It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ecuador minister finds sex assault claims against Assange 'hilarious'

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Few points:

1) JA is wanted for questioning and in sweden that would mean he would be locked up.
2) Same questioning could've been done already. JA has agreed to be questioned multiple times. That is not enough. They want him detained.
3) If US wants him from UK then there would have to be a hearing. Getting him as a loaner from sweden would be much more convinient.
4) There is strong rumors about a secret grand jury in US. That is enough for extradition.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

You cant apply your own laws to Sweden and regardless of what people think about the laws in Sweden, they are their laws.



Actually, not quite that simple ... Sweden is a "sham", in reality ... up front, it looks ok ... but behind the scenes, it's "blonde" female-cop-workers who can get you in trouble, if you uphold your rights. Police officers, whose sons are "criminal" and they go above and beyond duty, to protect them. And then you have the classic, officers who rob the bank (or do other criminal activity) and then spend the rest of their lives in office, searching for themselves ...

Up until "lately" there has been absolutely no "check" the cops ... maybe that will change now, but too early to tell.

In this particular case, it's not Sweden, nor it's laws, that is the problem ... but rather "sweden turning him to the US", that is.

edit on 5/7/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by magma
 


He could get asylum by the Vatican but it doeesnt change the fact the moment he sets foot outside the embassy he will be arrested.

You cant apply your own laws to Sweden and regardless of what people think about the laws in Sweden, they are their laws.

reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady
 


Then Assange should easily win his court case then shouldnt he?

i do find it humorous that he spent all that time demanding people hold leaders accountible when apparently his moral viewpoint doesnt apply to himself.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


He is not running a country.. ruling over people or making any type of decisions effecting other peoples lives..

what do you find funny then? fake lawsuits? fake charges? why doesn't she take Trojan condom's to court for the product breaking? or promoting promiscuous sex?

but then again she was a willing participant.. its a stupid case which should never made it this far..

and your posts of why the US wouldn't take him are ridiculous.. there is no law that would stop them.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
ooops!


edit on 5-7-2012 by Ilovecatbinlady because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Assange is not a US citizen and therefore cannot be charged with Treason.


What if they decided to charge him with terrorism. That would change the situation dramatically wouldn't it?

I am sure words could be minced to find a way to make this happen. It would not be that hard considering treason could be manipulated into terrorism, I think.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by corsair00
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Is it any wonder why most people hate lawyers...

ARR-O-GANT! And quite smug, too...


Yes God forbid people take the time to educate themselves on a topic they are speaking about. God forbid people respond to posts to correct eronious or misunderstood information.

Secondly I am not a lawyer.

The theme is deny ignorance, not embrace it. Or are you suggesting we should just use the wrong information while discussing a topic?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Right, again you cannot take the laws of Peru or the UK and replace the laws of Sweden with them. The accusation against Assange occured in sweden, which means they have a right to invesitgate the claims and go from there.

As far as your opinion of sweden being a sham thats fine, but it doesnt impact the situation involving Assange and the situation.

Secondly this falls on the shoulders of the Prosecutor, not the police.

As for the continued Assange to the US falsehoods, and as other people have consistently pointed out to me, he is not charged with any crimes in the US. If the US wanted Assange they would have an easier time getting him from the UK due to bilateral extradition requests than we would from Sweden.

constantly invoking the US into the swedish situation is nothing more than a distraction away from what he is actually being accused of.

Ironic that assange harps on about personal responsibility and accountability, yet refuses to apply those same standards to himself.


edit on 6-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by reeferman
He is not running a country.. ruling over people or making any type of decisions effecting other peoples lives..

Well actually he is make decision that affect peoples lives and there is no way getting around that one, especially after releasing documents without redacted names, as well as the release of the diplomatic cables.

Secondly his argument has been and still is holding the individuals accountible that run those nations. Holding Bush accountible for his actions means Assange can be held accountible for his.



Originally posted by GenerationGap
what do you find funny then? fake lawsuits? fake charges? why doesn't she take Trojan condom's to court for the product breaking? or promoting promiscuous sex?

You have absiolutely no proof the claims / charges are based on false information. Unless you have access to files we dont and if so can you post them so we all can read it?



Originally posted by GenerationGap
but then again she was a willing participant.. its a stupid case which should never made it this far..

Which contradicts her claims that she was not a willing participant. If she were there would be no law violation. Again though if you have evidence please share it with us so we all can read it.



Originally posted by GenerationGap
and your posts of why the US wouldn't take him are ridiculous.. there is no law that would stop them.

US law would stop the US from taking him. In order to extradite him, Assange would need to have charges filed againt him in the US and a formal request for extradition would be made to the country he is in.

Before you write off US law and procedure maybe you should learn how it all works before commenting. While I respect your opinion in the legal issues, its just that and you are either unknowingly missing or intentionally ignoring the laws in place.

The argument you just made is along the same line of arguments Assange and his lawyers made about why he should not go to sweden. Blame the US all the time while putting out disinformation about the US legal system and how it would affect assange for the sole purpose of playing on the emotions of people who dont bother to do research in the area the claims are being made about.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by magma
What if they decided to charge him with terrorism. That would change the situation dramatically wouldn't it?

Not really since his actions dont fall under any terrorism related statutes.



Originally posted by magma
I am sure words could be minced to find a way to make this happen. It would not be that hard considering treason could be manipulated into terrorism, I think.

Again no. Ther eason treason cant be used is because he is not a US citizen. Secondly, contrary to what people think about the US legal system, the prosecution is required to file charges and to provide the court with their evidence to sustain those charges. If the judge sustains then its up to the prosecution to make their case and prove assange is guilty.

The complete burden is on the prosecution. Trying to mainpulate wording to meet another standard, blatantly and intentionally, would sink the prosecutions case. Most likely not only would it sink it, it would be dismissed with prejudice, meaning they could not refile charges against assange.

All of that is assuming the US ever decides to file charges and seek his extradition. To date this has not been done, so the US is a moot point with whats going on with Assange now.

The reason he and his team are invoking Gitmo and treason and death penalty and solitary confinement is those are terms that would prevent Assange from being extradited to the US. The EU will not extradite an individual to a country where they fqace the death penalty. The EU has the same view on solitary confinement as the UN does, while the US allows its use. The EU / UN has issues with Gitmo, again invoking it plays on emotions rather than facts.

This is why I posted there claims and why they are nothing but bogus words used to swing public opinion in assanges favor when it comes to the US. If he keeps saying US over and over people begin to associate the US with his issues in Sweden, which if we look its already happened.

he is using it to confuse the situation, to obfuscate, in an effort to avoid the charges in Sweden.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
C'mon, is it that bad?

I don't know, just asking.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Yes God forbid people take the time to educate themselves on a topic they are speaking about. God forbid people respond to posts to correct eronious or misunderstood information.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
he is using it to confuse the situation, to obfuscate, in an effort to avoid the charges in Sweden.



Also that whole deal with not having been charged has already been discussed. Just one I randomly picked.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Charges would come from the DOJ, not stratfor and until such time as its confirmed as being real, there is no charges pending against Assange.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
You wouldn't know if there were. So that's what I was talking about.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I must comment here to say that I can completely see why Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden. It is clear as day that the Swedes will turn him over to the US in seconds flat after those rape charges are dealt with - probably dropped, as they are what they are. That threat is sufficient to justify the course of action he's taking now, as I see it. He and his lawyers obviously do too.
edit on 6/7/2012 by CosmicEgg because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
The Ecuadorian minister should have kept his mouth shut about alleged offences which may be tried in another country.

Not very diplomatic.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


The problem with that logic, again, is what we are seeing with Assange and the extradition fight to Sweden. He still has the option of going through the EU system.

Secondly the US has better chances of extradicting him from the UK because of bi-lateral agreements than they do getting him from Sweden. Contrary to what has been stated time and again by assange and his lawyers, Assange cant just be shipped to the US and held in gitmo, charged and tried by a military tribunal nor face the death penalty.

None of which have anything to do with his issue in Sweden.

Secondly they are ignoring the doctrine of legal standing. How can they argue against extradition from Sweden when there is nothing from the US in terms of charges? It would be like a person arguing that they shot and killed their neighbor because at some point he felt the nieghbor was going to kill him. A preemptive legal argument on charges / requests / actions that have not occured have no basis in the argument they are making.

I know my position is completely contrary to some others on this topic. I am not looking to rehash the fights however I am all for exploring the legal issues involved, whether real or hypothetical..
edit on 6-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


He would get weeks, maybe months in prison if convicted in Sweden. Rape carries very little penalty up here, and more so because in his case they were in no way aggravated, which really makes this all the more silly *and thereby giving more reason for concern*. He must be afraid of something genuine and his legal reps are obviously in agreement or they would have told him to just go ahead with it. He's more than likely to be cleared anyway.

Remember that Assange is Australian, not British. Yes, it's a commonwealth but that limits what the UK can really do.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
They should've just charged him in Sweden. Then he could've gone to UK court and plead guilty. Then he would've just had to pay the 100€ or whatever fine he would've gotten and no need to dance around with pointless detainment in sweden.
Also in Uk if he would be asked by the US there would be a hearing. There would be quite alot of political opposition too. There's been some high level extradition cases lately that have shown that. But from sweden no problems. Swedes haven't denied any US extradition request since 2001.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


And the UK is fed up, presently, with the lack of reciprocity in extradition between themselves and the US. This is probably a contributory factor here.

In any case, yes, it could have been handled so many other ways and so much faster. There is something sinister afoot and Assange is no fool. He's not going to walk into a noose, and I suspect he sees one looming large if he sets foot in Sweden.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join