Assange to face extradition

[Balbi]

Im not certain how many supporters JA has left in Sweden after they way he's characterised them in his many, many intervies, speeches, lawyers statements etc...l

 

[cesare]

Did you read the links in that article. It claims to provide an evidence based reason why the NS article is wrong, but all the links provide purely theoretical interpretations of swedish law rather than casework (just as everyone is doing here), and absolutely nothing to back up the extradition from the UK being harder argument.

what needs to happen is for the Swedish legal position to be clarified one way or another. JA should have swedish supporters start a legal challenge.

JA's lawyers have certainly been missing a trick if there was any possibility of being successful & they haven't done so.

 

[laptop]

not really. No one has come back and disputed any of the points [Greenwald] makes

That's because, as I said last night, it's a huge polemical rant with very little content beyond "if you don't support my man 100% you're an Enemy of Freedom".

Greenwald is an attorney. His nit-picking buried at the bottom is a pretty desperate effort to simulate making substantive points.

And he's acted for quasi-fascists. Doesn't mean he is one, but by his own polemical rules we can dismiss him for that.

 

[el-ahrairah]

In which case we have to assume that all the sudden experts on swedish law are, in fact, not quite the experts they are claiming.

 

[belboid]

Oh sweet jesus, Sweden won't circumvent their entire extradition process including the prosecutor general and other bodies commenting on the individual extradition request as it is made simply to make Julian feel more at home.

Also, his important quote from Marten Schultz also goes on to talk about the extremely open and uncorrput Swedish system. Greenwald goes on to describe sweden's legal system as secretive. And it's not easier from UK or Sweden, just because it takes a long time to extradite is a feature of extradition law. Look at the 500 days it took for the appeals against the EAW to come to nothing for Assange.

And further down, he states it is true that neither Sweden nor the UK can provide a guarantee. Which is my point. Providing legal protection against something which hasn't and/or may not happen isn't the way the process works. Case by case.

Killer argument? More like a faint brush of blunt nails.

Wow, you really didnt understand a word that was written, did you?

Commenting on a single request doesnt 'circumvent their entire extradition process.' Plain wrong.

Your second paragraph is a right old mess, none of which has any actual relevance that I can see, certainly not the point re Schultz. In fact it might even be arguing my case, by mistake, but I cant quyite make head or tail of it.

Your point re 'guarantees' is quite disingenuous. It is absolutely clear, 100%, bright as day, that the Swedish government could give a sufficient guarantee that Assange wouldnt be extradited for charges relating to wikileaks as hey would consider them 'political'.

 

[butchersapron]

So, how many of greens claims has Greenwald unambiguously knocked down?

 

[Balbi]

Ahw, you're sweet when you get annoyed with my paragraph structure. Your article of proof still holds no more legal weight than anything put forward in mine though. Don't ever change though honey.

 

[belboid]

That's because, as I said last night, it's a huge polemical rant with very little content beyond "if you don't support my man 100% you're an Enemy of Freedom".

if you think that I can only assume you got bored before the end (the first half certainly is a bit of a rant, as I said last inght)

Greenwald is an attorney. His nit-picking buried at the bottom is a pretty desperate effort to simulate making substantive points.

And he's acted for quasi-fascists. Doesn't mean he is one, but by his own polemical rules we can dismiss him for that.

A US liberal lawyer acts for the far-right. They tend to do that, y'know. It has no baring on the argument. The only time he makes any such argument in that article is pointing out that DAG is not exactly scrupulously independent. Fair enough, as is pointing out that GG has a history too. It mans we know a bit about where they are coming from, not that we can accept or dismiss everything they have to say.

 

[Balbi]

Ah. Looking back through the last few pages belboids rather neat on the old 'selective quoting' meaning he'll dismiss out of hand anything which may get through his shield of constant righteousness and attack on the same minutae again, and again.

 

[belboid]

Ahw, you're sweet when you get annoyed with my paragraph structure. Your article of proof still holds no more legal weight than anything put forward in mine though. Don't ever change though honey.

annoyed with your paragraph structure? Dont be daft. Your second para was just badly written so it was hard to work out what your point was meant to be.

Legal weight? They are both arguments in a newspaper/the internet. Of course they have no legal weight. They are merely two examples of legal opinion. So what?

 

[Balbi]

Mine's better than yours, which is what this boils down to really.

 

[belboid]

Ah. Looking back through the last few pages belboids rather neat on the old 'selective quoting' meaning he'll dismiss out of hand anything which may get through his shield of constant righteousness and attack on the same minutae again, and again.

selective quoting? lol.

sorry you cant come up with a better argument.

 

[belboid]

Mine's better than yours, which is what this boils down to really.

I almost agree with that. 'Mine' is more convincing than 'yours'

 

[Balbi]

Thats your opinion, but mine is better.

 

[Balbi]

selective quoting? lol.

sorry you cant come up with a better argument.

Also, maybe the third time you've quoted anything of mine completely and it's because it lacks substantive points for the argument.

 

[butchersapron]

So, how many of greens claims has Greenwald unambiguously knocked down?

 

[Balbi]

None Butchers, but as it's belboid's main plank - well, he doesn't like people sanding his plank.

 

[belboid]

Also, maybe the third time you've quoted anything of mine completely and it's because it lacks substantive points for the argument.

well, thats not true either, but thats your problem, not mine

So, how many of greens claims has Greenwald unambiguously knocked down?

five. four and a half if we're ungenerous

 

[Balbi]

By knocked down, you mean posed a counter legal argument, don't you?

Ooh, ooh, or pointed out that David Allen Green changed his mind over about 12 months.

 

[butchersapron]

well, thats not true either, but thats your problem, not mine


five. four and a half if we're ungenerous

Which ones?

 

[laptop]

if you think that I can only assume you got bored before the end

I read the lot. He owes me. And his attempts at substantive points are weak nit-picking.

 

[Balbi]

Quick one: some more on why Assange really needs to be in Sweden to be interviewed.

http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-d...&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co

 

[belboid]

By knocked down, you mean posed a counter legal argument, don't you

I would hope and expect so.

Ooh, ooh, or pointed out that David Allen Green changed his mind over about 12 months.

is the fact that he changed his mind when it suited him to do so completely irrelevant?

Which ones?

that the Swedes cant interview in London
that it is not merely an invitation to questioning
that Sweden cannot give a sufficient guarantee regarding onward extradition
that Sweden is harder to extradite from than the UK

The 'wouldnt be rape in the UK' arguments are actually made in a different article, so I'll knock it back down to four.

 

[Balbi]

Still lying about the 'it wouldn't be rape' thing eh? My hype on Pilger was one thing, but you're denying that penetration without consent isn't rape. Which the UK courts disagree entirely with. Yuck.

 

[butchersapron]

Why have you italicized sufficient?

None of them are unambiguous. Not a one. They are competing views. What are the four that stand? And why is Greenwald wrong in half the things he says? (I will come back on the things he knocks down later). Would you trust someone wrong half the time?

 

[belboid]

Quick one: some more on why Assange really needs to be in Sweden to be interviewed.

http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-d...&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co

thats really very very poor. It accepts that interviews take place in other countries, but says "If a decision is taken to formally charge him, Assange would face trial within two weeks of that decision being made. It is difficult to see how this could happen if the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge."

So, in order to avoid the injustice of not being able to have a trial very quickly after a second interview, they simply refuse to hold the second interview?? Madness.

It even directly contradicts itself! "It is not true that Assange is only wanted for questioning." Followed immediately by: "The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. The prosecutor is presently disposed to charge him, unless any new evidence emerges that might change her mind."

So, there has been no decision, and it will follow the second interview.

So, interview him in London, and then announce that he would (or wouldn't, as depends) be charged as soon as he is on Swedish soil. Onus back on Assange to do the right thing.

 

[belboid]

Still lying about the 'it wouldn't be rape' thing eh? My hype on Pilger was one thing, but you're denying that penetration without consent isn't rape. Which the UK courts disagree entirely with. Yuck.

No it isnt, you misundertand my point - probably my fault for rushing it.

I was not claiming at all that it would not amount to rape in this country, if everything that has been claimed is true it certainly would do so. I listed it seperately as it wasn't in the GG article, but in a different one. And that articles point was not that it wouldnt be considered rape here, but that that wasm't the question the judges had to consider.

I wholly and totally accept it would be rape in this counry, which is (one reason) why I have always said that he should go and answer all questions and stand trial if necessary.

 

[Balbi]

Yeah, because so far he's been doing the right thing, every step of the running away.

As for the Ecuadorian interview, like fuck is Assange going to have the interview, Sweden decide to charge and then Julian's going to voluntarily submit to going to Sweden.

And the interview in Serbia wasn't under an EAW, because Serbia isn't in the EU.

 

[Balbi]

No it isnt, you misundertand my point - probably my fault for rushing it.

I was not claiming at all that it would not amount to rape in this country, if everything that has been claimed is true it certainly would do so. I listed it seperately as it wasn't in the GG article, but in a different one. And that articles point was not that it wouldnt be considered rape here, but that that wasm't the question the judges had to consider.

I wholly and totally accept it would be rape in this counry, which is (one reason) why I have always said that he should go and answer all questions and stand trial if necessary.

Ok, granted. Was worried about your particular brand of Assange support for a second there.

 

[belboid]

Why have you italicized sufficient?

None of them are unambiguous. Not a one. They are competing views. What are the four that stand? And why is Greenwald wrong in half the things he says? (I will come back on the things he knocks down later). Would you trust someone wrong half the time?

Cos DAG wants to claim its all about 'cast iron' - when Assange and his defenders have always said it cant be 'cast iron', but that it can be sufficient.

And, I disagree on the other bit, at least three are pretty unambiguosly argued.