I'm not little and i'm not sad, my self esteem seems ok to all that know me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooheekock
Look into your mirror, change right to left and then your post to me may make sense.
Have a nice day.
Printable View
I'm not little and i'm not sad, my self esteem seems ok to all that know me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooheekock
Look into your mirror, change right to left and then your post to me may make sense.
Have a nice day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobella
Let the fucker fly off to Endor then. You might lose your position as #1 poodle at the top of 'America's best bitches' list. But why should you care. Aus would like the promotion from silver medal spot, Sweden can stay in bronze.
Fucking hell bro', what is it you are smoking ?,Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan B
The stuff i'm on aint that strong.
Are you nuts? Or do you just like to pull sections of posts and shift them out of context? What is it about you anyway Tax Exile? Jewish dentist from the UK, a country not known for good dentistry or good teeth for that matter - whining all the time about the NHS and pikers, etc. Get the fuck over your self. Your a little cry baby whinging on about a world full of those who can't pull their (smelly) socks up. You're a fcking joke. And so are those who delete posts like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by taxexile
aaah, 12.50am and drunk as a skunk i see. and yet again, displaying your inadequacies for all to see.
An update on who actually decides, in Sweden, if a person can be extradited. It appears that the request is initially decided by the Swedish legal authorities whether "legally" a person can be extradited against a particular request.Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchr
However the Swedish government, after receiving the legal authorities decision, take the final decision and can deny or grant the request. There also appears to be an appeal procedure to the Swedish Supreme Court. I am not sure if that is before or after the government decision is taken.
The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
"UPDATE: Numerous people objected that I too readily conceded the point that Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, are the ultimate decision-makers on extradition requests, and the Swedish government therefore cannot provide Assange with a guarantee that he will not be extradited to the U.S. This article by a lawyer -- who fervently believes that Assange should be extradited to Sweden -- makes the case very compellingly that the Swedish government most certainly can provide such a guarantee if it chose to [my emphasis]:
Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed nature, where courts and governments share the final decision – it is not unknown for governments to reject an extradition request in spite of court verdict allowing it. . . .
Article 12 [of Sweden's extradition law] adds that the government may put conditions on its decision to accept an extradition request. The deciding body is thus the government, with an input by the Prosecutor general and a veto right given to the Supreme Court in case where the requested person doesn't accept to be extradited.
The article goes on to cite the Swedish extradition law to outline two possible outcomes where the target of an extradition request challenges its validity:
(1) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is not legally permissible, in which case the Swedish government is not free to extradite;
(2) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is legally permissible, in which case the Swedish government is free to decide that it will not extradite for policy or other prudential reasons.
In other words, the Swedish judiciary has the right to block an extradition request on legal grounds, but it lacks the power to compel extradition; if the courts approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still retains the authority to decide if extradition should take place."
The fucking leach has cost us UK taxpayers another £3 K today.
A bullet is only 50p. - no logic here.
For those who still beleive Sweden has no previous form on extradition.
"Why does Assange and others fear that Sweden would repatriate him to the United States, where he could face the rest of his life in jail, even execution for publishing leaked official documents? Because in November 2006 the United Nations found Sweden guilty of violating the global torture ban. Swedish officials handed over Mohammed El Zari and Ahmeed Agiza, two Egyptian asylum seekers, to CIA operatives in December 2001, to be rendered from Stockholm to Cairo. Both were tortured in Egypt. And, as Seamus Milne wrote in the Guardian, because of reports of a secret indictment against Assange by a U.S. federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia."
Amnesty Document:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/as...20012006en.pdf
Where are you getting these numbers from? The UK does not need to be spending any money on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by dobella
But your wish to kill him has been noted, several times.
he's been counting the policemen and adding up their overtime pay:)
London police accidentally reveal arrest plans for Assange, regardless of circumstances.
Assange arrest plan revealed
Foreign office has since scotched this, no doubt some red faced Bobbies around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Wilson
The later article below also perhaps reveals some of the motives Equador may have for sticking it's nose into this affair? Revenge for Pinochet?
BRITAIN has withdrawn a threat to enter Ecuador's embassy in London to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, President Rafael Correa says.
Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said he believed his country had overcome a diplomatic spat with Britain over its threat to enter the Ecuadoran Embassy in London in order to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
"We believe that this unfortunate incident is over," said Correa."It was a mistake for the British Foreign Office to say that they would enter our embassy."
"It's good that the United Kingdom has given up its threat.
"Now we act as if we never received it. We must seek a mutually acceptable solution of the case of Julian Assange through dialogue."
The president added that he was glad the two countries "were returning to the path of dialogue and were looking for a consensual solution without abandoning our principles."
The 34-member Organisation of American States declared "solidarity and support" for Ecuador on Friday, rejecting "any attempt that might put at risk the inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions".
In an earlier interview with the British newspaper The Sunday Times, Correa said that the sex crime allegations against the WikiLeaks founder were "not a crime in Latin America" and had played no part in Quito's decision to grant Assange asylum.
He also blasted the British government for its "contradictions" in wanting to extradite Assange to Sweden, when it did not extradite former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet after his 1998 arrest in London on an international arrest warrant issued by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon, who is now heading Assange's legal team.
Full article
This case is taking some interesting twists and turns, in Oh Oh's post 383 and now this.
Nothing has changed exept from Britain retracting their blooper of a threat to forcibly enter Ecuador's Diplomatic mission for the sake of Assange, the Police outside will still arrest Assange on sight if he tries to escape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Oh's post info in 383 makes the wrong conclusions it is another untrue spin on the present facts.
It describes mishandled cases with asylum-seekers in 2001, rules have since been changed, and Btw. uninvited asylum-seekers has a slightly different legal status than an extradited prisoner in a criminal case, but that is legal technicalities and their protections against extradition to torture or death penalty's would today be much the same.
Present EU arrest warrant treaty was made in 2004, and the extradition agreement between all EU nations and the US is from 23/10 -2009.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summari.../jl0053_en.htm
It is still a fact that Assange can not be extradited from Sweden to the US without Britains approval, in case Assange is extradited from Britain to Sweden at some point.
It is also still a fact that no EU nation can or will extradite anyone in a case where the death sentence will be used and ultimately carried out.
It is also still true that all serious experts on this say it would be easier for the US to get Assange extradited from Britain alone! without the complications of the more difficult Swedes that would in this case be only middlemen.
Same with OH's info in post 381 , it is actually an added protection for Assange, and can by no means be made out like it is actually the Swedish Government that decides on Extradition in it's negative sense.
If a Swedish Supreme-court judge decides an extradition can not happen, the Swedish Government just has to accept that fact.
If a Judge on the other hand say Yes to an extradition, the Swedish Government can still chose not to extradite.
But naturally such a promise can not be given in advance carte blanc to anyone, first there has to be a case and the crimes considered, then an extradition request, and finally a Swedish court case to decide on extradition or not, first then can the Government step in if they deem they want to stop a court-ordered extradition, but that can only be done on case by case basis and not in advance of any fictitious claims.
The Swedes owe the US big time over all that Pirate bay shit. This is their payback.Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchrNothing has changed exept from Britain retracting their blooper of a threat to forcibly enter Ecuador's Diplomatic mission for the sake of Assange, the Police outside will still arrest Assange on sight if he tries to escape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Oh's post info in 383 makes the wrong conclusions it is another untrue spin on the present facts.
It describes mishandled cases with asylum-seekers in 2001, rules have since been changed, and Btw. uninvited asylum-seekers has a slightly different legal status than an extradited prisoner in a criminal case.
Present EU arrest warrant treaty was made in 2004, and the extradition agreement between all EU nations and the US is from 23/10 -2009.
Agreement with the United States on extradition
It is still a fact that Assange can not be extradited from Sweden to the US without Britains approval, in case Assange is extradited from Britain to Sweden at some point.
It is also still a fact that no EU nation can or will extradite anyone in a case where the death sentence will be used and ultimately carried out.
It is also still true that all serious experts on this say it would be easier for the US to get Assange extradited from Britain alone! without the complications of the more difficult Swedes that would in this case be only middlemen.
Same with OH's info in post 381 , it is actually an added protection for Assange, and can by no means be made out like it is actually the Swedish Government that decides on Extradition in it's negative sense.
If a Swedish Supreme-court judge decides an extradition can not happen, the Swedish Government just has to accept that fact.
If a Judge on the other hand say Yes to an extradition, the Swedish Government can still chose not to extradite.
But naturally such a promise can not be given in advance carte blanc to anyone, first there has to be a case and the crimes considered, then an extradition request, and finally a Swedish court case to decide on extradition or not, first then can the Government step in if they deem they want to stop a court-ordered extradition, but that can only be done on case by case basis and not in advance of any fictitious claims.
The Brits don't want to extradite a commonwealth citizen to a US Gulag over whistleblowing, so are leaving the Swedes (who no one really gives a fuck about, especially Australia and the Commonwealth) to do the dirty work.
The Australian government, not wishing to lose their lickspittle title, is predictably saying and doing nothing.
It is EU extradition laws and the EU treaty with the US that will decide on an extradition, and it remains the Brits that have the final say, so no wiping anything of is possible, speculations like yours Necron99 will remain just that, it might be true some of it but it will have no influence on extradition.
Lets try not to forget there still is no US extradition request.:)
Plenty has changed , POM's are firmly on the back foot re invading the embassy :)
that British government is really a giant pile of steam shit, disgraceful, as usual with the British officials poofters. We should really consider kicking them out of the EU along with Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necron99
indeed, quite revealingQuote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
They never intended too, and you know it, but it is OK to enjoy their political gaffe a bit, it really was a big clumsy blunder in every way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mid
But as far as we know that changes nothing for Assange's situation, please if you know different lets have it ?.
Of course it changes Assange's situation the threat has been removed .
Of course, Amnesty Int'l wrong, Lardichr right.Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchr
:rolleyes:
Of course not, they aren't completely stupid to advertise what they will do once he is in Sweden.Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchr
Why can't the Swedish police interview him in London and get his side of the story before they decide whether or not there is a case to answer?
And yes, before you state the obvious, it's because they have been told not to by the higher ups, everyone and his auntie knows why Sweden want him, and that is simply as an excuse to hand him over to the Americans.
I would give him a Nobel prize just to piss off the Americans like they did China a couple of years ago.
I would like to see that. Some bag that would be.Quote:
The document, pictured under the officer's arm by a Press Association photographer, appears to advocate arresting the WikiLeaks founder whether he leaves the building in a diplomatic bag or in a diplomatic car.
Let's say he surrenders to the British, is sent to Sweden, get's his sentence, suspended, I'd guess,.....and is asked to leave the country
Do Sweden have direct flights to Ecuador ? :)
I have not made any assumptions About Amnesty and their complaint Willy or maybe you can show me where? You are the one making that rubbish claim:mid:, it is just an unrelated old case from 2001.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir WilsonOf course, Amnesty Int'l wrong, Lardichr right.Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchr
:rolleyes:
Of course not, they aren't completely stupid to advertise what they will do once he is in Sweden.Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchr
Amnestys case is about two Asylum seekers and alleged terrorists from Egypt who was extradited back to Egypt in December 2001 just in the hysteric aftermath of 9/11.
It has absolutely nothing to with Assange and no bearing on his case, the rules applying to Assange is the EU arrest warrant treaty from 2004 and the extradition treaty with the US from 23/10-2009
As regards to what the US will do, -You are guessing Willy based on what??, the US have had over 2 years since Manning was arrested in may 2010, and I don't believe that the biggest superpower in the world with all it's human, technical and monetary resources, and as important a target Assange is by some claims, that the US would be so incredibly slow just formulating a charge:mid: the likely-hood that they do not have a case yet is as good or even a better guess than yours.
Fact there is no extradition request from the US and even if they have one later while Assange is in Sweden, Britain will still be the deciding country Willy!.
There never was a real threat, just a stupid diplomatic fumble, R Correa is playing for the crowd and getting the most out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mid
The actual statement from the FCO sent in a letter to Ecuador on friday say "at no time has the UK government made any threat against the embassy of Ecuador."
"Respect for, and compliance with, international law is at the heart of the conduct of the foreign policy of the United Kingdom."
And Correa makes that, Britain has "given up it's threat" :mid:
But the FCO also maintains that Assange will be arrested if he try to leave the Embassy.
So Assange is inside, and the Police is waiting outside, yes Mid ? so IMO that is not much of a change from the last two months.
:)