Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:26 am  

Standee wrote:

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.

Thankfully, the rule of law is much more important than your hissy fit.

We moved away from your kind of thinking in the middle ages.

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:32 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Thankfully, the rule of law is much more important than your hissy fit.

My Irony-O-Meter just exploded.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:47 am  

It really is a mess all this, isn't it? Do you know what I'd have to put it down too? See the two rape complainants, 'casualties of war' like many on here have surmised in the past. Just like them photographers killed by that US helicopter gunship in Iraq. It's a tough world we live in!

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:06 am  

WIZEB wrote:

See the two rape complainants, 'casualties of war' like many on here have surmised in the past. Just like them photographers killed by that US helicopter gunship in Iraq.

What war?

And I didn't have you down as a 'two wrongs make a right' kind of guy.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:10 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

Sorry, are you really saying that going in to a police station is not materially different from being forcibly extradited? Really?

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?

No, it would be up to the Swedes to do that, come back with their evidence and say we want you to extradite because ........ and here is the evidence we are basing that request on. We then look at it, say, yeah that looks like you have a pretty good case, lets extradite or no, Sweden you are talking nonsense, you have no evidence we arent going to extradite.

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.

I dont think the fact it is an emotive accusation means we should be free to forcibly extradite someone based purely on an accusation.

And as i have said, i dont disagree that the swedish authorities should investigate and if necessary rule on, i also think we (the uk) should ask for a higher standard of evidence (or even some) before we forcibly extradite someone.

as for your last question, If he had stayed in Sweden, we wouldn’t be extraditing him and as such would have no duty to make sure we were doing it in a fair way. I don’t think it would be wrong for the British government to be held responsible for consequences of extradition for the people they extradite and not for the people they don’t.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:14 am  

Kosh wrote:

What war?

And I didn't have you down as a 'two wrongs make a right' kind of guy.

Come off it Kosh...Have you seen the state of that 'Jule's' geezer? If we didn't know better we'd have thought he batted for t'other side....the most he's done is fingered them two birds, tops. He aint got a good sh@g in 'im! We know the ones who really got fooked in all this, don't we??? See 'Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq' as a starting point!

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:16 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, im saying he was free to leave Sweden, was told he could leave Sweden and as a free man, when he left Sweden, he was under no obligation to ever wilfully return to Sweden. Which is what I said, not the weird straw man you just invented

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.

Someone saying you did something, presenting no evidence to corroborate it, and them being in a different country isn’t a good reason to force someone to leave their job, home, and life to travel to another country and face their justice system and their procedures. If it were we would have the same extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia and we would be deporting rape victims for a flogging.

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.

No it isnt, there is a difference between forcible extradtion and extradition. One involves force, one doesnt. We are, and have been threatening a forcible extradition.

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:18 am  

WIZEB wrote:

Come off it Kosh...Have you seen the state of that 'Jule's' geezer? If we didn't know better we'd have thought he batted for t'other side....the most he's done is fingered them two birds, tops. He aint got a good sh@g in 'im! We know the ones who really got fooked in all this, don't we??? See 'Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq' as a starting point!

You realise he hasn't denied what happened, right? He's only arguing consent?

Once again, I didn't have you down as a 'two wrongs' guy. And you haven't told me what 'war' you consider the two alleged rape victims to be part of.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:22 am  

Kosh wrote:

You realise he hasn't denied what happened, right? He's only arguing consent?

Once again, I didn't have you down as a 'two wrongs' guy. And you haven't told me what 'war' you consider the two alleged rape victims to be part of.

The imaginary 'War on Terror'. Jump out of that box now and again mate.

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:38 am  

WIZEB wrote:

The imaginary 'War on Terror'. Jump out of that box now and again mate.

Ah. Your tin foil hat has come into play I see.