^^^ 55555555555555555555
Wasn't referring to you there willy, but dickhead haigh, although you both do have a lot in common:)
I'll put it in simple terms for you
why deny him "safe" passage?
You can't argue with that
Printable View
^^^ 55555555555555555555
Wasn't referring to you there willy, but dickhead haigh, although you both do have a lot in common:)
I'll put it in simple terms for you
why deny him "safe" passage?
You can't argue with that
Whoops, my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by LooseBowels
I guess he's denying safe passage because not to do so would involve a loss of face.
An interview of an ex-CIA officer from RT News.
"Ecuador’s move to grant Julian Assange political asylum has shown the true face of the current world order, highlighting more clearly than ever the line between the American Empire and the rest of the world, former CIA officer Ray McGovern told RT.
RT: One of the main reasons Ecuador cited for granting asylum was not the Swedish case against Assange, but the danger of him being persecuted and possibly even executed in the US. What reaction from Washington do you expect?
Ray McGovern: Well, this is a classic case of what has changed over the last 20 years. And that is simply that the shape of the world is now empire vs. the rest of you. What I say here now is that Caesar has spoken. Caesar is the law. Caesar is the United States and the satraps overseas – the UK in the first instance, and now Sweden in the other, do the bidding of the empire. The country that has refused to do the bidding of the empire, Ecuador, is playing a very interesting role here. Their foreign minister said this morning that "we are not a British colony, and the days of colonialism are over.
So what we see here is a playing out of the fact that there is a complete disrespect for international law. The embassy premises of all countries have heretofore been considered sacrosanct. The British Foreign Office is now saying ‘well, we may forcibly enter.’ This was unheard of even during the worst days of the Cold War. If someone sought refuge in the US Embassy in Moscow or the Soviet Embassy in the United States, despite the friction, despite the enmity between those two countries, international law was always honored. This is unprecedented.
RT: According to Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patina, the UK’s acts of aggression, blackmailing, and threats are in direct violation of the 1976 Council of Diplomatic Relations. Do you think that as London and Washington are in cahoots, Ecuador is considered to be meaningless, as it has a small military, and is not a significant economic power?
RM: Well, that has been the attitude. Smaller countries do not really amount to much in Washington or London’s view these days. What will be interesting is to see how much will come out in terms of the real game being played here. Nobody seems to remember that the prime accuser of Julian Assange – Anna Ardin in Sweden – used to work for extreme anti-Castro publications funded by the CIA. So there are links there, and it doesn’t require a conspiratorial attitude to see that the only way they can get at Julian Assange is by trumped-up charges of sexual indiscretions in a country that is hypersensitive to that, and they haven’t even persuaded a judge in Sweden to make those charges.
They have had ample opportunity to go to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and question Julian Assange. They said, ‘we’re not going to do that.' Now, why is that? The reason is, there is no case against Julian Assange. In my opinion, it’s all very transparent. They want to extradite him to Sweden, and then to the United States to suffer the same indignities, the same torture of Bradley Manning – the person who allegedly gave those documents to Julian Assange – has faced. This is a violation of the First Amendment in our country and other amendments in our Bill of Rights, and I dare say that our founding fathers are rolling in their graves to see a [publisher] treated this way in violation of the right to make things known that are otherwise hidden."
Now THAT'S an interesting revelation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Let's also keep in mind that he hasn't been charged with anything yet. He is only wanted for questioning. And it's rather revealing that he has volunteered to be interviewed in London by the Swedish police. He is not dictating terms here.....as far as I know, police do sometimes travel internationally to interview people.
.
.
.
A recent case of "negotiating" an exit for one of the "good" guys. You will note the four instances of "good deeds" that he was "known" by "somebody" for.
"In 2012, Chinese civil rights activist Chen Guangcheng escaped house arrest and fled to the US embassy in Beijing. A self-taught lawyer, he had previously been sentenced to lengthy periods in jail. He was known by international human rights groups for defending the rights of poor farmers, the disabled and exposing forced abortions and sterilisations. In May 2012, after negotiations with the Chinese government, he was granted a US visa with his wife and children and was permitted to travel to New York."
There has been some discussion about the "charges" or "helping police with their enquiries". It seems the Swedish procedure for charging prior to arrest is different from the UK way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Maybe Lars can illuminate us on the Swedish system?
Jesus ! Not only is there a wikipedia page on Assange (of course), but there is a Wiki page devoted to
Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two facts stand out:
1) Ecuador offered to allow Swedish prosecutors to question Assange at the Embassy in London, but this was turned down by the Swedish prosecutors. Why ?
