Julian the Asylum Seeker

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Archer, Aug 20, 2012.

  1. Archer Member

    He is not any joe bloggs. So that's irrelevant. And answer those: why would the swedes have to guarantee he won't dissapear when there isn't even any proof that the US has any charges to extradite him with?

    Why would the US make things harder for themselves when it would be easier to extradite him from the UK directly?
  2. anonysamvines Member

    so what is it that makes it irrelevant exactly ? is not your main argument that he broke the law and that due process has been done and that it has nothing to do with wikileaks or the usa (and other govt's) wanting retribution and to send a warning not to mess with them - and the rest aren't gettable? that all this palaver is what would be done in ANY case.
    Except you won't answer that it would be done in just any case because it wouldn't. So instead you just try and deflect from the question and dismiss it as beneath an answer

    fallacious argument there

    if the swedes have no interest why wouldn't they - after all it would get many of those currently opposing them off the case and demolish Assange's claims that it is otherwise
    i for one wouldn't object to Assange facing his charges if that was all it was about

    if they have no interest then why are they not following their own standard procedure in just any case of this kind? - you know that simple question that you cannot answer let alone answer honestly

    and HOW exactly would it be easier to extradite him from the uk when you say there isn't any evidence that the usa have any charges to extradite him with? again a fallacious argument

    since to extradite him they would have to have a charge at least - even under the speshul arrangements

    Ever since after Gary McKinnon remember him?, the USA andUK implemented the 2003 Extradition Act (which makes it the equivalent of the European Arrest Warrant) wherein the USA doesn't need to provide un/contestable evidence to get extradition

    - just that the act has to be performed in the uk by a person living and working in the uk and that they have REASONABLE SUSPICION (ie charges - which of course you keep saying they have no charges and no one has proof they do)

    and that act has been underfire from many sides including parliament and is sitting on shaky grounds

    so tell me again how exactly it would be easier?
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Archer Member

    If he has to be extradited from Sweden, they have to get permission from both the UK and the swedes, if he is extradited from UK they just need permission from the UK, as was already demonstrated in this thread, had you taken the time to actually read it.
  4. anonysamvines Member


    was this the part YOU didn't read?

    now how about answering the other rebuttals
    1. why it irrelevant that Assange isn't any old joe bloggs
    2. why if the Swedish gov't has no interest in handing him over why won't they give such an assurance?
    3. how exactly would it be easier for the USA to extradite him from UK?
  5. Anonymous Member

    Archer, I ask you to declare your interest on him. Like declaring conflict of interest. You want him hanged? imprisoned? Wikileak disbanded? I have my answers but I want to HELP you. I'm not putting my words into your mouth but you don't answer. I'm not accusing you of any wrong doing. I'm just helping your thetans to understand yourself.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Archer Member

    When the proceedings in sweden end, and if he is acquited, he is free to leave though?
  7. Archer Member

    I'm just trying to be objective, I dislike assange but I wouldn't wish harm on him. I just think people are overblowing this whole thing without looking at the whole picture.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

  9. anonysamvines Member

    and also free for the Swedes to extradite
    and your argument was that the Swedes couldn't do that without asking UK - wasn't that the whole point of many of your rebuttals and why you so scathingly (oh how that cut me to the quick - not) accusing me of not having read it

    and please rebut my other rebuttals
    i notice you don't still
    having a problem?

    and if
    you were trying to be objective you would acknowledge weaknesses in your arguments and were there were valid points made FOR Assange (just saw an interesting pic and article here too#mce_temp_url# messages 374/5)
    and you think others are not seeing the whole picture :rolleyes:
    when your own position and answers rest on you cherry picking whichever bits seem to back your unobjective view - and contradicting yourself in the process
    AND denying the relevance of the whole picture

    you are just an unfunny joke losing any credibility each time you open you mouth

    keep on trolling
    ya good practise
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  10. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Yeah, sure...
  11. Moon-us-any Member

    Don't know where a lot of the hatred for Julian comes from. I'm not a Julian 'fanboy' before you all of accuse me of one, but he is the originator of something which no one can deny has been extremely important in instigating & boosting movements & organisations that seek to fight against government corruption.

    So what if he's got a bit of an ego?? Wikileaks is far bigger than Julian himself & he knows it. I still believe he does what he does because he believes in the cause. The US will be on his back whether you want to believe it or not. Some US politicians have already called for him to be "hunted down", watch BBC's "wikileaks: the rise of the superpower", many Americans believe Julian & Bradley Manning should be put to death without any legal proceedings.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Archer Member

    Oh the irony
  13. Archer Member

    How would they extradite him if the US has no charges against him though? Which US law has he broken again?
    They can't as far as him facing his charges in sweden.

    Yes, this is going in circles and I already did multiple times.

    I did aknowledge that a sealed indictement does not require the defendant to be informed. Did anyone here aknowledge that the fact that the indictement was still sealed meant that there were still no charges?
    Where did I contradict myself?
    More personal attacks, your butthurt is showing.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    Archer, now you want to be Assange's legal adviser? Is that severe conflict of interest?
  15. anonysamvines Member

    hahahha getting desperate are you? keep it in context - that response was to the one you said Sweden couldn't extradite him without the uk's permission and the response came from your own dox - dox which you were using to validate your own claims that Sweden couldn't extraditehim from there without uk permission- the USA doesn't need to produce any charges until they actually have him - no use letting the defendant know in advance
    and yes EXACTLY what laws has he broken?

    your response is incomprehensible
    but assuming you mean they can't whilst the investigation and any criminal investigation is ongoing and , once again they can when it ends
    you already had to concede this one - why do you keep snipping bit's out of context and returning back in circles?
    twice already on the same singular point - dragging it back round in circles - exactly the same thing you accuse me of
    you haven't answered them at all - and if you believe you have and i have missed them please quote them
    because you have not answered them AT ALL not even attempted to
    1. why it irrelevant that Assange isn't any old joe bloggs -
    2. why if the Swedish gov't has no interest in handing him over why won't they give such an assurance?
    3. how exactly would it be easier for the USA to extradite him from UK?

    Well for just one example look at your above statement - you did indeed acknowledge that a sealed indictment does not require the defendant to be informed when you were shown proof - in your discussions with ann and that
    but as for anyone here acknowledging that the indictment was still sealed meaning there were still no charges i think you need to word clear some more
    an INDICTMENT means there is a CHARGE It does NOT mean a JUDGEMENT - see the quote of your own source below
    and you also just admitted in the above sentence that you do in all honesty know or believe there is a sealed indictment
    Or a better source like:
    Which states:
    An indictment is a formal accusation of a felony, issued by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). It is the grand jury's determination that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial voted by a grand jury. In order to issue an indictment, the grand jury doesn't make a determination of guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it and that he/she should be tried. District Attorneys do not present a full case to the grand jury, but often only introduce key facts sufficient to show the probability that the accused committed a crime.
    And also:
    If the judge finds enough evidence that the accused committed a crime, the case will be ordered to be sent to the appropriate court for trial.
    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.
    end quote

    seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black want to count up who has attacked whom personally the most. I have noticed a trend with you over many threads with many people of accusing them of doing the very things you are doing

    Now about those questions you are so so reluctant to answer
    1. why it irrelevant that Assange isn't any old joe bloggs ( you were the only one saying it was irrelevant as a way to sidestep answering a difficult question and it still remains unanswered)
    2. why if the Swedish gov't has no interest in handing him over why won't they give such an assurance?
    3. how exactly would it be easier for the USA to extradite him from UK?

    edit to add missing "accuse"
  16. Archer Member

    I will assume that logic is not your forte. I said that
    1. If the US had a plan to make him face charges in sweden to extradite him, it would be a stupid one since it would be easier to extradite him directly from the UK as their treaties on extradition are more permissive. My point is that AS FAR AS FACING CHARGES IN SWEDEN, it would not make sense to say that this is a US conspiracy to extradite him.
    2. Of course if he is acquited, he is free to leave sweden, and the game changes therefore making the whole issue moot.
    3. If by your own admission he has broken no US laws, then why would he fear extradition in the first place?
    Do you see how this does not make much sense or are you too focused on bashing me?(not very logically might I add)

