Uk Threaten to storm Ecuador Embassy for Assange

omega666

Clearly this is all political motivated, he has embarrassed a number of governments and now they want their pound of flesh.
These allegations in Sweeden have nothing to do with it, If he was an ordinary Joe Soap there’s not a chance in hell the UK would contemplate storming an embassy to extradite him.

He’s better off staying in the embassy for the immediate future until such a time where he can slip out when things have died down.

Shea O'Meara

omega666 wrote: »

Clearly this is all political motivated, he has embarrassed a number of governments and now they want their pound of flesh.
These allegations in Sweeden have nothing to do with it, If he was an ordinary Joe Soap there’s not a chance in hell the UK would contemplate storming an embassy to extradite him.

He’s better off staying in the embassy for the immediate future until such a time where he can slip out when things have died down.

Totally agree. Let's remember he's wanted to stand trial, he's not guilty of anything at the moment. Assange aside, since when have the British government put justice ahead of anything when it wasn't in their best interest? Do people here seriously believe the British government are carrying out all this sabre rattling because of a sexual assault charge in a foreign country? Nonsense. Can they not see the U.S.'s or their own illegal detaining and torture of people who have yet to see the inside of a court from ontop of their moral high horse? Not to mention sending their own people off to die needlessly for the profit of a few, (pick any war/conflict).

karma_

golden lane wrote: »

a bewildering comparison....

if you mean that the law should be changed to allow sex crimes......would that be his human rights...?????

You see, I knew you were going to do this, however I'm not making that comparison at all. You made some silly remark about supporting lawbreakers, and if you thought something as idiotic as that was going to go unanswered you were mistaken.

humanji

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Totally agree. Let's remember he's wanted to stand trial, he's not guilty of anything at the moment. Assange aside, since when have the British government put justice ahead of anything when it wasn't in their best interest? Do people here seriously believe the British government are carrying out all this sabre rattling because of a sexual assault charge in a foreign country? Nonsense. Can they not see the U.S.'s or their own illegal detaining and torture of people who have yet to see the inside of a court from ontop of their moral high horse? Not to mention sending their own people off to die needlessly for the profit of a few, (pick any war/conflict).

Why wouldn't the US just kidnap him like they've done to so many others? Sure, people will complain, but the US has never paid any attention to them before. And why are they only going after one person involved in Wikileaks and not the others?

As much as I support Wikileaks, it really appears to me that Assange is guilty and is using his popularity as a way to escape. The US are always blustering about something, but aren't involved in this. The UK and Sweden have been humiliated by Assange in this affair and want a quick end to it, instead of letting it drag on for another few years.

golden lane

karma_ wrote: »

You see, I knew you were going to do this, however I'm not making that comparison at all. You made some silly remark about supporting lawbreakers, and if you thought something


so, you haven't read the posts on this thread......

and you decide that a persons concerns over people supporting lawbreakers is idiotic.....

that has cleared things up then.......you support lawbreakers....

who is your hero then..??????

Laminations

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Totally agree. Let's remember he's wanted to stand trial, he's not guilty of anything at the moment. Assange aside, since when have the British government put justice ahead of anything when it wasn't in their best interest? Do people here seriously believe the British government are carrying out all this sabre rattling because of a sexual assault charge in a foreign country? Nonsense. Can they not see the U.S.'s or their own illegal detaining and torture of people who have yet to see the inside of a court from ontop of their moral high horse? Not to mention sending their own people off to die needlessly for the profit of a few, (pick any war/conflict).

So your point is Britain = bad and therefore cannot treat JA fairly (like giving him a fair trial on his extradition to Sweden). And jmayos point is that Britain have interfered ion the legal process of other nations which I'm sure he disagrees with but now that it's happening to them it's just desserts.

You have grounds to protest his extradition to the US, even though I'd disagree with you, and you'd have grounds to say its politically motivated. You haven't got grounds to protest his extradition to Sweden or claim that rape allegations are politically motivated.

This seems to boil down to anti-British 'stick it to the man' attitudes where Assange is now above the law because any charges against him can be interpreted as 'pilitically motivated'. What if he was wanted on suspicion of murder? Should the Swedes accommodate him and question him in Brutain and the Brits just ignore the EAW? Is rape not serious enough for some people?

He had a fair hearing on this extradition, by all means keep pressure applied to ensure he gets a fair hearing if the US request his extradition but you cannot support him flouting European law because you believe it's all one big conspiracy

Laminations

karma_ wrote: »

You see, I knew you were going to do this, however I'm not making that comparison at all. You made some silly remark about supporting lawbreakers, and if you thought something as idiotic as that was going to go unanswered you were mistaken.

You brought up Rosa Parks as an example of another lawbreaker. The laws that she broke or contested were unjust laws. What is unjust about laws against sexual assault or the bail laws? Absolutely idiotic.

Some people can laud him as a hero for his stance on freedom of information but to support him in his wriggling out of facing the allegations of rape in a court of law as equivalent to Rosa Parks taking a stance is ridiculous

nehemiah

Laminations wrote: »

You have grounds to protest his extradition to the US, even though I'd disagree with you, and you'd have grounds to say its politically motivated. You haven't got grounds to protest his extradition to Sweden or claim that rape allegations are politically motivated.

There are grounds, however contentious. The arrest warrant in Sweden was cancelled before been later re-issued not long after. This may just have been a coincidence, but it is unusual in any case.

Laminations wrote: »

This seems to boil down to anti-British 'stick it to the man' attitudes where Assange is now above the law because any charges against him can be interpreted as 'pilitically motivated'. What if he was wanted on suspicion of murder? Should the Swedes accommodate him and question him in Brutain and the Brits just ignore the EAW? Is rape not serious enough for some people?

This hasn't really been answered in this thread but I'll give it one more shot here. This is an excerpt from the Irish Times report of Ian Bailey's appeal over his extradition

All five judges upheld Mr Bailey's argument that his extradition should be refused on the ground there is no actual intention by the French authorities to "try" him at this stage, as required by the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 which implemented the European Framework Decision on Extradition.

The Chief Justice, Ms Justice Susan Denham, said it was clear from the facts of the case, including a document from the French prosecuting authorities which was only provided to the court in January during the appeal hearing, that while a decision had been made in France equivalent to charging Mr Bailey, that did not incorporate a decision to "try" him for murder.

Maybe the EAW was incorporated differently into British Law but any explanation would be appreciated. Did Ireland just "ignore the EAW"? How did we get away with such a breach of law?

blubloblu

nehemiah wrote: »

Maybe the EAW was incorporated differently into British Law but any explanation would be appreciated. Did Ireland just "ignore the EAW"? How did we get away with such a breach of law?

EAW requires that there's an intention to bring them to trial, which the Swedes do. Read my previous post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80284086&postcount=209

Shea O'Meara

Laminations wrote: »

So your point is Britain = bad and therefore cannot treat JA fairly (like giving him a fair trial on his extradition to Sweden). And jmayos point is that Britain have interfered ion the legal process of other nations which I'm sure he disagrees with but now that it's happening to them it's just desserts.

You have grounds to protest his extradition to the US, even though I'd disagree with you, and you'd have grounds to say its politically motivated. You haven't got grounds to protest his extradition to Sweden or claim that rape allegations are politically motivated.

This seems to boil down to anti-British 'stick it to the man' attitudes where Assange is now above the law because any charges against him can be interpreted as 'pilitically motivated'. What if he was wanted on suspicion of murder? Should the Swedes accommodate him and question him in Brutain and the Brits just ignore the EAW? Is rape not serious enough for some people?

He had a fair hearing on this extradition, by all means keep pressure applied to ensure he gets a fair hearing if the US request his extradition but you cannot support him flouting European law because you believe it's all one big conspiracy

It would be very easy to dismiss as an anti-British, stick it to the man attitude, as you put it, were it not for Britains track record. Nobody is saying Assange is above the law. If you want to dismiss peoples posts off hand rather than read and understand the points being made, why post on here at all?
'Is rape not serious enough for some people?' go get a job with Murdoch. Nobody has said that either.
My point is that I believe Britain is once again bending over for the U.S. and the only reason all concerned want Assange out of that embassy is so the CIA or whomever can get their criminal paws on him.
All I know about Assange is that he is wanted; is he guilty, is he innocent? I don't know. Are the U.S. and Britain guilty of war crimes/murder/torture etc. etc.? Yes.

Maybe the U.S. will send in a hit squad to murder him...oh, I'm a Bin Laden supporter now I guess :rolleyes:

karma_

Laminations wrote: »

You brought up Rosa Parks as an example of another lawbreaker. The laws that she broke or contested were unjust laws. What is unjust about laws against sexual assault or the bail laws? Absolutely idiotic.

Some people can laud him as a hero for his stance on freedom of information but to support him in his wriggling out of facing the allegations of rape in a court of law as equivalent to Rosa Parks taking a stance is ridiculous

Look mate, bring it up with golden lane, I simply made the Rosa Parks remark just to demonstrate just how stupid his post actually was.

I am in no way comparing Assange to Parks. It's actually insane I have to spell this out, should have been obvious.

blubloblu

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

It would be very easy to dismiss as an anti-British, stick it to the man attitude, as you put it, were it not for Britains track record. Nobody is saying Assange is above the law. If you want to dismiss peoples posts off hand rather than read and understand the points being made, why post on here at all?
'Is rape not serious enough for some people?' go get a job with Murdoch. Nobody has said that either.
My point is that I believe Britain is once again bending over for the U.S. and the only reason all concerned want Assange out of that embassy is so the CIA or whomever can get their criminal paws on him.
All I know about Assange is that he is wanted; is he guilty, is he innocent? I don't know.

Let the courts of Sweden decide

Are the U.S. and Britain guilty of war crimes/murder/torture etc. etc.? Yes.

Maybe the U.S. will send in a hit squad to murder him...oh, I'm a Bin Laden supporter now I guess :rolleyes:

If the US was going to send in a CIA squad to kidnap, surely they'd let him get to South America where they have had some practice at that kind of thing?

gizmo555

blubloblu wrote: »

If the US was going to send in a CIA squad to kidnap, surely they'd let him get to South America where they have had some practice at that kind of thing?

As has already been pointed out, they also have practice at doing it in Sweden, with the full cooperation of the local police:

STOCKHOLM -- The CIA Gulfstream V jet touched down at a small airport west of here just before 9 p.m. on a subfreezing night in December 2001. A half-dozen agents wearing hoods that covered their faces stepped down from the aircraft and hurried across the tarmac to take custody of two prisoners, suspected Islamic radicals from Egypt.

Inside an airport police station, Swedish officers watched as the CIA operatives pulled out scissors and rapidly sliced off the prisoners' clothes, including their underwear, according to newly released Swedish government documents and eyewitness statements. They probed inside the men's mouths and ears and examined their hair before dressing the pair in sweat suits and draping hoods over their heads. The suspects were then marched in chains to the plane, where they were strapped to mattresses on the floor in the back of the cabin.

So began an operation the CIA calls an "extraordinary rendition," the forcible and highly secret transfer of terrorism suspects to their home countries or other nations where they can be interrogated with fewer legal protections.

The practice has generated increasing criticism from civil liberties groups; in Sweden a parliamentary investigator who conducted a 10-month probe into the case recently concluded that the CIA operatives violated Swedish law by subjecting the prisoners to "degrading and inhuman treatment" and by exercising police powers on Swedish soil . . .

. . . Although the parliamentary investigator concluded that the Swedish security police deserved "extremely grave criticism" for losing control of the operation and for being "remarkably submissive to the American officials," no Swedish officials have been charged or disciplined.

Ms Happy

20Cent wrote: »

The rape allegations are not coming from the women involved they have not made complaints its coming from the Swedish Gov. Assange offered to be interviewed in the UK or via video which is the normal procedure but this was rejected. He is concerned about being extradited to the US for Wikileaks if he is sent to Sweden. Thats the real issue here, looking at the treatment of Bradley Manning which amounts to torture the Ecuadorians have every reason to be concerned about his human rights if they don't offer him asylum.

Its the UK that is behaving like a tinpot banana republic the Vienna convention is there for a reason. Ecuador is a soverin nation the British are treating them like one of their colonies or something. Threatening to attack an embassy is outrageous behavior.
Like I said mass murderer Pinochet visited the with no problems. The forces being used to persecute Assange are above and beyond the norm clearly they are after him because of Wikileaks. The US does not have a proper humane legal system he should not be sent there.

Very well said.

Laminations

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

All I know about Assange is that he is wanted; is he guilty, is he innocent? I don't know. Are the U.S. and Britain guilty of war crimes/murder/torture etc. etc.? Yes.

So because you believe the UK/US are guilty evildoers, you can attribute malice to every act of theirs (even one than doesn't concern the US - it's an extradition from the UK to Sweden). Whether Assange is guilty or not should be establishedin the Swedish courts. Are you saying his extradition trial was unfair? Are you intimating the Swedish courts will be unfair? This whole thing annoys me more because it reminds me of the Quinn support. Some people's personal hero is possibly not so perfect, is defying the courts and the best you get is 'the Quinns may be wrong, I don't know, but Anglo is evil' or in this case your line above - which in the context of this debate amounts to ad hominem on the national scale.

blubloblu

gizmo555 wrote: »

As has already been pointed out, they also have practice at doing it in Sweden, with the full cooperation of the local police:

They did it in the past, as did the UK. Sweden took a hard line on it, and actively searched planes to make sure their ban was being respected by the US (something Ireland didn't do). It is not whether the UK are still doing it. The UK being close allies of the US, Assange is safer from extraordinary rendition in Sweden.
I would also be very surprised if they were to try it on him, now that the world's eyes are on him. The others tortured by the US were unknown to the general public.

Wikipedia wrote:

Sweden imposed strict rules on rendition flights, but Swedish Military Intelligence posing as airport personnel who boarded one of two subsequent extraordinary rendition flights in 2006 during a stopover at Stockholm’s Arlanda International Airport found the Swedish restrictions were being ignored. Sweden now altogether prohibits extraordinary rendition flights. In 2008 the Swedish government awarded al-Zery $500,000 in damages for the abuse he received in Sweden and the subsequent torture in Egypt.

Laminations

gizmo555 wrote: »

As has already been pointed out, they also have practice at doing it in Sweden, with the full cooperation of the local police:

The CIA have done this almost everywhere. So what Assange and his supporters are saying is that regardless of any crimes he allegedly commits he cannot be moved anywhere or held to account in case the big bad CIA get him? I probably agree the CIA will get him, what did nhe think would happen for his sharing other peiples secrets? but he needs to face the allegations in Sweden.

hatrickpatrick

Laminations wrote: »

This seems to boil down to anti-British 'stick it to the man' attitudes where Assange is now above the law because any charges against him can be interpreted as 'pilitically motivated'. What if he was wanted on suspicion of murder? Should the Swedes accommodate him and question him in Brutain and the Brits just ignore the EAW? Is rape not serious enough for some people?

What difference would it make if he was suspected of murder? He could still be questioned in Britain and subsequently extradited to face charges if Sweden decided such charges were merited.

Alternatively, the Swedish could offer an absolute guarantee that if he was found innocent, or upon his release from prison if found guilty and sentenced to a jail term, he would be given safe passage from the country and under absolutely no circumstances would he be handed over the US authorities. Sweden has been interestingly quiet about that.

Chuck Stone

@ Laminations.

You compared Assange avoiding going to Sweden with a pre-emptive attack on Iran to prevent the development of nukes. Iran doesn't have nukes and even if it did there is no reason to believe they would use them.

Sweden has nukes and has fired its nukes - the evidence has been presented to you - there is a real danger that Iran will fire more nukes Assange will be handed over to the US - there is nothing pre-emptive about.

Your slippery slope argument doesn't work. Try something else.

blubloblu

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What difference would it make if he was suspected of murder? He could still be questioned in Britain and subsequently extradited to face charges if Sweden decided such charges were merited.

Alternatively, the Swedish could offer an absolute guarantee that if he was found innocent, or upon his release from prison if found guilty and sentenced to a jail term, he would be given safe passage from the country and under absolutely no circumstances would he be handed over the US authorities. Sweden has been interestingly quiet about that.

I've repeated myself many times in explaining this. He is, essentially, charged with those offences. He's gone through the whole appeal process. Trust me, his lawyers have argued all of these points.

Swedish diplomats guaranteeing the outcome of a possible extradition hearing would be political interference with their justice system.

hatrickpatrick

Also I don't want to drag down the tone of this debate so excuse this post if it seems a little cynical, but the tone of many posts in this thread suggests that they already opposed Wikileaks' release of classified information and are just glad to see Assange getting screwed, regardless of specifically how he gets screwed.

It's a bit like when somebody is going to prison and people make prison rape jokes, or when a policeman is accused of brutality and people say "guy probably deserved it". The fact that the treatment itself may be unjust is irrelevant, since in their eyes the victim is already guilty of something separate and thus "deserves" it.

I wonder how many of the people adamantly defending their anti-Assange stance as simply caring for alleged victims of sexual assault would care even one iota if the alleged perpetrator was somebody else not involved with any sort of anti establishment movement.

