Assange.

Assange has no actual evidence that the Americans are out to kill him or actually are definitely going to attempt to extradite him

Apart from American politicians who’ve said on record he should be assassinated.

Why can’t he be questioned over the phone or via video link?

Assange has allegedly raped two women. Swedish authorities wish to question him in these allegations.

Everything else is a smokescreen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-wikileaks-refugee-protection

No one should be naïve about the US, but this is a fallacious chain of reasoning. The US has not said whether it wants to detain Mr Assange, though it has had plenty of time to do so. If it wanted his extradition, the US might logically be more likely to make use of Britain’s excessively generous extradition treaty with the US – which has not happened – rather than wait until he was in Sweden, when both Sweden and the UK would have to sign off on any extradition application. And neither Sweden nor the UK would in any case deport someone who might face torture or the death penalty. Ecuador’s own human rights record is also far from exemplary, as Human Rights Watch has made clear.

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador

Ecuador’s Criminal Code still has provisions criminalizing desacato (“lack of respect”), under which anyone who offends a government official may receive a prison sentence up to three months and up to two years for offending the president. In September 2011 the Constitutional Court agreed to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of these provisions submitted by Fundamedios, an Ecuadorian press freedom advocacy group. 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 defame public authorities.

Under the existing code, journalists face prison sentences and crippling damages for this offense. According to Fundamedios, by October 2011 five journalists had been sentenced to prison terms for defamation since 2008, and 18 journalists, media directors, and owners of media outlets faced similar charges.

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.

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.

I wouldn’t say I support Assange exactly, I think he probably is quite a creepy guy and is motivated by self-aggrandisement, but look at what happened to Bradley Manning. I think Assange has good reason to be scared/paranoid. If you look at how the case progressed in Sweden it seems a bit fishy (AFAIK original prosecutor decides not to charge him, then after political pressure a new prosecutor gets the case and changes the decision?).

neither Sweden nor the UK would in any case deport someone who might face torture

I can’t anyone would write that and actually believe it was true.

Indeed, I don’t know about Sweden but the UK has been proved to have done it several times.

Assange has allegedly raped two women. Swedish authorities wish to question him in these allegations.

Everything else is a smokescreen.
+1

There doesn’t seem to be a single European nation willing to stand up against America’s bullying, it’s a real embarrassment that it is only some of the less desirable South American and Asian nations that are willing to do so.

There doesn’t seem to be a single European nation willing to stand up against America’s bullying, it’s a real embarrassment that it is only some of the less desirable South American and Asian nations that are willing to do so.

+100000

Assange has allegedly been falsly acussed of the rape of two women. Swedish authorities wish to question him have questioned him in these allegations.

Everything else is a smokescreen.

No whats embarrasing is the likes of yourself falling over backwards to find common cause with the likes of Ecuador and Venezuela. 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 governments like Iran.

been falsly acussed of the rape of two women

You know these women to be liars do you?

As much as you know that they are not surely?

Nice straw man argument there mcboo. 🙄

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.

Does it look like one of these?

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 defame 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.

de·fame/di?f?m/
Verb: slander or libel.

They have Libel laws? Outrageous!!!!

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?

Is 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 :

“Especially when there is some evidence that the allegations of these non-UK crimes are politically motivated”

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 Extradition Act 2003 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.