    If they can only when it ends, what would be the point of going through loops just to make him face the charges in sweden, when they could simply extradite him from the UK? (implying the US would have anything to go by to extradite him with)

    1. It's not irrelevant that he isn't any joe blogs, this is why the case is considered high profile. I said it was irrelevant that you assume he would be treated like any joe bloggs, you should try reading comprehension.
    2. Why would they need to? When the case has nothing to do with speculation on US charges? Since when does the defendent gets to dictate the rules?
    3. Stronger extradition treaties between the two countries. And removing the need to go through 2 countries to get permission (implying it is done while the investigation is ongoing, if not, then the issue is moot since there would be no point in trying to get him to go to sweden anyway)

    Do I?
    No it does not, try reading comprehension.
    I did? I just went along with your assumption to make the point that even if there was one, it didn't prove there were charges. If there were charges the indictement would then have to be unsealed. As per the definition you quoted me giving here:
    Keyword is proposed.


    I already answered those above. (again)
  17. Archer Member

    Not really, that being said I have concerns over him becoming a propaganda tool for regimes that oppress free speech, which is kinda ironic if you think about it.
  18. Anonymous Member

    Archer, now you are a free speech adviser/advocate. That's not even ironic, it's off the rails. Trolling 101, you can't have an agenda and passion. Your hatred for Assange is too obvious.
  19. Archer Member

    I never denied disliking Assange, hatred is quite a strong word though, wikileaks did accomplish some good things after all. Who said you can't have an agenda an a passion? Also of course I support free speech, don't you?
  20. Anonymous Member

    In the grand scheme of things, I don't see wanting Assange to go back to Sweden to see the prosecutor have anything to do with free speech. Now he got asylum, what should you do?
  21. Archer Member

    I don't want him to become a propaganda tool for a regime that is known to opress free speech, as I already stated. That is my issue with him going to ecuador. Also lol bending reality to get his way.
  22. anonysamvines Member

    assume what you like, it doesn't make it correct or factual - and your opinion of me is entirely irrelevant to me

    no what you said was this below
    and nowhere have you said it is a stupid plan or that you even entertain the notion that there was a plan - just that we are stupid for thinking it because we have no doxed (to your satisfaction) proof otherwise
    your reasoning has always been

    1. that the usa have no plans or charges to lay

    2. the swedes are just following standard procedure - which led to my first question about joe bloggs which you wrote off with the comment that it was irrelevant because he wasn't any joe bloggs. Which when deciding IF the swedes were just following standard procedure makes it very relevant, and if they aren't begs the question WHY NOT? a very important question indeed because it impacts whether he indeed has reason to believe he is being persecuted, is in reasonable fear of his life or torture - all grounds for most countries to have the duty to refuse extradition (including the UK over his extradition to Sweden due to prior bad acts of the Swedish gov't).

    If the swedes were in fact following their own law and precedents in a standard fashion they have the ability, and have previously done so, to go to another country and question him and to even question him over Skype - especially when the costs of extradition (including that of the other country) are excessive - which they are undoubtedly are - especially since it is a very minor possible charge/s left on the table after the Swedish court threw out the major charges. Especially since the Swedish prosecutor was asked if he could leave the country 3 weeks before he did so and said yes tho the case is still being investigated, did not execute a warrant till the very day he left (which the authorities would have easily had knowledge of through passport control something gov't agencies often use to track persons of concern with) .

