|
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores.
|
On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores.
The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US).
As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people.
|
On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people.
Sweden is not sending dissidents left and right to be tortured in other countries.
You can find one case which happened in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11.
One case...
Sweden was apparently good enough for Assange's high standards when he went there in the first place.
If Sweden was so unsafe, why didn't the US just request to have him extradited back in the summer of 2010?
|
On August 18 2012 01:00 Breavman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 00:43 MaYuu 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. 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.
Did anyone end up in jail from this "huge deal" afterwards? I am honestly curious. Did anyone go to prison? Pay a fine?
|
Brunei Darussalam566 Posts
On August 18 2012 08:55 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Sweden is not sending dissidents left and right to be tortured in other countries. You can find one case which happened in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11. One case... Sweden was apparently good enough for Assange's high standards when he went there in the first place. If Sweden was so unsafe, why didn't the US just request to have him extradited back in the summer of 2010?
It's not a question of being unsafe, he just wants to avoid Sweden's extradiction policy.
|
On August 18 2012 08:58 Romitelli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:55 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Sweden is not sending dissidents left and right to be tortured in other countries. You can find one case which happened in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11. One case... Sweden was apparently good enough for Assange's high standards when he went there in the first place. If Sweden was so unsafe, why didn't the US just request to have him extradited back in the summer of 2010? It's not a question of being unsafe, he just wants to avoid Sweden's extradiction policy.
There is no policy to be afraid of. He knows this, otherwise he would never have been able to stay in Sweden and do Wikileaks in the first place.
Representatives of the Foreign Affairs department have said that such fear is unwarranted.
Professors in international law says the same.
|
On August 18 2012 08:55 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Sweden is not sending dissidents left and right to be tortured in other countries. You can find one case which happened in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11. One case... Sweden was apparently good enough for Assange's high standards when he went there in the first place. If Sweden was so unsafe, why didn't the US just request to have him extradited back in the summer of 2010?
One case in which Sweden tortured by proxy innocent people. They did what the CIA wanted. No one suffered because of it. the minister who ordered it is considered a saint in the country (according to a previous swedish poster).
So er .. whats your point again?
|
If the US was smart, they'd release an official government statement saying that they will not seek the extradition of Julian Assange from any nation. That way, Julian Assange would have no excuses for not going to Sweden to stand trial, and would no longer appear to be a political target of the US seeking asylum.
However, I'm sure the US really would love to have him stand trial on American soil, either with the misguided notion that he is vital to WikiLeaks, or to have him figuratively hung as a statement to anyone else. So essentially, Assange can do whatever the hell he wants, and he'll get to play the political martyr.
|
On August 18 2012 09:02 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:55 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Sweden is not sending dissidents left and right to be tortured in other countries. You can find one case which happened in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11. One case... Sweden was apparently good enough for Assange's high standards when he went there in the first place. If Sweden was so unsafe, why didn't the US just request to have him extradited back in the summer of 2010? One case in which Sweden tortured by proxy innocent people. They did what the CIA wanted. No one suffered because of it. the minister who ordered it is considered a saint in the country (according to a previous swedish poster). So er .. whats your point again?
You are obviously very confused.
The mistakes that were made was that it was handled under the table by the foreign minister Anna Lind who were murdered before this was uncovered. The second mistake was that she was naive by trusting the American/Egyptian guarantees of a fair trial without torture.
To say that Sweden tortured these guys by proxy is ridiculous.
edit:
stop bringing this up.
It's relevance to how Julian Assange would be treated is zero.
It was a huge mistake. The Swedish government broke the law. When the story unfolded there was a shitstorm of giant proportions. It was one of many mistakes being made in the war against terrorism.
In related cases we have a huge number of American deserters from the Vietnam war living here.
We simply don't extradite people if there is even the slightest chance of political or military motives behind such a request.
It is just a wild-card thrown out in the debate to steer it from what it is really all about. Sexual offences.
|
On August 18 2012 09:06 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:02 redviper wrote:On August 18 2012 08:55 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Sweden is not sending dissidents left and right to be tortured in other countries. You can find one case which happened in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11. One case... Sweden was apparently good enough for Assange's high standards when he went there in the first place. If Sweden was so unsafe, why didn't the US just request to have him extradited back in the summer of 2010? One case in which Sweden tortured by proxy innocent people. They did what the CIA wanted. No one suffered because of it. the minister who ordered it is considered a saint in the country (according to a previous swedish poster). So er .. whats your point again? You are obviously very confused. The mistakes that were made was that it was handled under the table by the foreign minister Anna Lind who were murdered before this was uncovered. The second mistake was that she was naive by trusting the American/Egyptian guarantees of a fair trial without torture. To say that Sweden tortured these guys by proxy is ridiculous. edit: stop bringing this up. It's relevance to how Julian Assange would be treated is zero. It was a huge mistake. The Swedish government broke the law. When the story unfolded there was a shitstorm of giant proportions. It was one of many mistakes being made in the war against terrorism. In related cases we have a huge number of American deserters from the Vietnam war living here. We simply don't extradite people if there is even the slightest chance of political or military motives behind such a request.
So who went to jail for the crime? Who paid a fine? If there was no penalty whats to stop this from happening again? This time we are sure Assange won't be tortured, but he will end up in prison for a long long time. What is to stop another FM from doing exactly the same thing again?
The real question is why can't Assange be questioned in Britain. He isn't charged with a crime but as soon as he gets to sweden he will lose his liberty, with almost no chance of bail.
edit:
We simply don't extradite people if there is even the slightest chance of political or military motives behind such a request.
You don't extradite people but you have no problems with rendition. This argument would have held water if Sweden wasn't responsible for the torture of people at the behest of the US. Since they are, it doesn't.
|
On August 18 2012 09:15 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:06 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 09:02 redviper wrote:On August 18 2012 08:55 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Sweden is not sending dissidents left and right to be tortured in other countries. You can find one case which happened in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11. One case... Sweden was apparently good enough for Assange's high standards when he went there in the first place. If Sweden was so unsafe, why didn't the US just request to have him extradited back in the summer of 2010? One case in which Sweden tortured by proxy innocent people. They did what the CIA wanted. No one suffered because of it. the minister who ordered it is considered a saint in the country (according to a previous swedish poster). So er .. whats your point again? You are obviously very confused. The mistakes that were made was that it was handled under the table by the foreign minister Anna Lind who were murdered before this was uncovered. The second mistake was that she was naive by trusting the American/Egyptian guarantees of a fair trial without torture. To say that Sweden tortured these guys by proxy is ridiculous. edit: stop bringing this up. It's relevance to how Julian Assange would be treated is zero. It was a huge mistake. The Swedish government broke the law. When the story unfolded there was a shitstorm of giant proportions. It was one of many mistakes being made in the war against terrorism. In related cases we have a huge number of American deserters from the Vietnam war living here. We simply don't extradite people if there is even the slightest chance of political or military motives behind such a request. So who went to jail for the crime? Who paid a fine? If there was no penalty whats to stop this from happening again? This time we are sure Assange won't be tortured, but he will end up in prison for a long long time. What is to stop another FM from doing exactly the same thing again? The real question is why can't Assange be questioned in Britain. He isn't charged with a crime but as soon as he gets to sweden he will lose his liberty, with almost no chance of bail. edit: Show nested quote +We simply don't extradite people if there is even the slightest chance of political or military motives behind such a request. You don't extradite people but you have no problems with rendition. This argument would have held water if Sweden wasn't responsible for the torture of people at the behest of the US. Since they are, it doesn't.
there was a situation, it was a national scandal, which is of benefit to Assange by the way because it means there is a greater awareness in Sweden generally of avoiding political meddling in judicial cases.
|
On August 18 2012 09:15 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:06 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 09:02 redviper wrote:On August 18 2012 08:55 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Sweden is not sending dissidents left and right to be tortured in other countries. You can find one case which happened in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11. One case... Sweden was apparently good enough for Assange's high standards when he went there in the first place. If Sweden was so unsafe, why didn't the US just request to have him extradited back in the summer of 2010? One case in which Sweden tortured by proxy innocent people. They did what the CIA wanted. No one suffered because of it. the minister who ordered it is considered a saint in the country (according to a previous swedish poster). So er .. whats your point again? You are obviously very confused. The mistakes that were made was that it was handled under the table by the foreign minister Anna Lind who were murdered before this was uncovered. The second mistake was that she was naive by trusting the American/Egyptian guarantees of a fair trial without torture. To say that Sweden tortured these guys by proxy is ridiculous. edit: stop bringing this up. It's relevance to how Julian Assange would be treated is zero. It was a huge mistake. The Swedish government broke the law. When the story unfolded there was a shitstorm of giant proportions. It was one of many mistakes being made in the war against terrorism. In related cases we have a huge number of American deserters from the Vietnam war living here. We simply don't extradite people if there is even the slightest chance of political or military motives behind such a request. So who went to jail for the crime? Who paid a fine? If there was no penalty whats to stop this from happening again? This time we are sure Assange won't be tortured, but he will end up in prison for a long long time. What is to stop another FM from doing exactly the same thing again? The real question is why can't Assange be questioned in Britain. He isn't charged with a crime but as soon as he gets to sweden he will lose his liberty, with almost no chance of bail.
