Thread: Judge approves Assange extradition

Originally Posted by larvidchr

There never was a real threat, just a stupid diplomatic fumble,

Bollocks, the acting Prime Minister of the UK threatened a sovereign country in writing after being warned by his legal advisors that it was illegal, and advised not to include the statement.

The UK MSM, BBC News 15/8/2012, attributed a statement to a government minister that the UK forces would "storm the embassy".

Originally Posted by Necron99

The 34-member Organisation of American States declared "solidarity and support" for Ecuador on Friday,

I wonder if that included the USA's support.

It just goes to show how pathetic the British government is when it comes to bending over and doing what Daddy USA tells them.

And to think of all the kerfuffle and sniffy whinging they came out with when Iranians stormed the British embassy in Teheran.

Can't have it both ways.

Funny how the relative silence over this is deafening. Look at what happened after the Iran incident:

There was strong international reaction to Tuesday's events.
The 15-nation UN Security Council - which has passed four rounds of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme - condemned the attack "in the strongest terms".
US President Barack Obama said he was "deeply disturbed" by events in Tehran.
"I strongly urge the Iranian government to hold those responsible to task," he added.
Germany also summoned its Iranian ambassador over the storming of the British embassy - in which a German school was also damaged.
Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle called it "a violation of international law".
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said "the Iranian regime has shown what little consideration it has for international law".
Russia said the attack was "unacceptable".

Ecuador's minister for foreign affairs, Ricardo Patino, on Wednesday released details of a letter he said was delivered through a British embassy official in the capital of the South American country, Quito.

The letter said: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.

"We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

An Ecuadorian government spokesman said he was "deeply shocked" by the British government's "threats".

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

Threat Lars spelt with a T .

.

The British government is a joke, the lackey for the Americans, need to kick out that bitch out of the EU, with Greece

Embassies are not to be used as sanctuaries for fleeing criminals. That is not their purpose. Ecuador is playing a very dangerous game -- harboring a third-country fugitive wanted for questioning in a rape case.

This abuse of diplomatic privilege is far worse than anything Britain has threatened to do.

Assange really isn't worth it.

Originally Posted by Panty Hamster

fleeing criminals

link to the judgement ?

Nah thought not .

Originally Posted by Panty Hamster

Fled Sweden too, didn't he?

I think he 'left'.

I think its got to the stage where the two women accusers need to take the polygraph test.

Especially the one who was photographed laughing and joking with assange 2 days after the alledged offence


The Yanks use it all the time so don't see why they would object to iyt being used in this instance,

You can't argue with that

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

You can't argue with that

I guess you could

^^ The two women's accusations are practically insignificant compared to the shitheap this idiot martyr has fabricated for himself.

Paranoid schizophrenia is such an ugly spectacle, Jules. I'd recommend you seek help, but you're cowering in a dingy room in a tinpot embassy unable to step outside.

Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid.

that , as you well know IS NOT a judgement

Originally Posted by OhOh

prestige around the world. Any country now can pass a domestic law entitling them to storm an embassy and claim tha

The law was passed following the Iranian embassy siege in 1980 and quite rightly in my opinion. Criminals should net be allowed immunity in any embassy throughout the world, period.

Absconding bail is a crime.
Assange is a criminal, a fugitive.

All the gremlins in his inflated head don't change that. All the fantastic accusations and legions of like-minded idiots supporting him, don't matter one iota.

He's a complete Ocker idiot with illusions of grandeur. He thinks he's a stalwart beacon for free speech and transparancy but can't see the hypocrisy of cowering in a dictatorial S American Embassy to avoid legal proceedings in two countries.

He's shit on his supporters. He's spat on those who provided bail. He's exposed himself as a feeble, cowardly hacker asshole rapist.

He's done. Where are all the Teak Door imbeciles who championed his cause? Where's Sabang? Where's Butterfly? Where's Pickle? Where's Reach Around? Where's Panda? Like cockroaches when the lights come on...

Originally Posted by Panty Hamster

like-minded idiots supporting him

Originally Posted by Panty Hamster

Where are all the Teak Door imbeciles who championed his cause?

I'm not sure if I have 'championed him or even supported him.

I'm not even sure that I like Wikileaks, but I do think that we need them

I guess I can live with you calling me an imbecile

Originally Posted by Panty Hamster

Like cockroaches when the lights come on...

Originally Posted by Panty Hamster

Absconding bail is a crime.
Assange is a criminal, a fugitive.

All the gremlins in his inflated head don't change that. All the fantastic accusations and legions of like-minded idiots supporting him, don't matter one iota.

He's a complete Ocker idiot with illusions of grandeur. He thinks he's a stalwart beacon for free speech and transparancy but can't see the hypocrisy of cowering in a dictatorial S American Embassy to avoid legal proceedings in two countries.

He's shit on his supporters. He's spat on those who provided bail. He's exposed himself as a feeble, cowardly hacker asshole rapist.

He's done. Where are all the Teak Door imbeciles who championed his cause? Where's Sabang? Where's Butterfly? Where's Pickle? Where's Reach Around? Where's Panda? Like cockroaches when the lights come on...

how many war criminals did the US harbored one time or another ? quite a few I remember,

the reactions of the UK government scums is quite telling, I think we can bet with certainty that there is a secret plan by the US to extradite Assange from Sweden.

Why would the UK government go all over this trouble for a simple extradition request over an "alleged" crime ? and without a judgment ? unless of course they were trying to help their American "cause". Quite distasteful and another sign of British cowardice.

There was a reason DeGaulles didn't want those fucks in the EU, they always have been a security liability and backstabbing bitches for the Americans.

And another good question to keep in mind: what has Karl Rove's involvement with the Swedish Government got to do with all this?

"Now that Andrew Kreig, of the Justice Integrity Project, has confirmed Karl Rove’s role as an advisor to the Swedish government in its prosecution of Julian Assange on sexual misconduct charges, it is important that we note the many glaring aberrations in the handling of Assange’s case by the authorities in Sweden." -- Naomi Wolf, in her article "Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against Assange"

For more:
Eight BIG PROBLEMS with the “case” against Assange (MUST-READ by Naomi Wolf) :: News From Underground
.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

the reactions of the UK government scums is quite telling, I think we can bet with certainty that there is a secret plan by the US to extradite Assange from Sweden.

Why would the UK government go all over this trouble for a simple extradition request over an "alleged" crime ? and without a judgment ? unless of course they were trying to help their American "cause". Quite distasteful and another sign of British cowardice.

There was a reason DeGaulles didn't want those fucks in the EU, they always have been a security liability and backstabbing bitches for the Americans.

Indeed, how many people are extradited when they are only wanted for questioning in an alleged offense that wouldn't be an offense in the extraditing country?

Hmmmm......now that you put it THAT way.......

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Hmmmm......now that you put it THAT way.......

I would be a crime in Britain, and Raphael Correo is a blabbering primitive third world idiot. This from a wikileaks supporter -



"Let's be clear: rape is rape. Rape is having sex with someone without their consent. And Assange is clearly accused of rape. The allegation of one woman is that Assange had sex with her while she slept, without a condom. Assange's legal team claims that, while she immediately asked if he was wearing a condom and he answered not, she consented to continuing the encounter. But both women allegedly made their consent to sex contingent on Assange's use of a condom: unsurprisingly, given the huge potential risk to their health if he did not.


Assange's lawyer described the allegations of the other woman in graphic detail in court. As he tried to penetrate her without a condom, she alleges, she repeatedly attempted to avoid penetration: her claim is that she tried "several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and try to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom".


Many of his supporters argued that this would not constitute rape according to English law, which is simply untrue. Our High Court ruled that: "It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did."


Again, his supporters query why Sweden has not charged Assange. But that is not how the Swedish legal system works. Defendants are not charged until very late into proceedings, and just before prosecution. He cannot be charged until he is arrested, which can only take place in Sweden. The country is a democracy with an independent legal system, and it is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights. But Assange's supporters argue that, if he is sent to Sweden to face his allegations, he will be extradited to the US. This is particularly puzzling. As leading QC Francis FitzGibbon has pointed out, under Section 58 of Britain's Extradition Act, Sweden would have to gain the consent of the British Home Secretary first. As signatories of the ECHR, neither country can extradite a suspect to a country where they will face the death penalty or "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".


In any case, why not simply extradite him from Britain? As the American Civil Liberties Union points out, our extradition treaty with the US is "lopsided", because a suspect can be deported if "probable cause" is established, which is not the case the other way round. As a result, the organisation says, UK residents are at risk of "ill-founded" extradition requests to the US. That's why Gary McKinnon, an autistic Scotsman wanted over claims of hacking, and Richard O'Dwyer, a 24-year-old wanted for alleged copyright infringement, face extradition. Christopher Tappin, a 47-year-old businessman accused of selling batteries to Iran that could be used to manufacture missiles, has already been extradited.
As legal expert David Allen Green put it to me: "The USA's best opportunity to extradite Assange is actually whilst he remains in the United Kingdom, a country very ready to grant extradition requests." "


Owen Jones: There should be no immunity for Julian Assange from these allegations - Commentators - Opinion - The Independent