Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Hague says Assange will not be allowed to leave the country...
Surely Ecuador can use the Diplomatic bag concept and we are powerless to stop it. Will we violate the DB?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by StarBeast. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ichkeria........"I wonder if the best option for JA might not to be to go to Swrden (sic) and be convicted...."
So, you have him down as guilty already? Do you actually know what his offence was in Sweden? From the radio this morning, it was having sex with a woman, or women, without using a condom. Apparently, in Sweden, it can be classed as rape if the woman later complains. The sex can be consensual but, if she later complains that she didn't know the man wasn't using a condom, she can claim rape. This, according to this morning's radio report, is what he is accused of and why we are so determined to have him extradited. So determined, in fact, that we are threatening to send in the police to the Ecuadorian Embassy to remove him and have 40 officers outside the Embassy in case he steps outside the front door.
You'd think he was a dangerous terrorist and not simply someone who had unprotected sex with a woman.
So, you have him down as guilty already? Do you actually know what his offence was in Sweden? From the radio this morning, it was having sex with a woman, or women, without using a condom. Apparently, in Sweden, it can be classed as rape if the woman later complains. The sex can be consensual but, if she later complains that she didn't know the man wasn't using a condom, she can claim rape. This, according to this morning's radio report, is what he is accused of and why we are so determined to have him extradited. So determined, in fact, that we are threatening to send in the police to the Ecuadorian Embassy to remove him and have 40 officers outside the Embassy in case he steps outside the front door.
You'd think he was a dangerous terrorist and not simply someone who had unprotected sex with a woman.
"You'd think he was a dangerous terrorist and not simply someone who had unprotected sex with a woman. "
judging by this "About three dozen elite and other police units surrounded the embassy early Friday. " he must be seriously dangerous !!
and all those now protesting at the embassy are no doubt having their actions filmed and put on file for future reference.
whole situation is ludicrous, and all because the yanks are leaning on everybody , so they all bow down and fawn, yes sir no sir , whatever you want sir.
An all to familiar story where they are concerned
judging by this "About three dozen elite and other police units surrounded the embassy early Friday. " he must be seriously dangerous !!
and all those now protesting at the embassy are no doubt having their actions filmed and put on file for future reference.
whole situation is ludicrous, and all because the yanks are leaning on everybody , so they all bow down and fawn, yes sir no sir , whatever you want sir.
An all to familiar story where they are concerned
"you have him down as guilty already? Do you actually know what his offence was in Sweden? From the radio this morning, it was having sex with a woman, or women, without using a condom. Apparently, in Sweden, it can be classed as rape if the woman later complains. The sex can be consensual but, if she later complains that she didn't know the man wasn't using a condom, she can claim rape. This, according to this morning's radio report, is what he is accused of and why we are so determined to have him extradited. So determined, in fact, that we are threatening to send in the police to the Ecuadorian Embassy to remove him and have 40 officers outside the Embassy in case he steps outside the front door. "
"We" aren't "determined" to have him extradited for any other reason than that the Swedish court have formally requested it and it's gone through a a court. As you are no doubt aware the courts here are independent and it is the duty of the government to uphold the law. Unlike in some other countries where it is the duty of the courts to fulfil the will of the government.
If he's confident of his innocence he can go to Sweden and be interviewed as the Swedes are requesting and they may decide he has no case to answer. But to date he's done a very good impression of a man trying to escape justice by conjuring up a non-existent (as yet and possibly never) threat of extradition to the US.
"i seem to recall a rwandan war lord, murderer, whatever he was called, was found alive and well living on benefits in Lewisham, Sarf London some years ago. "
Yes I remember that but I don't think he'd been granted asylum and even if he had it would have been because he'd covered up his crimes.
As I'm sure you're aware immigration forms to the UK include a section where you have to declare you're NOT a war criminal. I realise that real war criminals aren't going to admit the truth about that but it does imply that in principle we don't grant - knowingly - asylum to such people.
"We" aren't "determined" to have him extradited for any other reason than that the Swedish court have formally requested it and it's gone through a a court. As you are no doubt aware the courts here are independent and it is the duty of the government to uphold the law. Unlike in some other countries where it is the duty of the courts to fulfil the will of the government.
If he's confident of his innocence he can go to Sweden and be interviewed as the Swedes are requesting and they may decide he has no case to answer. But to date he's done a very good impression of a man trying to escape justice by conjuring up a non-existent (as yet and possibly never) threat of extradition to the US.
"i seem to recall a rwandan war lord, murderer, whatever he was called, was found alive and well living on benefits in Lewisham, Sarf London some years ago. "
Yes I remember that but I don't think he'd been granted asylum and even if he had it would have been because he'd covered up his crimes.
As I'm sure you're aware immigration forms to the UK include a section where you have to declare you're NOT a war criminal. I realise that real war criminals aren't going to admit the truth about that but it does imply that in principle we don't grant - knowingly - asylum to such people.
"About three dozen elite and other police units surrounded the embassy early Friday. " he must be seriously dangerous !! "
That's the whole nonsensical attitude that, with respect, seems to bedevil this case. Police units aren't surrounding the embassy because Assange is "dangerous". It's because, fairly obviously, the Ecuadoreans are likely to try to smuggle him out of the country and stage a fairly impressive propaganda coup, or at least that's what we think.
It's actually not beyond the bounds of possibility that the whole thing is just a bit of posturing and that Assange has no intention of going to Ecuador.
"the yanks are leaning on everybody "
Again, where is your evidence that "the Yanks" are leaning on people?
That's the whole nonsensical attitude that, with respect, seems to bedevil this case. Police units aren't surrounding the embassy because Assange is "dangerous". It's because, fairly obviously, the Ecuadoreans are likely to try to smuggle him out of the country and stage a fairly impressive propaganda coup, or at least that's what we think.
It's actually not beyond the bounds of possibility that the whole thing is just a bit of posturing and that Assange has no intention of going to Ecuador.
"the yanks are leaning on everybody "
Again, where is your evidence that "the Yanks" are leaning on people?
No sorry I subsequently realised that no actual comparison was being made (though there are similarities superficially).
In the case of Abu Qatada the government went out of its way to seek assurances from the Jordanian government about Abu Qatada's treatment, probably largely because of the court ruling, I don't know. In the case of Julian Assange, the issue is not one of his treatment in Sweden as far as I am aware, but his supposed extradition from there to the US. Firstly, it would be wholly unrealisitic for the government to seek assurances from Sweden about that, largely because no such extradition request from the US exists! Despite that fact however the Swedes have voluntarily stated that he cannot be extradited to the US anyway on a capital charge. But, again, I'd just repeat, no such extradition request exists and to my knowledge has not even been talked about (except by Assange and his supporters, and no doubt some zealous but misguided US "patriots")
In the case of Abu Qatada the government went out of its way to seek assurances from the Jordanian government about Abu Qatada's treatment, probably largely because of the court ruling, I don't know. In the case of Julian Assange, the issue is not one of his treatment in Sweden as far as I am aware, but his supposed extradition from there to the US. Firstly, it would be wholly unrealisitic for the government to seek assurances from Sweden about that, largely because no such extradition request from the US exists! Despite that fact however the Swedes have voluntarily stated that he cannot be extradited to the US anyway on a capital charge. But, again, I'd just repeat, no such extradition request exists and to my knowledge has not even been talked about (except by Assange and his supporters, and no doubt some zealous but misguided US "patriots")
Does anyone seriously think this is about a "rape"? Please! This is is comparable to the Boxer Mike Tyson's "rape". The alleged offence occured 2 years ago, why didn't the Swedes arraset him at the time? People please! I'm not one for conspiracy theories etc but really one has to ask about what suddenly induced the Swedes to apply for extradition on this "offence" that wasn't even an offence in normal logic, there can be only one explaination.
Twenty20, far from the case being one of, as you say, "simply someone who had unprotected sex with a woman", our High Court held a very different opinion, as you will see by clicking on my link below.
http://ind.pn/OlrnhM
Here's an extract...
"Assange's lawyer described the allegations of the other woman in graphic detail in court...(and)...the woman claimed she tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open. Many of his supporters argued that this would not constitute rape according to English law, which is simply untrue. Our High Court ruled that: "It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did."
Now, I have no way of knowing whether he actually did what the woman claimed and nor have you, but the place for it to be put to the test is in a Swedish courtroom if prosecutors there so decide after questioning Assange.
I suspect that most reasonable people would respect the legal opinion of the justices of the High Court rather than yours!
http://ind.pn/OlrnhM
Here's an extract...
"Assange's lawyer described the allegations of the other woman in graphic detail in court...(and)...the woman claimed she tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open. Many of his supporters argued that this would not constitute rape according to English law, which is simply untrue. Our High Court ruled that: "It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did."
Now, I have no way of knowing whether he actually did what the woman claimed and nor have you, but the place for it to be put to the test is in a Swedish courtroom if prosecutors there so decide after questioning Assange.
I suspect that most reasonable people would respect the legal opinion of the justices of the High Court rather than yours!
"Does anyone seriously think this is about a "rape"? Please! This is is comparable to the Boxer Mike Tyson's "rape". The alleged offence occured 2 years ago, why didn't the Swedes arraset him at the time? People please! I'm not one for conspiracy theories etc but really one has to ask about what suddenly induced the Swedes to apply for extradition on this "offence" that wasn't even an offence in normal logic, there can be only one explaination. "
So explain why, in your view, Sweden wants to extradite Mr Assange if it isn't to question him about alleged sexual offences. (I believe the reason for the delay was that the allegations were not made immediately as is often the case with this sort of incident)
So explain why, in your view, Sweden wants to extradite Mr Assange if it isn't to question him about alleged sexual offences. (I believe the reason for the delay was that the allegations were not made immediately as is often the case with this sort of incident)
Does anyone know for any certainty that Julian Assange is still in the UK.?
He is an an Australian and could well be back in his home country; where there does not appear to be any legal issues against him.
The whole set-up of WikiLeaks is mysterious. The site is still operating and appears to have its headquarters in Sweden and its Internet Server based in the USA.
Ron.
He is an an Australian and could well be back in his home country; where there does not appear to be any legal issues against him.
The whole set-up of WikiLeaks is mysterious. The site is still operating and appears to have its headquarters in Sweden and its Internet Server based in the USA.
Ron.
StarBeast, if a close female relative of yours (wife/sister?) claimed she'd been raped here in Britain and the man accused had since gone to Hungary, would you find it acceptable that he should refuse to return here for questioning and then skulk off to hide in the Chilean embassy in Budapest? Or would you be yelling from the rooftops that the bar-steward must be sent here whether he likes it or not?
I rather suspect your attitude would be the latter!
I rather suspect your attitude would be the latter!
Starbeast the reason they habmve to extradite him is because he won't go voluntarily. I don't know why the Swedes don't come to Britain. But what if they did come to interview him? What then? They'd either decide he should be charged at which point he probably would still have to be extradited. And if they decided he didn't what then for Mr Assange? He'd then no longer have any cause to portray himself as a victim - unless and until the US tried to extradite him. Then even I would support him because altho I think he's a posturing creep I don't believe he has a case to answer in the US.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.