Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy, London

[butchersapron]

Everyone only knows anything about this through the media. I trust Pilger over the mainstream any day.

This is not an argument over what happened as regards his flight from Sweden is it?

Pilger is a mainstream journalist - i'm not - you must now trust me more than PIlger right simpleton?

 

[temper_tantrum]

Face. Fucking. Palm.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Not about the solitary confinement bit, no (the other parts, yes it does). That has been speculated elsewhere. Maybe America wants him extradited over there to give him a medal and a ticker tape parade.

The text you posted doesn't say anything about a known arrangement for Assange to be extradited. It merely talks about Sweden doing similar to others in the past and hints darkly that this means there must be a plan to do so for Assange.

There is no real evidence of such a plan at all, as far as I know. If there was, I'm pretty sure we could expect to read about it all over the mainstream press.

 

[Pickman's model]

The text you posted doesn't say anything about a known arrangement for Assange to be extradited. It merely talks about Sweden doing similar to others in the past and hints darkly that this means there must be a plan to do so.

There is no real evidence of such a plan at all, as far as I know. If there was, I'm pretty sure we could expect to read about it all over the mainstream press.

yeh because everything gets into the press

 

[smmudge]

sigh. Maybe I should just stick to reading the Guardian like everyone else.

 

[Pickman's model]

sigh. Maybe I should just stick to reading the Guardian like everyone else.

perhaps you should

 

[butchersapron]

sigh. Maybe I should just stick to reading the Guardian like everyone else.

Lovely, patronising, insulting, superior, smug and wrong. No evidence of either a response to other posts or any other reading beyond a single Pilger article (that's Pilger who is the Guardian btw).

 

[butchersapron]

sigh. Maybe I should just stick to reading the Guardian like everyone else.

Info us up then smudger, i'm sure you're just full of other info articles papers and stuff that tear down this guardian wall - you just most probably forgot to link to them, to refer to them or to use the facts they produce so far.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

yeh because everything gets into the press

Well, the uk-sweden case has been well documented, and, whilst I'm no extradition lawyer, I'd be willing to bet that if the extradition to sweden was indeed to, ultimately, facilitate an easier extradition to the US (or at least if there was any evidence of this whatsoever...) then Assange would have had strong grounds to appeal against the Euro arrest warrant thing. It would be a clear and obvious abuse of the process.

But, given that this didn't happen and wasn't reported, I am confident that no such evidence exists, and that had it existed, it would have been reported. There's hardly a news blackout on this case.

 

[butchersapron]

sigh. Maybe I should just stick to reading the Guardian like everyone else.

Do you know any real people?

 

[Pickman's model]

Well, the uk-sweden case has been well documented, and, whilst I'm no extradition lawyer, I'd be willing to bet that if the extradition to sweden was indeed to, ultimately, facilitate an easier extradition to the US (or at least if there was any evidence of this whatsoever...) then Assange would have had strong grounds to appeal against the Euro arrest warrant thing. It would be a clear and obvious abuse of the process.

But, given that this didn't happen and wasn't reported, I am confident that no such evidence exists, and that had it existed, it would have been reported. There's hardly a news blackout on this case.

you wouldn't know if aspects of it were blacked out, though, would you.

 

[temper_tantrum]

sigh. Maybe I should just stick to reading the Guardian like everyone else.

So your evidence is, 'because Assange's lawyer says so (as reported by John Pilger)' ?
Do you think that perhaps you might need to re-consider your position?

 

[Jon-of-arc]

you wouldn't know if aspects of it were blacked out, though, would you.

I guess not, if were verging into conspiracy territory.

Im pretty sure the press normally say if theres been an order not to discuss a certain aspect of acase. Look at super injunctions. They cant shut up about the fact they have to shut up.

also, even though assange has managed to alienate several key sympathetic journos with his own perculiar brand of anti PR/self sabotage, uk to us extradition is a hot topic atm, what with ya autisric hacker fella and, I think, other cases, so I dont see that he would have trouble getting someone to print. Like he did wiv all them cable fings.

 

[smmudge]

So your evidence is, 'because Assange's lawyer says so (as reported by John Pilger)' ?
Do you think that perhaps you might need to re-consider your position?

Actually the primary evidence was from Al Burke, who was using evidence from some cables leaked by wikileaks which showed the very close (and private) relationship between US and Sweden, namely the US involvement in Swedish legislation for matters of "national security".

And the fact that the US is at the moment doing its very best to catch and sentence people for whistleblowing, or espionage.

Not to mention that the US does not exactly have the best track record when it comes to complying with legal rights when it comes to foreign affairs.

And the fact that if found guilty of espionage one may be sentenced to death.

I can see why Assange may be a bit twitchy about going to Sweden.

 

[butchersapron]

Which is exactly the same as t_t said and with just the added undermining details from you that the evidence presented therein relates to other prior things, doesn't relate to the Assange case at all and certainly does not back up your bold claim at all.

Is there any evidence for your bold claim, in the article that you linked to and keep referring to?

(((people who do one lines - death to paragraphs, what i say needs to look longer than it actually is)))

 

[butchersapron]

Actually the primary evidence was from Al Burke, who was using evidence from some cables leaked by wikileaks which showed the very close (and private) relationship between US and Sweden, namely the US involvement in Swedish legislation for matters of "national security".

And the fact that the US is at the moment doing its very best to catch and sentence people for whistleblowing, or espionage.

Not to mention that the US does not exactly have the best track record when it comes to complying with legal rights when it comes to foreign affairs.

And the fact that if found guilty of espionage one may be sentenced to death.

I can see why Assange may be a bit twitchy about going to Sweden.

Why does him fearing being extradited from sweden to the US mean that he will be extradited from sweden to the US? Why does it mean that the same processes that apply here apply do not apply there? Where does it say this in your article? Why does him being twitchy mean a damn thing?

 

[temper_tantrum]

Actually the primary evidence was from Al Burke, who was using evidence from some cables leaked by wikileaks which showed the very close (and private) relationship between US and Sweden, namely the US involvement in Swedish legislation for matters of "national security".

Can you give us some other links to sources then?

The rest is just irrelevant waffle.

 

[butchersapron]

Some

great

legal

brains at work here.

Someone doesn't want to do something, they fear it.

OK,

fuck
it
then.

Must mean that they have

no case to

answer.

 

[temper_tantrum]

Some

great

legal

brains at work here.

Someone doesn't want to do something, they fear it.

OK,

fuck
it
then.

Must mean that they have

no case to

answer.

Not sure the Bukowski style suits you tbh.

 

[butchersapron]

Actually the primary evidence was from Al Burke, who was using evidence from some cables leaked by wikileaks which showed the very close (and private) relationship between US and Sweden, namely the US involvement in Swedish legislation for matters of "national security".

There was no primary evidence offered by Al Burke at all. At the very least read what you say that others should. Why are you lot always so lazy?

 

[smmudge]

Must mean that they have

no case to

answer.

Which case? The sexual assault allegations? I don't recall saying anything about that.

 

[butchersapron]

Which case? The sexual assault allegations? I don't recall saying anything about that.

No, you didn't did you. You didn't actually talk about anything at all beyond this single article that you've read and then a smug dismissal of everyone else.

 

[smmudge]

No, you didn't did you. You didn't actually talk about anything at all beyond this single article that you've read and then a smug dismissal of everyone else.

And then you didn't say anything, except a smug dismissal of the article. So I guess we're even.

 

[smmudge]

For clarification, what is being questioned here?

Is it whether the US want to prosecute Assange? Or whether the US will ask Sweden to extradite Assange? Or if Sweden will oblige if the US ask Sweden to extradite Assange?

 

[butchersapron]

And then you didn't say anything, except a smug dismissal of the article. So I guess we're even.

No, i got rid of a central claim of the article - one that you've reffed at least twice and pointed out that your claims about its evidential basis are wrong. What did you do again?

 

[butchersapron]

For clarification, what is being questioned here?

Is it whether the US want to prosecute Assange? Or whether the US will ask Sweden to extradite Assange? Or if Sweden will oblige if the US ask Sweden to extradite Assange?

Your claim first do you remember it?

It became clear that if he went to Sweden he would be extradited to the US, most likely with no consideration of his legal rights, and most likely to end up in solitary confinement for the rest of his natural born.

 

[smmudge]

Oh yeah, the one where you quoted the official site? That was funny. It's kind of like quoting the HMRC site on tax, and then trying to argue that no one's going to evade tax.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh yeah, the one where you quoted the official site? That was funny. It's kind of like quoting the HMRC site on tax, and then trying to argue that no one's going to evade tax.

The one where i quoted the processes of extradition under various conditions from sweden yes. If you're going to use that example it's like saying oh yes, the hmrc like they're going to tell you about paying tax.

You are shit.

 

[temper_tantrum]

For clarification, what is being questioned here?

Is it whether the US want to prosecute Assange? Or whether the US will ask Sweden to extradite Assange? Or if Sweden will oblige if the US ask Sweden to extradite Assange?

It is how Assange's supporters can possibly maintain their line of argument that he is seeking to avoid extradition to Sweden because that would somehow, in some nebulously unspecified way, put him on the fast track to extradition to the USA.
For this argument to be convincing, it must be the case that it is easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK.
Therefore if this is not the case, Assange's supporters' main justification for their stance is completely undermined.
That leaves them, as far as I can see, with the 'it's not really rape' line of argument as their only other attempt at justification, perhaps combined with the 'he's too important to be held accountable for rape accusations'.
Neither of which are in any way satisfactory.

 

[butchersapron]

i.e You are shit.