The last question have been completely dissected and answered in posts a bunch of pages back.
There was no fines or jailing as the responsible minister who handled it silently under the table was murdered. There were no evidence that incriminated someone else to a degree where charges could be made.
However, that government lost the next election. One of the reasons was low credibility in the handling of foreign affair issues. The very same department fucked up badly in how it handled the tsunami catastrophe in 2004.
Also, Sweden was heavily criticized by the UN and human rights watch organizations.
If the US requests Julian Assange to be extradited it has to go through a Swedish court.
It can't be handled under the table like the Egyptian case. The reason Sweden was involved was that they were in transit here. If they had been under arrest here the minister would have no chance of handing them over to the CIA in a covert operation.
edit:
this!
there was a situation, it was a national scandal, which is of benefit to Assange by the way because it means there is a greater awareness in Sweden generally of avoiding political meddling in judicial cases.
also read this:
http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military
Then stop bringing it up in attempts to derail the discussion.
|
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.. -_-'
No, as in Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny (the charges were originally dropped by Chief Prosecutor was Eva Finné). In America, that would be the equivalent of the Attorney General reopening a police investigation after the original prosecutor already dropped the charges, which would always smell fishy even if political motivations weren't on the table.
On August 18 2012 08:05 one-one-one 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... 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.
Read my response to Euronyme above. The charges were already dropped by the original Chief Prosecutor. The Swedish Director of Public Prosecution swooped in to reopen the case.
|
On August 18 2012 09:15 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:06 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 09:02 redviper wrote:On August 18 2012 08:55 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Sweden is not sending dissidents left and right to be tortured in other countries. You can find one case which happened in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11. One case... Sweden was apparently good enough for Assange's high standards when he went there in the first place. If Sweden was so unsafe, why didn't the US just request to have him extradited back in the summer of 2010? One case in which Sweden tortured by proxy innocent people. They did what the CIA wanted. No one suffered because of it. the minister who ordered it is considered a saint in the country (according to a previous swedish poster). So er .. whats your point again? You are obviously very confused. The mistakes that were made was that it was handled under the table by the foreign minister Anna Lind who were murdered before this was uncovered. The second mistake was that she was naive by trusting the American/Egyptian guarantees of a fair trial without torture. To say that Sweden tortured these guys by proxy is ridiculous. edit: stop bringing this up. It's relevance to how Julian Assange would be treated is zero. It was a huge mistake. The Swedish government broke the law. When the story unfolded there was a shitstorm of giant proportions. It was one of many mistakes being made in the war against terrorism. In related cases we have a huge number of American deserters from the Vietnam war living here. We simply don't extradite people if there is even the slightest chance of political or military motives behind such a request. So who went to jail for the crime? Who paid a fine? If there was no penalty whats to stop this from happening again? This time we are sure Assange won't be tortured, but he will end up in prison for a long long time. What is to stop another FM from doing exactly the same thing again? The real question is why can't Assange be questioned in Britain. He isn't charged with a crime but as soon as he gets to sweden he will lose his liberty, with almost no chance of bail. edit: Show nested quote +We simply don't extradite people if there is even the slightest chance of political or military motives behind such a request. You don't extradite people but you have no problems with rendition. This argument would have held water if Sweden wasn't responsible for the torture of people at the behest of the US. Since they are, it doesn't.
As previous poster stated, the minister in charge was murdered. Therefore no-one was charged/fined for the extradition. It is also quite likely that it actually was Swedish naivety that let the Egyptians be deported. This however, rised quite an uproar in Sweden, making it more unlikely to happen again.
It is extremely unlikely that Sweden would hand over Assange to USA, especially with all the attention this case gets. To have Assange questioned in Britain is not standard procedure as I understand it, but the prosecutor should, in hindsight, tried to get it done since it now has been two years since the case was opened.
|
There was no fines or jailing as the responsible minister who handled it silently under the table was murdered. There were no evidence that incriminated someone else to a degree where charges could be made.
So you mean only 1 person was aware and responsible for this travesty and because she was killed there is no more recourse for the victims?
Interesting link from swedishwire. It seems that atleast some people in military intelligence knew about the flights.
And that was in 2006. When the original rendition happened in 2001. So for 5 years after the rendition sweden allowed transiting rendition flights, and because they stopped it 5 years (and we'll never know how many renditions) later, we should trust the swedish government to not rendition Assange. You are basically asking Assange to risk his life because Sweden can't question him in Britain.
Its obvious you trust your government. Good for you, but this is like me saying that we should trust Pakistan to trade nuclear technology with Iran. Sure we proliferated nuclear weapons to North Korea once but that was a long time ago and we promise this time it will be only for civilian purposes. And Pakistan actually punished the guy responsible (very very little ofcourse). It was a big scandal in Pakistan. But now we have a different government and a different person in charge of nuclear technology. So somehow this makes it ok.
edit:
If the US requests Julian Assange to be extradited it has to go through a Swedish court.
You say this as if Swedish courts are guaranteed to not extradite Assange. Is there a commitment to not extradite him to the us? No. Why not?
Regardless the point is moot. Assange has been granted political assylum under international law. While he stays in the counslate he is beyond the jurisdiction of swedish law. And in my opinion, unless he wants to be a martyr, he should stay there.
|
On August 18 2012 10:36 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +
There was no fines or jailing as the responsible minister who handled it silently under the table was murdered. There were no evidence that incriminated someone else to a degree where charges could be made.
So you mean only 1 person was aware and responsible for this travesty and because she was killed there is no more recourse for the victims? Interesting link from swedishwire. It seems that atleast some people in military intelligence knew about the flights. And that was in 2006. When the original rendition happened in 2001. So for 5 years after the rendition sweden allowed transiting rendition flights, and because they stopped it 5 years (and we'll never know how many renditions) later, we should trust the swedish government to not rendition Assange. You are basically asking Assange to risk his life because Sweden can't question him in Britain.
I thinks those rendition flights are basically just flights passing through and stopping there, or am i mistaken here?
Its obvious you trust your government. Good for you, but this is like me saying that we should trust Pakistan to trade nuclear technology with Iran. Sure we proliferated nuclear weapons to North Korea once but that was a long time ago and we promise this time it will be only for civilian purposes. And Pakistan actually punished the guy responsible (very very little ofcourse). It was a big scandal in Pakistan. But now we have a different government and a different person in charge of nuclear technology. So somehow this makes it ok.
This is just bullshit.
|
On August 18 2012 10:45 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 10:36 redviper wrote:
There was no fines or jailing as the responsible minister who handled it silently under the table was murdered. There were no evidence that incriminated someone else to a degree where charges could be made.
So you mean only 1 person was aware and responsible for this travesty and because she was killed there is no more recourse for the victims? Interesting link from swedishwire. It seems that atleast some people in military intelligence knew about the flights. And that was in 2006. When the original rendition happened in 2001. So for 5 years after the rendition sweden allowed transiting rendition flights, and because they stopped it 5 years (and we'll never know how many renditions) later, we should trust the swedish government to not rendition Assange. You are basically asking Assange to risk his life because Sweden can't question him in Britain. I thinks those rendition flights are basically just flights passing through and stopping there, or am i mistaken here? Show nested quote +Its obvious you trust your government. Good for you, but this is like me saying that we should trust Pakistan to trade nuclear technology with Iran. Sure we proliferated nuclear weapons to North Korea once but that was a long time ago and we promise this time it will be only for civilian purposes. And Pakistan actually punished the guy responsible (very very little ofcourse). It was a big scandal in Pakistan. But now we have a different government and a different person in charge of nuclear technology. So somehow this makes it ok. This is just bullshit.
