|
|
|
I believe that the US officials involved in this would be quite happy with not pressing any charges and just sit back and enjoy the show as he ruins his name and reputation.
|
On August 19 2012 20:56 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 20:45 blomsterjohn wrote:
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 They dont even have to bring him to sweden to interview him. Theres no reason they cant do it either in england or skype.
This is a false claim. The case might require a whole chain of examinations with victims and perpetrator.
During this process it might be required that the accused person has to remain in custody so that he/she can't
affect the process somehow.
This is basic stuff that you should know.
It is a moot point anyways since the British supreme court has decided that he is to be extradited for questioning.
The point of the increased level of cooperation between police and law agencies in different EU countries is that country borders should matter less. It is meant to work this way.
You might argue the exact same thing if a person is wanted by the police in city A and then arrested in city B.
A and B are in the same country.
Why can't the police in city A interrogate the person over skype ?
It is not supposed to work that way.
|
|
|
On August 19 2012 21:16 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 21:08 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 20:56 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 20:45 blomsterjohn wrote:
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 They dont even have to bring him to sweden to interview him. Theres no reason they cant do it either in england or skype. This is a false claim. The case might require a whole chain of examinations with victims and perpetrator. During this process it might be required that the accused person has to remain in custody so that he/she can't affect the process somehow. This is basic stuff that you should know. It is a moot point anyways since the British supreme court has decided that he is to be extradited for questioning. The point of the increased level of cooperation between police and law agencies in different EU countries is that country borders should matter less. It is meant to work this way. You might argue the exact same thing if a person is wanted by the police in city A and then arrested in city B. A and B are in the same country. Why can't the police in city A interrogate the person over skype ? It is not supposed to work that way. You are wrong, because he hasn't been charged for any crime at all. The only next step in the process is simply talking to him and ask him questions, which is possible in every way to do with swedish officials going to the ecuadorian embassy, which they even have offered to do but the sweden have declined the offer several times.
It obviously doesn't matter whether he has been charged or not.
The next logical step is to bring him to Sweden for interrogation because Sweden has requested this and Britain has acknowledged the request.
|
Or the next logical step is for our respective governments to stop pandering to political pressure from the US.
Realise he has legitimate concerns about being extradited to the United States by the Swedish government were he to go there to be interrogated.
And to conduct the interrogation in a way which does not risk his extradition. Perhaps, say, the Swedish authorities sending someone//people to the Ecuadorian embassey to conduct it, as has been offered, and is a method that has been used in the past in similar situations.
|
|
|
On August 19 2012 21:16 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 21:08 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 20:56 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 20:45 blomsterjohn wrote:
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 They dont even have to bring him to sweden to interview him. Theres no reason they cant do it either in england or skype. This is a false claim. The case might require a whole chain of examinations with victims and perpetrator. During this process it might be required that the accused person has to remain in custody so that he/she can't affect the process somehow. This is basic stuff that you should know. It is a moot point anyways since the British supreme court has decided that he is to be extradited for questioning. The point of the increased level of cooperation between police and law agencies in different EU countries is that country borders should matter less. It is meant to work this way. You might argue the exact same thing if a person is wanted by the police in city A and then arrested in city B. A and B are in the same country. Why can't the police in city A interrogate the person over skype ? It is not supposed to work that way. You are wrong, because he hasn't been charged for any crime at all. The only next step in the process is simply talking to him and ask him questions, which is possible in every way to do with swedish officials going to the ecuadorian embassy, which they even have offered to do but the sweden have declined the offer several times.
It is pretty common to wait with filing any charges until you talk with a suspect.
Charging a suspect after questioning is also a common practice. You might have noticed that they can't exactly do the second part if he is in the Ecuadorian embassy.
They don't want to just have a chat with him, they want to figure out whether or not to charge him. If he is sitting in the Ecuadorian embassy, they can only ask him questions.
Hell, he could tell them he raped half of Sweden and they couldn't even put hands on him.
The police can't do its work from such a position of weakness where the suspect gets to decide whether he gets arrested or not.
|
On August 19 2012 21:29 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 21:22 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 21:16 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 21:08 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 20:56 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 20:45 blomsterjohn wrote:
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 They dont even have to bring him to sweden to interview him. Theres no reason they cant do it either in england or skype. This is a false claim. The case might require a whole chain of examinations with victims and perpetrator. During this process it might be required that the accused person has to remain in custody so that he/she can't affect the process somehow. This is basic stuff that you should know. It is a moot point anyways since the British supreme court has decided that he is to be extradited for questioning. The point of the increased level of cooperation between police and law agencies in different EU countries is that country borders should matter less. It is meant to work this way. You might argue the exact same thing if a person is wanted by the police in city A and then arrested in city B. A and B are in the same country. Why can't the police in city A interrogate the person over skype ? It is not supposed to work that way. You are wrong, because he hasn't been charged for any crime at all. The only next step in the process is simply talking to him and ask him questions, which is possible in every way to do with swedish officials going to the ecuadorian embassy, which they even have offered to do but the sweden have declined the offer several times. It obviously doesn't matter whether he has been charged or not. The next logical step is to bring him to Sweden for interrogation because Sweden has requested this and Britain has acknowledged the request. It does matter because he doesn't HAVE to be questioned while in sweden, it can be done anywhere, even if there is an extradition. There are several paths they can take, including promising JA he wont be extradited to the US, which shouldnt be hard at all if thats not the purpose. No somewhat sensible person in his position in the world would trust sweden in this situation. Sweden is not the true pure country as you seem to think it is.
Do your fucking homework before you come here and spread false information.
He is extradited for questioning. It is implicit in the fucking request that it is for questioning primarily even though it of course also allows Sweden to press subsequent charges.
We have already been over the reasons why Sweden can't give any such guarantees. Go look it up yourself, it is probably not for the reasons you think it is.
You have no credibility when you say that no sensible person would or should trust Sweden since you just proved in your last few posts that you are clueless about the Swedish legal system.
|
But, seeing what was posted a page back...
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.
Wouldn't it be nearly impossible for a judge to accept any US guarantee considering the treatment of manning (and how that prolly constitutes "more as torture" in sweden than in the US i reckon)?
ed: considering the obvious link between Manning / Wikileaks that is, wouldn't he serve almost as a direct precedent in this case or something?
|
On August 19 2012 21:37 blomsterjohn wrote:But, seeing what was posted a page back... Show nested quote +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. Wouldn't it be nearly impossible for a judge to accept any US guarantee considering the treatment of manning (and how that prolly constitutes "more as torture" in sweden than in the US i reckon)? ed: considering the obvious link between Manning / Wikileaks that is, wouldn't he serve almost as a direct precedent in this case or something?
This!
It seems that this is something that only Scandinavian citizens can comprehend 
US has proved repeatedly that its promises and intentions cannot be trusted. They gave Sweden guarantees against the use of torture and of a fair trial in the case with the Egyptians.
Swedish judges can simply not dismiss this fact.
|
On August 19 2012 21:44 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 21:37 blomsterjohn wrote:But, seeing what was posted a page back... 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. Wouldn't it be nearly impossible for a judge to accept any US guarantee considering the treatment of manning (and how that prolly constitutes "more as torture" in sweden than in the US i reckon)? ed: considering the obvious link between Manning / Wikileaks that is, wouldn't he serve almost as a direct precedent in this case or something? This! It seems that this is something that only Scandinavian citizens can comprehend US has proved repeatedly that its promises and intentions cannot be trusted. They gave Sweden guarantees against the use of torture and of a fair trial in the case with the Egyptians. Swedish judges can simply not dismiss this fact.
They aren't giving him in the first place, and the US doesn't want him...
The US didn't ask for Assange, ever. He was in the UK for a long time and they never bothered to request him.
The truth is that the US has no intention of having Assange extradited.
|
|
|
On August 19 2012 21:49 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 21:36 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 21:29 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 21:22 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 21:16 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 21:08 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 20:56 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 20:45 blomsterjohn wrote:
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 They dont even have to bring him to sweden to interview him. Theres no reason they cant do it either in england or skype. This is a false claim. The case might require a whole chain of examinations with victims and perpetrator. During this process it might be required that the accused person has to remain in custody so that he/she can't affect the process somehow. This is basic stuff that you should know. It is a moot point anyways since the British supreme court has decided that he is to be extradited for questioning. The point of the increased level of cooperation between police and law agencies in different EU countries is that country borders should matter less. It is meant to work this way. You might argue the exact same thing if a person is wanted by the police in city A and then arrested in city B. A and B are in the same country. Why can't the police in city A interrogate the person over skype ? It is not supposed to work that way. You are wrong, because he hasn't been charged for any crime at all. The only next step in the process is simply talking to him and ask him questions, which is possible in every way to do with swedish officials going to the ecuadorian embassy, which they even have offered to do but the sweden have declined the offer several times. It obviously doesn't matter whether he has been charged or not. The next logical step is to bring him to Sweden for interrogation because Sweden has requested this and Britain has acknowledged the request. It does matter because he doesn't HAVE to be questioned while in sweden, it can be done anywhere, even if there is an extradition. There are several paths they can take, including promising JA he wont be extradited to the US, which shouldnt be hard at all if thats not the purpose. No somewhat sensible person in his position in the world would trust sweden in this situation. Sweden is not the true pure country as you seem to think it is. Do your fucking homework before you come here and spread false information.up yourself, it is probably not for the reasons you think it is. He is extradited for questioning. It is implicit in the fucking request that it is for questioning primarily even though it of course also allows Sweden to press subsequent charges. We have already been over the reasons why Sweden can't give any such guarantees. Go look it You have no credibility when you say that no sensible person would or should trust Sweden since you just proved in your last few posts that you are clueless about the Swedish legal system. Nothing i have said is incorrect and you are simply showing that you have awful reading comprehension. Yes, he is extradited for questioning, but they still can do it in the UK, even if there are steps to come after. There are no reasons sweden cant give a guarantee to not send him to the US after, and because we have a law that says he can't, it should be VERY easy to make such a promise, the excuses made up to deny this are pure bullshit. Your "everyone is wrong except me" stance is simply ridiculous and you will eventually realize that. Poll: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden?No (61) 91% Yes (6) 9% 67 total votes Your vote: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Everything you say is incorrect is a more accurate description...
Funny how your reading comprehension makes you draw the conclusion that I think that everyone except me is wrong.
Look again and you will see that there are many persons that agree with me.
You are completely clueless and there is no point discussing with you.
|
|
|
On August 19 2012 21:56 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 21:55 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 21:49 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 21:36 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 21:29 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 21:22 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 21:16 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 21:08 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 20:56 zeru wrote:On August 19 2012 20:45 blomsterjohn wrote:
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 They dont even have to bring him to sweden to interview him. Theres no reason they cant do it either in england or skype. This is a false claim. The case might require a whole chain of examinations with victims and perpetrator. During this process it might be required that the accused person has to remain in custody so that he/she can't affect the process somehow. This is basic stuff that you should know. It is a moot point anyways since the British supreme court has decided that he is to be extradited for questioning. The point of the increased level of cooperation between police and law agencies in different EU countries is that country borders should matter less. It is meant to work this way. You might argue the exact same thing if a person is wanted by the police in city A and then arrested in city B. A and B are in the same country. Why can't the police in city A interrogate the person over skype ? It is not supposed to work that way. You are wrong, because he hasn't been charged for any crime at all. The only next step in the process is simply talking to him and ask him questions, which is possible in every way to do with swedish officials going to the ecuadorian embassy, which they even have offered to do but the sweden have declined the offer several times. It obviously doesn't matter whether he has been charged or not. The next logical step is to bring him to Sweden for interrogation because Sweden has requested this and Britain has acknowledged the request. It does matter because he doesn't HAVE to be questioned while in sweden, it can be done anywhere, even if there is an extradition. There are several paths they can take, including promising JA he wont be extradited to the US, which shouldnt be hard at all if thats not the purpose. No somewhat sensible person in his position in the world would trust sweden in this situation. Sweden is not the true pure country as you seem to think it is. Do your fucking homework before you come here and spread false information.up yourself, it is probably not for the reasons you think it is. He is extradited for questioning. It is implicit in the fucking request that it is for questioning primarily even though it of course also allows Sweden to press subsequent charges. We have already been over the reasons why Sweden can't give any such guarantees. Go look it You have no credibility when you say that no sensible person would or should trust Sweden since you just proved in your last few posts that you are clueless about the Swedish legal system. Nothing i have said is incorrect and you are simply showing that you have awful reading comprehension. Yes, he is extradited for questioning, but they still can do it in the UK, even if there are steps to come after. There are no reasons sweden cant give a guarantee to not send him to the US after, and because we have a law that says he can't, it should be VERY easy to make such a promise, the excuses made up to deny this are pure bullshit. Your "everyone is wrong except me" stance is simply ridiculous and you will eventually realize that. Poll: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden?No (61) 91% Yes (6) 9% 67 total votes Your vote: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Everything you say is incorrect is a more accurate description... Funny how your reading comprehension makes you draw the conclusion that I think that everyone except me is wrong. Look again and you will see that there are many persons that agree with me. You are completely clueless and there is no point discussing with you. Thank you for proving my point
Mods.
I have not been blessed with a report button , but for the sake of this discussion I would like someone to take a look at the last 5-10 pages. The problem is that the same false claims and irrelevant points are being brought up time and time again.
"There is absolutely no reason why Swedish police can't interrogate him over telephone or skype"
Wrong!
"Sweden could just make guarantees to not hand him over to the US"
Wrong!
"Sweden should press charges before they demand him extradited"
Wrong!
I could go on and on ...
It is getting very tiresome and it definitely lowers the quality of TL as a discussion forum if this ignorance is allowed to prevail.
|
It is true.
There seem to be about 3-4 complaints about why it "smells fishy."
You refute argument A, they give argument B. You refute argument B, they say argument C. You refute argument C, they give argument A.
People are just going in circles, constantly refuting the conspiracy nonesense, only for it to be repeated.
|
|
|
Though, it would be quite interesting to see what would happen if he went to sweden, got extradited on some thin lapdog reasoning, and sentences to life in prison (or even death), in terms of what kind of protests that would lead to
could be a pretty insane martyr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
