Assange to go!

The problem I see with all of this, is this morning on my way to work, the kind newsreader informed me that someone in the British govt had stated they can enter and take Assange under some act passed in 1997 regarding embassies.
The world was told this.
Equador then granted asylum.
Now we are stating he won't be granted safe passage, so basically either stay in the embassy or get arrested, which is a completely different thing to the bold statement made this morning.

Right or wrong, if you state you have the 'right' to do something, and then the situation arises and you don't do it, you look like an arse in front of the entire world.

It would be much better if the initial announcement regarding entering the embassy to get him had never been made, just the second statement denying safe passage.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
The problem I see with all of this, is this morning on my way to work, the kind newsreader informed me that someone in the British govt had stated they can enter and take Assange under some act passed in 1997 regarding embassies.
The world was told this.
Equador then granted asylum.
Now we are stating he won't be granted safe passage, so basically either stay in the embassy or get arrested, which is a completely different thing to the bold statement made this morning.

Right or wrong, if you state you have the 'right' to do something, and then the situation arises and you don't do it, you look like an arse in front of the entire world.

It would be much better if the initial announcement regarding entering the embassy to get him had never been made, just the second statement denying safe passage.
Click to expand...

I thought that was what the UK was good at, saying something then not doing it and sitting on our ass.
 
Sweden is has one of the most respected legal systems in the world, they have already said that they cannot extradite Assange to the USA on any charges that have a death penalty under their own laws and if Assange has been given Political Asylum, is that not reserved for people who are at real risk of persecution in their HOME country, as in Australia. Are people seriously saying that Julian Assange is at risk of persecution and mistreatment in Australia, or the United Kingdom or even Sweden for that matter.......
 
doofer said:
snip images
Click to expand...


+1

facts:

- Woman A had consentual protected sex with Assange but accuses him of purposely breaking the condom (this is her statement and not Assange's defense)

- a day later Woman A throws a party at her house and invites Assange "the alleged rapist" to her party

- Woman W and Assange had sexual activity in cinema and later went to her residence and had consentual protected sex, but the following morning, she is half awake and Assange is having unprotected sex with her. (this is her statement and not Assange's defense) there is no mention she resisted, said no etc...

- a few days later Woman A and W meet up, discuss and want Assange STD tested. Assange says he is clean and does't have the time. Women go to police station

- Assange was interviewed by Swedish police, prosecutor drops the case.

- subsequently a more senior prosecutor reopens the case

- no charges have been made, Swedish prosecution wants to question Assange and claims they made an international arrest warrant because they did not know where he was.

- Assange is willing to do more interviews in the UK but does not want to go back to Sweden, since he is fearful of being deported to US from there

- US wants Assange for Pentagon leaks where he could face death penalty for breaching national security with classified document leaks. US govt also threatens The Guardian and NY Times if they continue to publish WikiLeaks documents

- the UK will not deport people to countries where they could face death penalty, so a transit via Sweden is necessary

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2035032,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?ref=julianpassange
 
Last edited:
The Americans are their own worst enemy when it comes to punishing people for serious crimes commited outside their own borders.

They seem to either shout their mouths of about 'nailing them to the wall' or completely fail to recognise the law of the foreign nation when requesting extradition. or Both.

You can add Gary McKinnon to this list.
 
Xordium said:
Well it's quite clear someone has to budge isn't it.
Click to expand...

Like Assange maybe? It would be the quickest, cheapest and most expedient way of resolving the situation...

Xordium said:
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...

But why should they? Why should they treat him any different from any other suspected criminal? What makes him so special we should make all sorts of exceptions? Have the US even started any sort of proceedings against him?
 
englishpremier said:
But they will extradite (should a request be made) if the punishment is not the death penalty but sent to guantanamo for the rest of this life
Click to expand...

Who said?, The Swedish Authorities have said there is no application from the United States to extradite and they have stated that they cannot and will not extradite on the charges that the United States would have cause to request as they could potentially carry the death penalty. It is immaterial as to whether the United States say they will not press for the death penalty, it exists and to circumvent the Swedish legasl position they would have to alter their laws and constitution as it relates to espionage and treason. Something that is highly improbable.

In short the chances that Assange would be extradited to the US if he returned to Sweden to answer what are very serious criminal (not political) allegations are extremely unlikely, particularly given the Swedish authorities statements and the publicity surrounding such an action.
 
Excuse my ignorance, it's genuine ignorance and not trolling....

What's in it for Ecuador??

Assange is (to say the least) a very controversial political figure, he has been accused of a criminal act and in both America and completely separate offences in his home country.
His crimes against America potentially carry the death penalty, which is actually a result for him as this is also the reason that we will not extradite him to America.

He is required, by his home country, to answer questions relating to the crimes alleged against him, as would anybody accused of such crimes.
This does not sound unreasonable??
Beyond that, there is also the potential that no charges will be brought against him, as I understand it he is merely required to answer questions.

If what I read above is correct, regardless of the outcome of these allegations Sweden will not extradite him either due to the potential death penalty.

So why are Ecuador offering him asylum?
What does it have to do with them??

Why shouldn't this man answer to the allegations made against him same as everyone else accused of crimes?

It's not like he's already been tried and convicted unfairly and is to be punished beyond the bounds of his human rights, he's simply being asked to account for himself.
At worst, he faces trial. If he didn't do anything, then what's he worried about??
 
I was watching the news, and just got a screenshot of a familiar looking man exiting through the front door of the embassy with a briefcase wearing a trench coat. Does anyone recognise him?

2ep0ak0.png
 
Chris [BEANS];22577278 said:
Excuse my ignorance, it's genuine ignorance and not trolling....

What's in it for Ecuador??

Assange is (to say the least) a very controversial political figure, he has been accused of a criminal act and in both America and completely separate offences in his home country.
His crimes against America potentially carry the death penalty, which is actually a result for him as this is also the reason that we will not extradite him to America.

He is required, by his home country, to answer questions relating to the crimes alleged against him, as would anybody accused of such crimes.
This does not sound unreasonable??
Beyond that, there is also the potential that no charges will be brought against him, as I understand it he is merely required to answer questions.

If what I read above is correct, regardless of the outcome of these allegations Sweden will not extradite him either due to the potential death penalty.

So why are Ecuador offering him asylum?
What does it have to do with them??

Why shouldn't this man answer to the allegations made against him same as everyone else accused of crimes?

It's not like he's already been tried and convicted unfairly and is to be punished beyond the bounds of his human rights, he's simply being asked to account for himself.
At worst, he faces trial. If he didn't do anything, then what's he worried about??
Click to expand...


first of Assange is Australian, so Sweden is not his home country

secondly he was interviewed before by Swedish prosecution they dropped the case

subsequently, a senior prosecutor reopened the case.

Assange is willing to do a second interview but wants it done in UK and not Sweden where he fears being deported to US

may be worth you reading these articles from reliable and reputed news sources to understand exactly what he is accused of. calling it rape is an insult to rape victims imo as this will trivialize other cases that have more basis

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...035032,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/wo...julianpassange
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...assange-sweden
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom