He cannot be extradited from Sweden if he is there due to extradition from the UK without going through the UK's courts as well.
Suspicions are fine when there's actual evidence, otherwise they are baseless conspiracy theories. Do you have any?
Julian Assange to issue statement 'in front' of Ecuador embassy
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
He cannot be extradited from Sweden if he is there due to extradition from the UK without going through the UK's courts as well.
Suspicions are fine when there's actual evidence, otherwise they are baseless conspiracy theories. Do you have any?
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
War is an awful awful thing, and I'm not a fan of it, but shit happens in combat and in battle. What country are you from that's impeccable? It's nice to want to believe that everything kept secret is on the up-n-up but honestly it's not how the world works. Wishing for a perfect world is pointless, won't ever happen. There is true evil in the world, and sometimes you fight evil with evil. That's not just the US, that's everyone.
That's a flawed line of thinking. It's okay for Assange to expose everyone else, but the man won't face his own charges. If the charges are truly trumped up he'll show that in court, and if they railroad him it'll all be in the public eye. Better a martyr than a hypocritical alleged-rapist.
Partial Gamification
Banned
The US wikileaks investigation is still ongoing, it will continue until the authorities are satisfied with their findings (not likely to happen without infiltrating, destabilizing, and discrediting the organization). Assange must be treated carefully as to not make him the martyr for the larger movement of governmental and economic transparency. He could be a greater threat in one of those dark holes that Bradly Manning was put into for over a year.
I don't know the details regarding the rape charges, only vague explanations. Assange has a lot of baggage and it is hard to measure the weight of his words. At the same time, it is equally fair to question the motives of the authorities as they are undoubtedly bond to apply the law with extreme prejudice, for spying in the US and for rape in Sweden.
Here are transcripts of the vicitims' police reports. As a disclaimer, this source leans toward the Assange-camp.
Bradley Manning is, by definition, a traitor; but also by definition, he exposed war crimes and corruption on a global level. Two wrongs don't make a right but this Private is not the only criminal in this case.
I don't know the details regarding the rape charges, only vague explanations. Assange has a lot of baggage and it is hard to measure the weight of his words. At the same time, it is equally fair to question the motives of the authorities as they are undoubtedly bond to apply the law with extreme prejudice, for spying in the US and for rape in Sweden.
Here are transcripts of the vicitims' police reports. As a disclaimer, this source leans toward the Assange-camp.
Bradley Manning is, by definition, a traitor; but also by definition, he exposed war crimes and corruption on a global level. Two wrongs don't make a right but this Private is not the only criminal in this case.
onken
Member
Did you even read my post? If it really is a stitch-up, no evidence will likely emerge for a long, long time. But what we can do is look at the circumstances, consider past-form and keep an open mind. Governments framing people they don't like is not a rare occurrence, do you seriously believe otherwise?
You started this discussion with the claim that the warrant was issued so that Assange would go back to Sweden and simply answer questions. I will again quote for you the High Court:
You started this discussion one way, and now have switched to talking about Assange being charged or not. You made a statement, were shown to be wrong, and have now moved on to another claim. You have moved the goalposts.
Shit happens? Yeah, when you start opening fire on wrong targets and a lot of the bad shit they did. I never said my country(Australia) is impeccable. Expose us too. Expose everyone. In fact, fuck the Australian government for not assisting with Assange. They work tirelessly to help and bring home loser heroin smugglers but this guy? Naaah, fuck him.
Funny enough, even though Sweden want him, the only country our diplomat spoke to about him was America. Hmm, strange that. What have they got to do with sex charges in Sweden?
But if the plan is he gets sent to the US he won't get a fair trial. This happened before as well. I can't remember the details but someone leaked or exposed some information about the US and all of a sudden he gets smeared by a sex assault allegation. Exactly like this. You don't threaten to raid an Embassy for questioning or even charges like this. It's unheard of. If he was a Mexican cartel leader wanted for 50 murders and 500 drug offenses, they wouldn't threaten to raid an embassy to get him.
Evidence is an absolute necessity to give a theory any credibility. A theory without credibility is not worth arguing for, and barely worth discussing, much less in a serious context.
Alleged rapists seeking, and acquiring, political asylum within embassies are hardly a common thing to begin with. More importantly, it would be a horrible precedent to set if any person wanted for criminal charges could just head over to an embassy and escape.
What does "not looking like the type" matter here?
Sweden can do a temporary surrender of a suspect, which is not a full extradition. Aside from that, Sweden has received critisism for extraditing people to the US without following proper procedure.
Well, you don't expect people that look like Assange to commit crimes. He looks like a reputable man, coincidentally he looks like Anders Breivik
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
So which countries are giving political asylum for a mexican drug cartel leader? I'm really curious how this would happen.
Which I belive wont happen again...
¨
We usually do one stupid thing, then never redo it.
I'm saying if they did they still wouldn't raid an embassy. There are plenty of people who flee the country after being wanted or even charged for a crime and you don't see people hunting them down across the world or Interpol sending out warrants.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
You talking about the Collateral Murder video? Video was taken out of context of what took place that day, there was also at least 1 RPG and Ak-47's found. It's a warzone, mistakes happen, but if you think the edited and politicized video Assange posted is the full picture of what took place that day you are wrong.
You think the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been fighting a fair fight back? At least we have some "rules of engagement".. they have none. Of course the US is not perfect, who the fuck ever claimed we were?
Yes they would.
Yes they do? And EAW's have been sent out for crimes as banal as stealing a pig.
Edit: I've noticed people have been really blowing this very simple, common intra-European extradition procedure into something like a worldwide manhunt. It's really nothing special and happens all the time. The only oddity is Assange fleeing into an embassy. So what do you want the authorities to do then? Cancel the EAW? Aw shucks, he got away?
They aren't a country. They are terrorists who do terrible things. You can't compare the two or try and justify stooping to their level. It's not okay to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians because terrorist do bad things too.
So breaking international law over QUESTIONING sounds fair?
Partial Gamification
Banned
The spying charges originally centered on whether or not Assange was in direct contact with Bradley Manning. This is apparently not to be the case. The point was to frame wikileaks as perpetrator of the information-theft, and not just recipient and distributor of said information. Assange not being a US-Citizen, it is unknown what charges would be filed against him in a US Court or Military Court (should he be considered a terrorist). If the courts "get him" it is unlikely that they would go to the trouble of their case was not strong. If he walked out of a trial a free man, it would be a dangerous precedent (from the perspective of the procesution) and costly signal to send.
The rape charges rely on testimonials. It is a purported instance of “date-rape” and not a premeditated sexual assault. One vicitim's case is centered on not wearing a condom during intercourse, the one available had broken (or Assange tore it to not have to wear one). I am not trying to lessen the claims, I am unfamiliar with Swedish laws. There is talk that Sweden is biased toward men in Assange's situation, but this is usually coming from individuals that speak of the “feminist dominance” in government and something else that I have no personal experience with.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
They wouldn't raid an embassy because no one would give them asylum which is why it's such an awful awful example. What are the "plenty of people" that they let go? You're being so vague I'm not sure how you can use this to prove your point at all. It's a lot easier to track and ask for extradition of a public figure who is well known. Yes, it's a lot harder to find joe blow who committed rape and fled the country because there won't be press and other people following him and watching his whereabouts.
How hard is it to read? Arresting an individual even inside an embassy is not breaking international law.
I think of the government as a huge business/corporation or a legally recognized mafia.
If it does something that violates the non-aggression principle it should be exposed. And of course they will threaten anyone who does so but that doesn't make the government's actions overseas any less wrong. If someone doesn't stand up to them then who will?
If it does something that violates the non-aggression principle it should be exposed. And of course they will threaten anyone who does so but that doesn't make the government's actions overseas any less wrong. If someone doesn't stand up to them then who will?
So why don't they just go and do it?
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Because they want to be civil? Is this really that hard to understand? Why not do that for every arrest possible then?
Because it would be bad publicity and terrible for diplomatic relations with Ecuador. If the ambassador does not consent to let the agents enter, then they would have to use force. It'd be a legal use of force, but they very likely want to avoid such a thing. Heck, would you like to give the order to tazer the diplomats guarding the door Assange's hiding behind?
The entire damn point behind diplomacy is to settle disputes in a friendly and peaceful manner. It's an area of law that is less about who is legally right or wrong and more about mediation and finding an equitable solution for everyone.
Edit: Darklord, maybe you should change your avatar to Lionel Hutz.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
What? Huh? Now you're just throwing shit (conjecture) up against a wall and seeing if no one questions it.
..and if we are gonna play some hypothetical drug cartel leader bullshit.. why the fuck would Ecuador be protecting this said cartel leader. Ecuador would have some pretty big problems if they did this, the least of which is their embassy getting raided.
Threatening to raid the place already makes them uncivil about this.
How is it not breaking the law though? I thought an embassy is officially that countries land.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Are you dense? Yes they would raid an embassy to get a mass murderer that was being unlawfully protected at an embassy.
So you, like the guy who flipped out and was banned (lol), are claiming that something being illegal or against procedure means it cannot happen?
In that case, given that rape is illegal in Sweden, Assange cannot be guilty of rape.
Well, it's not. It's a popular misconception though.
*Takes a deep breath*
Anyway, procedure must be followed and if Assange has fears about this, he should lodge a complaint before the ECHR, which would also suspend the procedure and extradition. Now unless one would argue that the USA has got the top European judges in its pocket and that nobody would notice that the Court would now suddenly go against its establish case law...
Partial Gamification
Banned
Yes, and also the legal juristiction of that State.
Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. They can revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy.
No. Maybe you're confused with planes and ships.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Also, Article 22 of the Vienna Convention:
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
[edit:]
No, just generalizing the authority of the head-honcho at an Embassy.
The only thing stopping UK from breaking in is to give excuse for another countries to raid UK embassies, starting a shitload of international incidence through precedence. There's no law stopping it, just gentleman's agreement (a signed gentlemen agreement, if that make any sense)
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
So you really see no difference in civility between going in through a raid and what they've done so far? Really?
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
That's not how it works. Host countries have to ask permission to enter, but it is their land.
Read the preamble and article 41.3. The immunities in the Vienna Convention are only applicable insofar they involve the official functions and goals of the diplomatic mission. Harboring someone like a criminal does not fall under this scope. Embassies have been entered legally without consent to, for instance, put out a fire or to rescue a hostage.
Yeah, that makes sense. Alright.
You sure? Cartel bosses have a lot of money. Look at all the corporations and bank that get out of far worse crimes. How many billions did HSBC launder to the cartel, Iran, and terrorist organizations? 50bn? 100bn? And they don't even need to flee to an embassy. But now I'm just going way off topic.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Yes, this is the nuance of the law. Is he hiding from prosecution, as a criminal on the lamb; or, is he seeking asylum as a potential political prisoner? This is a central question, one I can't advocate for one way or the other.
He is being procesuted for rape, so I don't see how that is a political crime. As long as the US doesn't demand extradition, the UK doesn't have to treat him as a political prisoner.
That's true, I suppose. Assange could protect himself from extradition as a political refugee. But to me, it seems really difficult to argue this when it involves extradition from UK to Sweden over a non-political sexual assault investigation and without there (yet) being an extradition request from the USA. Especially when he still has those same legal safeguards in Sweden.
Exactly. The only country they were in contact with was America and we don't even know what was mentioned. Yet they fight to help drug smugglers and other criminals and it's all over the news.
The proof is Manning. Even as a US Citizen, he is being treated like trash. What makes you think once USA gets a hold off Assange, they will go easy on his case? He would probably get the death sentence or get locked up in a closet, 24/7.
Why do you say this?
I don't think anyone is disputing that the US would be rough on Assange if they ever got their hands on him. The thing people are arguing about is whether this whole rape case is a big conspiracy by the US government to get Assange from the UK to Sweden so that they can extradite him from there.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Mexico's corruption is incredibly deep. Yet if you truly believe that a person, say Baltazar Saucedo Estrada, was to take up residence in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK and expect to just sit there with no one trying to have him removed you are delusional.
Not to mention WTF Ecuador was thinking doing that.
Okay, I'll rephrase that. The only news I've even seen of the Australian government is that they recently spoke with America about him. That's it. They haven't said jack shit in the news, a statement, anything. It's weird that actual charged and convicted criminals are all over the news with the government trying to bring them home but Assange is never heard or spoken of aside from a little thing here and there that they spoke with someone. And again, why the US? They have nothing to do with this unless Assange is right.
Partial Gamification
Banned
It is certainly up to the powers that be to decide what will be done. The notions that he is a potential political prisoners derive from active investigations trying to peg wikileaks as a terrorist organization. The DOJ has been in contact with Swedish and Australian authorities. Representative King, for one, wants this guy locked up for life or exectued.
If Ecuador decides Assange is a political prisoner and the UK says not, well I imagine that it is a situation that the UK would rather avoid. Beyond that, there is only pure speculation and a set of "what-ifs" that have serious geopolitical ramifications.
[edit:]
I think there is a level of paranoia from Assange that is justifiable, he fears becoming obscure in some cell - be it a Swedish one or a US one.
What did they talk about with the US? You know, I'm sure Australia and the US have a conversation every now and then.
- Status