(December 9, 2012 at 5:00 am)Daniel Wrote: I don't care whether it's the law or not, having consensual sex with another adult is not an offence in my view, or in just about anyone else's view.

So falls your argument. In the real world, away from your views, laws are there to be obeyed and not ignored if you think the law is wrong.

(December 9, 2012 at 5:00 am)Daniel Wrote: I don't care whether it's the law or not, having consensual sex with another adult is not an offence in my view, or in just about anyone else's view.

It doesn`t matter if you care or not. Law is law.

Quote:Um, no it's not according to me. It's according to Ecuador who has granted him asylum, and according to the conventions set out by the UN which the UK is signatory to - has nothing to do with me you fool.

Yeah it is according to you because here`s the actual qoute from the UN charta protocol:





source link:http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Now there is the phrase of "well founded" fear.
And in his case his fear, is not "well founded" he is simply searching for a cheap excuse to avoid trial in Sweden - a country which will not extradite him to the US.

And only because the president of Ecuador

(who by the way, is from a perspective on the human rights situation, one of the worst cunts in south america: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/wor...12-ecuador )

says that he is a "refugee", this doesn`t mean that he is a refugee. Gaddafi called exiled lybians who critizised his regime traitors who should be repatriated and hanged - now guess why no one took that serious?

Quote:I don't care what kind of a person he is Germans, he's still allowed to conduct his business the way he wants without fear of persecution from the USA for espionage.

The entire point is, he has nothing to fear because sweden does not extradite to the US.

And again: show me an example where sweden is the US`s bitch?

Quote:Most journalists edit out the names of innocent parties, you're right, but the document itself is what we're concerned with. As for medical files - so what? Someone gave them to Wikileaks and they were published.

Because it is a violation of the right to privacy, to which also heads of states have a right to.

Generaly Assanges cult of "total" sociataly openess is madness!!!

He is somewhat the personalisation of Pavel Antipov from the 1965 movie adaptation of Doktor Schiwago who sees himself as the spearhead of progress when proclaiming: "The privat life is dead."

Assange has no problem with going to Sweden to face the charges against him. He's said this on multiple occasions. What he has a problem with is the refusal by Swedish authorities to guarantee that he wouldn't be extradited to the US upon arrival.

IMO, the refusal to make such a simple guarantee indicates that there is something more going on here. Whatever anyone thinks about Assange's work, this sort of thing is very shady.

Since when does a sovereign country owe a garantee to a non citizen???????? It is the other way arround, a non citizen owes a sovereign country the garante to obay the laws of that sovereign country, and if that non citizen does not - he or she has to face the consequences.


Fact is: The Kingdom of Sweden as almoust every other country within Europe, does not extradite people who face the death penalty in countries who`s prosecution system wants to put them on trial.

Why?

Because it is bound by European law and by the european high court of human rights to do so!!!!!


Nothing, absolutly nothing shady about it. Only for people who interpret their fantasies of world conspiracy into it.

And further more:

Quote:It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.

Quote:Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.

Am I the only one here who actualy posts sources:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-...xtradition

http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2012/08/extr...n.html?m=1

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/117...on%3F.html

Sweden doesn't owe a guarantee to Assange, sure. What I find very telling however is that Assange has made it clear that if he were given the guarantee, he would go to Sweden willingly. Why haven't the Swedish authorities taken him up on that offer? Only one reason springs to mind...

Even if the guarantee isn't binding, it strikes me as odd that the Swedish haven't made one. Say they gave one to him, and he stayed true to his word and came to face the charges. Then, after he was acquitted, he is arrested and faced extradition to the US. He objects, saying he has a guarantee that this would not happen...the judge laughs and says that such a guarantee is not binding. He loses, Sweden wins.

In all honesty, I think it is quite clear that the Swedish are refusing to cooperate because they have powerful people breathing down their necks. Someone wants Assange to go to jail.

Because

(I edited the post so maybe you didn`t notice)

such a guarantee canot be given from a legal point.

Sweden is bound by the European high court of justice, which is guarantee enought. Assange is a narzesist megalomeniac when he thinks that that guarantee is not enought.

(December 9, 2012 at 9:42 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Yeah it is according to you because here`s the actual qoute from the UN charta protocol:

---

Quote:Article 1
definition of the term “refugee”
A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall
apply to any person who:
(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926
and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10
February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of
the International Refugee Organization;
Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status
of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph 2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it.
In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the
country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he
is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based
on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one
of the countries of which he is a national

---

source link:http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Now there is the phrase of "well founded" fear.
And in his case his fear, is not "well founded" he is simply searching for a cheap excuse to avoid trial in Sweden - a country which will not extradite him to the US.

And only because the president of Ecuador

(who by the way, is from a perspective on the human rights situation, one of the worst cunts in south america: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/wor...12-ecuador )

says that he is a "refugee", this doesn`t mean that he is a refugee. Gaddafi called exiled lybians who critizised his regime traitors who should be repatriated and hanged - now guess why no one took that serious?

That doesn't matter Germans, he has been granted the status nevertheless. It's your opinion that says he isn't, but legally speaking he is.

Quote:The entire point is, he has nothing to fear because sweden does not extradite to the US.

Sweden doesn't extradite? HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Quote:And again: show me an example where sweden is the US`s bitch?

Watch this:




41 minutes in.

Yes. You are a conspiracy nutter.

I have given my sources to why Sweden will not extradite, and the reasons are clearly laid out on legal paper.

And if your response is a "laws dont matter HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" and a doggy video......................... then blaaaaaaa.

It's not a dodgy video, it's a 4 Corners investigative program, produced by the ABC. Watch 41 minutes in and then tell me that Sweden doesn't extradite to the USA.

(December 9, 2012 at 10:10 am)Tiberius Wrote: Sweden doesn't owe a guarantee to Assange, sure. What I find very telling however is that Assange has made it clear that if he were given the guarantee, he would go to Sweden willingly. Why haven't the Swedish authorities taken him up on that offer? Only one reason springs to mind...

Because they cannot guarentee that the US will not attempt to extradite him in the future. That is why.

His demand is unrealistic and practically impossible.