You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange
October 22 2021 6.08pm

Julian Assange

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 4 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

 

View Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 22 Feb 13 11.27pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Feb 2013 9.27pm
You appear to believe that there isn't much validity to the charges yet seem dead set against Assange answering them. As I've said, if they are so weak what is there to fear.

Where is the past evidence that the Swedish legal system isn't robust and fair?

Again, you fail to answer the point that if the charges are made up why would a framing organisation choose such a hard crime to convict on?


It is neither about whether the Swedish judicial system is just or fair, nor is it about a conviction; it's about extradition to Sweden. Following their judicial processes to the letter:

a. Have to extradite him from the UK to Sweden for questioning, whether the charges are trumped up or not;
b. Once there, they have made it pretty clear that they will not rule out onward extradition proceedings.

I don't think I can put my point across in any more of a straightforward and clear way than that. I don't care whether you agree with me or not, just that you actually understand the point I have made, which you have consistently failed to do thus far.

If you really want him gone, focus your bile on the UK government wanting to take him into custody if he leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy. Let him go to Ecuador and let Sweden or the US extradite him from there.

 


WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Smuff81's Profile Smuff81 Flag 22 Feb 13 11.36pm Send a Private Message to Smuff81 Add Smuff81 as a friend

the US breaks international law every day

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ChuFukka's Profile ChuFukka Flag 22 Feb 13 11.57pm Send a Private Message to ChuFukka Add ChuFukka as a friend

Quote Smuff81 at 22 Feb 2013 11.36pm

the US breaks international law every day

[Link]


Really? Using warisacrime.com as a source is like quoting the Guardian.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Smuff81's Profile Smuff81 Flag 22 Feb 13 11.59pm Send a Private Message to Smuff81 Add Smuff81 as a friend

it really doesnt take many google searces to prove this regardless of the web site i chose to use

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View tome's Profile tome Flag Inner Tantalus Time. 23 Feb 13 12.00am Send a Private Message to tome Add tome as a friend

It would cost us a damn sight less if we just let him go. It'll have been done before.

The timing reminded me of the DSK affair at the IMF, in the run up there were a number of sneering articles in various newspapers. It was all just a bit too fishy for my liking, especially as he was starting to take on banks more effectively.

Assange has been his own worst enemy at times, but I'm more suspicious of US motives. I think he probably used publicity as a way to avoid being taken out quietly.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed the recent flurry of public secret service f'ck ups? The bloke killed in his bath, the Prisoner X in Israel, the fake passport stuff. None of this strikes me as particularly remarkable, other than that it's being made public...

 


A one and a two...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Smuff81's Profile Smuff81 Flag 23 Feb 13 12.07am Send a Private Message to Smuff81 Add Smuff81 as a friend

and to be fair using warcrimes.com is probley a lot more factual than a state run paper like the Guardian, please show me some proof of whats written there not being true??

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Schuloff's Profile Schuloff Flag Hackney 23 Feb 13 11.41am Send a Private Message to Schuloff Add Schuloff as a friend

Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Feb 2013 6.10pm

The Swedish extradition is a fit up from beginning to end. There's no way he'll ever get a fair trial.


Echoing a previous poster, it's odd with CF I either wholeheartedly agree (as in this case ) or disagree.
Assange is a brave man, as so was Bradley Manning the U.S. soldier alleged to have passed this information on to Wikileaks. His work is truly significant. A hero of this new century.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 23 Feb 13 11.44am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote Smuff81 at 23 Feb 2013 12.07am

and to be fair using warcrimes.com is probley a lot more factual than a state run paper like the Guardian, please show me some proof of whats written there not being true??


It doesn't work like that.

If you make an accusation it's for you to prove it. Not for the accused to prove it isn't true.

I briefly went on that site....It appeared to be going on about US officials being war criminals due to Bush's wars.

I repeat the actual facts. If the US have broken international war, point me towards the trail of said officials in the Haig.

Emotive language, that's all that's offered.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 23 Feb 13 12.13pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 22 Feb 2013 11.27pm


It is neither about whether the Swedish judicial system is just or fair, nor is it about a conviction; it's about extradition to Sweden. Following their judicial processes to the letter:

a. Have to extradite him from the UK to Sweden for questioning, whether the charges are trumped up or not;
b. Once there, they have made it pretty clear that they will not rule out onward extradition proceedings.

I don't think I can put my point across in any more of a straightforward and clear way than that. I don't care whether you agree with me or not, just that you actually understand the point I have made, which you have consistently failed to do thus far.

If you really want him gone, focus your bile on the UK government wanting to take him into custody if he leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy. Let him go to Ecuador and let Sweden or the US extradite him from there.


I keep showing the illogical nature of many of your points and I did address the extradition point in one of my previous posts.

I said that Assange can't expect the law to work differently for him as it would for anyone else.

His defenders, seem to suggest that he cannot be tried for possible crimes because they are suspicious of the charge......Apparently, you don't see the logical flaw in that.

It is simply ludicrous to suggest that Assange can avoid answering a charge in a European court.

Once again you have failed to address the weaknesses in your arguments.

The reality that the nature of the charge is weak, not a likely means of conviction meaning it's a poor instrument for framing.

The reality that you appear to have decided that suspicion upon the nature of guilt is enough to suggest that the law shouldn't be followed in respect to Assange....One of the cake and eat it brigade.

Indeed you suggest that Britain break EU law by not arresting him.....For a man, who picks and chooses which laws he likes to follow. Again, a cake and eat it merchant.

But apparently the problem is that I can't comprehend your argument.

I have addressed your arguments and show their flaws.


Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Feb 2013 12.15pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 23 Feb 13 12.16pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Breathe in..............read Mr S


The Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 that found Iraq in material breach of prior resolutions and warned of “severe consequences” if Iraq didn’t conform. But that resolution also explicitly stated that the Security Council remained seized of the issue and the United States assured the other members that Resolution 1441 did not authorize it to attack Iraq; the U.S. would have to return to the Security Council for another resolution before it could attack Iraq. In early 2003, the United States did return to the Security Council with a resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. When it became clear that the proposed resolution could not muster a majority, the United States withdrew the resolution and attacked Iraq anyway. There is no crime more serious than illegally starting a war.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes"

.........breathe out

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 23 Feb 13 12.35pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote Kermit8 at 23 Feb 2013 12.16pm

Breathe in..............read Mr S


The Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 that found Iraq in material breach of prior resolutions and warned of “severe consequences” if Iraq didn’t conform. But that resolution also explicitly stated that the Security Council remained seized of the issue and the United States assured the other members that Resolution 1441 did not authorize it to attack Iraq; the U.S. would have to return to the Security Council for another resolution before it could attack Iraq. In early 2003, the United States did return to the Security Council with a resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. When it became clear that the proposed resolution could not muster a majority, the United States withdrew the resolution and attacked Iraq anyway. There is no crime more serious than illegally starting a war.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes"

.........breathe out

Again, I've explained this....This is just waffle.

If it is illegal where are the convictions? These wars have gone on for over a decade.

Every attempt to bring a prosecution of these apparently guilty officials has been thrown out of court.

Annan, is not the decider upon the legality of the war. He was giving a view not using a mandate.

I've already stated what happened in respect to UN resolutions, so thanks for cut and pasting what amounts to the same stuff.

I'll repeat the reality again. The passed security council resolution was vague enough to permit 'consequences' in respect to Iraq.

I've already stated it wasn't passed to allow ware but the fact remains that no successful prosecution can be made due to the wording.

The facts remain. There has been no successful convictions on 'war crimes' because actually the wars weren't illegal.

The Wars weren't directly authorized but they weren't ruled out either. The UN passed the resolution that legally allowed it to happen.

That's why Blair, Bush and all the rest of them walk freely.....Because all you lot are doing is waffling emotional nonsense.

In your view the war is illegal....In reality it wasn't.


Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Feb 2013 12.55pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 23 Feb 13 12.54pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Rendition, drone strikes, massacres, torture, executions, etc.

In the same way Israel doesn't give a fvck and gets away with doing illegal things so does the US. Too powerful you see. Who can take them on? Not Russia nor China - they are busy not following the rules of international law too.

Yhe Hague? I wish they would - I'd fvcking love to see Kissinger on trial before he kicks the bucket. Too powerful alas still.

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 4 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange