leicsmac Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 Is there no precedent for such a thing having been done before for people with either political or media-related sensitivity? Guess not. All the same, it's hardly much of a thing to ask for, is it? But you are right in saying this man isn't special. Which is why he should stand trial for these allegations. The organization he began though, and the information they uncovered, is. And IMO there should be no chance of him being punished for being part of uncovering that information.
ADK Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 My only question is why do we suddenly care so much that we would consider breaking international law to arrest this man? He isn't going to be raping anyone whilst in the ecuadorian embassy and its hardly like rape is a matter of national security.
Zingari Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 If Assange is extradited to the US from here he will be labelled as Julian Assange truth seeker , whistleblower and exposer of dirty tricks etc If however, he is extradited from Sweden sometime post trial and convicted of a sexual offence however trumped up and manipulated he will be labelled Julian Assange convicted sex offender. Which label would you choose if fighting extradition ? Does any of us really believe that each and every one of us couldn’t be put into a similar position if we were enough of an embarrassment to the elite ?
Jon the Hat Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 Seems to be most of the furore over the material they released has passed, and extraditing him would just drag it all up again.
Captain... Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 I fail to see why he should have that right? No one else does. What is so special about this man exactly? He has seriously pissed off the US government and they want him, they really want him, they are/were/have been coming up with what laws they can actually get him on, I did have a rebuttal to that article, but then my computer crashed, but the US do really, really want to fvck him up. The timing of this Swedish case maybe a pure coincidence but I doubt it, when the case has been pretty much closed then reopened by someone else people get suspicious: On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into allegations concerning Assange's behaviour in separate sexual encounters involving two different women.[229][230] Assange has described all the sexual encounters as consensual and statements by the plaintiffs confirm that the encounters at least started as such.[231][232] The arrest warrant was canceled on 21 August 2010 by one of Stockholm's Chief Prosecutors, Eva Finne, and the investigation was downgraded to only cover lesser allegations. Finné said in a statement to the press: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."[233] The warrant was subsequently re-issued by another Swedish Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny on 1 September 2010 who considered that the allegations could be classed as rape after all.[234]In December 2010, Assange, then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning. The EAW contained four complaints from two different women: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held plaintiff 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" plaintiff 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with plaintiff 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" plaintiff 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.[235][236] An extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court[237][238]. At the hearing, Assange's defence raised a variety of objections, including mismatches between the EAW and the original accuser statements to the Swedish police[239][240] that exaggerated the nature of the complaints[241][242]. In particular they argued the original police reports showed - contrary to the EAW - absence of alleged rape; absence of alleged force or injury; admission in both cases of consensual sex on the same occasions as the allegations; and splitting of a condom used with plaintiff 1 rather than failure to use one. The defence also highlighted evidence that: plaintiff 2 had later admitted to being "half asleep" after consensual sex, rather than "asleep"; that the plaintiffs had originally been seeking to compel Assange to take an STD test rather than prosecution[243]; and that plaintiff 1 had thrown a Crayfish party party for Assange at her home the evening after the alleged incidents, from which she tweeted: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!" and invited Assange to stay in her room afterwards.[244] The fact is the US want him, he knows he will be fvcked if they get their hands on him, not because he did anything illegal, but because he made them look stupid. Calls for Assange's assassination On 30 November 2010, Tom Flanagan, a former aide to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, called for Assange's assassination. Flanagan later retracted his comments, after a Vancouver lawyer filed a complaint with the Calgary Police against Harper,[185] and Canadian nationals filed complaint with the ombudsman of CBC news.[186] On 1 December 2010, Republican Mike Huckabee called for those behind the leak of the cables to be executed,[187] a view partly supported by Kathleen McFarland, former Pentagon advisor under Nixon, Ford and Reagan[188] and current Fox News national security expert. On 6 December 2010, during a segment of the Fox Business show Follow The Money, Fox News political commentator and analyst Bob Beckel stated, "A dead man can't leak stuff. This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. [...] And I'm not for the death penalty, so [...] there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." Other guests on the program agreed.[189] Assange responded on the Guardian newspaper website, to a reader's question about Flanagan's remarks, by contending that "Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder."[190] Members of US Congress call for Espionage Act prosecution On 29 November 2010, Rep. Peter T. King, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) wrote to the Attorney General, Eric Holder, asking that Assange should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, and that he should be declared a terrorist.[191][192] The same day, King also wrote to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, requesting that she designate Wikileaks as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).[191][193][194] "I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute Wikileaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I’m also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Wikileaks a foreign terrorist organization", King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening.[195] "By doing that, we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever,†he said. “To me, they are a clear and present danger to America." On 30 November 2010, on Fox News, Rep. King repeated his assertions that Wikileaks was a terrorist organisation;[196] he continued to repeat these assertions on other news media channels for the following week. On 2 December 2010, Senator Feinstein and Senator Kit Bond, respectively the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), sent a joint-letter to Attorney General Holder, asking him to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act [18 U.S.C. 793(e)], offering to "close those gaps in the law" if the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) found it difficult to apply the law to Assange's case. In televised interviews Senators Bond and Feinstein stated that: "We believe that Mr. Assange's conduct is espionage and that his actions fall under the elements of this section of law....Therefore, we urge that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act."[197] On 7 December 2010, Senator Dianne Feinstein published an editorial commentary on Assange entitled "Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act".[198] Punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty, although in practice the US has not executed anyone for a crime other than murder since 1962. As Zingari said, it is probably easier to extradite a convicted sex offender, it is also probably easier to extradite someone who is incarcerated at the time, rather than while they are free to seek asylum in, lets say an Ecuadorian embassy. We should wash our hands of the whole the the US can end this tomorrow, they just need to state their intentions, issue a warrant or an extradition request for him. Edit: Notice how the dates of the US wanting him correspond with the timing of the EAW for a crime that had already been declared not rape.
breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 Well that nailed it. I note that the only outspoken supporters of Assange re the Swedish charges seem to be morons. Getting sidetracked by "THE USA WANT HIM!!!" is completely irrelevant. I would not like to see the police go into the Embassy, but they would have every right to do so. Disagree with the last bit. As painful and galling as it is, we have to respect the Ecuadorian embassy, we have obligations under treaties and would expect the same treatment around the world of our embassies. The police have no right to go in. As it is, I imagine it's not that easy just to storm the embassy (despite Assange and Ecuador presenting it as such) and would instead be subject to court cases before the police were allowed to do such a thing. So the spinning of this as if the SAS is about to storm the building is a poor show and says all it needs to about Ecuador and Assange. We have to sit it out and let Assange rot in the embassy. If he wants to be under house arrest, then so be it. If they really want to punish him, make sure that the Ecuadorian embassy have a Talk Talk broadband connection.
Jon the Hat Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 Yes indeed I am sure there would be due process before we would enter the Embassy (this is not after all Ecuador), but like I said I expect there are other ways around itm like revolking it's status as an Embassy with appropriate notice. I doubt we are under an obligation to allow them one, and as long as the diplomat's are treated appropriately I am sure there is a way around it.
breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 As Zingari said, it is probably easier to extradite a convicted sex offender, it is also probably easier to extradite someone who is incarcerated at the time, rather than while they are free to seek asylum in, lets say an Ecuadorian embassy. It makes no difference in the eyes of the law whether Assange is a convicted sex offender or not. Any legal case, such as extradition, has to be judged on the facts of the case, not previous convictions (should Assange be found guilty). That is a right enshrined in law and if Sweden failed to uphold that (which they would), then there is the fallback option of the European Court of Human Rights. Read the New Statesman article that I posted.
breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 Yes indeed I am sure there would be due process before we would enter the Embassy (this is not after all Ecuador), but like I said I expect there are other ways around itm like revolking it's status as an Embassy with appropriate notice. I doubt we are under an obligation to allow them one, and as long as the diplomat's are treated appropriately I am sure there is a way around it. Doing that creates a very dangerous precedent, potentially putting the lives of our own diplomats and their families in harms way, should the likes of Chavez or any other tin-pot madman feels like causing problems.
ADK Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 If it is all a fabrication backed by the US, they have chosen a very clever charge. The left wing press which would typically back Assange cannot risk giving their backing to a rapist. Likewise celebrities and people in the public eye will not want to associate with him. I would still like to know what Assanges views are on the charges. Neither sides stories are convincing.
The Doctor Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 So anyway... George Galloway is a moron: The Bradford West MP suggested one of the women had claimed she invited Mr Assange back to her flat, had consensual sex with him and then "woke up to him having sex with her again - something which can happen, you know". On the issue of whether this would constitute rape or not, Mr Galloway suggested that "not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion". "Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them. "It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?' "It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."
Captain... Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 It makes no difference in the eyes of the law whether Assange is a convicted sex offender or not. Any legal case, such as extradition, has to be judged on the facts of the case, not previous convictions (should Assange be found guilty). That is a right enshrined in law and if Sweden failed to uphold that (which they would), then there is the fallback option of the European Court of Human Rights. Read the New Statesman article that I posted. True but it is much easier to extradite an incarcerated man as he can't run away, he is behind bars, that would be why the US would want to wait until the outcome of this case before declaring their intent, otherwise he could just run off and seek asylum. He has pre-empted them by seeking asylum first. You can't hide in a foreign embassy if you are in jail. We really should stay out of this, it is not worth creating a diplomatic incident, if Sweden or the US want him out of there they can do it themselves.
Zingari Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 It makes no difference in the eyes of the law whether Assange is a convicted sex offender or not. Any legal case, such as extradition, has to be judged on the facts of the case, not previous convictions (should Assange be found guilty). That is a right enshrined in law and if Sweden failed to uphold that (which they would), then there is the fallback option of the European Court of Human Rights. Read the New Statesman article that I posted. You've missed the point , I was talking about how the public support for him would disintegrate as "Julian Assange sex offender" rather than "Julian Assange investigative journalist, whistle-blower etc" Because that is how he will be portrayed in all media reporting. It's a character assassination PR stunt and not a very sophisticated one .I'm surprised people can't see through this type of ruse by now
Captain... Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 You've missed the point , I was talking about how the public support for him would disintegrate as "Julian Assange sex offender" rather than "Julian Assange investigative journalist, whistle-blower etc" Because that is how he will be portrayed in all media reporting. It's a character assassination PR stunt and not a very sophisticated one .I'm surprised people can't see through this type of ruse by now There is still the fact that he might be a sex pest to consider, but I completely understand his reluctance to give up his freedom with the US publicly stating that he should killed.
Jon the Hat Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 You've missed the point , I was talking about how the public support for him would disintegrate as "Julian Assange sex offender" rather than "Julian Assange investigative journalist, whistle-blower etc" Because that is how he will be portrayed in all media reporting. It's a character assassination PR stunt and not a very sophisticated one .I'm surprised people can't see through this type of ruse by now Perhaps, if indeed you are right, he should have thought of that earlier and not left himself exposed to these allegations when he was going to poke the hornets nest. So anyway... George Galloway is a moron: [/size][/size][/font][/color] Yep. Respect indeed.
Zingari Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 Perhaps, if indeed you are right, he should have thought of that earlier and not left himself exposed to these allegations when he was going to poke the hornets nest. Yep. Respect indeed. I don't think any of us can be immune from malicious allegations of sexual assault . A woman can pretty much say what she likes and the man is always pretty much guilty until proven innocent , and even then some of the shit will stick . edit; the old way to bring troublesome people down was to make them look mad , the new way is to make them look like dangerous sexual predators . Whom the gods seek to destroy , they first make mad sexual deviants
Captain... Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 So anyway... George Galloway is a moron: [/size][/size][/font][/color] He is a moron, but he does have a point, if I sleep with someone one night, then wake up in the morning next to her, I wouldn't think she would suddenly take exception to me trying it on in the morning, so what if she was asleep I mean what guy doesn't like being woken with a blow job, your not going to start screaming rape (obviously if it is by someone you slept with the night before and not some random guy in a shared dorm). She has later admitted that she wasn't asleep but only half asleep, not really sure what that means, I'm pretty sure if I was half asleep and someone tried to rape me I would wake up pretty damn quick, whereas if I was half asleep and someone I know and had sex with the night before started having sex with me I would probably just lie back and enjoy it. Just saying like, obviously having a one night stand is not consent to be fvcked while you sleep, but that is not really what happened.
Zingari Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 If it is all a fabrication backed by the US, they have chosen a very clever charge. The left wing press which would typically back Assange cannot risk giving their backing to a rapist. Likewise celebrities and people in the public eye will not want to associate with him. I would still like to know what Assanges views are on the charges. Neither sides stories are convincing. Very good points His own views on the matter is that sex was consensual . The way I see it is that it's all a case of " he said she said" and I can't see how the charge can stick , but that doesn't mean it won't .
breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 True but it is much easier to extradite an incarcerated man as he can't run away, he is behind bars, that would be why the US would want to wait until the outcome of this case before declaring their intent, otherwise he could just run off and seek asylum. He has pre-empted them by seeking asylum first. You can't hide in a foreign embassy if you are in jail. We really should stay out of this, it is not worth creating a diplomatic incident, if Sweden or the US want him out of there they can do it themselves. There is no diplomatic incident for us to create. We are duty bound to extradite Assange to Sweden under European treaties which are ratified in law. Mr Assange has brought this to our door. The government did not ask for him to come to the UK. Your argument about not being able to run from a prison cell is the same approach Ronnie Biggs took.
Jordan Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 ...the US publicly stating that he should killed. The United States has never said that.
Zingari Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 There is no diplomatic incident for us to create. We are duty bound to extradite Assange to Sweden under European treaties which are ratified in law. Mr Assange has brought this to our door. The government did not ask for him to come to the UK. Your argument about not being able to run from a prison cell is the same approach Ronnie Biggs took. if this is the case , why didn't we extradite him when Sweden first asked us , Why make them make several requests and telling them to come here ? Sorry , but I think someone has put pressure on us in the interim.
breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 He is a moron, but he does have a point, if I sleep with someone one night, then wake up in the morning next to her, I wouldn't think she would suddenly take exception to me trying it on in the morning, so what if she was asleep I mean what guy doesn't like being woken with a blow job, your not going to start screaming rape (obviously if it is by someone you slept with the night before and not some random guy in a shared dorm). She has later admitted that she wasn't asleep but only half asleep, not really sure what that means, I'm pretty sure if I was half asleep and someone tried to rape me I would wake up pretty damn quick, whereas if I was half asleep and someone I know and had sex with the night before started having sex with me I would probably just lie back and enjoy it. Just saying like, obviously having a one night stand is not consent to be fvcked while you sleep, but that is not really what happened. You mean you would consent. Supposing you didn't lie back and enjoy it and actually didn't want to go through with it, would that then be rape or just bad manners? Galloway does not have a point. It is not the initiation the next morning that is the problem, it is continuing if the person does not want it to, regardless of what went on the night before. (This is a point not related to Assange's case, which I do not know the facts of, but a general comment regarding Galloway's comments)
Jon the Hat Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 The United States has never said that. What????? FOX doesn't speak for all Americans???
Captain... Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 The United States has never said that. What????? FOX doesn't speak for all Americans??? On 1 December 2010, Republican Mike Huckabee called for those behind the leak of the cables to be executed, I should have said people within the US, including politicians, the US as a nation is yet to say what they will do with Assange, funny that.
breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 if this is the case , why didn't we extradite him when Sweden first asked us , Why make them make several requests and telling them to come here ? Sorry , but I think someone has put pressure on us in the interim. There is a process of law. It went to court, to fight the extradition, as any individual is allowed to do in this country. The most senior judges looked at the merits of the case and decided he had no defence and should be extradited. Read the article I posted a page or two ago. Due process has been followed. As a country, that is something we tend to do through our legal system. If you don't believe me, look at Abu Hamza. It has been impossible for us to extradite him to Jordan, despite the government trying to do so and wanting to do so. Legal cases have gone back and forth to the European Court of Human Rights with Mr Hamza who has used due process. I notice that Mr Assange has not attempted to fight the extradition through the European Court of Human Rights.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.