2)Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over the US. Why was this not given ?
.
.Is General Noriega still rotting in a US prison ?
.
Funny how the people that think Assange should be locked up in an American jail can't seem to quote the American law that they think he has broken. Don't worry, I'm sure the Yanks will just make one up.
Its funny how Haigh seems to have suddenly grown a set of balls and is threatening to start a diplomatic war over deporting this white Anglo Saxon whistle blower who has embarrassed the USA yet has proved to be a spineless and gutless pathetic excuse for a man when it comes to deporting dangerous wanted Muslim terrorists who we are supposed to be at war with.
Don't worry his time as no.1 ends Saturday at midnight. Then a certain Mrs May gets a weeks trial to see if she can do any worse.
Five.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
Quote:
Moderators
5
Unless Scotty beams him up, Assange is gonna be arrested the moment he sets foot out of the Embassy. Suppose Ecuador could grant him citizenship and issue him diplomatic passport but that would sure begin a series of diplomatic reprisals.
He may be uncomfortable cramped in the Embassy office waiting for appeal but still time for creative solution.
Except the US has NOT requested extradition from ANY country, shit-fer-brains.Quote:
Originally Posted by pickel
A bottle of Whisky and a revolver?Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
A diplomatic passport offers no protection. A diplomat has to be accredited by the host country when they arrive in order to receive immunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
If you really think that as soon as this guy is in Sweden he won't be immediately shipped off to the USA then it is you that has shit for brains and fucking bad shit at that !Quote:
Originally Posted by Panty HamsterExcept the US has NOT requested extradition from ANY country, shit-fer-brains.Quote:
Originally Posted by pickel
Bully boy USA
WE WANT WE GET !
they didn't request the extradition of Bin Laden from Pakistan but that didn't stop them from invading a sovereign country and then telling the world they had killed him, but just weren't going to prove it now did it !
No, I don't. Sweden wants the dirtbag more than the US.Quote:
you really think that as soon as this guy is in Sweden he won't be immediately shipped off to the USA
Assange is a dip-shit Ocker cowering in a tinpot dictator's embassy in London. He's hanging himself over a fiddling charge in Sweden. No intervention required. Enjoy.
:chitown:
Where did I say they did? Panties-fer-brains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Panty Hamster
ROFL at the forum addicted troll who claims to be an English teacher yet has the reading the comprehension of a 2 year old. Where did i say you spouted any law??? I said you spout trash and you don't know the law. Now run along and stick to your trolling threads and pointless 1 word posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir WilsonQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Wilson
I take it you cannot then. Didn't think you would. Quick tip dopey, if I make an on topic comment about the thread and you arrive and start making comments about me, then that's stalking, yep, you are the stalker.Quote:
ROFL at little willy who has been stalking me for months accusing me of stalking, but back on topic,
Uh ha, at huge cost and an international diplomatic storm.Quote:
said the Brit copper who said they might storm the embassy is an imbecile hence you are obviously unaware of the law that entitles them to do just that and the British government have implied they will do just that,
You're embarrassing yourself again. Let it go, I'm not gay and I will not be letting you bum me, find another young boy on the internet to harass.Quote:
but then again apart from being a forum addicted troll there isn't actually a lot that you are aware of.
Obviously not being the brightest tool in the box, you may find the following link a bit hard to understand, but give it a go and you'll see there is a law in place that would allow the British Government to storm the embassy under these circumstances, so it seems the one spouting is crap is you and of course Willy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987
Here is some of the why -Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
This has been posted already LD and is clearly explained in the documents the British Supreme court used to decide on Assanges extradition.
Assange had a deal with the Swedes and ran from it, so all deals are of, he was then red flagged by interpol and arrested in Britain like they are obliged to do according to their international agreements, there is nothing special in it apart from what Assange deludes you all to believe, he is just another common fugitive from justice as far as the Swedish system goes, and warrants as such no special treatment, but only what is required according to criminal law investigation procedures in Sweden.
The Swedes have no choice but trying to get Assange to cooperate with the investigation if they are to live up to Swedish law regarding the alleged sexual assaults, the victims has rights too that can't be overlooked or dismissed according to Swedish law, just like Assange has rights as an important witness.
Sweden is not another banana republic where procedure and law can be manipulated and twisted so it fits nicely not to disturb or inconvenience self proclaimed VIP's to much, they have absolutely no provisions to legalize any espenses or effort traveling around the world to interview a common lowlife fugitive from justice like Assange, the Procecutor, staff, Police Detectives, translators, Swedish Court appointed lawyers Swedish approved procedure of interview etc. etc. etc. the list is long to comply with Swedish law as to the rights of the interviewee and to make any results admissible in a Swedish Court.
This is not the same as an cross Nation interview of a jailed in a foreign nation mafia/warcrime/terror criminal with international links to Sweden:mid::rofl: although Assange would like to blow it up to the VIP stratosphere mother of conspiracies.
Last but not least, and that should sort of make you lot think a bit, even if such an interview was possible (it's not remember!!) where is the the offer that say - if along the interview the Swedes decide they have ground to Arrest Assange and bring him back to Sweden they can do so!!, no such promise has been given by the Assange side ever, and nor by the Ecuadorians either, so the whole thing would be an exercise in utter futility seen from a Swedish point of view, So the offer is in reality blatantly bogus, and just another smokescreen for the gullible to lap up with the rest of his bullshit.
I have yet to see credible evidence, and or papers from Assanges defense team, officially promising that Assange will go to Sweden if a guarantee is given that he will not be extradited to the US, but even if there is such a paper that is just another bogus piece of manipulative crap.
Apart again, from the quite pertinent fact that there is no such extradition request from the US, since they can't come up with any US law they can prove Assange might have broken.
The Swedes can't in anyway legally make such a carte blanc promise of the cuff, any lawyer knowledgeable in international affairs would be able to tell you that, an extradition request would just like the Swedish one in Britain, have to be dealt with in Swedish courts case by case, it's like asking you to jump on your tongue - if you can we will let you go, an impossible ask, so also that alleged offer is not genuine in any way shape or form, but just more bullshit to be swallowed by the gullible believers, and as bogus as the rest of the Assange "I'm a persecuted innocent" crap, his work at wikileaks and his private sexual indiscretions and possible sexual crimes are unrelated.
Finally more than one Judge in Sweden has ruled on Assanges arrest in absentia, when he absconded the Swedish Prosecutor had to report that to the court who then ruled that the Prosecutor had to secure Assanges arrest by issuing arrest warrants where applicable. Assanges lawyers appealed the decision to a higher court who upheld the arrest warrant on suspision of Rape and two counts of sexual molestation. The Swedish Supreme court refused to rule on the case saying that no specific principles of law was in question.
In Scandinavian law at least, an important witness can be requested to show, if they do not they will be ruled subject to arrest, they do not have to have been charged with any crime or necessarily will be, they can be just an innocent witness to a crime. It is again up to a Jugde based on the Prosecutors case to decide if such a witness in absentia then is ruled subject to arrest.
Fact is that Assange is sought only to give statements at an interview - so far!, him and his lawyers have stated repeatedly that there is no case, the victims are unreliable and they can prove Assanges innocence easy, so if we take that to heart, Assange could in theory walk after five min. free as a bird, but in reality only Assange knows how likely that scenario is, which makes his desperate ridiculous escapades to avoid this "easy case:mid:" quite suspect - to phrase it mildly.
The DCP Act 1987 could apply on notice being given (7 days) but the repercussions would be enormous. No country would ever again be sure of diplomatic immunity. Cardinal Mindszenzy stayed in a US embassy for 15 years and posters have quoted other precedents.
The truth is the Americans are pulling the strings. Assange was indicted several years ago for the same crimes and the Swedish court threw it out. But that of course was before the Wikileaks hit the fan. Be a bad day for free press and free speech if he is not allowed to go to Ecuador. The foreign minister Petino has put up a far stronger international case than the likes of Hague.
Larvidchr, a long and one-sided account.
Have you listened to Petino's summing up of the grant of asylum and his references to international law?
Do you really think this is not the Americans wanting to get at Assange through the back door?
And why did the Swedish court originally throw out the rape and sex assault case and only re-visit it after the wikileaks hit the fan?
I'm not suggesting Assange is a saint but posters need to look at events in an unbiased way
There is NO chance that Britain will storm will the Ecuador embassy, but that wasn't my point. My point was that they have the right to do so under the law in these circumstances and threatened to do so in a letter to Ecuador which they obviously weren't expecting the Ecuadorians to make public. The foreign secretary has now said that Assange will not be given free passage out of the UK so i guess he will be living in the Ecuador embassy for the forseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by setaputra
Hague made the 'threat' public on UK television before the Ecuadorian announcement, Buriramboy.
He said last night on television that they wouldn't storm the embassy just that Assange wouldn't be given free passage out of the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by setaputra