Will Julian Assange Be Deported To The US?
The biggest piece of evidence that seems to discredit her accusations is a blog
she postedâ€”then removedâ€”with the title â€œ7 Steps to Legal Revenge,â€ a blueprint
on how to punish unfaithful lovers.
[Speaking Truth To Power]
As Wikileaks’ Julian Assange appeals a British court’s decision to extradite him to Sweden, another troubling question has arisen: was this fiasco precipitated by a jilted sex partner?
On February 24, in London’s south-east Belmarsh Magistrates’ court, Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle handed down his decision ordering Mr. Assange’s extradition to Sweden to face sex allegations.
“I am satisfied that the specified offences are extradition offences,” Judge Riddle said, in his ruling. He added, referring to the Geneva Convention, “as I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant’s Convention rights, I must order that Mr. Assange be extradited to Sweden.”
On March 2, Assange’s lawyers filed an appeal with the London High Court.Assange’s lawyers argued the extradition request was improper, in several respects. One argument was that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was used incorrectly. Judge Riddle disagreed saying “As this warrant uses the phrases that are used in the English language version --and indeed the Swedish language version-- of the EAW annexed to the Framework Decision, there is no --or very little-- scope for argument on the purpose of the warrant.”
The Framework Decision is the guiding judicial principle behind procedural implementations of the European Arrest Warrant.Another argument was the extradition was not being used, specifically, for prosecution. Presumably, this is referencing the belief the purpose of the extradition is to hand-over Mr. Assange to America. But, Judge Riddle stated “I am satisfied, looking at the warrant as a whole, that the requested person is an ‘accused’ person within section 2(3) (a) of the Extradition Act and is wanted for prosecution under section 2 (3) (b) of the Act.”
Moreover, the judge said, “If Mr. Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the Framework Decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act of 2003, before Sweden can order Mr. Assange’s extradition to a third State.”“It comes as no surprise but is nevertheless wrong,” Assange said, after the ruling. "It comes as the result of a European arrest warrant system run amok,” he added.
Mr. Assange is wanted to answer sex charges, against two women, brought by Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Mr. Assange’ defense team has called into question Ms. Ny’s prosecutorial practices.Assange is being accused of molestation, unlawful coercion and rape for incidents, allegedly, starting on Friday August 13, 2010. The first, supposed, victim—who helped arrange Assange’s trip to Sweden—identified as “Ms. A,” 31, claims he molested and raped her. She also said Assange had “done something” to the condom he used. The other, alleged, victim identified as “Ms. W,” 27, accused Assange of rape for: having sex with her, without a condom, while she was “half-asleep.”If Swedish authorities prove Mr. Assange committed sex crimes he should suffer the consequences. However, based on the conflicting, confusing stories coming from the “victims,” Assange guilt seems unlikely.
First, and foremost, is “Ms. A” questionable conduct. According to her testimony, Mr. Assange started sexually assaulting her on August 13. Yet, she held a party for him, on August 14, but told a female guest she had “the worst sex ever” with him. She says she endured “sexual molestation,” on August 18, when Assange, supposedly, rubbed himself against her, yet she let him stay at her apartment until August 20. Isn’t this curious behavior for a sex crime victim?“Ms. A” states after they had a meal, on August 13, Mr. Assange started undressing her, so she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again.”
She implies she didn’t want to have sex with him, "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far.” Something smells here. She says he pinned her legs and was about to have unprotected sex with her before he used a condom.The biggest piece of evidence that seems to discredit her accusations is a blog she posted—then removed—with the title “7 Steps to Legal Revenge,” a blueprint on how to punish unfaithful lovers. Was this blog posting an example of the saying “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?”
This brings us to the third player in this ménage a trios, of sorts: the “victim” known as “Ms. W.” By her admission, “Ms. W” said she found Assange “interesting, courageous and admirable.” This, apparently, encouraged her to attend a seminar entitled “The First Casualty of War is Truth,” where he spoke, on August 14. Two days later, she admitted having sex with Assange, at her flat, supposedly, after “he agreed unwilling to use a condom.” She says, sometime, the next morning she awoke to find him having unprotected sex with her.
The real story here is in the timeline. For whatever reason, on August 20 “Ms. W” texted “Ms. A” asking about the whereabouts of Assange. It seems here is when “Ms. A” realized Assange was sleeping with both women. Is it a coincidence this is the very day she asked him to leave her apartment? Some state “Ms. A” manipulated “Ms. W” into making accusations against Assange—and, reportedly, “Ms. W” didn’t sign the statement attributed to her.
Some say this case is about extradition to America, because of Mr. Assange’s works in Wikileaks.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
No Record Exist!!