RE: Assange: Refugee or Fugitive?
December 9, 2012 at 12:29 pm
(This post was last modified: December 9, 2012 at 12:55 pm by Darth.)
Just for reference for foreingers, ABC stands for the australian broadcast corporation (basically australia's BBC) and this is their investigative journalism and current affairs program (though they do sometimes air outside produced documentaries, this doesn't appear to be the case with this video, I could be wrong but I recognise the journalist, and it would say so at the start of the video, rather than just having a brief logo. I'm not 100% on this but).
Edit: I was right http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2...549280.htm It's their own reporters.
I will admit that the image on the video before it starts playing is cheap and tacky, don't know where it came from (maybe the youtube uploader?), the moment you start the video the video quality is much higher than you would expect from that image.
The 41 min bit Daniel seems to be referring to is the mention of Muhammed el-zari and Ahmed Agiza, sweden to egypt extradition (with heavy US involvement apparently, CIA plane and it was at their request). The video shows the cover of an Amnesty International report on the pair, entitled "The case of Mohammed Eli Zari and Ahmed Agiza: violations of fundamental human rights by Sweden confirmed". I seem to have found the link to it, here http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR42/001/2006 though I've not yet read it, do your own research. (edit: reading it now, interesting stuff...)
The video says that the UN ruled against sweden in this case, and sweden later had to pay compensations. (yah for after the fact wrist slaps, would do Julian Assange a great deal of good I'm sure).
Germans, though Daniel's responses have not been as mature as they could have been (e.g., HAHAHAHAHAHA) the outright dismissal of the evidence Daniel provided seems to me to be inappropriate.
He's not asking for a guarantee from Sweden that America won't try, he's asking for a guarantee from Sweden that they will tell America where they can shove their request. If they really won't extradite him, then they can make the guarantee surely. It seems to me that he's doing the smart thing here.
And bugger that "laws are there to be obeyed" nonsense. Irelands blasphemy law?* Australia's can't insult the gaming minster cause he's a big sook law? America's draft? I can't think of a country that doesn't have at least a few laws I wouldn't happily ignore.
*What happened with that anyway, they still have that?
Edit: I was right http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2...549280.htm It's their own reporters.
I will admit that the image on the video before it starts playing is cheap and tacky, don't know where it came from (maybe the youtube uploader?), the moment you start the video the video quality is much higher than you would expect from that image.
The 41 min bit Daniel seems to be referring to is the mention of Muhammed el-zari and Ahmed Agiza, sweden to egypt extradition (with heavy US involvement apparently, CIA plane and it was at their request). The video shows the cover of an Amnesty International report on the pair, entitled "The case of Mohammed Eli Zari and Ahmed Agiza: violations of fundamental human rights by Sweden confirmed". I seem to have found the link to it, here http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR42/001/2006 though I've not yet read it, do your own research. (edit: reading it now, interesting stuff...)
The video says that the UN ruled against sweden in this case, and sweden later had to pay compensations. (yah for after the fact wrist slaps, would do Julian Assange a great deal of good I'm sure).
Germans, though Daniel's responses have not been as mature as they could have been (e.g., HAHAHAHAHAHA) the outright dismissal of the evidence Daniel provided seems to me to be inappropriate.
Quote: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.
He's not asking for a guarantee from Sweden that America won't try, he's asking for a guarantee from Sweden that they will tell America where they can shove their request. If they really won't extradite him, then they can make the guarantee surely. It seems to me that he's doing the smart thing here.
And bugger that "laws are there to be obeyed" nonsense. Irelands blasphemy law?* Australia's can't insult the gaming minster cause he's a big sook law? America's draft? I can't think of a country that doesn't have at least a few laws I wouldn't happily ignore.
*What happened with that anyway, they still have that?
Nemo me impune lacessit.
