Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Archer, Aug 20, 2012.
Full article: https://ffgqc.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/julian-the-asylum-seeker/
Impeccable in legal terms, but what about reality ?
What about it? I just think it's important to have all the facts at our disposition to make up our mind. Don't you think?
No problem with posting it here.
The problem with some lawyers is that they are over-confident with the legal system and forget that more than once governments did not play by the book.
But if the entire argument is fear of extradition, the only thing that matters is the book. You can't say Assange is in danger be ause of what legal institutions allow and then just disregard the fact that those institutions don't actually appear to make the extradition possible.
Not sure I understood fully what you said. Are you saying that legally the extradition from Sweden to the US is impossible ?
Given the present circumstances it does not appear possible.
Never saw you being that cautious about the terms you use.
What changes in the circumstances would make it appear possible, in your opinion ?
The problem with this is what is Assange's recourse if Sweden simply breaks the law and turns him over to the USA anyway? He could sue, I suppose, but in solitary in some unknown prison, he'd have trouble showing up at the International Court of Justice.
I don't trust Sweden's motivation in all this in the least, and international law is not the kind of law where anyone shows up to arrest you if you break it.
The United States, for example, is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which requires that foreign nationals who become criminal defendants are entitled to the assistance of their nation's consulate.
Despite this, Texas has repeatedly arrested, prosecuted and even executed foreign nationals without allowing them consular access. The Supreme Court, to which these cases were appealed, opted to do nothing whatsoever, despite the lie in the Constitution that
So basically the United States, when it doesn't like treaties it's signed, simply ignores them.
The Swedish authorities kowtow to the United States time and time again even on matters like copyright, even on their own Constitution's "offentlighetsprincipen," that is, their open records law (Google Zenon Panoussis Scientolog offentlighetsprincipen on that one). I don't trust them any more than I'd trust a snake when American pressure is on them.
Two Words - Extraordinary Rendition.
The whole US extradition bullshit is just an Arseange fabrication to stop him being exported to Sweden. There has been so many fictitious claims banded around by Arsange and his cohorts. It's nothing but drama.
Sick of hearing about the little self important weasel.
Arseange!.........ROFLMAO!! OH pain.
Well for starters the US Justice Department indicating they even think they have a crime with which they can charge him. The Sweedish government indicating it has no interest in prosecuting Assange would also be necessary. You are right that I shouldn't have been so absolute in my statement.
Lana, Lana, ... LANAAAAAAAAAAA.
The great game changer wikileaks lays dying amidst the embers of the Julian saga, it's really too bad this is all that's left. On the other hand, I see info from the leaked cables pop up fairly regularly in quality journalism so I guess all was not for naught.
Anyhoo... I wonder what Barrett Brown's up to these days???
Moonbatery, what else?
I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.
If the US doesn't want to extradite him why are they going to all this trouble to get him in a position where it would be possible? And, if they can't do anything to Wikileaks' members why are those members being told to no longer travel to the US?
Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir no longer travels to the US in case she is arrested, on the advice of the Icelandic state department
Here's a question, why do you just blindly accept what this guy says?
Is Forbes better?
Craig Murray, a former ambassador to Uzbekistan, writes that he “returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.”
Lol twitter dox
I lolled so hard
Another two, extraordinary bullshit
This is forbes quoting the exact same guy that you just mentioned, so no, it's not.
What amazes me is that people like Murray spout this shit, knowing it's not true and knowing that the truth will eventually be known.
It's kind of a no-lose tactic. First, make up some outrageous allegation, then publicize the hell out of it, then claim that your blowing the whistle on it prevented it from happening. Works in politics all the time.
The guy was a former ambassador. He does have experience with this kind of thing.
So, the UK just out of nowhere wants this guy? Riiight no pressure from the US here.
Gotta love double standards, if a US ambassador said something, would you believe it on his word just because of his title?
You talk just like Herro. Are you a sock or just his minion? Why is it so hard to believe that the US would pressure the UK into this? Like I said they want this guy all of the sudden and are prepared to do whatever it takes. And, no one has addressed the fact that Wikileaks members have been harassed and told not to enter the US. I suppose that's common for people that have nothing to fear.
No, the swedes want Arseange and he is in the Uk, stop fabricating shit about the "devil" US wanting him so they can execute him. All this drama comes from Arseange, no one else. He's loving being a celebrity, the Uk is just doing what it can to extradite him to Sweden and be rid of the fucktard.
Hardly! Sweden has a history of serving people up on CIA flights so there is every concern to question that they would do it again.
Forward to 20:18 now if you still think thats normal you must be retarded!
Lets not forget Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden, were arrested by Swedish police in December 2001. They were taken to Bromma airport in Stockholm, had their clothes cut from their bodies, suppositories inserted in their anuses and in diapers, overall, handcuffs and chains put on an executive jet with American registration N379P with a crew of masked men.
They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured according to reports by Swedish investigative pogramme "Kalla fakta". The Swedish ambassador visited them only six weeks later.
So again there is every concern and also the fact that a Grand Jury exists to deal with assange. I would not be so quick to dismiss the United States
Gotta love how assange fanbois resort to ad hominems and unrelated claims when faced with reality.
Being compared to Herro is not that bad and definitively not an ad hom (ask Herro who is very good at that).
Concerning what is real, it is an open debate and I do not know where it stands.
unrelated claims? which unrelated claims do you refer to? CIA Fanboi?
So you are saying that the US will get Arseange if he gets extradited to Sweden by the UK based on "facts" from a tv show?
These facts are not questionable, AFAIK. Their importance in the Assange's case is open to discussion.
They aren't? Last time I checked the US still has zero to charge Assange with, and considering that this case is a lot more public than the examples provided, they would commit a huge faux pas by extraditing him without any proper charges.
No I base the facts on the leaked documents which confirm the chain of events on this supposed rape. I guess you did not see that part? 20:18 in again - agreed facts from prosecution and defence.
Ma bad. I was refering to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery
Never heard of them before, as many other people I'm sure. Now what part of the assange case is much more public than those two did you not understand?
Not to mention that they were deported to Egypt and not the US and that it was a completely different case where they had actual charges against them. But hey if comparing oranges with apples is your thing.....
The process was not considered fair, and there is doubt as to the men's guilt.
Sweden alleges that the two men had been involved in acts of terrorism, but no basis for such beliefs have been disclosed.
Swedish authorities mentioned alleged earlier convictions in Egypt, but these allegations turned out to be patently wrong. As a complicating factor, the decision was made at cabinet level, by Foreign Affairs minister Anna Lindh, who was murdered in 2003, before the scandal broke loose.
There are strong allegations that both men were tortured, but Sweden has been unable to prove or disprove these allegations, due to refusal by Egyptian authorities to allow proper investigations.
Yeah, nothing funny going on here. These "charges" seem pretty flimsy to me and this reminds me of what they've been calling Julian all along...a terrorist.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!