Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy, London

I read that because Assange is an Australian citizen the UK cant extradite him to the US. Its to do with Commonwealth reciprocal agreements. Sweden, not being in the Commonwealth, can extradite him there.
 
sunny jim said:
I read that because Assange is an Australian citizen the UK cant extradite him to the US. Its to do with Commonwealth reciprocal agreements. Sweden, not being in the Commonwealth, can extradite him there.
Click to expand...

This is at least a coherent rationale, if true. Now, can we have some evidence of whether it IS true?
 
I'm not sure that it is easier or even just as easy for the US to extradite Assange from the UK than from Sweden at the moment. In theory, maybe, but in practice there have been a number of cases here that have drawn a lot of public attention, to the point where people were calling for reforms in the treaty. Of course the US and the UK most probably would like these calls to be forgotten about, and another high profile case put in front of the public isn't going to achieve that. So yes, the US have a lot to gain from waiting until Assange is in Sweden, i.e. it is unlikely that any of their treaties will be called into question.

Though if US ask Sweden to extradite, and Sweden have to ask the UK for permission, that seems distant enough that I doubt the UK would come under any scrutiny if they ok'd it. It can just be made out in that instance that we don't really have anything to do with it, so I do not see why Sweden having to ask for the UK's permission would present any obstacle.
 
Why would you think any US-Sweden extradition plans would not get called into question when you point out people calling them into question already? When it's the single basis for your ill-informed posts? What's wrong with you?

Have you any evidence yet for last nights claims?
 
smmudge said:
I'm not sure that it is easier or even just as easy for the US to extradite Assange from the UK than from Sweden at the moment. In theory, maybe, but in practice there have been a number of cases here that have drawn a lot of public attention, to the point where people were calling for reforms in the treaty. Of course the US and the UK most probably would like these calls to be forgotten about, and another high profile case put in front of the public isn't going to achieve that. So yes, the US have a lot to gain from waiting until Assange is in Sweden, i.e. it is unlikely that any of their treaties will be called into question.

Though if US ask Sweden to extradite, and Sweden have to ask the UK for permission, that seems distant enough that I doubt the UK would come under any scrutiny if they ok'd it. It can just be made out in that instance that we don't really have anything to do with it, so I do not see why Sweden having to ask for the UK's permission would present any obstacle.
Click to expand...
Do you think that similar public awareness of these general issues - rendition, US attitudes to national security, and so on - does not pertain in Sweden? And as for the particular case of Assange, I think you'll find there is public awareness of it in Sweden, too; it's a high profile case there. You seem to suggest that the US can sneak in there under cover of darkness (maybe in the winter months, with Sweden being so far north?) and nobody will question it.

All this is just scrabbling around in water you have muddied.
 
danny la rouge said:
Do you think that similar public awareness of these general issues - rendition, US attitudes to national security, and so on - does not pertain in Sweden? And as for the particular case of Assange, I think you'll find there is public awareness of it in Sweden, too; it's a high profile case there. You seem to suggest that the US can sneak in there under cover of darkness (maybe in the winter months, with Sweden being so far north?) and nobody will question it.

All this is just scrabbling around in water you have muddied.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a high profile case in Sweden, where have I argued otherwise? I'm saying that Sweden do not seem to be threatening their cushy extradition treaty with the US in the same way that the UK have been of late.
 
In the above post where you say that the treaty (don't say which one) is unlikely to be called into question (don't say what despite your previous posts being about it being called into question in sweden). Make an effort here.
 
Shall we look into what's behind this smmudge? You think that no "unlawful coercion" took place right? Or that if it did it's less important than keeping Assange out of the US?
 
smmudge said:
Of course it's a high profile case in Sweden, where have I argued otherwise? I'm saying that Sweden do not seem to be threatening their cushy extradition treaty with the US in the same way that the UK have been of late.
Click to expand...
So what did post 278 mean, then? Why is Sweden a better bet than the UK for US extradition from the point of view of public questioning, high profile-ness, and public attention? That looks like your argument. Tell us what on earth you were on about, if not.
 
Looks like an argument is key here. I bet you read the Guardian too (let's not even start on Assange's choice of paper to deliver his bought packages to).
 
butchersapron said:
Shall we look into what's behind this smmudge? You think that no "unlawful coercion" took place right? Or that if it did it's less important than keeping Assange out of the US?
Click to expand...
Yes, let's look behind this. You don't think he's been set up? You have looked at the cases against him and think they are strong, or at least reasonable? You think he should do what the authorities tell him to do? Trust in the law and he will see justice?
 
Ok, let's do it. Has he been set up? If you think so then the charge "unlawful coercion" during sex (that's just one of the charges) are necessarily false right? If not then they might be true right? Are we agreed on that?
 
Nobody has any idea whether the charges against him are true, and nobody will until he stops standing in the way of a full investigation and goes to Sweden to answer the damn questions. Same as in any other case.

The only arguments against him going to Sweden are thus:
- he is being persecuted unfairly (no evidence of this afaik);
- he has a case to answer BUT the charges against him are less important than his role in Wikileaks etc and therefore his continued freedom is more important (morally indefensible afaics);
- he didn't do it and we should just take his word for it (again, morally indefensible).

Assange supporters must thus pick one of these lines of argument, none of which look appealing to me.
 
I suppose 'Waah waah I don't like it' is another option, though not a very logically rigorous one. Seems to be the default position though.
 
