You can copy pasta as much as you want, and type a wall of words about legal jargon but it changes nothing. STILL no evidence that the US is out to get Arsange. Nothing that would stand up in court. Talk all you want but without ANY evidence it's jus bullshit!
Bullying? ORLY? So the dumb button is a bully button under another name? Biased? As in has a different point of view from you? Since when is that illegal? You all got butthurt because Archer took you all on and made you look the fools you are.
The fact that sealed indictments EXIST negates the need to PROVE conclusively that the USA want him. since by very definition knowledge of such an indictment would be classified at the highest level of Top SECRET not only in gov't classifications but also legal ones. Knowledge of one would be limited to Those involved in preparing one for the Grand Jury (at which point it is PROPOSED charges, but still means they have CHARGES against the subject of one) and they would then be unable to speak of it for fear of prosecution. Tho having charges and even a Grand Jury Indictement does not mean the charges are valid or would get a guilty verdict or that they would meet the criteria for an extradition warrant. If prosecutors were so certain of the legal merits of the case they wouldn't ever need a Grand Jury in ANY case as they would go for a direct arrest. see the definitions given above a cherry picked grand jury to vote on it and then be unable to speak of it for fear of prosecution. and the judge who then would seal it and be unable to speak about it for fear of prosecution the legal team involved in preparing it would be unable to speak about it for fear of prosecution any of those involved in executing it would not know the contents and be unable to speak about it - except to confirm that they have one and to enlist the aid of those whom they judge would aid without speaking about it for fear of prosecution. Not all of whom would need that fear to keep them quiet - many would agree. So YOU dox that they DON'T have one or gtfo SO it comes down to whether Assange has a fear, whether that fear has grounds. Grounds not unassailable proof. When it comes to Extradition Requests, as continually pointed out, the USA is now one of that select group that should NOT be extradited to as a DUTY by the gov'ts they make such a request to. The actions taken by both the Swedish and UK gov'ts prove that there is more foundation to Assange's fears. Pretty sad that one of the Gov'ts involved in the Nuremberg trials, who actually founded the legal principle that following orders of a superior officer is NOT a valid defence of individual actions, now has such policy as SEALED INDICTMENTS enshrined in LAW . Pretty sad that one of their own military personnel is having to use that to stop their own well documented persecution (and torture) of him. Even sadder that the majority are not disgusted by that and still hold them up as a bastion of free speech and democracy. And rely on the reputation of the GOV't THEN to blind them to the acts of, and defend the GOV't NOW but one point i will grant - when Archer posted the original post he did NOT comment on it either way. and i too have sucked cox on that. tldr: YOU dox they DON'T have one or GTFO
Actually no one has marked dumb my dismantling of asshatQC's little pr blog - including Archer who has given me several dumb ratings (no one has marked it agree or like either, the only one i can be sure took the time to read and understand it is Archer). He took my cherry on receiving dumb rating People can rate as they see fit, whatever their reasoning and i will always defend their right to do so! A rating has as much meaning as we put on it ourselves, no more and no less. It is a way of expressing a viewpoint without having to do a full post to comment. And would you really want to read a wall of anon posters saying dumb? i cherish any dumb ratings as much as i cherish an agree , like or funny ratings. And i use them all (not just ones given to me) to suss out how i feel about the rater's opinion, intelligence, viewpoint and objectivity. Now if a dumb rating came from someone whose intellect i admired, then i would feel a little butthurt. Not for long tho, for then i would want to re- examine my post, what about it are they seeing that i am not? and proceed from there. Do some use it as you suggest? of course they do. Does it matter? of course not
well neo cons, wbc, bnp, nazis, osa and dumbfuckwits and socks are on this site for many reasons just as is the case with everyone. They all have the right to be here for whatever reason they want to accomplish. Just as we all, members or not, have the right and ability to post anonymously and have multiple accounts. The exceptions to that being laid out in the terms and rules. And we should be cherishing them for the laughs they provide, for the exercise in sharpening of critical thinking (which is all that this thread is), for stopping this place getting too insular in its breadth and depth of thinking and a whole host more of reasons. you are a bright spark, and i believe, are passionate about the right to free speech, freedom of information etc - amirite? why would you even be puzzled if you were following your beliefs - or do those beliefs only apply to those whose general political viewpoint agree with yours?
Can we all agree that the following points cannot be proven ? There are charges in the US against Assange. There are no charges in the US against Assange. The US will request Assange's extradition. The US will not request Assange's extradition. So, the situation is a risk assessment, that is a value-ridden exercise.
I haven't been reading this thread (for reasons which are probably fairly obvious), but in the UK a QC (or 'silk') is a senior barrister - a senior lawyer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Counsel (if that's what you were asking). It's a step on the ladder to becoming a senior judge. http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/for-th...and-vacancies/judicial-appointments-and-silk/
What you don't see to understand is that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Currently Assange is the one making wild claims without proof. Your logic is flawed, if we all thought like that, I could say jesus visits me on a magical unicorn and since there is no way for you to prove me wrong I could say the following points cannot be proven : Jesus visits me on his magical unicorn Jesus doesn't visit me on his magical unicorn.
Really? So disagreeing with you automatically puts me into one of these categories? I'm tired of newfags like you acting like they own the place, get the fuck out my wwp.
I haz teh proof! And you're right, saying that the burden of proof is on you to prove the non-existence of a secret thing, is just silly.
not sure what you are asking - can you please clarify? are you asking me to prove there is a sealed indictment for Julian Assange? how could i? as explained in post 204! and my part of the post you quote, does not say that there is one naming him in existence. It says the very fact that sealed indictments (plural) exist negates the need to prove that the usa wants him (my bad i should have said have one naming him exists but the meaning remains). Since their very existence and terms make it is impossible to prove one specific named one exists until AFTER its execution and unsealing. And you provided the proof that they exist as a legal means. So what is it you are saying i have to dox or gtfo? I was merely asking him to prove that they didn't have one naming him Now i ask you directly, to prove that one naming him does not exist? Should be easy right? anonysamvines said: ↑ The fact that sealed indictments EXIST negates the need to PROVE conclusively that the USA want him. (snip snip) tldr: YOU dox they DON'T have one or GTFO
Erm does it ask for incontrovertible proof ? The actual requirements are and you are the one unable to prove that his fears are not well founded edited to add last line
The US gov has a sealed indictment with my name on it, if I leave the sanctuary of the North Korean embassy, where I'm holed up, the US and Uk secret services will abduct me and whisk me out of the country to be tortured and executed. Trufax! Dox prove otherwise or GTFO!
are we still speaking about the asylum case here? just want to be sure on that. and are you now claiming that Judges are infallible or never biased for any reason? That all Judges always agree? I believe the USA supreme court has more than 3 judges and that they often disagree, with some insisting on dissenting and iterating why they dissent, when judgement is handed down. Are you stating that miscarriages of justice never occur? That Previous Judgements never get overturned?
That is why Assange had 3 appeals and that all 3 were rejected, to make sure. This is why there are appeal courts.
No, just that Arseange has appealed and fought the extradition to Sweden but each time he has been denied. If it happens once then it could be a miscarriage of justice, if it happens again then you have to question Arseanges case, if it happens AGAIN then Arseange has to question his own case!
Oh Archer this isn't an hierarchical place (apart from the mods) is it? silly me for not bowing down to oldfags. So my disagreeing with you means i haz to leave. How do you know i am not a sock created by an old member? i am not, btw,but you do not know that Fuck off with ya butthurt YOU do not own this place do you? if you don't like me put me on ignore like a sensible person especially since you haven't acknowledged this do you really want me to seduce you - is that what you are trying to tell me?
Ahhhhhhhhhhh silly me!!! I thought this thread was about the asylum case as in your OP - and is what i have been discussing all this time. That the other stuff came up as part of the discussion about whether he met the grounds for applying and it being granted. When did it stop being about that? so are you now saying that appeal courts are infallible too? I seem to remember roe v wade shillyshalling around a bit and still being hotly challenged - maybe i best run and inform them of your viewpoint that 3 judges makes whatever they say the final word
but this thread is about the asylum case and whether Assange meets the criteria for asylum is it not? Is that not what the OP is about? the Swedish case and the extraordinary measures taken by the UK and Swedish gov'ts to pursue his extradition only being discussed incidentally as components as to whether he has fear of being persecuted and if such fear is well grounded.
Really? So that's why the US government was unable to put pressure on major companies, and why WikiLeaks can accept PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard. Oh wait...
Had you bothered to read the uplinks, you would have seen I was referring to the United States' alleged inability to shut down WikiLeaks, not extradition. In response, I cited concrete ways in which the United States government has worked to achieve just that. Umadbro?
It's difficult to seperate the subjects. Sweden asked for Arseange to be extradited to answer charges in court, UK grants this, Arseange appeals and fails, Arseange appeals again to a different court and fails, Arseange appeals YET AGAIN and again fails. Numerous judges (not just 3) did not agree that Arseange should be allowed to avoid answering the charges. Arseange has major butthurt at not getting his way and is left with only one option, seek asylum in an embassy of a country that has a grudge to bear against the US ignoring the glaring issues with that countries record of freedom of speech and libety. Irony is obviously not his strong point. Arseange has been the orchestrator of all this, and he will continue to try to manipulate the situation to his own advantage, you may wish to go along with his conspiracy theories but you have to ask yourself, how many times does he have to fail in different courts before you start to question his theories. And you also have to look at the lack of support he is getting outside the embassy. It's only a handful of equadorians and a few of his fanbois. The rest of the world either sees him for what he is or really don't give a fuck!
What was the highest court that the case reached? Because it seems to me that he could still appeal to the House of Lords, if it hasn't got that far already. Although I could be wrong.
i agree with the majority of what you are saying. As for Assange fanbois - before the last couple of weeks i couldn't have told you any more than somehow linked to wikkileaks and that only if something had jogged my memory to remember that much - you would have put me in the couldn't give a fuck category - and why i was asking some of the q's I did. I really couldn't tell you much more about wikkileaks either ( been way out of touch with the whole world the last couple years and just getting back into it). Wouldn't have cared if he dropped dead tomorrow. Now I would - but only to ensure that it was a natural death, and if so .. shrug .. we all are going to die sometime ... if not a natural death then i would be very concerned. Nor do i care if people are fanbois or haters. Except where and how they apply the Law and the ramifications. I read the OP. Which is a piece of shit spouted by a QC who knows much better than to present that as an objective and comprehensive take on the legal aspects of the case. The validity of that is what i am discussing and that only. Though i now have an interest in and knowledge of the much wider aspects of the case, still not interested in Assange per se, but how it applies to everyone. My very first post itt is #76 - not very long As i have stated before - if it is in fact JUST about the Swedish sexual misconduct case then get him on the plane and deal with it. Trouble is the extreme measures taken by MY gov't make me believe it isn't - not Assange but MY gov't. And Archer is the one who dismissed my question about whether the uk and Swedish gov'ts would have taken such extraordinary measures if it had been any old Joe Bloggs and just about a case of sexual misconduct, not even rape, as irrelevant. It is very relevant as to the case of whether or not Assange has a well founded fear of being persecuted for his connection to wikkileaks. Not only did he dismiss it as irrelevant he stated it is cos Assange is who he is that they are doing so. Which then begs the question how does that make it purely about the Swedish sexual misconduct case and not about some other hidden conspiracy - as per the OP and why all the obfuscation. Surely if it were purely about the Swedish sexual misconduct case and they were really only interested in him about that then why not give the assurances etc. I for one would not have given it another thought had they done so. like i said the viewpoint i speak from itt is purely about the OP and whether Assange meets the criteria for asylum and why
are you saying that the USA gov't has a good current (ie past 10 years or so) record of freedom of speech and liberty? That they do not under any circumstances come under the classification of a country that nations have a DUTY to NOT extradite to as per accused is in peril of the death sentence if convicted of an offence, or where prison conditions are so bad as to breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’) That the USA are not subjecting the only other high profile participant in Wikkileaks that they have, so far, to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment? And that is before he is even TRIED in a court of law? or that they are not giving his lawyer the access the law says they should be? That you consider the USA to be beyond comparison to Ecuador i find ironic and a repeat of some of the USA gov'ts other antics, since you obviously forget them
Firstly, ECHR? SRSLY???? Secondly, torture? There have been claims, but did you think he was going to get room service after shitting on his own? using the word torture is mainly for dramatic effect. I'm sure acting the same as Manning in Equador would get you comfy slippers and cocoa at night whilst awaiting trial in a kangaroo court.
Go write a book criticising the president and slamming his policies then do a book signing in the US. Do the same in Equador then get back to me.
firstly my bad if i quoted EHCR - quoted directly from the OP (and written by a QC as in Queens Counsel, ie a top flyer in legal stuff SRSLY!!!!). Thanks for confirming it as a shite piece of work by him. So nice to have it confirmed by someone who could not (wrongly) be labelled a fanbois. Secondly No i wouldn't expect anyone in a similar position to get comfy slippers and cocoa at night even in the most legit court in the most fair minded land. One would have to be not only a simpleton as to think that, as well as be a hopeless and stupid pc cunt to even want it. I am neither. If you do not consider what Bradley is being subjected to torture i am sure there is more than one thread on here saying differently, and many more places including Amnesty (think they have plenty of experience in recognising torture?) and many veterans of the military. I also notice you did not comment on the inhuman or degrading treatment aspects? is that because you admit them or deny them? As for Ecuador - if you think i am championing them as a paragon of human rights then you haven't paid any attention itt. Correa is a self serving scumbag who, as i have said earlier in this thread, will hand Assange over as soon as he has negotiated the deal he wants to make it worthwhille. I have also said ya gotta admire his balls for doing it. My point in the comparison is not to elevate Ecuador, on the contrary, it is to demonstrate the dissonance between what is proclaimed about the USA being champions of free speech and human rights as per the post I was replying to Read the list in my post, which you didn't quote, and get back to me on the ones that aren't true. Then explain to me how the USA doesn't bear comparison to Ecuador and how it matches your image of integrity. Srsly i would be interested. I will however take a non srs response as proof that you can't. Interesting that you consider Bradley to be awaiting a kangaroo court. That hadn't even crossed my mind. Is that some recognition of your own cognitive dissonce showing?
