|
On August 19 2012 22:55 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 22:53 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 22:52 LunaSea wrote:On August 19 2012 22:46 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 22:42 LunaSea wrote:On August 19 2012 22:37 one-one-one wrote:
USA confirming that there are no charges against him is actually a neat solution. The delusion is strong in you. ??? That is what he asked for himself, no ? It is, but the USA didn't confirm anything. Dude, it is like 20 minutes since his demand  Yeah I watched it you know. And the keyword in your answer is "demand". It's a demand. It isn't confirming anything like I said before.
I agree it isn't confirming anything.
I find it interesting though as it marks a change in his stance.
Him screaming and waving about hidden agendas with regards to Sweden not guaranteeing US extradition was not credible as his lawyers would have been able to explain why such a guarantees were impossible to get.
This might be a faint sign of some pragmatism by Assange. Maybe he is grasping for alternative solutions because he is starting to get tired of living in a cramped office.
|
On August 19 2012 22:57 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 22:43 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:30 DwD wrote:
It's quite odd to hear Assange praise countries which are doing things he is trying to fight. Free press etc. Shit like this doesn't exist in these countries. As has nicely been said on twitter: "Ecuador is imperfect - Sweden is imperfect - the US and the UK are imperfect. Who took steps today to improve things? Ecuador." A thief is a criminal. A murderer is a criminal. Ergo, all criminals are the same. By covering up gross human rights violations under the denomination "imperfect," the writer attempts to make you ignore just how terrible Ecuador's stance on, for example, free-journalism is. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-ecuador-journalist-idUSTRE77S5AI20110829But, you know: Sweden is imperfect, North-Korea is imperfect, so what is the difference, really?
Oh please if i had to take in account all human rights violations the peace index would be much different.
Still the point remains, Ecuador does improves its grades, Sweden, UK and co. loosing points in this particular case.
Btw, also Assange's legal adviser made statements
FYI Baltasar Garzon was the guy who tried to extradite general Pinochet from UK to Spain to face trial for crimes against humanity but they just let him free.
A thief is not a murderer but who is a thief and who is the murderer rly? 
|
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
Please, at least give a try to read the thread 10 pages back or so. Literally everything you said is either questionable or just plain lies. How the hell can you be calling someone out on reading comprehension when you're apparently unable to even get your facts straight?
He can't be interviewed via a web cam, because that's not how law enforcement is supposed to work. For instance, if I raped a woman, I can't very well say "oh fuck off, I'll stand trial via my web cam or you can just forget it. If I'm actually found guilty I'll try to run to a banana state that will protect me" when the police comes through my door. It removes the entire point of a trial.
He can't be given guarantees as this would be a severe violation against our constitution. The decision would have to go through the court of law. For instance David Cameron didn't just say "oh Assange is here, but the Swedes want him. Here you go". It had to go through the legal system to see if the Swedish claim was just.
They found it to be true in two instances, and he was to be extradited to Sweden.
Politicians can't walk into a court session and go "I'm in charge here, gtfo he's gonna be tortured and hanged!". That's not how things work here. It does in Ecuador though, which is probably part of the reason why their president thinks so. It's a disgrace that you seem to be as uneducated in the our legal system as him though.
|
|
|
On August 19 2012 23:28 accela wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 22:57 zalz wrote:On August 19 2012 22:43 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:30 DwD wrote:
It's quite odd to hear Assange praise countries which are doing things he is trying to fight. Free press etc. Shit like this doesn't exist in these countries. As has nicely been said on twitter: "Ecuador is imperfect - Sweden is imperfect - the US and the UK are imperfect. Who took steps today to improve things? Ecuador." A thief is a criminal. A murderer is a criminal. Ergo, all criminals are the same. By covering up gross human rights violations under the denomination "imperfect," the writer attempts to make you ignore just how terrible Ecuador's stance on, for example, free-journalism is. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-ecuador-journalist-idUSTRE77S5AI20110829But, you know: Sweden is imperfect, North-Korea is imperfect, so what is the difference, really? Oh please if i had to take in account all human rights violations the peace index would be much different. Still the point remains, Ecuador does improves its grades, Sweden, UK and co. loosing points in this particular case. Btw, also Assange's legal adviser made statementsFYI Baltasar Garzon was the guy who tried to extradite general Pinochet from UK to Spain to face trial for crimes against humanity but they just let him free. A thief is not a murderer but who is a thief and who is the murderer rly?
What case are you talking about?
The events unfolding over the last weeks?
How can Sweden possibly have lost any credibility points for pursuing a suspect?
Are we supposed to ignore the prosecutors request to interrogate him?
Come up with a constructive list of things Sweden could have done where none of the points is against the Swedish constitution.
|
On August 19 2012 21:22 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +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.
"Mutual Legal Assistance is clearly permitted by both Swedish and UK law. There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA (2007) 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute."
link for the ruling: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337
I swear this has been mentioned like 100 times now and you seem to ignore it.
EDIT: just read you crying to the mods and saying people should do their homework. Maybe you should do your homework as the ruling above it seems gives them the ability to question him whilst abroad!!!
|
On August 19 2012 23:36 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 23:28 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:57 zalz wrote:On August 19 2012 22:43 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:30 DwD wrote:
It's quite odd to hear Assange praise countries which are doing things he is trying to fight. Free press etc. Shit like this doesn't exist in these countries. As has nicely been said on twitter: "Ecuador is imperfect - Sweden is imperfect - the US and the UK are imperfect. Who took steps today to improve things? Ecuador." A thief is a criminal. A murderer is a criminal. Ergo, all criminals are the same. By covering up gross human rights violations under the denomination "imperfect," the writer attempts to make you ignore just how terrible Ecuador's stance on, for example, free-journalism is. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-ecuador-journalist-idUSTRE77S5AI20110829But, you know: Sweden is imperfect, North-Korea is imperfect, so what is the difference, really? Oh please if i had to take in account all human rights violations the peace index would be much different. Still the point remains, Ecuador does improves its grades, Sweden, UK and co. loosing points in this particular case. Btw, also Assange's legal adviser made statementsFYI Baltasar Garzon was the guy who tried to extradite general Pinochet from UK to Spain to face trial for crimes against humanity but they just let him free. A thief is not a murderer but who is a thief and who is the murderer rly? What case are you talking about? The events unfolding over the last weeks? How can Sweden possibly have lost any credibility points for pursuing a suspect? Are we supposed to ignore the prosecutors request to interrogate him? Come up with a constructive list of things Sweden could have done where none of the points is against the Swedish constitution.
Assange was for 2 years in house arrest at UK.
Send a team of investigators there.
Do the questioning.
Continue with the case.
???????
Profit!!
|
On August 19 2012 23:41 accela wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 23:36 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 23:28 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:57 zalz wrote:On August 19 2012 22:43 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:30 DwD wrote:
It's quite odd to hear Assange praise countries which are doing things he is trying to fight. Free press etc. Shit like this doesn't exist in these countries. As has nicely been said on twitter: "Ecuador is imperfect - Sweden is imperfect - the US and the UK are imperfect. Who took steps today to improve things? Ecuador." A thief is a criminal. A murderer is a criminal. Ergo, all criminals are the same. By covering up gross human rights violations under the denomination "imperfect," the writer attempts to make you ignore just how terrible Ecuador's stance on, for example, free-journalism is. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-ecuador-journalist-idUSTRE77S5AI20110829But, you know: Sweden is imperfect, North-Korea is imperfect, so what is the difference, really? Oh please if i had to take in account all human rights violations the peace index would be much different. Still the point remains, Ecuador does improves its grades, Sweden, UK and co. loosing points in this particular case. Btw, also Assange's legal adviser made statementsFYI Baltasar Garzon was the guy who tried to extradite general Pinochet from UK to Spain to face trial for crimes against humanity but they just let him free. A thief is not a murderer but who is a thief and who is the murderer rly? What case are you talking about? The events unfolding over the last weeks? How can Sweden possibly have lost any credibility points for pursuing a suspect? Are we supposed to ignore the prosecutors request to interrogate him? Come up with a constructive list of things Sweden could have done where none of the points is against the Swedish constitution. Assange was for 2 years in house arrest at UK. Send a team of investigators there. Do the questioning. Continue with the case. ??????? Profit!!
