|
On August 20 2012 00:55 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's not a start of anything. It's just a PR ploy. A real start would actually be doing something for it's own citizens, not helping some dude on the other side of the world simply because they know people are watching him.
It's funny that truth seeking and transparency loving Assange supporters are so blind to see or so willing to accept blatant political manipulation.
|
On August 20 2012 00:34 Breavman wrote:
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.
This makes a lot of sense! It explains the fishy part.
|
On August 20 2012 00:59 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 00:55 No_Roo wrote: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. It's not a start of anything. It's just a PR ploy. A real start would actually be doing something for it's own citizens, not helping some dude on the other side of the world simply because they know people are watching him. It's funny that truth seeking and transparency loving Assange supporters are so blind to see or so willing to accept blatant political manipulation.
I didn't say it was the start of a trend, I said I hope it is. If they only make a stand this once, that's at least better than not doing so at all. It's entirely possible Ecuador has done this for the PR benefit, but that would just mean they're doing the right thing for somewhat dubious reasons. That's still better than doing the wrong thing. 
|
On August 20 2012 00:24 Euronyme 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!!! 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.
Since you sound very aggressive in this discussion I am going to keep it short.
few questions:
1. How can I be full of shit for quoting something a lawyer said?
2. Are you a lawyer?
3.If I didn't want you to read the document why would I give u a link for it???????
Its up to laywers to make their case whether this precedence is similar enough to Assanges case to apply, not for you to decide.
And to finish it off....it was a reply to someone that posted a comment saying that there was no reason for him to be interview by video link, and this provides a possible explanation for a court(AGAIN NOT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) whether its justifiable. Don't take whatever frustration you have at this thread by making ignorant comments directed at me.
Edit: who is full of shit now?????
Edit2: read my comment again and you will see that the comment is in quotes, let me explain to you what that means...it means I am quoting someone, his lawyer in this case.
Edit3: This is not as short as I desired.
|
On August 20 2012 01:26 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 00:59 DannyJ wrote:On August 20 2012 00:55 No_Roo wrote: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. It's not a start of anything. It's just a PR ploy. A real start would actually be doing something for it's own citizens, not helping some dude on the other side of the world simply because they know people are watching him. It's funny that truth seeking and transparency loving Assange supporters are so blind to see or so willing to accept blatant political manipulation. I didn't say it was the start of a trend, I said I hope it is. If they only make a stand this once, that's at least better than not doing so at all. It's entirely possible Ecuador has done this for the PR benefit, but that would just mean they're doing the right thing for somewhat dubious reasons. That's still better than doing the wrong thing.
Let's be real; someone is getting paid off.
Ecuador have nothing to gain by this.
|
On August 20 2012 02:15 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 01:26 No_Roo wrote:On August 20 2012 00:59 DannyJ wrote:On August 20 2012 00:55 No_Roo wrote: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. It's not a start of anything. It's just a PR ploy. A real start would actually be doing something for it's own citizens, not helping some dude on the other side of the world simply because they know people are watching him. It's funny that truth seeking and transparency loving Assange supporters are so blind to see or so willing to accept blatant political manipulation. I didn't say it was the start of a trend, I said I hope it is. If they only make a stand this once, that's at least better than not doing so at all. It's entirely possible Ecuador has done this for the PR benefit, but that would just mean they're doing the right thing for somewhat dubious reasons. That's still better than doing the wrong thing. Let's be real; someone is getting paid off. Ecuador have nothing to gain by this.
How about Ecuador and friends becoming the heros of this story? Correa and the rest of south american left wing ''presidents'' are gaining tons of support in their countries for this.
|
On August 20 2012 02:11 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 00:24 Euronyme wrote: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!!! 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. Since you sound very aggressive in this discussion I am going to keep it short. few questions: 1. How can I be full of shit for quoting something a lawyer said? 2. Are you a lawyer? 3.If I didn't want you to read the document why would I give u a link for it??????? Its up to laywers to make their case whether this precedence is similar enough to Assanges case to apply, not for you to decide. And to finish it off....it was a reply to someone that posted a comment saying that there was no reason for him to be interview by video link, and this provides a possible explanation for a court(AGAIN NOT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) whether its justifiable. Don't take whatever frustration you have at this thread by making ignorant comments directed at me. Edit: who is full of shit now????? Edit2: read my comment again and you will see that the comment is in quotes, let me explain to you what that means...it means I am quoting someone, his lawyer in this case. Edit3: This is not as short as I desired.
