|
On August 17 2012 17:25 Cosmos wrote:
Death penalty – Many countries, such as Australia, Canada, Macao,[2] and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out.
Sweden couldn't send Julian to the USA due to europeans agreements.
you're not making sense. They could very well send him just to get life imprisoned.
He was already labeled as a terrorist and an enemy combatants by american politician (wasn't it the vice president and the leader of congress?) which means they can do whatever the fuck they want with him without due legal process anyways. Including murdering him or sending him to Guantanamo. If you don't believe this is true, then you are deluded.
|
On August 17 2012 17:06 Mylin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 16:54 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote:
"Firstly, you don't get to negotiate or condition things if you are wanted in a criminal investigation.
Well that's demonstrably false. I can't think of a country off of the top of my head where local law prevents prosecutors from negotiating deals with people under criminal investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain I can, Sweden.
Oh, how unfortunate. That restriction was all the justification Ecuador needed to claim the moral high ground and deny Sweden Assange.
|
On August 17 2012 17:29 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 17:25 Cosmos wrote:
Death penalty – Many countries, such as Australia, Canada, Macao,[2] and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out.
Sweden couldn't send Julian to the USA due to europeans agreements. you're not making sense. They could very well send him just to get life imprisoned. He was already labeled as a terrorist and an enemy combatants by american politician (wasn't it the vice president and the leader of congress?) which means they can do whatever the fuck they want with him without due legal process anyways. Including murdering him or sending him to Guantanamo. If you don't believe this is true, then you are deluded.
Yeah, unfortunately the US pretty well on record at this point for suspending habeas corpus, including the current and previous administration. They could attempt to extradite him a charge that does not carry the death penalty (and refuse to guarantee he wouldn't just be charged with something else). Or more likely just consider him an enemy combatant and never show him a judge, which many current US politicians have already accused him of being.
|
On August 17 2012 17:25 Mylin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 17:08 Groog wrote:On August 17 2012 16:23 Mylin wrote:On August 17 2012 16:13 Groog wrote:On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 15:31 JustPassingBy wrote:On August 17 2012 14:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On August 17 2012 14:21 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 14:16 Elenar wrote:Thats so intresting, thanks for the link Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions. That truly would be the ultimate irony -__- Doesnt even seem too unlikely. Then why didn't Sweden tell the Ecuadorean embassy that? I mean the Ecaduorean embassy only have assange its protection because they explicitely asked both Sweden and Great Britain about a guarantee where Assange cannot be handed over to the US. This is what 'one-one-one' said a couple of pages back: "Firstly, you don't get to negotiate or condition things if you are wanted in a criminal investigation. Sweden gives no such guarantee as that is not how they play. Secondly, who would make such a promise anyways? I don't know if a politician can decide that or that it would be considered an attempt to interfere with the justice system. We are _very_ strict about not allowing politics and politicians to affect the legal systems over here. Neither can a judge make such a promise as such an extradition request would have to be handled by an independent court. Thirdly, as long as JA is in Sweden under the issued arrest warrant it is not even up to Sweden to make such a call. There are very strict regulations controlling what we can and can't do in such a case. We are definitely not allowed to extradite him to the US without the consent of the UK. Thus it is effectively the UK calling the shots meaning that the US has to get them and NOT Sweden to extradite Julian Assange. The most likely thing that would happen is that Mr Assange would be told to leave Sweden after a trial and potential punishment since he doesn't have a residence permit to stay here." Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening. Can you sound more like Sven who believes everything the Swedish government tells him? When the government wants to do shady stuff they will avoid the justice system. The justice system is already involved in this which severely limits the ability of the government to intervene which is what Euronyme has been arguing. You do realize the second Assange is arrested that the US will bring up charges of espionage to have him extradited? Which would have to go through the justice system, either way politics will not influence this.
Uhm, no. The US has special systems in place to try people for espionage, he will never get a public trial.
|
On August 17 2012 17:30 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 17:06 Mylin wrote:On August 17 2012 16:54 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote:
"Firstly, you don't get to negotiate or condition things if you are wanted in a criminal investigation.
Well that's demonstrably false. I can't think of a country off of the top of my head where local law prevents prosecutors from negotiating deals with people under criminal investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain I can, Sweden. Oh, how unfortunate. That restriction was all the justification Ecuador needed to claim the moral high ground and deny Sweden Assange.
The idea is that a prosecutor is supposed to prosecute you if they think they can convince a court you've commited a crime.
When allowed, prosecutors can to easily use the threat of court and XX years in prison to coerce people into signing plea bargains and polish their convinction rates for my taste.
But plea bargains are not strictly good or bad, its just another discussion.
|
On August 17 2012 17:41 Mylin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 17:30 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 17:06 Mylin wrote:On August 17 2012 16:54 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote:
"Firstly, you don't get to negotiate or condition things if you are wanted in a criminal investigation.
Well that's demonstrably false. I can't think of a country off of the top of my head where local law prevents prosecutors from negotiating deals with people under criminal investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain I can, Sweden. Oh, how unfortunate. That restriction was all the justification Ecuador needed to claim the moral high ground and deny Sweden Assange. The idea is that a prosecutor is supposed to prosecute you if they think they can convince a court you've commited a crime. When allowed, prosecutors can to easily use the threat of court and XX years in prison to coerce people into signing plea bargains and polish their convinction rates for my taste. But plea bargains are not strictly good or bad, its just another discussion.
I agree, plea bargaining is a complex issue and I don't have a strong stance on if it is mostly good or bad. In this case however, the restriction against plea bargaining in sweden had a cost to sweden, Ecuador used it as a justification for granting assylum.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Here you go again with "trust", is that your only argument? You can't trust the people that you voted for? Mate. You voted for maybe two people in the past 4 years. I haven't voted for every single member of the government. Nobody has. It's stupid to think otherwise. Even if I trusted the two people I voted for, there's still about half a million of people I did not vote for. It's a stupid argument.In the UK, yes. In the US and many other countries it's perfectly legal to fire people for whatever reason possible. Besides, it's not like it's hard to just pressure somebody into quitting by making them do shitty jobs and never giving them a break (which is not illegal). And there's no law in not hiring somebody because they called you a cunt, so there's still that to consider.Sigh.
No it's not my only argument, it's the only argument of point i can make in beleiving in the Goverment. Im sure there is lots of times in history where you can look back and think, well the Goverment did good here, they handled that well, they have done the right move here. I can with the UK Goverment, but like in everything in the world, only the shit gets highlighted, like you constantly produce.
And why would i care about another country? I want my country to be safe, i want my Goverment to lead the intitive to help protect people by being able to get data by any means nescesarry to help track down criminals and fugativies.
Also if you have not read my other debate with another user in this thread along with quoting yours, we came to a mutual agreement that the best way to probably go about the tracking down the criminals is by going through justical system and having Police/Agents going through them before they start tracking browsers history phone calls and texts etc, it makes sense.
It. Was. An. Example. Of. Governments. Information. Landing. In. The. Wrong. Hands.
Got it? I even said it. "Here's an example". God. It hurts to argue with you. It really does. You write up essays making no points whatsoever and only discuss unrelated things or things you "thought you read" when they weren't there at all. You have yet to make a single point besides "come on, trust the government!". It's getting rather tiresome.Let that sink in for a second. 50 people. In the course of 10 years. 50 people.
Do you have any idea how insignificant that is?
I'll give you a good idea. Every year, 5 people die from vending machines falling on top of them, and 10 people die from bees attacking them. This means that in the past 10 years, the kill count of terrorism is as high as vending machines, and bees have double said kill count. Yet you're willing to give up your rights to fight terrorism. It's ridiculous.
Terrorism. Is. Not. A. Threat.
Yes it was an example and i was just pointing out the flaws in it, what did you want me to say, that i agree with it? And it was all the goverments fault for keeping a census and getting invaded by the Germans?
Yes people die, no question, but when people die and it's not there fault and it COULD OF BEEN PREVENTED, then there is an issue to address. As were on about Terrorism in the UK i will let you stand by your quote, of it's just 50people and there is numerous other things that have killed as more. But when were talking about preventing these deaths by being more transparent to the Goverment i still think the point your raising is invalid. Anything that can be prevented to stop people dieing because the Goverment has more access to Phone calls/Personal information and Texts is a good thing, and thus should let happen. Terrorism is out there, there has been numerous plots stopped this year alone and you saw how nervous everyone was in the Olmypics in London, and well it was not reported in the press but it was by the local Terroritoral Army the other night on my local news, that over 100 people were stopped with weapons in there bags from Knives to large Machettes'. It's happening all the time, you can't deny that.
Thinking otherwise is simply stupid. The reason you think it's a threat is because you watch too much television. "Stopping terrorism" would save nearly nobody. If you truly wanted to save people, you should get smoking banned, or increase taxes on fast food so people eat healthier, or help people stuck in poverty more. http://ftc.gov/opa/2011/11/privacysettlement.shtmCharges from the FTC, Facebook settled in court.
Stopping Terrorism would save nearly nobody, are you for real? So if you stopped Terrorism, how many peoples lives would be saved from suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghan each year? Come on seriously? Stop looking through some idiotic bullshit view of the world and look at more than just idiotic things google tells you please. Terrorism isn't just Muslims blowing up the Twin Towers ffs, it's the Norwegian massacre, the god knows how many car bombs in Iraq, the suicide bombers in Afghan and Syria.
I don't understand people like you. You blurt out this unresearched bullshit constantly. Why? It's not like this is well hidden. Googling "facebook charges" has this as its first result. Is it really that hard to do a little research before blurting out the first thing that you think of?
They were charged which i didn't know about as it was not plastered in the media? I didn't know about that, probably because i don't use Facebook as i think it's rather pointless to tell all your friends what your doing every day of the week :S And also i don't care who can see what city im from or my birthdate, the only thing you can see on privacy information, unless your retarded enough to put your mobile phone number on it. But i will give you this one and say no i did not know about this 3rd party apps that facebook allowed to go into devolpment on there site, which these 3rd party apps decided to sell information on which maybe facebook didn't know they were doing, or did who knows, but they paid up and changed the rules. Whether or not they are still doing it (i doubt it now surely?) is another question.
|
On December 07 2010 20:27 stenole wrote:
I don't think there is anything problematic about a wanted person in Sweden getting arrested in the UK. I have a lot of confidence in the Swedish and British justice systems.
Sorry but LOL.
|
dudes, you guys keep blaming the USA solely, i mean, they DO have ALOT to do with this BUT other nations want this guy down as well. This guy has info on many of the "power" nations UK, USA, China, Japan, so they are all working together and ofc USA is providing the resources.
|
On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say.
It always involves violence and drugs? Never a threat of violence? If someone is afraid for their life, would you expect them to fight back or comply with what their assailant wants? And then when they have no bruises you tell them it wasn't rape? Oh it wasn't robbery because you handed over your wallet without a fight, you just gave it to him so it's fine right?
|
On August 17 2012 18:32 leveller wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. It always involves violence and drugs? Never a threat of violence? If someone is afraid for their life, would you expect them to fight back or comply with what their assailant wants? And then when they have no bruises you tell them it wasn't rape? Oh it wasn't robbery because you handed over your wallet without a fight, you just gave it to him so it's fine right?
He was talking about his own very personal definition of rape. That obv. has nothing to do with JA, or the Swedish law. It would make sense to focus on the definition of rape that the Swedish law gives, if we could find it and are interested. Your post is like a Youtube comment to a video called "My personal top 10 video games of all time" that starts with: "I don't agree...". It doesn't make sense.
|
On August 17 2012 18:32 leveller wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. It always involves violence and drugs? Never a threat of violence? If someone is afraid for their life, would you expect them to fight back or comply with what their assailant wants? And then when they have no bruises you tell them it wasn't rape? Oh it wasn't robbery because you handed over your wallet without a fight, you just gave it to him so it's fine right?
That is not what i have written.
|
On August 17 2012 18:30 Diabulus wrote:
dudes, you guys keep blaming the USA solely, i mean, they DO have ALOT to do with this BUT other nations want this guy down as well. This guy has info on many of the "power" nations UK, USA, China, Japan, so they are all working together and ofc USA is providing the resources.
Conspiracies, crazy conspiracies!
You believe there wasn't human on the moon as well?
If the UK wanted Assange dead then I am sure they would do something to him while he was in their costudy and not send him to Sweden.
Sweden ain't exactly Guantanamo.
|
On August 17 2012 20:10 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 18:30 Diabulus wrote:
dudes, you guys keep blaming the USA solely, i mean, they DO have ALOT to do with this BUT other nations want this guy down as well. This guy has info on many of the "power" nations UK, USA, China, Japan, so they are all working together and ofc USA is providing the resources. Conspiracies, crazy conspiracies! You believe there wasn't human on the moon as well? If the UK wanted Assange dead then I am sure they would do something to him while he was in their costudy and not send him to Sweden. Sweden ain't exactly Guantanamo.
I don't necessarily think they want him dead, but I think they probably want him just as badly or close to it.
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 20:33 zeru wrote:
I think Bradley Manning, and sweden refusing to guarantee protection from extradition is motivation enough for JA not to risk anything. It does indeed not need to have anything to do with fear of death penalty.
I dont think any sensible person would do anything different than from what hes doing.
It still doesn't make sense.
Why wouldn't the UK just have thrown him on a plane to the US? They are far more likely to cooperate with that request than Sweden.
Meanwhile, the US never bothered to request him during all the time he was in the UK, only to brew some half-baked plot to ship him to Sweden, to then request him?
Approaching the situation logically, the only thing that really makes sense is that he is guilty and he knows he is, so he is trying to get out of it by turning into a political drama.
The extradition theory just doesn't make sense and has no evidence to back it up, I don't understand why people even keep talking about it.
|
whenever somebody is inconvenient he gets charged with rape or somethnig like that...
doesnt that seem suspicious to the world?
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 16:56 mdb wrote:
Where is the Australian goverment in all this?
They don't want to help Assange at all. It's not about deferring to another country, it's about their reluctance to aid someone who reveals federal secrets. As far as our government is concerned, keeping Assange out of their lives is better than looking bad by not protecting him.
|
On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 20:33 zeru wrote:
I think Bradley Manning, and sweden refusing to guarantee protection from extradition is motivation enough for JA not to risk anything. It does indeed not need to have anything to do with fear of death penalty.
I dont think any sensible person would do anything different than from what hes doing. It still doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't the UK just have thrown him on a plane to the US? They are far more likely to cooperate with that request than Sweden. Meanwhile, the US never bothered to request him during all the time he was in the UK, only to brew some half-baked plot to ship him to Sweden, to then request him? Approaching the situation logically, the only thing that really makes sense is that he is guilty and he knows he is, so he is trying to get out of it by turning into a political drama. The extradition theory just doesn't make sense and has no evidence to back it up, I don't understand why people even keep talking about it.
US would not sucessfully extradite him while he is free to walk into an embasy, getting assylum would have been much easier. If they wait until he is detained in sweden, they can attempt to extradite him from there while he is in custody and can't run to an embasy.
Assange receiving assylum was less likely this way because he has to present a much more complicated scenario for why he needed assylum now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
