belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I have said that it is believable he has a case to answer.
Your ability to read is worrying.
Assange to face extradition
- Thread starter teqniq
- Start date
Your ability to read is worrying.
of course it implies that, its a site lying for assange, but nowhere does it provide evidence that is the case
ffs, you think if your accused of rape in one european country you can simply nip over the border and it will all be okay, of course they issued an EAW
Your ability to dismiss women as liars and accept the Assange fantasy as truth is disgusting. If they are lying let a court decide. If the assaults were too trivial for the law to punish them let a judge and jury decide. If it is easier to extradite him from Sweden when he is facing rape charges than from the UK when he is not -- prove it.
Your slack attitude disgusts me.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Really, read the thing properly, it didn't state what you claim at all. It says that there has only been one EAW issued for sexual offenses in recent years. Do you honestly think that there has only been one person who has been accused of sexual offenses who has left the country? That is frankly far more unbelievable than anything anyone else has claimed in this thread!
And you say it is a lying site for Assange (not that you've already completely made your mind up based on evidence you've imagined, oh no, not at all), but the thing you said it lied about a few minutes ago is, in fact, completely (if pedantically) true.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I have neither dismissed the women as liars, nor have I accepted Assanges fantasy. Those are plain and simple lies.
So fuck off.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
This is the state of play, as I understand it: there are no arrest warrants that have any currency in Swedish extradition law for anything related to the Manning releases or any other aspect of Wikileaks.
http://www.news.com.au/national-new...-stefan-lindskog/story-fncynjr2-1226612062993
Questioning in the Ecuador embassy would be to prejudice the case over the charges relating to the 13-14, 17 and 18 August 2010 of rape and sexual assault. To place the accused as a special accused who has super rights not accorded to other left-wing but pro-US or non-political suspects, is not a tenable scenario.
Military agents can act out disruptive illegal efforts on dissidents and then go hide in another country's embassy then make the same claims as Assange - something the Shah's lot associated with SAVAK were very good at doing across European capitals in the 1970s.
Assange's behaviour is precisely the behaviour you'd want to have to destroy an anonymising potentially damaging whistleblowing project. Yet there are no CIA question marks against him, someone who can't even protect their crucial military intelligence whistleblower (Bradley Manning). I'm not saying there should be CIA question-marks I'm pointing out the absurdity of some of the suggestions that some have made here.
The female weaker party of this affair is often seen as screwing up spy-style the proper crusading left, whilst the male more powerful one isn't.
CIA attempted to assassinate Castro, Lumumba might have been murdered by Belgian security service-funded gangs - how on earth are these events used as pro-Assange-stay-away-from-justice-over-rape charges? Is this how we judge reality? Police in Ecuador often employ aspects of torture in their work, hence we should reject the proceedings of the Ecuadoran judicial system and demand that any suspects in a rape investigation where the accused is someone leftist be interviewed only in an embassy of a foreign country perhaps Sudan or Sweden, ie on specially immune soil where embassy guards dictate the terms?
An embassy means that if you don't want to commit a crime under the Vienna convention the Swedish investigators, there are also, I imagine, very valid reasons for returning the suspect to the 2 flats and bedrooms involved in the 3 charges.
Asil Nadir the Cypriot tycoon said he was the victim of a British City conspiracy who didn't like foreigners making money. He refused to set foot in Britain to face charges of fraud, since the British judges would not agree to give him bail and wanted to see him suffer in prison, but that police were welcome to question him in northern Cyprus. Should Nadir's requests have been fulfilled?
If Assange was in danger of a US warrant nabbing him to a US military prison from Sweden, why did he apply for residency in Sweden in 2010, why indeed did he set foot in Sweden at all. Wikileaks was a remote operation, didn't need his particular appearance anywhere.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
The thing, surely, is how to actually move the case on - so that everyone involved can get some kind of justice.
Assange isn't just gonna walk out, Sweden isn't just gonna drop the case (not that anyone, bar a couple of Assange's barmier supporters like Galloway, has said they should). So what next?
I don't think interviewing him in the embassy would give him super rights. They have interviewed people abroad before, so, whilst being unusual, that isn't wholly breaking with precedent. And, as we all agree, they have said they want to arrest him and move proceedings on, then they can essentially carry out a formal interview, and will then have fulfilled all the requirements to move on. Having him return to the flats and bedrooms could indeed serve a valuable purpose, but it doesn't have to be done at the next interview, it could be done in an interview after that (as far as I understand).
Of course he would still, most likely, refuse to leave the embassy even after that, but it should be done to at least call his bluff. Likewise, you can give strong statements re-iterating Sweden's existing policy on not extraditing people for political cases, and noting that they consider wikileaks a political organisation (or something along those lines that overpriced lawyers should be able to concoct).
Again, he might refuse to move on, but then his bluff is called. I mentioned earlier how Ecuador are trying to find a way to get him out of their embassy, and I find it hard to believe they are trying to find a way that doesn't involve him going back to Sweden. And, again, I'd say that, yes, he should go back to Sweden.
The difference with Nadir, is that his defense was always wholly and completely crap, and everyone knows it now and always did. That there is at least an element of political contrivance to destroy Assange behind this case is at least plausible.
And its not about Sweden being especially likely to extradite him, its about it being much easier to extradite someone who is already locked up, and less able to defend himself. It doesn't matter that it is Sweden, it would be just as true of France, Germany, wherever.
I do agree with you that there is a nasty taste left in the mouth both those trying to portray Assange as Mr Super Who Must Be Believed, and who dismiss the case against him, and that much of that comes with a macho attitude towards women. Assange does himself no favours by not referring to getting justice for the women involved too (as well as barely mentioning Bradley Manning). But there is, imo, a clear political reason behind the pursuit of him, and that means that he does deserve some special considerations in order that he can be got back to Sweden to answer the charges fully.
Just going 'he should go back now' gets no one anywhere, even if the US and Sweden are both kinda happy for it to go on that way.
Assange isn't just gonna walk out, Sweden isn't just gonna drop the case (not that anyone, bar a couple of Assange's barmier supporters like Galloway, has said they should). So what next?
I don't think interviewing him in the embassy would give him super rights. They have interviewed people abroad before, so, whilst being unusual, that isn't wholly breaking with precedent. And, as we all agree, they have said they want to arrest him and move proceedings on, then they can essentially carry out a formal interview, and will then have fulfilled all the requirements to move on. Having him return to the flats and bedrooms could indeed serve a valuable purpose, but it doesn't have to be done at the next interview, it could be done in an interview after that (as far as I understand).
Of course he would still, most likely, refuse to leave the embassy even after that, but it should be done to at least call his bluff. Likewise, you can give strong statements re-iterating Sweden's existing policy on not extraditing people for political cases, and noting that they consider wikileaks a political organisation (or something along those lines that overpriced lawyers should be able to concoct).
Again, he might refuse to move on, but then his bluff is called. I mentioned earlier how Ecuador are trying to find a way to get him out of their embassy, and I find it hard to believe they are trying to find a way that doesn't involve him going back to Sweden. And, again, I'd say that, yes, he should go back to Sweden.
The difference with Nadir, is that his defense was always wholly and completely crap, and everyone knows it now and always did. That there is at least an element of political contrivance to destroy Assange behind this case is at least plausible.
And its not about Sweden being especially likely to extradite him, its about it being much easier to extradite someone who is already locked up, and less able to defend himself. It doesn't matter that it is Sweden, it would be just as true of France, Germany, wherever.
I do agree with you that there is a nasty taste left in the mouth both those trying to portray Assange as Mr Super Who Must Be Believed, and who dismiss the case against him, and that much of that comes with a macho attitude towards women. Assange does himself no favours by not referring to getting justice for the women involved too (as well as barely mentioning Bradley Manning). But there is, imo, a clear political reason behind the pursuit of him, and that means that he does deserve some special considerations in order that he can be got back to Sweden to answer the charges fully.
Just going 'he should go back now' gets no one anywhere, even if the US and Sweden are both kinda happy for it to go on that way.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
That assessment is from a Western left perspective, not from the Turkish Cypriot nationalist perspective who saw him as an individual who had probably done a few wrong things but was being particularly heavily targetted for nasty reasons, he had done much for helping out his immigrant workforce whom no one else would employ and was an unwanted thorn in the side of the British establishment.
The point is: who can pronounce which claims of those refusing to face justice are correct and which are faulty?
We would rightly have supported an INTERPOL arrest team bringing Nadir to justice from his exile in an occupied pseudo-state, and many know think the principle of embassy immunity should stand and not be sacrificed since it would boomerang badly against Third world countries, but Assange should face the accusations.
His releasing this kind of drip drip non-information to muddy the water and delaying the analysis in order to question and knock down testimony on grounds of memory does not serve the struggle against sexual violence well. Particularly so, given his inconsistencies over having sought Sweden as a base for his operations before any rape charges.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
arguments aside, thats really not in order is it?
Already been questioned. The Swedish police want him because the prosecutors have decided he must face charges in court. Needs to turn up for that.
Repeating his delusions keeps this 'just going round in circles'. He was not wikileaks but supporters of wikileaks say support the imperialists or him. False choice.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
hows he planning on turning up to court
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i read the thread title as 'assange to face execution' 
and i hoped it was true
does that make me a bad person?
and i hoped it was true
does that make me a bad person?
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
i read the thread title as 'assange to face execution'
and i hoped it was true
does that make me a bad person?
All depends on what side of the barbed wire fence you're sitting on
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the happy side.All depends on what side of the barbed wire fence you're sitting on
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
he won't get that far
crack hit squads track him night and day just waiting for the word and even if he evades them all the embassies are watched
The inside.
Mostly, it seems, the date
Change of government in Ecuador must be on the cards eventually...
It's only going to move to the Left though, so presumably will be even less sympathetic to the Empire's demands.
It's starting to look like he'll come out in a coffin.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
bohemond i, first prince of antioch, was captured by the danishmends. he escaped, after some time in captivity, by faking his death and was carried out in a coffin. he went on to continue his long feud with the byzantine empire before dying round 1111.
this may not be strictly true
this may not be strictly true
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
maybe the ptb will try to dart him when he gives another of his balcony addresses to the adoring bemasked crowd of oddball fans.
if he falls backwards, then well it is a waste of a dart. If he falls forward the rozzers can be there with a big sheet to catch him then arrest him
if he falls backwards, then well it is a waste of a dart. If he falls forward the rozzers can be there with a big sheet to catch him then arrest him
Complete and utter bollocks.
However, George Blake did smuggle himself into East Berlin by turning himself black, using drugs and sun-ray lamps. Got to be worth a try.
Similar threads