.. And then what? What if the questioning determines they have a case. Do you think he will just come with them?
|
On August 19 2012 22:37 one-one-one wrote:
He seems to finally have understood that Sweden can't give the guarantees he wants.
USA confirming that there are no charges against him is actually a neat solution.
There are no charges now, the same way there are no charges for rape in Sweden. it doesnt mean they won't pursue it later:
http://google.com/search?q=US stratfor email assange indictment
|
On August 19 2012 23:39 Scheme 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. Mutual Legal Assistance is clearly permitted by both Swedish and UK law. There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA (2007) 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute. link for the ruling: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337I swear this has been mentioned like 100 times now and you seem to ignore it. EDIT: just read you crying to the mods and saying people should do their homework. Maybe you should do your homework as the ruling above it seems gives them the ability to question him whilst abroad!!!
Don't worry, your post will be ignored, or at most you'll be given some idiotic excuse, like "that was an exception and they can't possibly make another one", or "that case is irrelevant for whatever idiotic reasons they can come up with"
There's a reason political figures say and repeat so much bullshit and outright lies(that can be easily fact checked). There will always be idiots that will believe it, and they'll even defend it over and over. After they're proven wrong they'll make a bunch of excuses and the next time they will defend the same bullshit again and will claim all the previous cases were exceptions or irrelevant.
|
Lol Ecuador must be loving every single second of this. This dude apparently fighting for freedom of expression, speech and truth is praising them up the wazoo in front of the whole world. Ecuador of all nations...
|
On August 19 2012 23:51 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 23:39 Scheme 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. Mutual Legal Assistance is clearly permitted by both Swedish and UK law. There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA (2007) 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute. link for the ruling: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337I swear this has been mentioned like 100 times now and you seem to ignore it. EDIT: just read you crying to the mods and saying people should do their homework. Maybe you should do your homework as the ruling above it seems gives them the ability to question him whilst abroad!!! Don't worry, your post will be ignored, or at most you'll be given some idiotic excuse, like "that was an exception and they can't possibly make another one", or "that case is irrelevant for whatever idiotic reasons they can come up with" There's a reason political figures say and repeat so much bullshit and outright lies(that can be easily fact checked). There will always be idiots that will believe it, and they'll even defend it over and over. After they're proven wrong they'll make a bunch of excuses and the next time they will defend the same bullshit again and will claim all the previous cases were exceptions or irrelevant.
Hey!
I could say the same thing about famous people making conspiracy theories.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
So, what do we actually know about the rape allegation? I've heard wildly different stories about the woman and her lawyer, and about what happened. I would think if there was enough evidence, they would charge him without needing to interview him. Is it pretty obvious that this is all smoke and mirrors, or is there actually some factual evidence that he committed this crime?
|
On August 19 2012 23:44 DwD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 23:41 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 23:36 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 23:28 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:57 zalz wrote:On August 19 2012 22:43 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:30 DwD wrote:
It's quite odd to hear Assange praise countries which are doing things he is trying to fight. Free press etc. Shit like this doesn't exist in these countries. As has nicely been said on twitter: "Ecuador is imperfect - Sweden is imperfect - the US and the UK are imperfect. Who took steps today to improve things? Ecuador." A thief is a criminal. A murderer is a criminal. Ergo, all criminals are the same. By covering up gross human rights violations under the denomination "imperfect," the writer attempts to make you ignore just how terrible Ecuador's stance on, for example, free-journalism is. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-ecuador-journalist-idUSTRE77S5AI20110829But, you know: Sweden is imperfect, North-Korea is imperfect, so what is the difference, really? Oh please if i had to take in account all human rights violations the peace index would be much different. Still the point remains, Ecuador does improves its grades, Sweden, UK and co. loosing points in this particular case. Btw, also Assange's legal adviser made statementsFYI Baltasar Garzon was the guy who tried to extradite general Pinochet from UK to Spain to face trial for crimes against humanity but they just let him free. A thief is not a murderer but who is a thief and who is the murderer rly? What case are you talking about? The events unfolding over the last weeks? How can Sweden possibly have lost any credibility points for pursuing a suspect? Are we supposed to ignore the prosecutors request to interrogate him? Come up with a constructive list of things Sweden could have done where none of the points is against the Swedish constitution. Assange was for 2 years in house arrest at UK. Send a team of investigators there. Do the questioning. Continue with the case. ??????? Profit!! .. And then what? What if the questioning determines they have a case. Do you think he will just come with them?
Then they would certainly have an extradiction request (but also a arrest warrant) that actually make "some" sense and have a guy who is at least charged with something. What he would do is just a wild guess.
|
On August 19 2012 23:39 Scheme 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. "Mutual Legal Assistance is clearly permitted by both Swedish and UK law. There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA (2007) 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute." link for the ruling: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337I swear this has been mentioned like 100 times now and you seem to ignore it. EDIT: just read you crying to the mods and saying people should do their homework. Maybe you should do your homework as the ruling above it seems gives them the ability to question him whilst abroad!!!
So a couple of things about that document. Assange might get up to 4 years in prison, while in your example it's just a man who has to pay his taxes.
The man in your example is a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, and had lived there for 6 years when the allegations were put forth. As he doesn't live in a EU country the extradition doesn't come to question it seems.
This is a brief translation of the document. If some other Swede would like to translate it differently, please do, as I'm uncomfortable with English legal terms especially.
He (the suspect) puts forth several times that he'd rather have a phone conversation, and is unwilling to go to Sweden (note similarities), but he's not met with any other answer than that he's been called to Sweden for questioning, and finally he's 'detained in his absence' (which Assange also has been).
According to the prosecutor it's not necessarily enough with a phone questioning as it's a large amount of material that they have to go through. It is also his opinion that it's doubtful that he'd be available if he's to be notified of the lawsuit.
(Mind you this person is not even charged with anything yet, and he's still been 'detained in his absence' and repeatedly called to come to Sweden for questioning (same as Assange).)
Further the possibility of him being questioned without him personally being in Sweden has not been up to discussion, even though the suspect repeatedly proposes this.
After a while the warrant for his arrest, (and with it the case, I assume) is proposed to be dismissed and closed, as it's not proved to be proportional to his crime (tax evasion) to be called to Sweden instead of a phone conference in accordance with a principle that no one is to spend money or time unnecessarily for an investigation. This however is repelled, and the warrant for his arrest is still active at the end of this document.
TL;DR You're full of shit. This document only solidifies that what's going on with Assange is following procedure. The only difference is that Assange is in the UK which is legally compelled to send him over to Sweden if he's requested, whereas the United Arab Emirates are not.
Edit. I bet you didn't expect anyone to actually read that thing, did you?
Edit2. Properly put my own words in parentheses.
|
On August 20 2012 00:09 accela wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 23:44 DwD wrote:On August 19 2012 23:41 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 23:36 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 23:28 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:57 zalz wrote:On August 19 2012 22:43 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:30 DwD wrote:
It's quite odd to hear Assange praise countries which are doing things he is trying to fight. Free press etc. Shit like this doesn't exist in these countries. As has nicely been said on twitter: "Ecuador is imperfect - Sweden is imperfect - the US and the UK are imperfect. Who took steps today to improve things? Ecuador." A thief is a criminal. A murderer is a criminal. Ergo, all criminals are the same. By covering up gross human rights violations under the denomination "imperfect," the writer attempts to make you ignore just how terrible Ecuador's stance on, for example, free-journalism is. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-ecuador-journalist-idUSTRE77S5AI20110829But, you know: Sweden is imperfect, North-Korea is imperfect, so what is the difference, really? Oh please if i had to take in account all human rights violations the peace index would be much different. Still the point remains, Ecuador does improves its grades, Sweden, UK and co. loosing points in this particular case. Btw, also Assange's legal adviser made statementsFYI Baltasar Garzon was the guy who tried to extradite general Pinochet from UK to Spain to face trial for crimes against humanity but they just let him free. A thief is not a murderer but who is a thief and who is the murderer rly? What case are you talking about? The events unfolding over the last weeks? How can Sweden possibly have lost any credibility points for pursuing a suspect? Are we supposed to ignore the prosecutors request to interrogate him? Come up with a constructive list of things Sweden could have done where none of the points is against the Swedish constitution. Assange was for 2 years in house arrest at UK. Send a team of investigators there. Do the questioning. Continue with the case. ??????? Profit!! .. And then what? What if the questioning determines they have a case. Do you think he will just come with them? Then they would certainly have an extradiction request (but also a arrest warrant) that actually make "some" sense and have a guy who is at least charged with something. What he would do is just a wild guess.
This has been brought up time and time again.
It is wrong, the supreme court has determined that the case for handing him over is valid by European law.
The European laws are meant to be followed and not your opinion of what makes "some" sense.
It is very clear.
|
On August 19 2012 23:51 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 23:39 Scheme 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. Mutual Legal Assistance is clearly permitted by both Swedish and UK law. There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA (2007) 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute. link for the ruling: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337I swear this has been mentioned like 100 times now and you seem to ignore it. EDIT: just read you crying to the mods and saying people should do their homework. Maybe you should do your homework as the ruling above it seems gives them the ability to question him whilst abroad!!! Don't worry, your post will be ignored, or at most you'll be given some idiotic excuse, like "that was an exception and they can't possibly make another one", or "that case is irrelevant for whatever idiotic reasons they can come up with" There's a reason political figures say and repeat so much bullshit and outright lies(that can be easily fact checked). There will always be idiots that will believe it, and they'll even defend it over and over. After they're proven wrong they'll make a bunch of excuses and the next time they will defend the same bullshit again and will claim all the previous cases were exceptions or irrelevant.
The point which Scheme brings up is valid and should not be dismissed. But that has nothing do with the discussion on wether or not a previous illegal extradtion is relevant. You are just (intentionally?) mixing up things without adding to the discussion.
On August 20 2012 00:05 Telcontar wrote:
So, what do we actually know about the rape allegation? I've heard wildly different stories about the woman and her lawyer, and about what happened. I would think if there was enough evidence, they would charge him without needing to interview him. Is it pretty obvious that this is all smoke and mirrors, or is there actually some factual evidence that he committed this crime?
Apparently the two women went to a police inspector to ask if Assange could be forced to take a HIV-test. It was only after this talk that they decided to press charges. From what I have read, the stories brought forward by the women doesn't sound too farfetched, and somewhat in line with what I have read about Assange earlier (a bit of an asshole/male chauvinist), but of course this is just speculation and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If there is no physical evidence it might come down to word against word and then it depends on wether Assange can give a believable recap of the actions which took place.
The initial case was changed from rape to sexual misconduc (not 100 % on the english legal terms), but then changed back to rape when a new prosecutor took the case, who is also a personal friend of the lawyer of the women! This part is the fishy part, but it may still be juridically correct for all I know. I don't think the US is in on this at all or the Assange will be extradited. But he might have been persued more harshly than he should for a pretty minor crime, just because the lawyer of the women and the prosecutor think it would be a feather in the hat to get this guy. They have been accused by some people of having "a feminist agenda". It's not meant as an attack against Wikileaks in any way, but if you want to defend Assange you can argue that it's a personal attack against him.
|
On August 20 2012 00:28 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 00:09 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 23:44 DwD wrote:On August 19 2012 23:41 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 23:36 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 23:28 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:57 zalz wrote:On August 19 2012 22:43 accela wrote:On August 19 2012 22:30 DwD wrote:
It's quite odd to hear Assange praise countries which are doing things he is trying to fight. Free press etc. Shit like this doesn't exist in these countries. As has nicely been said on twitter: "Ecuador is imperfect - Sweden is imperfect - the US and the UK are imperfect. Who took steps today to improve things? Ecuador." A thief is a criminal. A murderer is a criminal. Ergo, all criminals are the same. By covering up gross human rights violations under the denomination "imperfect," the writer attempts to make you ignore just how terrible Ecuador's stance on, for example, free-journalism is. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-ecuador-journalist-idUSTRE77S5AI20110829But, you know: Sweden is imperfect, North-Korea is imperfect, so what is the difference, really? Oh please if i had to take in account all human rights violations the peace index would be much different. Still the point remains, Ecuador does improves its grades, Sweden, UK and co. loosing points in this particular case. Btw, also Assange's legal adviser made statementsFYI Baltasar Garzon was the guy who tried to extradite general Pinochet from UK to Spain to face trial for crimes against humanity but they just let him free. A thief is not a murderer but who is a thief and who is the murderer rly? What case are you talking about? The events unfolding over the last weeks? How can Sweden possibly have lost any credibility points for pursuing a suspect? Are we supposed to ignore the prosecutors request to interrogate him? Come up with a constructive list of things Sweden could have done where none of the points is against the Swedish constitution. Assange was for 2 years in house arrest at UK. Send a team of investigators there. Do the questioning. Continue with the case. ??????? Profit!! .. And then what? What if the questioning determines they have a case. Do you think he will just come with them? Then they would certainly have an extradiction request (but also a arrest warrant) that actually make "some" sense and have a guy who is at least charged with something. What he would do is just a wild guess. This has been brought up time and time again. It is wrong, the supreme court has determined that the case for handing him over is valid by European law. The European laws are meant to be followed and not your opinion of what makes "some" sense. It is very clear.
And this has been also brought up again and again and as have been pointed out it's pretty obvious that the courts of UK agree with the extradiction and found nothing wrong with the arrest warrant.
But if people would just agree with the authorities then i guess we would have nothing to discuss.
Apparently (some) people do not agree with the court judgements and support Assange's out-of-law actions and that's where we are.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On August 20 2012 00:34 Breavman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 00:05 Telcontar wrote:
So, what do we actually know about the rape allegation? I've heard wildly different stories about the woman and her lawyer, and about what happened. I would think if there was enough evidence, they would charge him without needing to interview him. Is it pretty obvious that this is all smoke and mirrors, or is there actually some factual evidence that he committed this crime? Apparently the two women went to a police inspector to ask if Assange could be forced to take a HIV-test. It was only after this talk that they decided to press charges. From what I have read, the stories brought forward by the women doesn't sound too farfetched, and somewhat in line with what I have read about Assange earlier (a bit of an asshole/male chauvinist), but of course this is just speculation and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If there is no physical evidence it might come down to word against word and then it depends on wether Assange can give a believable recap of the actions which took place. The initial case was changed from rape to sexual misconduc (not 100 % on the english legal terms), but then changed back to rape when a new prosecutor took the case, who is also a personal friend of the lawyer of the women! This part is the fishy part, but it may still be juridically correct for all I know. I don't think the US is in on this at all or the Assange will be extradited. But he might have been persued more harshly than he should for a pretty minor crime, just because the lawyer of the women and the prosecutor think it would be a feather in the hat to get this guy. They have been accused by some people of having "a feminist agenda". It's not meant as an attack against Wikileaks in any way, but if you want to defend Assange you can argue that it's a personal attack against him.
Thanks mate.
|
On August 19 2012 23:57 DannyJ wrote:
Lol Ecuador must be loving every single second of this. This dude apparently fighting for freedom of expression, speech and truth is praising them up the wazoo in front of the whole world. Ecuador of all nations...
Yeah, it is refreshing to see Ecuador fighting on the good side here. One good act doesn't forgive them for all the bad ones, but hopefully this is a start of a more positive trend from them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
