breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 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. I don't remember David Cameron saying that he's not going to execute every first born child in the country before then defecating over any second born child. Funny that.
Zingari Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 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. You can choose to believe that he's not a pawn in a much bigger game , I'm choosing to believe he is
breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 You can choose to believe that he's not a pawn in a much bigger game , I'm choosing to believe he is Maybe the Americans want Assange because he has the proof that man didn't land on the moon? All I know is that we are duty bound to extradite Assange to Sweden and it is written in law due to various European treaties that previous governments have signed. Assange didn't have to come to Britain (he could have gone to Ecuador), but he brought his sh*t to our door. He would have known that we have treaties with EU countries. He would even know we have an extradition treaty with America (although America have not sought his extradition from us, which they could do as we all know how one sided the extradition treaty appears to be). Yet here he is, holed up in the Ecuador embassy, claiming asylum whilst having a go at our government, who are legally obliged to follow the law and extradite him to Sweden.
Zingari Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 Maybe the Americans want Assange because he has the proof that man didn't land on the moon? All I know is that we are duty bound to extradite Assange to Sweden and it is written in law due to various European treaties that previous governments have signed. Assange didn't have to come to Britain (he could have gone to Ecuador), but he brought his sh*t to our door. He would have known that we have treaties with EU countries. He would even know we have an extradition treaty with America (although America have not sought his extradition from us, which they could do as we all know how one sided the extradition treaty appears to be). Yet here he is, holed up in the Ecuador embassy, claiming asylum whilst having a go at our government, who are legally obliged to follow the law and extradite him to Sweden. OK I accept that but it seems the full weight of this law is used very sparingly in this way If we really thought the extradition case was just about Assange’s alleged sexual assault, why would we be threatening to invade the embassy, willing to break treaties and cause a massive diplomatic storm?( OK they've taken a step back now , but the clear presence is still there) Do you really believe we would do this in all cases such as this , or are we being very selective in our determination to fulfil our duty ? Surely that’s an over-reaction, given he was supposed to be sent to Sweden merely for questioning? So what’s the real reason? It’s hard not to think that Britain must be complicit in the fact that he is actually going to be extradited to the US.But with the new label of sex offender attached to him As I said before , if you want to think of this as the normal behaviour of the courts and diplomatic service then I really won't be able to convince you of the skullduggery involved.
Captain... Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 I don't remember David Cameron saying that he's not going to execute every first born child in the country before then defecating over any second born child. Funny that. It won't be long before he does, he has also not been asked directly if he plans an infanticide followed by a defecathon. Whereas the US have been asked their intentions towards Julian and have not give an answer either way.
breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 It won't be long before he does, he has also not been asked directly if he plans an infanticide followed by a defecathon. Whereas the US have been asked their intentions towards Julian and have not give an answer either way. If America seek the death penalty, it is illegal under Swedish law and European Law to extradite him to America. He would not be extradited, full stop. There is no chance of Mr Assange facing the death penalty, despite the ravings of an idiot congressman.
breadandcheese Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 OK I accept that but it seems the full weight of this law is used very sparingly in this way If we really thought the extradition case was just about Assange’s alleged sexual assault, why would we be threatening to invade the embassy, willing to break treaties and cause a massive diplomatic storm?( OK they've taken a step back now , but the clear presence is still there) Do you really believe we would do this in all cases such as this , or are we being very selective in our determination to fulfil our duty ? Surely that’s an over-reaction, given he was supposed to be sent to Sweden merely for questioning? So what’s the real reason? It’s hard not to think that Britain must be complicit in the fact that he is actually going to be extradited to the US.But with the new label of sex offender attached to him As I said before , if you want to think of this as the normal behaviour of the courts and diplomatic service then I really won't be able to convince you of the skullduggery involved. Please read the new statesman article (and in particular the quotes from the judge adjudicating on this in the Supreme Court) as to why it is not "merely" questioning and why it is entirely proportionate. With regards the over-reaction, it was heavy handed and clunky from the foreign office. However, Ecuador and Mr Assange have spun this out to make it seem that the police were about to conduct a dawn raid and break the sovereignty of the embassy. They weren't. To enact the law that the foreign office made mention of, due process would again have to be followed. I imagine to enact the entering of the embassy, the police would have to go to court to seek guidance and possibly go to court. section 1(4) of the diplomatic and consular act 1987 says (when talking about de-recognising the embassy): "The secretary of state shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law," Therefore, it is questionable as to whether it would be legally sound, just to de-recognise the embassy in this case. More than likely, if the embassy status was revoked, it would be challenged and subject to judicial review. In short, the storming of the embassy was highly unlikely and has been used as a PR stunt by Ecuador and Mr Assange for their own benefit. It was a mass own-goal on the foreign office's part. The foreign office have ballsed up big time, but it doesn't change the fact that we are obligated to extradite Mr Assange. We will now have to sit it out and leave him under house arrest.
Daggers Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 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. I suspect you appreciate very little of El Chav if you can cast him in the role of a tin-pot madman.
BoneDog Posted 21 August 2012 Posted 21 August 2012 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. Tin-pot? Chavez? He can't be that tin-pot as he survived the filthy and despicable coup attempt by that scheming gang all those years ago....and he is still there. Even the media bull-fest that went with the attempt didn't help. Nothing tin-pot about coming through all that. As for 'madmen' - If you look at the people who were lined up to replace him, and their backers - they were the real madmen in that time and place, not Chavez. Anybody who has seen the coup attempt videos, and the videos of the actions and lies of the 'replacements' knows this. (They taped the lot, as I'm sure you know, but it backfired!) Shooting their own civilians (with US and other help) and then blaming it on Chavez and making videos condemning him = madmen. It was like a breath of fresh air seeing those people and their backers fail in their attempt to topple a legitimate leader. Doesn't happen that often. Never mind though, I'm sure they'll have another good try at toppling him soon enough that you can cheer on!
Jordan Posted 22 August 2012 Posted 22 August 2012 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. You'd have done a lot better to make that distinction, as I don't recall Mike Huckabee holding any government office when he made those comments, and he certainly wouldn't be the sort of politician that would influence the Obama administration's policy decisions.
accessory Posted 22 August 2012 Posted 22 August 2012 Joe Biden might be, though... http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/12391
Jordan Posted 22 August 2012 Posted 22 August 2012 Joe Biden might be, though... http://www.politicsh.../uk/story/12391 Or, rather, Joe Biden said nearly two years ago that Assange's actions were "more like a high-tech terrorist" than when The New York Times published the "Pentagon Papers," and that WikiLeaks put American lives at risk by releasing the Iraq info/cables/etc. Biden also said that while it may be tough to bring charges against Assange, the U.S. could if they had evidence that Assange encouraged PFC Bradley Manning to steal the cables, or was an accessory to that act (and admitted the U.S. was investigating if such evidence existed).
Zingari Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Please read the new statesman article (and in particular the quotes from the judge adjudicating on this in the Supreme Court) as to why it is not "merely" questioning and why it is entirely proportionate. With regards the over-reaction, it was heavy handed and clunky from the foreign office. However, Ecuador and Mr Assange have spun this out to make it seem that the police were about to conduct a dawn raid and break the sovereignty of the embassy. They weren't. To enact the law that the foreign office made mention of, due process would again have to be followed. I imagine to enact the entering of the embassy, the police would have to go to court to seek guidance and possibly go to court. section 1(4) of the diplomatic and consular act 1987 says (when talking about de-recognising the embassy): "The secretary of state shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law," Therefore, it is questionable as to whether it would be legally sound, just to de-recognise the embassy in this case. More than likely, if the embassy status was revoked, it would be challenged and subject to judicial review. In short, the storming of the embassy was highly unlikely and has been used as a PR stunt by Ecuador and Mr Assange for their own benefit. It was a mass own-goal on the foreign office's part. The foreign office have ballsed up big time, but it doesn't change the fact that we are obligated to extradite Mr Assange. We will now have to sit it out and leave him under house arrest. Please read this New Statesman article too . It tells you what really may be going on http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism
ozleicester Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Please read this New Statesman article too . It tells you what really may be going on http://www.newstates...kery-journalism Superb Article - the whole Assange shambles truly leaves me concerned for the future of the world
sphericalfox Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Superb Article - the whole Assange shambles truly leaves me concerned for the future of the world That is indeed a good article. Anyone else find it strangely coincidental that a particular 'topic' is raging in the States. Has Republican Todd Akin taken one for the team? Just a thought
Webbo Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Please read this New Statesman article too . It tells you what really may be going on http://www.newstates...kery-journalism Threatening to abuse a law designed to expel murderers from foreign embassies, while defaming an innocent man as an “alleged criminalâ€, Hague has made a laughing stock of Britain across the world, though this view is mostly suppressed in Britain. The same brave newsÂpapers and broadcasters that have supported Britain’s part in epic bloody crimes, from the genocide in Indonesia to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, now attack the “human rights record†of Ecuador, whose real crime is to stand up to the bullies in London and Washington. As me and Christopher Hitchens would say "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Seriously what does anyone expect from Pilger?
Zingari Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 As me and Christopher Hitchens would say "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Seriously what does anyone expect from Pilger? doesn't the same principle apply to what he is alleged to have done to those ladies ? how can it ever be proven one way or the other now , it's all " he said, she said " stuff surely they had long enough and if they had enough evidence to charge him before, so what's changed ?
Webbo Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 doesn't the same principle apply to what he is alleged to have done to those ladies ? how can it ever be proven one way or the other now , it's all " he said, she said " stuff surely they had long enough and if they had enough evidence to charge him before, so what's changed ? Assange is not wanted merely for questioning. He is wanted for arrest. This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictmentâ€). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
Darkon84 Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 [/font][/color] Are the text messages that relate to the alleged crime, still being held in secret and not been shown to Assange or any member of his team?
breadandcheese Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 As me and Christopher Hitchens would say "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Seriously what does anyone expect from Pilger? It is typical Pilger rubbish. Contrast the two articles in the new statesman. One is by a legal correspondent who attempts to deconstruct the arguments and provides some of the judge's transcript. The other is hyperbole from Pilger, backed up by no evidence whatsoever. I find it ironic that Pilger is so insistent on international law, except in this case.
Webbo Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Are the text messages that relate to the alleged crime, still being held in secret and not been shown to Assange or any member of his team? I don't know what you're talking about but I'm sure if he goes to Sweden then someone will show him.
21st Century Fox Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 I don't know what you're talking about but I'm sure if he goes to Sweden then someone will show him. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8311589/Julian-Assange-extradition-hearing-womans-text-messages-showed-she-wanted-revenge.html
breadandcheese Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 http://www.telegraph...ed-revenge.html If only there was a way to test the validity of both side's claims other than in an internet forum. Oh yes, it's called a court room.
Webbo Posted 24 August 2012 Posted 24 August 2012 Are the text messages that relate to the alleged crime, still being held in secret and not been shown to Assange or any member of his team? http://www.telegraph...ed-revenge.html Mr Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, said he had seen dozens of texts sent by Miss W which “go against†her allegation last August that she was raped while she was asleep and suggest she has a “hidden agendaâ€. So Assange's team has seen these texts then. I would of thought any woman who has been raped has the right to angry with the rapist. Anyway if there's no case against him why won't he go to Sweden to clear his name in court?I'm quite happy to let a judge decide. He's no more likely to be extradited to America from there than here.
ozleicester Posted 22 August 2013 Posted 22 August 2013 Manning has been found guilty and sentenced to 35 years in prison. What a sad society we live in, where a man who is doing the right thing and exposing illegal and unethical acts by his government can be imprisoned for 35+ years. Mannings statement - http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/8/21/bradley_manning_sometimes_you_have_to_pay_a_heavy_price_to_live_in_a_free_society The US government have admitted no one was harmed by Manning's actions, this is nothing more than a threat and warning to any of us who is considering exposing lies, corruption or unethical activity. A shameful time if this is left to go ahead, and, dont brush it off with the old "only in america" tag, have a look at the recent treatment in the UK of David Miranda. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/white-house-david-miranda-heads-up
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.