Assange to go!
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
If he had an "insurance file" then Mr Assange would have been "filed" some time ago....The truth is more likely that no one (other than Assange himself) really cares all that much.
But what would such a file tell us. We know they are corrupt, we know they assassinate, we know they lie, we know they start wars at the instigation of corporate greed, we know they know we are far too comfortable to rock the boat.
![Chris [BEANS]](/styles/overclockers/avatars/6.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 6,374
- Location
- Bigger box!
Maybe too OT, if so perhaps I'll start another thread...
Until this thread I'd never heard of this Bradley Manning chap. Now granted I've only read the Wiki so I'm hardly an expert, but I don't think any of what I've read is being disputed...
Anyway, so this Manning who appears to have mental health issues, knowingly and deliberately illegally copied files and data from military servers, right?
Then, knowing that it was illegal to do so and would endanger the national security of his country that he had sworn to defend and potentially endanger many lives gave it to someone to plaster all over the internet.
He then goes and tells a random on the net about it, gets caught and duly locked up for extremely serious crimes against his country, and yet people here seem to think he's hard done by??
How can anyone be on his side?? That makes no sense. I'm very willing to open mindedly listen to peoples reasons, but I can't imagine anyone who thinks that's OK can convince me to see their point of view.
Until this thread I'd never heard of this Bradley Manning chap. Now granted I've only read the Wiki so I'm hardly an expert, but I don't think any of what I've read is being disputed...
Anyway, so this Manning who appears to have mental health issues, knowingly and deliberately illegally copied files and data from military servers, right?
Then, knowing that it was illegal to do so and would endanger the national security of his country that he had sworn to defend and potentially endanger many lives gave it to someone to plaster all over the internet.
He then goes and tells a random on the net about it, gets caught and duly locked up for extremely serious crimes against his country, and yet people here seem to think he's hard done by??
How can anyone be on his side?? That makes no sense. I'm very willing to open mindedly listen to peoples reasons, but I can't imagine anyone who thinks that's OK can convince me to see their point of view.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 6,374
- Location
- Bigger box!
OK, well again I don't claim to speak with any authority, but he's in military prison right?
And the rest of the population of a military prison will be soldiers, right?
Now granted, they'll be in there for a multitude of reasons, some serious, some less so, but I would imagine that the vast majority will still be brave young men who are willing to fight and die for their country.
Men who have taken the same oath to defend their country as Manning but who perhaps did so honestly.
Men who are trained killers who are proud of the country they have enlisted to serve and defend.
I strongly believe that solitary confinement would be the safest place for a chap like Manning.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,793
- Location
- London
Why on earth should they? There are no special circumstances here.
Assange doesn't want to go to Sweeden, a country with a very open legal system, very well ranked on the world corruption index and with a very good human rights record, and instead wants to seek refuge in an office, effectively giving himself an indefinite sentance, instead of answering some questions from the Sweedish prosecutors. Unless you're some kind of conspiracy theorist, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.
Oh and there's no hope of him becoming an Ecuadorial diplomat, the UK Government would have to approve the appointment. Can't see that happening somehow..
Saw a journalist post on twitter earlier that they spoke to someone outside the embassy this morning supporting Assange and asked them about the rape and sexual assault allegations. "Well everyone makes mistakes", they replied.
The key question for me remains if the US want to extradite him, why didn't they just do it from the UK.
All the conspiracy theories about Sweden and the crime there are all well and good but we have an agreement with the US and they are just as likely to get him from the UK as from Sweden.
So the question is why has Assange sought asylum in Ecuador, a country with an extradition agreement with the US but none with Sweden.
All the conspiracy theories about Sweden and the crime there are all well and good but we have an agreement with the US and they are just as likely to get him from the UK as from Sweden.
So the question is why has Assange sought asylum in Ecuador, a country with an extradition agreement with the US but none with Sweden.
The conspiracy theorists would say that if the US issued an extradition request while he was in Equador, it would be much more likely to be blocked than if he was in Sweden.
Why on earth should they? There are no special circumstances here.
Assange doesn't want to go to Sweeden, a country with a very open legal system, very well ranked on the world corruption index and with a very good human rights record, and instead wants to seek refuge in an office, effectively giving himself an indefinite sentance, instead of answering some questions from the Sweedish prosecutors. Unless you're some kind of conspiracy theorist, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.
Oh and there's no hope of him becoming an Ecuadorial diplomat, the UK Government would have to approve the appointment. Can't see that happening somehow..
Saw a journalist post on twitter earlier that they spoke to someone outside the embassy this morning supporting Assange and asked them about the rape and sexual assault allegations. "Well everyone makes mistakes", they replied.
World corruption index?
A fool could spot how stupid that would be from the outset.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,793
- Location
- London
So, you reckon Ecuador is a better bet than Sweeden?
They might but they would be as likely to get him here as in Sweden, we are not reluctant to allow the US to take our citizens (we are keener than they are in terms of reciprocity indeed) so why don't they just seek extradition from here? There would be no real fuss, he has no huge following here and while there will be a few protests no one would really cause huge disruption over it.
It seems to me if they wanted him they could have him now.
So one can really only draw the conclusion that he doesn't want to go to Sweden because of the crime and the US don't want him that much.
The idea they should just go and have a little talk to him in the embassy is also madness..no one else would be treated in that way. If someone who was not him was under suspicion of rape its hardly likely they would pop round for a chat. He appears to think he should be treated differently than others and be above the law.
Yes.
He is friends with a few powerful people in Ecuador, it's pretty safe for him.
The only safer country for him is probably Iceland where wikileaks is currently located where whistle-blowing is protected in the constitution.
Depends how intimate you are with the reality of law and politics, If the US really want him, when the news dies down they can do as they please, he certainly can't hide without being quite literally several steps ahead or having that insurance file actually be credible.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,793
- Location
- London
My point was more with regards to someone who is on a supposed crusade for freedom of information and whatnot.
I mean, Ecuador?
Also, do either of you believe he should come to face questions over the allegations of sexual assault and rape?