Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy, London

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.


Wow, you are actually going to pursue this argument? Your argument that Sweden won't extradite Assange to the US is because it goes against what it says on their website? Either you are incredibly naive, or you are knowingly scraping the bottom of the argument barrel.
 
Wow, you are actually going to pursue this argument? Your argument that Sweden won't extradite Assange to the US is because it goes against what it says on their website? Either you are incredibly naive, or you are knowingly scraping the bottom of the argument barrel.
I made no such argument. I said that the basis on which he would be legally extradited from sweden is the same as from the UK and would only happen with the UK's permission. You haven't read this statement of law. Do read things, it helps.
 
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.


I disagree: I don't see what the UK has to do with it. It is not obvious that Assange would still be in the UK had he not been under house arrest. And it would be easy (easier) for the US to extradite him if he was charged or convicted there (in Sweden).
 
Dear old Butch, confident again, and back to his bully-boy best; loving being the thread gatekeeper: Top Boy.

He's the only one on this here thread using actual research. I'll take a combatative style and informed facts over pleasantly conversed idle speculation any day, especially when it comes to making excuses for allowing an alleged sex offender to avoid justice.
 
I disagree: I don't see what the UK has to do with it. It is not obvious that Assange would still be in the UK had he not been under house arrest. And it would be easy (easier) for the US to extradite him if he was charged or convicted there.

Sigh. Ok, we'll try it from another angle. If the USA wants to extradite Assange, they will try to do so on the basis of where he actually is, not where he is supposed to be.
He has been in the UK for quite some time now, and it has been obvious for most of that time that he was not going to be leaving the UK anytime soon - his presence here was predictable several months ahead. Plenty of time to initiate an extradition process.
Now, given that (you now appear to accept that) the UK has a very favourable extradition arrangement with the US, what is to be gained by the US waiting for Assange to be in Sweden?
What, from the US's point of view, is the benefit in having him in Sweden rather than in the UK?

PS. He's not 'under house arrest' by the way. He was subject to a curfew in the same way as many other people on bail are. (He has now broken that curfew which was very foolish of him as it means that his last experience of Britain is likely to be of a prison cell.)

Edit: And re: your assertions above, we are back to square 1 as one very obvious point still needs to be stood up:
why/how/in what way would it be 'easier for the US to extradite him if he was charged or convicted [in Sweden]'?
 
I made no such argument. I said that the basis on which he would be legally extradited from sweden is the same as from the UK and would only happen with the UK's permission. You haven't read this statement of law. Do read things, it helps.


Yes I read it. It's not clear, but is it the case that this still applies even though Assange is not a UK national?
 
The Justice for Assange campaign's amazing evidence that Sweden will be unfair to ass lasagne involves things like the fact that Hillary Clinton visited Sweden, and an email from some tool who fancied himself as the dark arts master in that shitty global intelligence company whose emails got hacked, claiming that there is a sealed indictment in the US against Assange.
 
Yes I read it. It's not clear, but is it the case that this still applies even though Assange is not a UK national?
Oh now you've read. Thank you so much smudge, that you deign to do what other people did before posting and before slagging off people for posting what you now take as gospel.

Post it and ask. What does it say?
 
Thing is, I have no problem with believing that the US grand jury intends to issue extradition proceedings, charges/indictment, etc. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't. The thing I fail to understand is why him being in Sweden somehow gives the US any kind of advantage.
He's been here in Britain for ages. We have a favourable extradition arrangement with the US. If they want him, they can come and get him anytime they like - surely?
 
Thing is, I have no problem with believing that the US grand jury intends to issue extradition proceedings, charges/indictment, etc. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't. The thing I fail to understand is why him being in Sweden somehow gives the US any kind of advantage.
He's been here in Britain for ages. We have a favourable extradition arrangement with the US. If they want him, they can come and get him anytime they like - surely?


He has predictably been in the UK because he has been under an arrest warrant issued by Sweden. Why would the US then come in and then issue another warrant for his extradition? He's not going anywhere. And they will probably gain support if they wait because he will be charged if not convicted eventually.

Sweden aren't going to come under any fire for extraditing a criminal or suspected criminal. And, given their relationship with the US, it is unlikely that they would turn down an extradition order to send Assange to the US.
 
I think it's likely that story about a grand jury is a plant - one email from a security firm - and Hillary is bluffing.

It appears the USA may not currently have enough on Assange, and they are hoping Bradley Manning can be convinced to do a deal that lands Assange in the shit. At least if he's in Sweden, they can still get to him if they break Manning.
 
Oh now you've read. Thank you so much smudge, that you deign to do what other people did before posting and before slagging off people for posting what you now take as gospel.

Post it and ask. What does it say?

I would if I thought it had any relevance to anything that might actually happen between the US and Sweden regarding Assange.
 
He has predictably been in the UK because he has been under an arrest warrant issued by Sweden. Why would the US then come in and then issue another warrant for his extradition? He's not going anywhere. And they will probably gain support if they wait because he will be charged if not convicted eventually.

Sweden aren't going to come under any fire for extraditing a criminal or suspected criminal. And, given their relationship with the US, it is unlikely that they would turn down an extradition order to send Assange to the US.

So how does it benefit him to avoid going to Sweden, if the US are going to extradite him anyway?
Your argument is that, if he somehow avoids extradition to Sweden and remains in Britain, the US will then apply to extradite him from Britain. And Britain is just as likely to extradite him as Sweden is.
So where's the benefit in staying in Britain?
Other than that he wouldn't have to face those nasty rape claims, of course. Which is obviously not what this is about at ALL.
 
He has predictably been in the UK because he has been under an arrest warrant issued by Sweden. Why would the US then come in and then issue another warrant for his extradition? He's not going anywhere. And they will probably gain support if they wait because he will be charged if not convicted eventually.

Sweden aren't going to come under any fire for extraditing a criminal or suspected criminal. And, given their relationship with the US, it is unlikely that they would turn down an extradition order to send Assange to the US.
This is it, pure i think this and i think that? Why is he is in the UK art all? Have you asked yourself that? The US haven't issued an extradition warrant in sweden either. Please do, i can't emphasise this enough, read some stuff on this.
 
So how does it benefit him to avoid going to Sweden, if the US are going to extradite him anyway?
Your argument is that, if he somehow avoids extradition to Sweden and remains in Britain, the US will then apply to extradite him from Britain. And Britain is just as likely to extradite him as Sweden is.
So where's the benefit in staying in Britain?
Other than that he wouldn't have to face those nasty rape claims, of course. Which is obviously not what this is about at ALL.

I'm not arguing that he would remain in Britain.
 
I think it's likely that story about a grand jury is a plant - one email from a security firm - and Hillary is bluffing.

It appears the USA may not currently have enough on Assange, and they are hoping Bradley Manning can be convinced to do a deal that lands Assange in the shit. At least if he's in Sweden, they can still get to him if they break Manning.

Yeah my understanding is they need a much better and specific sort of link between Manning and Wikileaks, since the espionage act didn't work against the publishing of the Pentagon Papers in the press back in the day. Thats why someone was proposing a new shield law that could be used to prosecute people for revealing names of agents etc.
 
I would if I thought it had any relevance to anything that might actually happen between the US and Sweden regarding Assange.
You would read an official swedish outline of what the warrant he us under and what this means as regards extradition outside of the the EU if you thought this had anything to do with extradition between sweden and the US? But not now. Wow.

Maybe they'll rendition him.
 
I suspect the strategy is the same for the USA and for Assange, both are playing for time - playing for different ends, but both for time.
 
Sweden aren't going to come under any fire for extraditing a criminal or suspected criminal. And, given their relationship with the US, it is unlikely that they would turn down an extradition order to send Assange to the US.

The various legal layers and courts within Europe don't seem to factor much in your thinking do they? He would have an opportunity to take matters to courts that aren't Swedens own if it came to it.
 
I'm not arguing that he would remain in Britain.

I'm not clear what argument you have actually advanced. Please give us one. And I do mean argument, not series of ill-thought-out assertions with no clear rationale behind them.

I'm going to bed now. Here's a clue for you - the only way I can see in which your argument would work is if it's not legally possible for the UK to extradite someone to the US if they are already facing an extradition request from another country (Sweden, in this case). If that were to be legally the case, then the US would HAVE to wait until Assange was deported from the UK (and thus Sweden's extradition request was fulfilled) before they could file an extradition request in Sweden.
In that case, Assange's reluctance to go to Sweden makes more sense.

Perhaps you could check whether this is indeed the case in law, and then attempt to construct an argument based on it?
 
The various legal layers and courts within Europe don't seem to factor much in your thinking do they? He would have an opportunity to take matters to courts that aren't Swedens own if it came to it.

Not much, because I doubt they factor much in America's thinking either.

I'm going to bed now. Here's a clue for you - the only way I can see in which your argument would work is if it's not legally possible for the UK to extradite someone to the US if they are already facing an extradition request from another country (Sweden, in this case). If that were to be legally the case, then the US would HAVE to wait until Assange was deported from the UK (and thus Sweden's extradition request was fulfilled) before they could file an extradition request in Sweden.
In that case, Assange's reluctance to go to Sweden makes more sense.

Can you not see what the US would gain from waiting until Assange goes to Sweden? He's most likely going to be up on rape charges. Why would they stop that?
 
I did.
Not much, because I doubt they factor much in America's thinking either.



Can you not see what the US would gain from waiting until Assange goes to Sweden? He's most likely going to be up on rape charges. Why would they stop that?

Eh? What?

You are so confused, so ill-informed, so purple that nothing is going in here.
 
Not much, because I doubt they factor much in America's thinking either.

Oh yeah right, people considering using the legal process to serve their ends don't consider the details of the legal process in the relevant countries do they?

What level of idiocy is this?
 
Oh yeah right, people considering using the legal process to serve their ends don't consider the details of the legal process in the relevant countries do they?

What level of idiocy is this?
It's easily used mugs idiocy. I thought smuude just got some sort of phd or something as well?
 
Oh yeah right, people considering using the legal process to serve their ends don't consider the details of the legal process in the relevant countries do they?

What level of idiocy is this?

I'm sorry, I must have missed that part of history where America takes any notice of international legal systems.
 
Back
Top Bottom