FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Diplomatic Status
Diplomatic Status
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Absolutely not! If we start doing that then our embassies across the world are fair game." Yeah its my thoughts too ,its ripping up the sanctity of the diplomatic status and puts so many people at risk world wide,i cant believe we have even considered it as we are a UN permanent member,who signed up to the the international law concerning diplomatic status . I sort of feel tainted that our government would ever hint at it tbh. | |||
| |||
| |||
"if this is about the wiki guy then no, he hasnt commited a crime in the uk, we are just beeing the usa puppet" I think your right ,i thought we had the rule of law to protect the individual and sovereign status of other countries. Its a real shame that they have decided on this course of action when the country is on a high .I am now of the thought that if the USA says jump the Uk says how high... its a sad day for democracy.  | |||
| |||
"if this is about the wiki guy then no, he hasnt commited a crime in the uk, we are just beeing the usa puppet I think your right ,i thought we had the rule of law to protect the individual and sovereign status of other countries. Its a real shame that they have decided on this course of action when the country is on a high .I am now of the thought that if the USA says jump the Uk says how high... its a sad day for democracy. "not sure we have ever been a democracy | |||
"dont you think the diplomatic imunity thing gets abused alot though" Maybe it does ...who knows i am sure we pull as many stunts as any other country ,but ,this is a request for sanctuary that after investigation has been granted ,and i think its a right decision ,if Assuage is released to the clutches of America he will never be heard of again ,they need to all back off or they will do a lot of damage to the concept of democracy. For me this is too blatant and step too far. Talk about using a wheel to break a butterfly | |||
| |||
"dont you think the diplomatic imunity thing gets abused alot though" The law gets abused. Lots of things that are fundamental to democracy get abused. BUT, if you make exceptions to suit your needs how do you put that genie back in the bottle? How you do stand up and defending your right to immunity? American law and jurisdiction is trying to spread to far and this is an instance of that. It is already quite frightening that British people are extradited because America feels that their justice cannot be served here. Would the American's stand for one of their embassies being treated in this manner? No, it would be seen as an aggressive act against America and action would be taken. | |||
| |||
"how come sweden isnt doing this??? after all the only real crime he is accused of happened there, and yes i would like to see him brought to trial there, but not like this" The way the whole case has been handled makes me wonder whether the charges brought about by Sweden were genuine or another favour "owed" to the US... | |||
 | |||
"how come sweden isnt doing this??? after all the only real crime he is accused of happened there, and yes i would like to see him brought to trial there, but not like this" He hasn't been charged ,they only want to question him ,but have admitted he would be detained and the USA have admitted they would go for extradition ,this is about the state being complicit in the demise of an individual under cover of a trumped up "need to question" ,well if they want to question him ,go to the Embassy I say and do your worst..why does he need to be in Sweden ? How could he ever get a fair trial,when they so want to get him,I really can see this backfiring in a big way tbh. | |||
"how come sweden isnt doing this??? after all the only real crime he is accused of happened there, and yes i would like to see him brought to trial there, but not like this He hasn't been charged ,they only want to question him ,but have admitted he would be detained and the USA have admitted they would go for extradition ,this is about the state being complicit in the demise of an individual under cover of a trumped up "need to question" ,well if they want to question him ,go to the Embassy I say and do your worst..why does he need to be in Sweden ? How could he ever get a fair trial,when they so want to get him,I really can see this backfiring in a big way tbh." with the media beeing what it is today, im not sure any big case gets a fair trial, jurors are only human | |||
| |||
| |||
"how come sweden isnt doing this??? after all the only real crime he is accused of happened there, and yes i would like to see him brought to trial there, but not like this" Sweden IS doing it! And they have followed due process of law by using the extradition process. Assange has been given all due rights and representation (at British Taxpayers expense) to challenge Extradition and the Swedish prosecutors have shown to several courts in the UK there is a substantial case against him. I am slightly confused why there is a big round of support for Assange and little for the women he is accused of raping and assaulting. The whiff of hypocrisy is drifting . . . | |||
"Erm ..... What has this to do with the USA other than it gives the anti yanks an opportunity to spout off. Assange has lost his appeal against extradition to SWEDEN. He has sought refuge in Embassy to avoid being deported to SWEDEN where he faces sexual assault and rape charges. The Foreign Office has notified the Ecuadorians that (following the murder if Yvonne Fletcher by the Luciana) there is a law here that allows the arrest on 'foreign soil' of someone who has committed a crime in the UK. Assange is in contempt of the highest court in this land and has skipped bail. 2 criminal offences. So police can legally enter that Embassy but probably won't bother. Because as soon as he steps outside he will be arrested. I hope this adds some reality to the emotion being expressed." The only bit I'd like to add to that as a note of caution is that he's being arrested under a European arrest warrant. The use of which requires no proof of wrongdoing. So any EU country can have a person arrested and flown back to them for questioning or imprisonment without due process know their own country. Just an extradition hearing. There have been lots pf stories about these being used for the wrong reasons and that's why human rights activists are up in arms. | |||
"if this is about the wiki guy then no, he hasnt commited a crime in the uk, we are just beeing the usa puppet" not entirely true. i quote. 'When Sweden issued its European Arrest Warrant, judges in the UK granted Julian Assange bail on strict conditions while the case was being considered. Julian Assange breached that bail by entering the embassy, making him liable for arrest. The Met is maintaining its position that it will arrest him as soon as it can' if we dont have extradition treaties and international powers of arrest then criminals will be able to avoid justice by moving country. he is wanted for rape and sexual assault Now imagine you are the parent of a woman who was victim of that crime and ask whether you would be happy for a nation to do nothing if the main suspect uses diplomatic status to escape questioning!!! | |||
"how come sweden isnt doing this??? after all the only real crime he is accused of happened there, and yes i would like to see him brought to trial there, but not like this Sweden IS doing it! And they have followed due process of law by using the extradition process. Assange has been given all due rights and representation (at British Taxpayers expense) to challenge Extradition and the Swedish prosecutors have shown to several courts in the UK there is a substantial case against him. I am slightly confused why there is a big round of support for Assange and little for the women he is accused of raping and assaulting. The whiff of hypocrisy is drifting . . ." I think Charlie, the reason is because the whole case has a huge whiff about it. Assange's website clearly leaked sensitive documents which caused concern for many governments, and the charges that suddenly appeared against Assange from sweden appeared at the time to be convenient. On the bigger point though of Britain taking back Assange from the Ecuador embassy or for that matter from any vehicle he is travelling in then that would clearly be a huge diplomatic breach. While it might satisfy the UK Government, the Swedish Governmemnt or the USA government, it opens the door to similar breaches taking place at embassies anywhere in the world. Now I can't recall exactly where, but I have certainly seen in the past on TV "refugees" in US embassies around the world being sheltered, and even as far back as the Vietnam war the US Embassy in saigon was only breached in the final moments as it was evacuated despite USA having been at war there against the communists. If Assange was for example a terrorist caught handling bombs or had ran into the embassy carrying a gun shooting at people on the street, I'd agree in principal that the Police should arrest him on "foreign land" but in that case Ecuador would probably invite our forces to take him out/arrest him. This particlar accusation, while serious, isn't in the same league when all the other implications are taken into account. | |||
"Erm ..... What has this to do with the USA other than it gives the anti yanks an opportunity to spout off." _________________________ Well its perhaps because the Americans have said as soon as he is in custody they will move to Extradite him and put him before a military court ------------------------------- "Assange has lost his appeal against extradition to SWEDEN. He has sought refuge in Embassy to avoid being deported to SWEDEN where he faces sexual assault and rape charges." --------------------------------- Ha ha ha your joking he has not even been questioned yet and your saying he is "facing charges", the Accusers have been thoroughly discredited in Sweden but the Euro arrest warrant stands, as it is not about those charges its about sending him back to Sweden and then to the States and PS not all people who speak out about America are anti-American or are you saying everything the USA does is perfect and above reproach ?? "The Foreign Office has notified the Ecuadorians that (following the murder if Yvonne Fletcher by the Luciana) there is a law here that allows the arrest on 'foreign soil' of someone who has committed a crime in the UK." But Assuage has not been charged or convicted of anything they just evidently "want to speak to him" so i repeat my earlier point ,why not travel to the Embassy to do it .His supporters even offered to pay for the Detectives to come over. "Assange is in contempt of the highest court in this land and has skipped bail. 2 criminal offences." Fortunately British law neither supersedes European law and definitely not International Law and that is what he has been granted Asylum under. "So police can legally enter that Embassy but probably won't bother. " So why make the threat they can not carry out without breaching International law. ,Most QC's agree that ? --------------------------------- "Because as soon as he steps outside he will be arrested." Possibly "I hope this adds some reality to the emotion being expressed." Well there is no emotion here just facts ,unless your feeling emotional that is ? | |||
| |||
| |||
"The Extradition application is from the Swedish Supreme Court, quite what that has to do with us having troops in Afghanistan baffles me..... Any excuse to knock the United States by any chance?" Doesn't your sweety shop have newspapers? You should try reading some  | |||
| |||
"Joss Ackland will be going mental! Deeeeplymatic Amoooonaty Rrrrrriggs Deeeeplymatic Amoooonatyyyyyyyyy" Yep, and look what happened to him, Murtaugh revoked it  | |||
"So assange goes thru the entire British legal process.. And when they agree to extradite him, he flees.... If he wants to clear him name... He could have voluntarily have gone to sweden years ago.. Which he declined to I'm sorry... If this wasn't a planned move on his part I would hate to be one of the people who put up his bail money knowing he was going to abscond.. Money to burn eh! The British authority followed due process... Assange decided not to" Hi Fabio With good reason from what i can see ,if you research the rape allegation and that's what it is an "allegation" not a charge ,the prosecutors decided Initially there was no case to answer and closed it, as the one girl admitted attempting to blackmail him into getting an HIV test after they had unprotected sex, She threatened to report him to the police and he stated to her friend i will take a test but will not be blackmailed into it. So she went to the police and "allegedly" made the allegation. Unfortunately the facebook comments they both made after meeting him totally undermine the evidence they gave ,one of the people making the allegation said she did not want to report it as she was only supporting her friend. 24 hours after the Interview,the transcripts of the evidence were altered and they decided to arrest him to "answer questions" ,not charges. Anchor that over to the case of Bradley Manning the guy who allegedly gave him the stuff from the US embassy, clearly proving war crimes had been committed by US troops in Iraq. If you go to Amnesty internationals site regarding his treatment ,he has been denied due process kept in a cell,in Guantanamo "outside us jurisdiction" ,kept naked in solitary confinement without charge for 11 months,and subjected to torture,and Intrusive body searches on an hourly basis. Only after intervention by amnesty and a large lobby of influential concerned US citizens,has he been moved to a medium grade military prison,still in solitary ,and still with no charges laid against him,a clear disregard for due process. If i was Julian Assange i would be doing exactly as he is, to avoid falling into the clutches of the US military legal system ,wouldn't you? | |||
| |||
"Do you think the British Govt is right to threaten to enter the Embassy of another sovereign state.?" No. | |||
"The Extradition application is from the Swedish Supreme Court, quite what that has to do with us having troops in Afghanistan baffles me..... Any excuse to knock the United States by any chance? Doesn't your sweety shop have newspapers? You should try reading some ""The US has owned the British military since 1944. That's why we're in Afghanistan"...... that's what you said, what's that got to do with an extradition treaty we have held with Sweden since the 1930's? And the US doesn't own the British Military, that's a nonsense.....and it never took a newspaper to tell me that. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Do you think the British Govt is right to threaten to enter the Embassy of another sovereign state.? No." NOT AN Fing embasy its a consulate there is a difference and i wish we would do the americans for not paying their congestion gharge | |||
" and i wish we would do the americans for not paying their congestion gharge" Actually, so do I. | |||
| |||
"I would simply be worried about two things : 1. That this would set a precedence and 2. that Assange would get fair treatment and trial. " which judicial system are we talking about? What I see at the moment is a person desperately trying not to be sent to sweden to face charges of rape and sexual assualt... if it was the other way round and there was a person trying to avoid extradition to the uk for the same charge in that manner all hell would have broken loose.... and you wander why people don't reports rapes and sexual assaults more often when they seem people being smeared in this way..... | |||
"I would simply be worried about two things : 1. That this would set a precedence and 2. that Assange would get fair treatment and trial. which judicial system are we talking about? What I see at the moment is a person desperately trying not to be sent to sweden to face charges of rape and sexual assualt... if it was the other way round and there was a person trying to avoid extradition to the uk for the same charge in that manner all hell would have broken loose.... and you wander why people don't reports rapes and sexual assaults more often when they seem people being smeared in this way....." I can see where you are coming from - I am just concerned over the information we are fed and its accuracy? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"With good reason from what i can see ,if you research the rape allegation and that's what it is an "allegation" not a charge ,the prosecutors decided Initially there was no case to answer and closed it, as the one girl admitted attempting to blackmail him into getting an HIV test after they had unprotected sex, She threatened to report him to the police and he stated to her friend i will take a test but will not be blackmailed into it. So she went to the police and "allegedly" made the allegation. Unfortunately the facebook comments they both made after meeting him totally undermine the evidence they gave ,one of the people making the allegation said she did not want to report it as she was only supporting her friend. 24 hours after the Interview,the transcripts of the evidence were altered and they decided to arrest him to "answer questions" ,not charges. Anchor that over to the case of Bradley Manning the guy who allegedly gave him the stuff from the US embassy, clearly proving war crimes had been committed by US troops in Iraq. If you go to Amnesty internationals site regarding his treatment ,he has been denied due process kept in a cell,in Guantanamo "outside us jurisdiction" ,kept naked in solitary confinement without charge for 11 months,and subjected to torture,and Intrusive body searches on an hourly basis. Only after intervention by amnesty and a large lobby of influential concerned US citizens,has he been moved to a medium grade military prison,still in solitary ,and still with no charges laid against him,a clear disregard for due process. If i was Julian Assange i would be doing exactly as he is, to avoid falling into the clutches of the US military legal system ,wouldn't you? " Blimmin 'eck PD, we're in danger of agreeing with each other twice in a week!! Good post.  | |||
| |||
"Absolutely not! If we start doing that then our embassies across the world are fair game. Yeah its my thoughts too ,its ripping up the sanctity of the diplomatic status and puts so many people at risk world wide,i cant believe we have even considered it as we are a UN permanent member,who signed up to the the international law concerning diplomatic status . I sort of feel tainted that our government would ever hint at it tbh." Agree, to a point. There is precedence. The British Government via its security services did enter the Libyan Embassy following the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher. And let's not forget that Julian Assange has arrest warrants issued in the Stockholm Criminal Court stating he is suspected of several counts of rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force. These are allegations and, of course, may be proved false. | |||
| |||
"Ah l get it now. We must at all times uphold the rights of a man who is a fugitive from justice, who has betrayed his friends and who thought it was right to put thousands of security and military at risk to make money. And the women who he has allegedly violated can go piss in the wind for their rights. I think some on here need to reassess their values IMHO." You are debating the case at hand but not the issue at hand. They are not the same thing at all. It is wrong to commit rape and assault. It is wrong to flee from a crime. It is wrong to harbour a criminal. It is wrong to detain someone in solitary without charge. It is wrong to torture someone. And, it is wrong to lose the principle of sovereignity of embassies. The consequence of losing that principle is that our embassies across the world are open to any nation feeling that an individual seeking asylum with the British is fair game. It means that any Briton seeking asylum in other embassies if they cannot get to a British embassy or consultate is fair game. Ecuador will have looked at this before granting refuge and offering accompanied passage. Are their decisions less valid than any other nations'? Or is the 'right side' (as in correct) always the west? It is remains a resounding NO, it is wrong to the OP question. Any other response would require me to adjust my moral compass. | |||
| |||
"Big cut Anchor that over to the case of Bradley Manning the guy who allegedly gave him the stuff from the US embassy, clearly proving war crimes had been committed by US troops in Iraq. If you go to Amnesty internationals site regarding his treatment ,he has been denied due process kept in a cell,in Guantanamo "outside us jurisdiction" ,kept naked in solitary confinement without charge for 11 months,and subjected to torture,and Intrusive body searches on an hourly basis. Only after intervention by amnesty and a large lobby of influential concerned US citizens,has he been moved to a medium grade military prison,still in solitary ,and still with no charges laid against him,a clear disregard for due process. If i was Julian Assange i would be doing exactly as he is, to avoid falling into the clutches of the US military legal system ,wouldn't you? Blimmin 'eck PD, we're in danger of agreeing with each other twice in a week!! Good post. "one of us must be getting older, wiser,or more consistently wrong ....i cant figure out who or what ? cheers  | |||
| |||
"initially i was against the british inference that they may enter an embassy/consulate...thinking it was about wikileaks... but reading about his alleged crimes of sexual assault and rape puts a different prospective on my judgement... the Swedes who to my limited first hand knowledge are not the type to abuse a persons individual rights and freedoms...they want to question him in relation to the alleged crimes and in doing so can either a)release him and dismiss him from their inquiries or b)charge him with the crimes but to do so, they must be able to question him....the guy doing a runner and hiding not necessarily makes him guilty but it doesn't help his cause to avoid being seen/proved innocent i know if someone was wanted in questioning for rape against my daughter then did a runner and his behind political situation. i'd think what a fuckin cunt....come out and prove you didn't do it and for those who think its all about america wanting him...wake up, stop making unfounded assumptions about the yanks " Well i would agree with you but for four facts , 1. He has offered to pay for the detectives fares to come from Sweden to interview him all they want ,but that wasnt good enough ,they wanted him in custody....which is not normal treated of a swedish citizen 2. The Americans have stated they want him before a military court and have said the moment he is lifted will start extradition proceedings against him . 3.The Ecuadorian government sought clarification on both these counts and it was confirmed by the swedes and Americans. 4.When the Swedes were asked if he would be extradited to the USA regardless of the answers he gave,they sidestepped it by saying its impossible to pre-empt a request that has not been made yet. That is not natural justice for a man in his position and neither has Bradley Manning the man who gave Wikileaks the embassy cables recieved due process or natural justice its why the Ecuadorians found his request so compelling and granted him Asylum. | |||
"initially i was against the british inference that they may enter an embassy/consulate...thinking it was about wikileaks... but reading about his alleged crimes of sexual assault and rape puts a different prospective on my judgement... the Swedes who to my limited first hand knowledge are not the type to abuse a persons individual rights and freedoms...they want to question him in relation to the alleged crimes and in doing so can either a)release him and dismiss him from their inquiries or b)charge him with the crimes but to do so, they must be able to question him....the guy doing a runner and hiding not necessarily makes him guilty but it doesn't help his cause to avoid being seen/proved innocent i know if someone was wanted in questioning for rape against my daughter then did a runner and his behind political situation. i'd think what a fuckin cunt....come out and prove you didn't do it and for those who think its all about america wanting him...wake up, stop making unfounded assumptions about the yanks Well i would agree with you but for four facts , 1. He has offered to pay for the detectives fares to come from Sweden to interview him all they want ,but that wasnt good enough ,they wanted him in custody....which is not normal treated of a swedish citizen 2. The Americans have stated they want him before a military court and have said the moment he is lifted will start extradition proceedings against him . 3.The Ecuadorian government sought clarification on both these counts and it was confirmed by the swedes and Americans. 4.When the Swedes were asked if he would be extradited to the USA regardless of the answers he gave,they sidestepped it by saying its impossible to pre-empt a request that has not been made yet. That is not natural justice for a man in his position and neither has Bradley Manning the man who gave Wikileaks the embassy cables recieved due process or natural justice its why the Ecuadorians found his request so compelling and granted him Asylum. " Lets also get this straight, the two acts of `rape' he is accused of are as follows, 1 having concensual sex with a woman and not stopping immediately she said no, there is no accusation of force but even so to my mind if true it is bang out of order, possibly vile and nasty even (there is a massive spectrum here from rape in effect to just not hearing whilst in the throws and none of us knows what went on ), but it would not be deemed as extraditable here.the second case is that two days later he had sex with someone else and failed to tell her that he had gone bareback 2 days before. This is an odd one and nowhere else that i know of would this be and issue, Sweden has taken the unusual step of asking for an extradition, not to charge but for the right to question, (something which they have never done for this sort of crime before and could easily do in the UK)given that we all know that the moment it goes to court in Sweden he will probably get off only to be immediatly extradited to the US as they intend and where the book will be thrown at him, the whole situation stinks.Its become a political football when Sweden could easily question him in the UK before demanding extradition. And why do the US hate him so much? for anyone who hasnt seen it check out the footage of the US helicopter murdering reporters in the middle east, it was whistleblowing and completely legal but the uS was really shown up by it. | |||
| |||
"Not sure what Bradley Manning has to do with all this other than it us someone else this creep Assange has used for his own purposes and then left to fend for himself. Of course Manning was a serving military and so comes under US military law. Something he signed up to and then betrayed. Assange isn't a Swedish citizen by the way. He us Australian and so the Swedish authorities have every right to deal with him as THEY see fit and have proven to each British court as perfectly legal and safe. some on here are falling for Assange's smoke and mirrors tricks. It's really really simple. He has been ordered by a British court, after due process, to be sent to Sweden. Anything else is pure speculation and t'internet bollocks. The British government has every right to detain a fugitive from British justice who had committed further crimes in Britain since he was ordered to be deported. Whether they think it is better to wait is another matter. And lastly the rule if Political Asylum is that the person is at risk of death, torture or inhumane treatment IN HIS HOME COUNTRY or in the country demanding his extradition. As neither Australia or Sweden practice these then there is no proper grounds for Asylum and Ecuador is in breach of the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention by granting his application. Nothing else is fact or of any relevance. It is really that simple!" Well your entitled to your opinion of course,but Anyone who has followed this from the start saw that, 1.The women collaborated on Facebook before going to the police. They went to the police,days later,"to ask "if it was illegal they way they had consensual sex. Neither woman contested Assange's amorous advances the next morning at the time. The cops rightly blew them off. 2. Some 'Entity' got the charges reinstated and sent to a prosecutor. The first prosecutor once again rightly blew them off. 3. The same 'Entity' got the Swedes to find a prosecutor that would file charges. 4. The charges are at the same level as a traffic ticket in Sweden. I was told it is a 750 kroner (£80) fine. So, who is this 'Entity' that can make a mockery of the Swedish and British justice systems and abuse a Euro arrest warrant ? These are bullshit accusations they only want to "talk" to him, so he said sure come over I'll even pay the costs....but the answer was a Euro arrest warrant Issued. All 3 countries Sweden ,Britain and the States refused to give guarantees he would not be extradited to the states speaks volumes to all who are watching the story unfold. Finally What has Bradley manning got to do with it ? You can not be serious on this he has spent 800+ days naked in a underground military prison without charge ,without due process or trial and i am sure they would love Assuage in the same position. Even the Swedish press are asking what the hell is going on and why is this man being pursued on flimsy discredited accusations. Finally I tell you what, go look at Assanges wiki page and go to the section on "Calls for Assange's assassination" and "Members of US Congress call for Espionage Act prosecution (of Assange)" and then tell me that man is not being persecuted !! | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's odd that the British Government are talking about entering the Embassy or refusing to give Assange safe passage out of the country. Do they only extend that courtesy to Lybian 'diplomats' who shoot female police officers from the windows of embassies?" What an excellent point | |||
"its always been that way between us an the americans" It hasn't. America wanted Britain to join in on their Vietnam venture but didn't get its way. | |||
| |||
"It's odd that the British Government are talking about entering the Embassy or refusing to give Assange safe passage out of the country. Do they only extend that courtesy to Lybian 'diplomats' who shoot female police officers from the windows of embassies? What an excellent point "Well not really. Much as l am sure the police would have wanted to arrest whoever did the shooting who were they supposed to arrest? Did they find a weapon to match ballistics and fingerprints? Did they have witnesses to the shooting prepared to give statements? Sadly the answer is no. So what were they supposed to do? British expelled as many as they could but never knew if the murderer was amongst those leaving. So that rather 'smart' comment was actually short on fact and long on emotion. Much like those who seem to be supporting this creep Assange. | |||
"It's odd that the British Government are talking about entering the Embassy or refusing to give Assange safe passage out of the country. Do they only extend that courtesy to Lybian 'diplomats' who shoot female police officers from the windows of embassies? What an excellent point
Well not really. Much as l am sure the police would have wanted to arrest whoever did the shooting who were they supposed to arrest? Did they find a weapon to match ballistics and fingerprints? Did they have witnesses to the shooting prepared to give statements?
Sadly the answer is no. So what were they supposed to do? British expelled as many as they could but never knew if the murderer was amongst those leaving.
So that rather 'smart' comment was actually short on fact and long on emotion. Much like those who seem to be supporting this creep Assange." | |||
"It's odd that the British Government are talking about entering the Embassy or refusing to give Assange safe passage out of the country. Do they only extend that courtesy to Lybian 'diplomats' who shoot female police officers from the windows of embassies? What an excellent point
Well not really. Much as l am sure the police would have wanted to arrest whoever did the shooting who were they supposed to arrest? Did they find a weapon to match ballistics and fingerprints? Did they have witnesses to the shooting prepared to give statements?
Sadly the answer is no. So what were they supposed to do? British expelled as many as they could but never knew if the murderer was amongst those leaving.