    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. (thanks for the info earlier in the thread booski).

    all reason enough to seek an assurance that the Swedes would not allow the USA - a gov't known to kidnap and torture and kill those whom it deems their wish to regardless of international law, and whose own citizens are suing them under the United Nations Convention against Torture, to extradite him

    Your contention that it would be easier to do not go through the Swedes because it would be easier for the USA to extradite him direct from the UK was rebutted with quotes from the the 2003 Extradition Act showing that they have no grounds to extradite him under the speshul agreement without a

    hence the question of HOW exactly it would be easier for them to extradite him from the uk rather than attempting through sweden
    a question you STILL have not answered
    because you cant - you have a fallacious argument
    and are still trying to deflect

    (part 2 to follow due to being too long - wow)
    • Like Like x 1
  23. anonysamvines Member

    Part two
    2. really - so now the game changes (and not only if he is aquited btw also at the end of any court sentence . How exactly does it make the whole issue moot? it reinforces any

    3 why? because of the USA's history of not letting the law stop them - if thwarted legally they like to find ways around it - Guantanamo bay? Bradley Manning ( for whom they are breaking military law - and military law takes precedence over federal court for serving soldiers, again breaking international law and who knows what - also one of the reasons they want Assange so much), why the President announced (bragged) on tv that they had captured and killed another wanted terrorist without any recourse to law, and many many more examples i could name. Because the USA has a thing called sealed indictments for which if there was one he would have no knowledge of it until he is arrested and extradited. For which there is substantial reason to belive (again a technical legal term - it does not have to meet your burden of proof) that there is one.

    do you not see how much sense this actually makes - or are you too hung up on denying for whatever reason, defending your position and trying to prove you are smarter

    as i have said before because they have no grounds on which to extradite him from the UK and the speshul agreement is already on shaky grounds and too many in parliament are asking awkward questions and as you say this is a high profile case - the Swedes are happy to help yet again
    and hey whether he gets acquitted or is sentenced, ha what's a short delay after all this time - just more time to work on the charges (sealed or open) huh? while they have him easy to pick up

    1. no you didn't say that - you said
    to deflect from the challenge to your oft stated position that the Swedes were just following standard procedure in the case they are investigating /charging him (after the Swedish court threw out their main charges) and which logic dictates that it must be the same procedure. why should the status of his profile have a positive or negative effect? After all isn't the basic tenet of the court system that it (should) applies to everyone?
    again with the insults instead of factual and logical and reasonable (as per the legal definition) arguements and conclusions
    2. again circular arguments built around false premises and faulty logic and dealt with in depth. The defendant isn't dictating the rules - Swedish law and and precedence should - as well as international law and Asylum law and custom

    3 again circular argument based on flawed premises and mixed logic and dealt with comprehensively
    despite you trying to alter what you said and stated to what you wish you had stated or argument used -as opposed to your claim of being objective and the only one to see the whole picture when in reality you keep dismissing the whole picture and you rely on cherry picking

    but at least this time you attempted to answer the questions
    badly and illogically but good on you for giving it a go

    part 3 to follow
    • Like Like x 1
  24. anonysamvines Member

    part 3 finis

    i think you need to brush up your reading comprehension and word clearing
    key word is NOT proposed
    key reading in context comprehensions skills needed (and where hubtach falls down is on it's insistence of clearing individual words but not on comprehension of context and interaction)

    did you look up charge in your impeccable source?
    i have

    and also looked up and quote


    which leads to the point that the grand jury is not deciding on the true validity of any case since they are hearing a very skewed offering of some of the case, has nothing to challenging the validity of what they are being told with many ways to manipulate the emotions of said jury (which in this case are probably extremely high - especially if the Attorney has the power to question and veto possible jurors as it does with a normal jury (i am not a law fag, nor an amerifag)

    sure you did - when you have been so careful to deny the possibility of one even existing since there is no proof
    and you claim to be so precise
    and especially since what you actually said was something totally different and fully quoted below

    even had you accidentally missed an IF they two statements don't match

    and no the seal only has to be broken when the defendant is in custody
    again your reading and comprehension skills appear to be faultier than mine
    strange that since it is YOUR source once again that i am using

    so Archer what's your next tactic?
    more unfounded insults?
    run away and ignore it?
    or tl:dr

    but i will say thanks - i had no knowledge of so much till this thread

    and you really do make yourself look foolish

    wanna come clean?
    you got a personal beef with Assange that overrides all common humanity and interest in freedom of information, basic human and civil rights?
    cia fanboi?
    just someone who thinks he is intellectually superior to everyone and has no outlet to display it anywhere else?
    or is it cos ya got no life and this is only way ya can get ya kicks trolling?

    gwan you can tell me
    (ps i have no life - and am honest about it)
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Things were much better during the Operation Condor years...