Something to think about...

hatrickpatrick

blubloblu wrote: »

I've repeated myself many times in explaining this. He is, essentially, charged with those offences. He's gone through the whole appeal process. Trust me, his lawyers have argued all of these points.

Swedish diplomats guaranteeing the outcome of a possible extradition hearing would be political interference with their justice system.

Ok, so we differ on what constitutes a "charge", that's fair enough. I won't argue on that, because it still doesn't explain why he couldn't simply be interviewed in the United Kingdom, if he is only wanted for *questioning* at this stage. It is most certainly not unheard of for foreign police officers or intelligence agents to travel to another country to interview a suspect, providing the country they travel to consents.

So why not question him in London?

blubloblu

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Also I don't want to drag down the tone of this debate so excuse this post if it seems a little cynical, but the tone of many posts in this thread suggests that they already opposed Wikileaks' release of classified information and are just glad to see Assange getting screwed, regardless of specifically how he gets screwed.

It's a bit like when somebody is going to prison and people make prison rape jokes, or when a policeman is accused of brutality and people say "guy probably deserved it". The fact that the treatment itself may be unjust is irrelevant, since in their eyes the victim is already guilty of something separate and thus "deserves" it.

I wonder how many of the people adamantly defending their anti-Assange stance as simply caring for alleged victims of sexual assault would care even one iota if the alleged perpetrator was somebody else not involved with any sort of anti establishment movement.

Something to think about...

Not sure if that's aimed at me. I've been a long-time supporter of WikiLeaks, back when it was actually a wiki and the only video of Assange was a grainy skype call interview. His decision sometime around the release of Collateral Murder to become a public figure was perhaps ill-advised, in hindsight.
I think he should stay away from the US, but that does not preclude him from facing due legal process in Sweden.

hatrickpatrick

blubloblu wrote: »

Not sure if that's aimed at me. I've been a long-time supporter of WikiLeaks, back when it was actually a wiki and the only video of Assange was a grainy skype call interview. His decision sometime around the release of Collateral Murder to become a public figure was perhaps ill-advised, in hindsight.
I think he should stay away from the US, but that does not preclude him from facing due legal process in Sweden.

It's not aimed at anyone specific, just that several posts in this thread are attacking Wikileaks' actions and the leaking of information, rather than alleged sexual assault. This suggests to me that they want to see Assange getting arrested, regardless of the specific case he is arrested on, if you know what I mean.

Laminations

Chuck Stone wrote: »

@ Laminations.

You compared Assange avoiding going to Sweden with a pre-emptive attack on Iran to prevent the development of nukes. Iran doesn't have nukes and even if it did there is no reason to believe they would use them.

Sweden has nukes and has fired its nukes - the evidence has been presented to you - there is a real danger that Iran will fire more nukes Assange will be handed over to the US - there is nothing pre-emptive about.

Your slippery slope argument doesn't work. Try something else.

There is a 'real danger' is speculative, how real is it? Unless you can say 'the US will extradite him' then you cant use that possibility as a reason for him not facing the charges in Swededn. He is going to Sweden on a EAW and the US haven't even requested his extradition yet, when and if they do I'd support him seeking embassy asylum over political persecution. I was saying Iran has nukes in the sense that someone could argue that 'there is a real danger Iran has nukes (or could develop them) and so acrion is needed now to prevent that'. Once someone believes there is a real danger or a dodgy smell, or previous form, then for some people on this thread that justifies preemptive action.

blubloblu wrote: »

Not sure if that's aimed at me.

It was aimed at me.

I'm not anti-Wikileaks per se, I agree with whitleblowers being protected, I just disagree that it is whitleblowing. Just because Assange and some guy fawlkes masked eejits believe in total freedom of information (hypocritical pursuit from behind a mask) doesn't mean the world should work that way. Governments are entitled to secrets in what they say about other nations etc.

Whistleblowing involves exposing a scandalous or illegal act. It is targeted and purposeful. Wikileaks is just a file dump of everything, diplomatic cables, operational information, sensitive data, not necessarily illegal operations, just everything. And it is because those behind it believe we are entitled to know everything. Me publishing all of your credit card details is as much whistleblowing as Wikileaks

Anyway, my view of Wikileaks has little to do with my belief that people should cooperate with the law - that can be seen in many of my posts across many threads. So I'll state again, I believe there is grounds to protest his extradition to the US (if that happens) but no grounds in protesting him refusing to face the rape allegations in Sweden. Why did he even fight it in court if he was going to ignore the findings? Likely because if the UK courts had sided with him he'd have stood behind that decision, but they didn't so suddenly his respect for the courts disappears. I've also said the case in it parallels with the Quinns case (in how they obey or ignore the courts when it suits them) is why I've contributed as much as I have.

Chuck Stone

Laminations wrote: »

There is a 'real danger' is speculative, how real is it? Unless you can say 'the US will extradite him' then you cant use that possibility as a reason for him not facing the charges in Swededn.

If I throw myself off the 3rd floor of a building I can't be sure I will die but I can be sure that throwing myself off is life threatening.

I can't say Sweden will extradite him and neither can you say Sweden will not. People will act in their self-interest. If I was him I would be avoiding Sweden too. What do you think his reasons are for avoiding being sent to Sweden? To avoid a dubious sexual assault allegation?

Come on.

Cesium Clock

I have not read the full thread, but the facts are,

Julian assange is wanted for QUESTIONING about unprotected sex with two former aides, one of whom is connected to the CIA, ( he had sex without a condom)

The war machine has killed innocent people all over the world including journalists, evidence on you tube, and covered it up.

Julian Assange has exposed wrongdoing and now he is branded as rapist by the one world media and is now stuck in an embassy in London,

Tory boy Haig is threatening to attack said embassy and extract Assange, really,

If Assange was in the Russian or Chinese embassy would Tory boy Haigues threats be valid?

getz

Cesium Clock wrote: »

I have not read the full thread, but the facts are,

Julian assange is wanted for QUESTIONING about unprotected sex with two former aides, one of whom is connected to the CIA, ( he had sex without a condom)

The war machine has killed innocent people all over the world including journalists, evidence on you tube, and covered it up.

Julian Assange has exposed wrongdoing and now he is branded as rapist by the one world media and is now stuck in an embassy in London,

Tory boy Haig is threatening to attack said embassy and extract Assange, really,

If Assange was in the Russian or Chinese embassy would Tory boy Haigues threats be valid?

your love for the UK and america comes over very clear on your comments,he is wanted for questioning in swedon for alleged rape,under a EU extradition order,he went through the full UK legal process and the courts [not the UK goverment] found they had reason to believe he may have committed a offence,and swedon had good reason for asking for his extradition,he was released on bail,and breached the bail terms[criminal offence in the UK] the ecuadorian embassy gave him immunity, by doing that they have breached the key 1961 convention on diplomatic immunity ruling,a british goverment minister stated that under british law they could revoke the rights of the embassy because they have interfered in the host nations internal affairs,NO one has said that they are going to do it,but that right has been spelled out to the embassy,its not about he may be extracted to the USA,its about a allaged rape in swedon and a criminal act in the UK,leave the america bit for the conspiracy thread,and please read the posts before going off on one

Hippo

Cesium Clock wrote: »

I but the facts are,

Julian assange is wanted for QUESTIONING about unprotected sex with two former aides, one of whom is connected to the CIA, ( he had sex without a condom)


Tory boy Haig is threatening to attack said embassy and extract Assange, really,

If Assange was in the Russian or Chinese embassy would Tory boy Haigues threats be valid?

Or would Correa be so keen to offer him asylum if he didn't have a Presidential election coming up in a few months? And do you really think the Ecuadorean embassy is going to be stormed?

Assange is wanted for questioning in connection with rape and sexual molestation. These are very serious allegations, end of story. I couldn't care less who he is. Save your conspiracy theories for the relevant forum.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hippo wrote: »

Or would Correa be so keen to offer him asylum if he didn't have a Presidential election coming up in a few months? And do you really think the Ecuadorean embassy is going to be stormed?

Assange is wanted for questioning in connection with rape and sexual molestation. These are very serious allegations, end of story. I couldn't care less who he is. Save your conspiracy theories for the relevant forum.

Contradiction in your last sentence and your first?

20Cent

There is more evidence of the threat to Assange from the US.
Article from the Sydney Morning Herald who got documents under the freedom of information act.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz23pUkDi00

Highlights

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Photo: Reuters
The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information laws, show Australia's diplomatic service takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents


The embassy noted media reports that a US federal grand jury had been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to pursue the WikiLeaks case and that US government officials "cannot lawfully confirm to us the existence of the grand jury".
Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.
Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.

getz

20Cent wrote: »

There is more evidence of the threat to Assange from the US.
Article from the Sydney Morning Herald who got documents under the freedom of information act.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz23pUkDi00

Highlights

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Photo: Reuters
The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information laws, show Australia's diplomatic service takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents


The embassy noted media reports that a US federal grand jury had been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to pursue the WikiLeaks case and that US government officials "cannot lawfully confirm to us the existence of the grand jury".
Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.
Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.

what has that to do with the charges that assange faces ?.should every foriegn criminal get away with crime because it is believed a third party may seek to extradite him

20Cent

getz wrote: »

what has that to do with the charges that assange faces ?.should every foriegn criminal get away with crime because it is believed a third party may seek to extradite him

It explains why he doesn't want to go to Sweden.
He hasn't been charged nevermind convicted so your second point is moot.

omega666

The UK didn't seem to worry too much about not extraditing this actual convicted sex offender a few months ago.


http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/29/12475209-uk-wont-extradite-sex-offender-accused-of-raping-molesting-girls-in-us?chromedomain=usnews

Hippo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Contradiction in your last sentence and your first?

The first sentence offers a plausible explanation for, of all countries, Ecuador's interest in the matter. Extrapolating from Assange's predicament that it's all a big secret plot ultimately to extradite him to the US is something else altogether. Why has the US not applied directly to the UK for his extradition?

hatrickpatrick

getz wrote: »

what has that to do with the charges that assange faces ?.should every foriegn criminal get away with crime because it is believed a third party may seek to extradite him

Nobody is suggesting that he shouldn't answer the rape allegations (Based on the evidence I've seen it seems fairly obvious that they are at best dubious, but who am I to judge? That's for the jury of the trial, if it gets that far). What we're asking for is for Assange to be given appropriate safeguards. Either come and question him inside the UK, or else give him a guarantee, a formal promise that on completion of the case in Sweden (and any prison time if he is indeed convicted), he will be given safe passage from the country and under no circumstances will the American authorities be allowed anywhere near him for the duration of his time in Sweden.

If any such measures were enacted by the Swedes, I would have no further quarrel with the idea of him going to Sweden to answer the allegations.

This is not about the sex case, it's about what might come after it. Nobody is suggesting that he should be allowed to evade that case.

blubloblu

omega666 wrote: »

The UK didn't seem to worry too much about not extraditing this actual convicted sex offender a few months ago.


http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/29/12475209-uk-wont-extradite-sex-offender-accused-of-raping-molesting-girls-in-us?chromedomain=usnews

Which just proves that there's strong protections against Assange being extradited to the US.

20Cent wrote: »

There is more evidence of the threat to Assange from the US.
Article from the Sydney Morning Herald who got documents under the freedom of information act.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz23pUkDi00

[/I]

I don't there anyone is under any illusions that the US won't try to extradite Assage. The question is will they be able to, considering UK and Swedish extradition laws must be met, and considering Bradley Manning's treatment and the threat of a death sentence will give Assange a strong case. Once he has dealt with proceedings in Sweden, he could go to Ecuador.

jhegarty

blubloblu wrote: »

Which just proves that there's strong protections against Assange being extradited to the US.

They can't under the UK law. That's why they need to get him to Sweden.

blubloblu wrote: »

I don't there anyone is under any illusions that the US won't try to extradite Assage. The question is will they be able to, considering UK and Swedish extradition laws must be met, and considering Bradley Manning's treatment and the threat of a death sentence will give Assange a strong case. Once he has dealt with proceedings in Sweden, he could go to Ecuador.

Because Sweden has in the past sent people to US without the luxury of an extradition court appearance.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

20Cent

blubloblu wrote: »

Which just proves that there's strong protections against Assange being extradited to the US.

I don't there anyone is under any illusions that the US won't try to extradite Assage. The question is will they be able to, considering UK and Swedish extradition laws must be met, and considering Bradley Manning's treatment and the threat of a death sentence will give Assange a strong case. Once he has dealt with proceedings in Sweden, he could go to Ecuador.

Britain probably not but Sweden have previous, they have sent people into US custody in the past, have shown themselves to be totally compliant to the US. Would you risk it?
No one seems to have had an answer as to why the can't interview him in the UK or in the embassy?

blubloblu

jhegarty wrote: »

They can't under the UK law. That's why they need to get him to Sweden.

Under the European Arrest Warrant framework (Article 28.4), the UK must consent to further extraditions to a non-EU state. Therefore, he has the protections of both UK and Swedish law.

Because Sweden has in the past sent people to US without the luxury of an extradition court appearance.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

And so has the UK. Sweden banned all such flight since that UN ruling. And unlike our own government, actively searched planes to enforce the ban. They've taken a pretty hard line on it. He's at more risk of extraordinary rendition in the UK. I also doubt they'd try it on such a public figure, other people kidnapped and tortured were unknown to the general public.

20Cent wrote: »

Britain probably not but Sweden have previous, they have sent people into US custody in the past, have shown themselves to be totally compliant to the US. Would you risk it?
No one seems to have had an answer as to why the can't interview him in the UK or in the embassy?

The Swedish will arrest him as soon as he arrives there. They can't arrest him on UK soil.

20Cent

blubloblu wrote: »

The Swedish will arrest him as soon as he arrives there. They can't arrest him on UK soil.

They say they want to question him, he hasn't been charged with anything, the questioning can be done anywhere. Why the urgency to get him to Sweden? Causing a diplomatic incident when they could do what they want in the UK at anytime? Police forces regularly travel to other countries to question people they don't need international arrest warrants etc, no wonder Assange is paranoid he has good reason to be.

blubloblu

20Cent wrote: »

They say they want to question him, he hasn't been charged with anything, the questioning can be done anywhere. Why the urgency to get him to Sweden? Causing a diplomatic incident when they could do what they want in the UK at anytime? Police forces regularly travel to other countries to question people they don't need international arrest warrants etc, no wonder Assange is paranoid he has good reason to be.

This misconception is based on differences with Swedish and UK law. I've posted this link about six time on this thread already, but nobody seems to have read it. This was brought up as an appeal against the warrant (third grounds to be dismissed) http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf
He is at the same stage in proceedings as being charged under UK law.

20Cent

blubloblu wrote: »

This misconception is based on differences with Swedish and UK law. I've posted this link about six time on this thread already, but nobody seems to have read it. This was brought up as an appeal against the warrant (third grounds to be dismissed) http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf
He is at the same stage in proceedings as being charged under UK law.

The Swedish police say they want to question him. Why not do it in the UK?

blubloblu

20Cent wrote: »

The Swedish police say they want to question him. Why not do it in the UK?

Please READ THE LINK: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf
The stage of questioning in Sweden is equivalent to the stage of charges being laid in the UK. They cannot proceed further (i.e. arresting him) on British soil, it must be done in Sweden.

A Dub in Glasgo

Why don't they come out and say we have no more need to question him as we have enough evidence therefore we need to arrest him and charge him with the following ... ?

blubloblu

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why don't they come out and say we have no more need to question him as we have enough evidence therefore we need to arrest him and charge him with the following ... ?

Under Swedish law, he needs to be there for them to do that. They can't arrest him abroad.
People are getting caught up on the technicality of the term questioning under Swedish law.
Don't forget that Assange and his lawyers have been going down every avenue of appeal for over a year now. These points have been addressed. You can read the long-form judgement on why that grounds was dismissed (starts bottom of page 13): http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

A Dub in Glasgo

I know he needs to be there for the arrest and charging to be enacted. I asked why can't the Swedish police come out and say that is what they want him for. At the moment, they say they want to question him, you have claimed that they really want to arrest him and charge therefore they cannot go to London to do what you think they want to do.

blubloblu

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I know he needs to be there for the arrest and charging to be enacted. I asked why can't the Swedish police come out and say that is what they want him for. At the moment, they say they want to question him, you have claimed that they really want to arrest him and charge therefore they cannot go to London to do what you think they want to do.

Well, they need to do a second round of questioning in Sweden before formally arresting him. That's the way the procedure works, they can't come out and say they're skipping steps, that could lead to a mistrial.

golden lane

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I know he needs to be there for the arrest and charging to be enacted. I asked why can't the Swedish police come out and say that is what they want him for. At the moment, they say they want to question him, you have claimed that they really want to arrest him and charge therefore they cannot go to London to do what you think they want to do.

countries and police forces work their own way.......

there are many posters saying they should do this, should do that, should do the other......

why does the irish government not seem do what people want.....because they are a government......simple....

my only concern is that alleged sexual offenders can bribe governments to give them asylum......that will not be good for the future...

i have no interest in what happens to assange after he answers the charges.......

Laminations

The pure pigheadedness.

He wouldn't be getting extradited if there wasn't an intention to send him to trial. Your points on questioning him in the UK were addressed at trial