|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On August 17 2012 02:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:09 Pandemona 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. 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/Show nested quote +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.
Well that is some shocking article lmao. I still am all for anything like ID Cards, or mass CCTV camera's because unlike some i have experinced crime and nothing been done about it because not enough CCTV camera's on or anything, from silly things such as my bike being stolen or (not me my auntie) having her car hit whilst she was parked in a car park and the driver drove off and left her to pay the bill which was not her fault.
To the bottom quote, you really think the police have enough man power to come after you for swearing in public or saying "fuck the police" or something as petty as that? I don't think so..
|
And this is on-topic how?
If you read the article you'll find that the circumstances are diametrically different.
The man is being held in a Serbian prison - Assange is hiding in an embassy.
Serbia is not a member of the EU while both Sweden and the UK are.
Thus the issue of extradition is more complicated and will take more time.
Now you should be able to explicitly write a post explaining why it makes sense for the Swedish police to go to Serbia and question him.
|
On August 17 2012 02:45 Pandemona wrote:
Well that is some shocking article lmao. I still am all for anything like ID Cards, or mass CCTV camera's because unlike some i have experinced crime and nothing been done about it because not enough CCTV camera's on or anything, from silly things such as my bike being stolen or (not me my auntie) having her car hit whilst she was parked in a car park and the driver drove off and left her to pay the bill which was not her fault.
That reminds me of the Walmart cases where all sorts of crime was happening in their parking lots across the country despite the cameras. Turns out the cameras weren't even on and were only there to deter shoplifing. Discover motive and you understand where priority lies. The invasion of privacy we needlessly suffer isn't about keeping us safe.
|
On August 17 2012 02:48 one-one-one wrote:And this is on-topic how? If you read the article you'll find that the circumstances are diametrically different. The man is being held in a Serbian prison - Assange is hiding in an embassy. Serbia is not a member of the EU while both Sweden and the UK are. Thus the issue of extradition is more complicated and will take more time. Now you should be able to explicitly write a post explaining why it makes sense for the Swedish police to go to Serbia and question him.
Assange was for more than 2 years under house arrest in UK.
Swedish authorities evidently have absolutely no problem to send their people to do the questioning (even for a murder). It's normal procedure and can even happen through a phone or a video call, has nothing to do with EU.
|
On August 17 2012 02:53 accela wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:48 one-one-one wrote:And this is on-topic how? If you read the article you'll find that the circumstances are diametrically different. The man is being held in a Serbian prison - Assange is hiding in an embassy. Serbia is not a member of the EU while both Sweden and the UK are. Thus the issue of extradition is more complicated and will take more time. Now you should be able to explicitly write a post explaining why it makes sense for the Swedish police to go to Serbia and question him. Assange was for more than 2 years under house arrest in UK. Swedish authorities evidently have absolutely no problem to send their people to do the questioning (even for a murder). It's normal procedure and can even happen through a phone or a video call, has nothing to do with EU.
The questioning in Serbia was done in order to get the extradition done. There is no need for it in this case because the extradition request has already been granted.
|
It is just an attempt to silence him, and a warning to the people who want to continue his work. People are so naive sometimes, it makes me face palm. Stop assuming the filthy rich people around the world who are in power have the same morality as the average person, they don't. Greed is the root of all evil. If you think all the people who are in power get in those positions because they just want to help the less fortunate and do whats right, then you've watched way to many Disney movies. The few leaders who get into positions of power that are genuine in wanting to help the people, whether it's through government, military, or just publicity, they are a tiny minority. Look through history and see what happens when genuinely good honest people rise to power and start getting results. See: marginalization, coercion, and if all else fails, assassination.
Not every single government in the world is as corrupt as the U.S. government, but those governments often make the mistake of trusting other governments to not be corrupt cesspools.
The internet is a thorn in the side of many people in power because it is interfering with the ability of the corrupt to influence public opinion with conventional media. Why do you think we've seen so many laws around the world attempting to give governments control and the power to censor or monitor the internet?
I realize there are those who are so blindly optimistic, naive, misinformed or just ignorant that they can't bring themselves to look at the actions of their leaders in an objective light. So they just assume people like me are nut jobs, it's easier to do that, than to accept the state and the future of humanity under such corrupt leadership.
However, once people do stop thinking under the assumption that their leaders are moral people, start being skeptical to everything whether it's what the government says or conspiracy theories, and start asking a lot of questions on their own. When they see how much information is withheld from the public and the poor excuses that are used as justifications for so many questionable acts. Things will become much clearer.
|
On August 17 2012 02:55 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:53 accela wrote:On August 17 2012 02:48 one-one-one wrote:And this is on-topic how? If you read the article you'll find that the circumstances are diametrically different. The man is being held in a Serbian prison - Assange is hiding in an embassy. Serbia is not a member of the EU while both Sweden and the UK are. Thus the issue of extradition is more complicated and will take more time. Now you should be able to explicitly write a post explaining why it makes sense for the Swedish police to go to Serbia and question him. Assange was for more than 2 years under house arrest in UK. Swedish authorities evidently have absolutely no problem to send their people to do the questioning (even for a murder). It's normal procedure and can even happen through a phone or a video call, has nothing to do with EU. The questioning in Serbia was done in order to get the extradition done. There is no need for it in this case because the extradition request has already been granted.
And the extradiction of Assange was about 'to face questioning about the allegations'. Again, he is not charged with anything. They could have just done the interview at UK.
|
All the Assange-bots are so lame and incredibly closed-minded. They are so caught up in their conspiracy theories that anything that happens to their hero is an injustice. Sweden have one of the best justice systems in the world, if not the best. Other than USA's direct enemies, we are the least likely country to do their dirty work. If we sent him over to USA it would be a huge outcry here, and considering the current (central/rightwing) government is in great danger of losing the next election, there's no way that they would risk it, since Asange-followers are left-wing traditionally.
If you think this case is weak, if anything, you can accuse the swedish feminists for making this into a bigger case than it is. The feminists have a really big voice in this country, and ppl listen, but that doesn't mean that justice doesn't win in the end.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation.
|
On August 17 2012 02:58 accela wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:55 Crushinator wrote:On August 17 2012 02:53 accela wrote:On August 17 2012 02:48 one-one-one wrote:And this is on-topic how? If you read the article you'll find that the circumstances are diametrically different. The man is being held in a Serbian prison - Assange is hiding in an embassy. Serbia is not a member of the EU while both Sweden and the UK are. Thus the issue of extradition is more complicated and will take more time. Now you should be able to explicitly write a post explaining why it makes sense for the Swedish police to go to Serbia and question him. Assange was for more than 2 years under house arrest in UK. Swedish authorities evidently have absolutely no problem to send their people to do the questioning (even for a murder). It's normal procedure and can even happen through a phone or a video call, has nothing to do with EU. The questioning in Serbia was done in order to get the extradition done. There is no need for it in this case because the extradition request has already been granted. And the extradiction of Assange was about 'to face questioning about the allegations'. Again, he is not charged with anything. They could have just done the interview at UK.
Ofcourse they can't. You don't interrogate suspects in other countries. Legally this would be worthless, it would also be illegal in many ways.
|
On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation.
He is not suspected of rape or molestation, that's just a matter of bad translations. It's about two cases of sexual misconduct and one case of sexual assault I belive.
It sounds like this is word against word between Assange and the women, and if he would just go to Sweden he could very well be cleared. And if not, they are not that serious charges. Sweden would not extradit him to US - it's against the law and it would make Sweden look very very bad internationally.
|
And folks, here is what happens when you fuck with the establishment. They will simply find a way to take you down and make you disappear for a long time
The charges against Assagne are so obviously bogus. They just 'happen' to pop up shortly after the Wikileaks break.
They are trying to make an example out of him, to everyone else who might have ideas. It happened before to whistleblowers. If you break the status-quo, you will get fucked over.
|
Poll: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden?No (61) 91% Yes (6) 9% 67 total votes Your vote: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Curious on people's opinions on this, given that US elite opinion is dead set against him, and many commentators here believe that those who leak "security" secrets should face the death penalty. Sweden is known for being a pretty neutral country, but as many here have pointed out, their behavior has been more than a little nonstandard/out of character in this particular case.
|
On August 17 2012 03:13 Breavman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. He is not suspected of rape or molestation, that's just a matter of bad translations. It's about two cases of sexual misconduct and one case of sexual assault I belive. It sounds like this is word against word between Assange and the women, and if he would just go to Sweden he could very well be cleared. And if not, they are not that serious charges. Sweden would not extradit him to US - it's against the law and it would make Sweden look very very bad internationally.
Why it would make look Sweden bad internationally? It would only look bad by some left-winged guys who are irrelevant. Other countries with power wouldn't care.
|
On August 17 2012 03:19 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:13 Breavman wrote:On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. He is not suspected of rape or molestation, that's just a matter of bad translations. It's about two cases of sexual misconduct and one case of sexual assault I belive. It sounds like this is word against word between Assange and the women, and if he would just go to Sweden he could very well be cleared. And if not, they are not that serious charges. Sweden would not extradit him to US - it's against the law and it would make Sweden look very very bad internationally. Why it would make look Sweden bad internationally? It would only look bad by some left-winged guys who are irrelevant. Other countries with power wouldn't care.
Ever since WW2 Sweden has taken pride in being the neutral country with high morals and an unbiased voice. (Quite stupidly in my opinion and certainly not always in accordance with the actions taken.) But giving away Assange would prove that Sweden are just American lap dogs, showing they can't be trusted and harming other diplomatic relations.
|
On August 17 2012 03:19 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:13 Breavman wrote:On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. He is not suspected of rape or molestation, that's just a matter of bad translations. It's about two cases of sexual misconduct and one case of sexual assault I belive. It sounds like this is word against word between Assange and the women, and if he would just go to Sweden he could very well be cleared. And if not, they are not that serious charges. Sweden would not extradit him to US - it's against the law and it would make Sweden look very very bad internationally. Why it would make look Sweden bad internationally? It would only look bad by some left-winged guys who are irrelevant. Other countries with power wouldn't care.
Political and military extraditions are expressly prohibited under the extradition treaty between Sweden and the United States, so by sending him to the US, they would be going against their own law. So they would look bad internationally, not only to left-winged people. In fact they would look bad to anyone that believe in the rule of law, which I think its quite a universal concept across most political parties.
Obviously you know what all countries with power would think about it as well as who would care!??! I think not!
|
On August 17 2012 03:19 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:13 Breavman wrote:On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. He is not suspected of rape or molestation, that's just a matter of bad translations. It's about two cases of sexual misconduct and one case of sexual assault I belive. It sounds like this is word against word between Assange and the women, and if he would just go to Sweden he could very well be cleared. And if not, they are not that serious charges. Sweden would not extradit him to US - it's against the law and it would make Sweden look very very bad internationally. Why it would make look Sweden bad internationally? It would only look bad by some left-winged guys who are irrelevant. Other countries with power wouldn't care.
Well it would mean that they do whatever USA tells them to do. Truth to be told i am kinda scared that this is the case atm 
|
On August 17 2012 03:02 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:58 accela wrote:On August 17 2012 02:55 Crushinator wrote:On August 17 2012 02:53 accela wrote:On August 17 2012 02:48 one-one-one wrote:And this is on-topic how? If you read the article you'll find that the circumstances are diametrically different. The man is being held in a Serbian prison - Assange is hiding in an embassy. Serbia is not a member of the EU while both Sweden and the UK are. Thus the issue of extradition is more complicated and will take more time. Now you should be able to explicitly write a post explaining why it makes sense for the Swedish police to go to Serbia and question him. Assange was for more than 2 years under house arrest in UK. Swedish authorities evidently have absolutely no problem to send their people to do the questioning (even for a murder). It's normal procedure and can even happen through a phone or a video call, has nothing to do with EU. The questioning in Serbia was done in order to get the extradition done. There is no need for it in this case because the extradition request has already been granted. And the extradiction of Assange was about 'to face questioning about the allegations'. Again, he is not charged with anything. They could have just done the interview at UK. Ofcourse they can't. You don't interrogate suspects in other countries. Legally this would be worthless, it would also be illegal in many ways.
Mutual Legal Assistance is clearly permitted by both Swedish and UK law. There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA (2007) 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute.
http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html#QUES
|
On August 17 2012 03:24 Breavman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:19 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 03:13 Breavman wrote:On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. He is not suspected of rape or molestation, that's just a matter of bad translations. It's about two cases of sexual misconduct and one case of sexual assault I belive. It sounds like this is word against word between Assange and the women, and if he would just go to Sweden he could very well be cleared. And if not, they are not that serious charges. Sweden would not extradit him to US - it's against the law and it would make Sweden look very very bad internationally. Why it would make look Sweden bad internationally? It would only look bad by some left-winged guys who are irrelevant. Other countries with power wouldn't care. Ever since WW2 Sweden has taken pride in being the neutral country with high morals and an unbiased voice. (Quite stupidly in my opinion and certainly not always in accordance with the actions taken.) But giving away Assange would prove that Sweden are just American lap dogs, showing they can't be trusted and harming other diplomatic relations.
Then why has the Swedish government refused to guarantee that they would not hand Assange over to the US authorities?
|
On August 17 2012 03:17 Zahir wrote:Poll: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden?No (61) 91% Yes (6) 9% 67 total votes Your vote: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Curious on people's opinions on this, given that US elite opinion is dead set against him, and many commentators here believe that those who leak "security" secrets should face the death penalty. Sweden is known for being a pretty neutral country, but as many here have pointed out, their behavior has been more than a little nonstandard/out of character in this particular case.
Well I think the death penalty seems a "bit" severe, but if his leaks put individuals at risk then he should certainly be held responsible for whatever happens to them.
As for people criticizing the women's testimonies, how tasteless can you be? There is such a huge double standard with crime and famous people and just because it's Assange does not mean he gets a free pass. From the sounds of it the women were both rather young and something like this can be really troubling for teenagers.
Also, grow up. Its Sweden ffs. It would look awful for them and the usa if Assange suddenly disappears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
