Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:58 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, 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?

What job, home and life does he have in the UK/Ecuador at present?

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:01 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

What job, home and life does he have in the UK/Ecuador at present?

And that argument just boils down to he shouldn't have to go if he doesn't want to, which is a ridiculous way to run a criminal justice system.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:17 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

What job, home and life does he have in the UK/Ecuador at present?

Well his job is running his website. His life is the things he does, and I don’t know what his address was.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:24 pm  

Him wrote:

And that argument just boils down to he shouldn't have to go if he doesn't want to, which is a ridiculous way to run a criminal justice system.

I don’t see what is ridiculous about not forcing an innocent man, who hasn’t had even a prima facie case put against him, to have his live disrupted and forced to travel t a country he doesn’t want to go to.

It would be entirely correct for the onus to be on the Swedish prosecutors to prove there was a case to be answered prior to forcing him to do anything

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:00 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I don’t see what is ridiculous about not forcing an innocent man, who hasn’t had even a prima facie case put against him, to have his live disrupted and forced to travel t a country he doesn’t want to go to.

It would be entirely correct for the onus to be on the Swedish prosecutors to prove there was a case to be answered prior to forcing him to do anything

There is a case to be answered, 2 women have accused him of rape and other sexual crimes. Whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant, that will be decided at any potential trial, but unless you think rape allegations shouldn't be investigated then there is most certainly a case to be answered. At the moment Assange refuses to answer it, and has broken the law to try and avoid answering that case.

Just because he doesn't want to go doesnt mean he shouldn't be extradited. And the political asylum is a ludicrous decision that interferes in the criminal justice system of this country.

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:14 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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?

The intimation is that this is a purely political prosecution. My point is that if so, just about every layer of the Swedish justice system is apparently complicit.

SmokeyTA wrote:

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.

How droll. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

SmokeyTA wrote:

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.

Did you read the justification for the decision? They have NOT decided that he is being persecuted. They have decided that he might be persecuted IF Sweden chose to expedite him to the USA. The basis of the asylum offer is that Sweden could not give them a categorical guarantee that they would not expedite him to the USA. A guarantee that it is impossible for ANY democratic government to provide.

Oh - and there are a number of experts on international law who question whether it was, in fact, a valid request.

SmokeyTA wrote:

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?

The problem with this question is that it presupposes that Assange's version of events is the truth.

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:17 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I don’t see what is ridiculous about not forcing an innocent man, who hasn’t had even a prima facie case put against him, to have his live disrupted and forced to travel t a country he doesn’t want to go to.

A country he once lived in and in fact applied to have permanent residence in, on the grounds that he felt safe from persecution there. I wonder what's changed...

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:39 pm  

Him wrote:

There is a case to be answered, 2 women have accused him of rape and other sexual crimes. Whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant, that will be decided at any potential trial, but unless you think rape allegations shouldn't be investigated then there is most certainly a case to be answered. At the moment Assange refuses to answer it, and has broken the law to try and avoid answering that case.

Just because he doesn't want to go doesnt mean he shouldn't be extradited. And the political asylum is a ludicrous decision that interferes in the criminal justice system of this country.

No we have a long standing tradition and a right one in my opinion of the presumption of innocence. It is in fact the accusation which is irrelevant, and limiting of an individuals freedom, is (or at least the that’s the image which we like to project) based on the evidence presented. Right now, no evidence has been presented. There is nothing to actually prove that this accusation has any merit. The absence of a prima facie judgement means that the Swedish prosecutors haven’t proved that there is a case to answer. The presumption of innocence demands that until such a time as a case to answer has been proved, it is wrong for us to infringe or limit a persons freedom or liberty.

Political asylum doesn’t interfere with the judicial system, it is part of the judicial system. It is part of the checks and balances which protects people from a governments nefarious actions.

Turn it round, would you argue that someone granted political asylum in by the British Government, in a British embassy, should be extradited to Ecuador to face charges they, and the British Government suspect to be politically motivated where the prosecutors refused to interview them in the embassy, but demanded extradition without providing evidence there was a case to answer?

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:41 pm  

Kosh wrote:

A country he once lived in and in fact applied to have permanent residence in, on the grounds that he felt safe from persecution there. I wonder what's changed...

I once live in Australia, I wouldn’t travel back there to answer questions. I have a life to be getting on with.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:53 pm  

Kosh wrote:

The intimation is that this is a purely political prosecution. My point is that if so, just about every layer of the Swedish justice system is apparently complicit.

You seem to find this very unlikely, yet seem perfectly happy to believe a narrative that states the president of an independent democratically elected country has sparked a diplomatic crisis in a situation they had no prior involvement in, just to play silly buggers. And every level of the Ecuadorian foreign office is complicit.

How droll. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

Just wanted to highlight the double standards you were applying to the trustworthy ol’ Swedes (who were complicit in the secret rendition and torture of two men, with the US. The same US which has held Mr Assange’s source for 800 days without trial) and those dodgy South Americans

Did you read the justification for the decision? They have NOT decided that he is being persecuted. They have decided that he might be persecuted IF Sweden chose to expedite him to the USA. The basis of the asylum offer is that Sweden could not give them a categorical guarantee that they would not expedite him to the USA. A guarantee that it is impossible for ANY democratic government to provide.

It’s a distinction without a difference. The country which facilitates persecution is no better than the country which persecutes.

Oh - and there are a number of experts on international law who question whether it was, in fact, a valid request.

And similarly they are a number who don’t.

A sovereign, independent, democratically elected country has granted him political asylum. If we ever, ever, want others to respect a British decision to grant political asylum, then we should probably respect other nations when they do it.

The problem with this question is that it presupposes that Assange's version of events is the truth.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

Aye, the presumption of innocence is a novel concept to some. But western jurisprudence has been based on it for about 1400 years and its served us pretty well up to now