|
On August 19 2012 12:16 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 11:13 LunaSea wrote:
Hypothetical situation :
Assange flies to Sweden and sadly gets extradited to the US.
Now here's my question :
Would that hypothetical situation change your mind on the matter for other cases like this that would happen in the future ?
There you have 2 possible answers :
- If yes, why didn't the first case (the scandal everyone mentioned some pages before) change your opinion already ?
- If no, it means that you have a bias in favor of your country. Which is fine but then again you have to admit it. The first case is irrelevant. It was the minister of foreign affairs committing a felony and going against the constitution. She was very popular during her career, and was very likely to become the next prime minister. She was stabbed to death by a crazy person while shopping at a mall and was basically proclaimed saintlike, as murdered people often are. Later the deportation was discovered, and there was a huge public uproar. Just the fact that the Egypt deal was the 18 december of 2001 right after 9/11 and the fact that the Egyptians deported were kept a secret and incognito for two and a half years should be enough to make it irrelevant to this. This has been mentioned countless times in this thread, and the facts are easy to get through a google search, yet you among others seem to think this is a great argument and bring up some uneducated 'Sweden tortures Egyptians in USA herp derp'. If he's deported to the US without an agreement that he won't be tortured or killed, I'll change my mind. The Egypt deportations are completely irrelevant in every way, and don't swing my opinions in either direction.
Actually it is very relevant. I'm not talking about what happened at that point nor the political situation the world was in.
It's basically this :
What are the conclusions that you guys personally took out of that and how is it affecting your judgement now ?
I mean if it already happened once, I don't understand how you guys can be so certain that it wouldn't happen again.
|
On August 19 2012 12:23 Mylin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 10:57 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:52 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 10:34 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:11 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case). Lol, random guy on TL calls respected law professor "confused". Pretty predictable that you would hook yourself up on the last passage in his text. I think he could have left that passage out as he opens up for the possibility of politicians influencing courts. He forgot to mention that the supreme court has no such politically appointed jurors. As for the argument that this case is so unusual that it is hard to predict its outcome I refer back to my posts about wanted US citizens enjoying complete safety against US extraditions. Those cases would obviously relate to a potential extradition request for Assange. Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely. Given what we already know about the US handling of this issue and quotes from a multitude of politicians and intelligence people calling Assange a terrorist who should be executed there are obvious concerns about handing him over. Even Ecuador saw this and were right about it. I completely trust that this will be seen by the Swedish legal system as well. Ultimately these are the kind of things that would make it illegal for Sweden to hand him over by our own laws. I didn't say that because the case is unusual you couldn't predict the outcome. The fact that this case is really special makes it so that you can't take your arguments from those sources. What I meant is that the experience that "experts" in those fields like the law professor and the government official have can't be considered as anything more than just an opinion. Their own experience is probably a long list of cases that were resolved in a very good way with maybe 10 to 20 cases that were "special". With this sample of 10 - 20 cases, where say 2 to 4 went wrong (80% have a positive conclusion) you can't make a conclusion. Because it is not enough data to statistically approach the topic. I'm not event talking of the difference in the time frame of those particular 10 to 20 cases that would actually dismiss 50% of those cases because they would have been too old. My main 2 points here are the following : - Experts opinions are opinions and can't be treated differently because of the limited data those people have in these type of cases. - It is normal for inhabitants of a well working democratic country to believe that every case will be treated in a fair and legal way. In particular situations like this it is just not always the case. And that's why drama exists in every country on the world. Edit for Euronyme : Nobody cares about reputation. I wouldn't bet my life on reputation of anything. No, no and no. It has very little to do with sample sizes and statistical significance. A law professor is a law professor because he has an extremely good understanding of the legal system. Both regarding history and how the law would be applied in hypothetical scenarios. It is an experts opinion which I hold 1000000000000x times more credible than your constant attempts to dissect and discredit every single detail and person in this. If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit. Where would you prefer to be trialed - Sweden or Mali? Reputation is everything. I am getting pretty annoyed by the focus of this debate. I hold it likely that Assange claims that Sweden will hand him over to the US because he doesn't want to go to Sweden. His actions are way out of proportions and it has made him less significant because of all this. His and his lawyers depiction of Sweden is utterly ridiculous to the degree that one wonders how he even dared to set his foot here in the first place. His extreme paranoia about Sweden extraditing him to the US seems unwarranted. Why isn't this the center of the discussion? Did your law professor predict with 100% accuracy the situation that happened in your country after prisoners got extradited to the CIA ? If not, than you can't trust it as a reliable enough source for this case either. I find that case to be a good argument against Assange being handed to the U.S. since: 1. That case was extrajudicial 2. It caused a political shitstorm while with Assange: 1. The justice system is already involved 2. He's higher profile, i.e. expect an even greater political shitstorm I'm sure the government just wants this entire mess to go away.