So that rather 'smart' comment was actually short on fact and long on emotion. Much like those who seem to be supporting this creep Assange. "I didn't read the OP as about Assange. As I have said, that is the case that may have raised the question but the ISSUE is about the principle. What I haven't understood from the 'Assange is a creep' posters is what they think of the principle of invading another embassy or consultate - space regarded as foreign soil and sovereign to that nation? Why evade that question and focus only on Assange? | |||
 | |||
"Hellooo . . . It is Assange they may want to go and arrest inside a diplomatic mission so the circumstances are absolutely relevant. "Nowhere have I indicated that it's not relevant. I merely say I do not understand how those focusing solely on Assange answer the OP. But silly me for asking three times about the principle. | |||
| |||
"Not sure what Bradley Manning has to do with all this other than it us someone else this creep Assange has used for his own purposes and then left to fend for himself. Of course Manning was a serving military and so comes under US military law. Something he signed up to and then betrayed. Assange isn't a Swedish citizen by the way. He us Australian and so the Swedish authorities have every right to deal with him as THEY see fit and have proven to each British court as perfectly legal and safe. some on here are falling for Assange's smoke and mirrors tricks. It's really really simple. He has been ordered by a British court, after due process, to be sent to Sweden. Anything else is pure speculation and t'internet bollocks. The British government has every right to detain a fugitive from British justice who had committed further crimes in Britain since he was ordered to be deported. Whether they think it is better to wait is another matter. And lastly the rule if Political Asylum is that the person is at risk of death, torture or inhumane treatment IN HIS HOME COUNTRY or in the country demanding his extradition. As neither Australia or Sweden practice these then there is no proper grounds for Asylum and Ecuador is in breach of the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention by granting his application. Nothing else is fact or of any relevance. It is really that simple!" Thought I had got it all wrong until I read the above - specially the last para about the fundamental basis of the granting of Political Asylum. From what I understand of the basic allegations against Assange in Sweden, he has manipulated the media and made this Country look stupid just so he doesn't have to sit in a Swedish Police interview room and provide his statement/version of events concerning those allegations. Sweden is NOT a tin-pot dictatorship - it has at least as well-developed legal system as ours (some may say more so), and to suggest that they would 'cowtow' to the USA and just 'hand him over' is ludicrous. If he is so sure he is innocent of the allegations - not charges - what is his problem...??? As for what he did in relation to the USA, he obtained SECRET, CLASSIFIED documents from a mole which he WAS NOT entitled to have. He then published them on a website and - IF what the US says is true - jeopardised the lives on a considerable number of armed forces personnel and others. Is it just that he did this to 'The Great Satan' why everyone if feeling sorry for him? What if he done that the the United Kingdom? What if he had obtained by theft, secret classified government documents which (although their contents may be extremely distasteful) jeopardised the lives of BRITISH service personnel, what would you be saying now? I doubt you would be falling for his smoke and mirrors ... If he did not appreciate what he was getting into when he set up a website aiming to expose by theft, the 'undercover activities' of Governments around the world and thought that the would just sit back and say 'That's fine Mr Assange - you have every right to do so'then he was a FOOL of the highest order. Every country on this planet will put the security of their citizens FIRST, and anyone who does anything deliberately which endangers them will not get away with it easily. Rant over!  | |||
"Hellooo . . . It is Assange they may want to go and arrest inside a diplomatic mission so the circumstances are absolutely relevant.
Nowhere have I indicated that it's not relevant. I merely say I do not understand how those focusing solely on Assange answer the OP. But silly me for asking three times about the principle."Sorry but l answered your question. The principle is that in the UK the police can enter a foreign embassy to detain someone charged with a criminal offence. In this case it is Assange. So yes they can but whether they will us a different matter as l said before. Should they? IMHO yes they should as it is a completely unique case. | |||
"Hellooo . . . It is Assange they may want to go and arrest inside a diplomatic mission so the circumstances are absolutely relevant.
Nowhere have I indicated that it's not relevant. I merely say I do not understand how those focusing solely on Assange answer the OP. But silly me for asking three times about the principle.
Sorry but l answered your question. The principle is that in the UK the police can enter a foreign embassy to detain someone charged with a criminal offence. In this case it is Assange. So yes they can but whether they will us a different matter as l said before. Should they? IMHO yes they should as it is a completely unique case."With the greatest respect to your arguement, Assange hasn't actually been charged with anything. He is wanted for questioning about formal allegations. That's why the Police can;t go into the Embassy. However, Assange will need to be VERY careful as the Embassy he has chosen is actually a small number of rooms in a shared building. The landing immediately outside the entrance door is NOT Equadorian terrority like the other rooms are... so makes you wonder how he is going to make his 'statement' outside the Embassy at 2pm on Sunday....... | |||
" What I haven't understood from the 'Assange is a creep' posters is what they think of the principle of invading another embassy or consultate - space regarded as foreign soil and sovereign to that nation? Why evade that question and focus only on Assange?" because that is the entire point.... I want to know why the people who support assange are so keen is disparage the swedish legal system, which has never come under this attack before.... and why they have all decided to slander and smear the women who brought forward the allergations against him... assange is an australian who fought the british legal system, took it as far as it would go, then when that was exhausted fled violating his bail conditions.... the irony being it is probably easier if the us were to really want to extridite him, to do it from the UK that it would be from sweden anyway.... | |||
"It's odd that the British Government are talking about entering the Embassy or refusing to give Assange safe passage out of the country. Do they only extend that courtesy to Lybian 'diplomats' who shoot female police officers from the windows of embassies? What an excellent point
Well not really. Much as l am sure the police would have wanted to arrest whoever did the shooting who were they supposed to arrest? Did they find a weapon to match ballistics and fingerprints? Did they have witnesses to the shooting prepared to give statements?
Sadly the answer is no. So what were they supposed to do? British expelled as many as they could but never knew if the murderer was amongst those leaving.
So that rather 'smart' comment was actually short on fact and long on emotion. Much like those who seem to be supporting this creep Assange."it is full of fact. both paragraphs are factually correct. Assange and Bradley Manning deserve credit for leaking the 'collateral murder'tape. Some may call him a traitor others will see him as someone wrestling with his conscience faced with tape of his countrymen wilfully murdering people.The video is horrifying and shows some people for what they really are. 'Just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up.' 'I think we whacked them all' 'nice shooting' 'does it look good?' 'Sweet' Just an everyday conversation for murdering bastards | |||
" With the greatest respect to your arguement, Assange hasn't actually been charged with anything. He is wanted for questioning about formal allegations. That's why the Police can;t go into the Embassy. However, Assange will need to be VERY careful as the Embassy he has chosen is actually a small number of rooms in a shared building. The landing immediately outside the entrance door is NOT Equadorian terrority like the other rooms are... so makes you wonder how he is going to make his 'statement' outside the Embassy at 2pm on Sunday....... "Assnage has skipped bail. A criminal offence. And that offence was committed just prior to his entering the Ecuadorian embassy / consulate. So I was correct in what I said. He has also resisted an Extradition warrant issued by a British Court. He may not have been charged in Sweden but he is now a criminal fugitive within the UK having committed two crimes within the UK prior to his Asylum application. The law that allows entry into Emabassies to arrest criminals therefore applies IMHO. | |||
"it is full of fact. both paragraphs are factually correct. Assange and Bradley Manning deserve credit for leaking the 'collateral murder'tape. Some may call him a traitor others will see him as someone wrestling with his conscience faced with tape of his countrymen wilfully murdering people.The video is horrifying and shows some people for what they really are. 'Just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up.' 'I think we whacked them all' 'nice shooting' 'does it look good?' 'Sweet' Just an everyday conversation for murdering bastards" Forgive me but what does Bradley Manning and his situation have to do with Assange being charged with offences in Sweden and committing criminal offences in the UK? I asked this before but none of the pro-Assange crew seem to want to reply. The only connection is the very clever and wily Assange blowing smoke to cover the real issues. Seems to me that those who get close to Mr Assange either get sexually assaulted (alledgedly) if you are a woman, get to lose loads of money forfeited in bail payments if you are his friends or get stuffed into Solitary if you are Bradley Manning. As I said before the man is a lying cheating creep out to cover his own sorry arse at whatever cost to whoever it takes. And as for being heroes to publish secret files? Nah. He did it to make loads of money. End of! | |||
" What I haven't understood from the 'Assange is a creep' posters is what they think of the principle of invading another embassy or consultate - space regarded as foreign soil and sovereign to that nation? Why evade that question and focus only on Assange? because that is the entire point.... I want to know why the people who support assange are so keen is disparage the swedish legal system, which has never come under this attack before.... and why they have all decided to slander and smear the women who brought forward the allergations against him... assange is an australian who fought the british legal system, took it as far as it would go, then when that was exhausted fled violating his bail conditions.... the irony being it is probably easier if the us were to really want to extridite him, to do it from the UK that it would be from sweden anyway.... " | |||
"Diplomatic soverignty should be sacrosanct, unless force is needed to prevent loss of life.. it should not be walked over to satisfy the angst of a superpower, exposed for crimes against humanity.. 'assange is a creep'? anyone ever met him btw? how much more evidence is needed that the americans have treated innocent people in the most deplorable way.. extroardinary rendition ring any bells... guantanimo, the lack of civil rights, the prevention of due process.. there are none so blind that will not see.. " All very emotive. And totally irrelevant to the situation at the Embassy. | |||
"Diplomatic soverignty should be sacrosanct, unless force is needed to prevent loss of life.. it should not be walked over to satisfy the angst of a superpower, exposed for crimes against humanity.. 'assange is a creep'? anyone ever met him btw? how much more evidence is needed that the americans have treated innocent people in the most deplorable way.. extroardinary rendition ring any bells... guantanimo, the lack of civil rights, the prevention of due process.. there are none so blind that will not see.. All very emotive. And totally irrelevant to the situation at the Embassy. " read the first sentence.. | |||
"it is full of fact. both paragraphs are factually correct. Assange and Bradley Manning deserve credit for leaking the 'collateral murder'tape. Some may call him a traitor others will see him as someone wrestling with his conscience faced with tape of his countrymen wilfully murdering people.The video is horrifying and shows some people for what they really are. 'Just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up.' 'I think we whacked them all' 'nice shooting' 'does it look good?' 'Sweet' Just an everyday conversation for murdering bastards Forgive me but what does Bradley Manning and his situation have to do with Assange being charged with offences in Sweden and committing criminal offences in the UK? I asked this before but none of the pro-Assange crew seem to want to reply. The only connection is the very clever and wily Assange blowing smoke to cover the real issues. Seems to me that those who get close to Mr Assange either get sexually assaulted (alledgedly) if you are a woman, get to lose loads of money forfeited in bail payments if you are his friends or get stuffed into Solitary if you are Bradley Manning. As I said before the man is a lying cheating creep out to cover his own sorry arse at whatever cost to whoever it takes. And as for being heroes to publish secret files? Nah. He did it to make loads of money. End of!" My second post was solely about collateral murder and i never linked it to the ongoing legal problems of assange in the uk.so your question is moot. and i said they deserved credit,i didn't call them 'heroes'why do you continually insert nouns of your own choice that no one else has used? | |||
| |||
"I see the conspiracy anti american and western tin foil hat brigade are out in force on here, talk about palovs dogs! We have sent plenty of others to the states on warrants of late, if they wanted him then why did they not apply to us??? Comeon tin foil brigade, why not? We probably would have sent him. The Swedes are a fair nation with a better legal and justice system than us, the guy is wanted for rape, lets not forget that with all the hot air being expelled, I do not have a view as to whether he is guilty or not, how can I, but he should go to Sweden and face the charges, this could be our sisters, mothers or daughters, its a serious crime, wikileaks is another affair but I note an Iranian journalist was recently put to death over there because he got identified by the wikileaks, every action has a reaction. But to the question, no, we should not have even hinted at going into their embassy and will regret this, it was stupid and hamfisted." its Pavlov.. | |||
"Diplomatic soverignty should be sacrosanct, unless force is needed to prevent loss of life.. it should not be walked over to satisfy the angst of a superpower, exposed for crimes against humanity.. 'assange is a creep'? anyone ever met him btw? how much more evidence is needed that the americans have treated innocent people in the most deplorable way.. extroardinary rendition ring any bells... guantanimo, the lack of civil rights, the prevention of due process.. there are none so blind that will not see.. All very emotive. And totally irrelevant to the situation at the Embassy. read the first sentence.." so why the rest then?.. | |||
"My second post was solely about collateral murder and i never linked it to the ongoing legal problems of assange in the uk.so your question is moot. and i said they deserved credit,i didn't call them 'heroes'why do you continually insert nouns of your own choice that no one else has used?" My apologies. I was interpreting your phrase 'deserving credit' as the opposite of being a 'traitor' and that was wrong. | |||
"Do you think the British Govt is right to threaten to enter the Embassy of another sovereign state.?" No, unless it is to prevent loss of life. An Embassy is part of a sovereign state and internationally accepted as such. That simply will not be jeopardized by our Foreign Office. | |||
| |||
| |||
"As for the Equadorians, they are not under the Juristiction of the European Arrest Warrant and are therefore completely within their rights to assess any asylum request or possible expulsion from their sovereign soil based on more detailed assessment of evidence in the Swedish case together with wider evidence relating to the US. Whether we accept or do not accept a US link behind the actions of Sweden is irrelevant. All that matters is what the Equadorians believe having assessed the application for asylum. I personally choose to respect the Equadorian judgement because they are the only ones who as part of the asylum request have assessed the wider picture. " Thank you for all three of your posts. Each point taken and argued logically. | |||
| |||
"I see the conspiracy anti american and western tin foil hat brigade are out in force on here, talk about palovs dogs! We have sent plenty of others to the states on warrants of late, if they wanted him then why did they not apply to us??? Comeon tin foil brigade, why not? We probably would have sent him. The Swedes are a fair nation with a better legal and justice system than us, the guy is wanted for rape, lets not forget that with all the hot air being expelled, I do not have a view as to whether he is guilty or not, how can I, but he should go to Sweden and face the charges, this could be our sisters, mothers or daughters, its a serious crime, wikileaks is another affair but I note an Iranian journalist was recently put to death over there because he got identified by the wikileaks, every action has a reaction. But to the question, no, we should not have even hinted at going into their embassy and will regret this, it was stupid and hamfisted." Pavlovs dogs - brilliant
| |||
"Diplomatic soverignty should be sacrosanct, unless force is needed to prevent loss of life.. it should not be walked over to satisfy the angst of a superpower, exposed for crimes against humanity.. 'assange is a creep'? anyone ever met him btw? how much more evidence is needed that the americans have treated innocent people in the most deplorable way.. extroardinary rendition ring any bells... guantanimo, the lack of civil rights, the prevention of due process.. there are none so blind that will not see.. All very emotive. And totally irrelevant to the situation at the Embassy. read the first sentence.. so why the rest then?.." My choice to say what i think on the forums Charlie.. if you cant make the connection between some of our friends across the ponds behaviour (not on their own mind)and assanges desire not to be 'handed over' if he is deported then your either totally blinkered or naive.. your quite happy to lable this guy a creep and spout off that others should look at themselves regarding the allegations against the guy.. you then accuse others of 'emotive' language.. pot and kettle springs to mind m8.. anyone happy that contravening the diplomatic status of another sovereign state over this issue is worth the obvious repercussions globally for anyone seeking asylum or protection then thats worrying to say the least.. | |||
"I see the conspiracy anti american and western tin foil hat brigade are out in force on here, talk about palovs dogs! We have sent plenty of others to the states on warrants of late, if they wanted him then why did they not apply to us??? Comeon tin foil brigade, why not? We probably would have sent him. The Swedes are a fair nation with a better legal and justice system than us, the guy is wanted for rape, lets not forget that with all the hot air being expelled, I do not have a view as to whether he is guilty or not, how can I, but he should go to Sweden and face the charges, this could be our sisters, mothers or daughters, its a serious crime, wikileaks is another affair but I note an Iranian journalist was recently put to death over there because he got identified by the wikileaks, every action has a reaction. But to the question, no, we should not have even hinted at going into their embassy and will regret this, it was stupid and hamfisted. Pavlovs dogs - brilliant
"but also totally irrelevant to the thread or anyones point of view from either side of the debate.. | |||
| |||
"I see the conspiracy anti american and western tin foil hat brigade are out in force on here, talk about palovs dogs! We have sent plenty of others to the states on warrants of late, if they wanted him then why did they not apply to us??? Comeon tin foil brigade, why not? We probably would have sent him. The Swedes are a fair nation with a better legal and justice system than us, the guy is wanted for rape, lets not forget that with all the hot air being expelled, I do not have a view as to whether he is guilty or not, how can I, but he should go to Sweden and face the charges, this could be our sisters, mothers or daughters, its a serious crime, wikileaks is another affair but I note an Iranian journalist was recently put to death over there because he got identified by the wikileaks, every action has a reaction. But to the question, no, we should not have even hinted at going into their embassy and will regret this, it was stupid and hamfisted. Pavlovs dogs - brilliant
but also totally irrelevant to the thread or anyones point of view from either side of the debate.. "Terribly sorry, I did not realise you represented the whole forum and spoke for them en masse, I am a naughty girl and will defer to your wise utterings in future. | |||
"If there were no leaks,there would be no rape. " Supposition. Proof? Which came first the chicken or the egg, in this case it was the rape. I feel some sympathy for the women concerned, their plight is simply ignored or ridiculed because it does not fit in with the conspiracy theories of others, those who wish to alter the hand to fit the glove. | |||
"I see the conspiracy anti american and western tin foil hat brigade are out in force on here, talk about palovs dogs! We have sent plenty of others to the states on warrants of late, if they wanted him then why did they not apply to us??? Comeon tin foil brigade, why not? We probably would have sent him. The Swedes are a fair nation with a better legal and justice system than us, the guy is wanted for rape, lets not forget that with all the hot air being expelled, I do not have a view as to whether he is guilty or not, how can I, but he should go to Sweden and face the charges, this could be our sisters, mothers or daughters, its a serious crime, wikileaks is another affair but I note an Iranian journalist was recently put to death over there because he got identified by the wikileaks, every action has a reaction. But to the question, no, we should not have even hinted at going into their embassy and will regret this, it was stupid and hamfisted. Pavlovs dogs - brilliant
but also totally irrelevant to the thread or anyones point of view from either side of the debate..
Terribly sorry, I did not realise you represented the whole forum and spoke for them en masse, I am a naughty girl and will defer to your wise utterings in future."dont think i said i did and in any case such an assumption is baseless, its just my opinion.. as is this as is yours.. perhaps debate why you think a proven reaction in dogs etc has any relevance to peoples views on certain aspects of this thread? instead of being sarcastic.. | |||
"If there were no leaks,there would be no rape. Supposition. Proof? Which came first the chicken or the egg, in this case it was the rape. I feel some sympathy for the women concerned, their plight is simply ignored or ridiculed because it does not fit in with the conspiracy theories of others, those who wish to alter the hand to fit the glove." Unfortunately where your post falls down is that he is not being investigated for rape,at no point has anyone accused him of Rape or that the sex was non consensual ,it is that he had sex with a woman knowing he had unprotected sex a week earlier.In Sweden its a minor misdemeanor and the penalty is a maximum £80 fine. He has not yet been charged or spoken too,The evidence of the two complainants has been thrown out by the police twice and public prosecutors office once,one of the women has admitted publicly she only "complained to support her friend" and they both went into the police station after a week to check "IF" any crime or misdemeanor had occured this after publicly discussing it on facebook for a week and trying to threaten to go to the police if he did not have a HIV test which is blackmail. He has offered to answer any questions numerous times and offered to pay for detectives to come over here to do it. I think one of the questions is ..Who is abusing the Euro arrest warrant where a man can be extradited for "questioning" on an allegation with a maximum penalty of £80 ?, it means any of us could be extradited for speeding in any euro country...its a complete mess tbh . | |||
| |||
"Why bring all this trouble to the british people? He could had gone into another country. He abused the system and clearly calculated all his options. The british gov is not stupid to enter any embassy. But I don't think there will be any way out for Assange " Unfortunately that's exactly what they threatened Ecuador with (Despite the damage limitation exercise and current denials at the South American countries meeting yesterday).A spokesman for the foreign office admitted doing so on sky. They just did not expect Ecuador to go public with the diplomatic sabre rattling,of course it will all blow over.But if that's what we are now calling modern diplomacy ,it makes you wonder about how we come across to other countries,as it seems to hark back to the gun boat era to me. | |||
| |||
"I hope they won't do that as plenty of crazy countries out there will take it as an excuse to enter any british embassy and kidnap who they want When you start breaking some rules no matter the reason you open a pandore" I totally agree with you ,as some one said earlier sorry i forgot who ,it has been handled in a real hamfisted way | |||
" As I said before the man is a lying cheating creep out to cover his own sorry arse at whatever cost to whoever it takes. And as for being heroes to publish secret files? Nah. He did it to make loads of money. End of!" Would you not class this paragraph as 'emotive language' Charlie? Do you offer any evidence to back up this attack on his character? | |||
" As I said before the man is a lying cheating creep out to cover his own sorry arse at whatever cost to whoever it takes. And as for being heroes to publish secret files? Nah. He did it to make loads of money. End of! Would you not class this paragraph as 'emotive language' Charlie? Do you offer any evidence to back up this attack on his character?" Yes entirely emotive but backed up by my many posts on this matter which l won't repeat here. Scroll up and l think my position as regards to this gentleman is both clear and substantiated. | |||
"If there were no leaks,there would be no rape. Supposition. Proof? Which came first the chicken or the egg, in this case it was the rape. I feel some sympathy for the women concerned, their plight is simply ignored or ridiculed because it does not fit in with the conspiracy theories of others, those who wish to alter the hand to fit the glove. Unfortunately where your post falls down is that he is not being investigated for rape,at no point has anyone accused him of Rape or that the sex was non consensual ,it is that he had sex with a woman knowing he had unprotected sex a week earlier.In Sweden its a minor misdemeanor and the penalty is a maximum £80 fine. He has not yet been charged or spoken too,The evidence of the two complainants has been thrown out by the police twice and public prosecutors office once,one of the women has admitted publicly she only "complained to support her friend" and they both went into the police station after a week to check "IF" any crime or misdemeanor had occured this after publicly discussing it on facebook for a week and trying to threaten to go to the police if he did not have a HIV test which is blackmail. He has offered to answer any questions numerous times and offered to pay for detectives to come over here to do it. I think one of the questions is ..Who is abusing the Euro arrest warrant where a man can be extradited for "questioning" on an allegation with a maximum penalty of £80 ?, it means any of us could be extradited for speeding in any euro country...its a complete mess tbh . " I find it very disturbing that a man can put the accusations laid at Julian Assange are a minor misdemeanour and to down play them as you have says a lot. There are accusations against Julian Assange saying he sexually molested her. The Swedish authorities want him to stand trial. The facts are that he is unwilling to stand trial. The assumption from most people would be an innocent man would want to prove himself innocent. So lets look at the real facts not what has occurred on facebook where one party in question being adept at hacking and altering details. Also he has been accused of rape on August 20th when The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Assange for two separate allegations one of rape and one of molestation. The authorities did not have enough evidence to charge him of rapw The Swedish authorities have informed the judge that two women who accused Assange of sexual assault did not freely consent to his advances but felt "trapped" into "submitting to his will". So I think its fair to say non consensual sex is NOT minor misdemeanour! | |||
" As I said before the man is a lying cheating creep out to cover his own sorry arse at whatever cost to whoever it takes. And as for being heroes to publish secret files? Nah. He did it to make loads of money. End of! Would you not class this paragraph as 'emotive language' Charlie? Do you offer any evidence to back up this attack on his character?" no offence.. but the way the potential victims have been smeared by the people who have supported assange is a lot worse..... | |||
" As I said before the man is a lying cheating creep out to cover his own sorry arse at whatever cost to whoever it takes. And as for being heroes to publish secret files? Nah. He did it to make loads of money. End of! Would you not class this paragraph as 'emotive language' Charlie? Do you offer any evidence to back up this attack on his character? no offence.. but the way the potential victims have been smeared by the people who have supported assange is a lot worse....." | |||
"Why bring all this trouble to the british people? He could had gone into another country. He abused the system and clearly calculated all his options. The british gov is not stupid to enter any embassy. But I don't think there will be any way out for Assange Unfortunately that's exactly what they threatened Ecuador with (Despite the damage limitation exercise and current denials at the South American countries meeting yesterday).A spokesman for the foreign office admitted doing so on sky. They just did not expect Ecuador to go public with the diplomatic sabre rattling,of course it will all blow over.But if that's what we are now calling modern diplomacy ,it makes you wonder about how we come across to other countries,as it seems to hark back to the gun boat era to me. "
Spot on, some would even choose to call the behavior of our Foreign Office arrogance.
This hamfisted attempt at intimidating the Equadorians is just the type of thing that wikileaks would look to leak!
Ah the benefits of going public.... | |||
" As I said before the man is a lying cheating creep out to cover his own sorry arse at whatever cost to whoever it takes. And as for being heroes to publish secret files? Nah. He did it to make loads of money. End of! Would you not class this paragraph as 'emotive language' Charlie? Do you offer any evidence to back up this attack on his character? no offence.. but the way the potential victims have been smeared by the people who have supported assange is a lot worse....." No offence taken because I agree, but you appear to have missed the point, non of them appear to have complained about others using emotive language, unlike Charlie. | |||
| |||
"CUT I find it very disturbing that a man can put the accusations laid at Julian Assange are a minor misdemeanour and to down play them as you have says a lot. There are accusations against Julian Assange saying he sexually molested her. The Swedish authorities want him to stand trial. The facts are that he is unwilling to stand trial. The assumption from most people would be an innocent man would want to prove himself innocent. So lets look at the real facts not what has occurred on facebook where one party in question being adept at hacking and altering details. Also he has been accused of rape on August 20th when The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Assange for two separate allegations one of rape and one of molestation. The authorities did not have enough evidence to charge him of rapw The Swedish authorities have informed the judge that two women who accused Assange of sexual assault did not freely consent to his advances but felt "trapped" into "submitting to his will". So I think its fair to say non consensual sex is NOT minor misdemeanour! " Ohhh purrrlease do not try to second guess or insinuate my attitude to rape violent or sexual abuse is anything other than normal into this it does the points you make no credit what so ever,the law is supposed to act on facts not opinion,if you want to talk facts lets look at it chronologically as you have made a few statements that are wholly incorrect. August 10, 2010: Assange arrives in Stockholm and stays at the home of Anna Ardin, a Swedish woman. They engage in consensual sex. Despite the prosecutor’s claim that Assange sexually assaulted her that night, she throws a party for him the next day, and he stays at her home for another week. August 14, 2010: Assange meets with Sofia Wilen, another Swedish woman, at a party. August 16, 2010: Assange meets up with Sofia Wilen, a 26-year old Swedish woman. They have consensual sex that evening. There is a question of whether or not Assange did not use a condom, or if he used one and it broke. She never refers to the event as rape. August 18, 2010: Assange departs Stockholm. Wilen is worried about having contracted an STD from Assange (she did not), and contacts Ardin. The two of them visit the police in order to get help finding Assange; there is no mention of rape, and Wilen insists that she only wants to find out from him if she is at risk of an STD. Both women texted one another during this period, never mentioning rape or sexual assault. Both texted and called other people and had conversations about Assange which were entirely positive; no mention was made of misconduct at all.!!! August 19th, 2010: A police report is written in which the women are portrayed as victims of two different sex crimes. A prosecutor orders an arrest warrant for Julian Assange. Wilen is so upset, she refuses to sign the statement, saying it does not reflect the facts of her encounter with Assange. Either the police or prosecutors leak the statements to the press, contravening Swedish law. August 29th, 2010: Assange calls Swedish authorities and makes a statement. Despite promises his testimony will not be released, it is also leaked illegally to the press. August 30th, 2010: Assange voluntarily turns himself in to the Swedish authorities for questioning. He is interviewed and is not charged with any crime, and told he is free to leave the country. September 15th, 2010: Assange again volunteers to appear for questioning, but the prosecutor says this is unnecessary. September 27th, 2010: Assange leaves Sweden, not having been told by anyone in authority that he could not do so. Additionally, if you want to persist in the belief that this entire disgraceful scandal is about nothing but Julian Assange and his predilection for sexual assault perhaps you should consider the following questions: * If the Swedish authorities only want to question Assange about the alleged assaults — which they have already done twice — why would they not consent to do so in England, or over the internet? Why do they insist on taking him into custody, especially since there are no charges against him? * Why did Sweden reject Assange’s offer to voluntarily turn himself in to avoid the release of an arrest warrant? * Who illegally released information on the women’s testimony and Assange’s statements to the press? * Why did one victim refuse to sign off on the ‘statement’ Swedish police crafted for her? * Why was the arrest warrant for Assange an INTERPOL Red Notice, usually reserved for terrorists and dictators (even Muammar Gaddafi only received an Orange Notice)? * Why has Assange’s UK legal advisor been placed on a travel watch list normally reserved for terror suspects? * Even if Assange is guilty of sexual assault, why would both the US and the UK be so interested in seeing him extradited for a strictly domestic issue? * Why has the FBI, whose authority does not reach beyond US borders, been seeking people willing to testify against Assange? * If the US is not interested in gaining custody of Assange, why will they not make a statement promising not to arrest or detain him? * Why would the UK threaten to revoke Ecuador’s diplomatic status, and ignore well-established laws regarding political asylum, in order to arrest someone suspected of sexual assault in another country — something they have failed to do for dictators, terrorsts and murderers? There is no serious legal basis for the allegations of sexual abuse against Assange—the Swedish authorities have not even lodged formal charges against him ,the report made to the judge you mention the judge tossed out the charges for lack of evidence. The accusations were made by two women who sought out Assange and had "fully consensual relations" with him. Its like a guy being visited after a couple of years and being told that woman you shagged 2 years ago has alleged she felt a bit pressured ,even though she consented at the time.oh and her mate you shagged the week after has also reported you, but its ok she has since retracted and said she only did it behalf of her mate to support her. On the other side of the Atlantic ,cables released today by the Australian govt via a question under the Freedom of Information act have confirmed the American do plan to charge and try him for espionage.and ill quote the report here. --------------------------- Sydney, Aug 18 (ANI): United States prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against Julian Assange, and are intent on pursuing the Wikileaks founder, declassified diplomatic cables have revealed. The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting Assange for more than 18 months. The diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, showed Australia's ambassador, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the revelations are contrary to comments made by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges of leaking US military and diplomatic documents. He had repeatedly dismissed suggestions that the US has any interest in prosecuting and extraditing Assange. However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Assange has been ongoing for more than a year". The embassy identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud. _____________________________ Still think this is about sexual misconduct ? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Thank you PleasureDome for such a detailed post. The one area in Julian Assange's argument about his fear of extradition to the US that isn't quite adding up for me is why the US would need or want any Swedish involvement? Why would they (as some theorize) be behind a rehash of some sexual assault charges? Would it not be just as easy, some would say easier to have him extradited from the UK direct to the US? They didn't hesitate in issuing extradition proceedings immediately in the Gary McKinnon case, the guy who hacked into NASA. I'm keen to understand why it would be easier for the US to get their hands on him if he were in Swedish custody. " Yep people have asked that question as well in other places ,the issue being What exactly is he guilty of in the USA all he did was publish govt documents passed to him by a third party ,something National newspapers have done plenty of times before to break stories. I do not know the rules of extradition however at the time of the wikileaks breaking the Bradley man evidence the servers were in Sweden those servers came under constant attack and still could not stop the flow of evidence What i really think is not based on fact or provable but i believe the people who want to see Julian Assange put away and WikiLeaks shut down don’t have to do anything extreme. They don’t need to kill him, or hire a double to pretend to be him, or to spend billions of dollars on elaborate plots and conspiracies. All they have to do is make people distrust him enough that they won’t care when he gets thrown in a deep, dark hole. They rely on people not caring what happens to Assange the same way they’ve proven not to care what happens to Bradley Manning. But maybe that's just the cynical side of me
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"CUT I find it very disturbing that a man can put the accusations laid at Julian Assange are a minor misdemeanour and to down play them as you have says a lot. There are accusations against Julian Assange saying he sexually molested her. The Swedish authorities want him to stand trial. The facts are that he is unwilling to stand trial. The assumption from most people would be an innocent man would want to prove himself innocent. So lets look at the real facts not what has occurred on facebook where one party in question being adept at hacking and altering details. Also he has been accused of rape on August 20th when The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Assange for two separate allegations one of rape and one of molestation. The authorities did not have enough evidence to charge him of rapw The Swedish authorities have informed the judge that two women who accused Assange of sexual assault did not freely consent to his advances but felt "trapped" into "submitting to his will". So I think its fair to say non consensual sex is NOT minor misdemeanour! Ohhh purrrlease do not try to second guess or insinuate my attitude to rape violent or sexual abuse is anything other than normal into this it does the points you make no credit what so ever,the law is supposed to act on facts not opinion,if you want to talk facts lets look at it chronologically as you have made a few statements that are wholly incorrect. August 10, 2010: Assange arrives in Stockholm and stays at the home of Anna Ardin, a Swedish woman. They engage in consensual sex. Despite the prosecutor’s claim that Assange sexually assaulted her that night, she throws a party for him the next day, and he stays at her home for another week. August 14, 2010: Assange meets with Sofia Wilen, another Swedish woman, at a party. August 16, 2010: Assange meets up with Sofia Wilen, a 26-year old Swedish woman. They have consensual sex that evening. There is a question of whether or not Assange did not use a condom, or if he used one and it broke. She never refers to the event as rape. August 18, 2010: Assange departs Stockholm. Wilen is worried about having contracted an STD from Assange (she did not), and contacts Ardin. The two of them visit the police in order to get help finding Assange; there is no mention of rape, and Wilen insists that she only wants to find out from him if she is at risk of an STD. Both women texted one another during this period, never mentioning rape or sexual assault. Both texted and called other people and had conversations about Assange which were entirely positive; no mention was made of misconduct at all.!!! August 19th, 2010: A police report is written in which the women are portrayed as victims of two different sex crimes. A prosecutor orders an arrest warrant for Julian Assange. Wilen is so upset, she refuses to sign the statement, saying it does not reflect the facts of her encounter with Assange. Either the police or prosecutors leak the statements to the press, contravening Swedish law. August 29th, 2010: Assange calls Swedish authorities and makes a statement. Despite promises his testimony will not be released, it is also leaked illegally to the press. August 30th, 2010: Assange voluntarily turns himself in to the Swedish authorities for questioning. He is interviewed and is not charged with any crime, and told he is free to leave the country. September 15th, 2010: Assange again volunteers to appear for questioning, but the prosecutor says this is unnecessary. September 27th, 2010: Assange leaves Sweden, not having been told by anyone in authority that he could not do so. Additionally, if you want to persist in the belief that this entire disgraceful scandal is about nothing but Julian Assange and his predilection for sexual assault perhaps you should consider the following questions: * If the Swedish authorities only want to question Assange about the alleged assaults — which they have already done twice — why would they not consent to do so in England, or over the internet? Why do they insist on taking him into custody, especially since there are no charges against him? * Why did Sweden reject Assange’s offer to voluntarily turn himself in to avoid the release of an arrest warrant? * Who illegally released information on the women’s testimony and Assange’s statements to the press? * Why did one victim refuse to sign off on the ‘statement’ Swedish police crafted for her? * Why was the arrest warrant for Assange an INTERPOL Red Notice, usually reserved for terrorists and dictators (even Muammar Gaddafi only received an Orange Notice)? * Why has Assange’s UK legal advisor been placed on a travel watch list normally reserved for terror suspects? * Even if Assange is guilty of sexual assault, why would both the US and the UK be so interested in seeing him extradited for a strictly domestic issue? * Why has the FBI, whose authority does not reach beyond US borders, been seeking people willing to testify against Assange? * If the US is not interested in gaining custody of Assange, why will they not make a statement promising not to arrest or detain him? * Why would the UK threaten to revoke Ecuador’s diplomatic status, and ignore well-established laws regarding political asylum, in order to arrest someone suspected of sexual assault in another country — something they have failed to do for dictators, terrorsts and murderers? There is no serious legal basis for the allegations of sexual abuse against Assange—the Swedish authorities have not even lodged formal charges against him ,the report made to the judge you mention the judge tossed out the charges for lack of evidence. The accusations were made by two women who sought out Assange and had "fully consensual relations" with him. Its like a guy being visited after a couple of years and being told that woman you shagged 2 years ago has alleged she felt a bit pressured ,even though she consented at the time.oh and her mate you shagged the week after has also reported you, but its ok she has since retracted and said she only did it behalf of her mate to support her. On the other side of the Atlantic ,cables released today by the Australian govt via a question under the Freedom of Information act have confirmed the American do plan to charge and try him for espionage.and ill quote the report here. --------------------------- Sydney, Aug 18 (ANI): United States prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against Julian Assange, and are intent on pursuing the Wikileaks founder, declassified diplomatic cables have revealed. The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting Assange for more than 18 months. The diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, showed Australia's ambassador, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the revelations are contrary to comments made by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges of leaking US military and diplomatic documents. He had repeatedly dismissed suggestions that the US has any interest in prosecuting and extraditing Assange. However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Assange has been ongoing for more than a year". The embassy identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud. _____________________________ Still think this is about sexual misconduct ? " Great post.... one problem... all one sides and pure conjucture/speculation and press put out by one side.... guess which? isn't that what a court of law is for.... I'm sorry.. but the swedes are the one who put in the european arrest warrent... the swedes went thru the legal process.... the uk went thru the legal process... only one side of this decided to break with the conditions of the bail that was set for them... which side??? why go thru the process if this was your plan all along..... makes the people who put up their bail money and have now lost it look very stupid..... people ARE playing down the allegations, and like you have done... tried to smear the people who have made them... that should be up to a swedish court and a swedish jury to decide.. no one else.... it would be easier for the us to get a extridition warrant from the UK to the US if that was the plan... but they have gotten into his head so much they have already won.... they have taken away his liberty and freedom... | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"CUT I find it very disturbing that a man can put the accusations laid at Julian Assange are a minor misdemeanour and to down play them as you have says a lot. There are accusations against Julian Assange saying he sexually molested her. The Swedish authorities want him to stand trial. The facts are that he is unwilling to stand trial. The assumption from most people would be an innocent man would want to prove himself innocent. So lets look at the real facts not what has occurred on facebook where one party in question being adept at hacking and altering details. Also he has been accused of rape on August 20th when The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Assange for two separate allegations one of rape and one of molestation. The authorities did not have enough evidence to charge him of rapw The Swedish authorities have informed the judge that two women who accused Assange of sexual assault did not freely consent to his advances but felt "trapped" into "submitting to his will". So I think its fair to say non consensual sex is NOT minor misdemeanour! Ohhh purrrlease do not try to second guess or insinuate my attitude to rape violent or sexual abuse is anything other than normal into this it does the points you make no credit what so ever,the law is supposed to act on facts not opinion, " Condescending as you are you are not quoting facts are you its conjecture and internet whispers and unlike the Swedish authorities you actually have no valid information at your hands to make judgement. I didn’t second guess I think you refered to what could potentially be a custodial sentence of more than 2 years as minor. "if you want to talk facts lets look at it chronologically as you have made a few statements that are wholly incorrect. August 10, 2010: Assange arrives in Stockholm and stays at the home of Anna Ardin, a Swedish woman. They engage in consensual sex. Despite the prosecutor’s claim that Assange sexually assaulted her that night, she throws a party for him the next day, and he stays at her home for another week. August 14, 2010: Assange meets with Sofia Wilen, another Swedish woman, at a party. August 16, 2010: Assange meets up with Sofia Wilen, a 26-year old Swedish woman. They have consensual sex that evening. There is a question of whether or not Assange did not use a condom, or if he used one and it broke. She never refers to the event as rape. August 18, 2010: Assange departs Stockholm. Wilen is worried about having contracted an STD from Assange (she did not), and contacts Ardin. The two of them visit the police in order to get help finding Assange; there is no mention of rape, and Wilen insists that she only wants to find out from him if she is at risk of an STD. Both women texted one another during this period, never mentioning rape or sexual assault. Both texted and called other people and had conversations about Assange which were entirely positive; no mention was made of misconduct at all.!!! August 19th, 2010: A police report is written in which the women are portrayed as victims of two different sex crimes. A prosecutor orders an arrest warrant for Julian Assange. Wilen is so upset, she refuses to sign the statement, saying it does not reflect the facts of her encounter with Assange. Either the police or prosecutors leak the statements to the press, contravening Swedish law." August 20th 2010 when The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Assange for two separate allegations one of rape and one of molestation. I presume the omission is to avoid the act you said “at no point has anyone accused him of Rape or that the sex was non consensual” " August 29th, 2010: Assange calls Swedish authorities and makes a statement. Despite promises his testimony will not be released, it is also leaked illegally to the press. August 30th, 2010: Assange voluntarily turns himself in to the Swedish authorities for questioning. He is interviewed and is not charged with any crime, and told he is free to leave the country. September 15th, 2010: Assange again volunteers to appear for questioning, but the prosecutor says this is unnecessary. September 27th, 2010: Assange leaves Sweden, not having been told by anyone in authority that he could not do so. Additionally, if you want to persist in the belief that this entire disgraceful scandal is about nothing but Julian Assange and his predilection for sexual assault perhaps you should consider the following questions: * If the Swedish authorities only want to question Assange about the alleged assaults — which they have already done twice — why would they not consent to do so in England, or over the internet? Why do they insist on taking him into custody, especially since there are no charges against him? * Why did Sweden reject Assange’s offer to voluntarily turn himself in to avoid the release of an arrest warrant? * Who illegally released information on the women’s testimony and Assange’s statements to the press? * Why did one victim refuse to sign off on the ‘statement’ Swedish police crafted for her?" I wonder if that could be down to threats made against the woman perhaps? " * Why was the arrest warrant for Assange an INTERPOL Red Notice, usually reserved for terrorists and dictators (even Muammar Gaddafi only received an Orange Notice)? * Why has Assange’s UK legal advisor been placed on a travel watch list normally reserved for terror suspects? * Even if Assange is guilty of sexual assault, why would both the US and the UK be so interested in seeing him extradited for a strictly domestic issue? * Why has the FBI, whose authority does not reach beyond US borders, been seeking people willing to testify against Assange? * If the US is not interested in gaining custody of Assange, why will they not make a statement promising not to arrest or detain him? * Why would the UK threaten to revoke Ecuador’s diplomatic status, and ignore well-established laws regarding political asylum, in order to arrest someone suspected of sexual assault in another country — something they have failed to do for dictators, terrorsts and murderers? There is no serious legal basis for the allegations of sexual abuse against Assange—the Swedish authorities have not even lodged formal charges against him ,the report made to the judge you mention the judge tossed out the charges for lack of evidence. The accusations were made by two women who sought out Assange and had "fully consensual relations" with him." The women in question have not said this though and the evidence presented to the British courts says they did not freely consent to his advances but felt "trapped" into "submitting to his will" now you may think its a ‘minor misdemeanour’ but I don’t think the women in question do " Its like a guy being visited after a couple of years and being told that woman you shagged 2 years ago has alleged she felt a bit pressured ,even though she consented at the time.oh and her mate you shagged the week after has also reported you, but its ok she has since retracted and said she only did it behalf of her mate to support her." I fail to see any relevance in that what so ever and comparing it to a woman you shagged 2 years ago is just belittling the events " On the other side of the Atlantic ,cables released today by the Australian govt via a question under the Freedom of Information act have confirmed the American do plan to charge and try him for espionage.and ill quote the report here. --------------------------- Sydney, Aug 18 (ANI): United States prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against Julian Assange, and are intent on pursuing the Wikileaks founder, declassified diplomatic cables have revealed. The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting Assange for more than 18 months. The diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, showed Australia's ambassador, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the revelations are contrary to comments made by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges of leaking US military and diplomatic documents. He had repeatedly dismissed suggestions that the US has any interest in prosecuting and extraditing Assange. However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Assange has been ongoing for more than a year". The embassy identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud. _____________________________ Still think this is about sexual misconduct ? " Being patronising, quoting internet gossip as facts are just laughable. It may surprise you to know but there may be more than one issue going on here and to disregard an alleged abuse on women as a minor misdemeanour on a site that’s predominantly for sexual encounters between the opposite sex beggars belief. | |||
"I agree with you PD. If the US is in any way influencing the Swedish case it is in an attempt to discredit Assange and to fight back in the most important court as far as they are concerned, the court of public opinion. The US have come out of this whole Wikileaks drama with even more of a tarnished reputation and clearly want revenge by attempting to not only shoot the messenger, but deter future whistleblowers and the medium through which they blow. Land of the free..... " Once again - short, to the point and a message I can totally agree with. | |||
"CUT Being patronising, quoting internet gossip as facts are just laughable. It may surprise you to know but there may be more than one issue going on here and to disregard an alleged abuse on women as a minor misdemeanour on a site that’s predominantly for sexual encounters between the opposite sex beggars belief. " Condescending?? I tell you what if its condescending to correct your inaccuracies then i am guilty as charged. You State that he was charged on the 20th August of Rape,I deliberately left that out as that is actually a libelous statement to make and his defense team are warning organisations against publishing it. If you check around,the charges were withdrawn with 12 hours without reason given. if you want check that out its on the BBC webpage at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 Lets be clear here there are no charges laid against him at present. At no time have i spoken about you or to you in a personal way or undermined and ridiculed your posts ,i have only put an opposing view to yours or corrected your inaccuracies. So how about we cut the personal attacks and deal with facts eh. | |||
| |||
"And thats just how he has become untouchable. No matter what he is accused of, he comes out with "it's all a trick to hand me over to the Americans". And people go "poor thing, he must be innocent of whatever he's accused of doing"" There is a real danger of that also, I agree - this is the trouble with the amount of publicity before any proceedings. But as they say should we not adhere to "innocent until proven guilty"? just a thought... | |||
 | |||
| |||
