Assange not so big on justice when he's the object

[Argus]

hey genius'... apparently, as I understand it, Assange could not be extradited to the US from the UK based on any of the possible Swedish charges against him. You wizards might, in turn, like to answer why the U.S. hasn't done just exactly what you're trumpeting... and requested your contemplated extradition directly from the UK, hey? Is there a problem, hey?

You didn't answer the question. If the U.S. has a SEALED INDICTMENT! OH! MY! GOD! Then why don't they just unseal it and have him arrested and extradited from wherever he is, including his home in Australia?

Please do quickly consult your handy conspiracy theory manual and get back to us on that one, eh.

[Wilber]

hey genius'... apparently, as I understand it, Assange could not be extradited to the US from the UK based on any of the possible Swedish charges against him. You wizards might, in turn, like to answer why the U.S. hasn't done just exactly what you're trumpeting... and requested your contemplated extradition directly from the UK, hey? Is there a problem, hey?

Well genius, do you think they will be able to extradite him from Sweden based on any of the "possible Swedish charges"?

[waldo]

hey genius'... apparently, as I understand it, Assange could not be extradited to the US from the UK based on any of the possible Swedish charges against him. You wizards might, in turn, like to answer why the U.S. hasn't done just exactly what you're trumpeting... and requested your contemplated extradition directly from the UK, hey? Is there a problem, hey?

You didn't answer the question. If the U.S. has a SEALED INDICTMENT! OH! MY! GOD! Then why don't they just unseal it and have him arrested and extradited from wherever he is, including his home in Australia?

Please do quickly consult your handy conspiracy theory manual and get back to us on that one, eh.

I'll simply wait on you providing the legal foundation that would support a direct U.S. to UK extradition request... based upon, again, the "possible Swedish charges". Why the 'parlor game' if the U.S. has the right to directly request extradition from the UK? Is there a problem? Perhaps you should get your crack 'normal man legal team' to advise you, hey?

[waldo]

Totally, it has no force outside of the US. No civilized country will order an extradition on the basis of a "sealed" endictment.

Well genius, do you think they will be able to extradite him from Sweden based on any of the "possible Swedish charges"?

and Swedish authorities refusing to offer Assange a guarantee they would not, in turn, extradite Assange to the U.S.?

[Wilber]

I'll simply wait on you providing the legal foundation that would support a direct U.S. to UK extradition request... based upon, again, the "possible Swedish charges". Why the 'parlor game' if the U.S. has the right to directly request extradition from the UK? Is there a problem? Perhaps you should get your crack 'normal man legal team' to advise you, hey?

Uh, you are saying the Americans want to try him for an alleged rape commited in Sweden? If not, I have no clue WTF you are talking about.

[waldo]

Uh, you are saying the Americans want to try him for an alleged rape commited in Sweden? If not, I have no clue WTF you are talking about.

the only thing on the table for extradition is the possible Swedish charges... that's it. Let the U.S. make that direct extradition charge you're so clamoring for... let the world see the basis for your fevered direct U.S.-to-UK extradition. What is it? What's the basis and legal foundation for your fervor?

[TheNewTeddy]

The rape charges are clearly falsified just to allow the US to either directly or by proxy get their hands on him.

[Wilber]

the only thing on the table for extradition is the possible Swedish charges... that's it. Let the U.S. make that direct extradition charge you're so clamoring for... let the world see the basis for your fevered direct U.S.-to-UK extradition. What is it? What's the basis and legal foundation for your fervor?

Exactly, so please tell me what in hell an Australian national, residing in the UK, being investgated for rape in Sweden has to do with the US.

[bleeding heart]

You lefties always think anyone who fails to adhere to proper groupthink is either mentally ill or deficient. It's part of your extreme authoritarian mentality.

Plerase. Your entire arguemnt is premised on the inherent decency and honest arguments of two especially violently imperial, lawless states (the US and UK) as well as on Sweden's....with only faith to back you up! You're a Commissar.

Of course he is! That's why he's spent the last two years desperately fighting extradition to Sweden!

But he's not fighting the Swedish authorities' right to question him. At all.

They refuse to do it...unless he's on Swedish soil.

A demand which has no historical precedent in law, especially considering the demonstrable political complications...which the Swedes could have solved at any moment by agreeing to question him elsewhere.

Why? If he's innocent he needn't worry about extradition to the U.S.,

Of course he would! They could determine his innocence (or lack of sufficient evidence for charges)...and then send him off to the Americans.

What's stopping them? Their history of courage in standing up to imperial powers?

You seem sure he isn't, sure enough to praise Ecuador for shielding him. Why should I not take the opposite tack?

No, I'm not at all sure he isn't.

Only three people know for sure. Well, four, including yourself.

I'm sure we couldn't prove actual harm if we released all your private correspondence either. I'm not sure how that gives people the right to hack into your computer and publish them. Not sure why you praise a dirty little snoop like Assange either, given that he focuses on western countries but seems to keep clear of dangerous places like Russia or China, where his hacking and publishing efforts might get him shot.

If you're trying to insist that you don't know anything about what wikileaks has published, and the embarassed countries involved, no need; it's quite clear. But your assertion is flatly untrue.

Hell, for that matter, the cables about the Arab dictators have been used as talking points for those enthusiastic abotu a war with Iran. These enthusiasts are, to a person, the same ones who think Assange should be arrested (or assassinated, like some US politicians, and our own poster Derek).

The hypocrisy and contradictions carry on apace.

I suppose the NYTimes should be charged as well; they published the wiki documents...with government "permission."

????

The whole thing is freaking ludicrous.

As for Assange's concerns about Sweden, here is Glenn Greenwald on the matter:

that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden's "restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody", including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

Edited August 17, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

So because governments despise whistleblowers, they should be immune from prosecution for any crime. Got it.

You self-evidently don't "got it," since your only method of debate (on a subject which you're proudly insisting to know nothing, astonishingly) is to caricature your opponent's points.

In other words, you're arguing with yourself.

The were right, the guy jumped bail just to avoid questioning in Sweden let alone face charges.

Since he has repeatedly, both personally and through his lawyers, agreed to being questioned on the allegations, your assertion is false on its face.

It's the possible (in fact, likely) estradition to the United States that is at issue.

C: In spite of your trashing the British justice system you must feel it is less likely to extradite him to the US than the Swedish system.

They are less likley, if we use wildly dissenting loony-lefty methods like looking at history.

that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden's "restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody", including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

Totally, it has no force outside of the US. No civilized country will order an extradition on the basis of a "sealed" endictment.

Again, back to the inherent "civlized" nation hypothesis.

Which reminds me: you didn't answer my (honest) query about how the UK is more cognizant and supportive of human rights than is Equador.

Let's start with the Iraq War, and move back from there.

I mean, it's not as if the US, the UK, Canada et al have ever or would ever be invovled in matters like wars of aggression, toppling elected leaders to replace them with pliant dictators....or collude directly and intentionally in massive state terrorism at a level our official enemies have been unable to match.

Just like Equador....oh, wait....when did Equador do these things, again?

I'm afraid your doctrinal adherence to great Western myths is perhaps polluting your entire view on this whole matter. What do you think?

Edited August 17, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

.....

Edited August 17, 2012 by bleeding heart

[waldo]

Russia now!

Russia on Friday warned Britain against violating fundamental diplomatic principles after London suggested it could arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside Ecuador's embassy.

"What is happening gives grounds to contemplate the observance of the spirit and the letter of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and in particular the Article 22 spelling out the inviolability of diplomatic premises," the Russian foreign ministry said.

(don't mess with the Putin! Look what happened to Pussy Riot! )

[Wilber]

You self-evidently don't "got it," since your only method of debate (on a subject which you're proudly insisting to know nothing, astonishingly) is to caricature your opponent's points.

In other words, you're arguing with yourself.

I was responding to a post that maintained government officials will call the shots. Are you saying the courts don't have jurisdiction in these matters? Seems to me they do.

Since he has repeatedly, both personally and through his lawyers, agreed to being questioned on the allegations, your assertion is false on its face.

Not at all, if charges result from his questioning in Sweden, he will not be able to run and hide. Something he just demonstrated he is willing to do.

It's the possible (in fact, likely) estradition to the United States that is at issue.

On what grounds? I doubt there is much difference in the extradition treaties between the US and Sweden and the US and the UK. If what he is accused of in the US is an extraditable offence, it should be possible to do it from the UK.

Again, back to the inherent "civlized" nation hypothesis.

Which reminds me: you didn't answer my (honest) query about how the UK is more cognizant and supportive of human rights than is Equador.

Let's start with the Iraq War, and move back from there.

I mean, it's not as if the US, the UK, Canada et al have ever or would ever be invovled in matters like wars of aggression, toppling elected leaders to replace them with pliant dictators....or collude directly and intentionally in massive state terrorism at a level our official enemies have been unable to match.

Again, you are unable to distinguish between governments and courts.

Just like Equador....oh, wait....when did Equador do these things, again?

I'm afraid your doctrinal adherence to great Western myths is perhaps polluting your entire view on this whole matter. What do you think?

Equador has had its share of military governments and political unrest.

I think I don't toss aside the criminal justice system our societies were built on whenever it suits me.

[Guest Derek L]

the only thing on the table for extradition is the possible Swedish charges... that's it. Let the U.S. make that direct extradition charge you're so clamoring for... let the world see the basis for your fevered direct U.S.-to-UK extradition. What is it? What's the basis and legal foundation for your fervor?

If that’s it, why is he fearful of being extradited to the United States from Sweden? I’ve got my tin-foil strapped on tight, so lay it on me……

[Guest Derek L]

Plerase. Your entire arguemnt is premised on the inherent decency and honest arguments of two especially violently imperial, lawless states (the US and UK) as well as on Sweden's....with only faith to back you up! You're a Commissar.

But he's not fighting the Swedish authorities' right to question him. At all.

They refuse to do it...unless he's on Swedish soil.

A demand which has no historical precedent in law, especially considering the demonstrable political complications...which the Swedes could have solved at any moment by agreeing to question him elsewhere.

Of course he would! They could determine his innocence (or lack of sufficient evidence for charges)...and then send him off to the Americans.

What's stopping them? Their history of courage in standing up to imperial powers?

No, I'm not at all sure he isn't.

Only three people know for sure. Well, four, including yourself.

If you're trying to insist that you don't know anything about what wikileaks has published, and the embarassed countries involved, no need; it's quite clear. But your assertion is flatly untrue.

Hell, for that matter, the cables about the Arab dictators have been used as talking points for those enthusiastic abotu a war with Iran. These enthusiasts are, to a person, the same ones who think Assange should be arrested (or assassinated, like some US politicians, and our own poster Derek).

The hypocrisy and contradictions carry on apace.

I suppose the NYTimes should be charged as well; they published the wiki documents...with government "permission."

????

The whole thing is freaking ludicrous.

As for Assange's concerns about Sweden, here is Glenn Greenwald on the matter:

Under what legal grounds can the Swedes hand him over to the United States? Is he even wanted in the United States? Please fill in the blanks of the conspiracy………….

[blueblood]

There are no charges.

There are no charges.

how many times does this need to be pointed out?

Christ, you little Commissars really have difficulties with the facts, once your need to defend the most powerful entities on Earth grabs you in its alluring headlock.

The swedes have those rape charges on him and assange skipped his bail hearing. Why would he be arrested by the brits in the first place? The brits should have remanded him and they wouldn't be in this mess.

I'd rather defend the most powerful entity on earth that promotes freedom and enables a person improving themselves than the other entities out there...

[bud]

Under what legal grounds can the Swedes hand him over to the United States? Is he even wanted in the United States? Please fill in the blanks of the conspiracy………….

the video in this link explains it.

here is more.

Edited August 18, 2012 by bud

[TheNewTeddy]

The UK would not go though this much effort to get him if it was not political in nature, it's just that simple. What is shocking is the number of countries that are keen on arresting him.

[Shakeyhands]

The swedes have those rape charges on him....

They do? Perhaps you could show us where the Swedes have charged him with anything?

[blueblood]

They do? Perhaps you could show us where the Swedes have charged him with anything?

Your right technically, however assange will be formally charged when he hits swedish soil. As for the arrest, there was a court order for his arrest. When mr. Judge wants to see mr. Assange, mr. Assange is pretty much SOL. When there is a court issued warrant for arrest, bad guy is usually screwed.

[dre]

Your right technically, however assange will be formally charged when he hits swedish soil. As for the arrest, there was a court order for his arrest. When mr. Judge wants to see mr. Assange, mr. Assange is pretty much SOL. When there is a court issued warrant for arrest, bad guy is usually screwed.

I dont think Mr Assange will be in front of a Swedish court any time soon, on these trumped up charges or any other. My guess is that he will spend YEARS in that embassy.

[blueblood]

I dont think Mr Assange will be in front of a Swedish court any time soon, on these trumped up charges or any other. My guess is that he will spend YEARS in that embassy.

That's what I'm thinking too. The charges I don't know, sex assaults imo are very hard crimes to prove. Its like the movie "the crucible". He'd be better off to go to sweden and take it to trial.

2 statements might be enough to get a court date, but I don't know about a conviction.

Edited August 18, 2012 by blueblood

[Guest American Woman]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I will say this - "Assange not so big on justice when he's the object" is quite ironic - and says a lot.

[Shakeyhands]

Your right technically, however assange will be formally charged when he hits swedish soil. As for the arrest, there was a court order for his arrest. When mr. Judge wants to see mr. Assange, mr. Assange is pretty much SOL. When there is a court issued warrant for arrest, bad guy is usually screwed.

If they had enough (any?) evidence to charge him, I'm sure they would.

Not sure if this article was posted earlier, but it makes for an interesting read...

Guardian Article - Allegations & Timeline

[GostHacked]

The so called evidence is bunk and is a ploy to arrest him on bullshit charges. Any way to get him in custody because there is nothing to charge him with. Why sex assault charges? Why not with something similar to what Manning was charged with?