Julian Assange 'Could Be Planning To Surrender'

a reply to: stumason

There is no damage done to people around the world, that is a baseless claim touted and debunked long ago. I don't think Russia is any better than the USA but over the past two decades the USA have excelled themselves on the world stage. They are indeed exceptional at unwarranted invasions, creating political regime change and killing untold amounts of innocent people. Yet you would support the idea that somehow Assange should face the music. There would be no fair trial.

I applaud all whistleblowers and those of a similar ilk. We need such people of courage and yet you would hand them over in a heartbeat. Shame on you.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: stumason

There is no damage done to people around the world, that is a baseless claim touted and debunked long ago.

Go on then - show me. He released documents with people's personal details in, have you checked to see if they are still alive?

originally posted by: midicon
I don't think Russia is any better than the USA but over the past two decades the USA have excelled themselves on the world stage.

Nice selective slice of history there. And why, exactly, has the last 20 years seen the USA in the dominant position? Because the USSR collapsed - if we go back 30, 40, 50 or 60 years, we see both of them buggering around with the world. Yet only the USA gets the constant rebuke, while around here, Russia can do no wrong, despite only having been unable to be a global arsehole, rather than being unwilling. We are seeing a change in this regard now.

originally posted by: midicon
They are indeed exceptional at unwarranted invasions, creating political regime change and killing untold amounts of innocent people.

Yup - this sort of crap has gone on all the time, throughout history. Someone ends up doing it and, to be honest, I'd rather it be a country that at least pretends to care about human life, freedom etc than, perhaps, China or Russia, who would happily level entire towns and cities to get at their enemy.

originally posted by: midicon
Yet you would support the idea that somehow Assange should face the music. There would be no fair trial.

I support that everyone face the music - no exceptions. You lot would cry a river if some rich idiot on a sexual molestation charge got off with it simply because he blubbed to the media about how he wouldn't get a fair trial.

I have enough faith in the average Joe that, despite what the media/Government may say, can look at evidence objectively and decide whether an offence has been committed. The minute we start to make excuses for people to not answer for their actions, guilty or not, we may as well not have a justice system at all.

I am not saying he is guilty of anything, but making excuses to not not even face those accusations like anyone else is not on.

originally posted by: midicon
I applaud all whistleblowers and those of a similar ilk. We need such people of courage and yet you would hand them over in a heartbeat.

Not at all. If crimes have been committed, such as the MP's expenses scandal, then that person should go to the authorities and report them, with the evidence.

I know many elect to go to the media for the big cash payout and that itself is a crime - selling private/classified information- two wrongs don't make a right.. However, leaking full, un-redacted copies of classified diplomatic cables is something else entirely.

originally posted by: midicon
Shame on you.

That part of my brain died a long time ago, so don't wait up all night trying to guilt me into anything

originally posted by: stumason
You don't have to be a citizen of a country to have committed crimes there - Christ, otherwise we'd all be going to America to pillage, rape and plunder! He has handled classified documents he had no right too, he knew the risks.

Incorrect. If you're an American citizen, on American soil and get handed some classified Russian documents, it is perfectly legal for you to look at them and publish them. What Assange did is no different.

originally posted by: stumason
It's like that Snowden chappy ATS get's all gooey for - hands over classified documents and Russian welcomes him with open arms, as if they are the bastion of personal freedom themselves. If the situation was reversed, mind you, you could bet they would have him killed and horribly, too.

Not really. First of all Julian Assange is press and gets certain protections because of that. Second of all, Assange isn't an American citizen while Snowden is, and Assange wasn't on American soil where as Snowden was when he committed those acts that makes a world of difference.

a reply to: stumason

I am not saying he is guilty of anything, but making excuses to not not even face those accusations like anyone else is not on.

The point is that Sweden may not really want him...and there may be some merit to that idea. I can't see that he has commited any crime in America...yet the hyperbole from the media and various establishment figures had him vilified. Some had him accused of treason.

I think Snowden's case is quite different and he can be charged with treason.

I have enough faith in the average Joe that, despite what the media/Government may say, can look at evidence objectively and decide whether an offence has been committed. The minute we start to make excuses for people to not answer for their actions, guilty or not, we may as well not have a justice system at all.

I think the average Joe would have allowed Assange to go to Ecuador. I can also see that the UK government, even if they wanted to could not allow it, I have never said otherwise. We don't have much of a justice system at all and the average Joe certainly won't be looking at the evidence or making decisions with regard to Assange.

We do have a justice system but it is not impartial and I wouldn't trust it for a moment.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: myselfaswell
Looks like more of a challenge to the legal system than a surrender. Like he said, he's never been charged with a crime and as the record shows that is the case.

The only reason he hasn't been charged with a crime is because he has spent the past several years running from and evading it. He insists he is innocent, but won't go to answer questions or try to defend himself. Hmmm, not really the actions of an innocent man.

Id disagree.

Its the action of someone petrified or indirectly ending up in the USA "in"justice system.

I know id be **** scared Sweden would take me then pack me over to the US of A to stand in front of one of there kangaroo courts or worse end up in some bolt hole without trial that the land of the "free" likes doing.

originally posted by: stumason

Quite right too - he distributed classified documents. Do you honestly believe you or I would be treated any differently? In fact, I reckon we would, because we wouldn't be allowed to sit in the Ecuador Embassy for 2 years, we'd be turfed out straight away to face the music.

No not quite right.

He is NOT a USA citizen

He did not release the files in the USA

USA law ONLY COVERS THE USA!

Eg I was born a BRITISH Citizen. So unless im in the USA I am not a subject of US law!

If the USA have a problem with his actions they can:
1) Get better security
2) Find and charge the US citizens leaking the information.

Apart from that the USA can # off and mind its own bloody business.

originally posted by: stumason

Why, again, is he being held to a different standard to anyone else? If I am accused of a crime in Country A, then run to Country B, I wouldn't be able to insist Country A interview me in B, especially if a EU wide arrest warrant is out on me. It is perfectly normal (and happens every day) for the accused to be handed over to the investigating authorities, in this case, the Swedish Police.

Expect he was not in country A when he committed the "crime" country A accuses him off.

originally posted by: stumason
He has had all the legal opportunity to fight the accusations here in the UK and has exhausted his appeal process against extradition. You cannot give him some special case status and not hand him over simply because of who he is, otherwise what message does that send?

The message it sends is F you USA we are sick off your interfering, your enforcing of USA laws on other sovereign nations and you unfair extradition treats.

originally posted by: stumason
"It's ok if your accused of sexual crimes in another country, because we won't send you to face the music as long as you have rich celebrity backers or dodgy Central American friends!"

IF it was just to face the sexual accusations the fair enough. But it wont be.

originally posted by: stumason
I couldn't care less if that is the case, because quite frankly he is guilty of offences in the US as well. Everyone knows handling documents you don't have clearance for, or disseminating them to people who do not, is something no country on Earth would tolerate.

How can you be guilty of breaking another countrys law when your not even in that country!

Your subject to the law of the country your in.

If I break UK law in the UK I go to UK courts.

If I break US law on US soil then I go to the US courts.

If I break USA law on UK soil and its also illegal in the UK I go through UK courts.

If I break USA law in the UK and that actions not illegal in the UK? Then Feck American

Im a UK citizen! I Am not a USA citizen and While in my sovereign country's I refuse to acknowledge the laws of outside country!

originally posted by: stumason
I highly doubt the US is going to do anything that isn't above board and correct,

Im sure weatherboarding is done above a board, don't know if its correct.

originally posted by: stumason


You don't have to be a citizen of a country to have committed crimes there - Christ, otherwise we'd all be going to America to pillage, rape and plunder! He has handled classified documents he had no right too, he knew the risks.

Stupid comparison.

If I went to "America to pillage, rape and plunder" I would have broken US law on US soil and rightfully should be extradited.

Better comparison is if I Jaywalk across my English street, should the USA be able to send me a fine? As I broke US law.

Should UK police arrest Americans coming into the UK or go over to the USA and arrest Americans for owning unregistered guns and breaking our firearm laws?

a reply to: crazyewok

If I went to "America to pillage, rape and plunder" I would have broken US law on US soil and rightfully should be extradited.

There is no rape case. It is simply slander. Read the notes on the case. Simply put he had unprotected sex and that is the crime..!

a reply to: purplemer

I think you missed the context of what I was saying............................


I was arguing the the view that he had broken US law when he committed actions outside the USA.And its BS.

a reply to: crazyewok

Thank you.. Sorry i did misunderstand. Should not really tap when half asleep.. and I agree it should not matter if he has broken US law...

kind regards

purp..

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: crazyewok

Thank you.. Sorry i did misunderstand. Should not really tap when half asleep.. and I agree it should not matter if he has broken US law...

kind regards

purp..

No worries it hard to read some times through all the posts if in a rush.

But yeah. I just cant grasp how its legal or ethical to hold someone to the laws of a another country when not in that country.

If Im in the USA I will fully obey US laws and agree to be in subject to them.

But when in the UK I do not agree to being subject to the US law. To me Im subject to UK law. Unless the USA gives me Citizenship thier law means F all to me when in England.

Should I be extradited to North Korea for calling Little Kim and fat little turd? I broke North Korean law doing that.

originally posted by: midicon
I can't see that he has commited any crime in America...yet the hyperbole from the media and various establishment figures had him vilified. Some had him accused of treason.

Forget the media and vote counting politicians. Is there any legal process in the US underway, or being prepared, to have Assange extradited?

I think people are jumping to conclusions. Certainly, Assange is using the "US will have me executed" as an emotive excuse to NOT be sent to Sweden to face his accusers of a real potential crime. There is not evidence the US give a toss, or have a case.

If the US really thought they had a legal case they would have produced one by now and Assange would be sitting in the Ecuadorian embassy fearing extradition to the US; but he's not, is he?

Regards

He does fear extradition to the US. That's the whole reason he's in the embassy.

I sure hope he doesn't surrender. He will be extradited to the thugs in charge of the US. One more freedom fighter gone if he does that. The world doesn't have enough of them.

originally posted by: amazing
He does fear extradition to the US. That's the whole reason he's in the embassy.

No, he fears extradition to Sweden to face his accusers on a small matter of an alleged sex crime. Apart from that, there is no actual evidence that US courts have an interest - or case - in extraditing him. Please prove me wrong.

Regards

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: amazing
He does fear extradition to the US. That's the whole reason he's in the embassy.

No, he fears extradition to Sweden to face his accusers on a small matter of an alleged sex crime. Apart from that, there is no actual evidence that US courts have an interest - or case - in extraditing him. Please prove me wrong.

Regards

www.nytimes.com...

Just one of many sources stating that:

"SYDNEY: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will not leave the Ecuador embassy in London until it is guaranteed he will avoid extradition to the United States, his lawyer said Tuesday..."

a reply to: amazing

Oh yeah, the old "guarantee" argument. No court would agree to circumvent a legal process to appease someone's whim. If the US put in a request for extradition it would be considered on its merits. It is impossible to give immunity against something that does not exist. Assange and Assange's lawyers know this.

REgards

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: amazing

Oh yeah, the old "guarantee" argument. No court would agree to circumvent a legal process to appease someone's whim. If the US put in a request for extradition it would be considered on its merits. It is impossible to give immunity against something that does not exist. Assange and Assange's lawyers know this.

REgards

I see what you're saying, but we all know how underhanded the US government is. He thinks there is a legitimate chance of extradition and so do I.

originally posted by: paraphi
Forget the media and vote counting politicians. Is there any legal process in the US underway, or being prepared, to have Assange extradited?

I think people are jumping to conclusions. Certainly, Assange is using the "US will have me executed" as an emotive excuse to NOT be sent to Sweden to face his accusers of a real potential crime. There is not evidence the US give a toss, or have a case.

If the US really thought they had a legal case they would have produced one by now and Assange would be sitting in the Ecuadorian embassy fearing extradition to the US; but he's not, is he?

Well, there were senators as well as members of Obama's cabinet that publicly stated they wanted to throw him in prison, or worse just flat out have him executed. He would have already gone to Sweeden (or atleast lost his excuse for asylum) if Sweeden simply agreed they wouldn't hand him over to US custody. It's a pretty basic request really considering he hasn't broken any US laws, the fact that Sweeden hasn't agreed to this is what sets off red flags.

And the whole reason he's in the Ecuadorian embassy is because of the threat of an extradition to the US. Sweeden won't deny it, Ecuador believes it, Assange believes it. Assange would lose all standing for asylum if Sweeden simply gave a promise that he wouldn't simply disappear from one of their jails.