|
I get that alot of people suspect something more going on here, but it's not because he is the founder of wikileaks that its impossible that he commited sexual crimes.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 17 2012 00:29 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:22 zeru wrote: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.
Pretty sure the United States wouldn't even respond at all to that inquiry. Officially, they don't have an interest in this extradition procedure between the UK and Sweden. Officially.
|
On August 17 2012 00:27 Dundron2000 wrote:
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.
Yeah. This is what I see too.
I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing conspiracies behind every corner.
On August 17 2012 00:21 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote: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.htmlThis 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.
The offer to be interviewed at the Embassy was made with the implicit assumption that such an interview would clear him of all charges and dismiss the case. The alternative scenario that the suspicions against him are raised or confirmed after such an interview was not handled.
|
On August 17 2012 00:31 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:27 Dundron2000 wrote:
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. Yeah. This is what I see too. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing conspiracies behind every corner. Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote: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.htmlThis 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. The offer to be interviewed at the Embassy was made with the implicit assumption that such an interview would clear him of all charges and dismiss the case. The alternative scenario that the suspicions against him are raised or confirmed after such an interview was not handled.
How is that a reason to reject the interview altogether?
|
On August 17 2012 00:34 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:31 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:27 Dundron2000 wrote:
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. Yeah. This is what I see too. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing conspiracies behind every corner. On August 17 2012 00:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote: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.htmlThis 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. The offer to be interviewed at the Embassy was made with the implicit assumption that such an interview would clear him of all charges and dismiss the case. The alternative scenario that the suspicions against him are raised or confirmed after such an interview was not handled. How is that a reason to reject the interview altogether?
Jesus christ don't you get it?
They might as well go to a pub with him and talk over a beer.
|
On August 17 2012 00:34 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:31 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:27 Dundron2000 wrote:
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. Yeah. This is what I see too. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing conspiracies behind every corner. On August 17 2012 00:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote: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.htmlThis 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. The offer to be interviewed at the Embassy was made with the implicit assumption that such an interview would clear him of all charges and dismiss the case. The alternative scenario that the suspicions against him are raised or confirmed after such an interview was not handled. How is that a reason to reject the interview altogether?
Well, partly because it undermines the credibility of the Swedish justice system. Diplomatic relations are mostly about saving face and in this situation no solution seems satisfying enough for all parties without someone "losing". Thats my opinion about why this doesn't get solved amicably. It isn't even about Assange anymore. Ecuadors foreign ministry probably fucking hates the guy but the UK called their bluff of granting him asylum so now they don't really have a choice. There is virtually no chance he gets to Ecuador from London, but Ecuador can always say they win, from their perspective, the "moral victory".
|
On August 17 2012 00:25 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:12 sekritzzz 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 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 believe that it is impossible to do an extradition according to UK law because there hasn't been any trial yet.
The relationship is one of parity:
The treaty is a “dual criminality” treaty. No one can be extradited by either country unless the offense for which extradition is requested is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of at least one year.
As such, it is necessary to send him to Sweden where he could be seized and jailed; the US can then request an extradition Sweden can't really refuse.
|
|
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 17 2012 00:46 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:43 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 00:34 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:31 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:27 Dundron2000 wrote:
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. Yeah. This is what I see too. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing conspiracies behind every corner. On August 17 2012 00:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote: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.htmlThis 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. The offer to be interviewed at the Embassy was made with the implicit assumption that such an interview would clear him of all charges and dismiss the case. The alternative scenario that the suspicions against him are raised or confirmed after such an interview was not handled. How is that a reason to reject the interview altogether? Well, partly because it undermines the credibility of the Swedish justice system. Diplomatic relations are mostly about saving face and in this situation no solution seems satisfying enough for all parties without someone "losing". Thats my opinion about why this doesn't get solved amicably. It isn't even about Assange anymore. Ecuadors foreign ministry probably fucking hates the guy but the UK called their bluff of granting him asylum so now they don't really have a choice. There is virtually no chance he gets to Ecuador from London, but Ecuador can always say they win, from their perspective, the "moral victory". Could you explain why this wont work? 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?
It might not work because the UK could always choose to do whatever they want in their self-interest and there isn't much Ecuador can do about that.
|
On August 17 2012 00:45 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:12 sekritzzz 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 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 believe that it is impossible to do an extradition according to UK law because there hasn't been any trial yet. Show nested quote +The relationship is one of parity:
The treaty is a “dual criminality” treaty. No one can be extradited by either country unless the offense for which extradition is requested is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of at least one year. As such, it is necessary to send him to Sweden where he could be seized and jailed; the US can then request an extradition Sweden can't really refuse.
Yes we can refuse and we will. That was why Julian Assange wanted to come to Sweden in the first place.
If he would be prosecuted in the US the charges would be something like espionage or the instigation of something of the sort. I am pretty sure that it would be a crime in the UK too.
|
Since a lot of people including myself are interested in how he will get to Ecuador to begin with a professor in international law told the swedish papers this:
Basically Assange got 3 options according to this professor:
1. Stay in the Embassy
2. Try to escape to Ecuador(unlikely he can pull it off)
3. To accept the extradition to Sweden and fly from Sweden to Ecuador after the questioning
Basically he means that the granted asylum doesn't mean anything because he can't travel out of the embassy still.
Since UK are obliged by EU law to arrest him on sight. Even if he travels as a diplomat or whatever other possibility(pouch etc)
If you wanna google translate:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 17 2012 00:53 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:49 itsjustatank wrote:On August 17 2012 00:46 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 00:43 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 00:34 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:31 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:27 Dundron2000 wrote:
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. Yeah. This is what I see too. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing conspiracies behind every corner. On August 17 2012 00:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote: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.htmlThis 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. The offer to be interviewed at the Embassy was made with the implicit assumption that such an interview would clear him of all charges and dismiss the case. The alternative scenario that the suspicions against him are raised or confirmed after such an interview was not handled. How is that a reason to reject the interview altogether? Well, partly because it undermines the credibility of the Swedish justice system. Diplomatic relations are mostly about saving face and in this situation no solution seems satisfying enough for all parties without someone "losing". Thats my opinion about why this doesn't get solved amicably. It isn't even about Assange anymore. Ecuadors foreign ministry probably fucking hates the guy but the UK called their bluff of granting him asylum so now they don't really have a choice. There is virtually no chance he gets to Ecuador from London, but Ecuador can always say they win, from their perspective, the "moral victory". Could you explain why this wont work? 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? It might not work because the UK could always choose to do whatever they want in their self-interest and there isn't much Ecuador can do about that. It would still violate Vienna, which isnt exactly to be taken lightly.
Who is going to declare war with the UK over this? They will take a perception hit for sure, but overall nothing much is likely to happen. Of course if great powers take a negative view of this, things can change rapidly and it will deteriorate very quickly for the UK. They won't though because they wouldn't want to set a precedent that would limit their ability to act in similar situations in the future.
|
Amazed that the UK is prepared to risk diplomatic relations with ALL countries (violating embassy sovereignty) in order to arrest one man who is being accused of an ordinary crime (not terrorism, not a threat to security).
|
Who is going to declare war with the UK over this? They will take a perception hit for sure, but overall nothing much is likely to happen. Of course if great powers take a negative view of this, things can change rapidly and it will deteriorate very quickly for the UK.
The worst that could happen is that any countries would immediately withdraw their embassies from the UK and expel the UK embassies from their countries, for fear of being searched themselves. Basically a diplomatic apocalypse.
|
Funny to see people stand up for the guy who may or may not have raped a girl. I dont care what dirty secrets he uncover.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 17 2012 00:57 Solarsail wrote:Show nested quote +
Who is going to declare war with the UK over this? They will take a perception hit for sure, but overall nothing much is likely to happen. Of course if great powers take a negative view of this, things can change rapidly and it will deteriorate very quickly for the UK.
The worst that could happen is that any countries would immediately withdraw their embassies from the UK and expel the UK embassies from their countries, for fear of being searched themselves. Basically a diplomatic apocalypse.
And that won't happen unless those countries are prepared to go to war or risk loss of influence with the UK. Having the UK (a permanent veto-holder in the UN Security Council) on your side in the international arena actually still means a lot to small states.
|
So, we have 3 concrete possibilities:
A: Assange stays in the embassy until something changes. Which could be a while. (Status quo)
B: Assange gets arrested by the Police. Either in the embassy, or on his way to the airport. Gets pushed to Sweden.
C: Assange leaves to Ecuador by some kind of diplomatic status. Or different means.
D: Something different happens.
Can we predict the future? What do you think? Would you bet money on him?
Poll: What will happen to Assange?Status quo (4) 40% Gets pushed to Sweden (4) 40% Assange leaves to Ecuador (1) 10% Else (1) 10% 10 total votes Your vote: What will happen to Assange? (Vote): Status quo
(Vote): Gets pushed to Sweden
(Vote): Assange leaves to Ecuador
(Vote): Else
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 17 2012 01:00 Ludwigvan wrote:So, we have 3 concrete possibilities: A: Assange stays in the embassy until something changes. Which could be a while. (Status quo) B: Assange gets arrested by the Police. Either in the embassy, or on his way to the airport. Gets pushed to Sweden. C: Assange leaves to Ecuador by some kind of diplomatic status. Or different means. D: Something different happens. Can we predict the future? What do you think? Would you bet money on him? + Show Spoiler +Poll: What will happen to Assange?Status quo (4) 40% Gets pushed to Sweden (4) 40% Assange leaves to Ecuador (1) 10% Else (1) 10% 10 total votes Your vote: What will happen to Assange? (Vote): Status quo
(Vote): Gets pushed to Sweden
(Vote): Assange leaves to Ecuador
(Vote): Else
He will attempt to leave by diplomatic car. This car will be delayed or roadblocked and held. When he gets out of the car he will be immediately arrested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
