Judge approves Assange extradition

^^^^ oHoH that is a rather poor translation and you miss the most pertinent points from the SvD News Fact-control.

They find that Assange with the statement - "that Sweden since 2000 never has refused an extradition to the US." - Assange is being liberal with the truth so they give him a yellow light/card for twisting the facts.

The procedure goes like this, that informal contacts are made before an extradition request, if the host country states that they will be unlikely to extradite the request is then never formally made, only in cases where there beforehand is agreement of an extradition the whole procedure is then put in motion.

The Swedes keep no record of the informal deliberations so in actual fact it is not possible to assert how often the US informally have ended up not sending an extradition request because they knew it would highly likely not be granted.

IMO - the whole Assange argument fails because he should have limited his comparisons with "political type of extraditions" claiming Sweden is in any way subservient to the US for handing over 4 wanted Pedophiles? Robbers? or Murderers? - whatever!?, is ridiculous and has no comparison to Assange.

Last but not least the very important point that Sweden according to the way they interpret and practice international law and relations with other nations, would not extradite Assange to the US unless Britain also go through an extradition case and approve, since Assange in Sweden would be regarded as extradited from a third Country (Britain) and as such can not be extradited without British approval.

So if the US really wants him extradited,
(as some of you allege without a shred of real factual documented official evidence apart from blogosphere viewpoints without any authority.)
The US might as well ask for it now in Britain and only have to go through one Country and one extradition case:mid::mid:

This shoots another massive hole in the bogus fake Assange claim that he only refuses to go to Sweden because he is afraid to be extradited, he did not mind staying in Britain who it seems would be the decisive power in any extradition anyway :mid::mid::rofl:

Come on guys, even the most blinkered of you must be able to see that this is all about Assange being afraid of getting convicted as a sex criminal, and as such loose his status to be changed with "pariah sleaze-bag sexual predator not wanted anywhere" thus his life as an international hacker superstar would be finally over.

And by the way since some of you liberally quote opinion pieces as official Gospel of the truth, I wonder how you have missed the Part where Assange is known for by his coworkers and friends, stating/bragging that he wished to father a small Assange in every Country he had visited !!!!

If I was to do like you this would be clear irrefutable rock solid evidence:mid::rofl: of Assange ribbing the condom on purpose or forcefully carry on after the fact even if he was begged to stop. So guilty as charged eh.:mid:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Come on guys, even the most blinkered of you must be able to see that this is all about Assange being afraid of getting convicted as a sex criminal, and as such loose his status to be changed with "pariah sleaze-bag sexual predator not wanted anywhere" thus his life as an international hacker superstar would be finally over.

---

He has already lost whatever status he once had and he is digging himself deeper and deeper down.
He'll soon be where the U.S wants him to be - in a nearby country where they can pick him up if they want him without having to embarrass themselves with a turned down extradition request.
Julian Assanges world is getting smaller and smaller and U.S wikileak investigators must be laughing their ass off right now.
Let him out of Britain, let the sleeze-bag rot in Ecuador!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sweden according to the way they interpret and practice international law and relations with other nations, would not extradite Assange to the US unless Britain also go through an extradition case and approve

---

Nice way of putting it Sweden is a colony of Britain. As you are from Norway (good country) I believe, you should know this is not the case. Near your location I remember from uni history lessons, Norway and Denmark were taken over by nazis, only Sweden and Finland remained independent.
Thing is if Sweden just hands Assange over to US.

Sweden is now the one and only country who wants Assange legally - later on US. Look there for answers. Get him back to AUS. If there is any legal problems let him be tried under Independent Australian law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nostromo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sweden according to the way they interpret and practice international law and relations with other nations, would not extradite Assange to the US unless Britain also go through an extradition case and approve

---

Nice way of putting it Sweden is a colony of Britain. As you are from Norway (good country) I believe, you should know this is not the case. Near your location I remember from uni history lessons, Norway and Denmark were taken over by nazis, only Sweden and Finland remained independent.
Thing is if Sweden just hands Assange over to US.

---

I am from Denmark, and I don't know what you are on about, Sweden is a neutral nation and a colony of nobody, but international agreements dictate that if Assange is extradited to Sweden by Britain, Sweden can not pass Assange on without approval from Britain, thus a country do not have to worry about culpability in a person later being passed on to a place they would never have approved on, this agreement is in line with the wishes of every European advanced Democracy, and has nothing at all to do with any Nation being above other Nations.

And as regard to your not related history lesson, yes Denmark and Norway was attacked and occupied by the Germans, Sweden was not attacked and remained neutral, but Finland was a "forced due to their war with Russia" ally of Nazi Germany from about june 41 untill September 19 1944 and "occupied" by thousands of German troops, This made Britain declare war on Finland on the 6 December 1941, in the 1944 armistice with the Russians Finland was forced to expel the remaining German troops with force and it led to some heavy fighting in Lapland....................... But none of this last bit has anything to do with this thread or Assange's case:chitown:

Thank you for your considered reply. I thought you were Norwegian, but Danes are good as well, though you have a bit of a thing with Greenland. Human rights and all that. I read Peter Hoeg.

But in law there is nothing like you suggest Sweden would have to send Assange straight over to US. This remains a Swedish decision, and blame.

I do remember some of my uni lessons. As for the rant about war, wasn't it in the end only Finnish with some small number of Swedish volunteers stopped russians coming to your home? Denmark, Sweden, Norway. Would you have internet now, if someone else had not acted? Or you prefer third reich or soviet union with what failing tv sets they give you and soviet internet. Sorry mate Internet was found in UK in 1900 and put in use as Arpanet in US in 60's and fuck nazis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nostromo;21
90524

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sweden according to the way they interpret and practice international law and relations with other nations, would not extradite Assange to the US unless Britain also go through an extradition case and approve

---

Nice way of putting it Sweden is a colony nk of Britain. As you are from Norway (good country) I believe, you should know this is not the case. Near your location I remember from uni history lessons, Norway and Denmark were taken over by nazis, only Sweden and Finland remained independent.
Thing is if Sweden just hands Assange over to US.

---

I am from Denmark, and I don't know what you are on about, Sweden is a neutral nation and a colony of nobody, but international agreements dictate that if Assange is extradited to Sweden by Britain, Sweden can not pass Assange on without approval from Britain, thus a country do not have to worry about culpability in a person later being passed on to a place they would never have approved on, this agreement is in line with the wishes of every European advanced Democracy, and has nothing at all to do with any Nation being above other Nations.

And as regard to your not related history lesson, yes Denmark and Norway was attacked and occupied by the Germans, Sweden was not attacked and remained neutral, but Finland was a "forced due to their war with Russia" ally of Nazi Germany from about june 41 untill September 19 1944 and "occupied" by thousands of German troops, This made Britain declare war on Finland on the 6 December 1941, in the 1944 armistice with the Russians Finland was forced to expel the remaining German troops with force and it led to some heavy fighting in Lapland....................... But none of this last bit has anything to do with this thread or Assange's case:chitown:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sweden is a neutral nation and a colony of nobody, but international agreements dictate that if Assange is extradited to Sweden by Britain

---

Extradition law is governed by a law all EU members signed. So EU law governs not UK or Sweden law when it comes to extradition. Haven't read the treaty but reckon this was what the UK judges complied with when granting Sweden's request to extradite Assange.

So now the time has come to

Fok EU

And their shite commie leaders non-elected planning to stay in power until they die, and then their children. End of Europe.

Wonder why million illegals try to get to the UK from france, risking death. I do not blame them, they want better life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sweden is a neutral nation and a colony of nobody, but international agreements dictate that if Assange is extradited to Sweden by Britain

---

Extradition law is governed by a law all EU members signed. So EU law governs not UK or Sweden law when it comes to extradition. Haven't read the treaty but reckon this was what the UK judges complied with when granting Sweden's request to extradite Assange.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sweden is a neutral nation and a colony of nobody, but international agreements dictate that if Assange is extradited to Sweden by Britain

---

Extradition law is governed by a law all EU members signed. So EU law governs not UK or Sweden law when it comes to extradition. Haven't read the treaty but reckon this was what the UK judges complied with when granting Sweden's request to extradite Assange.

---

Not sure I understand your post Norton, Sweden and the UK are both members of the EU so the "international" (agreement between all EU member states) agreements on extradition within the EU would cover both Sweden and the UK... yes?

This is the google translated info from the fact finding news piece from SvD posted by oHoH (Svenska dagbladet) clarifying Swedens obligations on the issue -

It's a bad translation but states in short Sweden can not extradite Assange later to the US unless Britain approve.

"Svenska Dagbladet has previously written that even if Assange extradited here, it is not only up to Sweden to hand him over to the United States, if the country would request it. Because he would then be in here who handed over from Britain, the United Kingdom agree to send him on to a third country."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sweden and the UK are both members of the EU so the "international" (agreement between all EU member states) agreements on extradition within the EU would cover both Sweden and the UK... yes?

---

Yes. Just expanding "international" agreement. It is one but not bilateral country to country. One law fits all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sweden and the UK are both members of the EU so the "international" (agreement between all EU member states) agreements on extradition within the EU would cover both Sweden and the UK... yes?

---

Yes. Just expanding "international" agreement. It is one but not bilateral country to country. One law fits all.

---

OK Norton :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

As for the two girls in this incident they need to get on with their life. No good will accrue to them for what they are continuing, unless of course you value a promotion in the CIA. Last edited by OhOh : Today at 01:43 AM.

---

If i have read this right then you are suggsting that if you have been raped then you 'just need to on with it' - fantastic piece of advice to your daughters.
No wonder parenting has gone south in the last 2 generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dobella

If i have read this right then you are suggsting that if you have been raped then you 'just need to on with it' - fantastic piece of advice to your daughters. No wonder parenting has gone south in the last 2 generations.

---

IIRC (and I am may be wrong) but the sex Assange had with the ladies was consensual, but due to a clause in Swedish law they then could claim rape after the fact because condoms weren't involved.

Before bringing in daughters and appealing to emotions etc it is worth remembering that Assange hasn't been charged with anything in Sweden - he's only wanted for questioning.

How is Assange any different from Woodward and Bernstein? And, aside from the avalanche of information the US would rather wasn't published, how is Wikileaks any different from the NYT or Washington Post (e.g. revealing Watergate)?

Simple solution break off diplomatic relations with Ecuador .

^ Yes and he kindly offered to do it by videolink, the weasel is savvy but the law in Europe does not bounce to the accused.
The guy is a pussy, flat out pussy - rocks the world with secrets that ALL nations must protect and then cries like a baby when called to account.
He could have started world war 3, and probably would have had a wank about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dobella

No, you are correct here but i think their motive is to connect with the other anti-western irritating nations in Latin America that have huge chips on their collective shoulders.
Equador ?, what a fucking joke.

---

They ARE Western countries you stupid fuck. They're just not rabid-right-wing-capitalist countries. And their number is growing. The great irony is Sweden is usually seen as the model of the modern socialist state. The US clealry has Sweden by the balls in some form on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Last Online: Today 07:41 PM Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,474 Quote: Originally Posted by dobella No, you are correct here but i think their motive is to connect with the other anti-western irritating nations in Latin America that have huge chips on their collective shoulders. Equador ?, what a fucking joke. They ARE Western countries you stupid fuck. They're just not rabid-right-wing-capitalist countries. And their number is growing. The great irony is Sweden is usually seen as the model of the modern socialist state. The US clealry has Sweden by the balls in some form on this one.__________________ My mind is not for rent to any God

---

Hello knobhead, WTF are you spouting here, i am sober but do not get you vile response. - Please enlighten me about where i went wrong.

^^ This has nothing to do with the US.

^ ^ - Yeah, just re-read my post again and your response. - Do you know the difference between Western and anti Western you fuckwit.
Get some education before flaming.

They ARE Western countries - you still don't get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

They ARE Western countries - you still don't get it?

---

So Equador and anti western countries ARE western countries eh ?
Your high school teacher needs a good slapping.

You should probably slap yours - if you went to high school, which looks less likely now. Western countries are those in Western Europe and the Americas. Perhaps you're confusing 'developed, transitional and underdeveloped' or maybe just capitalist with communist. Aside from Cuba, there are no communist countries in the Americas.

^
You certainly know how to bore the shit out of a thread with total bollocks.
I am fed up of trying to get into your pea brain about Western and Anti Western
political favourance.
Wasting my fucking time with your lack of intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

You should probably slap yours - if you went to high school, which looks less likely now. Western countries are those in Western Europe and the Americas. Perhaps you're confusing 'developed, transitional and underdeveloped' or maybe just capitalist with communist. Aside from Cuba, there are no communist countries in the Americas.

---

Pardon me? Venezuela, Hugo Chavez?