|
On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good.
Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that.
They didn't.
Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves?
Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK?
The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US.
"We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden."
There is no logic to this extradition theory.
Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by.
I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks.
I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr.
|
On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves? Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK? The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US. "We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden." There is no logic to this extradition theory. Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by. I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks. I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr.
Assange has a strong case for political assylum from US extradition. (Where he has been threatened repeatedly by high ranking politicians.)
Assange has a weaker case for political assylum from Swedish extradition. (Where he must establish a reasonable fear of eventual US extradition.)
The strength of assange's political assylum case is irrelevant if he is in custody and cannot walk into a foriegn embasy. (which would happen once he is detained in sweden)
If the goal of the US was to extradite Assange, they would be foolish to attempt to do so while he is free in the UK, and could just walk into an embasy, so no, it would not be easier for them to do this directly from the UK.
|
On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves?
if you actually informed yourself before posting, you could have come to the conclussion that it's easier to extradite someone from sweden to the US than it is from the UK. there are enough articles stating this fact.
Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK?
they didn't. i guess you aren't into media or you would have probably heard of the US senators marking him as a traitor and enemy some even wanted him killed like bin laden. they haven't charged him yet, because he broke no US law and isn't even a citizen. so they continue to torture bradley manning untill he accuses assange.
they need time and a country that has low extradition laws for this to work.
The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US.
"We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden."
There is no logic to this extradition theory.
the pirate bay should help you evaluate the sweden/US relationsship. just look at peter sunde.
Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by.
it is about QUESTIONING him. there is no reason to question him IN sweden. they can continue to actually charge him to get him to court in sweden. but this is NOT the case here.
I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks.
I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr.
that's your opinion with nothing to back it up. who cares if you don't like assange? he likes to be in the media that's true but you conclussion of him trying to martyr are your own and there is nothing backing them up.
instead, it's the other way around actually. the US/UK/Sweden are making him a martyr through violation of their own laws for the sake of QUESTIONING him.
|
On August 17 2012 08:18 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:12 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2012 06:50 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 06:47 Mandalor wrote:On August 17 2012 06:40 archonOOid wrote:I pity Mr Assange as he is a really despicable human being. He has the balls to act like a dirt-bag with Swedish women but has no respect for the consequences. For those who criticize the Swedish court system take a look at the independent, The World Justice Project, shows that Sweden is one of the best justice systems in the world. He fears that Sweden will hand him over to the USA but Sweden doesn't hand over people to countries where death penalties are allowed. 2011 Report p96 in report/p94 in PDF I suggest you read up some on the case. I'm not a conspiracist and I don't think Assange really is that important, but that sexual assault case is ridiculous. He had consensual unsafe sex with two women. Somehow that's a crime in sweden. I don't think he necessarily fears death (well maybe he does, I don't know), I'd personally fear to NOT be prosecuted by US law but by Guantanamo style prosecution since the US could very well make a case of Assange being a terrorist in their eyes. dude, for one, having sex with someone who is asleep doesn't really pass the bar as consensual. but i think this debate has been beaten to death already. Guilty until proven innocent, amirite? yea, that means putting yourself at the disposal of the justice system as well so he's kind of making it hard for that process to take its course if you follow my point
Aside from the fact that the justice system is hideously stacked against accused rapists, the justice system is also pretty stacked against individuals who have embarassed powerful world governments.
|
On August 17 2012 17:57 Pandemona wrote:
... 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. ...
It's like there is a rapist, who tells his victim:
"Hey listen, this may sound strange to you because I'm raping you, but I will protect you from the bad things that could happen to you, let me track you via gps, and give me access to your emails and let me listen to all the calls you make. Oh yea, and give me a key to your apartment too. You see, I don't intend to harm you, I make your life a lot safer!"
|
On August 17 2012 21:31 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves? Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK? The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US. "We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden." There is no logic to this extradition theory. Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by. I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks. I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr. Assange has a strong case for political assylum from US extradition. (Where he has been threatened repeatedly by high ranking politicians.) Assange has a weaker case for political assylum from Swedish extradition. (Where he must establish a reasonable fear of eventual US extradition.) The strength of assange's political assylum case is irrelevant if he is in custody and cannot walk into a foriegn embasy. (which would happen once he is detained in sweden) If the goal of the US was to extradite Assange, they would be foolish to attempt to do so while he is free in the UK, and could just walk into an embasy, so no, it would not be easier for them to do this directly from the UK.
He walked into a UK police station and was detained for 10 days.
You telling me they can grab targets from Pakistani mountain hills, but walking up to a holding cell in the UK with a warrant was too much of an effort?
Again, this is just complete nonesense. None of this extradition story makes any sense when subjected to even the slightest inspection.
Can nobody give a single coherent reason? One that doesn't intentionally emits parts of the story in order to make it sound more plausible?
The extradition theory is just nonesense. It flies right in the face of all facts.
|
On August 17 2012 21:43 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:31 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves? Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK? The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US. "We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden." There is no logic to this extradition theory. Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by. I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks. I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr. Assange has a strong case for political assylum from US extradition. (Where he has been threatened repeatedly by high ranking politicians.) Assange has a weaker case for political assylum from Swedish extradition. (Where he must establish a reasonable fear of eventual US extradition.) The strength of assange's political assylum case is irrelevant if he is in custody and cannot walk into a foriegn embasy. (which would happen once he is detained in sweden) If the goal of the US was to extradite Assange, they would be foolish to attempt to do so while he is free in the UK, and could just walk into an embasy, so no, it would not be easier for them to do this directly from the UK. He walked into a UK police station and was detained for 10 days. You telling me they can grab targets from Pakistani mountain hills, but walking up to a holding cell in the UK with a warrant was too much of an effort? Again, this is just complete nonesense. None of this extradition story makes any sense when subjected to even the slightest inspection. Can nobody give a single coherent reason? One that doesn't intentionally emits parts of the story in order to make it sound more plausible? The extradition theory is just nonesense. It flies right in the face of all facts.
The UK cannot satisfy mutually exclusive extradition requests, they can't extradite him to both sweden AND the US, he was detained for the purpose of extradition to sweden. The US has to wait for that process to complete, interupting it (and further the UK allowing the preemption of extradition) would cause all sorts of international problems, the least of which being the UK violating the european extradition conventions.
|
On August 17 2012 21:43 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:31 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves? Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK? The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US. "We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden." There is no logic to this extradition theory. Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by. I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks. I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr. Assange has a strong case for political assylum from US extradition. (Where he has been threatened repeatedly by high ranking politicians.) Assange has a weaker case for political assylum from Swedish extradition. (Where he must establish a reasonable fear of eventual US extradition.) The strength of assange's political assylum case is irrelevant if he is in custody and cannot walk into a foriegn embasy. (which would happen once he is detained in sweden) If the goal of the US was to extradite Assange, they would be foolish to attempt to do so while he is free in the UK, and could just walk into an embasy, so no, it would not be easier for them to do this directly from the UK. He walked into a UK police station and was detained for 10 days. You telling me they can grab targets from Pakistani mountain hills, but walking up to a holding cell in the UK with a warrant was too much of an effort? Again, this is just complete nonesense. None of this extradition story makes any sense when subjected to even the slightest inspection. Can nobody give a single coherent reason? One that doesn't intentionally emits parts of the story in order to make it sound more plausible? The extradition theory is just nonesense. It flies right in the face of all facts.
well, you are obviously missing common sense if you compare Pakistan to the UK and Bin Laden to Assange.
|
On August 17 2012 21:36 fleeze wrote:
if you actually informed yourself before posting, you could have come to the conclussion that it's easier to extradite someone from sweden to the US than it is from the UK. there are enough articles stating this fact.
That just isn't true. The UK is more than willing to cooperate, and the UK/US relation is far closer than Sweden. An extradition request would not only be more succesful in the UK, it would be easier too.
That is the whole crux of the problem, and pretending like that isn't the case is easy, but it doesn't make it true.
Considering some of you are accusing the US of quite some outlandish things, it also seems peculiar that they seem to hellbend on following protocol.
they didn't. i guess you aren't into media or you would have probably heard of the US senators marking him as a traitor and enemy some even wanted him killed like bin laden. they haven't charged him yet, because he broke no US law and isn't even a citizen. so they continue to torture bradley manning untill he accuses assange.
they need time and a country that has low extradition laws for this to work.
Individual senators are hardly representative of US policy. There are even socialist senators, does that mean the US is socialist?
The US never requested him to be extradited. The US government has made no move or shown any intention to make such a move. You can quote individuals, but that is just what they are, individuals. They don't reveal any hidden intentions, just the desires of the individuals.
Also, torturing Bradley Manning is an outlandish statement that has nothing to back it up. There is no proof of any kind that he is being tortured, certainly not to provide a confession by torture.
Low extradition laws? What on earth are you even talking about...
the pirate bay should help you evaluate the sweden/US relationsship. just look at peter sunde.
None of that seemed to matter when the Assange-followers declared Sweden to be the most divine of places.
Now, with no significant changes, it has changed overnight into a hellhole of American cronies.
It just goes to show the lack of internal logic. People don't base their ideas on the facts, they shape their facts to match the stories, creating very peculiar conspiracy stories that don't add up to the real world.
it is about QUESTIONING him. there is no reason to question him IN sweden. they can continue to actually charge him to get him to court in sweden. but this is NOT the case here.
Yes there is. If they consider him guilty, they want to arrest him. If he is in the UK, or a foreing embassy, they can't do that.
"I'll let you interrogate me, but I'll decide whether I'm guilty or not."
Yeah, seems like a real fair deal.
that's your opinion with nothing to back it up. who cares if you don't like assange? he likes to be in the media that's true but you conclussion of him trying to martyr are your own and there is nothing backing them up.
instead, it's the other way around actually. the US/UK/Sweden are making him a martyr through violation of their own laws for the sake of QUESTIONING him.
Logic and reason back it up.
The extradition story makes no logical sense.
Meanwhile, him being guilty and trying to weasle out of it makes perfect sense.
I don't claim that it is the absolute truth, only a thorough investigation will prove that, but at least it makes sense when placed next to the facts.
The problem with the extradition theory is that you need to re-write reality in order to make it work. It doesn't match up to the facts.
|
Uhm I'm quite sure if he came to Sweden he wouldn't even be detained. He would go to an interview and then leave. You don't sit in jail for 3 months while waiting for a trial for a small molestation charge.
I think this is his only real option at the moment. He has to come to Sweden no matter what. After the interview he can just jump on a plane to Ecuador but there is no way for him to get to Ecuador from the UK. Unless he somehow manages to smuggle himself onto a plane which is super unlikely.
It's quite clear to me at least that Assange probably feels he did something wrong and won't just fight it in court. Why would he preach about Sweden being so great and all, place his servers here, come here on his own will(before this happened) but all of a sudden we are the slaves of the US and will do anything they tell us.
He wasn't afraid of being extradited from Sweden before these charges came up. Yet he had already blown the whistle on the US stuff.
|
On August 17 2012 21:46 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:43 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:31 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves? Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK? The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US. "We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden." There is no logic to this extradition theory. Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by. I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks. I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr. Assange has a strong case for political assylum from US extradition. (Where he has been threatened repeatedly by high ranking politicians.) Assange has a weaker case for political assylum from Swedish extradition. (Where he must establish a reasonable fear of eventual US extradition.) The strength of assange's political assylum case is irrelevant if he is in custody and cannot walk into a foriegn embasy. (which would happen once he is detained in sweden) If the goal of the US was to extradite Assange, they would be foolish to attempt to do so while he is free in the UK, and could just walk into an embasy, so no, it would not be easier for them to do this directly from the UK. He walked into a UK police station and was detained for 10 days. You telling me they can grab targets from Pakistani mountain hills, but walking up to a holding cell in the UK with a warrant was too much of an effort? Again, this is just complete nonesense. None of this extradition story makes any sense when subjected to even the slightest inspection. Can nobody give a single coherent reason? One that doesn't intentionally emits parts of the story in order to make it sound more plausible? The extradition theory is just nonesense. It flies right in the face of all facts. well, you are obviously missing common sense if you compare Pakistan to the UK and Bin Laden to Assange.
I wasn't talking about Bin Laden, nor was I comparing the UK to Pakistan.
Simply put, I pointed out that the US can do some rather complex things, but for some reason is unable to file basic paperwork.
|
On August 17 2012 21:46 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:43 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:31 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves? Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK? The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US. "We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden." There is no logic to this extradition theory. Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by. I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks. I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr. Assange has a strong case for political assylum from US extradition. (Where he has been threatened repeatedly by high ranking politicians.) Assange has a weaker case for political assylum from Swedish extradition. (Where he must establish a reasonable fear of eventual US extradition.) The strength of assange's political assylum case is irrelevant if he is in custody and cannot walk into a foriegn embasy. (which would happen once he is detained in sweden) If the goal of the US was to extradite Assange, they would be foolish to attempt to do so while he is free in the UK, and could just walk into an embasy, so no, it would not be easier for them to do this directly from the UK. He walked into a UK police station and was detained for 10 days. You telling me they can grab targets from Pakistani mountain hills, but walking up to a holding cell in the UK with a warrant was too much of an effort? Again, this is just complete nonesense. None of this extradition story makes any sense when subjected to even the slightest inspection. Can nobody give a single coherent reason? One that doesn't intentionally emits parts of the story in order to make it sound more plausible? The extradition theory is just nonesense. It flies right in the face of all facts. The UK cannot satisfy mutually exclusive extradition requests, they can't extradite him to both sweden AND the US, he was detained for the purpose of extradition to sweden. The US has to wait for that process to complete, interupting it (and further the UK allowing the preemption of extradition) would cause all sorts of international problems, the least of which being the UK violating the european extradition conventions.
What?
You are the people that say Sweden and the two women are making this whole thing up on behalf of the US.
So the story is now:
The US wants to capture Assange
They order Sweden to fabricate charges so they can extradite him from the UK.
They are now waiting for Assange to go to Sweden, where they will then extradite him to the US, instead of just not ordering their pawns in Sweden so they could file directly to the UK.
I asked people to clear it up, not add more contrived and illogical nonesense on top of it.
This is just getting more and more ridiculous. At this point, there isn't any logic left in the story.
|
On August 17 2012 21:54 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +they didn't. i guess you aren't into media or you would have probably heard of the US senators marking him as a traitor and enemy some even wanted him killed like bin laden. they haven't charged him yet, because he broke no US law and isn't even a citizen. so they continue to torture bradley manning untill he accuses assange.
they need time and a country that has low extradition laws for this to work. Individual senators are hardly representative of US policy. There are even socialist senators, does that mean the US is socialist? .
The high profile politicians that have explicitly threatened him include Joe Biden, the vice president, and Barack Obama, the president. People that high up tend to have comparatively high influence on these sorts of things.
What?
You are the people that say Sweden and the two women are making this whole thing up on behalf of the US.
So the story is now:
The US wants to capture Assange
They order Sweden to fabricate charges so they can extradite him from the UK.
They are now waiting for Assange to go to Sweden, where they will then extradite him to the US, instead of just not ordering their pawns in Sweden so they could file directly to the UK.
I asked people to clear it up, not add more contrived and illogical nonesense on top of it.
This is just getting more and more ridiculous. At this point, there isn't any logic left in the story.
Sounds like an argument from personal incredulity to me.
|
|
|
Not that I doubt that even sweden could cave in to US requests, but why was Assange so happy and willing to set up shop there prior to these charges if it has "always" been known that Sweden is America's lap dog?
|
On August 17 2012 22:01 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:54 zalz wrote:they didn't. i guess you aren't into media or you would have probably heard of the US senators marking him as a traitor and enemy some even wanted him killed like bin laden. they haven't charged him yet, because he broke no US law and isn't even a citizen. so they continue to torture bradley manning untill he accuses assange.
they need time and a country that has low extradition laws for this to work. Individual senators are hardly representative of US policy. There are even socialist senators, does that mean the US is socialist? . The high profile politicians that have explicitly threatened him include Joe Biden, the vice president, and Barack Obama, the president. People that high up tend to have comparatively high influence on these sorts of things. Show nested quote +What?
You are the people that say Sweden and the two women are making this whole thing up on behalf of the US.
So the story is now:
The US wants to capture Assange
They order Sweden to fabricate charges so they can extradite him from the UK.
They are now waiting for Assange to go to Sweden, where they will then extradite him to the US, instead of just not ordering their pawns in Sweden so they could file directly to the UK.
I asked people to clear it up, not add more contrived and illogical nonesense on top of it.
This is just getting more and more ridiculous. At this point, there isn't any logic left in the story. Sounds like an argument from personal incredulity to me.
Joe Biden called him a high-tech terrorist.
Barack Obama didn't call him anything.
That the US government isn't in love with the idea of their files being leaked, isn't the same as them ordering extraditions or assassinations.
It has become rather obvious that the US government doesn't care about Assange. They don't try to get him extradited, they don't try to get him killed.
In this case, inaction speaks louder than words.
|
On August 17 2012 21:56 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:46 fleeze wrote:On August 17 2012 21:43 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:31 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves? Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK? The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US. "We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden." There is no logic to this extradition theory. Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by. I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks. I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr. Assange has a strong case for political assylum from US extradition. (Where he has been threatened repeatedly by high ranking politicians.) Assange has a weaker case for political assylum from Swedish extradition. (Where he must establish a reasonable fear of eventual US extradition.) The strength of assange's political assylum case is irrelevant if he is in custody and cannot walk into a foriegn embasy. (which would happen once he is detained in sweden) If the goal of the US was to extradite Assange, they would be foolish to attempt to do so while he is free in the UK, and could just walk into an embasy, so no, it would not be easier for them to do this directly from the UK. He walked into a UK police station and was detained for 10 days. You telling me they can grab targets from Pakistani mountain hills, but walking up to a holding cell in the UK with a warrant was too much of an effort? Again, this is just complete nonesense. None of this extradition story makes any sense when subjected to even the slightest inspection. Can nobody give a single coherent reason? One that doesn't intentionally emits parts of the story in order to make it sound more plausible? The extradition theory is just nonesense. It flies right in the face of all facts. well, you are obviously missing common sense if you compare Pakistan to the UK and Bin Laden to Assange. I wasn't talking about Bin Laden, nor was I comparing the UK to Pakistan. Simply put, I pointed out that the US can do some rather complex things, but for some reason is unable to file basic paperwork.
did Assange kill somebody like Bin Laden? Did he attack US territory? is Pakistan a western country?
how about you stop comparing apples with oranges?
well i'm done discussing with someone who wants reasons but only applies his own strange logic.
|
On August 17 2012 22:04 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:56 DwD wrote:
Uhm I'm quite sure if he came to Sweden he wouldn't even be detained. He would go to an interview and then leave. You don't sit in jail for 3 months while waiting for a trial for a small molestation charge.
I think this is his only real option at the moment. He has to come to Sweden no matter what. After the interview he can just jump on a plane to Ecuador but there is no way for him to get to Ecuador from the UK. Unless he somehow manages to smuggle himself onto a plane which is super unlikely.
It's quite clear to me at least that Assange probably feels he did something wrong and won't just fight it in court. Why would he preach about Sweden being so great and all, place his servers here, come here on his own will(before this happened) but all of a sudden we are the slaves of the US and will do anything they tell us.
He wasn't afraid of being extradited from Sweden before these charges came up. Yet he had already blown the whistle on the US stuff. The swedish government have always been the US's bitches, i dont know why people are saying that this has never been said before, do people not remember everything piratebay, IPRED, FRA, egyptian torture Agiza/Alzery, -related? This has "always" been known. Theres no chance in hell i would trust sweden if i was in JA's place, the accusation on him are a joke considering all the facts we have, and the whole case would've been laughed at by the officials if it was anyone else, whos non-infamous.
Except that everyone who likes Wikileaks was screaming the exact opposite when he moved Wikileaks to Sweden.
In between that moment and today, the Swedish government went from paradise to hell on earth. Nothing big enough to warant such a major shift in perception.
It's a clear example of retro-actively changing the facts.
People were going crazy over how great Sweden was, and now it's always been this bad? The only reason for that change is because the current situation demands a different perspective on Sweden, because if they didn't change their perspective, they would have to acknowledge that something is very wrong with mister Assange.
|
On August 17 2012 22:12 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:56 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:46 fleeze wrote:On August 17 2012 21:43 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:31 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves? Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK? The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US. "We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden." There is no logic to this extradition theory. Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by. I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks. I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr. Assange has a strong case for political assylum from US extradition. (Where he has been threatened repeatedly by high ranking politicians.) Assange has a weaker case for political assylum from Swedish extradition. (Where he must establish a reasonable fear of eventual US extradition.) The strength of assange's political assylum case is irrelevant if he is in custody and cannot walk into a foriegn embasy. (which would happen once he is detained in sweden) If the goal of the US was to extradite Assange, they would be foolish to attempt to do so while he is free in the UK, and could just walk into an embasy, so no, it would not be easier for them to do this directly from the UK. He walked into a UK police station and was detained for 10 days. You telling me they can grab targets from Pakistani mountain hills, but walking up to a holding cell in the UK with a warrant was too much of an effort? Again, this is just complete nonesense. None of this extradition story makes any sense when subjected to even the slightest inspection. Can nobody give a single coherent reason? One that doesn't intentionally emits parts of the story in order to make it sound more plausible? The extradition theory is just nonesense. It flies right in the face of all facts. well, you are obviously missing common sense if you compare Pakistan to the UK and Bin Laden to Assange. I wasn't talking about Bin Laden, nor was I comparing the UK to Pakistan. Simply put, I pointed out that the US can do some rather complex things, but for some reason is unable to file basic paperwork. did Assange kill somebody like Bin Laden? Did he attack US territory? is Pakistan a western country? how about you stop comparing apples with oranges? well i'm done discussing with someone who wants reasons but only applies his own strange logic.
Huh. He just said he wasn't making those comparisons...
|
On August 17 2012 22:12 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 21:56 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:46 fleeze wrote:On August 17 2012 21:43 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:31 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 21:07 zeru wrote:On August 17 2012 21:05 zalz wrote: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. What doesnt make sense is that they refuse to promise protection from extradition if there is no intent to extradite him. But there obviously is, otherwise they would just give him protection from it. Quite simple really. Swedens government and justice system reputation when influenced by politics isnt exactly good. Again, if the plan was to extradite Assange, they would have an easier time doing that in the UK, and the US had plenty of time to do that. They didn't. Why? Do they like to make it hard on themselves? Again, I understand you can pick at small fractions and yell that it doesn't make sense, but if you believe that extradition is the goal of the US, why did they decide to ignore him while he was in the UK? The whole thing is even more strange in that people praised Sweden for being so pro-freedom of speech, but suddenly everyone acts like it is obviously a puppet regime for the US. "We are at war with Sweden. We have always been at war with Sweden." There is no logic to this extradition theory. Meanwhile, the government has plenty of reasons not to engage in a police investigation on the grounds of the suspect, none that require a global conspiracy aimed at destroying an indvidual that even plenty of wikileak supporters have begun to be annoyed by. I used to be all aboard the Assange-train, but it is getting increasingly obvious that he is probably guilty and just ruining the reputation of Wikileaks. I believe in holding governments responsible, I believe in Wikileaks, but Assange is just a giant clown that is using his public image to paint himself a martyr. Assange has a strong case for political assylum from US extradition. (Where he has been threatened repeatedly by high ranking politicians.) Assange has a weaker case for political assylum from Swedish extradition. (Where he must establish a reasonable fear of eventual US extradition.) The strength of assange's political assylum case is irrelevant if he is in custody and cannot walk into a foriegn embasy. (which would happen once he is detained in sweden) If the goal of the US was to extradite Assange, they would be foolish to attempt to do so while he is free in the UK, and could just walk into an embasy, so no, it would not be easier for them to do this directly from the UK. He walked into a UK police station and was detained for 10 days. You telling me they can grab targets from Pakistani mountain hills, but walking up to a holding cell in the UK with a warrant was too much of an effort? Again, this is just complete nonesense. None of this extradition story makes any sense when subjected to even the slightest inspection. Can nobody give a single coherent reason? One that doesn't intentionally emits parts of the story in order to make it sound more plausible? The extradition theory is just nonesense. It flies right in the face of all facts. well, you are obviously missing common sense if you compare Pakistan to the UK and Bin Laden to Assange. I wasn't talking about Bin Laden, nor was I comparing the UK to Pakistan. Simply put, I pointed out that the US can do some rather complex things, but for some reason is unable to file basic paperwork. did Assange kill somebody like Bin Laden? Did he attack US territory? is Pakistan a western country? how about you stop comparing apples with oranges? well i'm done discussing with someone who wants reasons but only applies his own strange logic.
Why do you insist on miss-reading what I said?
I even clearly pointed out that I didn't compare the two, and I never did.
The point was that the US is supposedly capable of these super complex operations to get to people that cross them, but Assange is sitting in a cell for 10 days in the UK of all places, and what?
Did some intern forget to fax the paperwork?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
