ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Julian Assange

Reply
Old 4th February 2016, 06:49 AM   #81
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,445
Originally Posted by Here_to_learn View Post
JAs argument can be read at this link.
I know what his argument is, but it's tosh.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2016, 07:02 AM   #82
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,230
From what I can understand, Sweden and the UK got the decision 2 weeks ago, while JA (and the public) will get to know the results tomorrow friday.

According to one Swedish paper, a person at the Swedish Foreign Dept Press section has stated that "an answer will be sent tomorrow".

The Swedish prosecution authority has stated that they will not give any comments until the actual published report gives them something to comment on.
Here_to_learn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2016, 08:13 AM   #83
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,230
David Allen Green points out that it's not a ruling:

https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen/...55129893789697

Quote:
No difference; it is an advisory opinion not a "ruling" (despite what the BBC says). No legal force for anyone.
Here_to_learn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2016, 08:14 AM   #84
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,701
I wonder if the Swedish response will be to thank the UN group for pointing out that their entire justice system is arbitrary.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2016, 08:16 AM   #85
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
 
commandlinegamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mazes of Menace
Posts: 8,504
nvm, ninja'd
__________________
He bade me take any rug in the house.
commandlinegamer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2016, 08:20 AM   #86
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,289
The Swedish Foreign Ministry has now confirmed that the UN panel found that Assange is in arbitrary detention.
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 4th February 2016 at 08:24 AM. Reason: wording
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2016, 04:26 PM   #87
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
The Swedish Foreign Ministry has now confirmed that the UN panel found that Assange is in arbitrary detention.
And that the Swedish government reject the finding. From the article you link.
Anna Ekberg, spokes person for the Swedish foreign ministry, said... It will be more clear tomorrow why we reject the working group’s conclusions.”
The British government seems to agree.
The British Foreign Office said it would not pre-empt the panel’s findings, but said in a statement: “We have been consistently clear that Mr Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorian embassy.
If the Wiki entry is anywhere near close to accurate, I'd have to agree with both, frankly (my highlighting).
Arbitrarily depriving an individual of their liberty is strictly prohibited by the United Nations' division for human rights. Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights decrees that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"; that is, no individual, regardless of circumstances, is to be deprived of their liberty or exiled from their country without having first committed an actual criminal offense against a legal statute, and the government cannot deprive an individual of their liberty without proper due process of law. As well, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifies the protection from arbitrary arrest and detention by the Article 9.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage

Last edited by EHocking; 4th February 2016 at 04:32 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2016, 06:09 PM   #88
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,674
Assange is a fugitive from justice who broke his bond and is in hiding entirely because of his own choices. He could end his "detention" anytime that he wishes, he just doesn't want to because he knows that he'll have to face up for his actions in both the UK and Sweden. I have no sympathy for him.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2016, 06:21 PM   #89
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,344
indeed
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 03:22 AM   #90
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,182
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Assange is a fugitive from justice who broke his bond and is in hiding entirely because of his own choices. He could end his "detention" anytime that he wishes, he just doesn't want to because he knows that he'll have to face up for his actions in both the UK and Sweden. I have no sympathy for him.
In practical terms he is simply hiding where the authorities know where he is, as opposed to hiding somewhere unknown to them. He is no more "arbitrarily detained" than if he were - also of his own chosing - holed up in a remote cottage in the middle of nowhere.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 03:24 AM   #91
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,648
This Assange business is part of Obama's war on whistleblowers and demonstrations and protesters, and the freedom of the Press.. I think there should have been whistleblowers in Nazi Germany and the Soviet administrations.

I fully appreciate that a Secret Service is secret and that there are trade secrets like the recipe for Coca Cola. If you join the BBC, or the Civil Service, you have to sign the official secrets acts. The trouble is this is used to cover up anything politically embarrassing, like the bugging of politicians and celebrities, or drug smuggling through Fort Bragg, or child abuse in Britain and America, or white collar crime. We were never told about agent orange in Vietnam, or depleted uranium shells in Iraq until after the event.

There is censorship in war and not all of it is justified. In the second world war the news that 3000 men had perished on the Lancastria after being evacuated from Cherbourg after Dunkirk was censored because it might have affected morale. When the VI and V2 rockets landed in London the public and House of Commons were at first told it was caused by gas explosions in order to avoid panic.

Personally, I think Chelsea Manning displayed great moral courage in exposing war atrocities in Iraq, and informing the public that war is a gruesome business. Similarly Edward Snowden did some excellent work in informing the public about mass surveillance.

There is a bit about all this in a 1930's book called Keeping it Dark or the Censor's Handbook:

"What our newspapers gain in good humour and the absence of scurrility they may lose in refraining from pointed and useful critiicism. Their assumption of representing the interests of all, irrespective of classes, inevitably results in an amorphous product, devoid of definite opinion, on just those issues where controversy makes most contribution to life.......

So far from providing a symposium of contemporary horrors as many critics declare, the Press, actually withholds from the public much that might offend delicate susceptibilities, as, for instance, reports of accidents in which child-birth is involved in circumstances of peculiar horror.

Fleet Street cultivates cordial relationships with the police, the chief source of "crime stories." The day after a famous trial in which a policeman, a girl and a garage were involved, many papers bustled forward to assure their readers that the case in no way reflected on the morals of the police as a whole. And, lest even then some possible readers might be offended, one leader writer soberly added that neither, of course, did the case reflect at all on the morals of garages.

Few papers will criticise any large body of people (Freemasons or Roman Catholics) for fear of losing custom. Only small organisations or small religions may now and then be made fun of."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th February 2016 at 04:12 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 03:41 AM   #92
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,559
Interestingly, of the 5-man working group, one recused herself (I guess because she's an Australian citizen like Assange) and one offered a dissent, pointing out that Assange had voluntarily chosen to enter the embassy and was free to leave at any time he wished.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 03:57 AM   #93
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,641
From their website http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/P...17012&LangID=E
Quote:
Another member of the Working Group disagreed with the position of the majority and considered that the situation of Mr. Assange is not one of detention and therefore falls outside the mandate of the Working Group.
Not enough meat there to understand their conclusion as yet
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:03 AM   #94
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,445
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This Assange business is part of Obama's war on whistleblowers ...
No it's not.
It has nothing at all to do with Obama or the US (apart from Assange's paranoia). It is purely a legal issue for the UK and Sweden.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:11 AM   #95
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,648
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
No it's not.
It has nothing at all to do with Obama or the US (apart from Assange's paranoia). It is purely a legal issue for the UK and Sweden.
You miss the point. If Assange is extradited to Sweden he will be put on a plane to America from Sweden where he will spend the rest of his life in an American maximum security prison for the rest of his life. Just for him telling the public and the House of Commons what is going on. Sweden used to be a neutral country. It's more like Turkish Justice and their genocide against the Kurds.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th February 2016 at 04:12 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:20 AM   #96
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,641
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You miss the point. If Assange is extradited to Sweden he will be put on a plane to America from Sweden where he will spend the rest of his life in an American maximum security prison for the rest of his life. Just for him telling the public and the House of Commons what is going on. Sweden used to be a neutral country. It's more like Turkish Justice and their genocide against the Kurds.
You miss the law regarding EAWs. If the US wants him, they can ask the UK and we are generally the USA's bitch in such cases. If he goes to Sweden, under the terms of the EAW he cannot be extradited without the express permission of the UK and Sweden. Sweden also has demonstrated repeatedly that it adheres to its own laws forbidding extradition for political crimes.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:23 AM   #97
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,559
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
From their website http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/P...17012&LangID=E


Not enough meat there to understand their conclusion as yet
The full decision can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/298102559/A-HRC-WGAD-2015
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:23 AM   #98
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,641
And I usually advise people to read the article below.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...julian-assange
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:43 AM   #99
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,445
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You miss the point. If Assange is extradited to Sweden he will be put on a plane to America from Sweden where he will spend the rest of his life in an American maximum security prison for the rest of his life. Just for him telling the public and the House of Commons what is going on. Sweden used to be a neutral country. It's more like Turkish Justice and their genocide against the Kurds.
Utter rubbish.
Why would Sweden extradite him to the US?

Indeed, as Wudang points out, why would Sweden be more likely to extradite him there than the UK, where he was happy staying until told that he would be sent to Sweden to face the charges there?
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 05:16 AM   #100
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You miss the point. If Assange is extradited to Sweden he will be put on a plane to America from Sweden where he will spend the rest of his life in an American maximum security prison for the rest of his life.
Please provide evidence for this assertion. None has ever yet been forthcoming beyond further assertions.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 05:43 AM   #101
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,182
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
If you join the BBC, or the Civil Service, you have to sign the official secrets acts.
No you don't. Signing the Act is also not particularly significant, as all it does in indicate that someone acknowledges that they are aware that they are bound by it, even though everyone is already.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 5th February 2016 at 05:45 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 05:51 AM   #102
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,430
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You miss the point. If Assange is extradited to Sweden he will be put on a plane to America from Sweden where he will spend the rest of his life in an American maximum security prison for the rest of his life. Just for him telling the public and the House of Commons what is going on. Sweden used to be a neutral country. It's more like Turkish Justice and their genocide against the Kurds.
No he will not.

Firstly, Sweden is under no obligation to extradite Assange to the US, as has already been stated. Second, the US Justice Department has flat out stated they have nothing with which to charge Assange and do not want to attempt to extradite him to the US at all. They have filed no charges against him and have no reason to at this time. The person responsible for the situation of documents being given to Wikileaks, i.e. Bradley/Chelsea Manning, is being punished according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is the ONLY person in the situation that the US can legally charge with breaking a law. Assange is not being charged, nor will he ever be charged, with violating any laws pertaining to releasing classified information without authorization in the US. This has been stated multiple times. Assange is nothing more than a paranoid rapist who is trying to avoid the penalty for his REAL crime.
__________________
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 06:00 AM   #103
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,230
Sweden has answered:

http://www.regeringen.se/contentasse...-ref.-gso-2182

Read all of it at the link, it's not long, but here are a couple of quotes:

Quote:
Moreover, Mr. Assange has chosen, voluntarily, to stay at the Ecuadorian
Embassy and Swedish authorities have no control over his decision to stay
there. Mr. Assange is free to leave the Embassy at any point. Thus, he is not
being deprived of his liberty there due to any decision or action taken by the
Swedish authorities.

Quote:
the Government reiterates its
position that Mr. Assange does not face a risk of refoulement contrary to
international human rights obligations to the United States from Sweden
(see paras. 8–10 of the Government’s observations). In any case, no request
for extradition regarding Mr. Assange has been directed to Sweden.

Quote:
Furthermore, in Sweden any decision regarding the preliminary
investigation, for example regarding detention in absentia, is taken by
independent judicial authorities. The Swedish Government may therefore
not interfere in an ongoing case handled by a Swedish public authority. This
follows from the Swedish Instrument of Government and basic principles
of the rule of law. The Swedish Office of the Prosecutor and the courts are
thus independent and separated from the Government.
Here_to_learn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 06:13 AM   #104
icerat
Philosopher
 
icerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sweden
Posts: 5,532
It's absurd. Neither the UK nor Sweden is detaining him, so how the heck can they release him?

Note that of the 5 panelists, 1 recused themselves (Australian) and one disagreed, so wasn't exactly a unanimous decision.
__________________
Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available

Last edited by icerat; 5th February 2016 at 06:15 AM.
icerat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 06:27 AM   #105
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,531
He just doesn't want a SO conviction which would prevent international travel almost completely. That is the whole reason for this charade.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 07:36 AM   #106
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,648
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Utter rubbish.
Why would Sweden extradite him to the US?

