|
On August 17 2012 01:59 Eufouria wrote:
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.
It's some form of molestation accusations. Straight from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault
"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body"
|
On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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 ?
One of your old ministers wants to disagree if you know what I mean.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
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.
For the 10% that ruin our lives doing countless crimes and all the other illegal crap, the policing of the world is having to go this far to find out what and who is breaking the law, and what and who are plotting to do stuff (terrorist sense)
To have a safer world for people to "invade my privacy" i could not care less, im all for them invading anything they want of mine i have nothing to hide, feel free, especially if it helps catch the 10% that is ruining it for the rest of us.
And back to my point, it's not just one "complaint" it's 2 women saying he miss treated them and raped them, that to me doesn't sound right, and these two are the only one's who have come forward!
A wealth of hostile material attacking the two women has appeared on the internet since August, when they took their complaints to the police. Their right to anonymity has been abandoned online, where enraged bloggers have uploaded dossiers of personal photographs, raked through their CVs and tweets, and accused them of orchestrating a CIA-inspired honeytrap operation.
You reall think thats fair as well? Some nerds getting mad that there leader fucked up and the reason he got arrested in the first place was because they complained to the authorities about rape!
I dont care what he has done producing this or that documents, i think it's good to see whats going on, but when accusations of rape come into the equasion and running around the world taking Asalyum here there and everywhere is a bit silly and a waste of everyones time.
|
Wasn't it not long ago that everyone was saying Assange was gay? Or am I thinking of Bradley Manning (thought it was both)? Seems fishy to me, but yeah, I agree that the UK would be an odd place for him to pick to hide out.
|
On August 17 2012 02:04 one-one-one 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. 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.
Ok I apologise, I'm afraid there are many, many people on Teamliquid who just parrot the 'you guys are crazy' line whenever anyone questions the government's increased role in our lives. So I'm sorry.
I just don't understand why the Swedish wouldn't question him here. Any ideas?
And to the poster above, you might not care about your privacy and personal liberty but other people do. I don't think claiming these measures protect us against the 10% of bad people you talk about justifys government intervention in our lives at all. Living in the U.K you know we're the most photograped and filmed people in the entire World, and with our governments track record that most certainly does not make me feel comfortable.
|
The sole fact that Sweden refuses to question Asssange while making the promise not to extradate him to the US should ring a bell to anyone.
|
On August 17 2012 02:11 Trowa127 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:04 one-one-one wrote: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. 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. Ok I apologise, I'm afraid there are many, many people on Teamliquid who just parrot the 'you guys are crazy' line whenever anyone questions the government's increased role in our lives. So I'm sorry. I just don't understand why the Swedish wouldn't question him here. Any ideas?
For the obvious reason ...
It is not only about questioning him in the sense of asking questions that he then answers.
What if they want to arrest him based on the answers he gives? Will he just walk out with them from the embassy and go to Sweden?
As an accused you don't get to make any demands or condition things. Not even over country borders within the EU as we have decided that countries,in the general case, shall extradite wanted criminals to other EU countries upon request from an attorney.
|
So he is stuck in the embassy and wants to get to Ecuador? What if a helicopter would come and pick him up and fly him away to international waters or something? Could be a decent action movie atleast.
|
On August 17 2012 02:17 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:11 Trowa127 wrote:On August 17 2012 02:04 one-one-one wrote: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. 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. Ok I apologise, I'm afraid there are many, many people on Teamliquid who just parrot the 'you guys are crazy' line whenever anyone questions the government's increased role in our lives. So I'm sorry. I just don't understand why the Swedish wouldn't question him here. Any ideas? For the obvious reason ... It is not only about questioning him in the sense of asking questions that he then answers. What if they want to arrest him based on the answers he gives? Will he just walk out with them from the embassy and go to Sweden? As an accused you don't get to make any demands or condition things. Not even over country borders within the EU as we have decided that countries,in the general case, shall extradite wanted criminals to other EU countries upon request from an attorney.
But if they charge him, if they have real evidence and a real case against him then the confusion regarding the circumstances of the extradition no longer exist. If they actually have a real, reasoned case, then the Ecaudorians surely don't have a reason to continue protecting him? At the moment as you mentioned, he hasn't been charged with anything.
|
On August 17 2012 01:58 La1 wrote:
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!
The fact of the matter is that wikileaks is mainly just boring wastes of time that do little more than just embarrass certain diplomats/ countries or just reinforce things people knew anyway.
|
On August 17 2012 02:09 Pandemona 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. For the 10% that ruin our lives doing countless crimes and all the other illegal crap, the policing of the world is having to go this far to find out what and who is breaking the law, and what and who are plotting to do stuff (terrorist sense) To have a safer world for people to "invade my privacy" i could not care less, im all for them invading anything they want of mine i have nothing to hide, feel free, especially if it helps catch the 10% that is ruining it for the rest of us.
http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/
Commentators often attempt to refute the nothing-to-hide argument by pointing to things people want to hide. But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. By accepting this assumption, we concede far too much ground and invite an unproductive discussion about information that people would very likely want to hide. As the computer-security specialist Schneier aptly notes, the nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty "premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong." Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy.
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 02:20 Kevan wrote:
So he is stuck in the embassy and wants to get to Ecuador? What if a helicopter would come and pick him up and fly him away to international waters or something? Could be a decent action movie atleast.
Certain vehicles are generally afforded diplomatic immunity by the host country - Question is if Ecuador has any.. It's not a huge country, having an ambassador vehicle is by no means a guarantee. And it is probably questionable if Britain is willing to give them one 
|
On August 17 2012 02:14 LunaSea wrote:
The sole fact that Sweden refuses to question Asssange while making the promise not to extradate him to the US should ring a bell to anyone.
But that has an actual logic to it.
Of course you aren't going to question someone in a foreign embassy. What if he tells them that he did commit the crimes? What are the police officers going to do? They can't arrest him.
Meanwhile, nobody has been able to give a valid reason as to what Sweden's part is in this story. It simply cannot be about extradition, it doesn't make any logical sense.
|
On August 17 2012 02:20 Trowa127 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:17 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 02:11 Trowa127 wrote:On August 17 2012 02:04 one-one-one wrote: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. 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. Ok I apologise, I'm afraid there are many, many people on Teamliquid who just parrot the 'you guys are crazy' line whenever anyone questions the government's increased role in our lives. So I'm sorry. I just don't understand why the Swedish wouldn't question him here. Any ideas? For the obvious reason ... It is not only about questioning him in the sense of asking questions that he then answers. What if they want to arrest him based on the answers he gives? Will he just walk out with them from the embassy and go to Sweden? As an accused you don't get to make any demands or condition things. Not even over country borders within the EU as we have decided that countries,in the general case, shall extradite wanted criminals to other EU countries upon request from an attorney. But if they charge him, if they have real evidence and a real case against him then the confusion regarding the circumstances of the extradition no longer exist. If they actually have a real, reasoned case, then the Ecaudorians surely don't have a reason to continue protecting him? At the moment as you mentioned, he hasn't been charged with anything.
Well, my take is that the legal process hasn't gone that far yet. The pending crime charges might be held back by the fact that they haven't done all the necessary questioning of the suspect.
It shouldn't be a hook-up for you people. The important thing is that there is a European arrest warrant out for him that was found to be valid and perfectly legal by the highest court in Britain.
For all we know he might be charged with the alleged crimes after the first interrogation.
|
It seems so obvious that they aren't going to question someone in a foreign embassy that is even located in a different nation. The interrogation would be completely meaningless. Assange should not be above the law, he should be extradited and questioned like anyone else would be.
I highly doubt Sweden would extradite him to the US. Particularly because the crimes he is confused with are of a political nature.
He might be charged with sexual assault. Because in some countries that is still a big deal, even if you are famous.
|
On August 17 2012 02:30 ELA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:20 Kevan wrote:
So he is stuck in the embassy and wants to get to Ecuador? What if a helicopter would come and pick him up and fly him away to international waters or something? Could be a decent action movie atleast. Certain vehicles are generally afforded diplomatic immunity by the host country - Question is if Ecuador has any.. It's not a huge country, having an ambassador vehicle is by no means a guarantee. And it is probably questionable if Britain is willing to give them one
Who cares about diplomatic immunity, they wouldn't shoot down a helicopter over London would they? That would make for a great scene in the movie though.
|
The fact that Britain is even contemplating storming the Ecuadorian embassy is horrific. I don't think people understand just how much of a precedent this makes.
'Britain doesn't recognize Assange's asylum status'
'Assange's diplomatic immunity won't be recognized in the UK'
'in Sweden no official charges have been put forward against Assange'
Doesn't this ring any alarm bells? anyone? If Serbia stormed the UK embassy in Belgrade to capture a convicted rapist who happens to have a British passport I wonder what would happen?
Apparently it's "unjust and oppressive" to send Shrien Dewan, a man who is 90% guilty of ordering the assassination of his wife to South Africa straight away, but I guess its OK to storm a foreign embassy to arrest and extradite an innocent man and send him to the US to receive the death penalty because he dared to expose corruption, dared to be a good journalist
|
On August 17 2012 02:30 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:14 LunaSea wrote:
The sole fact that Sweden refuses to question Asssange while making the promise not to extradate him to the US should ring a bell to anyone. Of course you aren't going to question someone in a foreign embassy. What if he tells them that he did commit the crimes? What are the police officers going to do? They can't arrest him..
He was asking swedish authorities to interview him while he was still under house arrest in UK. They refused.
|
On August 17 2012 01:51 zalz wrote:
That sounds a bit far-fetched.
Are people honestly afraid that if he goes to Sweden he is going to get tortured?
I don't think it has to do with torture, but more with how international law isn't always respected, even in Sweden. US pressure would probably end up obtaining his extradition.
On August 17 2012 01:52 one-one-one wrote:
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.
He actually was already in Sweden in 2010, but his job and residency permit were refused, which is probably one reason he fears he might easily be handed to US authorities if he sets foot there.
On the other hand, as I said before, under UK-US conventions extraditions are only possible when there is a warrant both in the UK and in the US, when there hasn't even been a trial yet, simply because it's a very blurry territory. As a reminder, Wikileaks merely put the data before the public's eyes, but they didn't take part in the theft.
Isn't it that hard to understand that because of legal differences, it may be hard to proceed to an extradition from the UK than from Sweden? I don't believe that Assange has been shitting on that country, he simply fears a probable extradition because the Sweden-US extradition convention is different and because he holds a different legal status there (convicted felon I guess?).
Now, I repeat my question : do you really believe that all that noise was just so that Assange can avoid paying the 1000€ he might have to pay if he is proved guilty in Sweden? That sounds much more like a conspiracy, making him effectively one of the most powerful men in the world; a man able to pay hundred of thousands to avoid... paying a 1000€ bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
