as I understood you if tomorrow so-called patriots start breaking the Windows of the Embassy of great Britain in Moscow, the Moscow police should not oppose them?

You asked what the police were doing.

I asked you which police you were referring to. The common or the Embassy police.

reply to post by Xcathdra




as far as I understood you if in London, someone starts shooting at the Windows of the Embassy, the police will not stop it because it is not their competence?

Police are allowed to enter if there is a direct physical threat. Like a fire or a sniper. UK law violates the vienna convention that makes the rules quite clear and simple.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
That's bs. The charges were dropped. They asked if JA was free to leave. He was not a person of interest in anything.

If the charges were dropped how come there is an Interpol Red Notice for him since 2010, and a list of charges.. sorry but that means there are charges in my book, but what do I know I was just in LE for 20 years... and my specialty was civil rights violations.. so...

I've seen my share of investigations, it looks like they didn't have enough to charge him at first but had evidence after a bit, wanted to ask him more questions and he refused, they filed with Interpol and the UK for extradition, nothing more nothing less. As the girls lawyer says, stop talking about the US and make this about what it is, his clients rights...

Originally posted by leosnake
as far as I understood you if in London, someone starts shooting at the Windows of the Embassy, the police will not stop it because it is not their competence?

No shots were fired...
In London, if I remeber right, you have common police and then you have embassy police. Common police do everything except guard embassis.

You asked -

Originally posted by leosnake
where police was at that moment?

The Interpol Red Notice is Swedish requested, and such 'reminder' was put into the current news cycle for further political pressure.

Here's a quick reminder of what happened -

Assange's legal hurdles in Sweden involved 2 prosecutors.

After the 1st Swedish prosecutor ran the legal process and dropped the case, later a 2nd, differently positioned in 'hierarchical system' of Sweden judiciary reinstated the case and issued the warrant for questioning, not charges as claimed.

Sweden's chaotic judiciary is driving this.

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo


Just like the prosecutor in Zimmermans case? Where the first prosecutor said no to charges and a higher ranking one said yes to them?

Why?

Because apparently the second PA had new information to help her make her case / argument.

Sweden is the same way...

reply to post by Xcathdra


Sweden's judicial system is a bit different from countries like UK, USA.

Prosecutors have greater powers in Sweden and tend to be corrupt.

Zimmerman's case has different circumstances...

The 2nd prosecutor, Marianne Ny has made untruthful statements about Swedish laws, and wrote an internal Interpol Red Notice with a detail that wasn't in the public version.

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo


Those issues were raised by Assanges lawyers. They made several motions in the Swedish legal system to get the issue thrown out and they refused. If her actions violated swedish law, if evidence was manufactured, then why did their courts deny Assanges motions?

If the actions were not valid / lawful dont you think the court system would have thrown out the case out?

US in pursuit of Assange, cables reveal:

www.theage.com.au... ssange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html

"AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is still gunning for Julian Assange, according to Foreign Affairs Department documents obtained by The Saturday Age.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information laws, show Australia's diplomatic service takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

WikiLeaks announced on Twitter that Assange would give a statement outside the embassy tomorrow. Meanwhile, one of his defence lawyers said he would appeal to the International Court of Justice if Britain prevented him from going to Ecuador.

In May, Senator Carr told a Senate estimates committee hearing: "We have no advice that the US has an intention to extradite Mr Assange … nothing we have been told suggests that the US has such an intention."
However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year".

The embassy noted media reports that a US federal grand jury had been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to pursue the WikiLeaks case and that US government officials "cannot lawfully confirm to us the existence of the grand jury".

Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.

Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.

The cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high-level US advice on "the direction and likely outcome of the investigation" and "reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange".

The question of advance warning of any prosecution or extradition moves was previously raised by Australian diplomats in December 2010.
American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".

Large sections of the cables have been redacted on national security grounds, including parts of reports on the open, pre-court martial proceedings of US Army Private Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked a vast quantity of classified information to WikiLeaks. Australian embassy representatives have attended all of Private Manning's pre-trial hearings.

Australian diplomats have highlighted the prosecution's reference to "several connections between Manning and WikiLeaks which would form the basis of a conspiracy charge" and evidence that the investigation has targeted the "founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks" for espionage.
However, the embassy was unable to confirm the claim in a leaked email from an executive with US private intelligence company Stratfor, that "[w]e have a sealed indictment against Assange".

"Commentators have ... suggested that the source may have been referring to a draft indictment used by prosecutors to 'game out' possible charges," the embassy reported in February. "There is no way to confirm the veracity of the information through official sources."

A spokesperson for Senator Carr said yesterday Assange's circumstances remained a matter for the UK, Ecuador and Sweden, with Australia's role limited to that of a consular observer. "

Well I seem to have shut this discussion down…. I thought the info I provided would have added so fuel to this debate but it seems this debate is over.

Originally posted by homerJ
Well I seem to have shut this discussion down…. I thought the info I provided would have added so fuel to this debate but it seems this debate is over.

I dont think that is it..

There are a few different threads that are active discussing this topic.