The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:Like you get Swedens Rape laws or the UK Supreme Court?

rath wrote:

greeney2 wrote:Like you get Sweden's Rape laws or the UK Supreme Court?

I don't need to know the ins & outs of Sweden's laws to know that something that was not a crime, when the said event took place ..... means no laws were broken.

if it's not illegal, it's not a crime.

ergo .... derrrr.

Told you Greeny2 .... laws can't be acted retrospectively.

osama-bin-laden-driver-conviction-quashed-appeals-t8075.html

julian Assange cant be charged with a crime, .... THAT WAS NOT A CRIME, when the event took place.

See Greeney2, you live in the USA & you don't even know how your own laws work.

On the other hand the U.S judicial system just confirmed my entire position.

like i said the rule of law, is constricted by no boundary.

In the same way the USA cant charge people retroactively ....

Nor can Sweden or any other nation in the Western world.

Read the dates, the drivers dates working of Bin Laden, were prior to the law dating of 2006. What does that have to do with Assange after the effective dates? Beside the United States hasn't charged him with anything. Sweden wants him for investigation for a crime have nothing to do with this, and the UK courts agree with Sweden. This was an issue that involved a special ruling, and this guy was in Gitmo, convicted and released on time served to go home to Yemen.

Do you actually believe this is a totally innocent victim? Please tell me you are not that stupid to think the driver for Osama Bin Laden, is not totally aware of the kind of thing Bin Laden did? You really think he would have been a totally unsuspecting stooge, who they hired to drive him around, or a dedicated to the cause, hardcore infidel hater. Use you head on this one, his conviction was overturned by a technicality, usually cases taken on by civil liberty activists. You may not realize it, but our court systems are full of outrageous technicality things, like seaching a trunk for weapons to find a trunk full of drugs, and he gets off for probable cause, because a tail light was out. Yes, our court system lets people like this go, overturn verdicts, becasue we do hold the law to that kind of standard. There is also nothing wrong with the standard of Gitmo trials, and the fact, most have been returned to their homes and never were prosocuted, some have died in terrorist act when they got home.


Anything else?

greeney2 wrote:Read the dates, the drivers dates working of Bin Laden, were prior to the law dating of 2006. What does that have to do with Assange after the effective dates? Anything else?

I told you that you don't understand your own laws.

In the same way the USA just proved my point ..... you can't charge somebody with a crime retrospectively.

This case proved it ..... & it's the same with Assange & Sweden .....

Sweden cant charge Assange with a crime that was not a crime when he did what he did.

The event happened prior to Sweden passing the law that has seen julian Assange' Charged with rape.

Sweden did not have a law that said if you have consensual sex, & the Condom brakes, then it is rape.

NO SUCH LAW existed, when assange slept with that whore from the CIA.

It was not a crime until after' Assange had already slept with her.

( know-body other than Julian Assange, has ever been charged with this crime. )

It's the same rule ..... You cant charge somebody with a crime retrospectively.

((( Like i said to you years ago )))

& like the USA case

Britain defies US over 'biggest military computer hack of all time'

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technol ... z29YC1pRrk

& that's why the USA wants Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden ....

So the U.S grand Jury can then unseal Julian Assange extradition order & have him sent to the USA to be tortured & assassinated.

I think the word you are missing is retroactively, not retrospectively. The US court of appeals overturned the conviction, which is why we have such a court. I doubt if you do understand our court system, and its different levels both in a State judicial system, and Federal Judicial system, which is not the same a the Military Judicial system.

What I told you, these are not simple laws, its very complex when you start all these international exchanges, federal statues, and even something mentioned one time about treaty agreements, which pretains to extradition, etc.

Bottom lines: Gitmo and the driver situation has nothting to do with anything with Assange.
The USA has no arrest warrent, nor has he been charged with anything, on Assange.
Sweden has charged him with nothing, he is wanted for questioning, and he skipped out of Sweden.
Every court in the UK, agreed with Sweden.
He violated bail, and is a fugative in the UK with an arrest warrent.

greeney2 wrote:I think the word you are missing is retroactively, not retrospectively.

retroactively, ..... retrospectively.

There the same words, they mean the same .... both words are interchangeable.

if you go take a look at the topic where i explained that Julian Assange can not be charged with a crime in Sweden retroactively .......... you will see i used the term Retroactively ....

& you had no idea what the term even meant. ( its all there go take a look for yourself. )

It's like when i had to tell you all who Julian Assange even was back in 2009, Along with what openleaks was.

greeney2 wrote:The USA has no arrest warrent, nor has he been charged with anything, on Assange.
Sweden has charged him with nothing, he is wanted for questioning,

So then you Agree ........ Wonderfull.

Julian Assange did not commit a crime because what he did was not a crime at the time he had sex with a whore.

Yes what he did is a crime in Sweden today / now, but as we just agreed on .... julian Assange can not be charged retroactively / retrospectively.

& because Julian Assange has not committed a crime, ..... Sweden has charged him with a crime.

So if Julian Assange has not committed a crime, ... & Sweden has not charged julian Assange with a crime.

Why does Julian EVEN NEED TO return to Sweden.

If Sweden wants to question julian assange for something he did that is not even a crime ..... then im sure they can call him on a phone or even question him via an interview over the internet.

Hmm could it be that Sweden has been lying, so they can arrest julian assage on a U.S warrant & have him extradited to the USA to be tortured & killed.

