Saturday, August 18, 2012

Assange What's the problem?

Julian Assange the boss of Wikileaks is trying to slip out of facing justice in Sweden, hopefully the British authorities will guarantee his safe arrival in Sweden to answer charges of sexual assault.

It seems to me a rather naive claim to suggest as his fan club would have it, that Sweden has a dodgy legal system.

Given the choice of defending myself against bogus charges as some gullible campaigners have it, I would rather it was in European country than anywhere else, almost laughable is the protest from South American countries, hardly known for stability or human rights during my life time.

It's been alleged that Wikileaks has been responsible for risking lives of informers on Islamic terror groups, such as in Afghanistan where British Military are working at considerable risk, to help the people build a civilised country.

I've go no time for all this hot air about Assange, until he was charge with sex crimes, I'd imagine even the most dedicated left wing nut job, would have been hard placed claim Sweden had a corrupt legal system.

Briefly looking at Ecuador's  human rights given their poor record of unlawful killings and use of excessive force by security forces, arbitrary arrest and detention; corruption blah blah blah, they have no authority to lecture anyone on human rights.

Assange should just quietly leave town for Sweden and answer the charges against him, particularly given his innocence.

63 comments:

  1. LGBT operatives in my opinion, Tony, the girls claiming rape, I mean.

    A respected Swedish prosecutor had already investigated the case and thrown it out as unsubstantiated.

    It's a NWO move to create a chilling effect against potential 'troublemakers', by disappearing a high profile whistleblower.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In which case, Anon, Assange should have no trouble answering these charges in a court of law and properly clearing his name rather than scuttling off to South America to hide. If he is really afraid the Americans will grab him then the last place he should want to be is Ecuador, well within the CIA's area of operation.

      Frankly I cannot wait for the nasty little creep to get his long overdue come uppance.

      Delete
    2. I would probably say Sweden's laws are evn more lenient than ours, if someone who has killed 73 youths and many others in a bomb blast and only receive 21 years in solitary, even if he was found guilty he would probably only get 2 weeks for rape.

      Delete
  2. "In which case, Anon, Assange should have no trouble answering these charges in a court of law and properly clearing his name rather than scuttling off to South America to hide."

    Obviously what Assange is saying is not that he will have any trouble answering the charges, but that they will result in his being held for long enough that the USA will be able to have him extradited.

    You may disagree, but you should address the issue in question rather than avoiding it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And if he is not guilty why hide?? By the same measure he is not guilty of leaking the wiki stuff he has nothing to worry about. The USA have a high population on Christians he will be able to perform some miracles and even walk on water crossing the Atlantic to answer the charges about wikileaks in the US.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope your Grandkids are as chuffed with the idea of living in a North Korean style dictatorship as you seem to be, Don.

      Delete
  4. Don, you must live in some weird parallel universe if you think the USA, or any other country for that matter, has a legal system which is immune to political influence. Assange is being set up. People who are unsympathetic to him don't mind that he is being set up or claim that there is some impartial judicial system at play. People, like myself who are sympathetic to Assange see the whole thing in a different light, perhaps the real light.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problem with you claiming you see things in a different light, but the real light, surely that is a matter of opinion.

      Assange is trying to dodge legitimate charges in a civilised country and using the possibility of extradition to the USA as an excuse for perverting the normal course of justice. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between whistle blowing to expose some governmental cover up and exposing military secrets for financial gain.

      My own hope is he gets to Ecuador where he can enjoy a third world existence until some local villain informs on his whereabouts to the CIA, resulting in the inevitable slotting. That would be worth cracking the bottle I have kept for a special occassion.

      Delete
  5. For me, the appearance of his supporters says it all about the man. The usual bizarre collection of freaks and weirdos that seem to turn out for every anarchist cause, yet these are the same people who shelter behind the very laws they claim to despise. Screw their shrew like faces up into hate expressions, abuse and assault police officers, but if a copper hits back, wait for the Human Rights screaming. They should have camps with no exits for such people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh dear. How parochial.
    The real issue here seems to have zoomed far above most of your collective heads.
    The European extradition laws, brought in under pressure from the Americans after 9/11 allows for anyone to be extradited for any reason from anywhere in Europe with no evidence having to be presented.
    Previous to this change, the case and evidence would have had to be presented by the country trying to extradite and a judge or judges in this country would have decided if that evidence is strong enough to justify the extradition. This process has now been neatly and conveniently sidestepped in the name of anti terrorism. What many of you have chosen to ignore in your rush to condemn Assange is that he has not been charged with anything in Sweden. The Yanks, on the other hand have a kist of charges as long as your arm that they can't wait to slap on him.
    If you think authorities British or Swedish want him extradited in order to serve justice, you simply aren't paying attention.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tony, for such a know it all you're incredibly naive!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The sooner this guy is arrested the better, assuming that the UK has similar treaties with the USA why have they not requested us to extradite him to them.

    This really is left wing bollix, as far as I'm concerned if a civilised country has requested that he answer charges of rape and or sexual assault, then he should be given the chance to defend himself, or else what else can we make of Assange seeking refugee in a country, that has a strong tradition of human rights violations.

    Call me old fashioned but I like to see alleged sexual predators, answer such charges, as to whether he eventually ends up in the USA, it's worth remembering that Wikileaks are alleged to have put at risk hundreds of pro western informants, in the fight against Islamic terrorist groups.

    Still if Yogi wishes to show his ignorance of the bigger picture it is no surprise, perhaps he might also give a thought for the integrity and hard work of service men and women taking risks making sacrifices for us, to protect our way of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But there are no charges Tony. Only accusations from dubious sources.

      Delete
    2. Also can you explain to me who was put at risk by Wikileaks revelations and how?
      If you can, I might be more sympathetic.
      Calling me ignorant however, is not going to hack it.

      Delete
  9. Perhaps then, Yogi, you might like to explain why the Americans have not sought his extradition straight from Britain if it is so simply. Why do they have to go via Sweden?

    He appealed his extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault and that was rejected by the court. Only then did he seek to hide in the Ecuador embassy to escape the course of justice.

    I think it is you that is very much missing the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually that is a very good question.
      They obviously want him. Why have they not sought his extradition?
      .......think now.....

      Delete
  10. Give up? OK.
    1)The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release’) clause.
    2)Public opinion and the media 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 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.
    3)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 disclosed diplomatic cables.

    Amazing what you can find out if you can be bothered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jodie. I think Tim has your answers further down - amazing what you can find out when you can be bothered.

      Delete
  11. to put it another way.
    It will be easier from Sweden.
    Gary McKinnon has been fighting extradition from the uk to the US for 8 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. There is far more public sympathy in UK for McKinnon than for Assange.
      2. The UK is more than happy to risk a diplomatic incident in order to extradite this guy so they are hardly likely to put up much opposition to the same request from the US.
      3. Military security is not simply for fun and some information is best kept from a nation's potential enemies. What gives Assange the right to first hack into such and then decide to publish it on the www?
      4. If the Yanks really want him, like Bin Laden, they will get him sooner or later, so it does not much matter where he goes.

      Delete
    2. Assange did not hack into it. He was given the info by Manning.
      You may not care about whose torture your tax is paying for, but some of us do.

      Delete
    3. PS. Most people in this country haven't a clue who McKinnon is.

      Delete
  12. Replies
    1. Are there any left, Cyril?

      Delete
    2. Does anyone care even. Tories, Labour, Lib/Dems, they're all useless when it really matters. If there was a man amongst them they'd have hung Assange by now and saved the tax payer a fortune.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Now there was another peaceful protestor whose activities led to more violent deaths, including his own, in a few months following independence on the Indian sub continent than had resulted under British rule in the preceeding hundred years. Don't you just love champions of causes - beats decent law and order every day!

      Delete
  13. He's yet another self-serving non-entity as far as I'm concerned. Let him stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy for the next 40 years - since the corridors and lifts are shared with the Colombians and are therefore not part of the Embassy he's going to get pretty bored.

    Both UK and Sweden have said that they do not extradite people to countries where they could face the death penalty if convicted. If his name were Paul Gadd I have no doubt that there would be a queue of tree huggers (including Yogi) several miles long demanding that the UK Government declared war on Ecuador unless he was sent to Sweden.

    Want to compare with real protesters? Three Russian punk singers get sent to jail for objecting to Tsar Putin. Now they face two years in what are unlikely to be pleasant conditions for voicing their concerns. Meanwhile, Saint Julian of Assange runs away and hides behind Ecuadorian skirts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty sure I don't follow your logic here. Mind, I haven't followed your logic at all. The European Convention on Human Rights forbids extradition to a country where the penalty on conviction could be death. UK, Sweden, they are both signatories, so he's pretty sure to be able to enrich a few more lawyers yet. Ecuador, on the other hand is neither European nor high up the list of countries that have much truck with human rights; you could try http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange, (yes, the Grauniad, usually well noted for muddle-headed thinking, seems to have lost patience with this charlatan) or http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/ecuador/report-2012 for starters.

      Delete
    2. I suppose I had best be accurate. Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right. Rulings by the ECHR, notably the Soering case, held that there would be a violation of Article 3 if the complainant
      were to be extradited to the United States (real risk of being put on “death
      row”, treatment going beyond the threshold set by Article 3). Although not tested, such an attempt at extradition would also probably be considered a violation of Protocol 13 of the ECHR as well.

      Delete
    3. The American admin repeatedly denies and has denied in the past that ""inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" has gone on either in their prisons or at Guantanamo.
      An extradition to the US would not,I believe be regarded as putting him at risk of this. Although the world knows different.

      Delete
  14. It's just Uncle Sam crushing free speech again!

    It must bring back bad memories of Thanet Council stopping you using your phone tony! You're not thinking of holing up in some god forsaken country embassy are you mate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completely ignoring the fact that the US is one of the few countries in the world that enshrines free speech within its written Constitution (First Amendment to save you having to Google it)
      What this whole mess boils down to is the usual knee-jerk whenever the US is involved in any way.

      Delete
    2. Enshrining free speech on some parchment in a case does not mean it happens.

      Delete
  15. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4491853/Mavericks-are-seeking-to-take-control-of-Britains-police-forces-in-upcoming-elections.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well that wise sage of wisdom, George Galloway, says Assange has no charges to answer because you cannot rape a woman when she is asleep. Whether that is from personal experience or not he does not say, but maybe the legal logic is that if she is not awake enough to say 'no' then no offence has occurred.

    Yogi must be delighted to have such illustrious company in the Assange fan club.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, a curious choice since Yogi's profile says that she's a female.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I don't care what Galloway says. It's irrelevant.
      Assange has not been charged. A court in Sweden decided there was no case to answer.

      Delete
  17. Yogi you appear to be completely bonkers maybe it is the heat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yogi is bang on the money.

      Tony, whether you have sold out for party political reasons, personal reasons or whether you actually believe all the BS on the TV news, freedom of information is one of the last tools we have at our disposal to defend ourselves from this mafia. When that is gone, we are fooked.

      Delete
    2. Presumably then, 22:04, you would reckon it is OK for me to hack into you bank account and publish on the net full details of your personal financial transactions. How far do we go with freedom of information and who is to decide which of it should be published. Once we sanction the exposure of secret and highly sensitive information by the likes of Assange, all public and personal privacy goes out the window. Hope you are not playing away from home, but then, according to you, we all have a right to know that.

      Delete
    3. My what a persuasive argument Tony.
      I am totally converted.

      Delete
    4. 22.04 would have a right to hack into your bank account and publish details on the net if you had stolen it from someone else though no?
      Or if you had benefited financially from murder.

      Delete
    5. It seems there is someone else in that embassy who could cause a lot more damage than Wikileaks.

      http://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/uk-may-raid-ecuador-embassy-in-london-but-who-are-they-actually-after/

      Delete
    6. Anon 22.59....another very interesting link.
      Thanks.

      Delete
  18. This blog should be shut down!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Justify your statement or is a one liner the most your feeble mind can cope with at a time. Perhaps you should be closed down.

      Delete
    2. Careful with the inane laughter, Yogi, your petticoat is showing.

      Delete
    3. Better than having a d*** sticking out of my head.

      HAHAHA!

      Delete
    4. Why, is that what your other half has got, Yogi, or are you just jumping to conclusions and being sexist. My, how you champions of all things left and PC can be such hypocrites.

      Delete
    5. 'spose it depends which bit of your head the d**k is sticking out of

      Delete
  19. I don't think the term "dickhead" is applicable only to males, Anonymous. It's a vernacular term, and can, I think, be aimed at anyone - male or female - who acts stupidly or talks rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would question that statement for I am sure most people would regard 'dickhead' as a term to describe stupid males. 'Dizzy cow' or such would be more likely if making similar impolite reference to a lady. Then again I suppose in a society where folk seem to have problems with deciding their sexual orientation, I guess anything is possible.

      Better dash now because I want to dress up in my wife's undies whilst she is out and blow kisses at myself in the mirror. Oh, and don't you think that David Cameron is a real cutie campaigning for 'equal' marriage, whatever that means. Presumably, I get to lie on top tonight and tomorrow its your turn, duckie.

      Delete
    2. Quite agree, getting very smutty almost on the brink of something worse.
      Tony! If you can close down another site for people actually telling the truth for once, how come you allow this banter between Anon and Yogi to continue, I find it very childish and could be construde as insulting

      Delete
  20. This blog should be shut down!

    ReplyDelete