WikiLeaks' Assange fights extradition to Sweden

You know, you two should join the debate forum..

You have gone a "wee" bit off topic..

Originally posted by backinblack
You know, you two should join the debate forum..

You have gone a "wee" bit off topic..

Lol... we actually had that pm discussion a few nights ago.. We thought we would just continue until it comes back around or until a mod actually notices

Besides, I am learning stuff... so dont rain on my parade ok

reply to post by Xcathdra


Wouldn't think of it..It's interesting reading..

Buy pleeease, stop talking about the UN..
They have always been a lame duck organization..

reply to post by backinblack


Your preaching to the choir about them. I have to use them to counter Aptnesses arrguments though. Blame him

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Iraqs failure to comply with all UN Resolutions that were in place after the first gulf war placed them in breach. Use of force was allowed based on UN Charter - Article VII Breach of Peace.

Use of force is allowed after the Security Council determines there is a breach of peace and authorizes that use of force. That’s in the first Article of Chapter VII of the Charter.

Art. 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Resolution 1441 wasn’t an authorization to use force against Iraq. In fact, even the US and British delegations recognized this.

John Negroponte, US ambassador to the UN (source)—

As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the UN (source)—

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have just adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

Further evidence that Resolution 1441 didn’t, in itself, authorize the use of force is the fact that the US, UK and Spain, in 2003, introduced a draft resolution seeking authorization to use military force against Iraq. When it was clear the resolution wouldn’t be adopted because it lacked the necessary votes, it was withdrawn.

Contrary to what you claim, the invasion of Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter.

Regarding your points about torture I don’t find them compelling for 2 reasons:

(1) Even if one accepts the argument that Geneva Conventions permit “unlawful combatants” to be tortured — which I don’t — the United States detained and tortured people who were not “unlawful combatants,” were just civilians who were guilty of absolutely nothing, including children.

(2) Even if the Geneva Conventions allowed “unlawful combatants” to be tortured, the Convention Against Torture imposes an absolute and unconditional ban on torture. The CAT doesn’t include any criteria, any requirement of uniforms, or other conditions specified in the Geneva Conventions for POWs. So, assuming torture of “unlawful combatants” was permissible under GC, it was not be under the CAT.

Under the current, and the at the time, legal obligations of the United States, both domestic and international, there was simply no scenario where detainees in the custody of the United States were allowed to be tortured.

Wikileaks founder to be extradited

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face sex offence charges, a judge has ruled.

Judge Howard Riddle said the allegations of rape and sexual molestation by two women are extraditable offences and a Swedish warrant was properly issued.

Lawyers for Mr Assange have a week to appeal today's decision, which was held at the high security Belmarsh Magistrates Court in south-east London.

Judge Riddle said there is "simply no reason to believe there has been a mistake" in issuing the warrant.

The globalists believe Mr. Assange has served his purpose and needs to be disposed of by trial in Sweden for trumped up sexual assault charges.

reply to post by ironfalcon


Out of curiosity when is your court date? If the charges are trumped up as you say, I am assuming you were present and can corroborate Assanges statements.