Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


It's official: western citizen granted asylum from western tyrants


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
72 replies to this topic

#61 taby   Members   -  Reputation: 335

Posted 18 August 2012 - 12:35 PM

http://www.guardian....wsaboutbadnewsi

Like the guy says: this is common knowledge. I do admire him for his wishful thinking, which is a whole lot better than naive thinking.

And let's be perfectly honest about why bad news really sells: it makes us feel holier than thou.

Edited by taby, 18 August 2012 - 12:39 PM.


Sponsor:

#62 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 18 August 2012 - 11:15 PM

Ok, so your point is that the US should be investigating Assange? Ok, good, they are. I'm not sure why you decided to argue this point so fervently when no-one suggested the opposite.

Half of your post seems to be implying that the US has no right to even investigate or assuming that their investigation will result in an illegal charge against him. That's a totally illegitimate thing to assume. The political fallout for an investigation of that magnitude resulting in an illegal verdict would end the careers of pretty much anyone involved.

All of your posts in this thread, except the last few have been presenting falsehoods as facts!! That is not a perspective issue -- you've been making statements that are provably false, which is not "just stating known facts".

The majority of what I've been posting is facts. The fact that I don't sensationalize them to a degree that you feel is more accurate is what you have a problem with (see the timeline of events for the rape investigation for the two of us. They are near identical except that yours just paints him as totally innocent and not having to follow EU law).

Here is a quote from you earlier:

(800+ days of naked 23-hour a day solitary confinement, and being put on suicide watch by a general, against the advice of psychologists)

He wasn't in solitary confinement or naked for 800 days. Clearly you've been posting nothing but facts in all of your posts from the beginning of this thread though. As I said, go back and read your posts if you're going to be so critical.

________________________________________________________________________
Questions you've asked, most of which I didn't answer because the answers are pointless/known or just saying exactly what your question was in reply to:

He clearly left Sweden after the investigation started and refuses to return.

No, this is absolutely false (see above - he left after the case was closed). Where did you get this idea?

^^^^ I don't know why there is a line break here.

No. This is absolutely true. My statement that you call false is one of the most provably true statements in this entire thread.

"Ms Rosander says the investigation into the molestation charge will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant."

Do you really think that destroying the 1961 vienna convention is less important than some celebrity sex scandal?

This is begging the question that they'd actually invoke the law before having grounds to do so. I honestly don't think they'd do anything to the embassy while Assange is inside anyway unless Ecuador or Assange break international law. He'd have to re-enter English territory to get anywhere from the embassy/diplomatic vehicles, and they could just grab him then. Unless he's going to indefinitely run his life out of the Ecuadorian embassy, which I don't see him doing.

I also think that the actual threat was overblown. Not to say it wasn't threatening in any way, but the severity of it was overblown.

Here is the text
"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy. We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."

More likely I think Assange is going to do/say something soon that's going to force Ecuador to withdraw asylum, and England will take him into custody then.

Upon what are you basing your opinion that the Wikileaks cables have directly put people in danger where the (same) NYT cables haven't?

If publishing them was illegal, why isn't the NYT being charged?

Nobody, including Assange, has been charged with anything yet. Why are charges/guilt of NYT vs Assange relevant? They've both, to date, been treated identically, with the exception that one is totally paranoid.

For some reason the line break up there ^^^ made me add a quote. I put it here to make it the least distracting.

None of this seems at all suspicious to you?

I never said it didn't, but extraditing him to Sweden doesn't make him any less safe than he would have been in the UK really. Does it not seem suspicious that he'd so fervently avoid being questioned further on a sex scandal? You're ready to tout the assumption of innocence when it comes to Assange, but why shouldn't it be granted for a country that's taken no formal position on or has any provable direct influence on the events taking place yet?


There. That is every question you've asked of me in this thread. I'm sure you won't be satisfied with the answers, but I never expected you to be, which is why I avoided them.

Edited by way2lazy2care, 18 August 2012 - 11:33 PM.


#63 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 18 August 2012 - 11:25 PM

For some reason the post I just posted hit format hell. Trying to repost to fix formatting, will remove whichever one doesn't work.

edit: no dice :(

Edited by way2lazy2care, 18 August 2012 - 11:29 PM.


#64 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6966

Posted 18 August 2012 - 11:59 PM

For some reason the post I just posted hit format hell. Trying to repost to fix formatting, will remove whichever one doesn't work.

Posted Image I think your formatting hell is the funniest thing from this thread
[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#65 Shippou   Members   -  Reputation: 1366

Posted 19 August 2012 - 03:21 AM

Since some folks don't know international law, L'll leave this link here ... this law gives England legal authority to dissolve diplomatic immunity, and go into the embassy .
"" Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 ""
https://www.google.com/search?q=Diplomatic+and+Consular+Premises+Act+of+1987

 Reactions To Technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

- Douglas Adams 2002


 


#66 fruki   Members   -  Reputation: 269

Posted 20 August 2012 - 02:50 AM

Since some folks don't know international law, L'll leave this link here ... this law gives England legal authority to dissolve diplomatic immunity, and go into the embassy .
"" Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 ""
https://www.google.c...ses Act of 1987


And will be the first time in history that the Vienna convention will be broken. Very bad press for UK.

#67 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 20 August 2012 - 02:50 PM

This is worth reading:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

#68 SimonForsman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5810

Posted 20 August 2012 - 03:06 PM

This is worth reading:
http://www.newstates...nge-extradition


Allthough its still worth noting that sweden has, fairly recently sent 2 people off with the CIA to be tortured in egypt despite it being highly illegal to do so, We do what the US wants us to do and if it is illegal well... we just try not to let anyone know before its too late and then our security police just uses the "incompetence" defense as usual.

I personally would feel alot safer in England than in Sweden, While it might be easier for England to send you off to the US Sweden is far more likely to just send you off. ... somewhere ...

Edited by SimonForsman, 20 August 2012 - 03:09 PM.

I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

#69 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:18 PM

Allthough its still worth noting that sweden has, fairly recently sent 2 people off with the CIA to be tortured in egypt despite it being highly illegal to do so, We do what the US wants us to do and if it is illegal well... we just try not to let anyone know before its too late and then our security police just uses the "incompetence" defense as usual.

I personally would feel alot safer in England than in Sweden, While it might be easier for England to send you off to the US Sweden is far more likely to just send you off. ... somewhere ...

While I won't dismiss it as impossible, I think if Sweden did it with such a high profile target it would have huge political fallout.

In regards to my link, mostly I posted it to show points 3/4. People underestimate the political impact/usefulness of guaranteeing that someone not be extradited to a country that you have an extradition treaty with. There's also been a good amount of assumptions that either an extradition request by the US wouldn't be reviewed thoroughly by the UK/Sweden (or granted just by virtue of being submitted) before a decision was come to.

I also think if Sweden were to try to just send him off somewhere, they'd probably just say, "Sure we won't extradite you!" then keep their part of the bargain by not extraditing him and sending him off somewhere. :P

#70 JohnnyCode   Members   -  Reputation: 193

Posted 24 August 2012 - 05:49 PM

1: - Lets see how much you like if is some one puts YOUR life, and the lives of YOUR family in danger in the name of "freedom of information".


This is effect of propaganda. The families are in danger and Assange gets hanged on a square. Awesome.

#71 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3528

Posted 25 August 2012 - 05:30 PM

Allthough its still worth noting that sweden has, fairly recently sent 2 people off with the CIA to be tortured in egypt despite it being highly illegal to do so, We do what the US wants us to do and if it is illegal well... we just try not to let anyone know before its too late and then our security police just uses the "incompetence" defense as usual.


The only two guys I could find via the webernet were taken in 2001, shortly after September 11. Interestingly, they are both now free and admittedly guilt-free by the governments involved.

-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal


#72 Telastyn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3724

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:36 PM

Most of this is TLDR, but at least in my US living, wide-ranging, left leaning, web-focused news coverage Assange hasn't been getting too much bad press. They're detailing what the hub-bub is about, why he doesn't want to go to Sweden, and that the Sweeds don't want to just phone interview him.

The big issue from my perspective is the reporting of WikiLeaks. They have never really been portrayed as a whistleblower organization, but something more like Anonymous or people who steal credit card databases. Always negative, always focusing on the sensitive/illegal nature of the leaks, and not the content of them.

It's smart if the goal is to limit the information. Even if Assange is guilty as sin, that's not enough to take down a website...

#73 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 26 August 2012 - 10:21 AM


Allthough its still worth noting that sweden has, fairly recently sent 2 people off with the CIA to be tortured in egypt despite it being highly illegal to do so, We do what the US wants us to do and if it is illegal well... we just try not to let anyone know before its too late and then our security police just uses the "incompetence" defense as usual.


The only two guys I could find via the webernet were taken in 2001, shortly after September 11. Interestingly, they are both now free and admittedly guilt-free by the governments involved.

They also got paid nearly half a million dollars by the Swedish iirc.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS