|
On August 17 2012 22:53 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 22:15 fleeze wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. 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.
ok, just for the fun of it i'm explaining it to you. i'm reffering to this quote:
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?
1. The US has no law to get an extradition for Assange at the moment. this is why they want to hold him in a place where he can't hide (i think the ecuadorian embassy is still ok, since they know where he is and that he can't leave).
2. The US only does those "super complex operations" in countries that are not strong enough to do anything. Pakistan complained about the violation of their sovereingnity after the Bin Laden killing. did anyone care about it? no because it's fucking pakistan where everyone thinks it's corrupt anyway. now try to apply the same to the UK.
3. The reason they were after Bin Laden is attacking the american country and killing many people. compare that to what Assange has done. and now you think they would apply the same methods for a convicted murderer and for a whistleblower?
in short: no, nobody forgot the paperwork. they are still at it. but they need a legal excuse to get him to the US as long as he is in a sovereign country like UK otherwise UK would lose it's face.
|
Of course there is a big media campaign going on in Sweden to make their country look less bad. Of course they are going to defame him and put him in a rapist frame, it's sad how many people think an embassy should be raided because a man had consensual sex without a condom, charges that were brought up magically after a certain country's war-crimes had been uncovered by the same man. One of those women has connections to said country's intelligence agencies and tweeted the following day 'oh what a lovely morning'... it's sad
Saying Sweden isn't sucking american dicks is stupid. Sweden is not Cuba
This is costing British taxpayers 50,000 pounds a day. 50k a day to break international law, storm a country's embassy to arrest an Australian citizen because he put his penis against a woman he had just had sex with... and deport him to a country where he isn't formally charged with anything. Good job!
|
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess.
|
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law?
|
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.
Nope, this rule can only applied in a scientific method. There's no such thing as a justified belief.
|
On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law?
Sweden isn't a country without prostitutes, but it's illegal to visit them. Rich and powerful men sometimes have the idea they can get away with anything they want, so they are not above suspicion.
Anyway he is not suspected of assaulting the women. More like behaving like an asshole in a way that possibly crosses the line of what's legal.
Here is the Swedish law on sexual crimes if your'e interested. Go to chapter 6.
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/15/36/d74ceabc.pdf
Edit: this translation may lack some recent amendments but it was the best source that google gave me.
|
On August 17 2012 23:23 Kukaracha 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. Nope, this rule can only applied in a scientific method. There's no such thing as a justified belief.
No such thing as a justified belief? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification
|
On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law?
No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there.
And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US.
|
On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US.
We might not be corrupted but we have no problem handing over people to the americans without due process. Not that I think Assange would be hurled off since he has so many eyes on him.
|
On August 17 2012 23:59 Gumbi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 23:23 Kukaracha wrote: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. Nope, this rule can only applied in a scientific method. There's no such thing as a justified belief. No such thing as a justified belief? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification
From your own link :
Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs.
Also, attemp to justify is not justification.
|
On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US.
Please stop being naive, you sound like a politician.
Every country in existence is corrupt at its core, its only that country like Sweden have higher quality citizens, politicians that steal more smartly and more money from centuries of employing slave labor and stealing natural resources from half the world.
Don't confuse "civilized, rich and liberal" with " not corrupt".
I do agree that the current Swedish government will receive to much backlash if they gave him to the US.
But if the justice system find him guilty for "rape" than that can't really be blamed on politicians and the judges don't really give a shit... after he sends 5 years in prison, who knows ? can they give him to the US than ?
Honestly, wikileaks is active with or without him and people don't really give a shit, the US troops are assholes and the politicians thieves, so what ? The people stupid enough not to have realized this by now likely don't care and the people that care about this don't vote anyway.
To be honest i don't believe the FBI really wants to get him just as a "revenge" for proving how incompetent the data protection branch of US is.
|
On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US.
Sweden has a history of handing over people to the US. CIA picked up two men from Egypt in Sweden and the proceeded to fly them over to Egypt and proceeded to torture the fuck out of them (that is if you belive their story).
|
On August 18 2012 00:43 MaYuu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US. Sweden has a history of handing over people to the US. CIA picked up two men from Egypt in Sweden and the proceeded to fly them over to Egypt and proceeded to torture the fuck out of them (that is if you belive their story).
Yes this happened, but it's been a huge deal afterwards. And maybe it would have been even bigger if the responsible minister wasn't murdered and then more or less proclaimed as a saint, thus impossible to criticize.
It also was a political decision, an operation under the radar which Assange can never be.
|
On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess.
The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit...
|
On August 18 2012 05:45 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess. The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit...
Authorities at the national level..... also known as the girls' attorney.. -_-'
On August 18 2012 00:43 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US. Please stop being naive, you sound like a politician. Every country in existence is corrupt at its core, its only that country like Sweden have higher quality citizens, politicians that steal more smartly and more money from centuries of employing slave labor and stealing natural resources from half the world. Don't confuse "civilized, rich and liberal" with " not corrupt". I do agree that the current Swedish government will receive to much backlash if they gave him to the US. But if the justice system find him guilty for "rape" than that can't really be blamed on politicians and the judges don't really give a shit... after he sends 5 years in prison, who knows ? can they give him to the US than ? Honestly, wikileaks is active with or without him and people don't really give a shit, the US troops are assholes and the politicians thieves, so what ? The people stupid enough not to have realized this by now likely don't care and the people that care about this don't vote anyway. To be honest i don't believe the FBI really wants to get him just as a "revenge" for proving how incompetent the data protection branch of US is.
Sorry what? Slave labour? Did I miss something? We've never employed slave labour, and never stolen natural resources.
The boom of the Swedish economy came from staying neutral in WW2 and exporting our resources to both sides, and also through good education leading to competitiveness. In the early 1900s Sweden was piss poor. Our only colony was one of the tiny islands in the caribbean, which was quickly taken over by the French.
This issue has nothing to do with corruption, as it doesn't need to be. USA can request him from the interpol (same as Sweden did) and he'll be handed over directly form the UK. That's easy.
Now instead your idea is that the evil USA hired two ladies to say that they were raped, bought up the Swedish justice system and independent judges and courts, and even the government itself in order to accomplish the same thing as a request to the UK or interpol. Of course that sounds much more reasonable.
The US doesn't have charges, and aren't even looking for him at the moment. What might happen is that they do file charges while he's under arrest in Sweden, which might lead to Sweden handing him over (after Assange's served his sentence here / been released) if the US promises not to enforce the death penalty or torture.
Where did you hear five years? Source on that please.
|
On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess.
The funny part is that its not entirely unrealistic that this is what will happend.
|
On August 18 2012 07:05 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:45 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess. The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit... Authorities at the national level..... also known as the girls' attorney.. -_-' Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 00:43 Aterons_toss wrote:On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US. Please stop being naive, you sound like a politician. Every country in existence is corrupt at its core, its only that country like Sweden have higher quality citizens, politicians that steal more smartly and more money from centuries of employing slave labor and stealing natural resources from half the world. Don't confuse "civilized, rich and liberal" with " not corrupt". I do agree that the current Swedish government will receive to much backlash if they gave him to the US. But if the justice system find him guilty for "rape" than that can't really be blamed on politicians and the judges don't really give a shit... after he sends 5 years in prison, who knows ? can they give him to the US than ? Honestly, wikileaks is active with or without him and people don't really give a shit, the US troops are assholes and the politicians thieves, so what ? The people stupid enough not to have realized this by now likely don't care and the people that care about this don't vote anyway. To be honest i don't believe the FBI really wants to get him just as a "revenge" for proving how incompetent the data protection branch of US is. Sorry what? Slave labour? Did I miss something? We've never employed slave labour, and never stolen natural resources. The boom of the Swedish economy came from staying neutral in WW2 and exporting our resources to both sides, and also through good education leading to competitiveness. In the early 1900s Sweden was piss poor. Our only colony was one of the tiny islands in the caribbean, which was quickly taken over by the French. This issue has nothing to do with corruption, as it doesn't need to be. USA can request him from the interpol (same as Sweden did) and he'll be handed over directly form the UK. That's easy. Now instead your idea is that the evil USA hired two ladies to say that they were raped, bought up the Swedish justice system and independent judges and courts, and even the government itself in order to accomplish the same thing as a request to the UK or interpol. Of course that sounds much more reasonable. The US doesn't have charges, and aren't even looking for him at the moment. What might happen is that they do file charges while he's under arrest in Sweden, which might lead to Sweden handing him over (after Assange's served his sentence here / been released) if the US promises not to enforce the death penalty or torture. Where did you hear five years? Source on that please.
