|
On August 17 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:
This whole thing makes me angry.
I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.
Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.
The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.
The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or that at least that it was plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.
It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.
Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.
Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?
Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.
Firstly, Assange isn't charged with anything. They just want to question him. So why did Sweden reject the offer to question him at the Ecuador embassy? Because they don't want to question him, they want to extradite him to the US.
And you know this?
You are from Australia... do you even know jack shit about Sweden and our history as a country of justice ?
That the police wants you for questioning is a non-negotiable fact. You don't get to condition it on anything.
Guided by that principle Sweden must turn his offer down. This does not, however, mean that we are going to hand him over to the US.
If you knew anything about EU , Sweden and Britain and how things are interconnected you would know that it is way easier for US to get him extradited from the UK directly.
|
|
|
When it comes to Julian Assange alot of peoples critical thinking goes completely overboard. Why does this have to be a black and white issue? Can't it be that the USA does horrible things and Assange is a douche-bag at the same time..? Is it impossible??
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 23:57 Maxtor wrote:Does anyone know where in the "Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987" is the part which allows entry into the embassy? (link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46) The closest i've found is that the act amended a previous act "Consular Relations Act 1968" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/18/section/2) with s2 and s3 appearing to be the part they're talking about, or is it something else that i've missed in the act?
Basically it hinges on the premises losing extraterritoriality status, with provisions for that here:
In no case is land to be regarded as a State’s diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of
any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the Secretary of State has given that
State consent under this section in relation to it; and if—
(a)a State ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes
of a consular post; or
(b)the Secretary of State withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,
it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all
enactments and rules of law.
The (b) subsection is crucial. Literally all it takes is for the Secretary of State to say: the UK no longer accepts or consents to the use of said building as an embassy for the Ecuadorean diplomatic mission.
Once it is no longer extraterritorial, Assange would de jure be in UK jurisdiction once more and be subject to normal warrant enforcement as if he was in any normal house in the UK. This is the logic of the implementation of that Act to this situation here by the UK.
|
On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:This whole thing makes me angry. + Show Spoiler +I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.
Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.
The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.
The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or at least that it was his plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.
It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.
Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.
Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?
Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but most things point to your wonderful nation just being America's bitch... Sometimes countries do stuff their populace doesn't like.
|
On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:
This whole thing makes me angry.
I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.
Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.
The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.
The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or at least that it was his plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.
It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.
Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.
Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?
Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.
Yea i mean assange has been alive for over 40 years but he decided to suddenly rape 2 women a few weeks after releasing vital human right abuses by the USA. All these swedes asking him to go back to sweden to face charges are delusional of politics or just naive.
|
On August 16 2012 23:27 Mylin wrote:
The funny part about all this is that the case against him is pretty weak.
That being said he's accused of a serious crime and can't expect to just run to another country without first being questioned and hope the Swedish justice system forgets about him.
He turned this into a circus and as a result I've lost a ton of respect for him.
Your quick to judge, what is your knowledge of this case, how do you know Assange isn't out of options? We dont know shit, lets be honest about that atleast. There are so many theories, that we cant judge at this moment.
Sweden is acting like an ass from the information we have(why not qustion him in london..), but it could well be something else behind the lines, someone else playing the strings. We dont know shit,.. untill maybe Assange reveals it haha. We live in a world with too much information, too much lies and covers.
"'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'"
|
On August 17 2012 00:10 zeru wrote:
So what if they assign him as a ambassador, diplomatic courier, or even diplomatic baggage? Cant he get out? All those things would grant immunity and be put out of the reach of britain unless they want to violate the Vienna convention, or am i missing something?
That's what I think, too. But really, I don't see it written anywhere in the news. They all write about how Britain would arrest him if he leaves the embassy.
|
On August 17 2012 00:06 The Final Boss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 20:43 obesemk wrote:A journalist that exposes abuse is a terrorist now?  No, but a guy who illegally publishes documents and is accused of rape should at the very least be put on trial.
Illegally publishes documents? Haha you cant be serious, perhaps he should have asked for permission to expose atrocities commited by your savage government? He has not been charged for raping anyone.
|
On August 17 2012 00:10 zeru wrote:
So what if they assign him as a ambassador, diplomatic courier, or even diplomatic baggage? Cant he get out? All those things would grant immunity and be put out of the reach of britain unless they want to violate the Vienna convention, or am i missing something?
Thing i'm most curious about this is that can you just name someone as a ambassador, diplomatic courier or whatever, just like that?
|
Welcome to the 20th-21st century. We've essentially run Western Europe since the end of WW2 and much of Eastern Europe since the Soviet collapse.
That said, Assange is a dead man walking. He will be arrested and processed soon.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 17 2012 00:15 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:10 zeru wrote:
So what if they assign him as a ambassador, diplomatic courier, or even diplomatic baggage? Cant he get out? All those things would grant immunity and be put out of the reach of britain unless they want to violate the Vienna convention, or am i missing something? Thing i'm most curious about this is that can you just name someone as a ambassador, diplomatic courier or whatever, just like that?
Basically. Under normal diplomatic relations, the host government can declare someone personae non grata and force them to leave the country if they don't like them. Diplomatic immunity can be revoked or deemed illegitimate as well.
|
Im one of the guys that seriously believes Assange is completely innocent of the sex charges, and its all a plot to end his virtual good doing
|
On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:
This whole thing makes me angry.
I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.
Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.
The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.
The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or that at least that it was plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.
It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.
Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.
Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?
Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.
Firstly, Assange isn't charged with anything. They just want to question him. So why did Sweden reject the offer to question him at the Ecuador embassy? Because they don't want to question him, they want to extradite him to the US. And you know this? You are from Australia... do you even know jack shit about Sweden and our history as a country of justice ? That the police wants you for questioning is a non-negotiable fact. You don't get to condition it on anything. Guided by that principle Sweden must turn his offer down. This does not, however, mean that we are going to hand him over to the US. If you knew anything about EU , Sweden and Britain and how things are interconnected you would know that it is way easier for US to get him extradited from the UK directly.
Yes, I do know for a fact that Sweden rejected all offers to interview Assange in London: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/sweden-rejects-assange-quiz-offer-20120802-23g3r.html
This just goes to show that, it's not about questioning him, it's about extraditing him. Why did they reject this offer? You talk about principle, but Sweden has interviewed other people from embassies before, in fact this was one of the reasons cited by Ecuador for why they believed the rejection to be politically motivated.
If you watched the press conference where they announced granting him asylum, Ecuador laid out the negotiations they had with the UK, Sweden and US to try to resolve this issue, looking at all of this evidence, they concluded that the persecution against Assange is politically motivated.
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 00:12 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:
This whole thing makes me angry.
I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.
Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.
The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.
The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or at least that it was his plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.
It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.
Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.
Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?
Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.
Yea i mean assange has been alive for over 40 years but he decided to suddenly rape 2 women a few weeks after releasing vital human right abuses by the USA. All these swedes asking him to go back to sweden to face charges are delusional of politics or just naive.
He is not accused of rape in the traditional sense of the word. Over here the definition of what constitutes a rape is quite wide. Sexual assault is a better description.
You make a big assumption when you interpret "rape" literally and that it was a conscious action by mr Assange to step over the boundaries of the law.
Sweden can not extradite him without the UK allowing it. Ask yourself why the US hasn't made any formal charges and then demanded him extradited from the UK directly ?
There is no reason in hell why the US would want him to go to Sweden. UK and US are allies for gods sake!
|
I see a lot of talking about Assange on these interwebs, and not a lot about practically supporting organisations like wikileaks. Its almost like a lot people lost focus of the bigger picture and got preoccupied with some bullshit personality cult.
|
ad hoc courier could be a possibility
How would Assange leave the country legally through the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations?
Article 27
+ Show Spoiler +5.The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document
indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag,
shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions.
He shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.
6. The sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc.
In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply,
except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier
has delivered to the consignee the diplomatic bag in his charge.
Write a letter to Ecuador.
Assign Assange as the courier ad hoc.
...
Profit
Of course this is under the assumption that Britain would not use the 1987 law they were threatening with. Or if they just don't care about law.
|
Sweden is like the only country in the World where what Assange did is even a crime and it seems absolutely ridiculous.
|
On August 17 2012 00:22 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:18 D10 wrote:
Im one of the guys that seriously believes Assange is completely innocent of the sex charges, and its all a plot to end his virtual good doing Well, its pretty obvious that the sex charges are simply character assassination and attempts to find ways to get him to the US.
One of the better newspapers in Germany, the taz wrote that Ecuador asked Great Britain and Sweden for guarantees that Assange will not be extradited to the U.S. once he is in Sweden for the sex charges. However both countries denied such a guarantee. Also the U.S. did not give them a guarantee either.
Hence the conclusion, because Assange might face death penalty or other bad treatments in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
