Judge approves Assange extradition

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by dobella

You signed up to the forum or did your wife/partner for you you pussy.
If you cant take criticsm for your liberal pussy views i suggest you fuck off to la la land where everything is rosy.
Have a nice day mate.

I am not at all worried about my views and how some may view them.

What this discussion has boiled down to is that BB cannot show the evidence of his rants. Which is not unusual for him.

You have a great night as well.

**buriramboy** · 17-08-2012, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by buriramboy

if an embassy is using its premises to do naughty things

Are you suggesting the Ecuadorian embassy is being used in such a way?

Still no clauses which state "storming the embassy".

ROFL, at selective quoting, again 0/10 for effort there. The British government is clearly of the opinion Ecuador are being naughty boys in their use of the embassy, hence the letter they sent, i thought you were following the case or are you just here to troll???

Again what is your obsession with the word 'storm' would you like me to change it to 'enter' or maybe 'penetrate' ???

**dobella** · 17-08-2012, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by setaputra

Originally Posted by dobella

Originally Posted by setaputra

You are a fool. Wake up

You need to take that mirror away from your keyboard.

Dobella. You are an embarrassment. You can't write in English. Your posts don't make sense. You do not understand the issues. You can't debate or argue a point. Good at flaming though, I give you that.

I'll take that as a thumbs up from you then.
I have to go for an interview next week for a new job, can i get you to sign me up on my CV ? - Thanks.
What is rong wiv me inglish ffs ? - you triking te pss ?

**buriramboy** · 17-08-2012, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by dobella

You signed up to the forum or did your wife/partner for you you pussy.
If you cant take criticsm for your liberal pussy views i suggest you fuck off to la la land where everything is rosy.
Have a nice day mate.

I am not at all worried about my views and how some may view them.

What this discussion has boiled down to is that BB cannot show the evidence of his rants. Which is not unusual for him.

You have a great night as well.

You are unbelievable, you have had the law posted for you in full and the relevent clause showing that Britain could legally enter the embassy in circumstances such as these although Hague said last night they won't. As i said if you don't understand what is a clearly written and easy to understand law that even my 9 year old daughter can, maybe you should consider a special needs forum instead of TD.

**dobella** · 17-08-2012, 11:03 PM

Hey Oh Oh, i do not want to be intrusive/rude or any other way to offend you but could you let me know what country you are from ?
I will not slag off your nation for stupidness but i am curious as to why you staunchly support pretty boy Asange.

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The British government is clearly of the opinion Ecuador are being naughty boys in their use of the embassy

Have you any information which has been atrributed to the government or is this another BB scam?

Originally Posted by buriramboy

you in full and the relevent clause showing that Britain could legally enter the embassy in circumstances such as these

No you have done no such thing. The quote of a portion of a clause merely states that they can recind the embassy status if the Embassy requests it.

The full clause from the act:

3)In no case is land to be regarded as a State’s diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the Secretary of State has given that State consent under this section in relation to it; and if—

(a)a State ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or

(b)the Secretary of State withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,

it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law.

Which as far as I am aware have not done.

Followed by this.

"(4) The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law.

(5)In determining whether to do so he shall have regard to all material considerations, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection—

(a)to the safety of the public;

(b)to national security; and

(c)to town and country planning."

The ecuadorians are not casuing any problems to the safety of the public, They are not a threat to the UK nationa security and they have not done anything with regards changing the use as it applies to the T&C planning status.

All of which was previously posted by me and linked to the original act. But hey I am still awaiting the clause which states that the UK government can "storm the embassy" which you continue to purport is a fact.

Try again to wriggle out.

**dobella** · 17-08-2012, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

The ecuadorians are not casuing any problems to the safety of the public, They are not a threat to the UK nationa security and they have not done anything with regards changing the use as it applies to the T&C planning status

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.

**buriramboy** · 17-08-2012, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The British government is clearly of the opinion Ecuador are being naughty boys in their use of the embassy

Have you any information which has been atrributed to the government or is this another BB scam?

Have you listened to a single word William Hague or other Foreign office officials have said?? After this latest comment it is obvious you are just trolling as no one would intentionally ask such a dumb question who has been following the case.

