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

[thraashman]

I agree that Assange probably couldn't receive a fair trial in America. But I don't give much of a damn about his wikileaks. I think he needs to be fairly tried for the sexual assault he's been accused of though!

 

[DigDog]

insert SURPRISE BUTTSCS joke here?

But Julian didn't steal those documents. And he wasn't responsible for the failed security.



Taking Julian Assange out of circulation doesn't fix that.

Nor, does it seem likely to fix Sweden's sex by surprise issue.

Uno

+1 for truth

 

[blankslate]

The fact is that Julian isn't charged with anything.

Two females, with whom Julian had had one night stands over a three day period got together and decided to accuse him of "Sex by Surprise."

After being given permission to leave Sweden, prosecutors ostensibly decided later that they wanted to question Julian in the equivalent of an American Grand Jury Context.

Julian offered to testify in video formats but the prosecutor refused.

Please understand that I am sympathetic to the US State Department and their loss of a quarter million secret documents. And I am also sympathetic to the Military that saw their secret communications posted on the Web and published in the New York Times as well...

But Julian didn't steal those documents. And he wasn't responsible for the failed security.

And if anyone died as a result of those security lapses, then the people who were responsible for setting up that failed information security are responsible. Not Julian. And not the New York Times and the other newspapers that also published the documents.

My perception is that if you have ineffective computer security, set up and utilized by incompetent people, then you are likely to have issues.

For example, if you allow screwballs, like Bradley Manning, to download, burn to DVD, and distribute gigabytes and gigabytes of secret data then I think it likely that you have more serious problems than Julian Assange.

From my perspective, the real problem is ineffective computer security organized by incompetent people.

Taking Julian Assange out of circulation doesn't fix that.

Nor, does it seem likely to fix Sweden's sex by surprise issue.

Uno

+1

The pressure to get someone who distributed embarrassing information but be like the mass of a black hole sitting on the UK's shoulders.

 

[woolfe9999]

Wait, so we have a director from the US who was found guilty, and fled overseas before sentencing and oh well; but someone not even convicted gets this kind of attention?

I have little doubt that the identities of these people play a role in the degree of effort put forth to bring them in. Yet this isn't terribly relevant to his guilt or innocence. If there's reasonable cause to bind him over for trial, then he should be. The fact that Polanski also should have been brought in but hasn't been is not relevant.

Assange shouldn't be falsely accused of a crime because no one should. Similarly, Assange should not be immune from suspicion because he has managed to piss off several governments. That does not give him a license to rape. If he's innocent, I suspect he will be acquitted by a jury.

- wolf

 

[actuarial]

I have little doubt that the identities of these people play a role in the degree of effort put forth to bring them in. Yet this isn't terribly relevant to his guilt or innocence. If there's reasonable cause to bind him over for trial, then he should be. The fact that Polanski also should have been brought in but hasn't been is not relevant.

Assange shouldn't be falsely accused of a crime because no one should. Similarly, Assange should not be immune from suspicion because he has managed to piss off several governments. That does not give him a license to rape. If he's innocent, I suspect he will be acquitted by a jury.

- wolf

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but when you go to the lengths they're talking about here (raiding an embassy, a nearly unthinkable act in almost all situations) especially after the country's leader has said it would be considered "an attack on our sovereignty" all because you refuse to let a guy testify by video (in what sounds like it amounts to a pre-trial) it's not much of a jump to think this guy is going to be railroaded.

I also think comparing it to the lengths undertaken in similar situations is appropriate when people are being accused of playing dirty pool.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but when you go to the lengths they're talking about here (raiding an embassy, a nearly unthinkable act in almost all situations) especially after the country's leader has said it would be considered "an attack on our sovereignty" all because you refuse to let a guy testify by video (in what sounds like it amounts to a pre-trial) it's not much of a jump to think this guy is going to be railroaded.

I also think comparing it to the lengths undertaken in similar situations is appropriate when people are being accused of playing dirty pool.

Dunno, and maybe there's cause to complain about differential efforts in tracking down suspects across international boundaries. But 2 women accused him of rape, and while his supporters and fans automatically conclude that these allegations are a government conspiracy, I am not willing to do so without hearing all the evidence. The point of my post is that just because Assange has pissed off governments, it doesn't automatically mean he is incapable of committing a crime, yet the sort of people who tend to be big fans of people like Assange would never believe him guilty of anything under any circumstances.

- wolf

 

[PingviN]

I seriously doubt the Brits actually did threaten the Ecuadorian embassy in such a manner. Assange isn't worth it and he's not going anywhere. He can't get out of Britain, so he's pretty much jailed up in the embassy.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Dunno, and maybe there's cause to complain about differential efforts in tracking down suspects across international boundaries. But 2 women accused him of rape, and while his supporters and fans automatically conclude that these allegations are a government conspiracy, I am not willing to do so without hearing all the evidence. The point of my post is that just because Assange has pissed off governments, it doesn't automatically mean he is incapable of committing a crime, yet the sort of people who tend to be big fans of people like Assange would never believe him guilty of anything under any circumstances.

- wolf

The guy is a douchebag. but come on don't you think the whole thing smells fishy.

Read up on the whole "Rape" accusation. And now this unprecedented action against an embassy. Never have I seen anything like this, even during the cold war era.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This thread is so full of fuck that it's not even funny.

The guy is wanted for questioning for an alleged crime and he fled Sweden. What happens then is that an EU order for his arrest is issued.

He gets arrested in the UK awaiting extradition, he flees to the Ecuadorian embassy.

ALL of this because he doesn't want to be present for questioning.

His own stated reason makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, he doesn't want to go to Sweden because he's afraid they'd extradite him to the US? But he's ok with being in the UK?

Sweden does NOT have an extradition treaty with the US, the UK DOES! If he was to be extradited to the US the risk would be MUCH greater in the UK than in Sweden and yet, the US has made no request.

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter what we think of Swedens laws (informed consent laws apply in the UK too, without informed consent you're going to get arrested for rape), when in Sweden EVERYONE has to follow them and there is NOTHING whatsoever strange about that.

CT retards are the most annoying idiots on this planet.

 

[Steeplerot]

The guy is a douchebag. but come on don't you think the whole thing smells fishy.

Read up on the whole "Rape" accusation. And now this unprecedented action against an embassy. Never have I seen anything like this, even during the cold war era.

What is unsettling is this is a example of how apathetic the world populace has become. Any one citizen can be railroaded anywhere, or in related events -drone attacked for pissing off the corrupt status quo.

A really bad precedent to set for countries supposedly "shining beacons of democracy" left for future generations to take out political grudges at will.

 

[halik]

Assuming of course this isn't Ecuador grandstanding or overreacting to an offhand comment by a beat cop or something, but is in fact the position of the UK government, it would imply someone is getting pressured at a very high level behind the scenes. One country violating the sovereignty of another merely to extradite to a third country is unheard of and unthinkable in normal circumstances. For the most part countries won't even violate the sovereignty of another nation even if the person they are going after broke their own laws.

This,
pure media bullshit If i had to put money on it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

. What is unsettling is this is a example of how apathetic the world populace has become. Any one citizen can be railroaded anywhere, or in related events -drone attacked for pissing off the corrupt status quo.

A really bad precedent to set for countries supposedly "shining beacons of democracy" left for future generations to take out political grudges at will.

"that 13 year old girl was no stranger to drugs and anal sex" - steeplerot about how Roman Polanski's rape of a child was a-ok in his book.

Steeplerot did not post that. Jpeyton did here.
admin allisolm

 

[Steeplerot]

"that 13 year old girl was no stranger to drugs and anal sex" - steeplerot about how Roman Polanski's rape of a child was a-ok in his book.

This is not my quote. Nor would I condone this.

 

[Steeplerot]

"that 13 year old girl was no stranger to drugs and anal sex" - steeplerot about how Roman Polanski's rape of a child was a-ok in his book.

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.

 

[zephyrprime]

Assange shouldn't be falsely accused of a crime because no one should. Similarly, Assange should not be immune from suspicion because he has managed to piss off several governments. That does not give him a license to rape. If he's innocent, I suspect he will be acquitted by a jury.

- wolf

I think you are very naive if you think justice is always delivered and that trials always yield the right verdicts. Do you honestly think that this guy actually raped these chicks? Or do you think that it's more likely that government's want this guy gone because he exposes secrets that governments don't want exposed? Since when does any nation raid an embassy just to get a rapist? That in itself is strong evidence that this accusation is politically motivated. You entreat people to rely on the apparatus of the state but governments have admitted to great injustices many times in the past. Numerous trials have been found incorrect in the past by dna evidence or victims recanting their testimony. Do you think nations always obey the law? Nations have admitted illegal killing of their citizens many times before.

 

[Number1]

This thread is so full of fuck that it's not even funny.

The guy is wanted for questioning for an alleged crime and he fled Sweden. What happens then is that an EU order for his arrest is issued.

He gets arrested in the UK awaiting extradition, he flees to the Ecuadorian embassy.