    Besides, I still have a problem with the distinction you are making, under the hypothesis of a "sealed" indictment, between "charges" and "key facts sufficient to show the probability that the accused committed a crime". AFAIU, the latter are a preliminary and/or a summary and/or a selection of what the charges would be.

    The question I still have, under this hypothesis, is the following: can the US request Assange's extradition on the sole basis of the sealed indictment or do they have to provide the UK and Swedish authorities with more formalized documents ?
  26. Archer Member

    no what you said was this below

    Totally not the same thing. Right......

    My reasoning always was:
    1. There is no evidence that suggests that the US is able to charge him with anything, I maintain this, until you can show to me that they indeed have something to charge him with. Which they don't.

    2. Yes, if he was indeed in fear of torture or his own life, they would be required to NOT extradite him. Although there is no reasonable grounds to believe that he is.
    What you don't seem to understand though is that there is a warrant for his ARREST and that htey cannot question him until he has been properly arrested. Which they would have to do in sweden.

    If true, that is indeed strange, although not necessarly proof of a giant conspiracy to extradite him to the US.
    Except that the case he is facing in sweden has zero to do with wikileaks or the US. Therefore they don't have to provide guarantees about anything, not to mention that the defendant does not get to dictate the terms of his own trial.
    Besides, if he was in danger of death penalty in the US as you stated yourself, sweden would be required by law to NOT extradite him.

    Without a.....?
    And yes, no grounds to extradite him, which has been my point from the very beginning. Thanks for admitting it.

    I have answered it several times, let me try again since you appear to be a bit slow.


    Source 2 : (which was quoted in the first post of this thread by the way, had you taken time to read it)
    You don't have to really, this is going in circles.[/quote]
  27. Archer Member

    They can't and they haven't.
  28. anonysamvines Member

    ha ha ha
    as oppsed to being extradited to or disappeared by one that pays lip service to having it (USA)
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  29. Archer Member

    I wouldn't want him to be extradited to the USA either since I don't believe they have anything they can charge him with.

    I just think your paranoia is unfounded. Your butthurt is clouding your judgement.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. veravendetter Member

    Bitch was asleep. Fair game.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  31. Anonymous Member

    Silly troll. Attacking Wikileaks is suppressing free speech. If you can prove what Ecuador did, it will be way down my list. The possibility of US putting him on a spike for fear mongering propaganda is much worse of the two evils.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  32. Archer Member

    Although the US has not charged him with anything yet, and has not demanded extradition.
    Where did I attack wikileaks?
  33. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Funny. You are not even able to think using an hypothesis.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Archer Member

    More personal attacks, this is getting old
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  35. Ann O'Nymous Member

    No, it is a fact. I proposed two options, in a hypothetical setting. You turned both don't, without explanation or proposing a third option. Thus my answer.
  36. Archer Member

    I'm sorry if I missed something, I was probably busy being bombarded by 9000 posts and repeating my argument over and over for people who are slow to understand or who don't read threads before posting in them.

    Please, propose your two options again and I will do my best to respond, provided you give me a link to that article you made up claime existed in that other thread. Is that a fair deal?
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  37. Ann O'Nymous Member

    I provided the link to an article in the other thread.

    Your move.
  38. veravendetter Member

    I think Ann took an Assange creampie
    • Funny Funny x 1
  39. Archer Member

    If they could, don't you think they would already have?
    that is my 3rd option.
  40. Anonymous Member

    US want to close down Wikileaks. That's suppression of free speech and journalism.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins