[Merged] Julian Assange: rapist or not? - Part 2 / Assange arrested - Page 10

Squeegee Beckenheim · 27th October 2016, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

And why when he was accused of rape in Sweden, did he flee to the UK, which has even closer ties to the US?

I could be wrong, as I'm not a close follower of this case, but when he left Sweden to come to the UK wasn't it the case that there were no charges against him? There had been charges against him, but they were dropped. Once he was in the UK charges were brought again and he refused to travel back to Sweden to face them - although he did offer to talk with the prosecutors via Skype from inside the Swedish embassy in London. Then came the extradition order and European arrest warrant, his arrest in London, him bailing himself out, and his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.

So while I don't disagree that he's acting like someone who is afraid of facing charges of rape in Sweden rather than someone who is afraid of extradition to the US from Sweden, I do think that characterising his movement from Sweden to the UK as "flee[ing]" is unwarranted. Although, as I say, I'm not overly familiar with the case, so am happy to be corrected on any facts I may have got wrong or misinterpreted.

cullennz · 27th October 2016, 12:27 PM

Assange is nothing more than a prima donna who has turned into a bit of a laughing stock, hiding from charges of committing rape.

Here_to_learn · 27th October 2016, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I could be wrong, as I'm not a close follower of this case, but when he left Sweden to come to the UK wasn't it the case that there were no charges against him?

[...]

Although, as I say, I'm not overly familiar with the case, so am happy to be corrected on any facts I may have got wrong or misinterpreted.

Well, you could run into some discussion on what constitutes "charges", but if we skip that discussion a good place to check out the timeline is the "Agreed Facts" from the UK Supreme Court. You can find them at https://www.scribd.com/document/8091...s-Assange-Case

Originally Posted by Agreed facts

On 21 st September 2010 , the prosecutor contacted the Appellant’s counsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28 thSeptember 2010. The date was provisionally agreed.

On 27 th September 2010 , the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested.

On 30 th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel was advised of the existence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27
th September 2010.[...]

So based on those facts, JAs counsel couldn't reach him from the 21st to the 27th, and therefore JA wasn't aware that he was wanted for interrogation.

theprestige · 27th October 2016, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Well, you could run into some discussion on what constitutes "charges", but if we skip that discussion a good place to check out the timeline is the "Agreed Facts" from the UK Supreme Court. You can find them at https://www.scribd.com/document/8091...s-Assange-Case

So based on those facts, JAs counsel couldn't reach him from the 21st to the 27th, and therefore JA wasn't aware that he was wanted for interrogation.

Fair enough, thanks for the correction. It seems I had the timeline somewhat wrong.

However, I think the point remains valid: The UK is far more friendly with the US than Sweden. Assange's movements during this period are movements towards the US, politically and diplomatically speaking. They are not the movements of a man who fears persecution by the US.

Ultimately, they are the movements of a man who fears prosecution for rape charges in Sweden.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 27th October 2016, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

So based on those facts, JAs counsel couldn't reach him from the 21st to the 27th, and therefore JA wasn't aware that he was wanted for interrogation.

That looks to me like he ran away from an interrogation, but left the country 3 days before his counsel was informed that he had an arrest warrant out for him. That certainly makes the word "flee[ing]" more apt, but I don't think it's fair to say that he ran away from an arrest warrant.

SashatheMagnificent · 27th October 2016, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

But it has been repeatedly shown that under Swedish law they cannot,

This is your opinion.
There is no sure word about this

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

and under American law they have no charges against him, nor do they even want to extradite.

Today, as he is in the Ecuador Embassy
Tomorrow, as soon as he is out they can fabricate them

SashatheMagnificent · 27th October 2016, 03:27 PM

Annexing countries with referencumand providing them with equal status, minorities protection is a good thing, Invading countries, killing people and then leave them in the **** with ISIS is a bad thing

Edited by Agatha:

Edited breach of rule 10

Sabrina · 27th October 2016, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

This is your opinion.
There is no sure word about this

Um, yes there is. It's called "the law", and it's readily available should you choose to search for it online. It's called the Extradition for Criminal Offenses Act. Here, I'll even quote the relevant passage for you:

Quote:

Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. Nor, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgment has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law.

Kind of hard to argue with actual, quotable law.

Quote:

Today, as he is in the Ecuador Embassy
Tomorrow, as soon as he is out they can fabricate them

May I ask what you think those charges would be? Again, please note that they'd have to stand up in a court of law, so a simple charge of "we don't like him and want to torture him" wouldn't fly. The fact of the matter is, as an Australian citizen, Assange is not subject to the vast majority of our laws and is therefore of no interest and little use to the US Government. Wikileaks can easily go on without him, as has been proved by the last several years of Assange hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy while Wikileaks blithely went about its business, so his knowledge of them is suspect by this point and would also be of little use to the US Government.

Right now, Assange is literal poison to the US Government; any effort made to capture him would be seen by the majority of the world as the US pursuing a vendetta and would make us look worse than we already do, to the point that we would likely see people pulling out of trade agreements and alliances in protest of our actions in pursuing this man for no legitimate reason. If you approach the situation logically, this is self-evident. But then again, logic was never the strong point for conspiracy theorists, so I can see how it would be difficult for you.

SashatheMagnificent · 27th October 2016, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Um, yes there is. It's called "the law", and it's readily available should you choose to search for it online. It's called the Extradition for Criminal Offenses Act. Here, I'll even quote the relevant passage for you:

Kind of hard to argue with actual, quotable law.

I am absolutely sure the CIA plays clean and can not find one, two or ten women that can testify under oath that Assange has repeatedly raped them in the US and therefore an extradition is needed

Originally Posted by Sabrina

May I ask what you think those charges would be? Again, please note that they'd have to stand up in a court of law, so a simple charge of "we don't like him and want to torture him" wouldn't fly.

Many were tortured and sent to Guantanamo without a trial and without evidence

Originally Posted by Sabrina

The fact of the matter is, as an Australian citizen, Assange is not subject to the vast majority of our laws and is therefore of no interest and little use to the US Government. Wikileaks can easily go on without him, as has been proved by the last several years of Assange hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy while Wikileaks blithely went about its business, so his knowledge of them is suspect by this point and would also be of little use to the US Government.

The US needs to punish the people who stand out and denounce

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Right now, Assange is literal poison to the US Government; any effort made to capture him would be seen by the majority of the world as the US pursuing a vendetta and would make us look worse than we already do, to the point that we would likely see people pulling out of trade agreements and alliances in protest of our actions in pursuing this man for no legitimate reason.

Sorry but you live in la-la land
Do you think that trade arrangements are created on the basis of human rights?
HAHAHAHA!! Yech!
Nobody would care if the United States put Assange in prison for te next 50 years
Many people in the US will be happy

Squeegee Beckenheim · 27th October 2016, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

This is your opinion.
There is no sure word about this

Assange was sure enough that he sought residency in order to base Wikileaks there, because of the laws they have protecting whistleblowers. How do you account for this?

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

I am absolutely sure the CIA plays clean and can not find one, two or ten women that can testify under oath that Assange has repeatedly raped them in the US and therefore an extradition is needed

So why haven't they?

SashatheMagnificent · 27th October 2016, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Assange was sure enough that he sought residency in order to base Wikileaks there, because of the laws they have protecting whistleblowers. How do you account for this?

Not the slightest idea

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

So why haven't they?

As assange is in the embassy

Squeegee Beckenheim · 27th October 2016, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Not the slightest idea

Have you considered the possibility that their laws on protecting whistleblowers would actually protect whistleblower Assange?

Quote:

As assange is in the embassy

Why would that affect people in the US testifying against him? More charges against him would surely only put additional pressure on Ecuador to no longer grant him asylum? Especially seeing as many states in the US don't have a statute of limitations for rape at all and these charges the US could manufacture would mean that Assange would have to stay in the embassy for the rest of his life, rather than until 2020. So there'd be more pressure on Ecuador to kick him out, and more psychological pressure on him to leave of his own volition and face the possibility of a shorter term of incarceration in America.

Seems like it would be an excellent move on the US's behalf precisely because he's still in the embassy.

Sabrina · 27th October 2016, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Sorry but you live in la-la land
Do you think that trade arrangements are created on the basis of human rights?
HAHAHAHA!! Yech!
Nobody would care if the United States put Assange in prison for te next 50 years
Many people in the US will be happy

No, I live in a land called the United States of America. And I happen to work for a company that does contract work for the government, which puts me in close proximity to see how government actually works. Currently, no one in the US Government could give two ***** about Assange and his paranoia; we're rather occupied with far more important things than one idiot's egomania and certainty that the US Government would literally drop everything else if they could just get their hands on his carcass. Frankly, Wikileaks itself occupies more attention than Assange does, and even that is a mere fraction of a percent when placed in context with the overarching issues occupying the attention of policymakers and politicians. Sorry bro, but contrary to your (and apparently Assange's) belief, he just ain't that important and we aren't going to stretch our necks out in order to get our hands on whatever dubious knowledge he claims to have or to punish him for something that our Department of Justice and our Attorney General have said over and over that we don't have anything to charge him with. We have far more important things to worry about than illegally punishing someone for something that, for him, wasn't even against our laws.

And before you point out that the CIA has secret torture facilities and other blah blah blah, I would remind you that the US Military has one of, if not the best trained covert forces in the world and it is extremely easy for them to covertly infiltrate a location and set up an accident which would either kill Assange outright or force him from the Embassy and therefore into custody, and yet no one has done so. Possibly because, shocker alert, NO ONE CARES ABOUT HIM OVER HERE. The only country currently interested in grabbing him for violations of their laws is Sweden, and as I have pointed out, their law quite strictly prevents their extraditing a prisoner for political reasons, so we would not seek to grab him that way because Sweden would not cooperate.

Right now, the ONLY people who care about Assange being forced back to the US are the people who've drunk his Kool-aid and are convinced that the "ebil guvmint" are literally foaming at the mouth to get their mitts on him. Clearly you are in their ranks, so nothing I say is going to get through to you, but hopefully saner minds out there will read and comprehend what I and others have said about the situation and realize that Assange was a blip on the screen for the US that has since disappeared and we no longer care about him. Enjoy your paranoia.

theprestige · 27th October 2016, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Not the slightest idea

And that is why you fail.

In fact, Sweden's accommodating laws and track record in harboring American traitors is an excellent reason for Assange to establish himself and his publication there.

Step one of your idea, and already your idea is a failure.

You should try reading the thread. It might give you some idea to work with. At least it will be better than having no idea.

SashatheMagnificent · 27th October 2016, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Have you considered the possibility that their laws on protecting whistleblowers would actually protect whistleblower Assange?

Why would that affect people in the US testifying against him? More charges against him would surely only put additional pressure on Ecuador to no longer grant him asylum? Especially seeing as many states in the US don't have a statute of limitations for rape at all and these charges the US could manufacture would mean that Assange would have to stay in the embassy for the rest of his life, rather than until 2020. So there'd be more pressure on Ecuador to kick him out, and more psychological pressure on him to leave of his own volition and face the possibility of a shorter term of incarceration in America.

Seems like it would be an excellent move on the US's behalf precisely because he's still in the embassy.

Everything is possible, of course
Nor I claim to know the law well

I am just saying that there is plenty of evidence, unless you have thick slices of salami on your eyes, to believe that the whole thing has been made up

cullennz · 27th October 2016, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Everything is possible, of course
Nor I claim to know the law well

I am just saying that there is plenty of evidence, unless you have thick slices of salami on your eyes, to believe that the whole thing has been made up

Rather than the obvious

trustbutverify · 27th October 2016, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Assange is nothing more than a prima donna who has turned into a bit of a laughing stock, hiding from charges of committing rape.

What have you done with cullennz?

cullennz · 27th October 2016, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

What have you done with cullennz?

I can't stand the dude.

The idiot has probably spent more time playing poor me in the embassy than he would have got if his rape accusation was proven

Squeegee Beckenheim · 28th October 2016, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Everything is possible, of course
Nor I claim to know the law well

I am just saying that there is plenty of evidence, unless you have thick slices of salami on your eyes, to believe that the whole thing has been made up

Of course, for a hypothesis to be compelling it has to account for all the evidence, including the fact that Assange was visiting Sweden in order to apply for residency so that he could base Wikileaks there. If you can't account for that, then you have no cogent hypothesis.

Here_to_learn · 28th October 2016, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Of course, for a hypothesis to be compelling it has to account for all the evidence, including the fact that Assange was visiting Sweden in order to apply for residency so that he could base Wikileaks there. If you can't account for that, then you have no cogent hypothesis.

And the fact that JA was in known places in the UK from august 2010 to may/june 2012 when he lost the appeal, and went to the Ecuador embassy instead of being sent back to Sweden.

ddt · 28th October 2016, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

May I ask what you think those charges would be? Again, please note that they'd have to stand up in a court of law, so a simple charge of "we don't like him and want to torture him" wouldn't fly. The fact of the matter is, as an Australian citizen, Assange is not subject to the vast majority of our laws and is therefore of no interest and little use to the US Government.

That part of your argument is weak sauce.

US courts routinely assert jurisdiction when there's only a small link to the USA. The victim is an American? Check, jurisdiction. The accused is American? Check, jurisdiction. The conspirators to the crime had one meeting in a NY diner? Check, jurisdiction. Assange not being American only really protects him against the crime of treason - after all, you can only commit treason against your own country.

Far more important is that Holder said himself he sees no crime as Assange only published what someone else (Manning) leaked. And that Assange's own movements betray that it's a load of bollocks: you don't run away from the USA by moving to the country that is the most friendly to the USA.

Thermal · 28th October 2016, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

I bet you fail to grasp, and after this text you will still fail to grasp, that may be precisely because many american are freakin` idiots that Assange is in trouble

Do not understand yet?
For sure..

Wrong again, Sasha. America's GDP and wages over decades have absolutely nothing to do with Assange's rape questioning. Just get the argument in the right part of the forum.

And please, get the 'amerikans is stoopid' thread online. Should be a blast.

SashatheMagnificent · 28th October 2016, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg

When people talk about "the big picture" I generally find this means "your pesky fact details will not affect my preconceived notions."

Your opinion

SashatheMagnificent · 28th October 2016, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Wrong again, Sasha. America's GDP and wages over decades have absolutely nothing to do with Assange's rape questioning. Just get the argument in the right part of the forum.

And please, get the 'amerikans is stoopid' thread online. Should be a blast.

Some of the world leading intellectuals believe the US may and probably have a lot to do with Assange arrest
You may be entitled though of your opinion, even if I would not consider it as the most smart one

Thermal · 28th October 2016, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Some of the world leading intellectuals believe the US may and probably have a lot to do with Assange arrest
You may be entitled though of your opinion, even if I would not consider it as the most smart one

Someintellectuals may think that, but absolutely not for the reasons you keep talking about (GDP, wages, exports, etc ad nauseum.

If you have 'thoughts' on the subject, just get 'em in the right sub forum.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 28th October 2016, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

You keep talking about details that we (me and you) know little about

I'm focusing on Assange's opinion of the likelihood of extradition from Sweden changing within the course of a fortnight from wanting to live there because he knew it was one of the safest places he could be to putting himself in confinement in order to avoid going there because he claims it's one of the least safe places he could be. The only significant event to occur during this time, even according to him, is the accusation of rape. Swedish law concerning extradition and protection of whistleblowers has not changed.

You can ignore this all you like, using whatever excuse you like, but these facts remain and your failure to account for them is a fatal blow to your argument.

Mycroft · 28th October 2016, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

You keep talking about details that we (me and you) know little about
I am focusing on the big picture

I doubt you will ever grasp this, just trying

The "big picture" being that nobody in the world outside of the United States or Israel should be held accountable for any wrong doing as long as Bush and Cheney have not been tried for war crimes.

Got it.

Jrrarglblarg · 28th October 2016, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Your opinion

Observations of reality are not opinions.

theprestige · 28th October 2016, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

You keep talking about details that we (me and you) know little about

You should read the thread. We (not you) actually know a lot about the details. Don't assume that just because you don't know the details, nobody else does either. Some of us have actually studied these things. Read the thread. You'll see.

Agatha · 28th October 2016, 11:34 AM

This is not a general 'USA=evil' thread. Please keep the conversation focused on Julian Assange.

Posted By:Agatha

theprestige · 28th October 2016, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Everything is possible, of course

No. Some things are possible. Some things are not.

Quote:

Nor I claim to know the law well

You should try reading the thread. Then you might know the law better.

Quote:

I am just saying that there is plenty of evidence, unless you have thick slices of salami on your eyes, to believe that the whole thing has been made up

You should try reading the thread. Then you might see what the evidence really is.

theprestige · 28th October 2016, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Educate yourself here

JUDGED in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today
http://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/25/ar...msky.html?_r=0

Our source was the New York Times!

Wudang · 29th October 2016, 03:37 AM

I think this is the 8th time I've posted this
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...julian-assange

Squeegee Beckenheim · 29th October 2016, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

I think this is the 8th time I've posted this
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...julian-assange

Thanks for that:

Quote:

In July 2010, Assange explained in a TED talk why Sweden was attractive to Wikileaks (see here at 0.20). It would appear that Wikileaks was at that time hosted in Sweden to take advantage of its liberal protections for the media and journalists. In August 2010 Wikileaks itself promoted a story in Reuters which described Sweden as a “legal shield” – their tweet is here.

Of course, this is a minor detail, and nothing to do with the big picture.

Here_to_learn · 29th October 2016, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

I think this is the 8th time I've posted this
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...julian-assange

And to add to that one, here's a link to a post I did quite some time ago, should those arguments pop up again...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...30#post8581330

Here_to_learn · 31st October 2016, 04:52 AM

Well, not that the sockpuppet is gone from the thread, I guess it's back to waiting for the interview at the embassy. Of course that won't happen until ~~the US election is over~~ JAs counsel can participate, on Nov 14th.

Here_to_learn · 7th November 2016, 02:41 AM

The interview has now been confirmed for Nov 14th according to a press release from the prosecutors office.

The interview will be handled by a Ecuadorian prosecutor, but a Swedish prosecutor and a Swedish police will be present.

DNA testing will be done, if JA approves.

The Ecuadorian prosecutor will deliver a written account to the Swedish prosecutors office some unspecified time after the interview, and based on that the Swedish prosecutors office will make a decision on how to proceed.

cullennz · 7th November 2016, 03:02 AM

The dude has turned into a parody

EHocking · 15th November 2016, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

The interview has now been confirmed for Nov 14th according to a press release from the prosecutors office.

The interview will be handled by a Ecuadorian prosecutor, but a Swedish prosecutor and a Swedish police will be present.

DNA testing will be done, if JA approves.

The Ecuadorian prosecutor will deliver a written account to the Swedish prosecutors office some unspecified time after the interview, and based on that the Swedish prosecutors office will make a decision on how to proceed.

The interview has been concluded after a day and a half.
"No Comment" from the Swedish prosecutor.
A statement (as you said) to be produced "sometime".

Assange's mouthpiece is having her cake and eating it too.

He is innocent -

An "impartial and objective consideration" of Assange's evidence would lead to the prosecutors dropping their action, she said.

But, like Trump's challenge of election fraud, if the lose,

Ms Robinson confirmed that Assange's legal team intended to use the absence of his Swedish lawyer at the interview to prevent prosecutors building their case.

Assange was represented by an Ecuadorian lawyer.
So it wasn't as though he had no legal representation during the questioning - just not his pet Swedish one.

Noztradamus · 25th January 2017, 02:05 AM

Assange teases Americans

http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...ithout-lawyers

27th October 2016, 12:23 PM	#361
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,006	Originally Posted by theprestige And why when he was accused of rape in Sweden, did he flee to the UK, which has even closer ties to the US? I could be wrong, as I'm not a close follower of this case, but when he left Sweden to come to the UK wasn't it the case that there were no charges against him? There had been charges against him, but they were dropped. Once he was in the UK charges were brought again and he refused to travel back to Sweden to face them - although he did offer to talk with the prosecutors via Skype from inside the Swedish embassy in London. Then came the extradition order and European arrest warrant, his arrest in London, him bailing himself out, and his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. So while I don't disagree that he's acting like someone who is afraid of facing charges of rape in Sweden rather than someone who is afraid of extradition to the US from Sweden, I do think that characterising his movement from Sweden to the UK as "flee[ing]" is unwarranted. Although, as I say, I'm not overly familiar with the case, so am happy to be corrected on any facts I may have got wrong or misinterpreted.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

27th October 2016, 12:27 PM	#362
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 15,038	Assange is nothing more than a prima donna who has turned into a bit of a laughing stock, hiding from charges of committing rape.
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

27th October 2016, 03:04 PM	#365
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,006	Originally Posted by Here_to_learn So based on those facts, JAs counsel couldn't reach him from the 21st to the 27th, and therefore JA wasn't aware that he was wanted for interrogation. That looks to me like he ran away from an interrogation, but left the country 3 days before his counsel was informed that he had an arrest warrant out for him. That certainly makes the word "flee[ing]" more apt, but I don't think it's fair to say that he ran away from an arrest warrant.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

27th October 2016, 03:42 PM	#368
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent This is your opinion. There is no sure word about this Um, yes there is. It's called "the law", and it's readily available should you choose to search for it online. It's called the Extradition for Criminal Offenses Act. Here, I'll even quote the relevant passage for you: Quote: Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. Nor, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgment has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law. Kind of hard to argue with actual, quotable law. Quote: Today, as he is in the Ecuador Embassy Tomorrow, as soon as he is out they can fabricate them May I ask what you think those charges would be? Again, please note that they'd have to stand up in a court of law, so a simple charge of "we don't like him and want to torture him" wouldn't fly. The fact of the matter is, as an Australian citizen, Assange is not subject to the vast majority of our laws and is therefore of no interest and little use to the US Government. Wikileaks can easily go on without him, as has been proved by the last several years of Assange hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy while Wikileaks blithely went about its business, so his knowledge of them is suspect by this point and would also be of little use to the US Government. Right now, Assange is literal poison to the US Government; any effort made to capture him would be seen by the majority of the world as the US pursuing a vendetta and would make us look worse than we already do, to the point that we would likely see people pulling out of trade agreements and alliances in protest of our actions in pursuing this man for no legitimate reason. If you approach the situation logically, this is self-evident. But then again, logic was never the strong point for conspiracy theorists, so I can see how it would be difficult for you.
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810

27th October 2016, 04:10 PM	#369
SashatheMagnificent Banned Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 859	Originally Posted by Sabrina Um, yes there is. It's called "the law", and it's readily available should you choose to search for it online. It's called the Extradition for Criminal Offenses Act. Here, I'll even quote the relevant passage for you: Kind of hard to argue with actual, quotable law. I am absolutely sure the CIA plays clean and can not find one, two or ten women that can testify under oath that Assange has repeatedly raped them in the US and therefore an extradition is needed Originally Posted by Sabrina May I ask what you think those charges would be? Again, please note that they'd have to stand up in a court of law, so a simple charge of "we don't like him and want to torture him" wouldn't fly. Many were tortured and sent to Guantanamo without a trial and without evidence Originally Posted by Sabrina The fact of the matter is, as an Australian citizen, Assange is not subject to the vast majority of our laws and is therefore of no interest and little use to the US Government. Wikileaks can easily go on without him, as has been proved by the last several years of Assange hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy while Wikileaks blithely went about its business, so his knowledge of them is suspect by this point and would also be of little use to the US Government. The US needs to punish the people who stand out and denounce Originally Posted by Sabrina Right now, Assange is literal poison to the US Government; any effort made to capture him would be seen by the majority of the world as the US pursuing a vendetta and would make us look worse than we already do, to the point that we would likely see people pulling out of trade agreements and alliances in protest of our actions in pursuing this man for no legitimate reason. Sorry but you live in la-la land Do you think that trade arrangements are created on the basis of human rights? HAHAHAHA!! Yech! Nobody would care if the United States put Assange in prison for te next 50 years Many people in the US will be happy
	Last edited by SashatheMagnificent; 27th October 2016 at 04:13 PM.

27th October 2016, 01:40 PM	#363
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,351	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I could be wrong, as I'm not a close follower of this case, but when he left Sweden to come to the UK wasn't it the case that there were no charges against him? [...] Although, as I say, I'm not overly familiar with the case, so am happy to be corrected on any facts I may have got wrong or misinterpreted. Well, you could run into some discussion on what constitutes "charges", but if we skip that discussion a good place to check out the timeline is the "Agreed Facts" from the UK Supreme Court. You can find them at https://www.scribd.com/document/8091...s-Assange-Case Originally Posted by Agreed facts On 21 st September 2010 , the prosecutor contacted the Appellant’s counsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28 thSeptember 2010. The date was provisionally agreed. On 27 th September 2010 , the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested. On 30 th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel was advised of the existence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27 th September 2010.[...] So based on those facts, JAs counsel couldn't reach him from the 21st to the 27th, and therefore JA wasn't aware that he was wanted for interrogation.

27th October 2016, 02:21 PM	#364
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 33,197	Originally Posted by Here_to_learn Well, you could run into some discussion on what constitutes "charges", but if we skip that discussion a good place to check out the timeline is the "Agreed Facts" from the UK Supreme Court. You can find them at https://www.scribd.com/document/8091...s-Assange-Case So based on those facts, JAs counsel couldn't reach him from the 21st to the 27th, and therefore JA wasn't aware that he was wanted for interrogation. Fair enough, thanks for the correction. It seems I had the timeline somewhat wrong. However, I think the point remains valid: The UK is far more friendly with the US than Sweden. Assange's movements during this period are movements towards the US, politically and diplomatically speaking. They are not the movements of a man who fears persecution by the US. Ultimately, they are the movements of a man who fears prosecution for rape charges in Sweden.

27th October 2016, 03:21 PM	#366
SashatheMagnificent Banned Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 859	Originally Posted by MostlyDead But it has been repeatedly shown that under Swedish law they cannot, This is your opinion. There is no sure word about this Originally Posted by MostlyDead and under American law they have no charges against him, nor do they even want to extradite. Today, as he is in the Ecuador Embassy Tomorrow, as soon as he is out they can fabricate them

27th October 2016, 04:32 PM	#370
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,006	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent This is your opinion. There is no sure word about this Assange was sure enough that he sought residency in order to base Wikileaks there, because of the laws they have protecting whistleblowers. How do you account for this? Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent I am absolutely sure the CIA plays clean and can not find one, two or ten women that can testify under oath that Assange has repeatedly raped them in the US and therefore an extradition is needed So why haven't they?
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

27th October 2016, 04:55 PM	#371
SashatheMagnificent Banned Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 859	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Assange was sure enough that he sought residency in order to base Wikileaks there, because of the laws they have protecting whistleblowers. How do you account for this? Not the slightest idea Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim So why haven't they? As assange is in the embassy

27th October 2016, 05:18 PM	#372
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,006	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent Not the slightest idea Have you considered the possibility that their laws on protecting whistleblowers would actually protect whistleblower Assange? Quote: As assange is in the embassy Why would that affect people in the US testifying against him? More charges against him would surely only put additional pressure on Ecuador to no longer grant him asylum? Especially seeing as many states in the US don't have a statute of limitations for rape at all and these charges the US could manufacture would mean that Assange would have to stay in the embassy for the rest of his life, rather than until 2020. So there'd be more pressure on Ecuador to kick him out, and more psychological pressure on him to leave of his own volition and face the possibility of a shorter term of incarceration in America. Seems like it would be an excellent move on the US's behalf precisely because he's still in the embassy.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

27th October 2016, 08:25 PM	#373
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent Sorry but you live in la-la land Do you think that trade arrangements are created on the basis of human rights? HAHAHAHA!! Yech! Nobody would care if the United States put Assange in prison for te next 50 years Many people in the US will be happy No, I live in a land called the United States of America. And I happen to work for a company that does contract work for the government, which puts me in close proximity to see how government actually works. Currently, no one in the US Government could give two ***** about Assange and his paranoia; we're rather occupied with far more important things than one idiot's egomania and certainty that the US Government would literally drop everything else if they could just get their hands on his carcass. Frankly, Wikileaks itself occupies more attention than Assange does, and even that is a mere fraction of a percent when placed in context with the overarching issues occupying the attention of policymakers and politicians. Sorry bro, but contrary to your (and apparently Assange's) belief, he just ain't that important and we aren't going to stretch our necks out in order to get our hands on whatever dubious knowledge he claims to have or to punish him for something that our Department of Justice and our Attorney General have said over and over that we don't have anything to charge him with. We have far more important things to worry about than illegally punishing someone for something that, for him, wasn't even against our laws. And before you point out that the CIA has secret torture facilities and other blah blah blah, I would remind you that the US Military has one of, if not the best trained covert forces in the world and it is extremely easy for them to covertly infiltrate a location and set up an accident which would either kill Assange outright or force him from the Embassy and therefore into custody, and yet no one has done so. Possibly because, shocker alert, NO ONE CARES ABOUT HIM OVER HERE. The only country currently interested in grabbing him for violations of their laws is Sweden, and as I have pointed out, their law quite strictly prevents their extraditing a prisoner for political reasons, so we would not seek to grab him that way because Sweden would not cooperate. Right now, the ONLY people who care about Assange being forced back to the US are the people who've drunk his Kool-aid and are convinced that the "ebil guvmint" are literally foaming at the mouth to get their mitts on him. Clearly you are in their ranks, so nothing I say is going to get through to you, but hopefully saner minds out there will read and comprehend what I and others have said about the situation and realize that Assange was a blip on the screen for the US that has since disappeared and we no longer care about him. Enjoy your paranoia.
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810

27th October 2016, 09:11 PM	#374
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 33,197	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent Not the slightest idea And that is why you fail. In fact, Sweden's accommodating laws and track record in harboring American traitors is an excellent reason for Assange to establish himself and his publication there. Step one of your idea, and already your idea is a failure. You should try reading the thread. It might give you some idea to work with. At least it will be better than having no idea.
	Last edited by theprestige; 27th October 2016 at 09:14 PM.

27th October 2016, 09:20 PM	#375
SashatheMagnificent Banned Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 859	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Have you considered the possibility that their laws on protecting whistleblowers would actually protect whistleblower Assange? Why would that affect people in the US testifying against him? More charges against him would surely only put additional pressure on Ecuador to no longer grant him asylum? Especially seeing as many states in the US don't have a statute of limitations for rape at all and these charges the US could manufacture would mean that Assange would have to stay in the embassy for the rest of his life, rather than until 2020. So there'd be more pressure on Ecuador to kick him out, and more psychological pressure on him to leave of his own volition and face the possibility of a shorter term of incarceration in America. Seems like it would be an excellent move on the US's behalf precisely because he's still in the embassy. Everything is possible, of course Nor I claim to know the law well I am just saying that there is plenty of evidence, unless you have thick slices of salami on your eyes, to believe that the whole thing has been made up

27th October 2016, 09:31 PM	#376
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 15,038	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent Everything is possible, of course Nor I claim to know the law well I am just saying that there is plenty of evidence, unless you have thick slices of salami on your eyes, to believe that the whole thing has been made up Rather than the obvious
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

27th October 2016, 09:47 PM	#377
trustbutverify Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,305	Originally Posted by cullennz Assange is nothing more than a prima donna who has turned into a bit of a laughing stock, hiding from charges of committing rape. What have you done with cullennz?
	__________________ "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi Wollen owns the stage

27th October 2016, 09:50 PM	#378
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 15,038	Originally Posted by trustbutverify What have you done with cullennz? I can't stand the dude. The idiot has probably spent more time playing poor me in the embassy than he would have got if his rape accusation was proven
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

28th October 2016, 01:35 AM	#379
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,006	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent Everything is possible, of course Nor I claim to know the law well I am just saying that there is plenty of evidence, unless you have thick slices of salami on your eyes, to believe that the whole thing has been made up Of course, for a hypothesis to be compelling it has to account for all the evidence, including the fact that Assange was visiting Sweden in order to apply for residency so that he could base Wikileaks there. If you can't account for that, then you have no cogent hypothesis.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

28th October 2016, 02:15 AM	#380
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,351	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Of course, for a hypothesis to be compelling it has to account for all the evidence, including the fact that Assange was visiting Sweden in order to apply for residency so that he could base Wikileaks there. If you can't account for that, then you have no cogent hypothesis. And the fact that JA was in known places in the UK from august 2010 to may/june 2012 when he lost the appeal, and went to the Ecuador embassy instead of being sent back to Sweden.

28th October 2016, 04:12 AM	#381
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 19,576	Originally Posted by Sabrina May I ask what you think those charges would be? Again, please note that they'd have to stand up in a court of law, so a simple charge of "we don't like him and want to torture him" wouldn't fly. The fact of the matter is, as an Australian citizen, Assange is not subject to the vast majority of our laws and is therefore of no interest and little use to the US Government. That part of your argument is weak sauce. US courts routinely assert jurisdiction when there's only a small link to the USA. The victim is an American? Check, jurisdiction. The accused is American? Check, jurisdiction. The conspirators to the crime had one meeting in a NY diner? Check, jurisdiction. Assange not being American only really protects him against the crime of treason - after all, you can only commit treason against your own country. Far more important is that Holder said himself he sees no crime as Assange only published what someone else (Manning) leaked. And that Assange's own movements betray that it's a load of bollocks: you don't run away from the USA by moving to the country that is the most friendly to the USA.
	__________________ "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen

28th October 2016, 07:55 AM	#382
Thermal Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either Posts: 7,065	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent I bet you fail to grasp, and after this text you will still fail to grasp, that may be precisely because many american are freakin` idiots that Assange is in trouble Do not understand yet? For sure.. Wrong again, Sasha. America's GDP and wages over decades have absolutely nothing to do with Assange's rape questioning. Just get the argument in the right part of the forum. And please, get the 'amerikans is stoopid' thread online. Should be a blast.
	__________________ "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

28th October 2016, 07:57 AM	#383
SashatheMagnificent Banned Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 859	Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg When people talk about "the big picture" I generally find this means "your pesky fact details will not affect my preconceived notions." Your opinion

28th October 2016, 07:59 AM	#384
SashatheMagnificent Banned Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 859	Originally Posted by MostlyDead Wrong again, Sasha. America's GDP and wages over decades have absolutely nothing to do with Assange's rape questioning. Just get the argument in the right part of the forum. And please, get the 'amerikans is stoopid' thread online. Should be a blast. Some of the world leading intellectuals believe the US may and probably have a lot to do with Assange arrest You may be entitled though of your opinion, even if I would not consider it as the most smart one
	Last edited by SashatheMagnificent; 28th October 2016 at 08:03 AM.

28th October 2016, 08:08 AM	#385
Thermal Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either Posts: 7,065	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent Some of the world leading intellectuals believe the US may and probably have a lot to do with Assange arrest You may be entitled though of your opinion, even if I would not consider it as the most smart one Someintellectuals may think that, but absolutely not for the reasons you keep talking about (GDP, wages, exports, etc ad nauseum. If you have 'thoughts' on the subject, just get 'em in the right sub forum.
	__________________ "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

28th October 2016, 08:10 AM	#386
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,006	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent You keep talking about details that we (me and you) know little about I'm focusing on Assange's opinion of the likelihood of extradition from Sweden changing within the course of a fortnight from wanting to live there because he knew it was one of the safest places he could be to putting himself in confinement in order to avoid going there because he claims it's one of the least safe places he could be. The only significant event to occur during this time, even according to him, is the accusation of rape. Swedish law concerning extradition and protection of whistleblowers has not changed. You can ignore this all you like, using whatever excuse you like, but these facts remain and your failure to account for them is a fatal blow to your argument.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

28th October 2016, 08:23 AM	#387
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 19,477	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent You keep talking about details that we (me and you) know little about I am focusing on the big picture I doubt you will ever grasp this, just trying The "big picture" being that nobody in the world outside of the United States or Israel should be held accountable for any wrong doing as long as Bush and Cheney have not been tried for war crimes. Got it.
	__________________ Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda

28th October 2016, 08:33 AM	#388
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent Your opinion Observations of reality are not opinions.
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

28th October 2016, 09:54 AM	#389
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 33,197	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent You keep talking about details that we (me and you) know little about You should read the thread. We (not you) actually know a lot about the details. Don't assume that just because you don't know the details, nobody else does either. Some of us have actually studied these things. Read the thread. You'll see.
	Last edited by theprestige; 28th October 2016 at 09:56 AM.

28th October 2016, 09:08 PM	#391
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 33,197	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent Everything is possible, of course No. Some things are possible. Some things are not. Quote: Nor I claim to know the law well You should try reading the thread. Then you might know the law better. Quote: I am just saying that there is plenty of evidence, unless you have thick slices of salami on your eyes, to believe that the whole thing has been made up You should try reading the thread. Then you might see what the evidence really is.

28th October 2016, 09:10 PM	#392
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 33,197	Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent Educate yourself here JUDGED in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today http://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/25/ar...msky.html?_r=0 Our source was the New York Times!

29th October 2016, 03:37 AM	#393
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 11,557	I think this is the 8th time I've posted this http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...julian-assange
	__________________ "Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.

29th October 2016, 10:36 AM	#394
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,006	Originally Posted by Wudang I think this is the 8th time I've posted this http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...julian-assange Thanks for that: Quote: In July 2010, Assange explained in a TED talk why Sweden was attractive to Wikileaks (see here at 0.20). It would appear that Wikileaks was at that time hosted in Sweden to take advantage of its liberal protections for the media and journalists. In August 2010 Wikileaks itself promoted a story in Reuters which described Sweden as a “legal shield” – their tweet is here. Of course, this is a minor detail, and nothing to do with the big picture.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

29th October 2016, 10:52 AM	#395
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,351	Originally Posted by Wudang I think this is the 8th time I've posted this http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...julian-assange And to add to that one, here's a link to a post I did quite some time ago, should those arguments pop up again... http://www.internationalskeptics.com...30#post8581330

31st October 2016, 04:52 AM	#396
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,351	Well, not that the sockpuppet is gone from the thread, I guess it's back to waiting for the interview at the embassy. Of course that won't happen until ~~the US election is over~~ JAs counsel can participate, on Nov 14th.

7th November 2016, 02:41 AM	#397
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,351	The interview has now been confirmed for Nov 14th according to a press release from the prosecutors office. The interview will be handled by a Ecuadorian prosecutor, but a Swedish prosecutor and a Swedish police will be present. DNA testing will be done, if JA approves. The Ecuadorian prosecutor will deliver a written account to the Swedish prosecutors office some unspecified time after the interview, and based on that the Swedish prosecutors office will make a decision on how to proceed.