Still not sure how extraditing them to egypt and extraditing assange to the US have in common. Not to mention that as I mentioned a few times already, the Assange case is much more public therefore would lead to more international backlash if they did it without proper charges. I love how you want it to be real so bad though.
It happened in 2001 - 3 months after 9/11. Different times. Different perceived threat. Besides, Sweden had "assurance" from the Egyptian govt that there would be no torture. Still no proof that there was.
Since when is ignorance an excuse ? So what ? You are funny. Learn to read (see also below): TL;DR Lurk moar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States#Sweden: TL;DR Lurk moar too.
Ok, but what does it have to do with the Assange case again? This is sweden extraditing alleged terrorists to EGYPT. Assange still has no charges brought up against him by the US.
Arseange supporters really are grasping at straws, or they are believing Arseanges delusions of his own importance. Please, someone post dox (not from a fucking tv show or obscure net blog) of the US charges against Arseange and extradition from Sweden to the US. It's all bullshit to get him off sexual assault charges, that's all, it's like watching a magician, all the supporters are watching the hand doing the trick while ignoring the hand that's switching the cards
Oh, you mean the sexual assault charges that are flimsy as fuck? Watching the hand doing the trick...yet you seem to support the US' extradition of Assange. Watching the hand doing the trick indeed... You paint everyone as having delusions that in all honesty just wants a fair trial. Why are you so sure he'll get one?
Sweden is supposed to be neutral. But fails to be so when it allows CIA planes to land and whisk people off anywhere in the world for a bit of torture. It is this behaviour in the past that should be noted and certainly so when looking at Assanges case.
You dropped a straw you were clutching Your claim of different times means NOTHING when a country is neutral but allows CIA planes to land and whisk people off.. PERIOD! It is a fact that Sweden did this in the past and therefore is no guarantee they will never do it again.
You really should lurk moar: the plane had US registration. Strafor said there is a secret indictment; Australian diplomats say it too. Both you and I aren't privy to US secret documents. If Strafor said they are, that seems more likely (see above). I would agree with you if Assange: refused to answer questions at the police station back then, refused to answer questions now, but that is not the case.
Ermm no you need to read more Archer. two Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United StatesCentral Intelligence Agency. They were DEPORTED to Egypt at the request of the CIA. That is not extraditing anyone. That is following the bidding of (USA/CIA) in essentially kidnapping two men and sending them to Egypt for Torture. It should and has set alarmbells ringing regarding assange when you consider Sweden has been a willing lapdog to serve up people to the USA. But don't just take it from me. Have a listen to your own Ex CIA men. https://rt.com/news/assange-asylum-cold-war-883/ Oh btw did the USA need to charge anyone before black bagging them off to Gitmo? Wanna live like this?
Who cares if the plane had a US registration, which part of the US has zero charges against assange didn't you read correctly? So a diplomat from another country that doesn't have access to a supposed secret indictement and a private company that also doesn't have access to a private indictement say there is one. If it's so secret, then why does everyone seem to have access to it yet no dox have surfaced? Surely you know better than to take their word for it, unless you take their word for it only when it fits your world view, which is called a confirmation bias. Stop telling me to lurk more when all you do is repeat the same argument without taking into account my side. Again I will ask, what does the assange case have to do with 2 alleged terrorists extradited to Egypt? (they did have charges brought up against them as well, something which has not been proven in assange's case) Exactly, we aren't privy to US secret documents, so let's not make shit up to fill in the blanks shall we? Also lol @ trusting anything from Stratfor, you should know better than this by now. Where is their persona software? What about the fact that stratfor is considered a joke by many in the industry? And what about the fact that they are known for exagerated claims so that they can make money of it? Let's ignore that since it doesn't fit our world view shall we? He: Fled to another country to avoid facing the rape charges, that is fact (even though the charges are clearly bogus, that is clearly a strange reaction.) Refuses to answer the questions on swedish ground, which is what is required by law in the rape case.
He's not going to get a fair trial in Sweden. The hate campaign is in full swing.... http://www.friatider.se/the-swedish-media-war-on-assange
Ok, dox on request from US to deport Egyptian asylum seekers not heresay or gtfo Why should this concern Arseange if he is facing charges in Sweden and the US have shown no interest in him. The cases are so dissimilar it's laughable.
I care about the illegal form of "justice" the CIA has organised for many years. You cannot prove that there are zero charges. All we can say is that there are no public charges yet. Your lack of logic is showing: You move swiftly from two sources to "everyone". There are moves around a secret indictment that can be telling even though the document itself is not available. True, but this works both ways. Lurk moar. The involvement of US intelligence. You seem to know quite a bit about US intelligence industry. Lurk moar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_The_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Case_reopened
1. Now the CIA is after Assange? Any evidence to support this claim? 2. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so far no evidence to support it either. Your confirmation bias is showing. 1. It's a manner of speaking, are we going to argue semantics now? 2. When a ''sealed'' (that is the proper word) indictement is being carried away, it is procedure that the target of said indictement is informed of it. So far nothing shows that Assange or his lawyers have been informed of it. Go look it up. Sure, that being said burden of proof is still on Assange fanbois so far, and they provided no dox to support the conspiracy theory, if they eventually do i'll retract but until then I call bullshit. So interesting Then should we start looking at all cases where US intelligence tried to extradite someone and failed? Common now, that is filmsy at best. And desperate at worst. I do mostly because I've been following the stratfor clusterfuck closely from the get go, something you apparently did not do. [/quote] Let's see: He left Sweden on 27 September 2010.[20] The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest.[21] Aka: Suspiciously leaving the country as he is informed of imminent arrest. Also are you denying that he refused to travel to sweden for questioning as required by law? I like you Ann, but you are clearly trying too hard here.
http://wikileaks.org/Statement-on-U-K-intentions-and.html "I asked how on earth such an illegal decision could have been reached. My ex-colleague said that political pressure exerted by the administration of the United States of America on Mr William Hague and Mr David Cameron had outweighed the views of British diplomats." Watch now as the roger ramjets try to dismiss this chap
Try Harder.. (time travel is not yet possible) On 30th September 2010, the Appellant's counsel was advised of the existence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27th September 2010. The Appellant offered to return to Sweden for interview on Sunday 10th October or on any date in the week commencing 11th October 2010. The Sunday was rejected as inappropriate. The week commencing 11th October 2010 was later rejected as being too far away.'
lets not forget this also. On 14th September 2010, the Appellant's counsel enquired in writing as to whether the Appellant was permitted to leave Sweden. On 15th September 2010, the prosecutor informed the Appellant's counsel that he was free to leave Sweden... She advised him that investigations were ongoing.' So checking its ok three weeks before is "Suspiciously leaving the country" is it
Never said that. Learn to read. We both make a claim we cannot prove and are in the grey zone. Interesting. You should add that to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#Sealed_indictment See above. [/quote]Then should we start looking at all cases where US intelligence tried to extradite someone and failed? Common now, that is filmsy at best. And desperate at worst.[/quote] Thank you for changing the subject. I am sure you did. I might be wrong, but the use of the term "industry" in that context seems quite uncommon. Look at the chronology boosky provided. Anything wrong there. Are you denying that Sweden had all opportunities to question him in the UK ? I don't like you: you remind me of a user who was bragging too loud about Fort Bragg Benning.
For all those Assange haters, he managed to generate publicity that about everyone that watch TV or news in the world knows him and wikileaks. Now he "appears" to have the whole Latin America behind him. I would think by now we know that Bush is dumb, and please don't emulate him. We don't eat the stuff even though we can't prove that it's poisonous. Suspicious is enough and if there's alternative. Come on, Archer, don't be dumb. We don't ignore global warming because we have no absolute proof. As the Blue Man says, there's no life raft for all of us if that happens.
Craig murray is a regular on the alex Jones conspiracy show. He is a controversial figure at best and the simple fact that he is a FORMER ambassador proves zero, espcially since he lost the confidence of his former colleagues, I don't see how anyone would have told him anything. But the title of ex ambassador is flashy and leads you to believe anything he says. Cute. Also On 21 August 2003 he was confronted with 18 charges. These included "hiring dolly birds [pretty young women] for above the usual rate" for the visa department, he was also charged for (being drunk at work and misusing the embassy's range rover. A FCO report claimed that he lost confidence of several senior officials and colleagues She advised him that investigations were ongoing, and he still left, so yes, it is suspicious. You implied it when you said No, Assange is making a claim unsupported by evidence, with evidence contradicting it, and you are repeating it blindly without supporting any evidence either. Just because you like Assange. Or a better source like: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sealed-indictment/ Which states: And also: Which has not been done, therefore zero charges. Thank you very much. You should know better than to quote an unsourced article on wikipedia Ann. See above I was merely answering another of your assumption that the involvement of US intelligence proves anything. It is an industry, Stratfor was a sub contractor for the government, a shitty one at that. Are we gonna still argue semantics? Scroll up to my answer to boosky. Are you denying that swedish law requires him to be questioned in sweden for a crime he allegedly commited in sweden? I still like you, what I dislike is your lack of intellectual honesty and your huge confirmation bias.
Archer, I think you eat too much GMO food, didn't you? Because the govt says it's look the same, taste the same and should be treated same? Making donkeys and apple-orange still have some form of natural selection process in check. Otherwise the cross breed will never have produce anything. Now GMO use a totally foreign gene for plants that can be from animals. Do you need prove that they are bad in order not to eat it? When you can afford plenty of other food? Proof is a good thing, but the use of it can be dumb like you. Dumb is not a personal attack as such. That means you logic need to be redone from high school.
So what you are saying is that we should believe wild allegations without proof? Not sure how this is more logical. Please enlighten me.
Thanks for acknowledging your dumbness, Archer. Only very stupid people believe in wild allegations OR need proof 100% in 100% of the times. You have to judge how believable base on the data, and what is the consequence. If there is a 5% chance of dying from eating a specific cake, you don't eat it, and eat something else. Clear now?
TL;DR Assange had no more reason to stay in Sweden and authorities said he could leave the country, so he left. Very suspicious... Who is playing semantics now ? See below. Where does it say that the defendant has to be informed ? Are you implying that Swedish law makes no provision that allows to question somebody who isn't in the country ? The Supreme court seems to say otherwise: http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html t I still dislike you.
The only beneficiary from delaying the questioning of Julian Assange for 1,5 years is the US, which is preparing it’s case against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and Bradley Manning. The delay in no way benefits the two women, who were reportedly not seeking to report Assange to the police anyway, nor Julian Assange, who has been robbed of his liberty in the 500 days spanning from his detention on 7 December 2010 to the Supreme Court judgment. Marianne Ny has given no explanation, either to the two women or to Assange, why she has chosen to delay the case and handled it in such an extraordinary manner. The behaviour of the prosecutor even conflicts with her own directives to the Swedish authorities, which call for the speedy questioning of the suspect. http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html
Well, with the data I have (btw I have sourced my claims quite a lot more than the assange supporters so far) I come to the conclusion that its very likely he is full of shit. You seem mad that I don't come to the same conclusions as you though so you resort to personal attacks. Typical moonbat. Ah yes, cherry picking, let's ignore the ''was advised he was under investigation'' part, since it doesn't fit our theory. You It doesn't apparently I was wrong and so were you, it turns out that the sealed indictement description proves that it means nothing and that its a procedure only to ESTABLISH if there is anything they could charge him with though, which they clearly haven't so far. But obviously you are focusing on a tidbit of me being wrong and you ignore the bunch of facts that contradict your world view. Very disapointing. Please go read it again since you were too busy trying to prove me wrong on any tidbit I post instead of looking at the big picture. At least one of us learned something. Lol you rsource is called justice4assange, hardly unbiased. Also you should notice the keywords ''someone who cooperates with the authorities'' Something Assange clearly has not done so far. Your confirmation bias is showing big time. Do you dislike everyone that doesn't agree with your hero?
Archer, do you believe that Assange wants to avoid the "rape" charge? What's the big deal if you give him the benefit of the doubt and let him get away with it? Now you should focus on the "rape" charge and what's the consequence of action or no action. Correct me if I don't read all the news all over again, but there's is overwhelming data. The 1st prosecutor thought that there wasn't a case. The "victim" was a fan of Assange and brought him home to have consensual sex. They parted in good terms, with the "victim" paying Assange's bus(?) ticket. No violence, no threats. The issue is with or without a condom. The Muslims are laughing their ass off. Asians think that Sweden women are trivial. There will be no cases in any other parts of the world except perhaps Scandinavian. He was free to go. He wasn't charged. There are established mechanisms to allow him to work with the police in UK. Now is that a conspiracy or not.
His counsel asked if he could leave. The authorities said yes. Where is the problem ? TL;DR The mote and the beam. You are the one being wrong here. I am not. It is not a tidbit. Your position is centered around your belief that the defendant is informed. So Assange, if indicted, should know about it. He is not mentioning it, therefore there is no indictment. Now that this point disappeared, what is your position ? If you can shoot the message, shoot the messenger... Did you miss the part where the Swedish Supreme Court is quoted ? TL;DR Bias, anyone ? No, I dislike you because the only user here you feel like following is Herro...
The fact that it's legal doesn't make it less suspicious. I will assume you didn't read the description of a sealed indictement I provided to you then. let me refresh your memory since you obviously cherry picked from it and ignored the rest (even with the big fat letters) 1. You still have not provided any satisfying evidence that there actually is a sealed indictement, so what we are debating here is theory. 2. According to this, if the indictement is still sealed, then there are no charges, which was my point from the get go, that the US had ZERO charges against Assange therefore could not extradite him. Play with words as much as you want but this fact remains. The only way they could charge him is if they proved he had direct contact with Manning, which they have been trying hard to do and failing. Of course I did expect that you would jump on me admitting I was wrong on one single tidbit of information and making it look like my whole argument was based on it. That is what biased people do. At least I learned that there is nothing about informing the defendent in the description of a sealed indictement, I'll say it again, only one of us learned something here so far. You were too busy trying to bash me to notice in my response the part that said : Also you should notice the keywords ''someone who cooperates with the authorities'' Something Assange clearly has not done so far. I hate repeating myself, would you at least do me the favor of properly reading? Otherwise this is rather pointless. TL;DR Bias, anyone ? That's nice dear, I disagree with herro on many things, but carry on making assumptions, that is what you do best.
the one thing that really concerns me more than all the above is if it really is just about some as yet SUSPICION of sexual whatever - no charges laid never mind the concept of innocent till PROVEN guilty why the fuck is the (my) uk gov't and police spending such a hell of a lot of police time and money, threatening to not only break diplomatics relations with another sovereign country AND more importantly risk smashing the whole of their diplomatic network and safety and inviolability of their own embassies abroad JUST for this case if they weren't trying to facillitate the USA gov't extradition hell they wouldn't even put that much police effort alone into much more serious PROVEN cases in this country and till then anyone who says there is no conspiracy without docs i have a bridge to sell you
I don't pretend to understand the Swedish legal system. However: 1. Your Government has not threatened to break diplomatic relations with any country.2. The British Government has not risked smashing the whole of their diplomatic network and safety and inviolability of their own embassies abroad. Read the damn letter. It was not a threat.3. The U.S. is not trying to extradite Assange.
4. People in the world are still laughing their ass off about the "jerk" charge, which became an international diplomatic incident. Is Bush still in charge? God Bless America!
Don't forget that Karl Rove wants him BADLY. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/20/rove-connection-prosecution-julian-assange/
