Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:14 am  

Standee wrote:

We have, that's why he should be on the next available flight.

We havent.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:15 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And why do you think that is? Perhaps it is because Assange does not face any charges in Sweden!! The proceedings in Sweden are at the preliminary investigation stage. That does not come to an end until evidence is served on Assange or his lawyer and there is an interrogation of Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. Only after all that would there be a decision as to charge.

So your point seems to be based on a total misconception.

I understand that. I think it is wrong.

Again, they only want to question him. Had he turned up to be questioned, who knows whether or not charges would have followed? You are very confused on this. All we have are complaints of sexual offences, which are being investigated. The only reason the investigation is still pending is because Assange did a runner.

I appreciate that, I think it is wrong to forcibly extradite someone on that basis.

You seem to be arguing that doing a runner when the police want to question you about serious allegations should be the ultimate get out of jail free card. They only need to extradite him in the first place because he was in Sweden, and said he would remain there, but had it away on his toes. They do not want to detain him but to question him. After that they would make a decision.

He was told he could leave Sweden. Regardless, there being an allegation and him not being in Sweden, arent good enough reasons to forcibly extradite someone to Sweden

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:19 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

We havent.

Yes, we have.

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:02 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

No im suggesting the UK sets itself up as the sole arbiter of who the UK extradites.

You realise there are treaties which cover this, right? And that our courts have the right to turn down any extradition request anyway? And the Assange case has been examined by the highest court in the land?

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:45 am  

Standee wrote:

Yes, we have.

No, we havent.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:52 am  

Kosh wrote:

You realise there are treaties which cover this, right? And that our courts have the right to turn down any extradition request anyway? And the Assange case has been examined by the highest court in the land?

The Assange case hasn’t been seen by the highest court in the land, the highest court in the land had no evidence put before it and looked at no evidence because it wasn’t within its remit to do so. This is wrong. We are planning on extraditing a man with no thought as to whether this is the right and just thing to do. This is wrong.

We are extraditing him because some admin was done correctly; we have attempted to absolve ourselves of any responsibility for anything other than checking that admin was done correctly. This is wrong, We have as much of a duty to prevent people being extradited as an abuse of due process and as a use of the law to harass an individual as we do to prevent people in this country suffering an abuse of due process and from use of the law to harass an individual.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:54 am  

You put your left leg in, your left leg out, in out, in out, and shake it all about.....Sorry, just practising for tonights party.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:58 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

The Assange case hasn’t been seen by the highest court in the land, the highest court in the land had no evidence put before it and looked at no evidence because it wasn’t within its remit to do so. This is wrong. We are planning on extraditing a man with no thought as to whether this is the right and just thing to do. This is wrong.

We are extraditing him because some admin was done correctly; we have attempted to absolve ourselves of any responsibility for anything other than checking that admin was done correctly. This is wrong, We have as much of a duty to prevent people being extradited as an abuse of due process and as a use of the law to harass an individual as we do to prevent people in this country suffering an abuse of due process and from use of the law to harass an individual.

so, what about the rights of the women whom he raped, or the breach of national security he is guilty of in the USA

the man is a snake, and should be treated as such.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:12 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

The Assange case hasn’t been seen by the highest court in the land, the highest court in the land had no evidence put before it and looked at no evidence because it wasn’t within its remit to do so. This is wrong. We are planning on extraditing a man with no thought as to whether this is the right and just thing to do. This is wrong.

We are extraditing him because some admin was done correctly; we have attempted to absolve ourselves of any responsibility for anything other than checking that admin was done correctly. This is wrong, We have as much of a duty to prevent people being extradited as an abuse of due process and as a use of the law to harass an individual as we do to prevent people in this country suffering an abuse of due process and from use of the law to harass an individual.

I'm sorry but that is absurd. This area is one of the simplest in the case; the investigation in Sweden includes a rape allegation, and here, as there, an allegation of rape is serious.

If he was accused of exactly the same thing in this country, would it be "not right" or "unjust" that he be arrested and taken for questioning to the police station in the area where the alleged offence had been committed? Of course not.

What material difference does it make if that area is in fact as here a different country? You seem to be arguing that leaving the country where the rape allegation is being investigated somehow of itself makes it unjust for you to have to go back.

I think you are also suggesting that in such a case, the UK should first investigate, and decide whether or not there is enough evidence of rape, before sending him back. Exactly how would we do that? Send a team of rozzers and CPS over to Sweden to do their police and prosecutors job for them?

With regard to that particular charge, the case appears to be that, indisputably, Assange inserted (thanks George) his unprotected penis into a woman, and the contentious areas seem to centre on claims (a) she was asleep and did not consent to this insertion and (b) he knew that in any event she only consented to protected sex.

Why you would pick on such a case as being somehow an example of injustice, I can't think. Would you say the same if it was your daughter who was the complainant? To me, this is plainly an allegation that the Swedish prosecutors and, if they think fit, the Swedish courts, should consider and rule upon, and there's nothing unjust about it.

The final word must be this: if Assange had stayed in Sweden, would you say it was not right, or unjust, that he should be brought in for questioning under the Swedish warrant for his arrest? I can't see how you could say that, since their system would plainly only be doing its job.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:25 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

He was told he could leave Sweden.

Sorry but pure disingenuous tosh. Unless you are suggesting that the authorities in Sweden agreed to the proposition that he should permanently absent himself?

This sort of reductio ad absurdum just makes you look stupid. The issue is nothing to do with whether or not he could or couldn't leave Sweden, Europe or the planet, but whether at some point he would return to answer questions. From wherever in the universe he happened to be when asked. It's not that he left, it's that he won't go back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SmokeyTA wrote:

Regardless, there being an allegation and him not being in Sweden, arent good enough reasons to forcibly extradite someone to Sweden

Even more absurd.

There being a serious rape allegation is a good enough reason for him to be arrested and brought in for questioning.

Him not being in Sweden and not intending to return IS the reason why an extradition is the only method of them achieving those aims.

The term "forcibly" is meaningless in this context since extradition presupposes that the person isn't going to go back unless forced to do so, so I have no clue why you used it.