Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:31 am  

Kosh wrote:

Is there any particular reason why Assange should be treated differently than any other person would be in the same circumstances?

No, he shouldn’t, and I doubt the Swedish authorities would have bothered with the case had it not been Mr Assange who was accused. Hence the Swedish chief prosecutor saying "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

Swedish law has been followed to the letter. A valid EAW has been issued. The UK courts have examined the EAW and issues surrounding it in significant detail all the way up to the highest court in the land. Why should Assange be allowed to opt out of a valid legal procedure?

This is just a straw man argument. I havent said he should be able to opt of a valid legal procedure, (which he hasn’t done by the way, he has simply used a separate legal protection which an independent democratic nation has bestowed on him to protect him from what they class as persecution, im not sure if Ahmed Aguiza and Zery Mohammed would agree with the current narrative of trustworthy ol’ Swedes against those dodgy south Americans) I asked would you be comfortable submitting yourself to this procedure. Would you be comfortable leaving your job, and home and life, to face accusations, that haven’t even been proved on a prima facie basis, which you believe you are innocent of, and you believe are vexatious, and travel to a country complicit in torture and rendition for an ally, the same ally which has held your source for 800 days without trial?

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:42 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Would you be comfortable leaving your job, and home and life, to face accusations, that haven’t even been proved on a prima facie basis, which you believe you are innocent of, and you believe are vexatious,

This is the bit that I agree with.

I am no bleeding heart liberal, jeez I have spoken out enough on the pathetic Human Rights Act and how it has fundamentally helped to weaken the Country, but this imo, is fundamental to the number one priority of a Nation State- to protect it's citizens.

[John_D]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:46 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

the pathetic Human Rights Act

Yeah, damn them pesky humans and their constant demands for universal rights.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:49 am  

John_D wrote:

Yeah, damn them pesky humans and their constant demands for universal rights.

Nothing wrong with the principle.

It's the application that is at fault.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:50 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

This is the bit that I agree with.

I am no bleeding heart liberal, jeez I have spoken out enough on the pathetic Human Rights Act and how it has fundamentally helped to weaken the Country, but this imo, is fundamental to the number one priority of a Nation State- to protect it's citizens.

And haven't Australia been quiet about him...

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:06 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Well I am still none the wiser. There is nothing there that I can see that prevents say Romania from asking for the extradition of a UK national without presenting evidence.

There isn't. There are, however, conditions under which we could refuse such a request - that's why in the Assange case it went all the way to the Crown Court before it was approved.

There are also no countries that are exempted as you suggested in your post.

There are moves to review the system as some countries are using it for relatively trivial offences which it was never intended to cover. It's far from perfect but our police forces claim it's been of great assistance to them.

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:16 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

No, he shouldn’t, and I doubt the Swedish authorities would have bothered with the case had it not been Mr Assange who was accused. Hence the Swedish chief prosecutor saying "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.

That decision was appealed and after due process was reversed. You can make all the claims of ulterior motives that you like, but the fact remains that a valid legal procedure was followed in both Sweden and the UK.

SmokeyTA wrote:

This is just a straw man argument. I havent said he should be able to opt of a valid legal procedure, (which he hasn’t done by the way, he has simply used a separate legal protection which an independent democratic nation has bestowed on him to protect him from what they class as persecution

He opted out of a valid legal procedure when he skipped bail. And if you honestly think that Ecuador gives a fig about his human rights, freedom of speech, of freedom from persecution then you clearly haven't been following what they've been up to in their own country.

In any event, it's hardly a valid legal manoeuvre to apply for political asylum when you have not been subjected to political persecution, nor have been charged with a political crime, nor even be under direct threat of either.

SmokeyTA wrote:

I asked would you be comfortable submitting yourself to this procedure. Would you be comfortable leaving your job, and home and life, to face accusations, that haven’t even been proved on a prima facie basis, which you believe you are innocent of, and you believe are vexatious, and travel to a country complicit in torture and rendition for an ally, the same ally which has held your source for 800 days without trial?

I wouldn't be comfortable having carried out the acts that his own defence lawyer says he has. And if he's that 'uncomfortable' with the idea of travelling to Sweden, why did he apply to live there permanently?

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:19 am  

Kosh wrote:

It's far from perfect but our police forces claim it's been of great assistance to them.

Indeed. Mrs 28 worked with the team that did these in Yorkshire and a number of offenders were returned here because of the EAW

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:38 am  

Kosh wrote:

That decision was appealed and after due process was reversed. You can make all the claims of ulterior motives that you like, but the fact remains that a valid legal procedure was followed in both Sweden and the UK.

Being legal, does not mean being right.

I don’t think anyone at all has argued about the legality of the action so im not sure why it is being brought up?

He opted out of a valid legal procedure when he skipped bail. And if you honestly think that Ecuador gives a fig about his human rights, freedom of speech, of freedom from persecution then you clearly haven't been following what they've been up to in their own country.

That decision went through due process and asylum was granted. You can make all the claims of ulterior motives that you like, but the fact remains that a valid legal procedure was followed in Ecuadaor, Sweden and the UK. If you think Sweden is an unimpeachable bastion of democratic process and a shining light of jurisprudence you clearly havent been following what they have been up to in their country.

In any event, it's hardly a valid legal manoeuvre to apply for political asylum when you have not been subjected to political persecution, nor have been charged with a political crime, nor even be under direct threat of either.

An independent democratic nation has decided, at the very highest levels that he is being persecuted, It is a valid legal option, and is in fact the only option he would have if the accusations are false and the prosecution vexatious.

I wouldn't be comfortable having carried out the acts that his own defence lawyer says he has. And if he's that 'uncomfortable' with the idea of travelling to Sweden, why did he apply to live there permanently?

That’s another straw man. I can only ask you the question again would you be comfortable submitting yourself to this procedure. Would you be comfortable leaving your job, and home and life, to face accusations, that haven’t even been proved on a prima facie basis, which you believe you are innocent of, and you believe are vexatious, and travel to a country complicit in torture and rendition for an ally, the same ally which has held your source for 800 days without trial?

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:51 am  

Kosh wrote:

There isn't. There are, however, conditions under which we could refuse such a request - that's why in the Assange case it went all the way to the Crown Court before it was approved.

There are also no countries that are exempted as you suggested in your post.

There are moves to review the system as some countries are using it for relatively trivial offences which it was never intended to cover. It's far from perfect but our police forces claim it's been of great assistance to them.

And you are comfortable with this?