[img] 
[/img]
It is possible , given the Swedish have done renditions on their soil, that they dont agree that the UK is the best choice?
Why make it complicated? Regardless of whether Sweden have previously extradited or not it's a lot easier for the US to do it from the UK. They've had plenty of time (over two years?) to say 'first dibs' and haven't. If they had, I suspect that he would be there already.
If you're going to do wet work, you do it the simplest, quickest method. Multilayered conspiracies are for the movies.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
So why have the US not done it?
Again to repeat it no one actually thinks they dont want him so there has to be a reason hence the suspicion they think it will be easier to do it from Sweden than here.
you can repeat that it would be easier here but they dont agree or they would have tried.
mk1fan - Member
If you're going to do wet work, you do it the simplest, quickest method. Multilayered conspiracies are for the movies.
Unless you're incompetent and/or desperate:
[url= http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/08/15/operation-flex-the-most-incompetent-fbi-sting-in-history/ ]Operation Flex[/url]
The FBI refused to comment on This American Life’s story: it is currently being sued by members of the mosque, with Craig Monteilh as the star witness against his former employers. But with extensive interviews with members of the mosque and a fascinatingly candid Craig Monteilh himself, the programme pieces together the sordid tale of the risible Operation Flex.Last year, the Associated Press won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, after uncovering a massive secret NYPD spying operation covering virtually all of the city’s Muslim communities, despite having no evidence of terrorist activity.
Whether it’s through infiltration of mosques by the FBI or police spies in cafes or meeting spaces, it’s no wonder that so many American Muslim leaders are warning that US law enforcement’s approach is sowing a corrosive fear and distrust amongst their communities.
Yeah, this [url= http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/a/bidenisms.htm ]Joe Biden[/url] - he's not regarded as a big thinker, really.
Maybe they want to avoid this due to the recent negative publicity of the UK-US extradition arrangement?
That is a possibility.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
dp
Operation Flex
Not really wet work.
The question is probably more does the Vice - president of the USA speak for the USA - can you prove that?
Joe Biden? If that's the best evidence there is that the States wants to get their hands on him, I think he's safe
So why have the US not done it?
Because they haven't decided if they want him yet, don't know what he could be charged with even if they get him, and probably don't want to give him the oxygen of yet more publicity.
They have Manning, a US citizen on US soil who has committed a crime under US jurisdiction - maybe they'd just prefer Assange went away.
The Vice-Resident quite often doesn't even speak for the Vice-President 🙂
maybe they'd just prefer Assange went away.
that is still preposterous and we are just repeating ourselves now
No more preposterous than assuming that their [u]must[/u] be a conspiracy.
Perhaps we are all being manipulated by someone with personality issues?
As he is not a US citizen, and whatever crimes the US think he committed we're not done on US soil, then surely the only thing they could charge him with is terrorism ?
If that's the case, he would face the death penalty, so could not be extradited from the UK ?
Could he be extradited from Sweden to the USA to face terrorism charges/death penalty ?
My point is AGAIN that the US do want him - you keep saying they dont- to the extent that you mock the Vice president as inconsequential- and that is a preposterous position.No more preposterous than assuming that their must be a conspirac
It is incredulous to suggest the US has no interest in Assange- and they hope he goes away as you keep saying.
Neal the swedes have signed the same treaty as all EU members so canot send him to a country where the death sentence can be delivered for the charge made.
well as I infered I'm not well up on US politicsSarah Palin and Joe Biden? If that's the best evidence there is that the States wants to get their hands on him, I think he's safe
OhJoe Biden - the Vice President of the country Joe Biden?
SO fair to say influential sections of US politics want him extradited tried and killed for treason(!)
So what could the US charge him with that would mean he could legally be extradited from the UK or Sweden ?
My point is AGAIN that the US do want him - you keep saying they dont
I'm not saying they don't want him - I'm saying they don't want him enough to bother leaning on a prosecutor and setting up false accusations in a different country. It's a lot of effort to go to, isn't it?
you keep saying they dont
No I haven't.
I keep saying that if they want him in the US then it's alot easier for them to get him from the UK than out of Sweden. Further to that, it's a lot easier for the US to get him out of the UK than it is for the Swedes to get him out.
It's a hugely conveluted way of doing it.
I keep saying that if they want him in the US then it's alot easier for them to get him from the UK than out of Sweden
Why is it ?
As has been repeatidly posted on this thread the UK has a lop-sided extradition agreement. The 'pan-european' agreement is alot more stringent.
Neal the swedes have signed the same treaty as all EU members so canot send him to a country where the death sentence can be delivered for the charge made.
Is that the treaty that is supposed to stop us (and Sweden) sending people to countries where they might get tortured?
The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today.In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001. The committee decided that Sweden’s involvement in the US transfer of Mohammed al-Zari to Egypt breached the absolute ban on torture, despite assurances of humane treatment provided by Egyptian authorities prior to the rendition.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
Oh......
As has been repeatidly posted on this thread the UK has a lop-sided extradition agreement. The 'pan-european' agreement is alot more stringent.
The UK is under greater scrutiny due to exactly that reason.
Making Sweden a more attractive proposition.
Plus neither countries are going to extradite to USA if assange faces the deaths penalty.
As has been repeatidly posted on this thread the UK has a lop-sided extradition agreement. The 'pan-european' agreement is alot more stringent.
