Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) granted asylum

[Drummond]

A lot of good your election did. You still have muzzies coming out your arse. ( that what you guys say right ? Arse ? )

You got something right !! Congratulations. I'm thrilled for you. Yes, we do say arse.

No, I've never had a 'muzzie' come out of my arse (.. whatever a 'muzzie' is). It sounds decidedly painful ...

You see, though, there's a big difference between the US and UK. As familiar with Leftie methodology as you might like to think you are, what you haven't had is spells of outright - and hardbitten - Socialism crafting social attitudes in your society, off and on, for several decades !! Consider 'Obamacare', which takes the first tentative, faltering, steps towards Social healthcare, and has done so quite recently. Here, we had a fully State-run healthcare system up and running from 1948 !!

So, now, we've kicked Labour out. But, much of their thinking stays in place, because of all those decades of Socialist propagandising. Here's where you have a big advantage .. the same degree of social tinkering hasn't yet left its mark, so you can not only boot Obama out, but - if the will is there to do it - boot out his thinking, too.

And, by my thinking, the sooner the better.

By the way, I hope you're still finding my posts instructive .. and I'm not even charging a fee !

[Dilloduck]

You got something right !! Congratulations. I'm thrilled for you. Yes, we do say arse.

No, I've never had a 'muzzie' come out of my arse (.. whatever a 'muzzie' is). It sounds decidedly painful ...

You see, though, there's a big difference between the US and UK. As familiar with Leftie methodology as you might like to think you are, what you haven't had is spells of outright - and hardbitten - Socialism crafting social attitudes in your society, off and on, for several decades !! Consider 'Obamacare', which takes the first tentative, faltering, steps towards Social healthcare, and has done so quite recently. Here, we had a fully State-run healthcare system up and running from 1948 !!

So, now, we've kicked Labour out. But, much of their thinking stays in place, because of all those decades of Socialist propagandising. Here's where you have a big advantage .. the same degree of social tinkering hasn't yet left its mark, so you can not only boot Obama out, but - if the will is there to do it - boot out his thinking, too.

And, by my thinking, the sooner the better.

By the way, I hope you're still finding my posts instructive .. and I'm not even charging a fee !

Muzzie--slang for Muslim.
Listen old chap-------we've had socialist programs here for decades---they ain't going anywhere no matter who is elected.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^^^^ Sounds a bit like cheerleading to me Dilloduck or at least a defeatest attitude. Big D has it right and has had decades of having to endure far more leftist trash than we have. Short of outright revolution there what say you that they should have done instead? Have they stayed with the voting process too long or what? Do you even know about what has happened there the last few decades?-Tyr

[Drummond]

Muzzie--slang for Muslim.

Well, how about that. I'd never have guessed .... :p


Listen old chap-------we've had socialist programs here for decades---they ain't going anywhere no matter who is elected.

Old bean, Tyr speaks the truth. You'd be well advised to use his posts for information, if you'd rather not accept what I tell you.

[Dilloduck]

^^^^ Sounds a bit like cheerleading to me Dilloduck or at least a defeatest attitude. Big D has it right and has had decades of having to endure far more leftist trash than we have. Short of outright revolution there what say you that they should have done instead? Have they stayed with the voting process too long or what? Do you even know about what has happened there the last few decades?-Tyr

Cheerleading or a defeatist attitude ? They are polar opposites. You're gonna have to start making some sense here. Never said GB hasn't had socialism longer than we have. Just pointing out that since FDR we have had our share and really don't need to be warned of the dangers.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Cheerleading or a defeatist attitude ? They are polar opposites. You're gonna have to start making some sense here. Never said GB hasn't had socialism longer than we have. Just pointing out that since FDR we have had our share and really don't need to be warned of the dangers.