The lawyer is in fact wrong. The court would rather drop charges than allow the video link. The charges however were not dropped, and the warrant for his arrest is still in place, and no video link questionings were made.
If you had actually read the document it'd be clear to you too, which was why I translated it.
I apologize for my aggressive tone. It wasn't warranted, but the repetitiveness of going back to this thread and reading false claims that are based on absolutely nothing was starting to frustrate me.
|
On August 20 2012 02:15 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 01:26 No_Roo wrote:On August 20 2012 00:59 DannyJ wrote:On August 20 2012 00:55 No_Roo wrote: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. It's not a start of anything. It's just a PR ploy. A real start would actually be doing something for it's own citizens, not helping some dude on the other side of the world simply because they know people are watching him. It's funny that truth seeking and transparency loving Assange supporters are so blind to see or so willing to accept blatant political manipulation. I didn't say it was the start of a trend, I said I hope it is. If they only make a stand this once, that's at least better than not doing so at all. It's entirely possible Ecuador has done this for the PR benefit, but that would just mean they're doing the right thing for somewhat dubious reasons. That's still better than doing the wrong thing. Let's be real; someone is getting paid off. Ecuador have nothing to gain by this.
Ecuador stands to gain everything...
You really think that giving America/West the finger isn't hugely popular in, not just Corea's own country, but also the surrounding nations?
He will gladly burn bridges.
Do the Ecaudoria people stand to gain anything? No. Does the president stand to gain anything? Yes.
Such is the sad truth that people can enjoy doing something self-destructive, like protecting a suspected rapist at the cost of international relations (and with that trade/investment/etc).
It also puts mister Assange firmly in the pocket of Corea, who at this point can kick him to the curb whenever he feels like it.
No, PR wise this move is brilliant.
|
I for one hope JA escapes and continues to publish deeply incriminating leaks against the US government. like how...well, actually, those thousands of cables that got leaked amounted to essentially shit, but they do make for fun reading.
|
well, actually, those thousands of cables that got leaked amounted to essentially shit
For some reason, I believe you (or xdaunt I reckon) have posted this before, and I also believe it has been pointed out several times how significant the cables actually are...
someone else could prolly give you a better reply
|
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.
Oh, the Supreme Court said it was a valid use of the EAW, I guess we can close the thread now, right? No more discussion to be had, everybody lie prostrate before the infallible arbiters of truth, the UK Supreme Court. Oh, unless this ever gets overturned. Come off it, nobody is disputing the legality of what's happened.
Imagine you're in Germany and you get a call one day from the police who want to talk to you because you stole some guy's bike. You cooperate with questioning, a prosecutor reviews the case, and says there's no evidence a bike was even stolen. Later, you walk across the Baltic Sea back to Sweden, and a few months later get a letter from a different prosecutor asking you how you like your new bike, then the Swedish police show up at your door, take you into custody, and put you on a plane, completely uprooting you so you can answer... questions again? Without having been charged with a crime? Now imagine you're a political hot potato in Germany because of controversial stuff you've published about the Nazis. Weigh your choices, why would you really have any inclination to go back to Germany?
There's precedent for remote questioning, and if it were really important to the Swedish investigation, they could go to London and talk to him there. Yes, the warrant is legal, that doesn't mean the system isn't fucked. I mean, J.A. is really the front page of Interpol? Great crime-fighting there.
|
On August 20 2012 05:23 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +well, actually, those thousands of cables that got leaked amounted to essentially shit For some reason, I believe you (or xdaunt I reckon) have posted this before, and I also believe it has been pointed out several times how significant the cables actually are... someone else could prolly give you a better reply
Why can't you do it yourself?
|
On August 20 2012 05:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 00:28 one-one-one wrote: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. Oh, the Supreme Court said it was a valid use of the EAW, I guess we can close the thread now, right? No more discussion to be had, everybody lie prostrate before the infallible arbiters of truth, the UK Supreme Court. Oh, unless this ever gets overturned. Come off it, nobody is disputing the legality of what's happened. Imagine you're in Germany and you get a call one day from the police who want to talk to you because you stole some guy's bike. You cooperate with questioning, a prosecutor reviews the case, and says there's no evidence a bike was even stolen. Later, you walk across the Baltic Sea back to Sweden, and a few months later get a letter from a different prosecutor asking you how you like your new bike, then the Swedish police show up at your door, take you into custody, and put you on a plane, completely uprooting you so you can answer... questions again? Without having been charged with a crime? Now imagine you're a political hot potato in Germany because of controversial stuff you've published about the Nazis. Weigh your choices, why would you really have any inclination to go back to Germany? There's precedent for remote questioning, and if it were really important to the Swedish investigation, they could go to London and talk to him there. Yes, the warrant is legal, that doesn't mean the system isn't fucked. I mean, J.A. is really the front page of Interpol? Great crime-fighting there.