The pan European agreement is a EU law that stops us all extraditing to any country where the death penalty applies [for that crime]. It is not country specific so it is as stringent in any EU country
As to the second point I am not an expert on the differences between the UK and the Swedish US extradition agreements but it would seem clear, as they have not applied, that the US disagree [ or f of course they may just be uninterested ]
nealglover,
Fair point, but were they two years ago?
That aside and moving the conversation on, then at worst that makes extradition from either country equally easy/hard does it not?
So it's back to the point of why bother with complicating matters with 'false' accusations from Sweden which were always going to be problematic and drawn out?
I'm just applying logic, as I see it, to the situation.
Terrible Law & Order SVU / CSI NY quote 'When you hear hoofs don't think zebra.' Although, clearly this is influenced by location.
it would seem clear,
Not at all, it's a possibility yes, but not a fact.
From reading it appears that the US and Sweden have a bilateral agreement which would allow Sweden to send Assange to the US through something called "temporary surrender". No wonder he doesn't want to go to Sweden. http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
"As he is not a US citizen, and whatever crimes the US think he committed we're not done on US soil, "
His Internet packets have passed through US routers. If they contain messages that incite a crime They consider that a crime on their soil. That is why we extradited those british Muslim chaps earlier in the year to be prosecuted and banged up in a supermax prison. Their uk website happened to hosted on a US server though they probably did not know it.
US and Sweden have a bilateral agreement
Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?
His Internet packets have passed through US routers. [b]If they contain messages that incite a crime [/b]They consider that a crime on their soil.
Did they incite crime ?
Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?
It would seem the Americans think so.
Did they incite crime
It would seem the Americans think so
[i]'Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?[/i]It would seem the Americans think so.
Again why? You've not given any genuine, proof.
Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?
It's the same, I think. However the "temporary surrender" clause only seems to apply when someone has been charged/is being prosecuted/is serving a sentence in one country, and is also wanted in another country. Since Assange is not being charged with anything in this country then temporary surrender would seem not to apply, whereas it could in Sweden because of the rape charges.
Lots of people seem to think that the "temporary surrender" procedure may be less rigorous than the full extradition procedure, but you'd have to ask a legal expert for the real picture I guess.
Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?
It's the same agreement, I think. However the "temporary surrender" clause only seems to apply when someone has been charged/is being prosecuted/is serving a sentence in one country, and is also wanted in another country. Since Assange is not being charged with anything in this country then temporary surrender would seem not to apply, whereas it could in Sweden because of the rape charges.
Lots of people seem to think that the "temporary surrender" procedure may be less rigorous than the full extradition procedure, but you'd have to ask a legal expert for the real picture I guess.
Well that's a QI point - although not enough to say it twice 😀
So, that would lend weight to the THEORY of a US set up. So why set him up in Sweden? Why not the UK?
SO why set him up in Sweden? Why not the UK?
Seems logical that when "they" were hunting around for dirt on Assange, they discovered 2 previous allegations of sexual assault. Just so happens that these were in a country that had previously cooperated with the US in extraordinary rendition..... seems ideal.
I'm not sure most people are claiming the entire thing was fabricated as a US conspiracy - its hardly inconceivable though that they would opportunistically take advantage of events.
Read up on some of the documented cases the CIA/US has been involved in in the past - I don't think exaggerating or fabricating some dodgy sexual behaviour, then possibly incentivising/pressuring witnesses, politicians and prosecutors to eventually get an extradition would rank as anywhere near the most outrageous thing they have ever done. And where 'terrorists' are concerned pretty much anything goes it seems.
I'm not saying that's definitely what's happened here, but its not wildly unrealistic either.
Again why? You've not given any genuine, proof.
Have the US tried to extradite him here?
NO
Do they know that he will be extradited to Sweden where he is likely to be charged with an offence
YES
Do they have an agreement with Sweden meaning they can "swap him"
YES
You then have to look at what they are doing now which is nothing.
If it is easier to get him from here - which people keep claiming [unevidenced] then you have to ask why America has not tried there seem to be only two answers
1. they are not interested in him which seems to me to be prima facie bobbins- they refuse to answer when asked what they will do eve after asylum.
2. They think it will be easier in Sweden
I have no proof of this but it seems a reasonable deduction
Of course the USA may not care as Ben seems to suggest or it really is easier here than in Sweden but they really have not made up their mind
what to do. Again that seems to be prima facie bobbins.
Whilst the USA says nothing the debate will continue.
I cannot see why anyone would think they are just going to ignore him and not try and get him. Given their recent and ignoble history of unlawful rendition, torture, maltreatment and "unlawful combatants".
If you have a credible argument [ which also wont have proof] I am happy to listen but this seems perfectly reasonable and not a tin foil hat they did 9/11 and faked the moon landing type view.
I dont think they created the Sweden situation [ though they may have as Grum notes] but it is unlikely they wont know how to exploit it to achieve their aims which means getting Assange
I have no proof of this but it seems a reasonable deduction
I have no proof he raped anyone, but given two girls claim he has, and he's spent two years doing everything he can to avoid the Swedish judicial process, it seems a reasonable deduction
in much the same way that Lord Lucan disappearing to avoid being prosecuted for killing his nanny tends to lead me to the conclusion that he was probably guilty.
Next Stw poll ...
Assagne
1. Will be Escape to Ecuador
2. Will Be extradited to Sweden
3. Will be extradited to the us
4. Will betaken by aliens...
5. Rides a 650b bamboo belted rigid