Yes they are opposites and that was why I used them. In that your posts declared that it was hopeless to defend against Islam (defeatest attitude) and seem more like (cheerleading) their power , greatness and invincibility!
Had you truly researched about Britian's muslim scourge you would have sen the leftist alliance there with muslims. Leftists/dems defend and promote muslims here too.

here is a link..

http://www.redstate.com/breeanneh/2012/08/21/radical-islam-joins-the-dnc/

Democratic National Convention will open with a focus on Islam. ?20,000 Muslims are expected to attend according to the?Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), the national Muslim American non-profit coordinating the two days of events they?claim?are non-political. ?”Jumah at the DNC” begins August 29 and will start with a Friday afternoon jummah prayer followed by other unnamed programs and events, leading up to the Islamic Regal Banquet. The following day will be an all day Islamic Cultural and Fun Fest which will include discussions on the topics of?Islamaphobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act and more. ?The purpose, according to BIMA, is to attract national and international attention to the plight of American Muslims and to hold political parties accountable for issues that affect them. ?However, not all Muslims feel that BIMA represents them and M. Zuhdi Jasser M.D., Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has expressed serious concerns.

It is troubling that the Democratic National Convention has decided to promote and lend its name and national political platform to the organizers of the ?Jummah at the DNC?. The leaders of this event ? Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj as advertised are no moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

[Dilloduck]

Yes they are opposites and that was why I used them. In that your posts declared that it was hopeless to defend against Islam (defeatest attitude) and seem more like (cheerleading) their power , greatness and invincibility!
Had you truly researched about Britian's muslim scourge you would have sen the leftist alliance there with muslims. Leftists/dems defend and promote muslims here too.

here is a link..

http://www.redstate.com/breeanneh/2012/08/21/radical-islam-joins-the-dnc/

Democratic National Convention will open with a focus on Islam. ?20,000 Muslims are expected to attend according to the?Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), the national Muslim American non-profit coordinating the two days of events they?claim?are non-political. ?”Jumah at the DNC” begins August 29 and will start with a Friday afternoon jummah prayer followed by other unnamed programs and events, leading up to the Islamic Regal Banquet. The following day will be an all day Islamic Cultural and Fun Fest which will include discussions on the topics of?Islamaphobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act and more. ?The purpose, according to BIMA, is to attract national and international attention to the plight of American Muslims and to hold political parties accountable for issues that affect them. ?However, not all Muslims feel that BIMA represents them and M. Zuhdi Jasser M.D., Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has expressed serious concerns.

It is troubling that the Democratic National Convention has decided to promote and lend its name and national political platform to the organizers of the ?Jummah at the DNC?. The leaders of this event ? Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj as advertised are no moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

Right --I'm cheerleading the Islamists power. :cuckoo:

I guess you need to get with your boys and chase them muzzies outta the DNC.

[Drummond]

Cheerleading or a defeatist attitude ? They are polar opposites. You're gonna have to start making some sense here. Never said GB hasn't had socialism longer than we have. Just pointing out that since FDR we have had our share and really don't need to be warned of the dangers.

I disagree. OK, so maybe, you already recognise what dangers exist from any list I offer.

But, do you get how propagandist Lefties are ? How they insist upon painting their creed in as advantageous manner as possible, and regardless of the truths involved ?

An example of this sort of thing would be their re-labelling of realities to achieve the right psychological effect. Anyone having - for example - a real, decent, thoroughly reasonable concern about levels of immigration, can be branded as 'racist' in their eyes .. and with sufficient effort made to force this opinion on people, so the idea slowly sticks. The outcome, both favoured and deliberately fought for, is that nobody dares speak out when that immigration reaches levels where whole communities take root and insist that THEIR culture, not YOURS, predominates.

Getting the picture ?

If you have - as we've had - Socialist propaganda force-fed upon the general public for years and decades, eventually it sticks. People end up with beliefs, attitudes, which they think of as their own, but which in truth have been grafted on to their thinking. Such people think they're free to think and do as they please. In reality, with enough social pressure brought to bear from enough sources, people merely think as their Leftie authorities have planned them to think from the beginning.

So, you can get - as we had, a couple of years ago - our Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England, publicly proposing that a limited form of Sharia Law could be permitted in the United Kingdom !!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1578019/Uproar-over-Archbishops-sharia-law-stance.html


The Archbishop of Canterbury has been widely criticised after he called for aspects of Islamic sharia law to be adopted in Britain.

Dr Rowan Williams said that it "seems inevitable" that elements of the Muslim law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British legislation.

The Archbishop's controversial stance has received widespread criticism from Christian and secular groups, the head of the equality watchdog, several high-profile Muslims and MPs from all parties.

Isn't it incredible, Dilloduck, that a leading CHRISTIAN would defer to Islamic law in such a fashion ?? Yet .. the evidence of such a betrayal of his OWN faith, to help the interests of a rival one, is all too evident.