Indeed, as Wudang points out, why would Sweden be more likely to extradite him there than the UK, where he was happy staying until told that he would be sent to Sweden to face the charges there?
Face the facts. The reason Edward Snowden went to Russia is because he is reasonably safe there from being prosecuted and imprisoned in America. You don't get a fair and impartial trial in America. If he leaves the Ecuador embassy he could be arrested in this country, or in Sweden, and extradited to America. The thing that annoys me is that this country is quite willing to hand over anybody to America, but IRA murderers of Englishmen are still living on the run quite happily in America. As far as I can remember this extradition treaty with America is relatively recent. I think it happened under Tony Blair.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 07:49 AM   #107
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,090
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Face the facts.
Have you got any?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 07:52 AM   #108
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,641
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Face the facts. The reason Edward Snowden went to Russia is because he is reasonably safe there from being prosecuted and imprisoned in America.
Relevance? He actually broke laws in the US.
Quote:
You don't get a fair and impartial trial in America.
Irrelevant
Quote:

If he leaves the Ecuador embassy he could be arrested in this country, or in Sweden, and extradited to America.
Except the US have accepted they can't charge him. The UK is extraditing to Sweden where he can't be extradited as the EAW requires both Sweden and UK to agree and Sweden has an explicit law against extraditing for political crimes.
Quote:
The thing that annoys me is that this country is quite willing to hand over anybody to America,
I agree, so why did Assange fight so hard to stay here?
Quote:

but IRA murderers of Englishmen are still living on the run quite happily in America. As far as I can remember this extradition treaty with America is relatively recent. I think it happened under Tony Blair.
Relevance?

I counted 1 opinion (we bend over for the USA, yep) and 1 fact : yep, when I worked for IBM in the US in the 80's I refused to attend some events because the manager held them in a pub run by an IRA man wanted for killing a british soldier.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 07:56 AM   #109
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,445
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Face the facts. The reason Edward Snowden went to Russia is because he is reasonably safe there from being prosecuted and imprisoned in America. You don't get a fair and impartial trial in America. If he leaves the Ecuador embassy he could be arrested in this country, or in Sweden, and extradited to America. The thing that annoys me is that this country is quite willing to hand over anybody to America, but IRA murderers of Englishmen are still living on the run quite happily in America. As far as I can remember this extradition treaty with America is relatively recent. I think it happened under Tony Blair.
You have failed to answer why, exactly, if the US was going to extradite him they didn't do it while the UK actually had him in a cell?

Sweden does not have anything like the same relationship we have with the US re: extradition, so why was he more happy to be in the UK, and so determined to avoid ending up in Sweden?

The whole "extradited to the US" is smoke and mirrors to distract from the fact that Assange does not want to face trial in Sweden for his (possible) actions.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:03 AM   #110
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,182
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The thing that annoys me is that this country is quite willing to hand over anybody to America, but IRA murderers of Englishmen are still living on the run quite happily in America. As far as I can remember this extradition treaty with America is relatively recent. I think it happened under Tony Blair.
Said IRA members, if tried and convicted, would be almost immediately released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, so what would the point be?
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:45 AM   #111
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,701
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This Assange business is part of Obama's war on whistleblowers and demonstrations and protesters, and the freedom of the Press..
This claim has been made and refuted already in this thread. Instead of starting over again from the beginning, why not read the thread and pick up where they previous claimants left off? You're more likely to make progress that way.

I'll summarize the debate so far. All the appropriate citations and references can be found in this thread and its predecessor:

Sweden has laws that prohibit it from extraditing Assange to the US. Sweden also has a documented history of harboring American spies and traitors. This is probably why Assange felt safe traveling to Sweden after publishing the Manning material.

Meanwhile, the US considered bringing Assange to the US for trial, but concluded it was not practical nor necessary. There was no crime to charge him with, and thus no justification for extraditing him. At the same time, the US seems to have concluded that the best way to deter leakers was to prosecute the leakers themselves, and leave the publishers alone. A military academic paper recommending this was published, and this is exactly how the US has behaved: Imprisoning Manning, and making no move against Assange.

Unfortunately for Assange, Sweden has a rather broad definition of rape, and he fell afoul of that nation's rape laws. It was at this point that he fled the country. Remember that he thought Sweden was safe as long as he was only accused of publishing the Manning material, and only found it dangerous after he was accused of rape there.

Assange went to the UK. The UK does not offer Assange the same legal protection that Sweden does, against extradition to the US. The UK also does not have Sweden's history of harboring American traitors. But that is where Assange chose to go.

It seems likely that Assange chose the UK because he has no real fear of extradition to the US, and because the UK would put some bureaucratic and legal obstacles between him and the rape charges in Sweden. Unfortunately, Sweden was able to overcome those obstacles through legitimate means, and so Assange has been forced to trade on his notoriety to obtain asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Assange is wanted for rape in Sweden, nothing less, nothing more. There has been no reason given, nor evidence shown, to suspect that any of this is part of a plot to extradite him to the US, where he has not been charged with any crimes at all.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:51 AM   #112
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,674
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
If he leaves the Ecuador embassy he could be arrested in this country, or in Sweden, and extradited to America.
As has been noted multiple times, it would be easier to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden. Sweden has laws against doing that, and under European law, the UK would have to agree to them doing so even if they didn't.

So.. From the UK, only need the UK to agree
From Sweden... Sweden has to break it's own laws, and the UK has to agree

While is easier?

Now consider that the US could have asked for extradition at any time when Assange was under arrest detention the UK, yet they didn't. They have also repeatedly stated that they aren't interested in him, probably to Assange's chagrin.

This entire things is over Assange not being able to keep his dick in his pants and instead of behaving like a gentleman, he disregarded a woman's right to choose when and how she has sex by ignore her earlier demands for using a condom, and instead having unprotected sex with her when she was sleeping.

In any western county, and probably most others, that is, by definition, Rape.

Assange is a fugitive and a rapist and will hopefully get everything nasty that is coming his way.If it wasn't for his paranoia and crying wolf against the US, he'd already have been tried and already be out again if he was convicted.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 5th February 2016 at 08:53 AM.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 09:39 AM   #113
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,430
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Face the facts. The reason Edward Snowden went to Russia is because he is reasonably safe there from being prosecuted and imprisoned in America. You don't get a fair and impartial trial in America. If he leaves the Ecuador embassy he could be arrested in this country, or in Sweden, and extradited to America. The thing that annoys me is that this country is quite willing to hand over anybody to America, but IRA murderers of Englishmen are still living on the run quite happily in America. As far as I can remember this extradition treaty with America is relatively recent. I think it happened under Tony Blair.
You really need to read and comprehend this thread before posting in it. Literally everything in this post of yours, with the possible exception of the bit about Snowden, has been hashed and re-hashed over and over and over and over in this thread and the previous one.

Face facts: The US has said they don't want Assange and have not filed any charges against him. Charges need to be filed before someone can be extradited. Therefore, since the US has filed no charges, they don't want to extradite Assange.

Another fact: Sweden must agree to the extradition. They have laws about extraditing criminals charged for political reasons; they don't do it. Assange, IF he had been charged, would have been charged for political reasons. Sweden would have to break its own laws to extradite Assange. Sweden is extremely unlikely to do so even if the US had asked, which I again note, we haven't. Therefore Assange is letting his own paranoia and form of Munchausen's syndrome (in other words, he's an attention-seeking little parasite) dictate his actions because he does not want to face the criminal charges he is up against by claiming that if he were to go to Sweden the US would be after him despite a demonstrated lack of evidence to indicate this. It's the equivalent of someone who crosses the border to avoid prosecution and then proceeds to jump up and down screaming "Look at me, look at me!" when the border guards decide to shrug and let him go.

Learn these facts, Henri. Learn them, know them, understand them.

Fact 1: Assange has been charged with rape in Sweden.
Fact 2: Assange was briefly arrested in the UK, during which time the US did not ask for extradition.
Fact 3: Assange was let go by the UK prior to Sweden requesting his extradition to that country.
Fact 4: Assange played the coward and hid in the Ecuadorian Embassy while falsely claiming the US would get him if he went to Sweden.
Fact 5: The US Justice Department looked at what Assange did and determined there was nothing they could charge him with, dusted their hands off, and said to the UK and Sweden, "He's all yours; we don't want him" and proceeded to ignore him.
Fact 6: Assange, now butthurt over being ignored by the US, continues to bleat that he'll be extradited to a country that doesn't want him and proceeds to waste the UK and Sweden's time by refusing to step foot out of the Ecuadorian embassy.

These are the facts of the case. Try and refute them if you can, although knowing you, evidence will be sadly lacking in any response you may make.
__________________
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 10:36 AM   #114
acementhead
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Face the facts. The reason Edward Snowden went to Russia is because he is reasonably safe there from being prosecuted and imprisoned in America. You don't get a fair and impartial trial in America. If he leaves the Ecuador embassy he could be arrested in this country, or in Sweden, and extradited to America. The thing that annoys me is that this country is quite willing to hand over anybody to America, but IRA murderers of Englishmen are still living on the run quite happily in America. As far as I can remember this extradition treaty with America is relatively recent. I think it happened under Tony Blair.

Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
You really need to read and comprehend this thread before posting in it. Literally everything in this post of yours, with the possible exception of the bit about Snowden, has been hashed and re-hashed over and over and over and over in this thread and the previous one.

Face facts: The US has said they don't want Assange and have not filed any charges against him. Charges need to be filed before someone can be extradited. Therefore, since the US has filed no charges, they don't want to extradite Assange.

Another fact: Sweden must agree to the extradition. They have laws about extraditing criminals charged for political reasons; they don't do it. Assange, IF he had been charged, would have been charged for political reasons. Sweden would have to break its own laws to extradite Assange. Sweden is extremely unlikely to do so even if the US had asked, which I again note, we haven't. Therefore Assange is letting his own paranoia and form of Munchausen's syndrome (in other words, he's an attention-seeking little parasite) dictate his actions because he does not want to face the criminal charges he is up against by claiming that if he were to go to Sweden the US would be after him despite a demonstrated lack of evidence to indicate this. It's the equivalent of someone who crosses the border to avoid prosecution and then proceeds to jump up and down screaming "Look at me, look at me!" when the border guards decide to shrug and let him go.

Learn these facts, Henri. Learn them, know them, understand them.

Fact 1: Assange has been charged with rape in Sweden.
Fact 2: Assange was briefly arrested in the UK, during which time the US did not ask for extradition.
Fact 3: Assange was let go by the UK prior to Sweden requesting his extradition to that country.
Fact 4: Assange played the coward and hid in the Ecuadorian Embassy while falsely claiming the US would get him if he went to Sweden.
Fact 5: The US Justice Department looked at what Assange did and determined there was nothing they could charge him with, dusted their hands off, and said to the UK and Sweden, "He's all yours; we don't want him" and proceeded to ignore him.
Fact 6: Assange, now butthurt over being ignored by the US, continues to bleat that he'll be extradited to a country that doesn't want him and proceeds to waste the UK and Sweden's time by refusing to step foot out of the Ecuadorian embassy.

These are the facts of the case. Try and refute them if you can, although knowing you, evidence will be sadly lacking in any response you may make.
Today 04:51 AM

Sabrina: "Fact 1: Assange has been charged with rape in Sweden."

No that is not a fact. It is a falsity, in fact a factoid in the same manner as Bush's claims of Iraq WMD, from which flowed this, and a million dead people. Of course a million dead sand ******* was worth 4000 American lives and a couple of trillion dollars wasted.
acementhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 10:36 AM   #115
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,663
here is the statement from the victim's lawyer:

Quote:
The lawyer for the Swedish woman who Julian Assange is accused of raping says the U.N. panel apparently has “a lack of understanding” that rape “is one of the most serious abuses and violations of human rights.”

Elisabeth Massi Fritz says she is “relieved” that the panel’s ruling that Assange has been arbitrarily detained “is not legally binding.”

In a statement to the AP she said it is “insulting and offensive” toward her client and the rights of all crime victims to suggest that a man who is suspected of rape should be compensated for intentionally withholding himself from the judicial system for more than five years.
The suspected rapist gave an impromptu little "victory" speech from his hidey hole.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

Last edited by The Big Dog; 5th February 2016 at 10:38 AM.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 10:44 AM   #116
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,663
Originally Posted by acementhead View Post
No that is not a fact. It is a falsity, in fact a factoid in the same manner as Bush's claims of Iraq WMD, from which flowed this, and a million dead people. Of course a million dead sand ******* was worth 4000 American lives and a couple of trillion dollars wasted.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 10:46 AM   #117
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,701
Originally Posted by acementhead View Post
Sabrina: "Fact 1: Assange has been charged with rape in Sweden."

No that is not a fact. It is a falsity, in fact a factoid in the same manner as Bush's claims of Iraq WMD, from which flowed this, and a million dead people. Of course a million dead sand ******* was worth 4000 American lives and a couple of trillion dollars wasted.
Every time I think this thread has given up all its goodness, someone comes along to provide more. Two in a single day, this time! And it seems that yet again, the new claimants are committed to starting over from the beginning.

acemeinthehead, the nuances of the Swedish justice system, including the rationale for describing Assange's situation as "charged", have been discussed at length in this thread. If you object to the terminology, please do so in the context of that discussion. If you wish to object to other events in world history, occurring at other places and times and involving other people entirely, please start a separate thread for those unrelated objections.

TIA.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 11:00 AM   #118
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,289
Good piece by John Pilger cutting through the pathetic apologetic BS: Freeing Julian Assange: The last chapter

Originally Posted by John Pilger
[...] The UN Working Group bases its judgments on the European Convention on Human Rights and three other treaties that are binding on all its signatories. Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. It would fly contemptuously in the face of international law if they did not comply with the judgment and allow Assange to leave the refuge granted to him by the Ecuadorean government in its London embassy.

In previous, celebrated cases ruled upon by the Working Group – Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran – both Britain and Sweden have given support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution and confinement endures in the heart of London. [...]

And there's some hope that his and Assange's country will come out of this a little less embarrassed:

Originally Posted by John Pilger
[...] Four years ago, in Sydney, I spent several hours with the Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia and, as I write, is attending an international conference on Syria hosted the Cameron government – about 15 minutes' cab ride from the room that Julian Assange has occupied for three and a half years in the small Ecuadorean embassy just along from Harrods. The Syria connection is relevant if unreported; it was WikiLeaks that revealed that the United States had long planned to overthrow the Assad government in Syria. Today, as he meets and greets, Prime Minister Turnbull has an opportunity to contribute a modicum of purpose and truth to the conference by speaking up for his unjustly imprisoned compatriot, for whom he showed such concern when we met. All he need do is quote the judgment of the UN Working Party on Arbitrary Detention. Will he reclaim this shred of Australia's reputation in the decent world? [...]
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 11:16 AM   #119
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,701
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Good piece by John Pilger cutting through the pathetic apologetic BS: Freeing Julian Assange: The last chapter
" It would fly contemptuously in the face of international law if they did not comply with the judgment"
International law says the judgement is non-binding. How can one fly in the face of international law to hold oneself not bound by that which international law says is non-binding? Obversely, if "international law" does not matter enough to be binding, then it certainly doesn't matter if governments fly in its face.

Poor John Pilger; backing the weakest horse, then complaining when the thoroughbreds don't hold back and let his nag win the race.\

ETA: To be clear, Sweden and the UK are sovereign nations, with their own duly-constituted judicial systems and a sovereign duty to their own citizens. They should in no way cede any of their sovereign authority to any UN committee.

Last edited by theprestige; 5th February 2016 at 11:23 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 11:48 AM   #120
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,430
Originally Posted by acementhead View Post
Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you are a US government agent.

No more from me for now as cricket duties call.
Dude, I'm former military (medically retired now) and a contractor. I'm the red-headed stepchild of the government, not an agent.

ETA: Just to clarify for the *ahem* challenged, I was using the term "we" in the context of being from the United States, not in the context of being a legitimately appointed representative of the government. Haven't been one of those since I retired from the military.
__________________
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.

Last edited by Sabrina; 5th February 2016 at 11:52 AM.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.