Re: Julian Assange : Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:23 pm  

One of the arguments being put forward for Assange not being sent to Sweden boils down to Assange saying he's innocent and therefore shouldn't be sent there, regardless of Swedish authorities determining that he has a case to answer? Absolute bonkersville. Why haven't all criminals thought of that? Its so simple its brilliant!

The other is the possibility/likelihood of Assange further being deported to the US, despite there being no evidence at all that this would be easier from Sweden (which would also insist on no death penalty) than the UK.

As for nonsense placing Ecuador as some sort of shining light with respect to human rights or following 'due process', I suggest you have a look at the records of the country according to the likes of Amnesty International before making such ludicrous claims, particularly when it comes to freedom of speech.

If Assange ever does end up skipping to Ecuador, and there seems no chance of him ever facing charges in Sweden, I hope the women involved are brave enough to come forward and give their memories of what happened. Perhaps some of Assange's defenders would feel less comfortable if a human face was put on these accusations, as to me they ought to be first and foremost to everyone, not some afterthought.

Still, who cares about the rights of a couple of women who may have been the victims of real crime when we can spout cr*p about Sweden and appoint Ecuador and its President as defenders of freedom whilst sticking two fingers up at the US?

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:39 am  

The last line gives away the motives of the Assange defenders IMO If he was facing the possibility of being extradited to Canada there wouldn't be half this fuss.

[tb]

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:33 pm  

Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition While Mr Assange might want to read this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482

Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition While Mr Assange might want to read this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482

[Kosh]

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:20 pm  

tb wrote: Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition While Mr Assange might want to read this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482 A more thorough debunking of the pro-Assange piffle would be difficult to envisage.

tb wrote: Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition While Mr Assange might want to read this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482 A more thorough debunking of the pro-Assange piffle would be difficult to envisage.

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:06 pm  

tb wrote: Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition I havent actually argued anywhere that it isnt legal for Sweden to demand extradition, simply that it is wrong (morally, not legally) that a man can be forcibly extradited and detained, from this country, without it being proved there is a prima facie case for him to answer. It is wrong that we have allowed laws like this to exist in this country. And a couple of those points are the authors opinion, not fact. While Mr Assange might want to read this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482 This seems to simply fall back on the trustworthy ol' swedes dodgy south americans argument. We arent perfect, Sweden isnt perfect. If anything the past decade should have taught is its that the relationship between our government and our press is much further away from ideal than we could have even imagined. I would imagine that situations reversed that the cases of people like David Kelly and the phone hacking scandal would be used in similar circumstances to discredit the relationship between the British press and Government. I also imagine that there wouldnt be the clamour here for a British citizen to be extradited from a Swedish embassy to Ecuador to face the same charges after said British citzen had blown the whistle on some pretty immoral military action by the Colombian government. The author of the first link even provides a handy example of the British criminal justice system persecuting somebody and pretty much ruining their life even though they were innocent of all charges http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... imon-walsh If Mr Assange is proven innocent, we have been complicit to making the same error in justice of subjecting someone to de facto punishment prior to there actually been proof of guilt.

tb wrote: Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition I havent actually argued anywhere that it isnt legal for Sweden to demand extradition, simply that it is wrong (morally, not legally) that a man can be forcibly extradited and detained, from this country, without it being proved there is a prima facie case for him to answer. It is wrong that we have allowed laws like this to exist in this country. And a couple of those points are the authors opinion, not fact. While Mr Assange might want to read this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482 This seems to simply fall back on the trustworthy ol' swedes dodgy south americans argument. We arent perfect, Sweden isnt perfect. If anything the past decade should have taught is its that the relationship between our government and our press is much further away from ideal than we could have even imagined. I would imagine that situations reversed that the cases of people like David Kelly and the phone hacking scandal would be used in similar circumstances to discredit the relationship between the British press and Government. I also imagine that there wouldnt be the clamour here for a British citizen to be extradited from a Swedish embassy to Ecuador to face the same charges after said British citzen had blown the whistle on some pretty immoral military action by the Colombian government. The author of the first link even provides a handy example of the British criminal justice system persecuting somebody and pretty much ruining their life even though they were innocent of all charges http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... imon-walsh If Mr Assange is proven innocent, we have been complicit to making the same error in justice of subjecting someone to de facto punishment prior to there actually been proof of guilt.

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:13 pm  

Him wrote:

Yes it is. You are saying he shouldn't be arrested because he doesn't want to be.

