 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17657 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
 Posted: 04-09-2012 16:18 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Quake42 wrote: | | Quote: | | Please read my previous comments on the subject. |
With respect I'm still not entirely clear on the logic. Is it because:
(a) Julian Assange is at risk of extradition and/or rendition to the US if he goes to Sweden - a risk which he does not apparently face in the UK?
(b) You don't believe the allegations which the women have made.
(c) You don't think that the allegations, even if true, are serious enough to execute an EAW over
(d) Julian Assange is a special case because he has done things which many people admire, in particular annoying the USA, and so he should be exempt from laws and due process
(e) Some other factor? |
(a) JA is at far less risk of extradition to the US while he is in the UK, imho. I do not believe that the Supreme Court would allow it.
(b) I do not want to belittle rape. However this is not something you can answer with a yes or no. Look at how the women acted in public after the alleged rapes. It also looks as if the Swedish police are trying to make something else ou of the womens allegations. Look back at the ABC stories AND vids on this thread.
(c) I am dubious about EAWs as they were devised as a means to circumvent normal extradition legislation. In particular, when someone hasn't been charged with anything, they couldn't be extradited.
(d) I don't think JA as an individual should be above the law. But you cannot rule his involvement with Wikleaks out of the equation. I don't believe any of this would be happening if this wasn';t the case.
Hague has now withdrawn the threat of storming the Ecuadorian Embassy but the suggestion was extraordinary in the first place. Especially when it related to someone who hadn't been charged with anything and faced a maximum 5 year sentence if he was to be convicted 0f the offences.
UK Embassies around the world have given shelter to people who faced charges which could result in life sentences.
This whole thing is very odd, it has little got to do with Assanges bad attitude towards women and a lot to do with making an example of someone who has released documents which embarrassed both the US and UK governments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Quake42 Warrior Princess
Great Old One Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Total posts: 5212 Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 04-09-2012 16:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | (b) I do not want to belittle rape. However this is not something you can answer with a yes or no. Look at how the women acted in public after the alleged rapes. It also looks as if the Swedish police are trying to make something else ou of the womens allegations. Look back at the ABC stories AND vids on this thread.
|
The whole cases is a bit weird but I would also suggest you read the quotes from Assange's own barrister which certainly don't paint him in a good light. Whether the allegations are true or not I do find it disheartening to see so many so called left wingers reverting to tired and misogynist cliches about rape simply because their hero has been accused of it. A man who, just like the Islamists that they cosy up to is a hero to them purely because he has pissed off the American government.
(That's definitely not a dig at you by the way Ramon - while we may disagree on Assange I know you're not from the tendency I just described!)
| Quote: | | I don't think JA as an individual should be above the law. But you cannot rule his involvement with Wikleaks out of the equation. |
Maybe not, but the logical conclusion to this argument is that Assange should be able to swan around the world doing whatever he likes because any attempt to hold him accountable for anything is really a smokescreen to get at Wikileaks.
| Quote: | | Hague has now withdrawn the threat of storming the Ecuadorian Embassy but the suggestion was extraordinary in the first place. |
Hague never suggested this. A letter was sent which reminded the Ecuadorians that UK law permits diplomatic permises to be derecognised provided he Vienna conventions are observed - ie diplomats can go safely with their papers to a new residence but Assange could not. I don't think the threat should have been made and I suspect it was a FCO lawyer trying to be clever, but it was not a threat to storm the embassy however Assange and Ecuador want to spin it.
| Quote: | UK Embassies around the world have given shelter to people who faced charges which could result in life sentences.
|
UK embassies have ocasionally given shelter to people at risk of death or persecution. I am not aware they have provided asylum to someone in a democratic country trying to evade potential criminal charges in another democratic country. If embassies routinely gave asylum to bail jumpers the whole diplomatic system would unravel PDQ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17657 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 06-09-2012 12:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Full text at link. Its worth reading the whole article.
| Quote: | ‘Beware Greeks bearing gifts’, goes the old saying. People would do well to bear it in mind when taking positions on the increasingly labyrinthine case of Julian Assange. The Wikileaks founder has taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, seeking political asylum from what he claims to be trumped-up allegations of rape, for which he would otherwise have been deported to Sweden.
And so, suddenly, the British state - which, as the headline statistics will tell us, cannot muster up the enthusiasm to convict any rapists at all under normal circumstances, and indeed only outlawed marital rape two decades ago - has reinvented itself as a crusading force against sexual violence. All options have been considered to get Assange out of this country, to be questioned (he has not yet been charged) by Swedish prosecutors - up to and including storming the embassy.
William Hague, and his superiors in the cabinet, have not undergone an overnight conversion to Dworkinism - because Assange is no ordinary suspected rapist. He is most famous as the de facto leader and public face of Wikileaks, whose periodic revelation of dodgy goings-on at the highest echelons of the US state (including the release of diplomatic cables which, most embarrassingly for the USA, revealed what they actually thought about various regimes around the world) has led Assange to the position of public enemy number one in the States. Obama and his minions want to try him not for rape, but for espionage. The maximum penalty is death.
The situation, on one level, is perfectly simple. Assange is the target of what amounts to a rather demented revenge quest by the US state department, and its pliant little poodle of a government in Westminster. While speculation abounds as to exactly what game these Machiavellian forces are playing, it defies credibility to consider insignificant the fact that they are hell-bent on seeing Assange in a Stockholm slammer (not that some gentle souls have not blinded themselves even to this, as we shall see). Under these circumstances, the ‘facts of the case’ are simply irrelevant - the notion that Assange can expect a fair trial in such a situation is transparently bunk, and any resultant conviction will lack the smallest particle of moral authority.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/928/a-textbook-paranoid-narcissist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Quake42 Warrior Princess
Great Old One Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Total posts: 5212 Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 06-09-2012 14:55 Post subject: |
|
|
|
An interesting article but one which essentially boils down to arguing that what Assange is accused of is not so bad really and anyway he pisses off America so let's give him a pass on this.
So I'm not sure it moves us forward, and I'm not sure that the description of Assange's alleged crime is accurate either - as I posted above, his own barrister accepts that the allegations include a claim that Assange held one woman down while using his other hand to force open her legs prior to penetrating her. It's mind boggling that anyone who claims to be a progressive could argue that this shouldn't be defined as rape. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Quake42 Warrior Princess
Great Old One Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Total posts: 5212 Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 10-09-2012 13:10 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Assange defends his privacy, but believes no one else is entitled to it? Almost beyond parody.
| Quote: | More4's Julian Assange documentary was not unfair, says Ofcom
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's complaint about a More4 documentary he claimed was unfair and violated his privacy has not been upheld by Ofcom, the media regulator.
Ofcom ruled that the More4 documentary, True Stories: WikiLeaks – Secrets and Lies, was fair and did give Assange appropriate opportunity to respond before the programme was aired on 29 November 2011.
The media regulator rejected Assange's complaint that More4 had violated his privacy by showing footage of him dancing in a nightclub in Iceland.
Assange, founder of the whistleblowers' website, has complained about negative media coverage of his legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces sexual assault allegations.
He is currently taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge, London, in defiance of the extradition order.
The documentary was part of the Channel 4 digital service's True Stories strand and featured contributions from the Guardian's investigations editor, David Leigh, and special correspondent Nick Davies, who worked closely with Assange on the publication of leaked US diplomatic cables from November 2010. The programme also featured interviews with several people who had worked closely with Assange, including a former WikiLeaks employee.
Assange said More4 had not obtained his informed consent to appear in the programme, claiming they had misrepresented to him what the documentary would focus on and he had not been told who else would appear.
However, Ofcom ruled that Assange had provided his informed consent and that his assistant had exchanged emails over several weeks with the programme makers over what it would contain.
The WikiLeaks founder also complained about the use of grainy footage of him dancing in a nightclub in Iceland, which had been taken by a member of the public and then uploaded to the video-sharing website, YouTube.
Ofcom noted that Assange had given permission to the person to film him dancing on the condition it was for this video maker's personal use only.
The regulator ruled: "The footage was filmed in a nightclub, which is a public place, and Mr Assange was not shown engaged in an activity which would reasonably be considered to be private or in circumstances which could normally give rise to a legitimate expectation of privacy.
"Ofcom also took into account that Mr Assange has been in the public eye since the launch of WikiLeaks. Further, the footage had been made available to the public in a number of items on the internet months before the programme was broadcast."
It added: "Accordingly, Ofcom's decision is that Mr Assange's complaints of unjust or unfair treatment and of unwarranted infringement of privacy in the programme as broadcast should not be upheld".
Assange wrote to the Leveson inquiry into press standards in April, claiming he had "suffered extensive libels" comparable to Gerry and Kate McCann, who received significant damages from a number of national newspapers over coverage of the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
He had previously lost a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about 45 articles, in publications including the Guardian and the Independent, which he said were inaccurate and unfair.
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/10/julian-assange-more4-documentary-ofcom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jonfairway Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 1163 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 10-09-2012 13:25 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | So I'm not sure it moves us forward, and I'm not sure that the description of Assange's alleged crime is accurate either - as I posted above, his own barrister accepts that the allegations include a claim that Assange held one woman down while using his other hand to force open her legs prior to penetrating her. It's mind boggling that anyone who claims to be a progressive could argue that this shouldn't be defined as rape. |
this is the same Lady that did nothing, reported nothing, went to a party with Assange two days after the alledged offence and only reported it after Assange had sex with Her friend?
who then also came forward and accused him of rape, after the two Ladys had been overheard saying things that related to revenge and entrapment.
If there was uncontrovertible evidence of physical abuse why would the case be thrown out initially ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heckler20 The Sockpuppet of
Cthulhu's Prodigal Son Joined: 16 Jul 2004 Total posts: 4681 Location: In the Nostril of The Crawling Chaos Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 10-09-2012 13:35 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jon, you're back! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Quake42 Warrior Princess
Great Old One Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Total posts: 5212 Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 10-09-2012 13:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | If there was uncontrovertible evidence of physical abuse why would the case be thrown out initially ?
|
I don't think anyone has suggested that there is "incontrovertible evidence of physical abuse". Wherever the truth lies, like so many sexual assault allegations this seems to come down to "he says, she says". My point was simply that, despite the protestations of Assange and his supporters, the behaviour described would certainly constitute an offence under English law.
| Quote: | this is the same Lady that did nothing, reported nothing, went to a party with Assange two days after the alledged offence and only reported it after Assange had sex with Her friend?
|
Again this may go to the credibility of the witness (although people do react differently to assaults of this nature) but that is a matter for the Swedish courts. It's not a reason not to execute the warrant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jonfairway Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 1163 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 10-09-2012 13:47 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Given his situation with the US wanting him over there, its easy to understand why he may be afraid to leave the embassy to face accusations in one country that will not give assurances not to deport him to America if the accusations all fall assunder.
If the chief prosecutor originally said there was no criminal case to prosecute why would this change ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Monstrosa Joined: 07 Feb 2007 Total posts: 480 |
| Posted: 10-09-2012 18:21 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| So why hasn't America applied for extradition for Assange from the UK? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17657 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 10-09-2012 19:03 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Monstrosa wrote: | | So why hasn't America applied for extradition for Assange from the UK? |
Because the Supreme court are highly unlikely to extradite Assange on charges relating to Wikileaks. I don't think they were nobbled regarding the EAW, the majority just ruled on its merits as they saw it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Sergeant_Pluck Great Old One Joined: 10 Apr 2012 Total posts: 504 Location: The Hague, Netherlands. Age: 40 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 11-09-2012 08:13 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ramonmercado wrote: | | Monstrosa wrote: | | So why hasn't America applied for extradition for Assange from the UK? |
Because the Supreme court are highly unlikely to extradite Assange on charges relating to Wikileaks. I don't think they were nobbled regarding the EAW, the majority just ruled on its merits as they saw it. |
Agreed, but that fact shouldn't stop the Americans applying for it. It's the political sham that winds me up. If the guy has committed a crime (or they think he has) then what they UK Supreme Court might say shouldn't be an issue. Simply, the US hardly wants to get in a diplomatic bunfight with the UK over this. Far easier to let the Swedes do the legwork and have them hand him over when the rape case magically disappears.
The only other point I'd make here is the irony of Ecuador, a country with a long history of political repression, giving him asylum! Mind-boggling. Sold his soul, there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jonfairway Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 1163 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 11-09-2012 13:18 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Julian Assange faces serious accusations from two women in Sweden, yet you've said that any decent country should grant him asylum. Why?
The accusations should be taken quite seriously, just as all such accusations should. Independent of that, no decent country would permit a person to be sent to a country where the chances of his receiving a fair trial are very limited. The apparent conflict can be easily resolved. Sweden claims only that they want to interrogate Assange. They have been invited to do that in England, or in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. They refuse. They could also issue a statement that they will not extradite Assange to the United States. They refuse.
Suppose that Assange had leaked Russian, rather than American, documents, and the circumstances were otherwise the same. Then Sweden would not hesitate for a moment to question Assange in the United Kingdom and to guarantee that he would not be extradited to Russia. Those who think that this analogy is unfair have something to learn about contemporary history. They can, for example, look at the brutal and criminal treatment of Bradley Manning, to take one of many examples.
It is worth adding that Sweden is quite willing to follow Washington's orders in even worse circumstances than this - for example, when the United States wanted Sweden to send someone to Mubarak's Egypt to be tortured.
According to documents published by WikiLeaks, the Ecuadorian government doesn't support freedom of the press domestically. Is it hypocritical for Assange to accept asylum from such a country?
Of course not, no more than it is hypocritical for him to stay in London, which has a shameful record of violation of freedom of press - of course, targeting weak and defenseless journals, so that it passes without comment. As for the charges against Ecuador, they should be evaluated seriously, just like those against England, France, and others. But it is irrelevant here.
What's at stake here?
At stake is the question of whether the citizens of a country have a right to know what their elected officials are doing. Those who have a lingering affection for an odd notion called "democracy" believe that this is important. To be sure, a state has the right to keep some matters secret. I haven't read all the WikiLeaks exposures, but I have read quite a few, and I have not seen an example of anything that could legitimately be kept secret, nor, to my knowledge, have the horde of angry critics presented an example. I should say that this is not unusual. Anyone who has spent time studying declassified documents is well aware that overwhelmingly, they are kept secret to protect elected officials from the scrutiny of citizens, not for defense or some other legitimate purpose.
|
Noam Chomsky: Julian Assange deserves applause
founder Julian Assange has been granted political asylum by Ecuador, but he remains holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. If he leaves the compound, he will be arrested and extradited to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual assault. Assange denies the allegations and claims they are part of an effort to get him to the United States to face more serious charges related to his work for WikiLeaks. High-profile defenders like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have recently published editorials in support of Assange. Now, professor and activist Noam Chomsky weighs in.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-23/interviews/33341601_1_ecuadoran-embassy-julian-assange-ecuadorian-embassy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Quake42 Warrior Princess
Great Old One Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Total posts: 5212 Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 11-09-2012 14:25 Post subject: |
|
|
|
I've thought for a while that Chomsky's all-consuming anti-Americanism (and more general anti-West sentiment) has destroyed his credibility.
Wikileaks seemed at some stage to move supporting whistleblowers to an unfocused anti-secrecy agenda - they lost staff and volunteers as a result. The diplomatic cables allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning was not an example of whistleblowing. It was a data dump, albeit one which contained few surprises.
It's not reasonable to expect all human activity to be done in the full glare of publicity and it's ironic that Assange himself is fiercely protective of his privacy when it suits him. Chomsky and co with their eulogising of Assange are as ridiculous as the Republican headbangers looking to have him assassinated. The Wikileaks saga is no longer about whistleblowing, it's about people's feelings about the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17657 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 11-09-2012 15:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
I really don't think Chomsky is anti-American or anti-West. He opposes political policies.
I'm not point scoring here, Chomsky opposes dictators wherever they are. Even in this article: The US and Israel, Not Iran, Threaten Peace http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/04-6 , he points out: The Iranian government is brutal and repressive, as are Washington’s allies in the region. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