Clarence Darrow you are not! Maybe you should have been his lawyer all the way to the UK Surpreme Court, you would have gotten him hung by now. I hear a lot of Rath opinions, but not much else. I'm pretty sure the UK Supreme Court has it right, Assange left Sweden by skipping out knowing the police wanted him for questioning, and he jumped bail in the UK after going to the highest court. He was and is a flight risk.

greeney2 wrote: I hear a lot of Rath opinions, but not much else. I'm pretty sure the UK Supreme Court has it right, Assange left Sweden by skipping out knowing the police wanted him for questioning, and he jumped bail in the UK after going to the highest court. He was and is a flight risk.

Yhe, but you fail to see the cause & effect here ......

fruit of the poisonous tree ......

Sweden has not charged him with a crime.

So if Julian Assange has not committed a crime, ... & Sweden has not charged julian Assange with a crime.

Why does Julian EVEN NEED TO return to Sweden.

If Julian Assage is arrested & breached bail, for something that was not a crime, ... then he has not committed a crime.

So Julian assange Jumping Bail is a non issue.


So you tell me Greeney2.

How is julian Assange guilty of jumping bail, for a decision to return julian assange to Sweden where he will be asked questions, that relate to him, ( not committing a crime )
(Over charges Sweden has said they do not even seek to charge him with ) Because Julian Assange did not brake any of Sweden's laws.


The extradition order does not hold water.

If they don't seek Julian Assanges extradition to face criminal charges, then why do they seek his extradition.

????

Most likely it has to do with the U.S Grand Jury Sitting with a sealed extradition order.

Julian Assange bids to sue Australian Prime minister Julia Gillard for defamation over WikiLeaks comments

AAP
October 08, 2012


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has instructed lawyers to look into a lawsuit against Julia Gillard. Picture: Matt Dunham Source: AP


JULIAN Assange has reportedly hired Sydney lawyers to pursue a defamation case against Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Mr Assange has told left-leaning activist group GetUp! that Ms Gillard defamed WikiLeaks when she allegedly told a radio station in 2010 he had broken the law by releasing hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables, according to a statement released by the group.

"I have hired lawyers in Sydney and they are investigating the different ways in which we can sue Gillard over this statement," Mr Assange told GetUp!

In late 2010, Ms Gillard said of the WikiLeaks release: "I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website. It's a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do."

In a GetUp! video, Mr Assange says Ms Gillard's statement was used by Mastercard this year as justification for blocking its Australian cardholders from donating to WikiLeaks.

"The effects of this statement are ongoing and they directly affect the financial viability of Wikileaks," Mr Assange said. "We are considering suing for defamation so I have hired lawyers in Sydney."

Julian Assange a big winner for Ten

An email from a Mastercard executive, reported by the ABC, says "The decision to suspend acceptance to Wikileaks was MasterCard's alone. Given the serious nature of the allegations and some of the public comments by senior elected officials from around the world (including the Australian Prime Minister and the then Attorney-General who indicated that there were questions about the legalities of Wikileaks activity) we believed it was prudent to suspend acceptance."

Mr Assange is holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London after seeking asylum as part of a bid to fight extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over rape allegations.

Mr Assange also rejected claims by Foreign Minister Bob Carr that he was receiving full consular support.

"When there are statements made that there are 63 consular contacts, they are counting emails that they send my lawyer asking for some future possible appointment," he said.

"I haven't seen any member of the Australian embassy or consulate since I was in prison in 2010. And even then, all they did was bring some notepads, pens, et cetera," he told GetUp!

Mr Assange said his family had changed their names and gone into hiding because of his situation.

"I can't go and visit my family, I can't do things that are important for many people - I can't see the skyline, I can't visit my homeland," he said.

GetUp! is reportedly putting together a campaign calling on the Australian government to seek a commitment from the US that it will not try to extradite Mr Assange.

Ecuador: Sweden can interrogate Assange at embassy

October 27, 2012
12:12PM ( 6 hour ago )

SWEDEN can send a prosecutor to the Ecuadoran embassy in Britain to interrogate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

"This problem has a simple solution ... We propose that a Swedish prosecutor come to interrogate him at Ecuador's embassy in London," the South American country's president Rafael Correa said in an interview with Chilean radio station Cooperativa.

"It's perfectly legal."

Mr Correa, on a visit to Chile, added that precedents for such a move exist, noting that "this happened on other occasions".

Assange sought asylum at the Ecuadoran embassy in the British capital in mid June in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over alleged rape and sexual assault.

Quito gave the 41-year-old Australian asylum in August but Britain has refused to grant him safe passage out of the country, and he remains holed up in the embassy, placing Ecuador in a diplomatic stalemate with Britain.

Assange denies the allegations against him, and claims he could eventually be extradited by Sweden to the United States for prosecution over the WikiLeaks website's publication of hundreds of thousands of classified US documents.

If Stockholm does not want to send a prosecutor to London, it should provide Assange with a guarantee that he will not be extradited to a third country, Correa said in the same interview.

On Wednesday, Ecuadoran Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters that he had requested a meeting with Britain to discuss Assange's worsening health, who Quito claims is losing weight and suffering vision problems.
Assange said in an interview published September 30 that his health was "slowly deteriorating" in the embassy, adding that he had "a racking cough".