**larvidchr** · 17-08-2012, 11:35 PM

Fvucked up quote sorry

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by dobella

Hey Oh Oh, i do not want to be intrusive/rude or any other way to offend you but could you let me know what country you are from ?
I will not slag off your nation for stupidness but i am curious as to why you staunchly support pretty boy Asange.

I have lived and worked in many countries, Europe, Middle East, Asia and North America. Does that help?

I don't particularly support the man, in some ways he has been idiotic - he slept allegedly with a CIA agent. He has gotten himself stuck in a pickle with very limited options. Some countries actually bend to get rid of the problem and move on. Unfortunately the UK and the US believe themselves above the law and will eventually starve him out of wherever he ends up.

What I find disturbing is the way that some governments are willing to punish the minnows but allow the whales to exist and even promote their agenda. That is not unusual for governments. The problem is that they are opening themselves up to abuse by their actions. These will ultimately come back and hurt them.

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The British government is clearly of the opinion Ecuador are being naughty boys in their use of the embassy

Have you any information which has been atrributed to the government or is this another BB scam?

Have you listened to a single word William Hague or other Foreign office officials have said?? After this latest comment it is obvious you are just trolling as no one would intentionally ask such a dumb question who has been following the case.

So your answer is no then?

**larvidchr** · 17-08-2012, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by setaputra

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Originally Posted by setaputra

Originally Posted by dobella

Originally Posted by setaputra

Please get the facts right. He has not even been charged . He is wanted for questioning. And the previous case was thrown out by the Swedish courts. And there has been no fresh evidenced. It was re-opened only after the wikileaks broke. Big coincidence, isn't it?

Ok, nitpicking are we ? - the pussy wont confront the allegations.
Does that sound better to you ? - the egotistic motherfucker cannot rule the world with impunity.

Not nitpicking. The facts are
1. He has not been charged
2. The judges threw out the case originally. There is no fresh evidence

Your last sentence shows your bias in stark contrast to the facts. Lose an argument and your only response is to flame.

Listen to the legal argument put forward by Petino. Or do you not know who he is. There is a very good gardening thread on TD if you can't keep up

Patino has no legal expertise

nor is he an Authority or has any say on the legal matter between Assange -Sweden and the British supreme court, he is not an unbiased part but a player with an agenda, he is Ecuador's Dictators foreign minister and is dutybound to try to gloss over the crap the Dictator have gotten them into FFS.

Do wake up.

He quoted from International Law which even Hague did not challenge. Hague is quoting only the DCP of 1987. You are not up to speed on the legal side or the implications and are way out of your depth. Do you think you are some sort of judge or lead barrister. You are a fool. Wake up

Well Zarathustra you are on a far out space Odyssey here.

I do actually have some Judicial experience from 20 years in law-enforcement, law studies, practical use and interpretation of law, and more than 1000 + hours in Scandinavian courtrooms as witness, victim, accuser, and accused

, you name it, and without that making me anywhere near "some sort of judge or lead barrister" as you put it, I still guess that is far more experience than you can muster in these matters, you are the one out of your depth and clearly not very well versed in general legal matters, nor the facts of this case.

"On 20 August 2010, two women came to Swedish police inquiring whether it was possible to require that Julian Assange be submitted to an HIV-test. The women involved were a 26-year-old in Enköping and a 31-year-old in Stockholm.[8][9]
In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné declared, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." However, Karin Rosander, from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at that time, but continued to investigate.[10]"

"On 30 August, he (Assange) was questioned by the Stockholm police.[5][12] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women"

"Case reopened

On 1 September 2010, Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations.[16]
On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden.[17][18] On 18 October 2010, his request was denied.[18][17][19] He left Sweden on 27 September 2010.[20] The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest.[21]

On 18 November 2010, prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for the arrest of Assange in order for him to be interviewed by the prosecutor.[22] As he was now living in England, the court ordered him detained (häktad) in absentia.[23][24]

On appeal, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the warrant on suspicion of rape, olaga tvång (duress/unlawful coercion), and two cases of sexuellt ofredande,[25][26][27][28] which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation",[29] "sexual assault",[30] "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment".[31][32][19][26][27]

The Supreme Court of Sweden decided not to consider a further appeal as no principle was at stake.[citation needed][33]

On 6 December 2010, Scotland Yard notified Assange that a valid European arrest warrant had been received.[34]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange...tion_Authority

As I told you no Swedish Judge has thrown this case out at any point, you are lying or repeating a falsehood whichever way you want it.
On the contrary it has been reviewed by several Judges up through the Swedish legal system and they all have requested Assanges arrest.

Assange fled from an agreement already made - first in Sweden, and next he has Jumped bail in Britain, the British legal system has double reviewed/checked the whole Swedish case all the way up till the British Supreme-court, and has found no flaws in the Swedish extradition request.

You discard all those truth's, and the time-line of events, that are a matter of public record and British Supreme-court record, and conceded to by Assanges lawyers, and you tell us that an Ecuadorian foreign minister who is a lapdog to a nutty Dictator, is better qualified to assert Sweden and Britains international obligations and actions regarding Diplomatic relations + the facts and legal requirements in Sweden and Britain, - Patino is better and more qualified than the Swedish and the British Governments and their highest courts.

Now kindly fuck off will you.

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by dobella

other anti-western irritating nations in Latin America that have huge chips on their collective shoulders

Some of them may have good reason to hold their views.

**buriramboy** · 18-08-2012, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The British government is clearly of the opinion Ecuador are being naughty boys in their use of the embassy

Have you any information which has been atrributed to the government or is this another BB scam?

Have you listened to a single word William Hague or other Foreign office officials have said?? After this latest comment it is obvious you are just trolling as no one would intentionally ask such a dumb question who has been following the case.

So your answer is no then?

Your question has been answered numerous times with a link to the relevent law and clause, i've even dumbed it down for you as much as possible in the hope that you might be able to understand, but as i stated you are obviously trolling and i'm getting bored of having to repeat myself to someone who clearly doesn't even have a basic understanding of English.

**dobella** · 18-08-2012, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by dobella

Hey Oh Oh, i do not want to be intrusive/rude or any other way to offend you but could you let me know what country you are from ?
I will not slag off your nation for stupidness but i am curious as to why you staunchly support pretty boy Asange.

I have lived and worked in many countries, Europe, Middle East, Asia and North America. Does that help?

I don't particularly support the man, in some ways he has been idiotic - he slept allegedly with a CIA agent. He has gotten himself stuck in a pickle with very limited options. Some countries actually bend to get rid of the problem and move on. Unfortunately the UK and the US believe themselves above the law and will eventually starve him out of wherever he ends up.

What I find disturbing is the way that some governments are willing to punish the minnows but allow the whales to exist and even promote their agenda. That is not unusual for governments. The problem is that they are opening themselves up to abuse by their actions. These will ultimately come back and hurt them.

Ok, i appreciate your coherent response but i still dont get it how you support a meglamaniac that dumps himself in the UK and wont face up to the law.
This is not fucking Afghan/Taliban law here, but he chooses to slink and slide away from what everyone must face if accused.
I feel sorry for the 2 Swedish girls that complained about his indecent behaviour.
Would you like your daughter to feel like those girls ?

**OhOh** · 18-08-2012, 01:37 AM

Assange is using the law to his advantage. he is being ostracised for actions against one country, the US. The US's lapdog is enabling it and is entering yet another stage of mismanagement. This will come back and bite both the US and the UK, mark my words. As for the Swedes Lars enunciates the legal system is above reproach, believe it if you will. Most countries reward lawyers to become judges, if you are not "one of us" you rarely become a judge of substance. Most are "called" to the bench, so to speak, who does the "calling" and on what criteria is seldom discussed.

The UK doesn't have the kudos to bring this off without alienating many people within and many countries without. I heard that the Russians are pointing out the illegality of these laws on the radio today. The power centres are shifting and many countries are questioning the current status quo.

Times have obviously changed since my time of dating European women but to complain of consensual sex only after comparing notes the two girls are being a little economical with the truth IMHO.

I have a daughter who has been told many times by myself, her mother and her brothers what the straight and narrow way is and rightly so she, at her age, now decides what she finds acceptable in her relationships.

I am sure many girls wake up in the morning and regret what happened the night before, likewise many men. Unless she has been forcibly raped, which does of course happen, she needs to reflect and try not to repeat her mistakes. So far in her life nothing too serious has happened to her.

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.

**nostromo** · 18-08-2012, 03:13 AM

You said what I would have said, (I ask, is there some F-UP in FO handling this)

Originally Posted by Mid

If the UK has any smarts they would quietly turn a blind eye to Assanges movements in the near future .

This game is far larger than Assange and the repercussions of rash actions will reverberate for absolutely eons .....................................

**nostromo** · 18-08-2012, 03:16 AM

That said. But it was the Swedes that asked for this, and there is legal ground for making embassy non embassy and using force if necessary. I am sure US is learning of this by minute, or rather they suggested this route.

**nostromo** · 18-08-2012, 03:18 AM

Embassies all over time have been cover to all kind of smuggling and acts you could not imagine, so perhaps it is time to end their impunity.

I am 100% certain if UK law allows to get Assange, it is right to get him - as demanded by Sweden. Sweden is the one we should be asking questions. They do have police force - some good ones like Wallander

- is there truth in these accusations, or is Sweden just another US puppet?

**Bazzy** · 18-08-2012, 05:45 AM

US in pursuit of Assange, cables reveal

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Photo: Reuters

EXCLUSIVE

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is still gunning for Julian Assange, according to Foreign Affairs Department documents obtained by The Saturday Age.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information laws, show Australia's diplomatic service takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

This view is at odds with Foreign Minister Bob Carr's repeated dismissal of such a prospect.

Australia's ambassador to the US, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high-level representations to the American government, asking for warning of any moves to prosecute Assange. However, briefings for Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Senator Carr suggest the Australian Government has no in-principle objection to Assange's extradition.

On Thursday, Ecuador granted Assange political asylum at its London embassy on the grounds that if extradited to Sweden to be questioned about sexual assault allegations he will be at risk of further extradition to the US to face espionage or conspiracy charges.

Last night, the diplomatic standoff continued. Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain would not allow Assange safe passage out of the country, ''nor is there any legal basis for us to do so''. However, he later told reporters ''there is no threat here to storm an embassy''.

WikiLeaks announced on Twitter that Assange would give a statement outside the embassy tomorrow. Meanwhile, one of his defence lawyers said he would appeal to the International Court of Justice if Britain prevented him from going to Ecuador.

In May, Senator Carr told a Senate estimates committee hearing: "We have no advice that the US has an intention to extradite Mr Assange … nothing we have been told suggests that the US has such an intention."

However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year".

The embassy noted media reports that a US federal grand jury had been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to pursue the WikiLeaks case and that US government officials "cannot lawfully confirm to us the existence of the grand jury".

Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.

Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.

The cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high-level US advice on "the direction and likely outcome of the investigation" and "reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange".

The question of advance warning of any prosecution or extradition moves was previously raised by Australian diplomats in December 2010.

American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".

Large sections of the cables have been redacted on national security grounds, including parts of reports on the open, pre-court martial proceedings of US Army Private Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked a vast quantity of classified information to WikiLeaks. Australian embassy representatives have attended all of Private Manning's pre-trial hearings.

Australian diplomats have highlighted the prosecution's reference to "several connections between Manning and WikiLeaks which would form the basis of a conspiracy charge" and evidence that the investigation has targeted the "founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks" for espionage.

However, the embassy was unable to confirm the claim in a leaked email from an executive with US private intelligence company Stratfor, that "[w]e have a sealed indictment against Assange".

"Commentators have ... suggested that the source may have been referring to a draft indictment used by prosecutors to 'game out' possible charges," the embassy reported in February. "There is no way to confirm the veracity of the information through official sources."

A spokesperson for Senator Carr said yesterday Assange's circumstances remained a matter for the UK, Ecuador and Sweden, with Australia's role limited to that of a consular observer.

**Bazzy** · 18-08-2012, 05:47 AM

Does anyone still think he is paranoid?

**OhOh** · 18-08-2012, 07:03 AM

This is from an article in a Swedish newspaper from December 2011. The article is assessing the possible Swedish Government response if the US requested the extradition of Assange if/when he arrives in Sweden.

It is translated from the Swedish so a little difficult to follow.

Assange: Sverige har inte motsatt sig USA under 00-talet | SvD

"In an interview with TV4 get Wikileaksgrundaren Julian Assange, who continues to fight to avoid transmitted from Britain to Sweden, asked if he is afraid to be extradited to the United States and what he believes will happen to him if it happens. He answers, "Yes, it is the single biggest consideration, be forwarded to the United States. At each request for extradition has been sent to Sweden from the United States since 2000, Sweden has provided over the person. "
Assange has also repeatedly said that he is afraid to be passed on to the United States if he is handed over from Britain to Sweden.

SvD FACTS Viewing:

According to the Justice Department, the U.S. has demanded the extradition from Sweden, a total of six times since 2000. Twice, Sweden has given the U.S. refused and both times have been the reason that you did not find the person that the U.S. wanted a hold of. Had people found they had then taken a position on whether they should be disclosed or not, so it is unclear what happened to the characters found in Sweden.

The usual procedure in extradition cases is that a country that wants to get hold of a suspected criminal, first make inquiries and investigate whether extradition is possible, says chief prosecutor Nils Rekke. If a country already in advance are informed that there are obstacles in the law of the country you want someone extradited from, leaving it unlikely to be a formal request.

Do countries check the conditions carefully, so that you only submit a formal request for one is almost sure to get someone extradited?

- Yes, I want to satisfy itself, so that there will be a rejection. Just as we do not want to spend time and effort on trying to get another country to disclose someone even though you know that it is contrary to the laws of that country. Then there is no point to do so, says Nils Rekke.

Therefore, there may be cases in which the United States wanted no mercy, but received no informal and therefore not made any request. One way to come up with such an informal request is to call someone via Interpol. Then say a country in practice that if the person is found in your country, so we want him extradited. But if Sweden finds reason to disclose the person, the U.S. will therefore probably not make a formal request.

National Police to be no statistics on how many times the U.S. wanted someone via Interpol, which proved to be in Sweden, but that has not been extradited. Therefore it is not possible to determine with certainty whether, and if so, how many times, the U.S. has wanted no mercy without submitting a formal request.

CONCLUSION:

The claim that Sweden has denied the U.S. extradition only once since 2000 is not true. But the times Sweden has not made out of people, it has been due to an extradition practically been impossible, since they have not found the person. One can thus see that Sweden has never actively opposed U.S. request in the 2000s. Therefore, Assange yellow light.
It may also be that the U.S. in fact wanted persons extradited, but never formally requested it because you realize that it will not go through. According to Nils Rekke it is common that it's done so. Assange tries with his statement to argue that there is a high likelihood of being extradited from Sweden to the United States if the United States requests it, and then the claim misleading because it highlights how extradition cases are handled in practice.

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. Assange is not currently charged with any crime in the United States, and to the issue of extradition must be current U.S. must prosecute Assange with a crime that can provide a minimum of two years in jail in both the U.S. and Sweden"

I would suggest that Sweden would not hesitate to extradite once Assange was in their custody. Of the 6 official reuests 4 were granted.

The other two were not as the Swedes "could not find" the requested person.

There is also a curious statement at the the end that the UK government could withhold permission for Sweden to extradite to a third country, the US. I can just see the UK government doing that.

**kingwilly** · 18-08-2012, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Is diplomatic immunity retroactive?

What if Ecuador gave him citizenship and then appointed him to some diplomatic job, would that stop the UK from arresting him on his way to the airport?

I think someone else on this thread mentioned that the host country has to recognize the diplomatic status of said person before or as they enter the country. Which would make that option a no.

**Latindancer** · 18-08-2012, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Of the 6 official requests 4 were granted.

The other two were not as the Swedes "could not find" the requested person.

Shit a brick, eh ? That puts things into the correct light, doesn't it ?

**nostromo** · 18-08-2012, 11:27 AM

I find Sweden guilty.

I felt from day one - which is a feeling not perhaps accurate but it might be - that Assange is innocent to said events. OK say call girls, not a crime.

I hope Assange gets back to Australia. Buy him a beer in Sydney.

Thread: Judge approves Assange extradition

Thread Tools

Display

US in pursuit of Assange, cables reveal

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions