|
On August 17 2012 22:14 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:12 fleeze wrote: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...
yeah he SAID it and he did the comparison anyway
On August 17 2012 22:15 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:12 fleeze wrote: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?
you said the us has the capability of getting bin laden killed in pakistan and said it should be even easier to get someone like Assange out of UK.
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?
apples and oranges.
|
On August 17 2012 22:10 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:01 No_Roo wrote: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. 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.
Do you not understand the implications of accusations of terrorism in the US? Suspension of habeas corpus, you don't go to civilian court.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the second time on this page you've invoked an argument from ignorance. For some one who keeps mentioning logic, you don't seem too bothered to consider yours.
|
Personally I wouldn't put much stock into anything Joe Biden says, lol.
|
On August 17 2012 22:22 DannyJ wrote:
Personally I wouldn't put much stock into anything Joe Biden says, lol.
then look at bradley manning and you can see why assange has such a paranoia about the us.
|
Why can't they do the investigation without assange? If it's a case of he said, she said then it obviously needs to be thrown out... I apologize for not searching, but is there anything backing up these two women's accusations?
|
On August 17 2012 22:24 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:22 DannyJ wrote:
Personally I wouldn't put much stock into anything Joe Biden says, lol. then look at bradley manning and you can see why assange has such a paranoia about the us.
I disagree with this. Bradley is getting what he deserves. If he was truly a whistleblower then I'd agree, but all he did was leak a metric fuck ton of data. Some of it was bad by coincidence alone, not because he specifically exposed it.
|
On August 17 2012 22:24 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:22 DannyJ wrote:
Personally I wouldn't put much stock into anything Joe Biden says, lol. then look at bradley manning and you can see why assange has such a paranoia about the us.
Whos comparing apples and oranges now?
How is a United States Army Soldier who personally leaked state secrets to an outside party the same as JA? Manning would be in a massive pile of shit in any nation in the world...
|
On August 17 2012 22:27 Risen wrote:
Why can't they do the investigation without assange? If it's a case of he said, she said then it obviously needs to be thrown out... I apologize for not searching, but is there anything backing up these two women's accusations?
not enough to charge him and get him to court yet.
thus they want to "interview" him on the subject. the problem is they want to do this in sweden.
they could easily charge him in absence and even convict him in absence. at least after german laws this is normal.
after he is sentenced there wouldn't be much specualtion about IF he even did it.
but they refuse to go this way which is pretty strange at least.
Whos comparing apples and oranges now?
How is a United States Army Soldier who personally leaked state secrets to an outside party the same as JA? Manning would be in a massive pile of shit in any nation in the world...
true, you got me there, they are not exactly comparable. assange is an autralian citizen and manning US army member.
they got in common that they revealed the wrongdoings of a (his in manning's case) country.
what they have in common is that they are both just the messengers being shot while the people that did the bad things they revealed remain unharmed.
and that the US government is still trying to manipulate Manning to accuse Assange of inciting him so they can base the extradition to the US on an actual law.
|
On August 17 2012 22:19 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:10 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 22:01 No_Roo wrote: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. 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. Do you not understand the implications of accusations of terrorism in the US? Suspension of habeas corpus, you don't go to civilian court. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the second time on this page you've invoked an argument from ignorance. For some one who keeps mentioning logic, you don't seem too bothered to consider yours.
In terms of justified belief/unbelief, absence of evidence IS actually evidence of absence.
|
On August 17 2012 22:34 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:27 Risen wrote:
Why can't they do the investigation without assange? If it's a case of he said, she said then it obviously needs to be thrown out... I apologize for not searching, but is there anything backing up these two women's accusations? not enough to charge him and get him to court yet. thus they want to "interview" him on the subject. the problem is they want to do this in sweden. they could easily charge him in absence and even convict him in absence. at least after german laws this is normal. after he is sentenced there wouldn't be much specualtion about IF he even did it. but they refuse to go this way which is pretty strange at least.
No what's pretty strange is that before these charges came up Sweden is a super good place according to Assange. After these charges are filed it's the most corrupt place ever.
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 22:41 DwD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:34 fleeze wrote:On August 17 2012 22:27 Risen wrote:
Why can't they do the investigation without assange? If it's a case of he said, she said then it obviously needs to be thrown out... I apologize for not searching, but is there anything backing up these two women's accusations? not enough to charge him and get him to court yet. thus they want to "interview" him on the subject. the problem is they want to do this in sweden. they could easily charge him in absence and even convict him in absence. at least after german laws this is normal. after he is sentenced there wouldn't be much specualtion about IF he even did it. but they refuse to go this way which is pretty strange at least. No what's pretty strange is that before these charges came up Sweden is a super good place according to Assange. After these charges are filed it's the most corrupt place ever.
the pirate bay case was afterwards wasn't it? (not sure)
also sweden got a new government afterwards if i remember corretly.
feel free to correct me as it's your country and i don't know the specifics.
i still like most swedish people btw. population has not much to do with the government. in democracys anyway 
|
On August 17 2012 22:42 eldanmk wrote:
oh shit
Epic first post.
Am I right in assuming, that you only read the title? (^_^)
welcome to TL. XD
|
On August 17 2012 22:38 Gumbi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:19 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 22:10 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 22:01 No_Roo wrote: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. 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. Do you not understand the implications of accusations of terrorism in the US? Suspension of habeas corpus, you don't go to civilian court. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the second time on this page you've invoked an argument from ignorance. For some one who keeps mentioning logic, you don't seem too bothered to consider yours. In terms of justified belief/unbelief, absence of evidence IS actually evidence of absence.
No, the belief is not justified. He is drawing the conclusion that the US has no intention to extradite, from the claim that the US has not declared any intention to extradite. This is obvously an argument from ignorance because he has not accounted for the possiblitiy that the US has concealed their intention to extradite. His reasoning is fallacious.
|
On August 17 2012 22:19 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:10 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 22:01 No_Roo wrote: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. 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. Do you not understand the implications of accusations of terrorism in the US? Suspension of habeas corpus, you don't go to civilian court. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the second time on this page you've invoked an argument from ignorance. For some one who keeps mentioning logic, you don't seem too bothered to consider yours.
Absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence? You are aware that the entire system of law works entirely on the premise that no evidence = no act, right?
As for the accusation of terrorism, that isn't true. If I call someone else a terrorist, he does not lose any rights. The process of being deemed a terrorist is a great deal more complex than "The vice-president says!"
Mind you, a vice-president with a reputation for saying stupid stuff.
|
On August 17 2012 22:15 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:14 DannyJ wrote:On August 17 2012 22:12 fleeze wrote: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:
[quote]
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... yeah he SAID it and he did the comparison anyway Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:15 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 22:12 fleeze wrote: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:
[quote]
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? you said the us has the capability of getting bin laden killed in pakistan and said it should be even easier to get someone like Assange out of UK. Show nested quote +
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?
apples and oranges.
You even prove that I never said any of these things.
Then again, you seem intent on demanding that reality adapts to what you want, so I doubt you care much for what I actually say and will just insist that I say what you demand me to say.
Not really a discussion when you decide what I do and do not say. It would help if you read what I said and replied to what I said, rather than a fictional image that you have of me.
|
On August 17 2012 22:46 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:41 DwD wrote:On August 17 2012 22:34 fleeze wrote:On August 17 2012 22:27 Risen wrote:
Why can't they do the investigation without assange? If it's a case of he said, she said then it obviously needs to be thrown out... I apologize for not searching, but is there anything backing up these two women's accusations? not enough to charge him and get him to court yet. thus they want to "interview" him on the subject. the problem is they want to do this in sweden. they could easily charge him in absence and even convict him in absence. at least after german laws this is normal. after he is sentenced there wouldn't be much specualtion about IF he even did it. but they refuse to go this way which is pretty strange at least. No what's pretty strange is that before these charges came up Sweden is a super good place according to Assange. After these charges are filed it's the most corrupt place ever. the pirate bay case was afterwards wasn't it? (not sure) also sweden got a new government afterwards if i remember corretly. feel free to correct me as it's your country and i don't know the specifics. i still like most swedish people btw. population has not much to do with the government. in democracys anyway
Pirate bay was in 2008. We got our new government in 2006. So no and no.
|
FYI, our constitution prohibits Sweden from extraditing him to countries who has the death penalty for the crimes they're accused of, so we aren't really allowed to give him to the US.
Also, regarding not giving any guarantees to decline extradition to the US, it basically works like this: The Supreme Court cannot preemptively give any guarantees (== decision) for a case which they haven't tried, and the government cannot give any guarantees that they would stop any extradition decision by the SC because then they would undermine and circumvent the Supreme Court which they aren't allowed to do.
On another note, as it seems to be one persons word versus another, it's unlikely that it will go to trial, and even if it should, it's quite unlikely that it'll be a conviction.
|
On August 17 2012 22:51 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:38 Gumbi wrote:On August 17 2012 22:19 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 22:10 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 22:01 No_Roo wrote: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. 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. Do you not understand the implications of accusations of terrorism in the US? Suspension of habeas corpus, you don't go to civilian court. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the second time on this page you've invoked an argument from ignorance. For some one who keeps mentioning logic, you don't seem too bothered to consider yours. In terms of justified belief/unbelief, absence of evidence IS actually evidence of absence. No, the belief is not justified. He is drawing the conclusion that the US has no intention to extradite, from the claim that the US has not declared any intention to extradite. This is obvously an argument from ignorance because he has not accounted for the possiblitiy that the US has concealed their intention to extradite. His reasoning is fallacious.
Now that I agree with. The former, blanket statement I do not. You see, there is evidence to suggest that the US would do such a thing - indirect evidence, what they've done previously etc
|
On August 17 2012 22:51 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:19 No_Roo wrote:On August 17 2012 22:10 zalz wrote:On August 17 2012 22:01 No_Roo wrote: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. 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. Do you not understand the implications of accusations of terrorism in the US? Suspension of habeas corpus, you don't go to civilian court. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the second time on this page you've invoked an argument from ignorance. For some one who keeps mentioning logic, you don't seem too bothered to consider yours. Absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence? You are aware that the entire system of law works entirely on the premise that no evidence = no act, right? As for the accusation of terrorism, that isn't true. If I call someone else a terrorist, he does not lose any rights. The process of being deemed a terrorist is a great deal more complex than "The vice-president says!" Mind you, a vice-president with a reputation for saying stupid stuff.
What relevance would this have at all? I'm making a statement about your fallacious logic, not some mystery legal system.
Any way, you're still wrong for legal systems that provide "guilty"/"not guilty" verdicts as opposed to "innocent". The null hypothesis in a such a court case is "not guilty", evidence must be provided to move away from the null hypothesis. Absense of evidence doesn't make you "innocent", you're left right where you started, "not guilty".
Also, suspicion of terrorism is an arrestable offense in both the UK and US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
