War & PoliticsEcuador et al

 

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  johngti_mk-ii  
 To:  ALL
39835.1 

Im honestly a little perplexed about this whole Julian assange thing. He's accused of getting friendly with a woman who later claimed rape, right? So how is it ok for him to just run away claiming to be innocent instead of facing the music in Sweden? Don't Sweden have a reasonably good legal system where he'd be well represented etc?

 

Or is it acceptable now to run away from any dodgy accusations claiming innocence because, of course, you wouldn't lie about it would you?

 

I'm not seeing any reports about him being extradited to the USA. And whatever you think of wiki leaks, he needs to man up surely?

 

(FWIW I support whistle blowing in principle, I think bradley manning has been terribly treated etc etc)

 

(just don't know why assange should be allowed to just avoid the law)

Add THE VETOES to your myspace friends!!! Pretty please :D

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Mouse  
 To:  johngti_mk-ii     
39835.2 In reply to 39835.1 
I believe Assange asked for reassurances from Sweden he wouldn't be extradited to the US if he answered questions in Sweden. They wouldn't say yes to that.

Roses are bollocks, Violets are crud, I hate bloody flowers, And much prefer mud.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  johngti_mk-ii  
 To:  Mouse     
39835.3 In reply to 39835.2 
But on the other hand, they haven't said they will. And on the other other hand, manning did what he did and must have known there'd be consequences but he did it any way. I can't help but feel that assange should be brave enough to do likewise especially since it would legitimise his actions a little more. And on the final hand, he still needs to face up to the rule of law and fight any extradition from sweden there. Hiding in an embassy and going on the run for so long hasn't helped the cause, no?

Add THE VETOES to your myspace friends!!! Pretty please :D

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  johngti_mk-ii     
39835.4 In reply to 39835.1 
He's not scared of the Swedish legal system - he's scared of the US one.

Initially the charges were dropped/thrown out by a judge for having no merit/evidence/whatever.

Then Julian came to the UK (I've read conflicting reports on whether he asked permission from the Swedish gov before doing this).

Then there's a European arrest warrant out, despite there being no formal charges against him, and he's released on bail but with a curfew whilst awaiting trials and appeals and stuff.

He stated that he would be happy to return to answer questions if the Swedish government guaranteed it wouldn't extradite him to the US.

He also said he would be fine with the Swedish legal people coming to the UK and questioning him.

The UK trial thing eventually finishes and he's given two weeks before he's extradited to Sweden, (and then passed on to the US, to discover first hand what Bradley Manning is going through).

So he heads to the Ecuadorian embassy and seeks asylum, repeating that he'll happily go answer questions in Sweden if he is guaranteed not to be extradited to the US, or again that they can come question him in the Ecuadorian embassy.

So, given that there are no charges against him, they just want to ask questions, why does he need to be in Sweden?

If for some reason there is a silly legal requirement of actually being in Sweden, all they need to do is promise him safe passage, and no attempts at extraditing him to the US.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  johngti_mk-ii     
39835.5 In reply to 39835.3 
quote:
But on the other hand, they haven't said they will.

Do governments tend to tell people "if you come here we'll hand you over to those people that want to torture you, despite the reasons they want you for not being illegal in this country"?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Dan (HERMAND)  
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
39835.6 In reply to 39835.5 

Thing is, there is no legal framework for Sweden to guarantee he won't be extradited to the US. Additionally, it would be illegal for the Sweden to extradite him to face any kind of conditions that would be illegal in the EU - i.e., the death penalty or torture.

 

Additionally, from what I understand, the Swedish justice system won't let them formally charge him until he goes in for questioning. And why would they come here - that's just not how it works. At the end of the day, he's a suspect, not a witness and Sweden have summoned him.

 

It's not that different to how it works here - if you're wanted for questioning, as a suspect, about a crime then the police will come and arrest you. If they can't find you or you skip the country then a European arrest warrant will be issued. British Police are not then going to come to speak to you wherever you get picked up - you'll be flown back and be arrested and interviewed in a Police Station like everyone else.

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Dan (HERMAND)  
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
39835.7 In reply to 39835.5 
quote: But on the other hand, they haven't said they will.
Do governments tend to tell people "if you come here we'll hand you over to those people that want to torture you, despite the reasons they want you for not being illegal in this country"?


But no extradition request has been made by the US. If they US wanted him they had a lot of chances given that he's lived freely and been in custody in both Sweden and the UK. In the grand scheme of things, it's only a recent development that he's put himself out of the system, as it were.

This isn't to say he shouldn't fear the US government, but I do rather question whether that's his prime motivation.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  johngti_mk-ii  
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
39835.8 In reply to 39835.4 

Most of what you've said comes across as excuses for a man who is beginning to look like a right bastard. It's not some minor shoplifting offence he's wanted to answer questions about, it's rape. And what Dan said - if you were wanted to answer questions over a possible rape charge, you'd be arrested and questioned. The police wouldn't be following you all over the world in order to get answers, they'd get the local lot to grab you and you'd be extradited.

 

It appears to me that his excuse for not doing what anyone else would be expected to do is that wiki leaks is too important in terms of free speech and open-ness and that he should somehow be treated differently. That's complete rubbish, he's an individual and nobody's that important. I absolutely support the concept of free speech and whistle blowing when it's needed but this person is coming across as a knob. If he was (a) that sure he was innocent and (b) missing his family as much as he claims, he'd deal with it.

Add THE VETOES to your myspace friends!!! Pretty please :D

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  Dan (HERMAND)     
39835.9 In reply to 39835.6 
quote:
there is no legal framework for Sweden to guarantee he won't be extradited to the US

Fuck frameworks. It needs whoever is in charge of these things (either the foreign minister or a judge or whatever) to say "you're guaranteed safe passage. If you're subsequently charged and found guilty, you'll be imprisoned in Sweden, otherwise you'll be allowed safely back to wherever".


quote:
it would be illegal for the Sweden to extradite him to face any kind of conditions that would be illegal in the EU - i.e., the death penalty or torture.

I'm pretty sure the US denies that they are torturing Bradley Manning?

The US would presumably say they only want him for questioning, so it wouldn't be illegal - are Sweden responsible for what happens once the US have his hands on them, if they "believed" he was safe to go there?


quote:
that's just not how it works

That's just the lamest cop-out ever.


quote:
But no extradition request has been made by the US.

Of course not. Again, they're not going to show their hand before it's guaranteed.
If the US and Sweden aren't going to play pass the parcel then they just need to say it.
If they have no intention of doing it, why would they not say it?


quote:
In the grand scheme of things, it's only a recent development that he's put himself out of the system, as it were.

I'm not sure this counts as being out of the system (as opposed to just using another system), but either way it's only happened now because all in-system ways of fighting the move have been blocked.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Dan (HERMAND)  
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
39835.10 In reply to 39835.9 

Fuck frameworks. It needs whoever is in charge of these things (either the foreign minister or a judge or whatever) to say "you're guaranteed safe passage. If you're subsequently charged and found guilty, you'll be imprisoned in Sweden, otherwise you'll be allowed safely back to wherever".


So you think it would be acceptable for Swedens elected to act outside of the law and / or make promises that they simply can't keep? Who is going to uphold this agreement, because it certainly wouldn't the judiciary or the EU. It's all fun and games to say "But they should do a, b and c, but I really don't think they're going to start passing new laws, which may or may not be in breach of international law.


I'm pretty sure the US denies that they are torturing Bradley Manning?


Manning is a US citizen so it's kind of a moot point, but I do agree that his treatment has been a disgrace. FWIW, I think the US justice system borders on being 3rd world. But that's not a discussion for now.


The US would presumably say they only want him for questioning, so it wouldn't be illegal - are Sweden responsible for what happens once the US have his hands on them, if they "believed" he was safe to go there?


That's hypothetical and I don't know, but I imagine it wouldn't come down to phrases like 'reason to believe' etc.


That's just the lamest cop-out ever.


No, no it's not. Why should the UK, Sweden and the EU make huge adjustments to years of precedented law for one man who is desperate to act outside of it?


Of course not. Again, they're not going to show their hand before it's guaranteed.
If the US and Sweden aren't going to play pass the parcel then they just need to say it.
If they have no intention of doing it, why would they not say it?


