Assange to go!

mmj_uk said:
Transparancy will only lead to less corruption, lies and deceit.

Sending Assange to rot in Guantanimo will ensure that it continues and we'll fight more false wars.
Click to expand...

I struggle to believe in a man who fights for 'transparency' when it concerns other people, but when it comes to his own affairs actively evades arrest. Let's have some transparency about his alleged rapes.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
 
Innocent till proven guilty, If it is just for questioning I don't see why he needs to be extradited.

If however I've missed an update and they have a decent case against him then screw it soz bro Off you go.
 
Theophany said:
I struggle to believe in a man who fights for 'transparency' when it concerns other people, but when it comes to his own affairs actively evades arrest. Let's have some transparency about his alleged rapes.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but why won't the Swedish do it over here. All seems very fishy to get him sent to the US in my eyes.
 
He has no chance of getting out of the embassy. I wouldn't be surprised if they go in and get him any way. They could evoke the embassies status and get him.

Personally I am pretty fed up he came to the UK to challenge all this. He is wanted by the Swedes and scared of the Yanks. No don't he came here because he considered us a soft touch.

Whatever happens we lose.
 
Last edited:
- The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release’) clause. The UK’s judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

- Public opinion and the media (to a greater extent) are more sympathetic to Julian Assange in the UK than in Sweden. Public pressure could draw out the process of extradition to the United States in the UK. In Sweden the media climate is hostile (see Media climate in Sweden) due to the sex allegations. Public outcry would be significantly weaker and therefore less likely to stand in the way of a strategically convenient extradition.

- In the UK, Julian Assange is better able to defend himself, muster support and understand the legal procedures against him. In Sweden on the other hand, the language barrier prevents him from effectively challenging the actions against.

- The UK is politically better positioned to withstand pressure from the United States than Sweden. Sweden is a small country of nine million people close to Russia. It has grown increasingly dependent on the United States. In recent years Sweden has complied with directives from the United States in a manner that has not been scrutinised by Parliament, as has been revealed by the disclosed diplomatic cables (see Political Interference).
Click to expand...

Taken from http://justice4assange.com

Fair enough, I can see why people are saying that it's easier in Sweden.
 
wildman said:
actually yes, why would they....... can anyone answer this ???
Click to expand...

I think someone mentioned it a page or 2 back. Under UK law we can't send him to the US, we have a legal obligation to fight the extradition (or something like that), like it or not. We CAN send him to Sweden and they CAN send him to the US.

It just allows the US to get what they want without making us look bad.
 
Mercutio said:
I think someone mentioned it a page or 2 back. Under UK law we can't send him to the US, we have a legal obligation to fight the extradition (or something like that), like it or not. We CAN send him to Sweden and they CAN send him to the US.
Click to expand...

UK and the US have famously loose agreement on this, just look how quick we were to try and extradite Gary Mckinon and Richard O'Dwyer when the US came calling so why would Assange be different.

The UK are far more willing to extradite to the US than Sweden far from the cases I've seen.

Besides that answers point 1 of my criticism of these conspiracy claims. But I'm more interested in the conspiracy theorists answering the point I made here about the allegations....

estebanrey said:
Why fabricate such a poor crime?
As far as I understand it the rape allegations against Julian Assange are far from water-tight, there’s no physical evidence and ultimately the case will rely on the testimonies of two women versus what he says. Seems like a pretty rubbish thing to come up with if the idea is to smear Assange and get him convicted in Sweden; it would have been much easier for the police to have simply planted some kiddie porn on his hard drive; that way they would have physical evidence against him and not be relying on two people who at any point in the future could ‘spill the beans’ and reveal they were coerced into making the claims by the CIA (or whoever the conspiracy theorists believe instigated this). Only an idiot would come up with the idea of the current allegations if the true nature of this was to get Assange to ‘pay for what he did one way or another’.

It would be much easier to secure a conviction for child porn on his computer, would require no outside or non-officials witnesses who may screw up 'the plan' and carries an even dimmer view than rape does (hence being a better tool to smear him with).
Click to expand...
 
Well that poor crime has effectively stopped him functioning, diverted attention away from the leaks onto him, split Wikileaks into factions for and against him ... quite a successful attempt if it was one. It is also a removable one if they wanted to offer him something so he leaked what he knew and who he knew and how they knew it.
 
assangevzuckerman.jpg
 
Xordium said:
Well that poor crime has effectively stopped him functioning, diverted attention away from the leaks onto him, split Wikileaks into factions for and against him ... quite a successful attempt if it was one. It is also a removable one if they wanted to offer him something so he leaked what he knew and who he knew and how they knew it.
Click to expand...

But that would have happened with ANY allegation levelled against him and the conspiracy theory relies on him being convicted or extradited to Sweden from where he will be passed to the US authorities.

If you have a different CT where the crime was fabricated solely to make his life a bit of hassle but doesn't result in the US trying to get their hands on him that is a different theory and not one I was answering.

Besides his day to day involvement with Wikileaks stopped long before these allegation arose.
 
[TW]Fox;22574799 said:
Why would the USA need to get him via Sweden?
Click to expand...

The swedes can extradite people easier. Heck, we can't even get rid of Abu Qatada a known terrorist.
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
I think someone mentioned it a page or 2 back. Under UK law we can't send him to the US, we have a legal obligation to fight the extradition (or something like that), like it or not. We CAN send him to Sweden and they CAN send him to the US.

It just allows the US to get what they want without making us look bad.
Click to expand...

still don't get it. The UK have always handed or been easily prepared to hand people over to the US lock stock and barrel. That autistic dude who hacked into the defence network and that old boy who got sent over for arms dealing or something...... so why wouldn't they simply hand over this bell end also ???

ALso to the conspiracy theorists who think the rape allegations are just a set up to get him to Sweden....... really................. don't you think they'd come up with something more airtight that would guarantee a result like planting him with drugs or weapons or something that would secure an extradition with no questions asked ????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom