Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraw asylum

1…222324252628»

Comments

  • #812
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,397 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122315966#Comment_122315966

    Have you a link to prove that? They could have interviewed him when he was in prison.



  • #813
    deirdremf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,378 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122310407#Comment_122310407

    It may have been "convenient" - but how was it his fault that the Swedes didn't charge him while he was on their patch? If they had sufficiently incriminating evidence surely they could have got a warrant to arrest him and so ensure that he faced the music.

    In the absence of such evidence was he not as free to come and go as you or me?



  • #814
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,139 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122316083#Comment_122316083

    They could have, but there would have been no benefit to it.

    There was an attempt to interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy but the Swedes were not permitted by the Ecuadorians to ask any questions, the overall process in effect was on hold until the Ecuadorians finally kicked him out in April 2019. In May 2019, the Swedes re-opened the case, and stated the intent to extradite after the completion of the sentence imposed by the UK for bail jumping. Since the statute of limitations for the one remaining potential charge was good until Dec 2020, this was a viable course of action which gave time for the Swedish prosecutors to work on the case and the interview could happen in Sweden as originally intended. Later that year, however, they concluded that after the passage of time, evidentiary standards likely would not be met and so dropped it, making any interview redundant.

    This is all perfectly public knowledge which I am surprised you are not aware of.



  • #815
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,397 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122316244#Comment_122316244

    Its crap because there is no statute of limitations on a rape charge. And time doesn't affect the evidence in a rape case either.



  • #816
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,139 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Apparently there is in Swedish law for the degree of assault in question. You disagree, take it up with the Swedes.



  • Advertisement
  • #817
    radiospan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭radiospan


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122315098#Comment_122315098

    The American line of him putting innocent lives at risk has been well and truly proven false at this stage but still lingers on.

    The US themselves admitted not being able to show that one person was harmed by the publications. If there was, they would have kept that all over the news, and used it against him.

    The bit about publications distancing themselves from him is more interesting. The reason WL worked with journalists was in part to ensure that the redactions and protection of sources were done correctly and carefully. So that it was the publications themselves and their legal teams and much as WL who decided what got published.

    Eventually, the full unredacted cables were released years later, and this only came about because one of those very trusted publications, The Guardian published the encryption password that WL had given them to protect the unredacted cables. (see David Leigh, Guardian Books)



Advertisement