Because they simply can't promise it and secondly, why should they? At the end of the day, while Assange is 'safe' for the time being, he's stuck in a fucking embassy. There's really no advantage for Sweden to go to the effort - it's just a waiting time now. Governments don't like being held to ransom at the best of times.


I'm not sure this counts as being out of the system (as opposed to just using another system), but either way it's only happened now because all in-system ways of fighting the move have been blocked.


You're right, maybe out of reach would have been a better phrase.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  johngti_mk-ii     
39835.11 In reply to 39835.8 
To be precise, he didn't force anyone to have sex - the issue was whether consensual sex was had with or without a condom.

I'm not saying that's ok, just pointing out it's different to what saying someone is a rapist generally brings to mind.

I don't know/care whether he's guilty, and I don't care that he's a knob (though I agree that he is).

(However, if he is guilty, why - when the case was initially brought - were the charges dropped? What new evidence caused it to be re-opened?)

For me, the issue is one of governments being bullies/playing with people.

If he's not at risk of being extradited to the US, there's no reason for them not to say so.

Also, the only reason we're hearing about this is because he's making a fuss. If it was a normal person it wouldn't be in the news.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Dan (HERMAND)  
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
39835.12 In reply to 39835.11 
To be precise, he didn't force anyone to have sex - the issue was whether consensual sex was had with or without a condom.

I'm not saying that's ok, just pointing out it's different to what saying someone is a rapist generally brings to mind.



Careful here Pete, I know what you're saying but it's generally best to avoid categorising rape! The gritty details are irrelevant and there's nothing to say we have them all, anyway.

quote:

(However, if he is guilty, why - when the case was initially brought - were the charges dropped? What new evidence caused it to be re-opened?)

For me, the issue is one of governments being bullies/playing with people.


As I said, the prosecutor went to court and argued for them to reopened. I'm not sure what, if any, new evidence there was but legal due process was followed.

quote:

If he's not at risk of being extradited to the US, there's no reason for them not to say so.

Also, the only reason we're hearing about this is because he's making a fuss. If it was a normal person it wouldn't be in the news.


There IS a reason for them not to say so, and the reason is that they simply can't make that kind of guarantee. If the US DO request extradition through legal channels, Sweden can not simply turn around and go "Nah, dude - we said he was cool with us. Soz".

Or rather, they probably could, but it takes us down one hell of a road. The worlds far from perfect, but at least we've reached a stage where the major players work together and abide by some common laws and goals. When one country starts ignoring that, it fucks the whole thing up. Ecuador probably doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US, so it's fine for them to play by whatever rules they decide. But Sweden definitely does, and Sweden also need to play by EU rules.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  Dan (HERMAND)     
39835.13 In reply to 39835.10 
Who says they can't keep the promise? :/

Why is it "acting outside the law" to say the equivalent of "whilst in Sweden for the purposes of this alleged action, you will not be subject to any other extradition requests"?

Why isn't there already a law to that effect? i.e. Give someone a fair trial and let it be concluded before some government comes and takes them away.

The whole premise of extraditing someone for something that isn't illegal in the country where you performed the act is fucked up.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  Dan (HERMAND)     
39835.14 In reply to 39835.12 
quote:
Careful here Pete, I know what you're saying but it's generally best to avoid categorising rape! The gritty details are irrelevant and there's nothing to say we have them all, anyway.

Yeah, it's just my pedantry being irritated.

I've seen "alleged sexual offences" in several reports, which is probably the safest/balanced way to reference things?

quote:
but at least we've reached a stage where the major players work together and abide by some common laws and goals.

So you're saying it's a good thing that the powerful government around the world work together to exploit the citizens they are supposed to serve?

quote:
When one country starts ignoring that, it fucks the whole thing up.

You mean like by invading a country to look for mythical weapons?

Let's hope that never happens, or who knows what reaction it might cause... :/
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Dan (HERMAND)  
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
39835.15 In reply to 39835.13 

How can they possibly keep the promise when there is now law for them to do so? Bitch about there not being one by all means, but there's no pre-emptive way to say "That person can't be extradited" - do you not see the huge potential for abuse?

 

It's one thing to have the legal arguments once the extradition request is made, but I really don't' see how it could possibly work before hand?

 

It's acting outside of the law because there are no laws to govern this. I don't that it's illegal, just untested and not legislated for.

 

I kind of agree with your last sentence, but it's very much a grey area - especially with more modern crimes. I'm not completely against Assange and I do think the US extradition treaties have some major issues, namely that their hugely biased and one sided - but it's still kind of a side point as one hasn't been made.

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Dan (HERMAND)  
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
39835.16 In reply to 39835.14 

Yeah, it's just my pedantry being irritated.

I've seen "alleged sexual offences" in several reports, which is probably the safest/balanced way to reference things?


I believe in Sweden the offence is, and the charges are for rape. In part, at least - so it's entirely fair to say he's wanted for rape.

I'm ignoring the rest because I think you're getting a bit silly to be honest.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  koswix  
 To:  Dan (HERMAND)     
39835.17 In reply to 39835.12 
quote:
The gritty details are irrelevant



Don't be so fucking naive. There's a world of difference between a violent, forced sex attack and what Mr Assange is accused of. 'Categorising' is a pointless exercise, but by the same token it's completely inappropriate and offensive to victims of forced sex to equate what they have experienced to what Assange is accused of.

For the record, I do think Assange is a dick* and should answer to the charges against him in Sweden.


There's an interesting article on the Guardian from December 2010 which goes into a bit more detail of the charges than what most current news reports do. To my mind** it seems like a case of 3 people making a bunch of stupid decisions that they later regret.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden


*regardless of the charges

**and of course my view is totally irellevant - I am neither an involved party nor someone with the required legal and social experience of Swedish culture and justice system to pass any form of moral judgement.



                                                
                                                
                                                
                           ▪                    
             ┌────┐    ┌────┐                      
          │    │    │    │ ▪                    
          │    └────┘    │                      
          │   ──┐  ┌──   │ ▪                    
   ┌──────┤    ▪    ▪    │                      
  ┌┘      │              │ ▪                    
┌─┤       └──┐  │  │  ┌──┘                      
│ │          │ ││  ││ │   ┌─┐                   
│ │          └─┼┤  └┴─┴───┘ │                   
│ │           ─┘│           │                   
│ │   ┌──────┐  └┬──────────┘                   
  │   │      │   │                              
  │   │      │   │                              
  └───┘      └───┘                              
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Dan (HERMAND)  
 To:  koswix     
39835.18 In reply to 39835.17 
quote: The gritty details are irrelevant

Don't be so fucking naive. There's a world of difference between a violent, forced sex attack and what Mr Assange is accused of. 'Categorising' is a pointless exercise, but by the same token it's completely inappropriate and offensive to victims of forced sex to equate what they have experienced to what Assange is accused of.


I think you're completely wrong, so let's leave it there.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  koswix  
 To:  Dan (HERMAND)     
39835.19 In reply to 39835.18 

Alternatively, you could state why you think that and we could have some kind of meaningful debate on a very sensitive and important topic, hopefully widening understandings and making the world (at least the very small corners that Teh touches) a slightly better place to exist.

 

Or we could shut down debate because OMG RAPE.

 

 




                                                
                                                
                                                
                           ▪                    
             ┌────┐    ┌────┐                      
          │    │    │    │ ▪                    
          │    └────┘    │                      
          │   ──┐  ┌──   │ ▪                    
   ┌──────┤    ▪    ▪    │                      
  ┌┘      │              │ ▪                    
┌─┤       └──┐  │  │  ┌──┘                      
│ │          │ ││  ││ │   ┌─┐                   
│ │          └─┼┤  └┴─┴───┘ │                   
│ │           ─┘│           │                   
│ │   ┌──────┐  └┬──────────┘                   
  │   │      │   │                              
  │   │      │   │                              
  └───┘      └───┘                              
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  JonCooper  
 To:  ALL
39835.20 
the case against Assange in Sweeden was blatantly re-opened in order to get him somewhere that would pass him on to the US, no question

the case was dropped once, but re-started once the big-boys wanted to talk to him

it really doesn't take a huge leap to join the dots

Jon
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All  
 

1–20  21–40  …  81–93

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats