• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

UK to Invade Equador!!!!!!!!!!!111 IF Wikileaks dude not handed over.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PingviN

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2009
1,848
12
81
Because the UK first has to hand Julian over to Sweden over this particular case. I am also not aware of the US charging Julian over anything just yet, so the UK cannot extradite him to the US without the US charging him and requesting it first. If Sweden were serious about prosecuting this supposed rape, they would grant these reasonable accomodations.
If Sweden is to extradite Assange to the States, first of all, the States need to make this demand. They haven't. If they do, the UK needs to agree on extraditing him. If they in turn do, then it's going through the legal process. Once the Supreme Court has made it's ruling, there is still the European Court. Do you really, in all honesty, think that the US cares that much about some narcissist that has had his business crippled and lost all credibility?

Interesting how you don't quote the rest of my post, i guess you implicitly agree with me that julian did not rape these women.
I don't assume to judge, in Sweden we leave that to judges. I have an opinion as to the evidence available to the public and another opinion as to his behavior.

Edit: And actually, the real reason why Julian is afraid of going to Sweden is because his chance of extradition to the US is much higher there because the Swedes are even more of a lapdog to the US than the Brits are:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

edit and more:
In which case you do not know that Britain has to agree to the extradition before Sweden can do anything. Meaning you are misinformed. Sweden cannot extradite Assange without the UKs consent.

Regarding the Egyptian extradition, that was wrong in many instances. Chances of that happening again with the shitstorm it generated in mind? Slim. Sweden was also given guarantees from Egypt that they would not be tortured or mistreated. The UN criticism mainly focused on how the Swedish government should not have accepted these guarantees.

edit: lol at citing an anonymous author at "wikileaks-forum". Yeah, I'm sure that is one darn unbiased source. They too are misinformed. Here is the treaty, enjoy the read:

http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/sweden.pdf
 
Last edited:

KAZANI

Senior member
Sep 10, 2006
527
0
0
I wish the UK would storm the embassy and look like total US lackeys to the world, but I doubt they are able to sustain another diplomatic front with a south american country at the moment. As for Sweden's judiciary, they are a blatant proxy for US foreign policy:
-CIA Renditions
-Pirate Bay witchhunt
-Wikileaks payback with "surpise rapes"

...this international mafia of shady centers of power, secret services and their minion "administrators of justice", imposes an omerta which hurts liberty everywhere.
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
This is a lie. Assange was allowed to leave Sweden AFTER he had made himself available for an interview with the Swedish prosecutors they, however, were 'too busy' to see him so he was allowed to leave Sweden. THEN the new prosecutor Marianne Ny slapped Assange with an Interpol warrant, something unheard of in a case of charges of 'sexual assault' (NOT rape).


Assange has made himself available to questioning through video conference, something the Swedish legal system has done in the past, but for some unexplained reason refuse to do with Assange.



Sweden DOES have an extradition treaty with the US, and Assange, as a non-Swedish citizen is even less protected than Swedish citizens. The risk is greater from Sweden because Assange hasn't broken any British laws but the setup is ready in Sweden.

The case against Assange was dropped once as insubstantial, but taken up again by a new prosecutor, Marianne Ny, infamous femi-nazi, and a notorious celebrity lawyer, Claes Borgström, from the same law firm as the former Swedish Minister of 'Justice', Thomas Bodström, that worked with the CIA and allowed the CIA to ILLEGALLY use Sweden as a platform for renditions to Egypt to torture victims.



'Sexual assault' hearings are some of the most common in Swedish courts. Typically they do not lead to jail sentences due to the 'he said, she said' nature of the cases and lack of evidence. Convictions are rare and jail terms are relatively light, something like 6 months in a Swedish 'jail' with free internet. And often the prisoner serves maybe half that time.

Why would Assange make his life hell and live as a hunted fugitive in house arrest instead of going through the Swedish legal system, most likely walk away a free man, or, if convicted, do a few weeks in a cushy Swedish from where he could continue to work pretty much?

Obviously Assange is afraid of ending up in a Manning style 'suicide watch' cell and forget all about sleeping for the next few years while being grinded through some US kangaroo court.
Bang on true Ol'mate!
They are gunna stitch the dude up for jabbing their corrupt gigs!
Even just to scare off any future wannabes!
This about Britain not appearing to be complicit with the USA, it will have repercussions in Britain's two party system that they can't handle with all the bank frauds going down - this will light the socialist fuse is what they are afraid of internal in Westminster hierarchy- WB & IMF
 
Last edited:

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
If Sweden is to extradite Assange to the States, first of all, the States need to make this demand. They haven't. If they do, the UK needs to agree on extraditing him. If they in turn do, then it's going through the legal process. Once the Supreme Court has made it's ruling, there is still the European Court. Do you really, in all honesty, think that the US cares that much about some narcissist that has had his business crippled and lost all credibility?



I don't assume to judge, in Sweden we leave that to judges. I have an opinion as to the evidence available to the public and another opinion as to his behavior.



In which case you do not know that Britain has to agree to the extradition before Sweden can do anything. Meaning you are misinformed. Sweden cannot extradite Assange without the UKs consent.

Regarding the Egyptian extradition, that was wrong in many instances. Chances of that happening again with the shitstorm it generated in mind? Slim. Sweden was also given guarantees from Egypt that they would not be tortured or mistreated. The UN criticism mainly focused on how the Swedish government should not have accepted these guarantees.

edit: lol at citing an anonymous author at "wikileaks-forum". Yeah, I'm sure that is one darn unbiased source. They too are misinformed. Here is the treaty, enjoy the read:

http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/sweden.pdf
Shitstorms and justice are two very different things- people are sick with the behaviors of most modern governments- they want accountability now, too much has been swept under the carpet for to long, people must be prosecuted, excuses have worn thin.
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
I wish the UK would storm the embassy and look like total US lackeys to the world, but I doubt they are able to sustain another diplomatic front with a south american country at the moment. As for Sweden's judiciary, they are a blatant proxy for US foreign policy:
-CIA Renditions
-Pirate Bay witchhunt
-Wikileaks payback with "surpise rapes"

...this international mafia of shady centers of power, secret services and their minion "administrators of justice", imposes an omerta which hurts liberty everywhere.
Nail on the head man!
 

PingviN

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2009
1,848
12
81
Shitstorms and justice are two very different things- people are sick with the behaviors of most modern governments- they want accountability now, too much has been swept under the carpet for to long, people must be prosecuted, excuses have worn thin.
And justice for the two women accusing Assange of committing a crime is to let him go to Ecuador? Justice is not following the judicial process, as stated by the law? Justice is to be granted political asylum to avoid a European arrest order?

Taking Assange's side while taking about justice is a joke.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Pretty bold for the UK to threaten to violate Equadorian sovereignty over this matter. Even if they don't breach the embassy, there's no way for them to take Assange out of the country without him being stopped and arrested.

Game over for this dirt bag.
Not really, it's not like we haven't done the same to the US several times and you ended up asking for forgiveness.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I abso-f^#@king-loutley never said this.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28677051&postcount=108

This is a quote from jpeyton


Please remove this slander or I will report the post for intentionally misquoting me in a derogatory fashion.

Do you have no self respect or honor as a gentleman? Some "officer" you are, knobhead drunk punter.
Well i was asked to apologize for making a mistake, you do know that everyone make mistakes?

However after this, i think i'll just tell you that i'm sorry that i thought you were another retard who is just as stupid as you are.

If that's not enough for the mods you went crying to, so be it.

Oh, and fuck off you ridiculous conspiracy theorist retard.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
And justice for the two women accusing Assange of committing a crime is to let him go to Ecuador? Justice is not following the judicial process, as stated by the law? Justice is to be granted political asylum to avoid a European arrest order?

Taking Assange's side while taking about justice is a joke.
You're trying to argue with people who believe that anything outside of the US is a banana republic.

It's useless to even try, the CT'ers have their truth and it's set in stone that it happened even when afterwards it didn't.

Trying to change their minds is like arguing with a creationist, it's bloody pointless and will only lead to more talking points repeated because that is how the US works, everything is a talking point and everyone bases their opinion on just that, true or not doesn't matter at ALL.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
...and will only lead to more talking points repeated because that is how the US works, everything is a talking point and everyone bases their opinion on just that, true or not doesn't matter at ALL.
Psst...it works the same way in the UK.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I'm not sure Assange is worth all this trouble for Britain. But I doubt they like having to use the resources to keep guarding the Ecuador Embassy and if Assange escapes it will be a national embarrassment for them.

Britain has a problem. I may be mistaken in my understanding of asylum, but I don't believe the purpose is to shelter people from simple criminal charges. If not, Ecuador is misusing diplomatic privileges and that shouldn't be tolerated by Britain. If you want to argue that Ecuador is sincerely concerned that this is some conspiracy with the true objective to get Assange to the US, this is also a problem for Britain. If Britain agrees with Ecuador then they are accusing Sweden of some mighty bad conduct (e.g., trumping up false charges and misusing extradition). I don't see how Britain can reasonably, or politically, make that charge against Sweden, and if not, Britain has a treaty obligation with Sweden they are compelled to follow.

If Ecuador's goal was to put Britain in a tough spot, well, they have succeeded.

Fern
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
If Ecuador's goal was to put Britain in a tough spot, well, they have succeeded.

Fern
I haven't investigated this at all so I am not sure if the story is reasonably factual about the UK threatening to storm another nations embassy but assuming it is, has that EVER been done before by a western nation to apprehend someone who is wanted for questioning by A different country and has not even been charged with a crime?

Again, I am sort of ignorant of the international law or whatever is at play here, but isn't an embassy "sovereign land"? Wouldn't Ecuador be well within its rights to meet any sort of raid with deadly military force (not that it would be a good idea because it wouldn't, just asking)?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Well i was asked to apologize for making a mistake, you do know that everyone make mistakes?

However after this, i think i'll just tell you that i'm sorry that i thought you were another retard who is just as stupid as you are.

If that's not enough for the mods you went crying to, so be it.

Oh, and fuck off you ridiculous conspiracy theorist retard.
Pretty damn big mistake to make, I don't blame him for being that pissed that you attributed that quote to him and I am pretty certain that you would have been just as pissed.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
This,
pure media bullshit If i had to put money on it.
I'd bet you're absolutely right.

Allisolm, will you please remove the incorrect quote from JohnofSheffield's post? Steeplerot's a good guy and does not deserve to have that horrendous quote attributed to him. Frankly I'm shocked that John (Peyton) said it. Heat of the moment, I'd guess.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I haven't investigated this at all so I am not sure if the story is reasonably factual about the UK threatening to storm another nations embassy but assuming it is, has that EVER been done before by a western nation to apprehend someone who is wanted for questioning by A different country and has not even been charged with a crime?
IDK the answer to that.

Again, I am sort of ignorant of the international law or whatever is at play here, but isn't an embassy "sovereign land"? Wouldn't Ecuador be well within its rights to meet any sort of raid with deadly military force (not that it would be a good idea because it wouldn't, just asking)?
I'm not entirely sure Ecuador is within it's rights to protect Assange. Article 41 (clauses 1 and 3) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations can be interpreted to conclude Ecuador is in violation. See page 13.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

I believe I have seen it said (or written) several times now that Britain claims it's laws allow it to go in and get Assange. I don't believe domestic law can trump a treaty, so I'm not sure how they can make that claim.

Fern
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Psst...it works the same way in the UK.
Actually, we got a third party elected.

Of course, based you your version of what conservatism is we're all a bunch of satanist marxists who only helped you when you were about to be nuked by Iraq because we're sucking up to you and want to be like you.

That was true for the Blair government but first chance we had, we got rid of him.

He got a job in NATO though, with a welcome note saying "thanks for sacrificing your countrymen's life for a taste of Bush's arse"
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Pretty damn big mistake to make, I don't blame him for being that pissed that you attributed that quote to him and I am pretty certain that you would have been just as pissed.
If steeplerot wasn't jpeytons other account i'd agree.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I'd bet you're absolutely right.

Allisolm, will you please remove the incorrect quote from JohnofSheffield's post? Steeplerot's a good guy and does not deserve to have that horrendous quote attributed to him. Frankly I'm shocked that John (Peyton) said it. Heat of the moment, I'd guess.
1. you'd be right, this entire thread is based on absolutely nothing.

2. i hope she leaves it there, they are one in the same.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
If Sweden is to extradite Assange to the States, first of all, the States need to make this demand. They haven't. If they do, the UK needs to agree on extraditing him. If they in turn do, then it's going through the legal process. Once the Supreme Court has made it's ruling, there is still the European Court. Do you really, in all honesty, think that the US cares that much about some narcissist that has had his business crippled and lost all credibility?



I don't assume to judge, in Sweden we leave that to judges. I have an opinion as to the evidence available to the public and another opinion as to his behavior.



In which case you do not know that Britain has to agree to the extradition before Sweden can do anything. Meaning you are misinformed. Sweden cannot extradite Assange without the UKs consent.

Regarding the Egyptian extradition, that was wrong in many instances. Chances of that happening again with the shitstorm it generated in mind? Slim. Sweden was also given guarantees from Egypt that they would not be tortured or mistreated. The UN criticism mainly focused on how the Swedish government should not have accepted these guarantees.

edit: lol at citing an anonymous author at "wikileaks-forum". Yeah, I'm sure that is one darn unbiased source. They too are misinformed. Here is the treaty, enjoy the read:

http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/sweden.pdf
Except Sweden, as we've found out, cannot be trusted because you are America's bitch.

http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapdoggery-from-swedish-govt-on-copyright-monopoly/

As we can see here, the UK has extraordinary protections against extraditing people to the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

Torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – Many countries will not extradite if there is a risk that a requested person will be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the case of Soering v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed.
Gary McKinnon, who was indicted by a US grand jury BACK IN 2002 is STILL living in the UK fighting extradition charges, based on similar charges that the US government is accusing of Julian Assange. Do you see why Julian might want to stay in the UK and not Sweden now, you uneducated twit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Extradition_proceedings


Edit: And an interesting comment about the US and Sweden wanting to extradite Julian at the same time:

Not only is there Human Rights legislation as stated by K. Farb, but extradition appears to work on a first come first serve basis- so the UK would have to give Sweden their fair shot at extraditing him first. If the US were to also apply to have Assange extradited while he'd been in our custody, then they would have had to wait their turn- and it would have given the game away!
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
IDK the answer to that.



I'm not entirely sure Ecuador is within it's rights to protect Assange. Article 41 (clauses 1 and 3) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations can be interpreted to conclude Ecuador is in violation. See page 13.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

I believe I have seen it said (or written) several times now that Britain claims it's laws allow it to go in and get Assange. I don't believe domestic law can trump a treaty, so I'm not sure how they can make that claim.

Fern
No, the thing is, he can't leave... except to go for a ride (the vehicles are considered soverign territorry and Bermuda loves us for that).

As soon as he's off grounds he'll be arrested.

He's an idiot rapist that should be there for questioning just like you or me would have to.

Our laws makes it possible for us to break diplomatic immunity though, but that law only applies to Nazists even if it's not specifically written as such (collaborators were what made the law not so specific).
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Except Sweden, as we've found out, cannot be trusted because you are America's bitch.

http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapdoggery-from-swedish-govt-on-copyright-monopoly/

As we can see here, the UK has extraordinary protections against extraditing people to the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition



Gary McKinnon, who was indicted by a US grand jury BACK IN 2002 is STILL living in the UK fighting extradition charges, based on similar charges that the US government is accusing of Julian Assange. Do you see why Julian might want to stay in the UK and not Sweden now, you uneducated twit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Extradition_proceedings


Edit: And an interesting comment about the US and Sweden wanting to extradite Julian at the same time:
I give up, there is no argument against CT stupidity.

I do like your sources though, from the mouth of convicted criminals.
 
Last edited:

PingviN

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2009
1,848
12
81
Read my post above, it's why that law exists.

While we could legallly do that, we won't, we'll just wait for him to come out.
I don't think the UK will invade the Ecuadorian embassy. I don't think the UK has made such a threat either. I think Ecuadorian representatives are full of shit, which is to be expected from a corrupt nation.

[Some] people seem to think Assange is a big deal. He isn't. If Ecuador want to host him in their embassy, abusing the political asylum status, let them. He's wanted for questioning and there is an order out for his arrest. The legal system cannot be disregarded just because some Aussie nut clinging to his tin foil hat doesn't wanna show up. Laws apply to everyone, that is how it works. If he really thinks he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US (which is highly unlikely that he will be, seeing how he might face the penalty of death) then, by all means, sit and wait in the embassy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY