which letter are you referring to exactly? not trying to deflect just unsure so i know we are referring to the same thing - i am not following this as closely as many here are - and there are so many versions of everything out there - tho i do remember one version i read that sounded exactly like give us what we want or we will break in anyway if someone threatened to break into my house to get something they wanted against my will i sure would take it as a sign they did not want any kind of cordial relationship - granted that may seem a tad simplistic but the truism still remains. embassies are treated as de facto sovereign territory in a foreign land are you denying that? if this was an Iraqui/Afghanistan/ one of the Korean countries (tbh i can't remember which is the ok one and which not atm so go ahead shoot me now cos i suck cock and take it in the ass - both of which in the right circumstances i do happily) trying to take an american citizen out against his will by yet a third country for a flimsy charge would you still hold the same view? the whole reason for them being treat as de facto sovereign territory is just to keep the whole diplomatic services able to talk and negotiate despite what else is going on and so that each country can have a little me space to work unhindered (apart from a little bugging which they all try and do to each other) and so that countries not talking to each other officially have a third party space they can try and work stuff out without losing space one violates that rule and whole system goes to shit in the USA if someone has been questioned for a possible grand jury indictment (which is not even a trial on a charge but ah we want to see if we can possibly charge) but had not been charged a DA may warn someone to not leave the state but what would happen if they did? what would happen if they went to another state would the DA have the ability to extradite them (srz question cos i don't know)? would they actually go to the lengths of extraditing them between states? if that person actually went to another country would they? and would that other country actually go to these lengths to facilitate that extradition? seriously would they? for the level of charges that the Swedes are trying to say they want Assange IF THEY ARE SO SERIOUS WHY DID THE SWEDES NOT STOP HIM LEAVING THE COUNTRY - i haven't seen anywhere that they put out any alerts at the airports etc to stop him leaving or that he travelled under an assumed identity charges that they still haven't issued an arrest warrant for haven't seen anything (in my admittedly brief reading) that says they want him for anything more than questioning. Questioning that they have actually been offered ample opportunity - despite herro (love you cocksucker) saying the Swedes don't have to allow others the dictation of their policy (which is true as far as it goes but ffs this isn't a matter of life death, paedophilia or TREASON is it? and treason against which country exactly? not the swedes that's for sure - unless they are worried they could be one of the next) i have no views on Assange - don't know enough about him (notice i am happy to state my fallible positions) the little i have heard doesn't make me warm and fuzzy i do have views on what is being expended on such an apparently minor - granted not to the alleged victim/s (yup not even too sure how many of them there are) if their allegations are true - and not all allegations of rape are unfortunately - let alone the fact that this apparently is not claimed to be rape but something about not wearing a johnny (condom to the yanks i believe)- not even not wearing a johnny whilst infected with AIDS And i know in this country, police from one county would not spend a 100oth of the money that has been spent on Assange to pick up someone from another county wanted on such a minor charge - let alone the extradition shite which our counties don't need to do (they can pass on anyone between them and indeed a cop in one can legally arrest anywhere in the country- they just inform and ask permission of each other for courtesy) sometimes if something walks like a duck, talks like a duck i don't have to insist on a fucking DNA test to name it a duck despite people telling me it is an elephant like i said i have a bridge - or even an idle morgue - to sell you EDIT - to add i wonder why the USA haven't gone to the same lengths to extradite Roman Polanski - after all he actually pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor of 13 years - pedophillia - and why would the Swiss reject their extradition request and leave him a free man and why would the Swede's and UK go to such lengths over such an apparently simple questioning if they weren't trying to facilitate the USA - and cos they are scared about what dirty secrets of theirs may be leaked in the future? take down the apparent koff koff figurehead and scare off anyone else who may be tempted to host such sites like i said if it walks like a duck etc sometimes that is enough to identify a duck
This from a US official http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...Feinstein-Calls-for-Prosecution-of-Mr-Assange
Interesting article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange It seems even clearer now, that the allegations against him are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction. Whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual violence, we do not believe that is why he is being pursued. Once again women's fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes. The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will, usually to increase their powers, this time to facilitate Assange's extradition or even rendition to the US. That the US has not presented a demand for his extradition at this stage is no guarantee that they won't do so once he is in Sweden, and that he will not be tortured as Bradley Manning and many others, women and men, have. Women Against Rape cannot ignore this threat. Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of? In 1998 Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London following an extradition request from Spain. His responsibility for the murder and disappearance of at least 3,000 people, and the torture of 30,000 people, including the rape and sexual abuse of more than 3,000 women often with the use of dogs, was never in doubt. Despite a lengthy legal action and a daily picket outside parliament called by Chilean refugees, including women who had been tortured under Pinochet, the British government reneged on its obligation to Spain's criminal justice system and Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile. Assange has not even been charged; yet the determination to have him extradited is much greater than ever it was with Pinochet. (Baltasar Garzón, whose request for extradition of Pinochet was denied, is representing Assange.) And there is a history of Sweden (and Britain) rendering asylum seekers at risk of torture at the behest of the US.
Also: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition Swedish officials handed over al-Zari and another Egyptian, Ahmed Agiza, to CIA operatives on December 18, 2001 for transfer from Stockholm to Cairo. Both men were asylum seekers in Sweden, and suspected of terrorist activities in Egypt, where torture of such suspects is commonplace. Returns to risk of torture are illegal under international law. To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt. The Human Rights Committee decision stated that Sweden “has not shown that the diplomatic assurances procured were in fact sufficient in the present case to eliminate the risk of ill-treatment to a level consistent” with the ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. “The committee found that diplomatic promises did nothing to protect al-Zari from torture,” said Cartner. “Western governments need to wake up to the fact that they can’t trust promises of humane treatment from countries that routinely practice torture.”
i tried but my mind kept wandering will try later just so i can see what faux news is saying - i am one of those heathens (currently) who mainly gets news on here or the occasional jon stewart show - we dont get colbert here and any clips i findare never allowed in my country - and i am too illiterate to get round that will also try to find time to look up the karl dude - never heard of him tl:dr - no idea if ya agree or disagree with me
It's an internets site claiming a senator wants Arseange arrested!!!! Show us EVIDENCE that the US gov legal dept that they are out to get him ffs
WTF has this to do with Arsange!!!!! Scraping the barrel or what! You Arseange fanbois are a joke! I bet hes glad your not on his legal team lol
Please Arseange fanbois, you are embarrassing yourselves, you can't come up with anything other than conspiracy theories or 6yr old news quotes on something that has a tenuous at best link to one of the least important people on the planet at the moment.....Arseange. Dox fellas, real ones, or gtfo
TL;DR It is legal, but not good enough... Funny thing. AFAIU, the purpose of a sealed indictment is to remain secret for various reasons, one being to avoid the defendant to know about it until he is in custody (hint: this is in the link you provided). So, the only way for Assange to know for sure would be when it is too late for him to take any action to avoid it. IMHO, it is a case where the dox or keep quiet doctrine reaches its limits. Read again the words in bold in your own message. IMHO, you are the one playing with words. Isn't an indictment a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime ? The "sealed" part affects the way this accusation is made public, not the nature of the accusation. The game is not over yet, AFAIK. Funny, coming from you. Good boy. ORLY ? When did Assange refuse to answer their questions ? You can stop this exchange whenever you want. You only follow Herro here. It is not an assumption, it is a fact, based on your profile, at least the last time I checked.
you jel? tell me how Assange's alleged crimes in Sweden crimes warrants extradition when Pinochet didn't? are you a USA gov't or one of it's x steps removed employees? when are you gonna stop doing the scilon method of not dealing with the matter in hand and just attack the character read this again then DIAF lackey (but oooooooh thanks i am old and never used lackey or DIAF in anger and disgust before )
He has also been found to be commiting extradition crimes by refusing to collaborate. But let's ignore that right? You seem to enjoy timelines, here, have a timeline. That's when he decided to flee to ecuador's embassy. When the courts don't take the decisions you want them to, you can just tell them to fuck off and have it your way anyway? The defendants get to make up the rules when the decisions are not those they wanted? That is news to me. For the record, fleeing to ecuador's embassy would be exactly where he refused to follow WHAT WAS ORDERED BY MULTIPLE COURTS OF LAWS AFTER MULTIPLE APPEALS. Due process was followed, whether he likes the result or not he doesn't get to make up the rules. Why is that so hard to understand? He also made wild claims about a supposed unproven sealed indictement in the US to confuse people (which worked) and didn't substantiate them. I am now. Since your condescending attitude won't let you see that I might have a point anyway.
very persuasive Archer can you now make me understand why my gov't is treating these two cases so differently? - the one above and pinochet ? but it will take more than that was then this is now are you really convinced that this isn't a touch of overkill? and not many of us will be surprised when equador hands him over ... in this country or theirs and shortly therafter announces some nice favourable trade terms - i don't trust that slimeball correa - but ya gotta admire his ability to take advantage of the situation and the balls he has to chance it
and which is the more serious would you say? ah well east is east as they say and you do put in more than just personal insults
Why are you bringing up something completely unrelated and that happened under completely different circumstances is what I'm wondering. If there was an international human right to skip bail to avoid sexual assault charges. I’m sure Roman Polanski would have invoked it by now
Because it's irrelevant to the current discussion. Here is the bulk of the argument: The UK and the United States have an extradition treaty that's as old as the hills and which has more provisions in it that are favorable to the US than the extradition treaty between the United States and Sweden. That's it. Nothing to add. All done. Do you see why? Do you understand? This is really goddamn simple. I'll give you a minute. Hopefully most of you have worked this out by now.
actually he pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and both the French and Swiss gov't refused to uphold the extraditions sorry my source is only wiki but shrug that wouldn't have any bearing on usa not always asking upfront openly and honestly when they want to extradite anyone would it? especially when they have no real legal case which they don't nor do you in usa now have the right to ask if they got him - when/if they do (when/if deliberately in that order) and i mentioned him in an earlier post and by your reasoning why are YOU bringing up something completely unrelated and that happened under completely different circumstances? and ya still didn't answer my question
Indeed they do our guys happily bend over backwards to help i seem to recall a certain hacked telephone call that proved it not only when our guy said anything we can do to make up for our mess up but then went onto detail the sneaky tactics they were using to try and get the most favourable judicial response and that was for what they described as (probably paraphrasing here) a snotty little kid who was only running some servers for something much less - i am sure i or someone else will dox it if you need it i know you are following elrong's insistence on if it is written it must be true if it aint it aint - i think scilons are indoctrinating ya and no one can deny that usa wants that motherfucker with bradley BUT the flaw in your latest proof that it aint a scam deal is EVEN the UK needs a valid reason to extradite him to USA and they DON'T have one no matter how much they want to and they want to for their own sakes as well as to please thier speshul pals hence the backdoor through the swedes
Thank you for not answering my question. One of your habits, it seems. Thank you. If you think that the justice is not doing it right, absolutely. The judiciary system is not a divine institution and makes mistakes all the time. Moreover, it is known to be prone to abuse by the most powerful party - e.g. government, corporations, rich individuals, scientology - (see SLAPP). IMHO, it is often better to play by the book, but sometimes it doesn't. It is up to you, but you have to face the consequences in both cases. See above. How could he ? This procedure is at the fringe of the legal system, IMHO. I understand its purpose, but its very form allows potential defendants to mention it as a possibility and cannot be contradicted. You cannot have it both ways, having the advantages, but not the drawbacks. Funny, coming from you.
Simple, Pinochet had a clever legal team and then played the too ill to be deported card. Arseange has tried but failed to convince the court his paranoia is real.
This has nothing to do with Assange any more than the anecdote about the two guys deported (not extradited) to Egypt, but how come the U.S. didn't lean on the U.K. to extradite Abdelbaset al-Megrahi rather than allow him to go back to Libya? If you follow the reasoning of some on this board, all the Americans had to do was tell the U.K. they wanted him and he would have been served up on a platter. Discussion here is a moving target and not always logical.
Assange is a jerk alright. But the problem isn't the fanbois, it's the Assange haters. Seriously Archer, you guys want Assange to be hanged as an enemy right? Go for that. And don't say you just want Assange to go back to answer his "jerk" charge in Sweden. And that there's no proof that the US and allies wants him. It's a stupid contradiction. Everybody is entitled to play the system to his advantage. Assange has the right to apply for asylum. It's granted. What can you do about it?
If the US can extradite Gary McKinnon and the UK seem reluctant to block the extradition assange could easily be extradited from the UK if there were any case to be answered. The US has had plenty if time to investigate if there is a case and clearly there isn't. So I understand the paranoia that Mr Assange may have felt at the time of the allegations and then the change of direction from the head of the Swedish prosecution, but really after all this time go and face up to your accusers like the man of high social morals you purport to be. The Swedish legal system on rape is different from the UK, US and Australia and we should respect the laws of the country we are in. Had we asked Julian what should be done in a case such as this if it were a politician, prior to his activities in Sweden do you think Julian would have said he should be allowed to claim asylum and to avoid facing questioning? I don't think so. The US extradition card is just a big smoke screen, he could be extradited far easier from the UK than Sweden. Julians actions are ruining much of the good work done by wikileaks he is a very poor ambassador for free speech and equal rights now and that in the long term will be his legacy I feel.
People don't hate Arseange, and as for the dumbass "hanged as an enemy"??? Get a grip! Arseange is not a hero, he's an Internet character that anyone, who spends less than 2hrs a day fapping over forums, couldn't give two shits about! He has carefully formed this victim/hero persona and some fools have swallowed it like a cheap whore. Arseange has an ego the size of the US and is enjoying the attention, as shown in his "address" from the balcony. He has fabricated the US wants to get me scenario as an excuse for answering charges in Sweden, soon he will fade into history and all will be forgotten. Stop chanting the US wants him and go back to your moon landing conspiracy theories.
Oh, it's the wikileaks fanbois too. Come on, nobody with the ability wants Assange's job. Those losers who want it aren't up to it. Don't think that if Assange goes down you can have a better one. Most likely could be worse. George Cooney types only want to get some pictures published. He won't risk his ass in jail or alienate the 1%. High social moral is only for politicians, and who listens are dumb. There is only class war.
ooh ahhhhhhh stop it ya hurting me with ya sharp analytical real dox or gtfo mind wanna another couple of flights of fantasy hollywood scripts thatt could never happen? ooh how about i dunno let me think ah got one a drunken fat drug addled sci fi writer starts his own religion and enslaves people, robs govt's, kills people and ... ah ya right tooooo far fetched let me try again a cult makes a documentary, someone puts it up on you tube , cult doesn't like non culties seeing it and gets it taken down, some net geeks get mad and say FU we aint having that - we gonna take you down, start a movement taking their imagery from a hollywood film and do it anonymously yeah right couldn't possibly be true i bow down to all you who absolutely can't believe that gov'ts would collude with each other to break their laws how about you get get real?
yeah cos life is always logical and moves in straight lines isn't it well lots of the UK victims wanted to know why he was let go at all and had nothing to do with the brits wanting an oil deal with gadaffi, with al-Megrahi having only a short while to live only in an academic discussion of academic texts and in short isolated instances does anything ever move in logical straight lines - oh and most american city plans - the rest of the worlds cities are higgledy piggledy - because they evolved over a longer period of time even highly logical computer program which start in a highly logical set linear order don't stay that way ever seen Langton's Ant ? then get back to me on that one
you got it in a nutshell do i like Assange? don't enough know about him to even call him a jerk tbh i know fuck all about wiki leaks - apart from what i have learned here - i can't do that stuff but it makes me laugh that they can't see what their hatred is blinding them to laugh to stop me weeping i took no interest in Assange at all until the ASYLUM thing - and even then only because of these threads but yeah apparently i am a fanboi their hatred blinds them to so much that they are losing sight of the bigger picture take his name out and swap it for some joe schmo - then look at the details again
Not really, you seem to be eager to put words in my mouth, all I'm saying is that there is no proof to back up his claim. Assange sure has a right to demand asylum, but I don't think ecuador is granting him asylum because he is a legit victim of human rights abuse, he appealed all up to supreme court and was rejected every single time. Due process was followed etc.
of course ecuador is just using him and will hand him over when it suits them but if it is a legit claim by the swedes are they guaranteeing he won't disappear? Answer this question please do you honestly believe that if this had been any joe bloggs that it would have been escalated to this point?
