Ah mcboo is here to provide the mornings entertainment, perfect 😆
Anyone who picks a fight with big bad America has got to be the good guy, especially if they have brown skin right? Its only logic like that that sees the liberal left line up to support extreme right-wing governemnets like Iran.
Having read your "contortion" post earlier, my irony-o-meter just went into the yellow zone.
As much as you know that they are not surely?
Thats what independent Swedish courts and judiciary are there for.
[quote=deadlydarcy ]my irony-o-meter just went into the yellow zone.
Does it look like one of these?
[img] 
[/img]
Having read your "contortion" post earlier, my irony-o-meter just went into the yellow zone.
Do go on.....
A new criminal code presented by the government to the National Assembly in October does not include the crime of desacato, but if approved would still mandate prison sentences of up to three years for those who [u][b]defame[/b][/u] public authorities.
A so called human rights campaigner seeks shelter from due process of the law in an admirable liberal democracy, in a place with a terrible record of persecution of journalists. I cant imagine the level of contortion you must have to put yourself through to support Assange and still call yourself a liberal, or of the left.
[b]de·fame/di?f?m/
Verb: slander or libel.
[/b]
They have Libel laws? Outrageous!!!! 
[img] 
[/img]
The Swedes on the other hand have two women who have made what are, in Sweden, serious allegations against him.
But they are not serious allegations in the UK, not even crimes I believe, doesn't that make a difference ? Or should we also agree to extraditing anyone facing what are, say in Iran, serious allegations in connection with their sexual behaviour ?
Morning ernie
Its a fair point, so the courts here have to make a decision based on the level of justice offered in the country concerned, their human rights record and so on. If I had to scale them I'd put Sweden pretty near the top (if not at the very top), and Iran dead last. Wouldnt you?
so the courts here have to make a decision based on the level of justice offered in the country concerned, their human rights record and so on.
No not really. The UK for example won't agree to the extradition of someone if they face the death penalty, the country's "human rights record" doesn't come into it.
Likewise I don't see why the UK should always be obliged to agree with the extradition of someone based on allegations which are not crimes in the UK, whatever the country's "human rights record".
Especially when there is some evidence that the allegations of these non-UK crimes are politically motivated.
Sweden may be higher on the list of human rights records but that still hasn't stopped them
1. Giving in to political pressure - asking to extradite against charges that were previously dropped
2. Being unable to interview someone on tele-presence!
No not really. The UK for example won't agree with the extradition of someone if they face the death plenty, the country's "human rights record" doesn't come into it.
Nor should we, we are all agreed with the British courts on that
Likewise I don't see why the UK should always be obliged to agree with the extradition of someone based on allegations which are not crimes in the UK, whatever agree the country's "human rights record".
Which in this case means we are into the realms of defining what is and is not sexual assault. Sweden is a sovereign state with one definition, we have another. If you are convinced that Sweden's is so unreasonable that a UK court cannot order a deportation to that country then you can make that specific argument.
Given his absolute unwillingness to go to Sweden, perhaps they're concerned that if he is interviewed and they've decided there is a case to answer they will face more years of legal wrangling to get their hands on him.
Of course as I pointed out, the longer this goes on, the less anyone remembers wikileaks which may suit a lot of people
Which in this case means we are into the realms of defining what is and is not sexual assault.
😕 Yes that's right. I expect what is and is not sexual assault to be defined by British courts. Should anyway one have a problem with that ?
Didn't Roman Polanski actually plead guilty to some despicable acts and yet he has avoided extradition to the US for decades and continued to direct films without much condemnation.
Yes that's right. I expect what is and is not sexual assault to be defined by British courts. Should anyway one have a problem with that ?
Yes. We have international extradition agreements in place with lots of countries. It cant be a one way street, I want people who are wanted for crimes in the UK who then flee abroad to face justice here. Don't you? Does Assange get to be a special case because he cocks a snoot at Uncle Sam?
[quote=mcboo ]We have international extradition agreements in place with lots of countries. It cant be a one way streetIs that unintentional irony?
Given what seems to be our one-way extradition relationship with Uncle Sam it's time the UK stood-up to him.
Does Assange get to be a special case because he cocks a snoot at Uncle Sam?
It seems that way to me, hence my comment :
[i]"Especially when there is some evidence that the allegations of these non-UK crimes are politically motivated"[/i]
Is that unintentional irony?
No. Are you capable of forming an argument?
[quote=mcboo ]Is that unintentional irony?
No. Are you capable of forming an argument?
It's a genuine question. Are you aware of how many US Citizens have been extradited from the US for crimes committed abroad?
It seems that way to me, hence my comment :"Especially when there is some evidence that the allegations of these non-UK crimes are politically motivated"
Jeezuz Ernie.....youre one of ones on here worth listening to.
Are you capable of forming an argument?
He didn't need to form an argument as you answered the question, ie, no, the irony was intentional.
