Jump to content
Malkieri

Assange granted Ecuadorean Asylum

Recommended Posts

Our respect and cooperation with the legal systems of world super powers like the UK, America and Europe is more important then the plea of some Aussie who wants to be a free speech super star

I'm not sure if you are serious, or joking.

If you are serious, then you are a fuckwit.

 

If Australia wasn't going to bow to US pressure to extradite him to Sweden, he could have come here.

Odds are he wouldn't have been extradited to Sweden, when he has not been charged with a crime, and the extraditing authority is a prosecutor, not a judge.

 

That's right, the UK has ruled that a prosecutor in Sweden is a judicial authority, who can order the extradition of an individual for questioning in relation to an alleged crime they have not been charged with.

In fact, a crime that has changed over time. Another under-reported fact is that Sweden have amended the crimes they wish to question Assange in relation to, dropping down the seriousness, having tarred him with the "rapist" brush.

 

 

Look like a clear-cut case of protecting women from predators to me! :/

 

EDIT: I guess my point is that the UK legal system would not be involved if Australia's government had a spine. The US legal system is irrelevent.

Sweden we export $450m per annum roughly, they export $2 billion to us. Who needs who more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our respect and cooperation with the legal systems of world super powers like the UK, America and Europe is more important then the plea of some Aussie who wants to be a free speech super star

I'm not sure if you are serious, or joking.

If you are serious, then you are a fuckwit.

 

 

 

lol i didnt make these rules! thats just how it works and how a collective government would picture it, The needs of many out weigh the needs of a few

 

Posted Image

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is wanted for rape in Sweden... That's what this is about

No he isn't.

 

He is wanted for questioning in relation to a sexual assault under Swedish law.

 

If he was "wanted for rape" he would be charged.

 

However, instead of sending someone to London to interview him there, they mysteriously want him in Sweden.

And somehow the US has an interest in this case? I'm sure they just want to stand up for the rights of a woman in Sweden to have police question someone in their own police station.

 

That's a strange way to put it.

 

It's like saying OJ was only wanted for "questioning" for a murder.

 

But if you want to swing it that way he's only wanted in the US for questioning as well , so you know... if its only questioning then he shouldn't be worried right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our respect and cooperation with the legal systems of world super powers like the UK, America and Europe is more important then the plea of some Aussie who wants to be a free speech super star

I'm not sure if you are serious, or joking.

If you are serious, then you are a fuckwit.

 

 

 

lol i didnt make these rules! thats just how it works and how a collective government would picture it, The needs of many out weigh the needs of a few

 

Posted Image

 

I think Tinnie's having a bad day :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol i didnt make these rules! thats just how it works and how a collective government would picture it, The needs of many out weigh the needs of a few

Let me know when we get a utilitarian government with a mandate to protect the interests of the many over the needs of the few.

 

 

That's a strange way to put it.

 

It's like saying OJ was only wanted for "questioning" for a murder.

 

But if you want to swing it that way he's only wanted in the US for questioning as well , so you know... if its only questioning then he shouldn't be worried right?

Sure, if you want to miss the point.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

 

"In 1989, Simpson pleaded no contest to a domestic violence charge and was separated from Nicole Brown, to whom he was paying child support. On June 12, 1994 Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman were found dead outside Brown's condominium. Simpson was charged with their murders."

 

You are charged with a crime, when there is sufficient evidence that the prosecution thinks they are ready to prosecute the case and win.

Given he hasn't been charged, they don't have a case they think can win yet. In which case, how does extraditing him rather than getting a statement in the UK make a jot of difference?

The entire process, is hugely suspicious. It's not without precedent (as I understand it) but it's rare enough for a judge to order a warrant for an arrest to question someone who is in another country, let along a "lowly" prosecutor.

 

It's not about whether he should be worried. It's more about whether he should be extradited because a prosecutor who doesn't claim Assange has a case to answer yet, wants to talk to him.

 

Should a prosecutor in Australia be able to extradite George Bush Junior so he can answer some questions about war crimes he's not even charged with?

It's wrong on so many levels it isn't funny.

 

IANAL

 

For those who don't "know any better" the normal process is for a defendant to be charged. He is served with papers telling him what court he needs to attend and when, along with the charges he is facing. Initially, this is simply to determine committal, whether he should be kept in jail until the trial proper starts. Assange has not been charged. He hasn't been served with papers telling him to turn up to court. All that's happened is a prosecutor wants to talk to him. Now normally, we would extradite someone to a country we have an extradition treaty with, so they can face charges. That is, so they can face their committal hearing. If Assange was charged, then I'd support his extradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was reading yesterday that the poms were thinking of raiding the embassy basically risking a HUGE diplomatic incident over a broken condom. He must have some really good dirt on someone?

I dunno about a huge diplomatic incident, who cares about Ecuador and what could they do about it. Maybe if it was a nation that has a presence on the world stage ..

 

Because it sets a rather nasty precedent dude.

If the Poms can raid the Ecuadorean embassy because they want to get their hands on someone then what's to stop China doing the same to the British embassy? Or any other country doing the same to any other countries embassy?

Jeezuz the Poms didn't even invade the Libyan embassy (although the police did blockade it) when a a Policewoman was fatally shot from one of the Libyan embassies windows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher

So Assange must be really nasty nasty terrorist with thousands of deaths on his hands for the Poms to suggest such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol i didnt make these rules! thats just how it works and how a collective government would picture it, The needs of many out weigh the needs of a few

Let me know when we get a utilitarian government with a mandate to protect the interests of the many over the needs of the few.

 

 

That's a strange way to put it.

 

It's like saying OJ was only wanted for "questioning" for a murder.

 

But if you want to swing it that way he's only wanted in the US for questioning as well , so you know... if its only questioning then he shouldn't be worried right?

Sure, if you want to miss the point.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

 

"In 1989, Simpson pleaded no contest to a domestic violence charge and was separated from Nicole Brown, to whom he was paying child support. On June 12, 1994 Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman were found dead outside Brown's condominium. Simpson was charged with their murders."

 

You are charged with a crime, when there is sufficient evidence that the prosecution thinks they are ready to prosecute the case and win.

Given he hasn't been charged, they don't have a case they think can win yet. In which case, how does extraditing him rather than getting a statement in the UK make a jot of difference?

The entire process, is hugely suspicious. It's not without precedent (as I understand it) but it's rare enough for a judge to order a warrant for an arrest to question someone who is in another country, let along a "lowly" prosecutor.

 

It's not about whether he should be worried. It's more about whether he should be extradited because a prosecutor who doesn't claim Assange has a case to answer yet, wants to talk to him.

 

Should a prosecutor in Australia be able to extradite George Bush Junior so he can answer some questions about war crimes he's not even charged with?

It's wrong on so many levels it isn't funny.

 

IANAL

 

For those who don't "know any better" the normal process is for a defendant to be charged. He is served with papers telling him what court he needs to attend and when, along with the charges he is facing. Initially, this is simply to determine committal, whether he should be kept in jail until the trial proper starts. Assange has not been charged. He hasn't been served with papers telling him to turn up to court. All that's happened is a prosecutor wants to talk to him. Now normally, we would extradite someone to a country we have an extradition treaty with, so they can face charges. That is, so they can face their committal hearing. If Assange was charged, then I'd support his extradition.

 

Sounds like American Law to me.

 

Which is fine, as I was the one who bought up the whole OJ Simpson thing, so bad example on my part.

 

Assange was issued with a European Arrest Warrant for Rape and Sexual Assault (which is a different thing to being taken in for questioning), and then broke his bail conditions to enter the Ecuadorian consulate.

 

He wont be able to angle himself for recital (13) as he's in Sweden and they don't have the death penalty and he would be treated well. However the U.S would be able to extradite him outside of a EAW which does't guarantee the safety of of the extradited parties.

 

The way I see it is , he's one nerd who shouldn't have enacted his James Bond fantasies.

 

I don't support people who dodge charges of rape regardless of how countries perceive rape.

 

I also don't support the dissemination of sensitive materials during times of war.

 

 

Assange is a fucking rat bastard.

 

Rapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assange was issued with a European Arrest Warrant for Rape and Sexual Assault (which is a different thing to being taken in for questioning), and then broke his bail conditions to enter the Ecuadorian consulate.

Horse shit. Have you been reading the thread, or do you just pick out individual words to reply to?

 

He wont be able to angle himself for recital (13) as he's in Sweden and they don't have the death penalty and he would be treated well. However the U.S would be able to extradite him outside of a EAW which does't guarantee the safety of of the extradited parties.

Reason enough to seek asylum IMO, no matter what the circumstances.

 

I don't support people who dodge charges of rape regardless of how countries perceive rape.

THERE ARE NO CHARGES. ALLEGATIONS AND QUESTIONING ARE NOT CHARGES.

 

I also don't support the dissemination of sensitive materials during times of war.

Nobody is asking you to support what Assange does.

 

I think Justin Bieber or Nicky Minaj (?) commit actual crimes against humanity, but I would support either one if they were seeking protection from:

- such a highly unusual and suspicious extradition request...

- to a country that would without question send them to the USA for no reason

- the USA, where you can be detained indefinitely for no reason, without any warrant, or any right to an attorney.

 

Shit, I haven't even done anything, and I'd be hiding in Ecuador's embassy if ordered to go to Sweden on such shaky pretences.

 

Assange is a fucking rat bastard.

 

Rapist.

So mature.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like American Law to me.

 

Which is fine, as I was the one who bought up the whole OJ Simpson thing, so bad example on my part.

 

Assange was issued with a European Arrest Warrant for Rape and Sexual Assault (which is a different thing to being taken in for questioning), and then broke his bail conditions to enter the Ecuadorian consulate.

 

He wont be able to angle himself for recital (13) as he's in Sweden and they don't have the death penalty and he would be treated well. However the U.S would be able to extradite him outside of a EAW which does't guarantee the safety of of the extradited parties.

 

The way I see it is , he's one nerd who shouldn't have enacted his James Bond fantasies.

 

I don't support people who dodge charges of rape regardless of how countries perceive rape.

 

I also don't support the dissemination of sensitive materials during times of war.

 

 

Assange is a fucking rat bastard.

 

Rapist.

You obviously rock at reading comprehension, and have done some research:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant

 

"The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union (EU). Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period.

 

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence. It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more. Where sentence has already been passed an EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long."

 

So, the EAW shouldn't apply because he's not facing prosecution (charged), he's being investigated.

He hasn't been convicted, so it's not enforcing a custodial sentence.

 

I don't really care what your opinions on Assange are. I think the same rules should apply to anyone in the UK, being accused of any crime under an EAW.

Likewise, it's not the government's callous borderline prejudicial actions towards Assange that worry me, it's that their actions are targeted against an Australian Citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all alleged rapists should be granted political asylum and use that to never face trial.....

OK

 

Except Assange isn't an alleged rapist, he's accused of breaking Swedish sexual assault law, where you can be charged with sexual assault if the woman changes her mind after the event.

 

So that means he didn't sexually assault these women?

 

 

that's right.

just that he had sex with the women bareback, which they decided that they didn't like some time later......all he's 'guilty' of is being a root-rat, and being a risk-taker (not wearing condoms)

if that's a crime, I would've been locked up many times in my younger days

;)

 

But what has been particularly disturbing is the attempt by some supporters of Assange to claim that the allegations do not constitute rape. It is reminiscent of the campaign mounted by certain celebrities in defence of Roman Polanski, who was finally held in 2009 after fleeing arrest in the US more than 30 years previously over the alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl. We've heard this perverse argument that some rapes aren't really rape in Britain, too. Last year, Ken Clarke tried to distinguish between "date rape" and what he described as "serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman".

 

Let's be clear: rape is rape. Rape is having sex with someone without their consent. And Assange is clearly accused of rape. The allegation of one woman is that Assange had sex with her while she slept, without a condom. Assange's legal team claims that, while she immediately asked if he was wearing a condom and he answered not, she consented to continuing the encounter. But both women allegedly made their consent to sex contingent on Assange's use of a condom: unsurprisingly, given the huge potential risk to their health if he did not.

 

Assange's lawyer described the allegations of the other woman in graphic detail in court. As he tried to penetrate her without a condom, she alleges, she repeatedly attempted to avoid penetration: her claim is that she tried "several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and try to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom".

 

Many of his supporters argued that this would not constitute rape according to English law, which is simply untrue. Our High Court ruled that: "It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...ns-8053869.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assange was issued with a European Arrest Warrant for Rape and Sexual Assault (which is a different thing to being taken in for questioning), and then broke his bail conditions to enter the Ecuadorian consulate.

Horse shit. Have you been reading the thread, or do you just pick out individual words to reply to?

 

He wont be able to angle himself for recital (13) as he's in Sweden and they don't have the death penalty and he would be treated well. However the U.S would be able to extradite him outside of a EAW which does't guarantee the safety of of the extradited parties.

Reason enough to seek asylum IMO, no matter what the circumstances.

 

I don't support people who dodge charges of rape regardless of how countries perceive rape.

THERE ARE NO CHARGES. ALLEGATIONS AND QUESTIONING ARE NOT CHARGES.

 

I also don't support the dissemination of sensitive materials during times of war.

Nobody is asking you to support what Assange does.

 

I think Justin Bieber or Nicky Minaj (?) commit actual crimes against humanity, but I would support either one if they were seeking protection from:

- such a highly unusual and suspicious extradition request...

- to a country that would without question send them to the USA for no reason

- the USA, where you can be detained indefinitely for no reason, without any warrant, or any right to an attorney.

 

Shit, I haven't even done anything, and I'd be hiding in Ecuador's embassy if ordered to go to Sweden on such shaky pretences.

 

Assange is a fucking rat bastard.

 

Rapist.

So mature.

 

Dude I have been reading this thread and it has mostly the wrong information, there's a warrant out for his arrest called an EAW European Arrest Warrant. He needs to go to court and face trial as they are trying to prosecute him.

 

If he defends these charges successfully, he's wanted for other crimes in other countries because he's considered a criminal.

 

Simple

 

If he can defend himself against the rape charges and following his extradition to the U.S defend himself against sedition charges then he'll be home free.

 

If he can't he's in a world of trouble.

 

Just like anyone who commits a serious crime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like American Law to me.

 

Which is fine, as I was the one who bought up the whole OJ Simpson thing, so bad example on my part.

 

Assange was issued with a European Arrest Warrant for Rape and Sexual Assault (which is a different thing to being taken in for questioning), and then broke his bail conditions to enter the Ecuadorian consulate.

 

He wont be able to angle himself for recital (13) as he's in Sweden and they don't have the death penalty and he would be treated well. However the U.S would be able to extradite him outside of a EAW which does't guarantee the safety of of the extradited parties.

 

The way I see it is , he's one nerd who shouldn't have enacted his James Bond fantasies.

 

I don't support people who dodge charges of rape regardless of how countries perceive rape.

 

I also don't support the dissemination of sensitive materials during times of war.

 

 

Assange is a fucking rat bastard.

 

Rapist.

You obviously rock at reading comprehension, and have done some research:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant

 

"The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union (EU). Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period.

 

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence. It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more. Where sentence has already been passed an EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long."

 

So, the EAW shouldn't apply because he's not facing prosecution (charged), he's being investigated.

He hasn't been convicted, so it's not enforcing a custodial sentence.

 

I don't really care what your opinions on Assange are. I think the same rules should apply to anyone in the UK, being accused of any crime under an EAW.

Likewise, it's not the government's callous borderline prejudicial actions towards Assange that worry me, it's that their actions are targeted against an Australian Citizen.

 

Nope an EAW is an arrest warrant so people can be put on trial or complete a detention period.

He's being extradited so he can be put on trial for rape and sexual assault.

 

Looking a few comments back you mentioned that if he was going to be extradited to be tried for rape and sexual assault that you'd support that extradition.

So it seems unless you want to recant your statements then you now support his extradition?

 

I know also that no one cares what my opinions of Assange are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you being so deliberately dense?

 

No charges have been laid. No charges have been laid. NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN LAID. You can't arrest and detain, let alone extradite someone for questioning. (Unless you're the USA, apparently)

 

The EAW has been issued under suspicious circumstances, to bring him to Sweden for QUESTIONING. If the court was confident it could successfully prosecute Assange, they would have laid charges. The fact they haven't makes the whole thing smell rotten. If there were any charges, Ecuador probably wouldn't have given him asylum, there'd be no reason to.

 

You can't try someone that hasn't been charged. You can't charge someone unless a prosecutor things you could win the case. There are no charges, there is no trial, the situation isn't as simple as you so desperately want it to be.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time i've heard of this, is on this forum, which had shed a lot of details, that some of the media (links) didn't....

I want to ask a question.

 

Why is Australia not helping him? Knowing that under OUR law (his), he did nothing wrong?

 

I think Julia's been on her knees for the president for too long, and just wants HIS country to get what they want.

Its not just Julia.. Australian Governments have always pandered to the US, we went to Vietnam to help out our American Buddies. Edited by Waltish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you being so deliberately dense?

 

No charges have been laid. No charges have been laid. NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN LAID. You can't arrest and detain, let alone extradite someone for questioning. (Unless you're the USA, apparently)

 

The EAW has been issued under suspicious circumstances, to bring him to Sweden for QUESTIONING. If the court was confident it could successfully prosecute Assange, they would have laid charges. The fact they haven't makes the whole thing smell rotten. If there were any charges, Ecuador probably wouldn't have given him asylum, there'd be no reason to.

 

You can't try someone that hasn't been charged. You can't charge someone unless a prosecutor things you could win the case. There are no charges, there is no trial, the situation isn't as simple as you so desperately want it to be.

 

But he's an evil commie-luvin' terrist supporter who want to blow up all your base by telling the truth....isn't that enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time i've heard of this, is on this forum, which had shed a lot of details, that some of the media (links) didn't....

I want to ask a question.

 

Why is Australia not helping him? Knowing that under OUR law (his), he did nothing wrong?

 

I think Julia's been on her knees for the president for too long, and just wants HIS country to get what they want.

Its not just Julia.. Australian Governments have always pandered to the US, we went to Vietnam to help out our American Buddies.

 

Regardless... It should stop.

I don't like being a sheep. let a lone a country that's being a sheep

 

 

 

BA

 

 

.

 

Why are you being so deliberately dense?

 

No charges have been laid. No charges have been laid. NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN LAID. You can't arrest and detain, let alone extradite someone for questioning. (Unless you're the USA, apparently)

 

The EAW has been issued under suspicious circumstances, to bring him to Sweden for QUESTIONING. If the court was confident it could successfully prosecute Assange, they would have laid charges. The fact they haven't makes the whole thing smell rotten. If there were any charges, Ecuador probably wouldn't have given him asylum, there'd be no reason to.

 

You can't try someone that hasn't been charged. You can't charge someone unless a prosecutor things you could win the case. There are no charges, there is no trial, the situation isn't as simple as you so desperately want it to be.

 

But he's an evil commie-luvin' terrist supporter who want to blow up all your base by telling the truth....isn't that enough?

 

With PC... wouldn't surprise me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me the most about this case is this:

 

Sweden is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Any trial in this case would be heard by four judges, one professional and three lay. The lay judges are chosen by political parties. The decision as to whether the evidence at any trial would be taken in public or private is taken by the court. However, the evidence will almost certainly be heard privately.

 

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me the most about this case is this:

 

Sweden is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Any trial in this case would be heard by four judges, one professional and three lay. The lay judges are chosen by political parties. The decision as to whether the evidence at any trial would be taken in public or private is taken by the court. However, the evidence will almost certainly be heard privately.

 

Source

 

Don't you get it? It is irrelevant what the Swedes do or don't do in regards to their own law with Assange once they have him. They have refused point blank to say they won't hand him over to the US - and the yanks want to string him up by his testicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i dont get is the following:

1. People are arguing that Sweden will extradite. He's in friggin England - a country that's made an art form of extraditing its citizens to the States.

2. Wikileaks will live on without Assange. His attitude to women has been documented by his ex 2IC in his tell-all book.

3. If we let good people walk way from allegations of rape, we set up a society where justice works on the basis of merit. Imagine if Assange was not Assange but sime random Aussie who forcibly held down and penetrated a woman without meeting her conditions.

4. Much is being made if the deal that england and sweden refuse to state whether they will deport him to the States. If the same question was put to them about Russia, they'd answer the same. Each country that follows the rule of law and has extradition agreements, is bound to consider those requests without precondition.

 

Ecuador is a country whose president as recently as last year put additional limitations on the press. Don't kid yourselves - Ecuador is doing the wrong thing. Assange is nit politically persecuted. He's wanted for questioning over allegations of rape.

 

I hope England storm the embassy in line with their laws and remove Assnage from the socialist populist's grasp.

 

Allegations of rape are not for political point scoring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

What i dont get is the following:

1. People are arguing that Sweden will extradite. He's in friggin England - a country that's made an art form of extraditing its citizens to the States.

2. Wikileaks will live on without Assange. His attitude to women has been documented by his ex 2IC in his tell-all book.

3. If we let good people walk way from allegations of rape, we set up a society where justice works on the basis of merit. Imagine if Assange was not Assange but sime random Aussie who forcibly held down and penetrated a woman without meeting her conditions.

4. Much is being made if the deal that england and sweden refuse to state whether they will deport him to the States. If the same question was put to them about Russia, they'd answer the same. Each country that follows the rule of law and has extradition agreements, is bound to consider those requests without precondition.

 

Ecuador is a country whose president as recently as last year put additional limitations on the press. Don't kid yourselves - Ecuador is doing the wrong thing. Assange is nit politically persecuted. He's wanted for questioning over allegations of rape.

 

I hope England storm the embassy in line with their laws and remove Assnage from the socialist populist's grasp.

 

Allegations of rape are not for political point scoring

I've stayed out of this thread because I don't know enough of the particulars of the allegations against Mr. Assange to really offer anything worthwhile. However...

 

If the allegations of rape are consistent with the details that Leonid has posted on the previous page, then Mr. Assange should be extradited to face charges. Rape is a particularly heinous crime and he should face those charges.

 

Having said that....

 

If the particulars of the case are consistent with those posted previously by Leonid, then why the hell has he not been charged in absentia? Is there a legal reason for charges not to have been filed yet? If so, why hasn't the case for charges to have not been laid (from a point of legal practicality) been made clear? As it stands, the whole affair smells rather ratty. I'm going to step into the realms of conspiracy here and say that, knowing Mr Assanges sexual proclivities, it is nothing like beyond the realms of belief to think that he might have led himself straight into a classic "honey trap" in a country where laws a vague enough to entrap someone of his nature.

 

For the record, with regards to Wikileaks, while I think that Mr. Assange is guilty of nothing more than good journalism, it's becoming clear that he's become something of an international pain in the arse. A lot of his current troubles seem to have come about in largely as a result of his own hubris.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i dont get is the following:

1. People are arguing that Sweden will extradite. He's in friggin England - a country that's made an art form of extraditing its citizens to the States.

2. Wikileaks will live on without Assange. His attitude to women has been documented by his ex 2IC in his tell-all book.

3. If we let good people walk way from allegations of rape, we set up a society where justice works on the basis of merit. Imagine if Assange was not Assange but sime random Aussie who forcibly held down and penetrated a woman without meeting her conditions.

4. Much is being made if the deal that england and sweden refuse to state whether they will deport him to the States. If the same question was put to them about Russia, they'd answer the same. Each country that follows the rule of law and has extradition agreements, is bound to consider those requests without precondition.

 

Ecuador is a country whose president as recently as last year put additional limitations on the press. Don't kid yourselves - Ecuador is doing the wrong thing. Assange is nit politically persecuted. He's wanted for questioning over allegations of rape.

 

I hope England storm the embassy in line with their laws and remove Assnage from the socialist populist's grasp.

 

Allegations of rape are not for political point scoring

this is basically what will happen if he gets sent back to Sweden: he will be trailed on rape charges, maybe serve some time depending on ifhe gets convicted, then he will be sent to the US to face their cooked up charges and either will be detained till he dies (and tortured regardless once in us custody, just like detained people in Guantanamo bay) or possibly face the death penalty, everybody in the world knows it, no-one wants to admit it, half of the people are so blinded by the rape allegations they cant see past what will happen regardless of what happens once he re-enters sweden's borders. Now everyone counter argument is you have no proof shit will go down like that, to which the obvious answer then becomes: then why wont Sweden guarantee they wont hand him over to the USA once he enters its borders and once its done with its investigation/ possible prosecution?

 

Its gonna be interesting to see which way everything unfolds over time, the USA will eventually get him sooner or later, then how people react to it will be interesting as half of the world called it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope England storm the embassy in line with their laws and remove Assnage from the socialist populist's grasp.

On that: http://wikileaks.org/Statement-on-UK-threat-to-storm.html

 

In a communication this morning to the government of Ecuador, the UK threatened to forcefully enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London and arrest Julian Assange.

 

The UK claims the power to do so under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

 

This claim is without basis.

 

By midnight, two hours prior to the time of this announcement, the embassy had been surrounded by police, in a menacing show of force.

 

Any transgression against the sanctity of the embassy is a unilateral and shameful act, and a violation of the Vienna Convention, which protects embassies worldwide.