Wow.
I'm baffled .... I'm speechless.
I honestly don't know what to say.
I'm not arguing that the case does't suck from his perspective. Guess what? Sometimes things are sucky as shit ... but you have to face them anyways. Like a man.
Your whole argument is based around the common objection that it is weird that he hasn't even been charged with a crime.
Countless times have Swedish people explained to you guys that it is the way the Swedish legal system works.
Compared to other countries the actual charges in a legal process comes very late.
First you question people , then based on that you press the charges.
Can someone draw a picture for this guy or something?
My artist skills are not so good.
|
On August 20 2012 06:01 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 05:34 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2012 00:28 one-one-one wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Oh, the Supreme Court said it was a valid use of the EAW, I guess we can close the thread now, right? No more discussion to be had, everybody lie prostrate before the infallible arbiters of truth, the UK Supreme Court. Oh, unless this ever gets overturned. Come off it, nobody is disputing the legality of what's happened. Imagine you're in Germany and you get a call one day from the police who want to talk to you because you stole some guy's bike. You cooperate with questioning, a prosecutor reviews the case, and says there's no evidence a bike was even stolen. Later, you walk across the Baltic Sea back to Sweden, and a few months later get a letter from a different prosecutor asking you how you like your new bike, then the Swedish police show up at your door, take you into custody, and put you on a plane, completely uprooting you so you can answer... questions again? Without having been charged with a crime? Now imagine you're a political hot potato in Germany because of controversial stuff you've published about the Nazis. Weigh your choices, why would you really have any inclination to go back to Germany? There's precedent for remote questioning, and if it were really important to the Swedish investigation, they could go to London and talk to him there. Yes, the warrant is legal, that doesn't mean the system isn't fucked. I mean, J.A. is really the front page of Interpol? Great crime-fighting there. Wow. I'm baffled .... I'm speechless. I honestly don't know what to say. I'm not arguing that the case does't suck from his perspective. Guess what? Sometimes things are sucky as shit ... but you have to face them anyways. Like a man. Your whole argument is based around the common objection that it is weird that he hasn't even been charged with a crime. Countless times have Swedish people explained to you guys that it is the way the Swedish legal system works. Compared to other countries the actual charges in a legal process comes very late. First you question people , then based on that you press the charges. Can someone draw a picture for this guy or something? My artist skills are not so good.
Seems like some of them can't read or they lack basic logic, Swedish laws works in a diffrent way. Accept it, nothing you say will ever change it and I can't believe people supports Ecuador.
A couple of points from a swedish news site, translated with google but you should be able to read it.
Suspicion of sex crimes is really about to silence WikiLeaks, because the organization has grown too strong.
It's really humiliating to even have to argue against this bizarre assertion. People who are notified of an offense may find themselves in that the police is investigating the matter. Swedish police are trying to destroy WikiLeaks as little as U.S. colleagues' motives for investigating Dominique Strauss-Kahn was to close the International Monetary Fund.
Sweden will disclose Assange to the U.S..
No such request has been sent from Washington to Stockholm. And a handover is not possible without London's approval.
Sweden is politically controlled, corrupt courts.
When the respected corruption monitor Transparency International evaluated the courts, Sweden came in third place out of 142 countries. (Ecuador, the Wikieleaks designated as free speech new paradise, came to rest on the spot 130).
Prosecutor Marianne Ny reopened the investigation after pressure. (where these pressures comes from seem to vary with time from the critics. Desire to destroy Assange emanating largely to the CIA, the Pentagon or Rosenbad.)
Wrong. It happens occasionally that a closure decision be reviewed and that a new prosecutor makes a different assessment.
Assange has been tricked into a trap
It would undoubtedly be refined if American agents managed to persuade two Swedish women to go to bed with Assange, but there should be more evidence to suggest that Osama bin Laden is alive than that were the case.
|
I think it would be funny if this whole thing turned out to be actually just JA using conspiracy theories to avoid prosecution.
That being said I don't give two shits about this guy. He seems to somewhat have an assholish ego but w./e his organization is doing some good and some of it just BS crap that people only care about because they get to read private emails of high profile political people. I don't think there is some plot in the works to asap have him handed to the US but I think the US wishes they had it set. All this talk coming from politicians about him is just politalk to gain support by trying to seem hard lined mixed with some fears that one day he might post something that people don't know about (I mean most of his previous shit people pretty much already suspected/knew). Plus no government wants an outsider having their sensitive shit (even if he blocks out that stuff that would endanger lives he still is in possession of it).
In the end I just hope that it is resolved in the matter that it should be. Highly unlikely though with the way the works the ideal is almost never achieved.
|
On August 20 2012 06:01 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 05:34 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2012 00:28 one-one-one wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Oh, the Supreme Court said it was a valid use of the EAW, I guess we can close the thread now, right? No more discussion to be had, everybody lie prostrate before the infallible arbiters of truth, the UK Supreme Court. Oh, unless this ever gets overturned. Come off it, nobody is disputing the legality of what's happened. Imagine you're in Germany and you get a call one day from the police who want to talk to you because you stole some guy's bike. You cooperate with questioning, a prosecutor reviews the case, and says there's no evidence a bike was even stolen. Later, you walk across the Baltic Sea back to Sweden, and a few months later get a letter from a different prosecutor asking you how you like your new bike, then the Swedish police show up at your door, take you into custody, and put you on a plane, completely uprooting you so you can answer... questions again? Without having been charged with a crime? Now imagine you're a political hot potato in Germany because of controversial stuff you've published about the Nazis. Weigh your choices, why would you really have any inclination to go back to Germany? There's precedent for remote questioning, and if it were really important to the Swedish investigation, they could go to London and talk to him there. Yes, the warrant is legal, that doesn't mean the system isn't fucked. I mean, J.A. is really the front page of Interpol? Great crime-fighting there. Countless times have Swedish people explained to you guys that it is the way the Swedish legal system works.
I literally just said this:
Come off it, nobody is disputing the legality of what's happened.
On August 20 2012 06:01 one-one-one wrote:
First you question people , then based on that you press the charges.
Yes. That's why it's lucky he was already questioned and cleared of any suspicion by a prosecutor once already.
|
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?
all i know is something along the lines of ..
woman B sleeps with assange
woman B tweets about what a great time she had, posted facebook pix and stuff
woman A / others contact woman B
woman B removes tweets & facebook stuff
woman A & woman B claim that they were raped / he didnt use a condom / something made up
|
On August 20 2012 07:08 FFGenerations 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? all i know is something along the lines of .. woman B sleeps with assange woman B tweets about what a great time she had, posted facebook pix and stuff woman A / others contact woman B woman B removes tweets & facebook stuff woman A & woman B claim that they were raped / he didnt use a condom / something made up
If this is the whole truth, why wont he just go to Sweden and explain it at the court ? If anything he should be charged for trying to avoid justice.
|
On August 20 2012 07:08 FFGenerations 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? all i know is something along the lines of .. woman B sleeps with assange woman B tweets about what a great time she had, posted facebook pix and stuff woman A / others contact woman B woman B removes tweets & facebook stuff woman A & woman B claim that they were raped / he didnt use a condom / something made up
*Meanwhile, at the Pentagon:
Bob: "Hey John, you managed to get those two women to make false allegations yet?"
John: "Ooh yeah, they gonna flip good. What you want them to say? Rape?"
Bob: "Nah, let's make it something about using no condom."
John: "Bob, we're making the whole thing up, we can let them say the worst thing imagineable."
Bob: "Nah man, let them testify that he didn't use a condom, trust me, it's perfect."
|
On August 20 2012 07:18 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 07:08 FFGenerations wrote: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? all i know is something along the lines of .. woman B sleeps with assange woman B tweets about what a great time she had, posted facebook pix and stuff woman A / others contact woman B woman B removes tweets & facebook stuff woman A & woman B claim that they were raped / he didnt use a condom / something made up If this is the whole truth, why wont he just go to Sweden and explain it at the court ? If anything he should be charged for trying to avoid justice.
Because he doesn't trust the justice system there. Aside from the fact that he might be extradited, Sweden is a well-known feminist stronghold where sex crime are even more absurdly stacked against the defendant than most Western nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