- he is being persecuted unfairly (no evidence of this afaik);
Click to expand...
Whether or not there is evidence of this is partly a judgement call based on the evidence brought forward for the extradition. The evidence brought forward is, in my judgement, feeble in the extreme.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Whether or not there is evidence of this is partly a judgement call based on the evidence brought forward for the extradition. The evidence brought forward is, in my judgement, feeble in the extreme.
Click to expand...

The evidence brought forward consists of the fact that he has questions to answer and Sweden would like him to come back and answer them. So if you're going to argue that the extradition request constitutes persecution then you have to argue that being asked to return to a country to face questions over charges of rape is disproportionate to the charges' magnitude. As I said above, this line of argument is to me morally indefensible. But go on, give it a try.
 
TBH, I reckon that the question of whether or not the US would ask Sweden for Assange to be extradited is besides the point. They have certainly given the impression that they would like to indict him for something, given all the reports, and the fact they have not said they won't ask for extradition if he goes to Sweden. So they may not extradite him, but they clearly want him to think he will be. And for all intents and purposes, character defamation and possible exile is just as good as a formal prosecution of whatever the US would prosecute him for, and his thinking that he will be extradited to the US has certainly succeeded in defaming his character.

If the Swedish and US states really cared about justice, they would come out and quite clearly and categorically state that they would not extradite Assange to the US. Their failure to do so is completely unfair on the women who made these allegations.
 
smmudge said:
TBH, I reckon that the question of whether or not the US would ask Sweden for Assange to be extradited is besides the point. They have certainly given the impression that they would like to indict him for something, given all the reports, and the fact they have not said they won't ask for extradition if he goes to Sweden. So they may not extradite him, but they clearly want him to think he will be. And for all intents and purposes, character defamation and possible exile is just as good as a formal prosecution of whatever the US would prosecute him for, and his thinking that he will be extradited to the US has certainly succeeded in defaming his character.

If the Swedish and US states really cared about justice, they would come out and quite clearly and categorically state that they would not extradite Assange to the US. Their failure to do so is completely unfair on the women who made these allegations.
Click to expand...
Ok, let's do it. Has he been set up? If you think so then the charge "unlawful coercion" during sex (that's just one of the charges) are necessarily false right? If not then they might be true right? Are we agreed on that?
 
smmudge said:
TBH, I reckon that the question of whether or not the US would ask Sweden for Assange to be extradited is besides the point. They have certainly given the impression that they would like to indict him for something, given all the reports, and the fact they have not said they won't ask for extradition if he goes to Sweden. So they may not extradite him, but they clearly want him to think he will be. And for all intents and purposes, character defamation and possible exile is just as good as a formal prosecution of whatever the US would prosecute him for, and his thinking that he will be extradited to the US has certainly succeeded in defaming his character.

If the Swedish and US states really cared about justice, they would come out and quite clearly and categorically state that they would not extradite Assange to the US. Their failure to do so is completely unfair on the women who made these allegations.
Click to expand...
You've actually said that it's a done and dusted thing that he will be extradited from sweden to the US (and it's very telling that this is all you will talk about - whether he will be extradited or not) - now you seem to be backing off from this rock hard position. Why?

And please, your concern about the women? Come the fuck on.
 
You're shifting again. I've seen this attempt at an argument every time there's been a thread about this issue. Firstly, suggest that Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden because of the threat of extradition to Big Bad America. Then when that is challenged, shift to the persecution line. Then when that is challenged, shift to the disproportionate line, which is a hair's breadth away from arguing that claims of rape don't really matter that much in the scheme of things. Then when your moral bankrupcy has been thoroughly exposed, resort to the 'Waah waah I don't like it' approach and throw a wobbly.

I continue to remain open to being convinced that one or more of these lines of argument are justified. I just wish that Assange's supporters would do a better job of trying to convince me.
 
My only argument is that I can see why Assange feels extradition to the US is a threat if he goes to Sweden. Only a year and a half ago it was pretty much a given that the US were looking to get him for something, which now everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about.

I wondered how long it would be before someone accused me of excusing rape, when I haven't even questioned the veracity of the allegations or the context in which they were made. In fact I think Assange should stand trial for them, a fair trial like anyone else would. A fair trial without the threat of US extradition, a threat that no one with the power to quell is standing up to quell.
 
smmudge said:
My only argument is that I can see why Assange feels extradition to the US is a threat if he goes to Sweden. Only a year and a half ago it was pretty much a given that the US were looking to get him for something, which now everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about.

I wondered how long it would be before someone accused me of excusing rape, when I haven't even questioned the veracity of the allegations or the context in which they were made. In fact I think Assange should stand trial for them, a fair trial like anyone else would. A fair trial without the threat of US extradition, a threat that no one with the power to quell is standing up to quell.
Click to expand...

So he should go to Sweden and answer the questions which await him - yes? Without any aspersions being cast on the characters of the women involved in this case - yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

_Russ_
Assange release
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
hitmouse
hitmouse
phildwyer
Tucker Carlson and Assange
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
3K
Yuwipi Woman
Yuwipi Woman
phildwyer
Carlson visits Julian Assange
2 3 4 5
Replies
142
Views
6K
andysays
andysays
Bingoman
Hooded gunmen in Ecuador burst on to live tv with guns
Replies
16
Views
828
bcuster
bcuster
teqniq
Chevron and the pollution of the Amazon in Ecuador
Replies
14
Views
972
Jeff Robinson
Jeff Robinson
Back
Top Bottom