 

This threat is designed to preempt Ecuador’s imminent decision on whether it will grant Julian Assange political asylum, and to bully Ecuador into a decision that is agreeable to the United Kingdom and its allies.

 

WikiLeaks condemns in the strongest possible terms the UK’s resort to intimidation.

 

A threat of this nature is a hostile and extreme act, which is not proportionate to the circumstances, and an unprecedented assault on the rights of asylum seekers worldwide.

 

We draw attention to the fact that the United Nations General Assembly has unanimously declared in Resolution 2312 (1967) that

 

"the grant of asylum. . . is a peaceful and humanitarian act and that, as such, it cannot be regarded as unfriendly by any other State."

More on site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know if david hicks was fighting for the taliban

but i dont think anyone should be left by their government to rot somewhere overseas

the same goes for assange

it all comes down to politics

when enough pressure was applied to john howard he pulled his finger half way out and got hicks out on some trumped up charges to save face

its not close to an election yet so the government wont touch this one until they think they need to

what they define as rape is also vastly different to our laws and not even an offence here so to continue to call it "RAPE" is blowing the whole thing up to warrant the huge police involvement from the uk

if he wasnt famous i doubt there would have been an extradition applied for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why the hell has he not been charged in absentia?

Or charged ... full stop. That's the biggest sticking point for me. Something doesn't add up.

 

Especially with the loose-as-a-goods Sweden-USA extradition arrangement, if he ends up in Sweden tonight, he'll be rotting in Guantanamo Bay before you can say diplomatic cable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically, the charges against him are all piss and dribble.

so he fucked a couple of swedish whores - no one cares

his real crime is passing on official secrets leaked to him by other people, that people in power didn't like, and had to answer for/cover up etc

he was only the name representing wikileaks, which is strangely still on line........

so, that means, any of us could open a public information website, and end up being hunted down just like him

and

for that, the yanks want to execute him.

(home of the brave, land of the free)

I'm pissed off, and totally dismayed at the lack of effort by our government to support him

thank fuck for Ecuador

how do you go about gaining Ecuadorian papers - I don't want to be an australian much any more - we're proving to be piss-weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other things in this thread that are being taken for granted without basis.

 

1. Wikileaks is not an objective source on matters Assange. If the Brits think they can storm the embassy I put it to you that they can probably storm the embassy AFTER declaring the Ecuadorians persona non grata and declaring the embassy forfeit. If I was a Brit pollie, I would not take Ecuadorian shit lying down.

2. There's an argument that the US may extradite in Sweden. The US can eztradite from England - far easier.

3. There's a massive false continuum at play... by preventing Assange from facing questioning on rape, we sanction his actions because we fear a future that has not yet come to pass. The time to fight against his extradition will be when there is an extradition request, by the States to Sweden.

 

From everything I've read of Assange, and despite our libertarian political similarities, he seems to me like a man who believes in his own halo. And too many supporters of wikileaks subscribe to his cult of personality.

 

Right now, I'm typing from Moscow. Not 10km from me is a man whose cult of personality has most Russians believing they'd be lost without him.

 

Assange is just a man. With questions to answer.

 

What worries me the most about this case is this:

 

Sweden is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Any trial in this case would be heard by four judges, one professional and three lay. The lay judges are chosen by political parties. The decision as to whether the evidence at any trial would be taken in public or private is taken by the court. However, the evidence will almost certainly be heard privately.

 

Source

 

Don't you get it? It is irrelevant what the Swedes do or don't do in regards to their own law with Assange once they have him. They have refused point blank to say they won't hand him over to the US - and the yanks want to string him up by his testicles.

 

You mean the Swedes won't comment on hypothetical extradition requests by third parties that they have not yet received or examined?

 

Terrible I tells ya! Terrible!

 

why the hell has he not been charged in absentia?

Or charged ... full stop. That's the biggest sticking point for me. Something doesn't add up.

 

Especially with the loose-as-a-goods Sweden-USA extradition arrangement, if he ends up in Sweden tonight, he'll be rotting in Guantanamo Bay before you can say diplomatic cable.

 

The reason he hasn't been charged yet is explained in the article I linked earlier. The article is by a WL supporter who still has his head on his shoulders, not up Assange's butt.

 

Assange is an extraordinarily gifted self-marketing PR machine. But some of the lies and fibs told about the Swedish legal system are bind-bogglingly simple to verify as false by a three second google

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×