Pussy Riot? Can you Say Assange?

A well-known British politician, who is considered a bit of a ‘radical’ in the best sense, in  the UK,  has launched a defence of Julian Assange, pointing out that, should Assange be convicted of what he is accused of, there would be no penalty in Britain, since his alleged acts are not illegal in Britain..

Galloway is right…and considering (though Galloway demurred discussion of) who these women are attached to, and at least suspected of acting for, it’s hard to simply assume that Assange is wildly speculating that he’s being set up by the Yanks.
Further, if they want to try him for ‘treason’ then the term has lost all meaning, since he isn’t a citizen of the US and he did nothing not expressly stated in the US Constitution as his or anyone’s right, that is, the freedom to inform…
Is Assange being railroaded? Of course, he is..
Is the US still powerful enough to totally screw him for Wikileaks? Of course they are, and never mind what Putin did to Pussy Riot, what will inevitably happen to Assange is far, far worse, but definitely falls into the same category of despotism and treachery…’free Assange’ will only be a hollow cry…I honestly think that if they cannot ‘get’ him through this Swedish blackmail, he will, eventually, be “disappeared”…call me paranoid, but many, many decades of US treachery in Central and Latin America, as well as domestically, have made me that way….

Advertisements

About cityprole

It's all in the blog...
Aside | This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Pussy Riot? Can you Say Assange?

  1. assassinscloak says:

    Galloway is WRONG. Twice –that’s two times– English courts have ruled that such allegations would be allegations of rape under English law.

    You and George Galloway can easily check this simple fact for yourselves since neither the Magistrate nor the High Court’s ruling on this issue is a secret. In fact it has been widely publicised.

    • cityprole says:

      I believe the Galloway comment was that he would not be charged under English Law…and that hardly answers to the motive for the English threatening to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy and forcibly
      remove Assange…

      • assassinscloak says:

        Yes, I understood that. Do you understand that two English courts have already ruled that what Assange is accused of constitutes rape according to English law and that according to those rulings, and here I quote from one of the rulings, “there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.”

        So, I say again, George Galloway is WRONG. See for yourself: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

        And if that’s too much dry reading for you (and I couldn’t blame you if it is) try this handy breakdown: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

      • cityprole says:

        ‘Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.’

        As with the ‘analysis’ this is law-lite. She is saying that her ‘prelim. investigation’ is dependent on JA being arrested and interrogated. This is not a justification or explanation it is a statement of intent.

        People are found guilty in absentia, why is incarcerating him so much more important than 1) the investigation and pursuit of justice 2) interviewing him 3) his justifiable fears ?

        You’ll forgive us for wondering why such official, procedural requirements have been overlooked for so long or why they are more important than ‘justice’.”

        While you and the author may or may not be correct re the alleged wrongdoing being endictible under English Law, and thanks, I did read the synopsis, I also read a few of the comments that appeared after the article..one of interest being (partially) this one above, and below…

        “The approach of the Swedes has at best been obstructive to justice for the ‘victims’ and the sort-of defendant.

        Bottom line is that this is the sort of legal grey area that has been exploited by powers such as the US to create holding pens like Guantanamo, to imprison Bradley Manning for 800 days + and unjustly extradite UK citizens. To ignore that threat is daft, even more so when it you are the subject of it. To try and reduce the conversation to ‘rape is bad, get him out or you’re a rapist too’ ‘ is facile.

        IF you accept that JA is right to hold concerns about his life and liberty because of his posturing and Wikileaks then surely accommodating those fears WHILST conducting the ‘preliminary enquiries’ that may or may not lead to indictment is the way forward ? I note the absence of any real ‘way forward’ in the article, just reference to how the author fails to see the clearly compelling arguments put forward by a multitude of people, not least Naomi Wolf .”

        So why have the Swedes been so adamant and un-flexible in their position ? they could end all of this by visiting JA (It is difficult to see a sensible and well-based reason why Sweden should not now go to Assange’)
        The point of law re the uK supporting a charge of rape under the circumstances as laid out by the women making these allegations surely does not excuse the rest of the persecution and intimidation of Assange. or perhaps in your eyes an accusation of rape from women who admitted having consensual sex with Assange on the same occaision seems more grievous to you than the fact that he is being pursued beyond all recognition of the seriousness of the offense…
        Is Assange a womanizer and rather despicable in his arrogance and pursuit of women sexual partners? Probably…but that hardly seems life-threatening when this sort of thing happens frequently without anyone being charged (whether or not they should be is best left to one’s personal philosophy…but it is difficult, if not impossible for me to believe that anyone aside from Assange would be treated in this manner…
        Finally, as a woman, can’t believe I’m picking nits with you over Assange’s ability or inability to be tried for this “offense” in the UK as a question or point of law, rather than the reality that he hasn’t been formally charged by any State at all…and yes, I know that procedurally, he must be, according to Swedish law, in hand before being actually charged…is that the point here? Or will in fact the US be waiting there to whisk him away….? Or does that even matter to you?

  2. assassinscloak says:

    I think we can assume the High Court is correct about it being ‘endictible under English Law’ regardless of what I say.

    I didn’t come here to comment here on the business of extradition, which is why I’ve made no comment on it, just to correct a point of fact regarding English law and rape. You either accept that George Galloway was factually incorrect or you don’t.

    But if you want my opinion on the supposed danger of extradition to America it’s this: If Julian Assange wants to avoid extradition to the US, should they ever seek it, it was stupid of him to try and stay in the UK (our extradition treaty with the US is a laughably unequal thing that runs in their favour). Beyond that I have nothing to say on the matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s