I think you're half right.
2. He's higher profile, i.e. expect an even greater political shitstorm
Isn't an argument for anything.
If for the first case :
2. It caused a political shitstorm
then this clearly proves that the shitstorm was merely a consequence and no something that could hinder the problemof happening in the first place.
But it's true though that the fact that justice is already involved helps greatly Assange's case.
|
On August 19 2012 13:12 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 12:16 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 11:13 LunaSea wrote:
Hypothetical situation :
Assange flies to Sweden and sadly gets extradited to the US.
Now here's my question :
Would that hypothetical situation change your mind on the matter for other cases like this that would happen in the future ?
There you have 2 possible answers :
- If yes, why didn't the first case (the scandal everyone mentioned some pages before) change your opinion already ?
- If no, it means that you have a bias in favor of your country. Which is fine but then again you have to admit it. The first case is irrelevant. It was the minister of foreign affairs committing a felony and going against the constitution. She was very popular during her career, and was very likely to become the next prime minister. She was stabbed to death by a crazy person while shopping at a mall and was basically proclaimed saintlike, as murdered people often are. Later the deportation was discovered, and there was a huge public uproar. Just the fact that the Egypt deal was the 18 december of 2001 right after 9/11 and the fact that the Egyptians deported were kept a secret and incognito for two and a half years should be enough to make it irrelevant to this. This has been mentioned countless times in this thread, and the facts are easy to get through a google search, yet you among others seem to think this is a great argument and bring up some uneducated 'Sweden tortures Egyptians in USA herp derp'. If he's deported to the US without an agreement that he won't be tortured or killed, I'll change my mind. The Egypt deportations are completely irrelevant in every way, and don't swing my opinions in either direction. Actually it is very relevant. I'm not talking about what happened at that point nor the political situation the world was in. It's basically this : What are the conclusions that you guys personally took out of that and how is it affecting your judgement now ? I mean if it already happened once, I don't understand how you guys can be so certain that it wouldn't happen again.
Are you actually trolling now?
The only reason the Egyptians could even be deported in the first place was because it was a matter between the CIA, the Swedish secrept police and the foreign minister.
Assange is a case for the justice system.
I'm starting to think you haven't read a word of this thread at all :/
It's not the same situation, they're not even related in any way, and I consider a deportation to USA without a promise of no execution / no torture as likely as the second coming of Jesus Christ, and I'm an atheist. Apparently the second coming of Jesus Christ is related to pretty much everything, because it happened once before, right? How would you say that affects your judgement in every day life?
|
Ah I see I the posts were fragmented and now I follow...anyway interesting posts... :S
|
On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system.
first of all, sorry for being condescending. It was late and I was grumpy.
second of all, that is why justice4assange was the last link. Google the first. =)
I only made the point that he hasn't been charged btw. I never attack the independence of the Swedish Justice system
In my opinion extradition should be considered and even granted if the UK decided when he was formally charged. That is after this interview/questioning that he missed. Which can be done via video link as it has been done before.Although I disagree with you. Sweden has not made a decision whether to charge him at all, so I don't think he has been practically charged.
meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system
This makes sense but as he has been granted asylum in Ecuador and he won't be deported from there, you can see why he does not want to go to Sweden and take the risk he gets deported to the US(whether he is guilty or not of the rape charges). As there have been leaked information that the US plans to charge him. It was on of the Stratfor emails leaked.
|
On August 19 2012 17:08 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 13:12 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 12:16 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 11:13 LunaSea wrote:
Hypothetical situation :
Assange flies to Sweden and sadly gets extradited to the US.
Now here's my question :
Would that hypothetical situation change your mind on the matter for other cases like this that would happen in the future ?
There you have 2 possible answers :
- If yes, why didn't the first case (the scandal everyone mentioned some pages before) change your opinion already ?
- If no, it means that you have a bias in favor of your country. Which is fine but then again you have to admit it. The first case is irrelevant. It was the minister of foreign affairs committing a felony and going against the constitution. She was very popular during her career, and was very likely to become the next prime minister. She was stabbed to death by a crazy person while shopping at a mall and was basically proclaimed saintlike, as murdered people often are. Later the deportation was discovered, and there was a huge public uproar. Just the fact that the Egypt deal was the 18 december of 2001 right after 9/11 and the fact that the Egyptians deported were kept a secret and incognito for two and a half years should be enough to make it irrelevant to this. This has been mentioned countless times in this thread, and the facts are easy to get through a google search, yet you among others seem to think this is a great argument and bring up some uneducated 'Sweden tortures Egyptians in USA herp derp'. If he's deported to the US without an agreement that he won't be tortured or killed, I'll change my mind. The Egypt deportations are completely irrelevant in every way, and don't swing my opinions in either direction. Actually it is very relevant. I'm not talking about what happened at that point nor the political situation the world was in. It's basically this : What are the conclusions that you guys personally took out of that and how is it affecting your judgement now ? I mean if it already happened once, I don't understand how you guys can be so certain that it wouldn't happen again. Are you actually trolling now? The only reason the Egyptians could even be deported in the first place was because it was a matter between the CIA, the Swedish secrept police and the foreign minister. Assange is a case for the justice system. I'm starting to think you haven't read a word of this thread at all :/ It's not the same situation, they're not even related in any way, and I consider a deportation to USA without a promise of no execution / no torture as likely as the second coming of Jesus Christ, and I'm an atheist. Apparently the second coming of Jesus Christ is related to pretty much everything, because it happened once before, right? How would you say that affects your judgement in every day life?
You can try to convince yourself that the 2001 case was different to this one as much as you want.
The point I'm trying to make is that event a country like Sweden already had some sort of scandal in a judicial case.
It's not an argument of how close or not those scandals were to this one.
The question I asked, the one you keep dodging, is important in my opinion because it asks how your personal opinion is going to change concerning precedence of ANY drama / scandal that happened in the Swedish judicial system before.
If your opinion is solely based on a experience of "positive" case resolutions, then it means that :
a) - you don't have enough experience (which I highly doubt)
or
b) - you choose to ignore the "negative" case resolutions with the argument that they are different cases
Independent of your answer (a or b) to the previous question, it means that precedence of some kind of judicial scandal in Sweden completely dismisses your argument of : "Oh but this wouldn't ever happen in Sweden because we have a good judicial system".
|
On August 19 2012 18:53 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 17:08 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 13:12 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 12:16 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 11:13 LunaSea wrote:
Hypothetical situation :
Assange flies to Sweden and sadly gets extradited to the US.
Now here's my question :
Would that hypothetical situation change your mind on the matter for other cases like this that would happen in the future ?
There you have 2 possible answers :
- If yes, why didn't the first case (the scandal everyone mentioned some pages before) change your opinion already ?
- If no, it means that you have a bias in favor of your country. Which is fine but then again you have to admit it. The first case is irrelevant. It was the minister of foreign affairs committing a felony and going against the constitution. She was very popular during her career, and was very likely to become the next prime minister. She was stabbed to death by a crazy person while shopping at a mall and was basically proclaimed saintlike, as murdered people often are. Later the deportation was discovered, and there was a huge public uproar. Just the fact that the Egypt deal was the 18 december of 2001 right after 9/11 and the fact that the Egyptians deported were kept a secret and incognito for two and a half years should be enough to make it irrelevant to this. This has been mentioned countless times in this thread, and the facts are easy to get through a google search, yet you among others seem to think this is a great argument and bring up some uneducated 'Sweden tortures Egyptians in USA herp derp'. If he's deported to the US without an agreement that he won't be tortured or killed, I'll change my mind. The Egypt deportations are completely irrelevant in every way, and don't swing my opinions in either direction. Actually it is very relevant. I'm not talking about what happened at that point nor the political situation the world was in. It's basically this : What are the conclusions that you guys personally took out of that and how is it affecting your judgement now ? I mean if it already happened once, I don't understand how you guys can be so certain that it wouldn't happen again. Are you actually trolling now? The only reason the Egyptians could even be deported in the first place was because it was a matter between the CIA, the Swedish secrept police and the foreign minister. Assange is a case for the justice system. I'm starting to think you haven't read a word of this thread at all :/ It's not the same situation, they're not even related in any way, and I consider a deportation to USA without a promise of no execution / no torture as likely as the second coming of Jesus Christ, and I'm an atheist. Apparently the second coming of Jesus Christ is related to pretty much everything, because it happened once before, right? How would you say that affects your judgement in every day life? You can try to convince yourself that the 2001 case was different to this one as much as you want. The point I'm trying to make is that event a country like Sweden already had some sort of scandal in a judicial case. It's not an argument of how close or not those scandals were to this one. The question I asked, the one you keep dodging, is important in my opinion because it asks how your personal opinion is going to change concerning precedence of ANY drama / scandal that happened in the Swedish judicial system before. If your opinion is solely based on a experience of "positive" case resolutions, then it means that : a) - you don't have enough experience (which I highly doubt) or b) - you choose to ignore the "negative" case resolutions with the argument that they are different cases Independent of your answer (a or b) to the previous question, it means that precedence of some kind of judicial scandal in Sweden completely dismisses your argument of : "Oh but this wouldn't ever happen in Sweden because we have a good judicial system".
It wasn't a scandal in the Swedish judicial system. The problem was that one minister broke the law.
The judicial system wasn't involved.
It is as unrelated to this case as the second coming of Jesus christ as someone said. But then again, I could probably make the argument that the second coming of Jesus isn't 100% unrelated to a potential extradition of Julian Assange.
Get your facts straight about that incident. Put it into context. When was it? What did the US threaten Sweden with ?
After all it is only one case where Sweden budged and "helped" the US in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11.
God awful atrocities were committed because a rancid US government declared that "if you are not with us, you are against us". Who knows the full extent of what the US made its allies do? There are likely many cases like this incriminating pretty much every European country. As NATO members I think that some countries were expected by the US to help more than others if you know what I mean.
I am pretty sure that the UK has handed over many a terrorist to the US who ended up in the Guantanamo prison/torture facility.
Are you telling me that the single odd case should make Assange fear extradition from Sweden more than from the UK?
|
if i was assagne i wouldnt trust the swedish justice system for a second :p
|
This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements.
I'm not American and I am fairly sceptical about, well everything. Don't live my life thinking that the world is run by lizard men or anything. But given the embarrassment Assange caused, it seems perfectly reasonable that the US would try to pressure any country to give up Assange. I just think its a bit ridiculous that any opinion which implies that the US wants him or that a government would do something dirty, is met with a "tinfoil hat" reply. Any government can fail in one of its branches, especially if the stakes are as high as American embarrassment.
Like I said a few times, if Assange sees Sweden as a place that is not safe, he wouldn't bet a wager(which could possibly be his life) on it.
You mention that it would be easier to get him out of the UK, but you don't know that with quite a lot of high profile extradition case to the US lately that have been and all have very little public support. I assume people would support assange in the same was and it would make it very difficult ( who has been talking about another country without knowing all the details.  )
You mentioned that people didn't answer you questions, but then why not just interview him in the embassy decided whether to charge him and then go for extradition from the UK?
Anyway, this thread is getting old and repetitive.
|
On August 19 2012 18:53 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 17:08 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 13:12 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 12:16 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 11:13 LunaSea wrote:
Hypothetical situation :
Assange flies to Sweden and sadly gets extradited to the US.
Now here's my question :
Would that hypothetical situation change your mind on the matter for other cases like this that would happen in the future ?
There you have 2 possible answers :
- If yes, why didn't the first case (the scandal everyone mentioned some pages before) change your opinion already ?
- If no, it means that you have a bias in favor of your country. Which is fine but then again you have to admit it. The first case is irrelevant. It was the minister of foreign affairs committing a felony and going against the constitution. She was very popular during her career, and was very likely to become the next prime minister. She was stabbed to death by a crazy person while shopping at a mall and was basically proclaimed saintlike, as murdered people often are. Later the deportation was discovered, and there was a huge public uproar. Just the fact that the Egypt deal was the 18 december of 2001 right after 9/11 and the fact that the Egyptians deported were kept a secret and incognito for two and a half years should be enough to make it irrelevant to this. This has been mentioned countless times in this thread, and the facts are easy to get through a google search, yet you among others seem to think this is a great argument and bring up some uneducated 'Sweden tortures Egyptians in USA herp derp'. If he's deported to the US without an agreement that he won't be tortured or killed, I'll change my mind. The Egypt deportations are completely irrelevant in every way, and don't swing my opinions in either direction. Actually it is very relevant. I'm not talking about what happened at that point nor the political situation the world was in. It's basically this : What are the conclusions that you guys personally took out of that and how is it affecting your judgement now ? I mean if it already happened once, I don't understand how you guys can be so certain that it wouldn't happen again. Are you actually trolling now? The only reason the Egyptians could even be deported in the first place was because it was a matter between the CIA, the Swedish secrept police and the foreign minister. Assange is a case for the justice system. I'm starting to think you haven't read a word of this thread at all :/ It's not the same situation, they're not even related in any way, and I consider a deportation to USA without a promise of no execution / no torture as likely as the second coming of Jesus Christ, and I'm an atheist. Apparently the second coming of Jesus Christ is related to pretty much everything, because it happened once before, right? How would you say that affects your judgement in every day life? You can try to convince yourself that the 2001 case was different to this one as much as you want. The point I'm trying to make is that event a country like Sweden already had some sort of scandal in a judicial case. It's not an argument of how close or not those scandals were to this one. The question I asked, the one you keep dodging, is important in my opinion because it asks how your personal opinion is going to change concerning precedence of ANY drama / scandal that happened in the Swedish judicial system before. If your opinion is solely based on a experience of "positive" case resolutions, then it means that : a) - you don't have enough experience (which I highly doubt) or b) - you choose to ignore the "negative" case resolutions with the argument that they are different cases Independent of your answer (a or b) to the previous question, it means that precedence of some kind of judicial scandal in Sweden completely dismisses your argument of : "Oh but this wouldn't ever happen in Sweden because we have a good judicial system".
The one main difference is the the case of the Egyptians were not publicly know at the time. I don't think it was mentioned in papers or anything until years later when it became a scandal. They didn't get a fair trial in a Swedish court. If a politician is going to sidestep the judical system and make an illegal decision it is best done in secret. This is simply not possible with J.A. So that the system fails in the same way I find extremely unlikely and therefore I think the case of the Egyptians is irrelevant.
But what I can agree with is that there are few if any comparable cases to J.A. So it's hard to predict 100 % how a court will reason. All experts seem to agree that he can't be extradited and that's what I believe, but most of us have no way of really knowing if there is any loophole.
|
Will there be an announcement in the next 15 minutes from his lawyer or is my time converting off?
|
On August 19 2012 19:09 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 18:53 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 17:08 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 13:12 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 12:16 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 11:13 LunaSea wrote:
Hypothetical situation :
Assange flies to Sweden and sadly gets extradited to the US.
Now here's my question :
Would that hypothetical situation change your mind on the matter for other cases like this that would happen in the future ?
There you have 2 possible answers :
- If yes, why didn't the first case (the scandal everyone mentioned some pages before) change your opinion already ?
- If no, it means that you have a bias in favor of your country. Which is fine but then again you have to admit it. The first case is irrelevant. It was the minister of foreign affairs committing a felony and going against the constitution. She was very popular during her career, and was very likely to become the next prime minister. She was stabbed to death by a crazy person while shopping at a mall and was basically proclaimed saintlike, as murdered people often are. Later the deportation was discovered, and there was a huge public uproar. Just the fact that the Egypt deal was the 18 december of 2001 right after 9/11 and the fact that the Egyptians deported were kept a secret and incognito for two and a half years should be enough to make it irrelevant to this. This has been mentioned countless times in this thread, and the facts are easy to get through a google search, yet you among others seem to think this is a great argument and bring up some uneducated 'Sweden tortures Egyptians in USA herp derp'. If he's deported to the US without an agreement that he won't be tortured or killed, I'll change my mind. The Egypt deportations are completely irrelevant in every way, and don't swing my opinions in either direction. Actually it is very relevant. I'm not talking about what happened at that point nor the political situation the world was in. It's basically this : What are the conclusions that you guys personally took out of that and how is it affecting your judgement now ? I mean if it already happened once, I don't understand how you guys can be so certain that it wouldn't happen again. Are you actually trolling now? The only reason the Egyptians could even be deported in the first place was because it was a matter between the CIA, the Swedish secrept police and the foreign minister. Assange is a case for the justice system. I'm starting to think you haven't read a word of this thread at all :/ It's not the same situation, they're not even related in any way, and I consider a deportation to USA without a promise of no execution / no torture as likely as the second coming of Jesus Christ, and I'm an atheist. Apparently the second coming of Jesus Christ is related to pretty much everything, because it happened once before, right? How would you say that affects your judgement in every day life? You can try to convince yourself that the 2001 case was different to this one as much as you want. The point I'm trying to make is that event a country like Sweden already had some sort of scandal in a judicial case. It's not an argument of how close or not those scandals were to this one. The question I asked, the one you keep dodging, is important in my opinion because it asks how your personal opinion is going to change concerning precedence of ANY drama / scandal that happened in the Swedish judicial system before. If your opinion is solely based on a experience of "positive" case resolutions, then it means that : a) - you don't have enough experience (which I highly doubt) or b) - you choose to ignore the "negative" case resolutions with the argument that they are different cases Independent of your answer (a or b) to the previous question, it means that precedence of some kind of judicial scandal in Sweden completely dismisses your argument of : "Oh but this wouldn't ever happen in Sweden because we have a good judicial system". It wasn't a scandal in the Swedish judicial system. The problem was that one minister broke the law. The judicial system wasn't involved. It is as unrelated to this case as the second coming of Jesus christ as someone said. But then again, I could probably make the argument that the second coming of Jesus isn't 100% unrelated to a potential extradition of Julian Assange. Get your facts straight about that incident. Put it into context. When was it? What did the US threaten Sweden with ? After all it is only one case where Sweden budged and "helped" the US in the witch hunt on terrorists after 9/11. God awful atrocities were committed because a rancid US government declared that "if you are not with us, you are against us". Who knows the full extent of what the US made its allies do? There are likely many cases like this incriminating pretty much every European country. As NATO members I think that some countries were expected by the US to help more than others if you know what I mean. I am pretty sure that the UK has handed over many a terrorist to the US who ended up in the Guantanamo prison/torture facility. Are you telling me that the single odd case should make Assange fear extradition from Sweden more than from the UK?
When I said "judicial scandal" I meant ANY case that had a negative effect on the Swedish judicial system.
Why do you guys keep coming back with arguments trying to prove that the 2001 case was different ?
ANY case that was handled poorly to the point that it created a mediatic / popular uproar is valid in the arguments I was making.
|
On August 19 2012 19:17 Breavman wrote:
But what I can agree with is that there are few if any comparable cases to J.A. So it's hard to predict 100 % how a court will reason. All experts seem to agree that he can't be extradited and that's what I believe, but most of us have no way of really knowing if there is any loophole.
Ah, thank you Breavman.
That's exactly what I was trying to explain.
Sorry if my terrible english made it incomprehensible.
|
BlackRobe:
Yes you are correct about that. 9 minutes left 
Scheme:
I wasn't talking about just anyone with your opinion, only those who try to bend every single thing to fit into their mold made out of conspiracy.
LunaSea:
OK. I think you are actually trolling now. I wont discuss this with you any longer.
Do me a favor and read up on that case and its aftermaths. There are even wikileaks documents about how Sweden managed to piss off the US in a very related case.
|
On August 19 2012 19:22 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 19:17 Breavman wrote:
But what I can agree with is that there are few if any comparable cases to J.A. So it's hard to predict 100 % how a court will reason. All experts seem to agree that he can't be extradited and that's what I believe, but most of us have no way of really knowing if there is any loophole.
Ah, thank you Breavman. That's exactly what I was trying to explain. Sorry if my terrible english made it incomprehensible.
Yes this is the valid fear. But the tortured Egyptians is this a bad comparable since it wasn't about the courts handling anything badly.
|
On August 19 2012 19:24 one-one-one wrote:BlackRobe: Yes you are correct about that. 9 minutes left + Show Spoiler +Scheme:
I wasn't talking about just anyone with your opinion, only those who try to bend every single thing to fit into their mold made out of conspiracy.
LunaSea:
OK. I think you are actually trolling now. I wont discuss this with you any longer.
Do me a favor and read up on that case and its aftermaths. There are even wikileaks documents about how Sweden managed to piss off the US in a very related case.
Thanks, i'm watching a live stream of it now.
|
On August 19 2012 19:24 one-one-one wrote:BlackRobe: Yes you are correct about that. 9 minutes left Scheme: I wasn't talking about just anyone with your opinion, only those who try to bend every single thing to fit into their mold made out of conspiracy. LunaSea: OK. I think you are actually trolling now. I wont discuss this with you any longer. Do me a favor and read up on that case and its aftermaths. There are even wikileaks documents about how Sweden managed to piss off the US in a very related case.
From this point on I consider you as not thinking rationally anymore.
If you can't understand that the simple fact that drama already happened in your country (like any other country in world) dismisses the :
"Oh that wouldn't happen in Sweden"
argument. Then I don't know what will.
That's the problem with great countries like Sweden I feel.
You are so accustomed to having a good judicial system that it is even hard for you to not believe that "everything will be right" and to not have a naive approach.
|
On August 19 2012 19:33 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 19:24 one-one-one wrote:BlackRobe: Yes you are correct about that. 9 minutes left Scheme: I wasn't talking about just anyone with your opinion, only those who try to bend every single thing to fit into their mold made out of conspiracy. LunaSea: OK. I think you are actually trolling now. I wont discuss this with you any longer. Do me a favor and read up on that case and its aftermaths. There are even wikileaks documents about how Sweden managed to piss off the US in a very related case. From this point on I consider you as not thinking rationally anymore. If you can't understand that the simple fact that drama already happened in your country (like any other country in world) dismisses the : "Oh that wouldn't happen in Sweden" argument. Then I don't know what will. That's the problem with great countries like Sweden I feel. You are so accustomed to having a good judicial system that it is even hard for you to not believe that "everything will be right" and to not have a naive approach.
I never said that it would *never* happen again. What I said was that its relevance to the Assange case is small.
More people than me have been trying to explain this to you but the last 3 posts or so by you are full with ramblings about this.
I'll let the others continue to debate with you.
I'm fed up.
Or maybe I'm not thinking rationally, I can't tell.
|
On August 19 2012 19:33 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 19:24 one-one-one wrote:BlackRobe: Yes you are correct about that. 9 minutes left Scheme: I wasn't talking about just anyone with your opinion, only those who try to bend every single thing to fit into their mold made out of conspiracy. LunaSea: OK. I think you are actually trolling now. I wont discuss this with you any longer. Do me a favor and read up on that case and its aftermaths. There are even wikileaks documents about how Sweden managed to piss off the US in a very related case. From this point on I consider you as not thinking rationally anymore. If you can't understand that the simple fact that drama already happened in your country (like any other country in world) dismisses the : "Oh that wouldn't happen in Sweden" argument. Then I don't know what will. That's the problem with great countries like Sweden I feel. You are so accustomed to having a good judicial system that it is even hard for you to not believe that "everything will be right" and to not have a naive approach.
You repeatedly mentioned the Egypt case. That's outside the law and cannot be considered in this case. It simply has nothing whatsoever to do with this case, and it's annoying that it's brought up countless times in this thread by people who seemingly heard half the report on Fox News or something.
One scandal that however is relevant is the piratebay case where two judges in a row were connected to the 'anti piratebay association' and were kicked off the case. That's the biggest scandal in the judicial system that I can think of, and it still makes me pretty pissed as it's obvious that the court was influenced by media corporations.
The judicial system is not flawless, but this is too hight profile for a politicians to jump in guns blazing and kicking him out while breaking EU law, Swedish law and Swedish constitution.
What could happen (as I've mentioned several times already) is that he's given to the US in exchange of them promising that he won't be tortured or killed. This can only happen if the US files charges against him and puts up a warrant for his arrest through interpol.
It would still have to go a court case to whether or not this request is valid. Hopefully they'll just set him free. Assange chose Sweden as the location for the wikileaks servers (which are still up) because of the judicial system.
The constant arrogance shown in this thread about Sweden being a corrupt banana state that is some kind of cow boy lawless land is just very tiresome.
|
next step should just be some unofficial guarantee that he wont get extradited (considering the treatment of manning) so he can go to Sweden and get it over with already
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
