You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange
December 1 2021 10.38pm

Julian Assange

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 6 of 14 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 25 Feb 13 3.36pm

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 23 Feb 2013 1.13pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 23 Feb 2013 12.13pm
I have addressed your arguments and show their flaws.


No, what you have done, as seems to be your MO here on HOL is to angrily respond to someone posing an opinion and blindly cast presumptions to inflate their views, in turn ratcheting up your bile on the subject.

My opinion on the matter is that the charges are a foil.

A fact of the matter is that Assange will not go to Sweden while onward extradition is a possibility.

He should be questioned on the case, it's a serious allegation, but he should not face onward extradition. A right that Sweden has the power to exert, but have remained wooly on.

No country should have the right to extradite someone and then extradite them from there for trial elsewhere. Extradition should only apply to prosecution for offences in the extraditing country.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 25 Feb 13 3.41pm

Quote Kermit8 at 23 Feb 2013 1.19pm

Although over 50 years ago I would urge you to read up about US actions in the Korean War Stirling if you haven't already just so to know exactly what the US are capable of. It is truly shocking.

[Link]


My point being that it is already in their military and political culture. To break the law, I mean.

An estimated one million civilians were murdered by the US via official policy.

Not just the US, the members of the Security council and those in possession of veto essentially make the UN a two tiered interest group. The UN is largely dependent on a few nations to operate, and consequently those countries, including the security council, will veto in national interests, irrespective of the international situation involved. The US will never abandon Israel to the UN, because its a client state, exactly the same reason why the Russians and French were intransent over the second gulf war resolutions.

Essentially, the UN is a very high minded, well meant institution thats largely a strong arm means of a few western nations to get their own way.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 25 Feb 13 5.34pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 Feb 2013 3.36pm
No country should have the right to extradite someone and then extradite them from there for trial elsewhere. Extradition should only apply to prosecution for offences in the extraditing country.


I wholeheartedly agree, Jamie.

 


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 Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 25 Feb 13 5.58pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 Feb 2013 3.36pm

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 23 Feb 2013 1.13pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 23 Feb 2013 12.13pm
I have addressed your arguments and show their flaws.


No, what you have done, as seems to be your MO here on HOL is to angrily respond to someone posing an opinion and blindly cast presumptions to inflate their views, in turn ratcheting up your bile on the subject.

My opinion on the matter is that the charges are a foil.

A fact of the matter is that Assange will not go to Sweden while onward extradition is a possibility.

He should be questioned on the case, it's a serious allegation, but he should not face onward extradition. A right that Sweden has the power to exert, but have remained wooly on.

No country should have the right to extradite someone and then extradite them from there for trial elsewhere. Extradition should only apply to prosecution for offences in the extraditing country.


How on earth can the original country that extradites be in control of the second country's extradition procedures?

Where does this happen?

 


'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 Online Flag 25 Feb 13 5.58pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 5.34pm

I wholeheartedly agree, Jamie.

Fan boy.

 


'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 Online Flag 25 Feb 13 6.06pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 Feb 2013 3.41pm

Quote Kermit8 at 23 Feb 2013 1.19pm

Although over 50 years ago I would urge you to read up about US actions in the Korean War Stirling if you haven't already just so to know exactly what the US are capable of. It is truly shocking.

[Link]


My point being that it is already in their military and political culture. To break the law, I mean.

An estimated one million civilians were murdered by the US via official policy.

Not just the US, the members of the Security council and those in possession of veto essentially make the UN a two tiered interest group. The UN is largely dependent on a few nations to operate, and consequently those countries, including the security council, will veto in national interests, irrespective of the international situation involved. The US will never abandon Israel to the UN, because its a client state, exactly the same reason why the Russians and French were intransent over the second gulf war resolutions.

Essentially, the UN is a very high minded, well meant institution thats largely a strong arm means of a few western nations to get their own way.


I'd largely agree with you here, though I'd argue that the last sentence is perhaps too strong.

Syria proves that the West don't always get their way.

I'd say your first paragraph was more an accurate description of an imperfect system....Though client state is perhaps a tad strong, though meaningful in a practical sense.

 


'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 Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 25 Feb 13 7.17pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 5.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 Feb 2013 3.36pm
No country should have the right to extradite someone and then extradite them from there for trial elsewhere. Extradition should only apply to prosecution for offences in the extraditing country.


I wholeheartedly agree, Jamie.

I can't work out how the f*** he was milling around in the UK for so long in the first place. Not an EU passport holder and doesn't have a working visa, should have deported him before all this Sweden malarky even came to light.

If he is extradited to Sweden and he is found guilty after trial and jailed. What international law would stop the US from requesting his extradition on to them? Not exactly going to allow him to abscond and then try and get him extradited from places unknown are they.

Send him back to Aus, they'll hand him over to the US in a heart beat. Even his own country can't stand him and wont stand up for him.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 25 Feb 13 7.39pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 7.17pm
If he is extradited to Sweden and he is found guilty after trial and jailed. What international law would stop the US from requesting his extradition on to them?


It's complicated, Stuk.

I read a summary of the extradition treaty between Sweden and the United States and the key points are:

1. Political and military extraditions are prohibited.
2. The Swedish executive have the ultimate right to block any extradition they feel violates the above in charge or even in motivation.

As I have previously mentioned, Sweden are remaining entirely on the fence about it. In fact, they actually have previous for ignoring the treaty entirely. "In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the CIA, which rendered them immediately to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them". [Link]

So the United States would have to request extradition on charges that are not deemed political or military first of all, which would be difficult... if Sweden actually followed it's own treaty. Which it clearly doesn't.

Stirling likes to think that the law is black and white on these issues. Not only is it grey, it's also fvcking mess. Each of the states involved here has previous for picking and choosing which laws and treaties to follow when it suits them diplomatically.

 


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 Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 25 Feb 13 7.57pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 7.39pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 7.17pm
If he is extradited to Sweden and he is found guilty after trial and jailed. What international law would stop the US from requesting his extradition on to them?


It's complicated, Stuk.

I read a summary of the extradition treaty between Sweden and the United States and the key points are:

1. Political and military extraditions are prohibited.
2. The Swedish executive have the ultimate right to block any extradition they feel violates the above in charge or even in motivation.

As I have previously mentioned, Sweden are remaining entirely on the fence about it. In fact, they actually have previous for ignoring the treaty entirely. "In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the CIA, which rendered them immediately to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them". [Link]

So the United States would have to request extradition on charges that are not deemed political or military first of all, which would be difficult... if Sweden actually followed it's own treaty. Which it clearly doesn't.

Stirling likes to think that the law is black and white on these issues. Not only is it grey, it's also fvcking mess. Each of the states involved here has previous for picking and choosing which laws and treaties to follow when it suits them diplomatically.


Governments within democracies change. There is no way of foretelling with any certainty the actions of any government that contains different people within it making a decision.

Just because Sweden did something over ten years ago doesn't mean that it will do the same thing again. It's a moot point: we don't know.

Stirling doesn't think the law is black and white, interpretation is everything and how a state decides to do that is their own concern. Indeed interpretation is exactly why lawyers live in large houses.

You have said that a previous Swedish government have broken a treaty, maybe, maybe not. I'm sure there are plenty in Sweden who wouldn't agree with you.

It's grey, maybe it's you who actually thinks in black and white.

 


'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 Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 25 Feb 13 8.04pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 7.39pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 7.17pm
If he is extradited to Sweden and he is found guilty after trial and jailed. What international law would stop the US from requesting his extradition on to them?


It's complicated, Stuk.

I read a summary of the extradition treaty between Sweden and the United States and the key points are:

1. Political and military extraditions are prohibited.
2. The Swedish executive have the ultimate right to block any extradition they feel violates the above in charge or even in motivation.

As I have previously mentioned, Sweden are remaining entirely on the fence about it. In fact, they actually have previous for ignoring the treaty entirely. "In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the CIA, which rendered them immediately to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them". [Link]

So the United States would have to request extradition on charges that are not deemed political or military first of all, which would be difficult... if Sweden actually followed it's own treaty. Which it clearly doesn't.

Stirling likes to think that the law is black and white on these issues. Not only is it grey, it's also fvcking mess. Each of the states involved here has previous for picking and choosing which laws and treaties to follow when it suits them diplomatically.

Any extradition is a f***ing mess as far as I can tell!

Thing is he has certainly broken laws, both US and international, that he could be extradited on without it being deemed for military or political reasons. He's admitted what he's done, or been a part of at the very least, and revelled in the notoriety.

I don't blame Sweden for not showing their hand, nor their declining any of his requests prior to or since winning the judgement. He's tried to dictate matters to them, and us for that matter by skipping bail and with his subsequent balcony speeches, when due process has been followed.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 25 Feb 13 8.09pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 8.04pm
Thing is he has certainly broken laws, both US and international, that he could be extradited on without it being deemed for military or political reasons.


How do you think they could frame it in a non-political, non-military way? I'm not being facetious at all, I'm genuinely curious what your thinking is.

Personally, I cannot see anything sticking that doesn't have some semblance of political motivation.

 


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 Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 25 Feb 13 8.31pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 25 Feb 2013 7.57pm
Stirling doesn't think the law is black and white, interpretation is everything and how a state decides to do that is their own concern. Indeed interpretation is exactly why lawyers live in large houses.

You have said that a previous Swedish government have broken a treaty, maybe, maybe not. I'm sure there are plenty in Sweden who wouldn't agree with you.


You're tying yourself in knots here. You previously accused Assange of taking a pick and choose mentality to international law. So a state can bend international law whenever they choose to, but an individual subject to the same, loose, subjective law or treaty is not allowed an interpretation?

There is no maybe, maybe not on whether Sweden broke its own treaty on extradition. [Link] Guardian bias aside, it's a very well documented case of Extraordinary Rendition and the dismissal of international law as the basis for extradition.

 


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

 

Page 6 of 14 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

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