Assange to face extradition

[JimW]

You only get to hear (by their nature) of the operations that go tits up.

Fair point.

 

[TopCat]

Have been. Might have been. On the balance of probability I'd say there wasn't, but who's to say for sure?

You said there was no plot. Then you said there was possibly a plot. Whilst you lost the plot and hurled abuse.

 

[tommers]

None of it matters. Assange is saying he is worried that he could be extradited to the USA from Sweden. It would be a lot easier for the USA to extradite him from here. That's the only salient point. His story is obviously bollocks.


Why bother setting him up? If you're the USA then you are no closer to your goal, in fact you're further away because there's another load of legal proceedings to muddy the waters.


Him being accused of rape in Sweden makes it no more likely that he will be made to go to the USA. I'm amazed that people have just swallowed it all.

 

[JimW]

To continue on my hiding to nothing here, thinking on the miscarriages of justice at jury trials we're aware of didn't they mostly require lying cop witnesses about matters of fact or fixed forensics as in Birmingham 6. Here he'd not be disputing the fact of penetration so it's a consent argument which juries even in Sweden tend to give benefit of doubt to accused on, if I recall stats from earlier in the thread. So again, seems a madly risky strategy.

 

[belboid]

I think it's naive to buy a complex conspiracy theory when the far more likely thing is he has a case to answer for the not-at-all far-fetched chances against him. I do concede I may have the plot of Argo wrong

It isnt a particularly complex conspiracy is it? It would involve either getting one woman to make a story up, or putting pressure on a prosecutor to go ahead and charge, despite the evidence being vastly less than is usual in such cases. Pretty straightforward.

None of it matters. Assange is saying he is worried that he could be extradited to the USA from Sweden. It would be a lot easier for the USA to extradite him from here. That's the only salient point. His story is obviously bollocks.

Its not easier, it adds another (albeit friendly) governmento to the mix, which makes it slightly more complex.

Why bother setting him up? If you're the USA then you are no closer to your goal, in fact you're further away because there's another load of legal proceedings to muddy the waters.

Him being accused of rape in Sweden makes it no more likely that he will be made to go to the USA. I'm amazed that people have just swallowed it all.

are you kidding? Why bother? Havent you noticed how he has gone from hero to zero? Hadn't you noticed how (blowhard) Senators had called for the death penalty for him? The reasons to set him up are stark staring obvious. And 'muddying the waters' by making him a rapist is superb for them.

 

[belboid]

To continue on my hiding to nothing here, thinking on the miscarriages of justice at jury trials we're aware of didn't they mostly require lying cop witnesses about matters of fact or fixed forensics as in Birmingham 6. Here he'd not be disputing the fact of penetration so it's a consent argument which juries even in Sweden tend to give benefit of doubt to accused on, if I recall stats from earlier in the thread. So again, seems a madly risky strategy.

there's lots more that is disputed than 'simple' consent

 

[coley]

I wonder what Bradley Manning thinks about all of this

Would imagine he has his own set of problems to worry about?

 

[J Ed]

It's pretty obvious that the US sees wikileaks as a threat and is trying to make an example of them. That's why Bradley Manning has been publicly tortured, otherwise what point would that serve?

 

[coley]

He's more easily hauled off from here than Sweden. He's merely chosen the terms of his incarceration - better off incarcerated in the embassy than a Swedish jail.

Debatable

 

[JimW]

there's lots more that is disputed than 'simple' consent

But what among it could they put the sort of fix in that will sway a jury?

 

[belboid]

But what among it could they put the sort of fix in that will sway a jury?

sorry, dont follow

 

[tommers]

Its not easier, it adds another (albeit friendly) governmento to the mix, which makes it slightly more complex.

eh? No it doesn't. USA -> UK vs USA-> Sweden -> UK. You cut out the whole messy and discovery-prone effort of getting 2 women to set him up. Just extradite him from here on the charges that they are apparently going to use to extradite him from Sweden.

are you kidding? Why bother? Havent you noticed how he has gone from hero to zero? Hadn't you noticed how (blowhard) Senators had called for the death penalty for him? The reasons to set him up are stark staring obvious. And 'muddying the waters' by making him a rapist is superb for them.

Well, to start with I thought these beastly allegations were a set up to enable him to be extradited. That's why he says he isn't going to go and face them. (We've already worked out that's bollocks.)

And secondly, as you rightly point out, his reputation has already been destroyed by them. So maybe he should go and clear his name? Hiding away in an embassy isn't going to change anything is it?

 

[JimW]

sorry, dont follow

Was following on from my idea that it's a high-risk strategy of making him hero by acquittal, as even in Sweden as I understand juries tend to give benefit of doubt absent solid forensic or witness evidence.

 

[belboid]

eh? No it doesn't. USA -> UK vs USA-> Sweden -> UK. You cut out the whole messy and discovery-prone effort of getting 2 women to set him up. Just extradite him from here on the charges that they are apparently going to use to extradite him from Sweden.

cos its in no way easier to extradite already being held in custody, is it?

Well, to start with I thought these beastly allegations were a set up to enable him to be extradited. That's why he says he isn't going to go and face them. (We've already worked out that's bollocks.)

have we? i think you mean you have decided its bollocks. Nothing more.

And secondly, as you rightly point out, his reputation has already been destroyed by them. So maybe he should go and clear his name? Hiding away in an embassy isn't going to change anything is it?

It (technically) gives him a better chance to compile the info required to clear his name, and allows him to carry on his campaigning on other issues. Fairly straightforward.

 

[belboid]

Was following on from my idea that it's a high-risk strategy of making him hero by acquittal, as even in Sweden as I understand juries tend to give benefit of doubt absent solid forensic or witness evidence.

Sorry, I'd somehow read 'accused' in your previous comment as 'accuser', thus getting somewhat confused.

The thing - from his perspective - is that once he was there, he'd be more liable to be grabbed for extradition, and that, if they can 'fake' accusations of rape in the first place, they can 'fake' evidence too. And just because he is paranoid, doesnt mean no one is out to get him.

 

[TruXta]

You said there was no plot. Then you said there was possibly a plot. Whilst you lost the plot and hurled abuse.

Is/was. There's a difference. Either way - it's of no consequence for what matters - Assange is a coward. Possibly a rapist. I wonder why this is so hard to get.

 

[tommers]

cos its in no way easier to extradite already being held in custody, is it?

We do have police in this country you know. Why is he hiding in that Embassy? Who does he think is about to arrest him?

have we? i think you mean you have decided its bollocks. Nothing more.

OK. If you think that it makes sense for the USA to add even more unpredictable stages into the mix if they just want to extradite somebody then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure that making it necessary for him to face criminal charges in an entirely separate country is a normal part of extradition proceedings, but I'm no lawyer.

It (technically) gives him a better chance to compile the info required to clear his name, and allows him to carry on his campaigning on other issues. Fairly straightforward.

 

[JimW]

Sorry, I'd somehow read 'accused' in your previous comment as 'accuser', thus getting somewhat confused.

The thing - from his perspective - is that once he was there, he'd be more liable to be grabbed for extradition, and that, if they can 'fake' accusations of rape in the first place, they can 'fake' evidence too. And just because he is paranoid, doesnt mean no one is out to get him.

My posts are riddled with typos I notice so easily done.
I thought the extradition risk takes us into the other massive argument on here that (while he might believe that, I concede) he's not at any more risk of that in Sweden than the UK, probably the reverse. So while I do entertain these arguments made and don't rule them out entirely, still left feeling he's got a case to answer and won't.

 

[belboid]

My posts are riddled with typos I notice so easily done.
I thought the extradition risk takes us into the other massive argument on here that (while he might believe that, I concede) he's not at any more risk of that in Sweden than the UK, probably the reverse. So while I do entertain these arguments made and don't rule them out entirely, still left feeling he's got a case to answer and won't.

I think he has a case too answer too. However, if you were charged with something for which you knew* you were innocent of, and also thought you were being set up and that the trial would be fixed, would you go back to that country? Or would you do everything you could not to do so.


*( in his head, he 'knows', and if he is innocent then he really knows)

 

[TruXta]

I think he has a case too answer too. However, if you were charged with something for which you knew* you were innocent of, and also thought you were being set up and that the trial would be fixed, would you go back to that country? Or would you do everything you could not to do so.


*( in his head, he 'knows', and if he is innocent then he really knows)

We know nothing of what he "knows", only what he says. How many rapists hold up their hands and go "ok yeah sorry that was me"?

 

[belboid]

We do have police in this country you know. Why is he hiding in that Embassy? Who does he think is about to arrest him?

What? Are you really this daft? He has claimed asylum in that Embassy, thus stopping them from arresting him. Its why he's done it.

OK. If you think that it makes sense for the USA to add even more unpredictable stages into the mix if they just want to extradite somebody then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure that making it necessary for him to face criminal charges in an entirely separate country is a normal part of extradition proceedings, but I'm no lawyer.

Clearly you're not. That comment bears absolutely no relation to what I was replying to. I have no idea why you posted it. Its irrelevant.

compelling argument. I'll take it that you have found yourself forced to agree with me

 

[belboid]

We know nothing of what he "knows", only what he says. How many rapists hold up their hands and go "ok yeah sorry that was me"?

Of course not. But, assume for one second he is innocent. If he is, then all his paranoia and apparent conspiracy theories fall perfectly into place, and he is reacting in the way any sane person would. Or any sane person with access to the Ecuadorian embasssy, anyway.

 

[JimW]

I think he has a case too answer too. However, if you were charged with something for which you knew* you were innocent of, and also thought you were being set up and that the trial would be fixed, would you go back to that country? Or would you do everything you could not to do so.


*( in his head, he 'knows', and if he is innocent then he really knows)

Even accepting all that, I reckon I'd have come to a point by now having made such a big stink over it that I would go back thinking I'd drawn enough of the spotlight to stop the fix, unless it was actually the charges themselves I was running from. Because the CIA would carry on after you if they were involved to the depths he thinks even if he slipped away from this trial, so no value in staying on the run. Can't really do more than speculate about what's going on in his head, of course.

 

[TruXta]

Of course not. But, assume for one second he is innocent. If he is, then all his paranoia and apparent conspiracy theories fall perfectly into place, and he is reacting in the way any sane person would. Or any sane person with access to the Ecuadorian embasssy, anyway.

Let's assume he's innocent. Let's also assume that contrary to some posters' imaginations, the CIA is not the eminence gris behind all Western governments, and that a country such as Sweden has an interest in upholding its own laws despite what the US/CIA might wish. Let's assume then that he will not be extradited from Sweden as Swedish laws prohibit this, even if found guilty.

Now what? You still think he's right in seeking asylum and evading his charges?

 

[tommers]

What? Are you really this daft? He has claimed asylum in that Embassy, thus stopping them from arresting him. Its why he's done it.

Right yes. Stopping WHO from arresting him? And what do they want to do with him after he has been arrested?

Clearly you're not. That comment bears absolutely no relation to what I was replying to. I have no idea why you posted it. Its irrelevant

eh? I said that his claims that these charges were a set up to enable him to be extradited were "clearly bollocks". You said that "only you have decided this." I then pointed out that setting somebody up to face unrelated charges in an unrelated country is not a normal part of the extradition process. That's not hard to follow is it?

 

[J Ed]

This stuff isn't even limited to the CIA http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/22/undercover-police-cleared-sex-activists so I don't see why the idea that the CIA would use sex to entrap people is 100% out of the realms of possibility tbh

 

[J Ed]

Let's assume he's innocent. Let's also assume that contrary to some posters' imaginations, the CIA is not the eminence gris behind all Western governments, and that a country such as Sweden has an interest in upholding its own laws despite what the US/CIA might wish. Let's assume then that he will not be extradited from Sweden as Swedish laws prohibit this, even if found guilty.

Unfortunately, from 'extraordinary rendition' we know that this really isn't always the case whether the Swedish government wants it to be or not. Just as with the distrust that people are going to regard polio vaccines now, distrust regarding this really is an understandable consequence of the practices of the War on Terror.

 

[TruXta]

Unfortunately, from 'extraordinary rendition' we know that this really isn't always the case whether the Swedish government wants it to be or not. Just as with the distrust that people are going to regard polio vaccines now, distrust regarding this really is an understandable consequence of the practices of the War on Terror.

I'm sorry, but what has polio vaccines got to do with this?

 

[TruXta]

Unfortunately, from 'extraordinary rendition' we know that this really isn't always the case whether the Swedish government wants it to be or not. Just as with the distrust that people are going to regard polio vaccines now, distrust regarding this really is an understandable consequence of the practices of the War on Terror.

Furthermore, how many extraordinary renditions of people IN SWEDEN took place? I'm not counting ER flights that went through Sweden.

 

[J Ed]

I'm sorry, but what has polio vaccines got to do with this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/cia-vaccine-ruse-in-pakistan-may-have-harmed-polio-fight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0