Area for all other political discussion
:sunglasses: 25 % :thumbsup: 8.3 % :grinning: 50 % 🧥 16.7 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#250604
lord_kobel wrote:Were they also not supposed to give people over for torture, but that didn't stop them, as that link shows...
This is now a matter in front of the courts and the world's press. Do you really think that is a possibility? Or just another red herring?

There always comes a point in this discussion which you have now reached. You must explain why you think the women who have made complaints of sexual assault don't deserve to have their cases heard and due justice given to them. Or, as some Assange apologists seem to be implying, how their rights are not as important as his.
 
By lord_kobel
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#250606
Ok, those comments went into more details than I'd seen before. The question is then why the arrest warrent was initially dropped.

As one of the comments says though "The silent player in all this is the US, for if they at any point had stated that the actions of Wikileaks acting abroad was not grounds for seeking an extradition, then the whole case of Assange seeking not to be extradited to Sweden would have fallen through."

Given the US is still holding the crossdressing soldier who leaked the info, althought they're apparently not going to kill him now, and Swedens involvement in torture, does assange face a credible threat of death? Ecuador apparently thinks he does.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#250608
More red herrings, not very relevant to the case in hand.

Where is your evidence for the international arrest warrant being dropped? I ask because I've looked and I can't find any reference to it. There was, of course, a switch from internal Swedish procedures to international ones when, having undertaken that he would stay in Sweden, he ran away to Britain.

And the answer on the rights of the women to have their allegations tested in a court of law?
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#250611
I'm kind of with Korbel on this one - while Assange comes across as narcissistic and slightly paranoid spoilt brat with an inflated sense of his own importance, his fears aren't exactly tin-foil hat territory. He hasn't been formally charged with any crime in Sweden, only that he is sought for questioning. There is also the question of how far does the treaty of extradition between Sweden and the USA work - I've read conflicting reports as to wherever it's more advantageous to the USA compared to the USA-UK extradition treaty which is already slammed as leaning too one-sided to the Americans.

What I find most disturbing about today's events is the claim by the Ecuador foreign minister that the Foreign Office threatened to withdraw the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorian embassy in order to arrest Assange if necessary. That threat being based upon the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 which itself was a response to the events which saw PC Fletcher murdered outside the Libyan embassy. While the possible charges that Assange would face in Sweden are certainly serious enough in themselves, they're most certainly not a case of where British national security is being compromised which is what the spirit of the Act in question was supposed to address. If earlier this year China made any veiled threat to enter the American embassy in Bejing to take Chen Guangcheng back under house arrest, the shitstorm over that would have been serious.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#250617
Then they called him in for questioning and he ran away...

I really don't know what he thought would happen.

The allegations against him are of serious sexual assault, not necessarily rape. That will not be established until after he has been questioned.
 
By lord_kobel
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#250619
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:So you are basing your opinion on the interpretation made by the Ecuadorian ambassador? The one which isn't supported by the text of the letter?
You should be aware that there is a basis in law in the UK (the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987) that would permit us to take steps to arrest Mr Assange within the current premises of the embassy.
We sincerely hope that such a point is not reached, but if you cannot resolve the presence of Mr Assange on your premises, that route is open to us.
How is "We can come and take him if we have to" not a threat to do so?
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Then they called him in for questioning and he ran away...
18 November 2010

Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available for questioning.

Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange return to Sweden.
This was after already being questioned in Stockholm at the end of August. Given that he was obviously already in london, how did he "run away"?
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#250621
Nothing there suggests 'storming' or 'beating' does it? It draws attention to the law (international) which is really not designed for what Assange is doing. Especially in a country with a human rights record like Ecuador's.

No nation on earth would agree to questioning a suspect in another country in these circumstances.

Please answer the question about the rights of his alleged victims - because this is the blindspot of so many Assange fanboys. It's what it's actually about, not his paranoid fantasies.
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#250623
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:So you are basing your opinion on the interpretation made by the Ecuadorian ambassador? The one which isn't supported by the text of the letter?
Whoever was responsible for that made a serious diplomatic blunder even if it was just as a "reminder" rather than a "threat". And that is open to personal interpretation. From the blog you linked...
It is debatable whether Britain has made an "open threat" to Ecuador as its foreign minister claims. The text of the letter delivered by a British diplomat is said to be a reminder of the law by the Foreign Office, and a threat by others. Judge for yourself. I believe it can most definitely be seen as clumsy and may well have pushed Ecuador into its decision to grant political asylum. As a small country it was keen to point out it was "not a British colony" and did not want to be seen to be bowing to pressure.
...and the text of the letter in question...
* You should be aware that there is a basis in law in the UK (the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987) that would permit us to take steps to arrest Mr Assange within the current premises of the embassy.
* We sincerely hope that such a point is not reached, but if you cannot resolve the presence of Mr Assange on your premises, that route is open to us.
It's easy enough to see why that would be interpreted as a threat, even if it wasn't meant to. It's also as not if the FCO is any less prone to cock ups compared to any other government department as we have already seen in this coalition government. It's a big stupid dun'goof. http://judicialcat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/ ... nt-in.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I said earlier if another major nation tried to use a similar tactic, they would quite rightly be condemned of bullying.
By Big Rob
#250646
Well there are two ways of looking at this.

One of them is extremely frightening, in that authorities would conjure up sex crime charges to silence dissent.

The other is that a person has the capability to use (a) government(')s(') annoyance with that person to hide the fact that he is guilty of rape, which is also extremely frightening.

Wow..... Don't you just love the way we got in this position?
 
By The Red Arrow
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#250660
Assange's cockdom and Swedish interests notwithstanding, it's an interesting conundrum in that whilst sections of the Equadorian government are posturing and self-aggrandizing, so is Billy Ten Pints. Can we look forward to images of him riding bare-chested over the Pennines? There's brinkmanship and 'how-will-I-look-in-the-pressmanship. Neither side are doing themselves any favours in my book.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 17
Boris Johnson

Useful idiot Dan Wootton has been charged with tel[…]

The LibDems, generally

Perhaps not she (Wera Hobhouse) and her husband […]

Jeremy "Fucking off" Corbyn.

I wonder what Starmer will do about this? A Labo[…]

Roll Call

Enjoy, Kreuzie - but you know what's coming next[…]