[Dilloduck]

Damn Christian traitors ! It's a good thing the secularists have been attacking them all these years or there would be more of them.

[jimnyc]

Damn Christian traitors ! It's a good thing the secularists have been attacking them all these years or there would be more of them.


Allow me to try to explain something to you--again. Americans civilians and our allies ARE targets all over the world. Al quaeda hates anything in the middle east that isn't Arab or Miuslim. Some hate anyone who is not a Muslim.


It's not a matter of right or wrong--muslims are attacking. They have declared war on the US. Getting muslim to fight muslim is a good plan.


when was the last time a Christian cell blew up Muslim skyscrapers ?

Times sure are a changing!

[Dilloduck]

Times sure are a changing!

nah--just a little devil's advocate to see what plans people have in mind to change the situation. So far it's "Vote for Romney" and blow up nukes and stuff.

[jimnyc]

nah--just a little devil's advocate to see what plans people have in mind to change the situation. So far it's "Vote for Romney" and blow up nukes and stuff.

And a good movie if you like Pacino! - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118971/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

nah--just a little devil's advocate to see what plans people have in mind to change the situation. So far it's "Vote for Romney" and blow up nukes and stuff.

Bomb Irans nukes is not a suggestion given to solve the muslim problem rather its a suggestion on actions necessary to protect Israel from a nuke attack that Iran has promised to deliver. Strike one right there. (1)
Vote Romney is not a suiggestion that would solve our muslim problem rather its a suggestion to solve our "obama the traitor" problem and with that our bad economic problems along with a host of other problems the clown has deliberately created for us!. Strike two right there. (2)
Toss out another one for strike three.-:laugh: Maybe elaborate on the "stuff".-;)-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Bomb Irans nukes is not a suggestion given to solve the muslim problem rather its a suggestion on actions necessary to protect Israel from a nuke attack that Iran has promised to deliver. Strike one right there. (1)
Vote Romney is not a suiggestion that would solve our muslim problem rather its a suggestion to solve our "obama the traitor" problem and with that our bad economic problems along with a host of other problems the clown has deliberately created for us!. Strike two right there. (2)
Toss out another one for strike three.-:laugh: Maybe elaborate on the "stuff".-;)-Tyr

oh damn Strike 3 I'm out. Now let's hear your plan. btw Israel can defend themselves.

[Drummond]

Damn Christian traitors ! It's a good thing the secularists have been attacking them all these years or there would be more of them.

Well, it's rather difficult to see the Archbishop of Canterbury in any other way, given the evidence of his own words ...

As for 'secularists attacking them ..' .. er'm, aren't most Lefties keen on introducing secular Societies when they get the chance to ? Yet, our Lefties are NOT known for such attacks, quite the reverse. So I can't really recognise the truth of your comment in the real world. Sorry ...

[Drummond]

oh damn Strike 3 I'm out. Now let's hear your plan. btw Israel can defend themselves.

But tell me, WHY are you so determined to see the US as inactive in the matter of Israel ? Why is it that you're keen on seeing the US discredited as a reliable ally to those powers allied to you, when such allies need your support ?

[Drummond]

nah--just a little devil's advocate to see what plans people have in mind to change the situation. So far it's "Vote for Romney" and blow up nukes and stuff.

You mean, as opposed to voting for Obama, and being treated to an Obama indulging in endless diplomatic thumb-twiddling ?

[Dilloduck]

You mean, as opposed to voting for Obama, and being treated to an Obama indulging in endless diplomatic thumb-twiddling ?

What is Romney's plan for dealing with Islam?

[Dilloduck]

But tell me, WHY are you so determined to see the US as inactive in the matter of Israel ? Why is it that you're keen on seeing the US discredited as a reliable ally to those powers allied to you, when such allies need your support ?

They don't NEED any more money, weapons or American soldiers. It is WASTEFUL.

[jimnyc]

What is Romney's plan for dealing with Islam?

You should read his stance on issues pertaining to Syria and Iran, and then he also offers his stances on Afghanistan and Pakistan on his website too. I don't see him addressing it as dealing with or as a war with Islam, but rather individual countries. We could only guess at this point as to whether or not he would implement a tougher strategy, or make moves differently than Obama is approaching things at this point. And of course having a cooperative congress can make a difference too.

[Dilloduck]

I gotta hunch that he won't call for any action against a religion but it's just a wild guess.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should read his stance on issues pertaining to Syria and Iran, and then he also offers his stances on Afghanistan and Pakistan on his website too. I don't see him addressing it as dealing with or as a war with Islam, but rather individual countries. We could only guess at this point as to whether or not he would implement a tougher strategy, or make moves differently than Obama is approaching things at this point. And of course having a cooperative congress can make a difference too.

No guessing to it . Romney will not be overly friendly to the anti-jews over there as is the bamster. He will not treat our allies as foes and our foes as friends as does obama. Also I predict when he wins he will not go on a damn world apology tour as did our current infection in the Whitehouse!

[Dilloduck]

No guessing to it . Romney will not be overly friendly to the anti-jews over there as is the bamster. He will not treat our allies as foes and our foes as friends as does obama. Also I predict when he wins he will not go on a damn world apology tour as did our current infection in the Whitehouse!

That's bound to stop Islam in it's tracks.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's bound to stop Islam in it's tracks.

Let him tackle our economic woes first and dismantle obama's healthcare disaster.
Islam is farther down on the list but still needs to be addressed for the true threat that it is..
I doubt that he will take a ffing world apology tour like that scum bamboy did!-Tyr

[Noir]

Well spotted, Tyr. The 'blessed' Mohammed ??? What on EARTH are you going on about, Noir ??

I'll give yourself and Tyr a free pass, being reasonably new and all, but if I ever make a post that seems to in any way imply that some religious figure (Especially our dearest Mo) is great, blessed, divine, well hung, wise, or wonderful etc, that'll be me being sarcastic (:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'll give yourself and Tyr a free pass, being reasonably new and all, but if I ever make a post that seems to in any way imply that some religious figure (Especially our dearest Mo) is great, blessed, divine, well hung, wise, or wonderful etc, that'll be me being sarcastic (:

I'll believe that if and when I see any real criticism of Islam. Until then I will go with my original impression on the subject.-Tyr

[Noir]

I'll believe that if and when I see any real criticism of Islam. Until then I will go with my original impression on the subject.-Tyr

Wellllll I lived in a Muslim district in a City and wore a drawing of little Mo for the best part f a year, that has to count for something! =P

As for the thread topic - I've fallen wayyy behind on this (I still haven't had a full day off in weeks >,>) but speaking to my mum last night it seems Julian's legal team have been pretty clumsy regarding the asylum bid, and could have saved that for later, however, the case is now put to Europe, which means it'll be years before any things done, so unless the Brits storm the Embassy, Julian can expect to be making it his primary residence for quite a time to come.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Wellllll I lived in a Muslim district in a City and wore a drawing of little Mo for the best part f a year, that has to count for something! =P

As for the thread topic - I've fallen wayyy behind on this (I still haven't had a full day off in weeks >,>) but speaking to my mum last night it seems Julian's legal team have been pretty clumsy regarding the asylum bid, and could have saved that for later, however, the case is now put to Europe, which means it'll be years before any things done, so unless the Brits storm the Embassy, Julian can expect to be making it his primary residence for quite a time to come.

Counts only if you wore it on the outside! ;)
The Brits should drag his sorry ass out kicking and screaming. Most of the world would heer and say job well done too.-Tyr

[Noir]

Counts only if you wore it on the outside! ;)
The Brits should drag his sorry ass out kicking and screaming. Most of the world would heer and say job well done too.-Tyr

Ofcourse I wore it on the outside, it would be pretty retarded not to =/

And IMO they shouldn't, and probably won't (:

[logroller]

Counts only if you wore it on the outside! ;)
The Brits should drag his sorry ass out kicking and screaming. Most of the world would heer and say job well done too.-Tyr
Doubtful anywhere near most of the world would cheer. Some may see it as inevitable or necessary, but it would be a diplomatic disaster, certainly nothing to cheer about.

[jimnyc]

As for the thread topic - I've fallen wayyy behind on this (I still haven't had a full day off in weeks >,>) but speaking to my mum last night it seems Julian's legal team have been pretty clumsy regarding the asylum bid, and could have saved that for later, however, the case is now put to Europe, which means it'll be years before any things done, so unless the Brits storm the Embassy, Julian can expect to be making it his primary residence for quite a time to come.

You guys know far more than us being over there, spill the details! Why would this have changed had they did what exactly? Explain their clumsiness (serious question!). Is there a sense that they will remove their ability to grant asylum, which I read before? Or storm the building like you mention? Or perhaps just make him live there forever? I doubt the last, as I assume they have to have men guarding and/or watching the building. I must admit, it would be comical and quite a failure if he were to dress up as someone else and escape somehow.

[Drummond]

This Assange business has ceased to be news over here, at least for now. I've seen nothing at all about it in the media for the past week.

Probably, there are still some messages being exchanged on a diplomatic level which we know nothing about, though for the moment our authorities probably just want a cooling-off period. I think our people would much prefer it if a diplomatic answer to this could be found.

In my view .. all of this is rather shortsighted. What's Assange up to right now ? Is he, under the cover of Ecuadorian diplomatic privilege, getting a special freedom to continue to run Wikileaks online ? What if he's preparing the ground for more Wikileaks disseminations, activities that could've been stopped had our people acted promptly ?

Then again .. who recalls the Iranian Embassy siege, circa 1980 ?

http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/sas-operations/iranian-embassy/


The breaking of a terrorist siege in the heart of London in 1980 catapulted the normally secretive SAS onto the world stage. The audacious daylight assault, carried out in the full glare of media scrutiny, made the Regiment and it's motto, 'Who Dares Wins' an indelible part of UK culture. The techniques used in the operation were quickly studied and copied by other special forces and counter-terrorism units around the world.

11:30am Wednesday April 30th, 1980 : Six Iranian gunmen force their way into the Iranian Embassy at Princes Gate, London. They overpowered PC Trevor Lock of the diplomatic protection squad and took a total of 26 people hostage. Amongst the hostages are men from the BBC who were arranging visas.

The terrorists, who called themselves the 'Democratic Revolutionary Front for Arabistan' were protesting against the oppression of Khuzestan by the then Iranian leader - Ayatollah Khomeini. They demanded the release of 91 political prisoners who were imprisoned in Iran. They also demanded a plane to fly themselves and the hostages out of the UK.

Not long after the initial seizing of the Iranian embassy, the police cordoned off the area. Police snipers took up positions overlooking the building. The UK government's emergency committee, COBRA, was setup to monitor and manage the evolving crisis.

At their base in Hereford, the SAS Counter-Terrorism team of the Special Air Service was put on high alert. B Squadron, who were during their stint on the Anti-Terrorist team, sped down the motorway to London. The SAS moved into a building close to the Iranian Embassy and quickly formulated an Immediate Action (IA) plan. The IA is put into play if the situation deterioates before a proper assault plan can be drawn up e.g. if the terrorists snap and start shooting hostages. The SAS prefer to have the time to gather good intel and formulate a detailed assault plan.

As the police negotiators began their delicate dialogue with the hostage takers, MI5 specialists lowered microphones down the embassy's chimneys. A road drill outside was used to cover the sounds of holes drilled through the walls of adjacent buildings for eavesdropping devices.

The SAS planners studied blueprints and consulted with the embassy janitor, building a picture of the building's interior, doors and windows. Preparations included small team of SAS men sneaking onto the roof of the embassy at night where they checked out potential entry points.

In between planning and standing-to on alert for immediate deployment, the SAS troopers kept boredom at bay by watching the Snooker championships on tv.

The terrorists were led by Awn Ali Mohammed, 27, who was code named 'Salim'. Over the first few days of the siege, Salim released several women hostages and a BBC employee who feigned stomach cramps in order to be released. By Monday, and with no sign of his demands being met, Salim's mood changed for the worse and tensions rose. Salim threatened to shoot a hostage. Abbas Lavasani, an Iranian who had drawn the ire of the hostage-takers due to his animosity towards them was separated from the rest of the hostages. At noon 3 shots were heard from within the embassy and later that evening Lavasani's body was pushed out the front door.

The terrorists had now crossed the line. UK policy was not to use force unless hostages had either been killed or where at immanent risk of being killed. By killing a hostage, the terrorists had essentially forced the government's hand.

COBRA responded to the shooting by authorising the use of force to end the siege and release the hostages. Whilst negotiations continued with the terrorists, this time with the aim of stalling for time, operational control was handed over from the MET to the MOD. The SAS were now ordered to go in.

As the terrorist leader was kept busy on the phone with negotiations, the SAS assault teams moved to their start positions. 'Operation Nimrod' as the hostage rescue mission was code named, called for the embassy to be stormed from all sides, with multiple assault teams simultaneously entering on all floors.

Maybe we'll surprise everyone and act when the world is least expecting it.

Legal precedent for dealing with this Embassy does exist. We have a British law that can be invoked, its effect to decommission the Embassy's status AS an Embassy. I think it should be used, and with its authority, our forces should go in and get Assange once and for all.

And I think there's reason to move quickly, over and above whatever computing activities Assange is engaging in. The more time that passes, the more this can all be entangled in legalese. We have European courts to contend with, as well as home-grown legalities. I see no advantage in allowing the European bureaucratic process enough time to put a spanner in the works.

[Drummond]

Doubtful anywhere near most of the world would cheer. Some may see it as inevitable or necessary, but it would be a diplomatic disaster, certainly nothing to cheer about.

As I see it, the 'diplomatic disaster' has come about as a result of Ecuador being happy to shield someone from due criminal process. If all embassies, everywhere, were to act like that .. law and order would become an international joke.

I think a good and proper course of action would be to see the British authorities revoke the Ecuadorian Embassy's standing as one. This would send a message to the world that diplomatic privilege was not something given, to be abused by countries on a whim.

[Noir]

As I see it, the 'diplomatic disaster' has come about as a result of Ecuador being happy to shield someone from due criminal process. If all embassies, everywhere, were to act like that .. law and order would become an international joke.

I think a good and proper course of action would be to see the British authorities revoke the Ecuadorian Embassy's standing as one. This would send a message to the world that diplomatic privilege was not something given, to be abused by countries on a whim.

Reminds me of a old episode of StarTrek (from where, surely all wisdom comes)... the "whim" here would be the of revocation of diplomatic immunity, not (as you imply) the granting of asylum.

[Noir]

You guys know far more than us being over there, spill the details! Why would this have changed had they did what exactly? Explain their clumsiness (serious question!). Is there a sense that they will remove their ability to grant asylum, which I read before? Or storm the building like you mention? Or perhaps just make him live there forever? I doubt the last, as I assume they have to have men guarding and/or watching the building. I must admit, it would be comical and quite a failure if he were to dress up as someone else and escape somehow.

My mum just thinks they played the Embassy card too soon, should of waited to see how things were playing out with the ECHR, who (she thinks) will find in his favour. Though in saying that she also thought (from a legal standpoint) the UK courts would find in his favour, and they didn't.

Also its worth mentioning (since i've seen him be refered to as a rapist etc) not only has he not been found guilty, but he has not even been charged with any offence. Though no doubt the people that wana call him a rapist won't care for little details like evidence, convictions, or charges.

[Drummond]

Reminds me of a old episode of StarTrek (from where, surely all wisdom comes)... the "whim" here would be the of revocation of diplomatic immunity, not (as you imply) the granting of asylum.

And is this 'whim' taken further ?

Do you perhaps consider that it's mere 'whim' for the British authorities to take notice of Sweden, when it says it wants Assange to be answerable to its courts ??

[Noir]

And is this 'whim' taken further ?

Do you perhaps consider that it's mere 'whim' for the British authorities to take notice of Sweden, when it says it wants Assange to be answerable to its courts ??

They don't want him to be answerable to the courts, he has not been charged with anything, they just want to 'chat', and this 'chat' has to take place in Sweden. And it is known that Swedish and Americans have already discussed extradition when he arrives.

For some reason the Swedish authorities do not want to 'chat' via a video link, or internationally natural soil, which they have done before in other cases. Funny that.

[Drummond]

My mum just thinks they played the Embassy card too soon, should of waited to see how things were playing out with the ECHR, who (she thinks) will find in his favour. Though in saying that she also thought (from a legal standpoint) the UK courts would find in his favour, and they didn't.

Also its worth mentioning (since i've seen him be refered to as a rapist etc) not only has he not been found guilty, but he has not even been charged with any offence. Though no doubt the people that wana call him a rapist won't care for little details like evidence, convictions, or charges.

Evidence. Convictions. Charges.