It cant be a one way street, I want people who are wanted for crimes in the UK who then flee abroad to face justice here
As an aside, that's pretty much the situation with the US-UK extradition treaty. People get extradited to the US at the drop of a hat; try extraditing a US citizen to any other country, OTOH...
From Wikipedia:
Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in this act. It has been claimed to be one-sided[2] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK... ...and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa.
The [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 ]Extradition Act 2003[/url] is a one-sided scandal and we should all be writing to our elective representatives to ask when it will be reviewed.
Andy
Does Assange get to be a special case because he cocks a snoot at Uncle Sam?
No, and it's obviously not that simple. I don't think anyone is arguing that he shouldn't cooperate with the swedish police's investigations into the alleged sexual assault - even Assange has agreed to be interviewed.
The grubby part of this is the allogations that the Swedish justice system is being manipulated by America, so that he can eventually end up there to be prosecuted under terrorism charges (which can carry a death penalty).
Although I don't agree with what wikileaks did.... it certainly isn't "terrorism" and I don't think we should be facilitating his extradition to the US (eventually) in any way.
it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK
I see this every day at work - the Americans (rightly it seems) are begining to believe that the laws it passes are global.
Does Assange get to be a special case because he cocks a snoot at Uncle Sam?
No but US does not get to be a special case because they are the US
He is not a US citizen, was not on their territory when he committed any crime so really WTF has it got to do with them what he did?
If I had to scale them I'd put Sweden pretty near the top (if not at the very top), and Iran dead last. Wouldnt you?
Quick Google on Sweden and supporting the US with rendition- which is interestingly illegal in Sweden
Ahmed Agiza was rendered from Sweden to Egypt by U.S. agents through Bromma airport. However the U.S. agents were assisted by the Swedish secret service. He was tortured in Egypt and sentenced to 25 years later reduced to 15. His lawyers sued in Sweden for damages and won. He was awarded 330,000 Euros--but is still in jail
http://www.thelocal.se/tag/Mohammed_Alzery
Links to numerous stories of them "assisting or colluding with US authorities over rendition and the UN, amongst others, criticising them
Add tot his the fact The US has a special committee on him and it has not ruled and you have the suspicion [ does anyone think the US do not want to get him on to their soil and charge him?] that the US is playing game to get him.
Ie there are no charges at present so it is safe
he has not been charged with an offence with the death penalty so let him go, change charges once he is there etc.
Its no use us criticising other countries if we wont protect a whistle blower here.
The grubby part of this is the allogations that the Swedish justice system is being manipulated by America, so that he can eventually end up there to be prosecuted under terrorism charges (which can carry a death penalty).
Evidence for this?
Although I don't agree with what wikileaks did.... it certainly isn't "terrorism" and I don't think we should be facilitating his extradition to the US (eventually) in any way.
The US have not lodged an application for extradition, and in any case no-one has yet explained why the conspiracy theorists feel extradition to Sweden is more likely to result in extradition to the US than being in the UK, given the lax nature of the US-UK extradition treaty.
It's hard to escape the conclusion he really doesn't want to face his accusers; the questioning that has been talked about above is not questioning as we'd see it in the UK, but is part of the formal charging process - I can entirely see why the Swedish Police aren't keen to do this in UK.
As an aside, if the Americans are determined to get him, I dare say it'd probably be easier for the CIA to lift him in Ecuador than for the USG to go through proper legal channels in Europe. It may well be the safest place he could be is in a Swedish clink.
Andy
I'm guessing that Assange must believe extradition to the US is a high probability as it must be better to go to jail in Sweden for a few years (if found guilty) over having to look over your shoulder for the rest of your life.
I'm also guessing that the US aren't extraditing him from Britain as it would be deeply unpopular move until he's had his character fully dragged through the mud.
What y'all think
I think Assange looks at the treatment Bradley Manning,his main source of the leaks,is getting whilst he awaits trial on treason and terrorism
charges,and quite justifiably doesn't fancy it at all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/bradley-manning-military-code-lawyer?newsfeed=true
I'm also guessing that the US aren't extraditing him from Britain as it would be deeply unpopular move until he's had his character fully dragged through the mud.
I honestly can't beleive that bothers them. If they really wanted him, then an extradition request would have been lodged. It hasn't.
I've heard a few people say there is no crime he can actually be prosecuted for due to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution; the publicity is keeping him, and Wikileaks, in the public eye and perhaps the Americans would rather he went away quietly?
Andy
He is not a US citizen, was not on their territory when he committed any crime so really WTF has it got to do with them what he did?
Exactly! My understanding is that he didn't even do the illegal hacking... he just published the papers that were leaked to him by this guy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/bradley-manning-military-code-lawyer?newsfeed=true
/p>
I view Assange as a journalist - I don't agree with what he did, but are we classifying irresponsible journalism as terrorism now?
Evidence for this?
yes because they would be that stupid.
The US have not lodged an application for extradition,
Are you claiming they have absolutely no interest in him whatsoever?
We all know why they have not done this and it is not lack of interest simply timing
It's hard to escape the conclusion he really doesn't want to face his accusers
I think we all realise he wants to avoid American justice- the rest is just your view re the "swedish charges" which were dropped then re instated
It may well be the safest place he could be is in a Swedish clink.
But you just suggested they have no interest in him which is it?
ee links above i posted re Sweden
The grubby part of this is the allogations that the Swedish justice system is being manipulated by America, so that he can eventually end up there to be prosecuted under terrorism charges (which can carry a death penalty).Evidence for this?
Evidence of the allogations? Google it dude. If there were evidence that the allogations were true - this would be a different discussion
If there were evidence that the allogations were true - this woiuld be a different discussion
Because evidence for allegations of sexual assault is often in the public domain?...
Dude.
The US have not lodged an application for extradition, and in any case no-one has yet explained why the conspiracy theorists feel extradition to Sweden is more likely to result in extradition to the US than being in the UK, given the lax nature of the US-UK extradition treaty.
At the moment, he's not in the UK. I also note that the Swedes have said they'll remand him in prison without charge.
I dare say it'd probably be easier for the CIA to lift him in Ecuador than for the USG to go through proper legal channels in Europe.
Haven't you read mcboo's posts alleging human rights abuses in Ecuador ?
Ecuador like other Latin American countries which are now no longer prepared to dance to the US's tune and insist on asserting their own sovereignty, has in place stringent measures to protect itself from covert US government activities. Times have changed, the freedoms that the US enjoyed under military dictatorships no longer exist.
I also note that the Swedes have said they'll remand him in prison without charge.
Given his history of fleeing from justice, thats entirely to be expected, surely.
I also note that the Swedes have said they'll remand him in prison without charge.
Given that he has committed a crime in the UK by skipping bail, that's not [b]really[/b] a surprise, is it?
As before, the Swedish charging process is different to the UK. He needs another interview; the way this was explained on R4 this morning is that he is interviewed, what he says is presented to the alleged victims, what they then say is presented to Assange etc. until the Swedish equivalent of the CPS feel they are in a position to proceed (at which point he will be formally charged) or drop the case.
Andy
ratherbeintobago
...no-one has yet explained why the [u]conspiracy theorists[/u] feel extradition to Sweden is more likely to result in extradition to the US than being in the UK
There was applause as the [u]foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño,[/u] made the declaration that Mr Assange had been given “diplomatic asylum” at a press conference in the capital, Quito.
[b]“We believe that his fears are legitimate and there are the threats that he could face political persecution.
“We trust that the UK will offer as soon as possible the guarantee for the safe passage of asylum for Mr Assange and they will respect those international agreements they have signed in the past.”[/b]
In your opinion, the foreign minister of a sovereign state acting within agreed international law is a "conspiracy theorist"?
Too much X-Files?
I appreciate that the time for compromise has probably passed, but couldn't we simply guarantee safe passage for Assange to travel to the Ecuador embassy in Stockholm - where he would have the same privileges he now has but could be interviewed by the Swedish authorities?
In your opinion, the foreign minister of a sovereign state acting within agreed international law is a "conspiracy theorist"?
No, but I believe the foreign minister of a sovereign state is taking the perceived opportunity to stick two fingers up at a) the US, and b) the UK (following poorly timed threats to storm their embassy, which apparently derailed a perfectly cordial negotiation process).
I appreciate that the time for compromise has probably passed, but couldn't we simply guarantee safe passage for Assange to travel to the Ecuador embassy in Stockholm - where he would have the same privileges he now has but could be interviewed by the Swedish authorities?
Ah, but that is a sensible suggestion 😛
Andy
It all smacks of a tatic to disable an opponent (Assagne) by distracting his resources away from attacking.
You see it all over the place, the legal system is used to distract and drain rather than provide justice.. whether that be the local council, tech companies or governments.
Wikileaks has no money now (when did they last release something that hit the headlines) and Assagne has spent all his trying to defend himself.
There is a high degree of uncertainty for Assagne
- He can't for sure say that he's not guilty as its very difficult to prove one way or the other (consent is usually a verbal agreement)
- Sweden, the US and the UK won't give him any certatinty as to their actions
So he's forced on the defensive. Seems like quite a good way to take out an opponent.
No wonder lawyers are so rich
No, but I believe the foreign minister of a sovereign state is taking the perceived opportunity to stick two fingers up at a) the US, and b) the UK
Who's the conspiracy theorist now then? 😉
The Swedish system:
"Mr Assange will be arrested on his arrival in Sweden and taken to a Swedish police station. Within 96 hours of being detained he will be brought to court, for a decision as to whether he should be remanded in custody until trial … This hearing is normally in private, unlike in many other countries, including the UK, where such hearings are normally in open court. As soon as the investigation is over, a decision will be taken about whether to formally charge him. Swedish law requires a person to be physically present before charges can be laid, so this can only happen once Mr Assange is on Swedish territory. Alternatively, prosecutors may decide not to charge Mr Assange and to release him."