I think that is just one of those weird anarchist "government is slavery" things that some people tend to bring up in any even remotely related thread here.
|
On August 18 2012 07:05 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:45 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess. The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit... Authorities at the national level..... also known as the girls' attorney.. -_-' Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 00:43 Aterons_toss wrote:On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US. Please stop being naive, you sound like a politician. Every country in existence is corrupt at its core, its only that country like Sweden have higher quality citizens, politicians that steal more smartly and more money from centuries of employing slave labor and stealing natural resources from half the world. Don't confuse "civilized, rich and liberal" with " not corrupt". I do agree that the current Swedish government will receive to much backlash if they gave him to the US. But if the justice system find him guilty for "rape" than that can't really be blamed on politicians and the judges don't really give a shit... after he sends 5 years in prison, who knows ? can they give him to the US than ? Honestly, wikileaks is active with or without him and people don't really give a shit, the US troops are assholes and the politicians thieves, so what ? The people stupid enough not to have realized this by now likely don't care and the people that care about this don't vote anyway. To be honest i don't believe the FBI really wants to get him just as a "revenge" for proving how incompetent the data protection branch of US is. Sorry what? Slave labour? Did I miss something? We've never employed slave labour, and never stolen natural resources. The boom of the Swedish economy came from staying neutral in WW2 and exporting our resources to both sides, and also through good education leading to competitiveness. In the early 1900s Sweden was piss poor. Our only colony was one of the tiny islands in the caribbean, which was quickly taken over by the French. This issue has nothing to do with corruption, as it doesn't need to be. USA can request him from the interpol (same as Sweden did) and he'll be handed over directly form the UK. That's easy. Now instead your idea is that the evil USA hired two ladies to say that they were raped, bought up the Swedish justice system and independent judges and courts, and even the government itself in order to accomplish the same thing as a request to the UK or interpol. Of course that sounds much more reasonable. The US doesn't have charges, and aren't even looking for him at the moment. What might happen is that they do file charges while he's under arrest in Sweden, which might lead to Sweden handing him over (after Assange's served his sentence here / been released) if the US promises not to enforce the death penalty or torture. Where did you hear five years? Source on that please.
We have never had slave labour? Haven't you heard the words "piga" or "dräng"?
|
On August 18 2012 05:45 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess. The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit...
No and no. Just simply no.
Authorities don't order the police to do shit. They can't do that.
Why is that? Because authorities are supposed to be independent from the legal system by design.
What happened was that someone brought the case to a prosecutor specialized in these types of crimes.
And you know what the good thing is? Prosecutors are also independent of each other as an anti-corruption safeguard.
All it takes is one single prosecutor to press charges.
It is very legit indeed.
Now. I am actually annoyed by all you people making judgments about corruption and the quality of the Swedish legal systems.
Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#2011_rankings
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/
Sweden has a 9.3 out of 10 in the corruption index, placing as #4 in the world with NZ as #1 with a 9.5 score.
In the democracy index Sweden scores 9.5 out of 10 also placing #4 with 0.3 points up to #1 country Norway.
The last page contains posts by people from the US, Serbia and Romania among others.
Where are your countries in the lists above?
Take a moment to think. Why does Sweden score so high in these indexes?
If you actually study how democracy works in Sweden (and also Denmark and Norway) you will find out that some things are actually fundamentally different than in your countries. Politicians having no power over the legal system for instance.
We certainly didn't score so high by being "the United States bitches" as some ignorant dude wrote.
Don't assume that the same scams, tricks and behind-the-scenes shenanigans that are used in your countries is used over here. I'm not saying we are completely corruption free of course, but I bet you'd be surprised how low corruption there is here if you stayed here for a couple of years.
I find it very ironic that some of you don't have the insight to understand why Sweden wont give any guarantees that Assange will not be extradited to the US.
The reason is that neither a politician nor any representative of the legal system can make such a guarantee.
A politician is not allowed to interfere with legal processes which,in turn, cannot be performed with predetermined constraints like that. This is why no person in the legal system can make such a promise either.
Ironic, isn't it.