Obviously. No one in their right mind would trust a government, already responsible for proliferation, to not proliferate again. Completely analogous to trusting a government, already responsible for rendition, to not rendition again.
|
On August 18 2012 10:36 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +
There was no fines or jailing as the responsible minister who handled it silently under the table was murdered. There were no evidence that incriminated someone else to a degree where charges could be made.
So you mean only 1 person was aware and responsible for this travesty and because she was killed there is no more recourse for the victims? Interesting link from swedishwire. It seems that atleast some people in military intelligence knew about the flights. And that was in 2006. When the original rendition happened in 2001. So for 5 years after the rendition sweden allowed transiting rendition flights, and because they stopped it 5 years (and we'll never know how many renditions) later, we should trust the swedish government to not rendition Assange. You are basically asking Assange to risk his life because Sweden can't question him in Britain. Its obvious you trust your government. Good for you, but this is like me saying that we should trust Pakistan to trade nuclear technology with Iran. Sure we proliferated nuclear weapons to North Korea once but that was a long time ago and we promise this time it will be only for civilian purposes. And Pakistan actually punished the guy responsible (very very little ofcourse). It was a big scandal in Pakistan. But now we have a different government and a different person in charge of nuclear technology. So somehow this makes it ok. edit: Show nested quote +If the US requests Julian Assange to be extradited it has to go through a Swedish court. You say this as if Swedish courts are guaranteed to not extradite Assange. Is there a commitment to not extradite him to the us? No. Why not? Regardless the point is moot. Assange has been granted political assylum under international law. While he stays in the counslate he is beyond the jurisdiction of swedish law. And in my opinion, unless he wants to be a martyr, he should stay there.
lol
you are in on it too.
the sloppy conspiracy theories I mean ...
I wont answer this because it is too silly and you are too clueless.
Most of it has already been ansered anyways.
I'll just say this:
2006 - new government
after this came new laws prohibiting these renditions explicitly.
the victims were payed 500000$ each by the new government.
seems like your logic would apply to this, no?
It is sad that we can not have a higher level on the discussion
|
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"?
What in the.... That's a female / male farm workers. They were always paid in some way and were always free to leave whenever. I don't even... Did you actually go to school? I'm seriously curious. Do you know what a slave is?
On August 18 2012 10:36 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +
There was no fines or jailing as the responsible minister who handled it silently under the table was murdered. There were no evidence that incriminated someone else to a degree where charges could be made.
So you mean only 1 person was aware and responsible for this travesty and because she was killed there is no more recourse for the victims? Interesting link from swedishwire. It seems that atleast some people in military intelligence knew about the flights. And that was in 2006. When the original rendition happened in 2001. So for 5 years after the rendition sweden allowed transiting rendition flights, and because they stopped it 5 years (and we'll never know how many renditions) later, we should trust the swedish government to not rendition Assange. You are basically asking Assange to risk his life because Sweden can't question him in Britain. Its obvious you trust your government. Good for you, but this is like me saying that we should trust Pakistan to trade nuclear technology with Iran. Sure we proliferated nuclear weapons to North Korea once but that was a long time ago and we promise this time it will be only for civilian purposes. And Pakistan actually punished the guy responsible (very very little ofcourse). It was a big scandal in Pakistan. But now we have a different government and a different person in charge of nuclear technology. So somehow this makes it ok. edit: Show nested quote +If the US requests Julian Assange to be extradited it has to go through a Swedish court. You say this as if Swedish courts are guaranteed to not extradite Assange. Is there a commitment to not extradite him to the us? No. Why not? Regardless the point is moot. Assange has been granted political assylum under international law. While he stays in the counslate he is beyond the jurisdiction of swedish law. And in my opinion, unless he wants to be a martyr, he should stay there.
I'm sorry but the justice system in Pakistan and Sweden is quite different. Does this really need to be pointed out?
There's no commitment not to extradite him because he's asking politicians, and politicians have no jurisdiction there. It's up to the court, and there would be an entirely new case if the US wanted him to come over. Just like there was in England when Sweden wanted him over. Politicians can't interfere in court cases.
|
The conspiracy theories are silly and people are silly to believe that Assange would ever actually be extradited to the US.
The disturbing part of this story is the continued behavior of the US government in general with regards to whistle blowers and information leakers. The US should be operating under transparency to its people and not secrecy. The notion of secrecy due to national security has been abused and bastardized from what it should be. There are things that should remain secret but that is only a tiny portion of what is claimed under protected secrets nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