Well, why not let all of this play out, to see where it leads, INSTEAD of having Assange shielded from any likelihood of real culpability ?

Why does your mum want the European Court of 'Human Rights' to get their chance at this ? Is it because they're notoriously soft ??

Here's an example of an article considering what they get up to ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9239417/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-blocks-more-deportations-from-UK-than-any-other-country.html


Official figures show that the European Court of Human Rights has thwarted more planned deportations by Britain than any other country.

The controversial “Rule 39” procedure was recently used by judges in Strasbourg to prevent Abu Qatada, the extremist cleric, being sent back to Jordan in case evidence obtained under torture was used against him.

It has also been used by Somali criminals and failed Tamil asylum seekers to remain in the country.

The new figures disclosed in Parliament have renewed calls for the Government to pull out of the court and so ensure that British court rulings are upheld.

Gareth Johnson, the Conservative MP for Dartford who obtained the statistics, told The Daily Telegraph: “These figures confirm to me that we need to urgently review our membership of the ECHR.

“This court should not operate as a convenient mechanism to prevent us removing undesirable people from the UK.”

Under the Rule 39 powers of the European Court of Human Rights, judges can issue interim measures that are binding on nation states if they believe the applicant “faces a real risk of serious, irreversible harm if the measure is not applied”.

This prevents deportation going ahead until the case can be heard in detail.

The court insists it is “not an appeal tribunal from domestic tribunals”, and that people fighting extradition and expulsion should pursue all available means locally before turning to Strasbourg.

But figures show that thousands of applications are being made each year in the 47 nations that make up the Council of Europe, which oversees the court.

Looks somehow familiar, doesn't it ? What does that remind you of ?

[Noir]

Evidence. Convictions. Charges.

Well, why not let all of this play out, to see where it leads, INSTEAD of having Assange shielded from any likelihood of real culpability ?

How things would play out -
Day One: Julian lands in Sweden
Day Two: Julian extradited to America
Pretend otherwise and you're either lying, or an idiot.


Why does your mum want the European Court of 'Human Rights' to get their chance at this ? Is it because they're notoriously soft ??

She doesn't "want" it to go to the ECHR, nor does she not want it to. She was just explaining to me what she thinks are options and chances are.

[Drummond]

They don't want him to be answerable to the courts, he has not been charged with anything, they just want to 'chat', and this 'chat' has to take place in Sweden. And it is known that Swedish and Americans have already discussed extradition when he arrives.

For some reason the Swedish authorities do not want to 'chat' via a video link, or internationally natural soil, which they have done before in other cases. Funny that.

Oh, really.

Well, what we NOW have is Ecuador shielding Assange from culpability for ANYTHING at ALL. And what led to this state of affairs ?

Previously, Assange had used our courts to fight extradition. But, our courts didn't find in favour of Assange.

So, instead, he's hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy. As someone determined not to be answerable to due process.

Care to explain to me why our courts didn't see things Assange's way ?

[Drummond]

How things would play out -
Day One: Julian lands in Sweden
Day Two: Julian extradited to America
Pretend otherwise and you're either lying, or an idiot.

Your 'day two' conclusion isn't certain by any means.

But, so what, even if it was ? In case you somehow missed it, Assange DOES have a case to answer for in America. That he should be extradited there is no less than eminently reasonable.


She doesn't "want" it to go to the ECHR, nor does she not want it to. She was just explaining to me what she thinks are options and chances are.

The ECHR is a well-known cop-out option. We all know that.

[jimnyc]

Don't the US and UK have an extradition treaty agreement? If the USA had the power to do such things, why not have the UK just extradite him now and bypass the rest and add more to the drama. And the less hands involved make it easier, and we're closer with the UK than any other ally.

[Noir]

Don't the US and UK have an extradition treaty agreement? If the USA had the power to do such things, why not have the UK just extradite him now and bypass the rest and add more to the drama. And the less hands involved make it easier, and we're closer with the UK than any other ally.

The British process of Judicial Review would offer Julian a much better defence than any equivalent in Sweden. If the US where to try to extradite him from the UK, you can all but guarantee a decade or more of debate and case review in the UK, on whether or not he should be. And at the end of all that the US may not get their man at all.

[jimnyc]

The British process of Judicial Review would offer Julian a much better defence than any equivalent in Sweden. If the US where to try to extradite him from the UK, you can all but guarantee a decade or more of debate and case review in the UK, on whether or not he should be. And at the end of all that the US may not get their man at all.

How long did it take Assange to do this to fight extradition to Sweden? And didn't he appeal each decision all the way the the SC as well? They wouldn't be arguing the case at hand, but whether or not they should extradite. Why would it take a fairly short time like it did with Sweden, but be a decade if it was America asking for extradition? And considering that almost everyone I know agrees that Sweden has offered very little for their case, and the UK granted extradition, why would you think the US would have a harder chance and perhaps lose these hearings?

[Noir]

How long did it take Assange to do this to fight extradition to Sweden? And didn't he appeal each decision all the way the the SC as well? They wouldn't be arguing the case at hand, but whether or not they should extradite. Why would it take a fairly short time like it did with Sweden, but be a decade if it was America asking for extradition? And considering that almost everyone I know agrees that Sweden has offered very little for their case, and the UK granted extradition, why would you think the US would have a harder chance and perhaps lose these hearings?

Because the grounds for extradition are much more complex to america (on some sort of treason charge) from the UK. Whereas its much more simple for extradition to Sweden to 'chat' with a prosecutor from the UK. So its easier to get him UK -> Sweden -> America, even though it looks more complex by a 'there's an extra country involved' view.

[Drummond]

Though I really hate to say it, Noir does have a point. There's been all kinds of controversy about our extradition arrangements .. our LibDems have kicked up a fuss about them in the past.

This link should prove instructive (if a little over-long, unfortunately).

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/644/64403.htm

One major concern on this side of the Pond (though I struggle to see how it'd apply to Assange) has been the death penalty. UK law is clear on this ... if there's judged to be any likelihood of an extradited person being judged in an American court and liable to receive such a penalty, this raises an automatic bar to extradition .. UK law doesn't allow for death penalties, not only from within its own courts, but it also legally refuses to recognise the legitimacy of them elsewhere .. so .. any likelihood at all of a death penalty being meted out disqualifies the extradition process.

Swedish law and UK law are actually more similar .. and this is to be expected, as we have EU legislation in common, with human rights legislation applied to both the UK and Sweden originating from the EU.

[jimnyc]

Because the grounds for extradition are much more complex to america (on some sort of treason charge) from the UK. Whereas its much more simple for extradition to Sweden to 'chat' with a prosecutor from the UK. So its easier to get him UK -> Sweden -> America, even though it looks more complex by a 'there's an extra country involved' view.

I suppose I would have to read both treaties, if they aren't too lengthy. I would have assumed if something was good enough to be extradited to one country, it would more or less be the same for another. But I suppose both treaties are worded differently, probably much differently. If I have time later I will look for prior examples of extraditions and see what had to be done to make it happen and how long the process was. That might be a waste though as I believe this is one hell of a unique case. Regardless, I do believe it "should" be easy easy as showing that Assange will get a fair trial. And if memory serves me correct, the pressure will be on his lawyers to prove this cannot happen, and even with the politics behind this, I don't see them proving this very easily. They certainly have probable cause and a history of fair trials given to even the worst of criminals. I think they would have a tough time proving this to courts that were already shown easily swayed with the Swedish case. I know you can't compare the 2 directly, but it does give a little insight.

[jimnyc]

Though I really hate to say it, Noir does have a point. There's been all kinds of controversy about our extradition arrangements .. our LibDems have kicked up a fuss about them in the past.

This link should prove instructive (if a little over-long, unfortunately).

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/644/64403.htm

One major concern on this side of the Pond (though I struggle to see how it'd apply to Assange) has been the death penalty. UK law is clear on this ... if there's judged to be any likelihood of an extradited person being judged in an American court and liable to receive such a penalty, this raises an automatic bar to extradition .. UK law doesn't allow for death penalties, not only from within its own courts, but it also legally refuses to recognise the legitimacy of them elsewhere .. so .. any likelihood at all of a death penalty being meted out disqualifies the extradition process.

Swedish law and UK law are actually more similar .. and this is to be expected, as we have EU legislation in common, with human rights legislation applied to both the UK and Sweden originating from the EU.

I honestly didn't see this a few minutes ago, sweet! I'll go over it tonight. Thanks for the find. Thanks to both for the info actually!