No, im saying he shouldnt be forcibly extradited and detained without the Swedish prosecutors proving to a British judge that this case will, justifiably, go to trial.

How is that any different to being arrested prior to trial anywhere in the world? Once again, you are saying that people can only be arrested after the case against them has been proven. The only way to prove a case is with a trial. So are you saying that the trial should take place before he is arrested?

But this case may not go to trial, we arent at a stage of making that decision yet. That is the issue. We are forcibly extraditing someone to face a trial which may or may not go ahead.

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:39 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote: I havent actually argued anywhere that it isnt legal for Sweden to demand extradition, simply that it is wrong (morally, not legally) that a man can be forcibly extradited and detained, from this country, without it being proved there is a prima facie case for him to answer.... I tell you what's not 'moral', Smokes – the readiness with which the disciples of St Julian of Assange are acting as bloody apologists for rape. Plus there's the sheer ignorance of the fact that different country's judicial systems don't all actually work in the same way as that in the UK. And he has had three opportunities to challenge the European arrest warrant, before three different courts, and all believe there is no reason to overturn the decision. Of course, he could just stop being a cowardly twok and go to Sweden and face the arrest and the charges – and any further process. If he's innocent he will then be free. If not, he'll serve the due punishment. But this seems to be rocket science for his cultists. FWIW, my thoughts on the subject.

SmokeyTA wrote: I havent actually argued anywhere that it isnt legal for Sweden to demand extradition, simply that it is wrong (morally, not legally) that a man can be forcibly extradited and detained, from this country, without it being proved there is a prima facie case for him to answer.... I tell you what's not 'moral', Smokes – the readiness with which the disciples of St Julian of Assange are acting as bloody apologists for rape. Plus there's the sheer ignorance of the fact that different country's judicial systems don't all actually work in the same way as that in the UK. And he has had three opportunities to challenge the European arrest warrant, before three different courts, and all believe there is no reason to overturn the decision. Of course, he could just stop being a cowardly twok and go to Sweden and face the arrest and the charges – and any further process. If he's innocent he will then be free. If not, he'll serve the due punishment. But this seems to be rocket science for his cultists. FWIW, my thoughts on the subject.

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:49 pm  

Stuff here about the Swedish judicial system re arrest, charge etc.

Stuff here about the Swedish judicial system re arrest, charge etc.

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:58 pm  

Mintball wrote: I tell you what's not 'moral', Smokes – the readiness with which the disciples of St Julian of Assange are acting as bloody apologists for rape. Plus there's the sheer ignorance of the fact that different country's judicial systems don't all actually work in the same way as that in the UK. And he has had three opportunities to challenge the European arrest warrant, before three different courts, and all believe there is no reason to overturn the decision. Of course, he could just stop being a cowardly twok and go to Sweden and face the arrest and the charges – and any further process. If he's innocent he will then be free. If not, he'll serve the due punishment. But this seems to be rocket science for his cultists. FWIW, my thoughts on the subject. In what way have i apologised for rape? at all? I understand the swedish judicial system is different, the Saudi justice system is also different. I can accept they are different, i dont have to accept they are right.

Mintball wrote: I tell you what's not 'moral', Smokes – the readiness with which the disciples of St Julian of Assange are acting as bloody apologists for rape. Plus there's the sheer ignorance of the fact that different country's judicial systems don't all actually work in the same way as that in the UK. And he has had three opportunities to challenge the European arrest warrant, before three different courts, and all believe there is no reason to overturn the decision. Of course, he could just stop being a cowardly twok and go to Sweden and face the arrest and the charges – and any further process. If he's innocent he will then be free. If not, he'll serve the due punishment. But this seems to be rocket science for his cultists. FWIW, my thoughts on the subject. In what way have i apologised for rape? at all? I understand the swedish judicial system is different, the Saudi justice system is also different. I can accept they are different, i dont have to accept they are right.

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:04 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

No, im saying he shouldnt be forcibly extradited and detained without the Swedish prosecutors proving to a British judge that this case will, justifiably, go to trial.
But this case may not go to trial, we arent at a stage of making that decision yet. That is the issue. We are forcibly extraditing someone to face a trial which may or may not go ahead.

But again, that is an argument that a suspect shouldn't be arrested before they are charged, which is daft.
We arent at that stage because that stage HAS to come AFTER an arrest, that's the only way an effective system could ever work. Otherwise you would have a situation where prosecutors are charging suspects without hearing their evidence.

Oh and a prima facie case has been made, that's why the arrest warrant was deemed legal.