But I admit that I do understand why less informed people could see the beginnings of a conspiracy here 
These facts coupled with the source protection that journalists enjoy here were the reasons why Sweden was the country of choice by Julian Assange for placing the Wiki-leaks servers.
Suddenly Mr Assange was caught with his pants down doing naughty stuff and there was a 180 degree turn in Mr Assange's view about Sweden regarding democracy stuff, freedom of speech and legal systems.
I am trying to be critical about everything I see and in this case I see two big, shiny buttocks belonging to a white boy with his pants down. Very embarrassing indeed. Very bad PR indeed.
You people see something else, blind in your support for Julian Assange you create theories that are not based on real-world facts and how things actually work here.
Sad that Wikileaks had to go down in the fall together with Mr Assange as he didn't think that going back to Sweden to face the allegations was something that he was obliged to do.
A fundamental flaw in the mentality of Assange followers and the likes is that it is universally accepted that there might be a government conspiracy behind anything. Tinfoil hats are on...
Anything can be bent to be shaped around this assumption.
Moreover, you people see yourself as illuminated citizens that have seen through the system and that your voice matters more because of it. Julian Assange must be on some kind of conspiracy enhancing steroids, while most of his followers
have this mentality more casually. Sloppy conspiracy theories all over the place ....
Because the government is corrupt you have a self awarded right to not follow laws and procedure.
People think it is OK to hack government websites and to make calls about legal processes that hasn't even started by questioning the motives behind these women's accusations.
"Anti-fascism will be the new Fascism"
edit:
man! I'm on fire in this thread.
Bring it on!
|
On August 18 2012 07:52 elhonko wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 07:05 Euronyme wrote:On August 18 2012 05:45 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess. The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit... Authorities at the national level..... also known as the girls' attorney.. -_-' On August 18 2012 00:43 Aterons_toss wrote:On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US. Please stop being naive, you sound like a politician. Every country in existence is corrupt at its core, its only that country like Sweden have higher quality citizens, politicians that steal more smartly and more money from centuries of employing slave labor and stealing natural resources from half the world. Don't confuse "civilized, rich and liberal" with " not corrupt". I do agree that the current Swedish government will receive to much backlash if they gave him to the US. But if the justice system find him guilty for "rape" than that can't really be blamed on politicians and the judges don't really give a shit... after he sends 5 years in prison, who knows ? can they give him to the US than ? Honestly, wikileaks is active with or without him and people don't really give a shit, the US troops are assholes and the politicians thieves, so what ? The people stupid enough not to have realized this by now likely don't care and the people that care about this don't vote anyway. To be honest i don't believe the FBI really wants to get him just as a "revenge" for proving how incompetent the data protection branch of US is. Sorry what? Slave labour? Did I miss something? We've never employed slave labour, and never stolen natural resources. The boom of the Swedish economy came from staying neutral in WW2 and exporting our resources to both sides, and also through good education leading to competitiveness. In the early 1900s Sweden was piss poor. Our only colony was one of the tiny islands in the caribbean, which was quickly taken over by the French. This issue has nothing to do with corruption, as it doesn't need to be. USA can request him from the interpol (same as Sweden did) and he'll be handed over directly form the UK. That's easy. Now instead your idea is that the evil USA hired two ladies to say that they were raped, bought up the Swedish justice system and independent judges and courts, and even the government itself in order to accomplish the same thing as a request to the UK or interpol. Of course that sounds much more reasonable. The US doesn't have charges, and aren't even looking for him at the moment. What might happen is that they do file charges while he's under arrest in Sweden, which might lead to Sweden handing him over (after Assange's served his sentence here / been released) if the US promises not to enforce the death penalty or torture. Where did you hear five years? Source on that please. We have never had slave labour? Haven't you heard the words "piga" or "dräng"?
Interesting, the talk goes from Assange to Slave Labour... Classic Team Liquid page if you ask me, very very on topic and to the point (although I see the above poster was simply just correcting that there was slave labour).
Let's get this train back on topic!
Poll: Is he GuiltyNo (44) 86% Yes (7) 14% 51 total votes Your vote: Is he Guilty (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Poll: Did the USA Set him up?Yes (42) 74% No (15) 26% 57 total votes Your vote: Did the USA Set him up? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