ALL of this because he doesn't want to be present for questioning.

His own stated reason makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, he doesn't want to go to Sweden because he's afraid they'd extradite him to the US? But he's ok with being in the UK?

Sweden does NOT have an extradition treaty with the US, the UK DOES! If he was to be extradited to the US the risk would be MUCH greater in the UK than in Sweden and yet, the US has made no request.

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter what we think of Swedens laws (informed consent laws apply in the UK too, without informed consent you're going to get arrested for rape), when in Sweden EVERYONE has to follow them and there is NOTHING whatsoever strange about that.

CT retards are the most annoying idiots on this planet.

Exactly. All of a sudden, Ecuador to the rescue of a persecuted man... NOT
More like playing to the masses and making themselves look like they are giving the finger to the US.

 

[Phokus]

What if he did rape her? Do you know for a fact that he didn't? He should be tried as charged to see what the real facts are.

Why bring the US into it. It is between the UK, Sweden and Ecuador.

Considering the women bragged about sleeping with Julian over twitter and facebook and only concocted the rape story after they found out he slept with each other, no i don't think he raped them.

He's not afraid of being convicted of rape in sweden (in fact, it's not 'rape' as you think it, they are saying he took off his condom during consensual sex), he's afraid of being extradited to the US, which he should be.

He will never be convicted of rape in sweden

Edit:

one more thing to add, julian offered to either be interviewed by swedish authorities in the UK *OR* go back to sweden on the promise that he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Sweden refused. This isn't about rape, this is about the US exerting pressure on Europe to get Assange.

 

[PingviN]

HSweden does NOT have an extradition treaty with the US, the UK DOES! If he was to be extradited to the US the risk would be MUCH greater in the UK than in Sweden and yet, the US has made no request.

We do have an extradition treat with the US. It was signed in 1961. However, if a member state is to extradite Assange to the States, first there need to be formal charges of which the penalty cannot be death. This is regulated by the European Convention. No such charges have been presented and thus, Assange will not be extradited from either the UK or Sweden or any other EU member state.

He's not afraid of being convicted of rape in sweden (in fact, it's not 'rape' as you think it, they are saying he took off his condom during consensual sex), he's afraid of being extradited to the US, which he should be.

No, he shouldn't be. See above.

one more thing to add, julian offered to either be interviewed by swedish authorities in the UK *OR* go back to sweden on the promise that he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Sweden refused. This isn't about rape, this is about the US exerting pressure on Europe to get Assange.

If you do not understand why Sweden cannot give him guarantees, you should not make such bold statements as to why he's being pressed to show.

We do not go to UK to interview this guy just because he don't feel like coming here. Assange is not above Swedish or European Law. He's being summoned here and if he refuses to show, he will be arrested and then sent here. Or go hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.

If you think the US is putting pressure on to get him extradited, then why hasn't the UK already sent him over there? They too have an extradition treaty and follow the transatlantic agreement. Seriously, please explain this.

 

[pcgeek11]

The fact is that Julian isn't charged with anything.

Two females, with whom Julian had had one night stands over a three day period got together and decided to accuse him of "Sex by Surprise."

After being given permission to leave Sweden, prosecutors ostensibly decided later that they wanted to question Julian in the equivalent of an American Grand Jury Context.

Julian offered to testify in video formats but the prosecutor refused.

Please understand that I am sympathetic to the US State Department and their loss of a quarter million secret documents. And I am also sympathetic to the Military that saw their secret communications posted on the Web and published in the New York Times as well...

But Julian didn't steal those documents. And he wasn't responsible for the failed security.

And if anyone died as a result of those security lapses, then the people who were responsible for setting up that failed information security are responsible. Not Julian. And not the New York Times and the other newspapers that also published the documents.

My perception is that if you have ineffective computer security, set up and utilized by incompetent people, then you are likely to have issues.

For example, if you allow screwballs, like Bradley Manning, to download, burn to DVD, and distribute gigabytes and gigabytes of secret data then I think it likely that you have more serious problems than Julian Assange.

From my perspective, the real problem is ineffective computer security organized by incompetent people.

Taking Julian Assange out of circulation doesn't fix that.

Nor, does it seem likely to fix Sweden's sex by surprise issue.

Uno

I didn't say anything about the stolen documents. You are just assuming the US is behind this. Nothing more.

If Sweden wants to investigate the rape claims they should proceed. Him running way from the investigation says something.

 

[GrGr]

This thread is so full of fuck that it's not even funny.

The guy is wanted for questioning for an alleged crime and he fled Sweden. What happens then is that an EU order for his arrest is issued.

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).

He gets arrested in the UK awaiting extradition, he flees to the Ecuadorian embassy.

ALL of this because he doesn't want to be present for questioning.

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.

His own stated reason makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, he doesn't want to go to Sweden because he's afraid they'd extradite him to the US? But he's ok with being in the UK?

Sweden does NOT have an extradition treaty with the US, the UK DOES! If he was to be extradited to the US the risk would be MUCH greater in the UK than in Sweden and yet, the US has made no request.

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.

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter what we think of Swedens laws (informed consent laws apply in the UK too, without informed consent you're going to get arrested for rape), when in Sweden EVERYONE has to follow them and there is NOTHING whatsoever strange about that.

CT retards are the most annoying idiots on this planet.

'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.

 

[woolfe9999]

I think you are very naive if you think justice is always delivered and that trials always yield the right verdicts. Do you honestly think that this guy actually raped these chicks? Or do you think that it's more likely that government's want this guy gone because he exposes secrets that governments don't want exposed? Since when does any nation raid an embassy just to get a rapist? That in itself is strong evidence that this accusation is politically motivated. You entreat people to rely on the apparatus of the state but governments have admitted to great injustices many times in the past. Numerous trials have been found incorrect in the past by dna evidence or victims recanting their testimony. Do you think nations always obey the law? Nations have admitted illegal killing of their citizens many times before.

I never said justice is always done. However, I'm not going to assume he is innocent just because he has angered one or more governments, which is precisely what you are doing here. The implication of what you are arguing is that Assange can do anything he wants and he will always be considered innocent by default. No, he doesn't have a license to do whatever he pleases just because he's "Julian Assange."

While it isn't impossible he could be railroaded, I'm going to assume any trial will be as public and well covered as all of these events surrounding his apprehension. This isn't a situation where some unknown is "disappeared" by a repressive government. Assange has millions of fans and supporters world wide who will, along with the press, scrutinize everything that happens right down the nth detail. Under the circumstances, he's less likely to be railroaded than any ordinary person.

 

[sandorski]

If this were a nobody, there's no way Britain would even entertain such action given these Charges. Hell, they wouldn't consider it even if he was accused of Murder.

 

[K1052]

If you think the US is putting pressure on to get him extradited, then why hasn't the UK already sent him over there? They too have an extradition treaty and follow the transatlantic agreement. Seriously, please explain this.

You have to admit that it is highly unusual for a country (particularly a Western one) to threaten to enter the embassy of a foreign nation in force even before they have made a decision on an asylum case. Absent some super extraordinary pressure I don't really see that happening.

 

[Phokus]

If you do not understand why Sweden cannot give him guarantees, you should not make such bold statements as to why he's being pressed to show.

We do not go to UK to interview this guy just because he don't feel like coming here. Assange is not above Swedish or European Law. He's being summoned here and if he refuses to show, he will be arrested and then sent here. Or go hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.

If you think the US is putting pressure on to get him extradited, then why hasn't the UK already sent him over there? They too have an extradition treaty and follow the transatlantic agreement. Seriously, please explain this.

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.

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.

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:

Some critical voices claim that the UK-US extradition treaty is more permissive than the Sweden-US extradition treaty. Extradition to the US, they claim, would be simpler from the UK than from Sweden.

This argument fails on several points:

- The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release&#8217 clause. The UK’s judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

- Public opinion and the media (to a greater extent) are more sympathetic to Julian Assange in the UK than in Sweden. Public pressure could draw out the process of extradition to the United States in the UK. In Sweden the media climate is hostile (see Media climate in Sweden) due to the sex allegations. Public outcry would be significantly weaker and therefore less likely to stand in the way of a strategically convenient extradition.

- In the UK, Julian Assange is better able to defend himself, muster support and understand the legal procedures against him. In Sweden on the other hand, the language barrier prevents him from effectively challenging the actions against.

- The UK is politically better positioned to withstand pressure from the United States than Sweden. Sweden is a small country of nine million people close to Russia. It has grown increasingly dependent on the United States. In recent years Sweden has complied with directives from the United States in a manner that has not been scrutinised by Parliament, as has been revealed by the disclosed diplomatic cables (see Political Interference).

 

[Phokus]

I didn't say anything about the stolen documents. You are just assuming the US is behind this. Nothing more.

If Sweden wants to investigate the rape claims they should proceed. Him running way from the investigation says something.

You don't even know the particulars of why he is being accused of 'rape' (which isn't really what it is in the first place). Don't comment on what you don't know.