Assange to go!

Just raid the place and get him. Most of South America dislikes us due to Argentina anyway, it's not going to make things much worse.
 
Xordium said:
If this is only about rape accusations, then why can't Sweden and the UK guarantee that he will be safe from extradition to the US?
Click to expand...

Giving someone immunity from extradition without any extradition request placed against them is somewhat premature don't you think? As no case has been presented for extradition we have no idea what charges he would face or what evidence there is against him.
 
RDM said:
Giving someone immunity from extradition without any extradition request placed against them is somewhat premature don't you think? As no case has been presented for extradition we have no idea what charges he would face or what evidence there is against him.
Click to expand...

Well it's quite clear someone has to budge isn't it. Sweden consents to interview over here, Sweden agree to not extradite to the US in a specific timescale etc. The fact those two are not being performed speaks volumes to me. And it's quite clear what he would be charged under the Espionage Act.
 
Let's face it, if it was the Russian embassy, the government would be bricking their pants and wouldn't even threaten to waltz into the embassy, the British government are just bully's and see Ecuador as easy meat.

And you wonder why Iran would want Nuclear weapons... no one messes with you, the USA are bullies - always butting into world affairs, but they woudn't mess with any Nuclear armed country at the risk of been wiped out.

 
Last edited:
Xordium said:
Well it's quite clear someone has to budge isn't it. Sweden consents to interview over here, Sweden agree to not extradite to the US in a specific timescale etc. The fact those two are not being performed speaks volumes to me. And it's quite clear what he would be charged under the Espionage Act.
Click to expand...

Can the UK even do that? Our woefully one sided extradition treaty with the US sets the benchmark, we can't very well say one the one hand this is who we will extradite to the USA, but then say we don't want to see this person extradited from a different country.
 
Nelly said:
And you wonder why Iran would want Nuclear weapons... no one messes with you, the USA are bullies - always butting into world affairs, but they woudn't mess with any Nuclear armed country at the risk of been wiped out.
Click to expand...

Pakistan has nukes and the USA regularly bombs them killing many of their civilians in the process.

A small nuclear nation cannot "wipe out America" it could potentially do a lot of damage but it would be difficult and the U?SA could certainly wipe out the country in retaliation, a feat they are easily capable of.

To wipe out America you're talking hundreds/thousands of nukes + a massive conventional army to destroy the navy and all forigen bases that would make it their mission in life to destroy you in revenge.
 
Last edited:
desires said:
Who knows, but why wouldn't the UK/Sweden sign off on the promise of no extradition?
Click to expand...

What if we can't guarantee it for far less sinister reasons? What if there is no legal process available to block any potential future extradition between two other countries?

Imagine he does something utterly deplorable in 30 years time and the US legitimately seeks to exrtadict him for it but can't because 30 years previously there was an agreement he could never be extradicted to the US just to get him to answer questions about a sexual assault which had nothing to do with the USA in the first place?

The whole extradition thing to the US seems fundamentally baseless and pointless and I'm not suprised two countries won't form an agreemnet not to do something that has absolutely nothing to do with the case anyway!
 
scorza said:
Can the UK even do that? Our woefully one sided extradition treaty with the US sets the benchmark, we can't very well say one the one hand this is who we will extradite to the USA, but then say we don't want to see this person extradited from a different country.
Click to expand...

Not what we want is it - it's the Swedes that want him and the US. I just wish the fool had never arrived in this country.
 
[TW]Fox;22576531 said:
What if we can't guarantee it for far less sinister reasons? What if there is no legal process available to block any potential future extradition between two other countries?

Imagine he does something utterly deplorable in 30 years time and the US legitimately seeks to exrtadict him for it but can't because 30 years previously there was an agreement he could never be extradicted to the US just to get him to answer questions about a sexual assault which had nothing to do with the USA in the first place?

The whole extradition thing to the US seems fundamentally baseless and pointless and I'm not suprised two countries won't form an agreemnet not to do something that has absolutely nothing to do with the case anyway!
Click to expand...

Well if it is nothing to do with the case why won't they consent to interview him over here and why won't they give a guarantee not to extradite in a short-term ie until the allegations are tested. Seems the logical solution to me.

Ecuador accepts Assange.
Assange says he will face the accusations.
Sweden consents to question and charge as appropriate.
Sweden guarantees he will remain in the country until the potential charges are satisfied or negated.
After that time passage to Ecuador is guaranteed if innocent.
If convicted after parole passage to Ecuador is guaranteed.
 
Xordium said:
And it's quite clear what he would be charged under the Espionage Act.
Click to expand...

The thing is, it's not clear. Only to CTers who have already made their minds up and can see the Shapshifters of the New World Order plotting his extradition to Guantanamo as we speak.

People who actually know about the act though aren't as sure...

Werman: Well US senator Dianne Feinstein stated that Assange was violating the espionage act of nineteen seventeen, can you tell us what that act is and whether you think that Assange is infact as the senator says violating that act?

Quigley: Well the act is rather unclear, this is title eighteen of the US code it says anyone who has unauthorised possession of material relating to the national defence, which the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation who communicates that information is subject to prosecution, so it would need to be shown not only that he transmitted the information but that he had reason to believe that it would be used to the injury of the United States, so I think there is some question as to whether the espionage act would work and the federal authorities have not charged Assange with that offense.
Click to expand...
 
Xordium said:
Well if it is nothing to do with the case why won't they consent to interview him over here and why won't they give a guarantee not to extradite in a short-term ie until the allegations are tested. Seems the logical solution to me.

Ecuador accepts Assange.
Assange says he will face the accusations.
Sweden consents to question and charge as appropriate.
Sweden guarantees he will remain in the country until the potential charges are satisfied or negated.
After that time passage to Ecuador is guaranteed if innocent.
If convicted after parole passage to Ecuador is guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Everything seems so simple and easy to those of us on internet forums with no real knowledge of the facts. None of us really know whats going on, what Assanges real motivation is, whether he did it or not, whether this is injustice or not, whether it's a ruse to avoid prosecution, etc etc.

It's very simple to come up with the answer when all you have to do his hit Submit Reply.
 
Last edited:
Could this not have been fixed with a Swedish court coming to the UK and just setting up a temporary Swedish area and have the trial here?

Seems like less hassle.
 
[TW]Fox;22576638 said:
Everything seems so simple and easy to those of us on internet forums with no real knowledge of the facts. None of us really know whats going on, what Assanges real motivation is, whether he did it or not, whether this is injustice or not, whether it's a ruse to avoid prosecution, etc etc.

It's very simply to come up with the answer when all you have to do his hit Submit Reply.
Click to expand...

Yes, it easy for me to suggest and it is so all very easy for you to flippantly disregard without actually saying whether that would be a reasonable compromise or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom