Ecuador would like Julian Assange out of their embassy by the sounds of it.

[Pickman's model]

It doesn't. He is being held unlawfully.

he's being held unlawfully. in somewhere he can leave whenever he wants. right.

 

[Teaboy]

Whatever. Detained. This is semantics

No its not semantics at all. He is not detained either, he is acting completely at his own will.

 

[Pickman's model]

The UN working group's bizarre decision that he was arbitrarily detained was not legally binding so nobody (except Assange) is breaking the law here. The UK's position is that he is voluntarily evading lawful arrest by staying in the embassy and that's an extremely reasonable view.

yeh he can come out whenever he wants.

 

[elbows]

He chose this strategy, just like he chose to ignore people years ago that warned him about honeytraps and his risky personal conduct.

 

[Teaboy]

This is the problem with these conspiraloons - they will literally argue black is white which leaves you absolutely nowhere to go because they've invented their own parallel world. It always strikes me as skirting around genuine madness.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is the problem with these conspiraloons - they will literally argue black is white which leaves you absolutely nowhere to go because they've invented their own parallel world. It always strikes me as skirting around genuine madness.

in his parallel world, squirrelp is always the first person picked to be on a team.

 

[elbows]

in his parallel world, squirrelp is always the first person picked to be on a team.

 

[butchersapron]

...and everything the linker to holocaust denial sites links to today has been debunked over the many assange threads on here already. This Iceland rubbish, the lot.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Whatever. Detained. This is semantics

Who is detaining him squirrelp?

 

[rekil]

"Former ambassador to Uzbekistan" is the newish "he's thrown a kettle over a pub."

 

[RainbowTown]

You are sounding like you want Assange to be as mistreated as Chelsea Manning!

You do realise that Assange and Manning are really on the same side? Without wikileaks there would have been no whistleblowing from Manning.

Honestly this post sounds like you have Stockholm syndrome

Read my post again.

In case you do and are still (perhaps purposely) not understanding it (in order to deflect, no doubt), then I'll make it clear to you:

I'm 100% on the side of all whistleblowers - every single one of them - whose sole intentions are purely honorable and for the greater, genuine good. I believe Chelsea Manning does falls into that category.

Julian Assange, on the other hand, does not fall into that category whatsoever. Not ONE IOTA. In my view, his motives were /are purely self-serving, more of a personal agenda fused with a overriding desire for self-publicity. It's his dogmatic ego that has driven him, not any real, palpable sense of putting to right any wrongdoings. He also seems to bask in his so called 'notoriety' - there is a self-satisfied smugness to his character. An indication, to me anyway, that his intentions are not true. Or honorable. Or believable.

 

[squirrelp]

Read my post again.

In case you do and are still (perhaps purposely) not understanding it (in order to deflect, no doubt), then I'll make it clear to you:

I'm 100% on the side of all whistleblowers - every single one of them - whose sole intentions are purely honorable and for the greater, genuine good. I believe Chelsea Manning does falls into that category.

Julian Assange, on the other hand, does not fall into that category whatsoever. Not ONE IOTA. In my view, his motives were /are purely self-serving, more of a personal agenda fused with a overriding desire for self-publicity. It's his dogmatic ego that has driven him, not any real, palpable sense of putting to right any wrongdoings. He also seems to bask in his so called 'notoriety' - there is a self-satisfied smugness to his character. An indication, to me anyway, that his intentions are not true. Or honorable. Or believable.

So what?

This objection to him is entirely to do with personalities and nothing to do with his work objectively. That has nothing to do with justice. It is no justification to want someone to spend the rest of their lives in a maximum security US jail because you don't like their face or think they aren't as saintly a whistleblower as you want them to be.

 

[Pickman's model]

So what?

This objection to him is entirely to do with personalities and nothing to do with his work objectively. That has nothing to do with justice. It is no justification to want someone to spend the rest of their lives in a maximum security US jail because you don't like their face or think they aren't as saintly as you want them to be.

He won't spend a day in a supermax, his mate djt will pardon him if it goes that far. You a Trump fan like auld ja?

 

[Spymaster]

This objection to him is entirely to do with personalities and nothing to do with his work objectively. That has nothing to do with justice.

The objections are to him thinking he can avoid responsibility to face legally brought charges and believing that his jumping bail should just be swept under the carpet.

 

[butchersapron]

I do wonder why he didn't go to sweden and simply clear his non creepy non-anti-semitic name given that a) they wouldn't and are legally allowed to extradite him to the US for political reasons b) he had visited there precisely to base wikileaks there for that non-extraditing reason and their general state support and encouragement of whistleblowing reason and c) no extradition request existing.

...and as if i can be bothered with all this with proven fucking loon again.

 

[Spymaster]

Am I right that the Swedes didn't actually drop their charges but that they ran out of time due to statute of limitations?

 

[squirrelp]

He chose this strategy, just like he chose to ignore people years ago that warned him about honeytraps and his risky personal conduct.

That's like saying that it's not a crime to be robbed because you walked through a bad neighborhood even though you were warned what might happen.

 

[butchersapron]

Am I right that the Swedes didn't actually drop their charges but that they ran out of time due to statute of limitations?

No, they dropped them because he successfully thwarted the chance of a prosecution by breaking a series of agreements and laws. They literally no practical - not legal - way in which to proceed. Potentially be revived later.

 

[squirrelp]

Am I right that the Swedes didn't actually drop their charges but that they ran out of time due to statute of limitations?

He was never charged with anything.

 

[butchersapron]

The lesser sexual assault allegations were simply timed out though.

 

[butchersapron]

He was never charged with anything.

He was accused of what is the legal equivalent of a formal rape charge in UK law. This was the very basis of his failed appeal in the UK that led to his holing up in the smelly embassy. I said i wouldn't go through all this again. Not this basic stuff. And not with a dick like this ultra-dodgy cunt. Nah fuck that.

 

[squirrelp]

The UN working group's bizarre decision that he was arbitrarily detained was not legally binding so nobody (except Assange) is breaking the law here. The UK's position is that he is voluntarily evading lawful arrest by staying in the embassy and that's an extremely reasonable view.

Allow me to quote Craig Murray again:

*****

Julian Assange has never been charged with any offence. His detention has been unlawful since his very first arrest in the United Kingdom in 2010. There has never been any genuine attempt by the Swedish authorities to investigate the allegations against him. Those are the findings of the United Nations.

The UK and Swedish governments both participated fully, and at great expense to their taxpayers, in this UN process which is a mechanism that both recognise. States including Iran, Burma and Russia have released prisoners following determination by this UN panel, which consists not of politicians or diplomats but of some of the world’s most respected lawyers, who are not representing their national governments.

Countries who have ignored rulings by this UN panel are rare. No democracy has ever done so. Recent examples are Egypt and Uzbekistan. The UK is putting itself in pretty company.

It would be an act of extraordinary dereliction by the UK and Swedish governments to accept the authority of the tribunal, participate fully in the process, and then refuse to accept the outcome.

Assange - A Fundamental Vindication - Craig Murray

 

[butchersapron]

I def think the way to critically evaluate things is to rely on one single source who you have chosen because they agree with you. That could only ever yield great and insightful results.

 

[Teaboy]

Allow me to quote Craig Murray again:

*****

Julian Assange has never been charged with any offence. His detention has been unlawful since his very first arrest in the United Kingdom in 2010. There has never been any genuine attempt by the Swedish authorities to investigate the allegations against him. Those are the findings of the United Nations.

This opening paragraph is so fucking dumb you just cannot get past it. He's not detained, unless the Ecuadorian are keeping him their prisoner, he can leave any time he likes. This is the very definition of not being detained.

The reason he has faced no charge is because he has been hiding in a fucking embassy.

Its just mental that this sort of reasoning is even put forward as an argument. Mental.

 

[squirrelp]

I def think the way to critically evaluate things is to rely on one single source who you have chosen because they agree with you. That could only ever yield great and insightful results.

I cannot find fault with a single word Craig Murray has written on this matter: if you can, you are welcome to say what.

 

[Spymaster]

He was never charged with anything.

Well that we know. If you don’t make yourself available you can’t be charged.

 

[Teaboy]

I cannot find fault with a single word Craig Murray has written on this matter: if you can, you are welcome to say what.

How can you charge someone who is hiding in an embassy? What legal process could a country go through?

 

[squirrelp]

This opening paragraph is so fucking dumb you just cannot get past it. He's not detained, unless the Ecuadorian are keeping him their prisoner, he can leave any time he likes. This is the very definition of not being detained.

No he can't, if he does, men will grab him and put him in handcuffs.

 

[butchersapron]

I cannot find fault with a single word Craig Murray has written on this matter: if you can, you are welcome to say what.

You have no idea how to even start looking for factual or other errors. This is why you are a timewasting weirdo.

 

[Teaboy]

No he can't, if he does, men will grab him and put him in handcuffs.

Maybe, probably. But that is not being detained, that is, quite simply, evading arrest and its a personal choice which is very different to being detained where the decision is taken out of your hands.

Its odd because on one side you lot seem to be saying he hasn't been charged with anything therefore he should be free to go and on the other you're saying he can never be arrested or be charged, Do you not see the honking great contradiction there?