|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 17 2012 01:06 zeru wrote:
I simply dont think the UK would violate international laws, at least this publicly, just to please the US, even if they think there wont be actual consequences to doing so, especially when it hasn't been done before, it would be quite extreme.
International law is violated all of the time. Turn on the news and look at Syria.
|
On August 17 2012 00:50 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:45 Kukaracha wrote: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. 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.
So you believe that he's being defended by the famous Baltasar Garzón (who reopened the cases of the Argentinian and Chilean dictatorships) - for free - because he just doesn't want to go to Sweden...?
|
On August 17 2012 00:30 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:29 JustPassingBy wrote: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.
No answer is also an answer.
I mean if A and B are arguing at such high stakes and you could solve the whole issue just with a simple note, you pretty much must have a (a) something to hide or (b) interesting in A and B arguing with each other, to not do that.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 17 2012 01:13 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:30 itsjustatank wrote:On August 17 2012 00:29 JustPassingBy wrote: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. No answer is also an answer. I mean if A and B are arguing at such high stakes and you could solve the whole issue just with a simple note, you pretty much must have a (a) something to hide or (b) interesting in A and B arguing with each other, to not do that.
What I was saying is there is a difference between explicit denial versus not giving an answer at all.
|
On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
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.
The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE"
He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime.
|
On August 17 2012 01:08 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:50 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:45 Kukaracha wrote: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. 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. So you believe that he's being defended by the famous Baltasar Garzón (who reopened the cases of the Argentinian and Chilean dictatorships) - for free - because he just doesn't want to go to Sweden...?
There is a conspiracy in everything isn't it ?
The only reason he is afraid of Sweden is the fact that he will be punished for his crimes here.
And you should know that there is nothing free in this world. He takes on a high profile case to make a bigger
name and get attention perhaps? Maybe he and JA has powerful friends in common. There are many explanations for this that doesn't include a US conspiracy.
|
Still not entirely sure but:
Why would he not just go to Sweden?
I know people keep saying that he will be extradited to the US, but he has been in the UK for months without being extradited, meanwhile US/UK relations are far tighter than US/Sweden.
What does Sweden have to do with him being extradited? What conditions are met that aren't met in the UK?
Not saying it can't be the case, but right now the story people are trying to spin just doesn't make sense. It seems more like he's just trying to ramp up his profile and avoiding the punishment of what might just be very legitimate accusations.
|
On August 17 2012 01:33 zalz wrote:
Still not entirely sure but:
Why would he not just go to Sweden?
I know people keep saying that he will be extradited to the US, but he has been in the UK for months without being extradited, meanwhile US/UK relations are far tighter than US/Sweden.
What does Sweden have to do with him being extradited? What conditions are met that aren't met in the UK?
Not saying it can't be the case, but right now the story people are trying to spin just doesn't make sense. It seems more like he's just trying to ramp up his profile and avoiding the punishment of what might just be very legitimate accusations.
Hmm good point. This certainly has the stench of US involvement and character assasination to drum up popular support against him, but I guess I'll kick back with some popcorn and watch what happens for now. I don't know how a guy like this could ever hope to receive a fair trial though.
|
On August 17 2012 01:33 zalz wrote:
Still not entirely sure but:
Why would he not just go to Sweden?
I know people keep saying that he will be extradited to the US, but he has been in the UK for months without being extradited, meanwhile US/UK relations are far tighter than US/Sweden.
What does Sweden have to do with him being extradited? What conditions are met that aren't met in the UK?
Not saying it can't be the case, but right now the story people are trying to spin just doesn't make sense. It seems more like he's just trying to ramp up his profile and avoiding the punishment of what might just be very legitimate accusations.
I think here is why he doesn't want to go to Sweden : http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On August 17 2012 01:17 Zennith wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
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. The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE" He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime.
So if he "didn't" why run from the law, citing the "there going to kill me because i uncovered secrets plee" i think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, there is so many human rights crap you can pull on the wikileaks case, but he knows if he gets found guilty of child rape he will be found guilty no matter what. I think he is hiding for a reason and must be giving Ecudar alot of money to stay hiding.
|
On August 17 2012 01:27 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 01:08 Kukaracha wrote:On August 17 2012 00:50 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:45 Kukaracha wrote: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. 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. So you believe that he's being defended by the famous Baltasar Garzón (who reopened the cases of the Argentinian and Chilean dictatorships) - for free - because he just doesn't want to go to Sweden...? There is a conspiracy in everything isn't it ? The only reason he is afraid of Sweden is the fact that he will be punished for his crimes here. And you should know that there is nothing free in this world. He takes on a high profile case to make a bigger name and get attention perhaps? Maybe he and JA has powerful friends in common. There are many explanations for this that doesn't include a US conspiracy.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just the way international diplomacy works.
As for this lawyer, he's already famous and fighting for a case he will most likely lose
I mean, otherwise, that would mean that a lot of people are fighting hard to help Assange escape the 1000€ that he will have to pay in total for the retribution of the victims, when judged in Sweden.
|
On August 17 2012 01:39 Opera wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 01:33 zalz wrote:
Still not entirely sure but:
Why would he not just go to Sweden?
I know people keep saying that he will be extradited to the US, but he has been in the UK for months without being extradited, meanwhile US/UK relations are far tighter than US/Sweden.
What does Sweden have to do with him being extradited? What conditions are met that aren't met in the UK?
Not saying it can't be the case, but right now the story people are trying to spin just doesn't make sense. It seems more like he's just trying to ramp up his profile and avoiding the punishment of what might just be very legitimate accusations. I think here is why he doesn't want to go to Sweden : http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
That sounds a bit far-fetched.
Are people honestly afraid that if he goes to Sweden he is going to get tortured?
It doesn't even make sense because the expressed fear is that he will be extradited to the US, not to a nation where torture is likely.
Again, it just doesn't add up that he refuses to go to Sweden in fear of being extradited to the US. If the US wanted him, they had their chance for months in the UK. Why didn't the US request him?
|
On August 17 2012 01:39 Opera wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 01:33 zalz wrote:
Still not entirely sure but:
Why would he not just go to Sweden?
I know people keep saying that he will be extradited to the US, but he has been in the UK for months without being extradited, meanwhile US/UK relations are far tighter than US/Sweden.
What does Sweden have to do with him being extradited? What conditions are met that aren't met in the UK?
Not saying it can't be the case, but right now the story people are trying to spin just doesn't make sense. It seems more like he's just trying to ramp up his profile and avoiding the punishment of what might just be very legitimate accusations. I think here is why he doesn't want to go to Sweden : http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
If he was so afraid of Sweden, then why did he go there voluntarily in 2010?
The same arguments that he uses now were also applicable back then.
He fucked up and now he is running a giant smearing campaign against the country where he first sought refuge.
It is not credible. The sad thing is that his giant following blindly accepts this and also made a 180 degree turn in its view on the country of Sweden. His following consists of mostly middle class file sharing youngsters that sees conspiracies in everything.
We have a whole bunch of them here. They are ignorant and completely out of touch with reality. A case of watching too much V for Vendetta and reading 1984 and trying to apply it to the world they live in. They gather in masses wearing masks and whatnot to protest against every new law or law proposition even remotely related to privacy and surveillance issues.
|
On August 17 2012 01:44 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 01:17 Zennith wrote:On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
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. The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE" He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime. So if he "didn't" why run from the law, citing the "there going to kill me because i uncovered secrets plee" i think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, there is so many human rights crap you can pull on the wikileaks case, but he knows if he gets found guilty of child rape he will be found guilty no matter what. I think he is hiding for a reason and must be giving Ecudar alot of money to stay hiding.
Ok, people really need to look up what he's actually accused off. Throwing around the words 'child rape' is ridiculous, it was consensual sex and only later did the Women decide to bring a complaint against him. If I was him, I'd be scared of extradition as well, the U.S and the U.K have no problem murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, you think a politically motivated extradition is out of the question?
And one-one-one - why is that an issue? What right do the government have to invade our private lives? Some people don't reference 1984 and still make completely valid arguments. Our governments show a complete lack of regard for human rights and international law, and then people are suprised that someone might be scared of them? Is this really so hard to follow?
The whole 'anyone who cares about their right to privacy is a conspiracy theoring wielding nutjob' thing is getting so, so old. Its just a back stop when you can't come up with a real argument.
|
On August 17 2012 01:53 Trowa127 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 01:44 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:17 Zennith wrote:On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
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. The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE" He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime. So if he "didn't" why run from the law, citing the "there going to kill me because i uncovered secrets plee" i think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, there is so many human rights crap you can pull on the wikileaks case, but he knows if he gets found guilty of child rape he will be found guilty no matter what. I think he is hiding for a reason and must be giving Ecudar alot of money to stay hiding. Ok, people really need to look up what he's actually accused off. Throwing around the words 'child rape' is ridiculous, it was consensual sex and only later did the Women decide to bring a complaint against him. If I was him, I'd be scared of extradition as well, the U.S and the U.K have no problem murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, you think a politically motivated extradition is out of the question? And one-one-one - why is that an issue? What right do the government have to invade our private lives? Some people don't reference 1984 and still make completely valid arguments. Our governments show a complete lack of regard for human rights and international law, and then people are suprised that someone might be scared of them? Is this really so hard to follow? The whole 'anyone who cares about their right to privacy is a conspiracy theoring wielding nutjob' thing is getting so, so old. Its just a back stop when you can't come up with a real argument.
Once again, that story doesn't add up.
Why the Sweden spin? If the US was just going to have him extradited, the UK would make tons more sense.
I understand what you are saying, but the internal logic just isn't there.
|
Does anybody find the wikileaks website a nightmare to navigate? it says its leaked all this amazing stuff but i can't ever find anything decent on it.. not sure why the goverments are so pissed off at him.. its clearly they want the site demloished!
|
What is Julian Assange actually accused of in Sweden, all I ever here is that its some sort of sex crime?
And why is he so afraid of going to Sweden? If any European country is going to extradite a man to the US its Britain, hell we almost extradited an autistic British citizen for hacking the US military's computers while he was looking for evidence of UFO's. The only reason he hasn't been extradited yet (and now probably never will be) is because there was such public outrage that we were actually going to extradite him.
|
Why the hate on 1984? The parallels are there in spades. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't go around wearing masks. 
|
On August 17 2012 01:57 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 01:53 Trowa127 wrote:On August 17 2012 01:44 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:17 Zennith wrote:On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
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. The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE" He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime. So if he "didn't" why run from the law, citing the "there going to kill me because i uncovered secrets plee" i think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, there is so many human rights crap you can pull on the wikileaks case, but he knows if he gets found guilty of child rape he will be found guilty no matter what. I think he is hiding for a reason and must be giving Ecudar alot of money to stay hiding. Ok, people really need to look up what he's actually accused off. Throwing around the words 'child rape' is ridiculous, it was consensual sex and only later did the Women decide to bring a complaint against him. If I was him, I'd be scared of extradition as well, the U.S and the U.K have no problem murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, you think a politically motivated extradition is out of the question? And one-one-one - why is that an issue? What right do the government have to invade our private lives? Some people don't reference 1984 and still make completely valid arguments. Our governments show a complete lack of regard for human rights and international law, and then people are suprised that someone might be scared of them? Is this really so hard to follow? The whole 'anyone who cares about their right to privacy is a conspiracy theoring wielding nutjob' thing is getting so, so old. Its just a back stop when you can't come up with a real argument. Once again, that story doesn't add up. Why the Sweden spin? If the US was just going to have him extradited, the UK would make tons more sense. I understand what you are saying, but the internal logic just isn't there.
As people have mentioned above, it seems like a smear campaign. Once he's been convicted (which he most certainly would be), no one can really say what would happen for sure. I just don't see it being a massive step from extradition to Sweden to some kind of trial for the release of all the wikileaks information. I am very, very wary of anything the U.S. or my own Country is involved in; anyone who can invade Iraq and Afghanistan with no real reason certainly has the capacity to abuse its position to prosecute Assange.
I'm afraid I just don't trust them one bit, becuase they have shown no reason to trust them.
Yeah and as people have mentioned already, the U.K is currently holding four 'hackers' for extradition to the U.S. Just look up those cases if you want to see why i'm so sceptical.
|
On August 17 2012 01:53 Trowa127 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 01:44 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:17 Zennith wrote:On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
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. The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE" He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime. So if he "didn't" why run from the law, citing the "there going to kill me because i uncovered secrets plee" i think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, there is so many human rights crap you can pull on the wikileaks case, but he knows if he gets found guilty of child rape he will be found guilty no matter what. I think he is hiding for a reason and must be giving Ecudar alot of money to stay hiding. Ok, people really need to look up what he's actually accused off. Throwing around the words 'child rape' is ridiculous, it was consensual sex and only later did the Women decide to bring a complaint against him. If I was him, I'd be scared of extradition as well, the U.S and the U.K have no problem murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, you think a politically motivated extradition is out of the question? And one-one-one - why is that an issue? What right do the government have to invade our private lives? Some people don't reference 1984 and still make completely valid arguments. Our governments show a complete lack of regard for human rights and international law, and then people are suprised that someone might be scared of them? Is this really so hard to follow? The whole 'anyone who cares about their right to privacy is a conspiracy theoring wielding nutjob' thing is getting so, so old. Its just a back stop when you can't come up with a real argument.
I'm concerned about my privacy. Very concerned.
I was talking about the mindless followers of Julian Assange and not people in general.
There is a one-way implication going on here. You are trying to make my argument invalid by assuming I meant an equivalence when I didn't.
Now explain to me the logic where Sweden goes from being a freedom of speech "Heaven" to a puppet country of the USA not respecting human rights.
As I said: the same arguments against Sweden would have been valid in 2010 when Julian Assange came here to start a Swedish base for wikileaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
