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.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
You do realize that there is nothing in laws in uk or sweden to have done the interviews they want? In fact there is precendence in swedish law for doing exactly that. Not to mention the international agreements like mutual legal assitance that can be used in cases like this.
Originally posted by Navieko
Xcathdra believes he lives in a world where all these rules and laws are completely followed 100% by the nations that harbor them. What he doesn't seem to - or refuses to - understand, is that these laws were only created to give people like himself a false sense of security, that there is justice in the world and that all will be well... because we have rules to follow and surely everyone must follow them!
Originally posted by Navieko
The reality? These laws can be twisted and shaped, rewritten or trashed. Using the power of the media, evidence can be fabricated, facts can be manifested all into the eyes of the beholder. Reality cannot always be proven by facts, sometimes we just have to look to our common senses and go on a hunch.edit on 16/8/12 by Navieko because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Navieko
Good point being the NDAA thing. I'm not an expert on it or anything but I see it popping up everywhere. If they can detain US citizens without a trial then why not foreign nationals?
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Lets just ignore that sweden has horrible history with US when it comes to extradition. Lets just ignore the fact that swedish authorities refuse to give guarantees that he wont be sent to US. Let's just ignore the fact that swedish authorities are disobeying the letter of the law in order to get JA detained in sweden.
Since Assange can ignore the laws then everyone else can yes?
Originally posted by Nyiah
Xcath, I appreciate the time & effort you put into your posts, but buddy, please don't think the world is all roses when it comes to TPTB doing the right thing/following laws 24/7. We all know better.
Originally posted by Nyiah
Assange is free to ask for asylum just as any other person is. It's up the the country he's asking to find his reason valid & grant it, and Ecuador found his reason for asylum valid and indeed granted the request.
Originally posted by Nyiah
I'm siding with Ecuador in that if he's turned over, he's ultimately US-bound one way or the other.
Originally posted by Nyiah
What I want to know is what is the UK & Sweden getting from the US out of any potential talks regarding seizing him. Hmm? Whatcha getting in that diplomatic grab bag this time? Better be good if you're going to snub your noses at asylum. If that's the precedent we're going to set, that asylum's null, void & worthless whenever deemed so, then recipients & applicants worldwide better take note & pay close attention from here on out.
Originally posted by insaan
Anyone can be labeled as a terrorist, any law can easily get manipulated, any evidence can be planed, this was already stated before, it is your patriotism that is blinding you from the truth.
Originally posted by insaan
If it makes you happy, the belief that the law will take care of you, refusing the clear evidence that the law and constitution has been disregarded countless times before, under different label and semantics they will continue to disregarded and fornicate on the law and constitution.
Originally posted by insaan
No? Surely US constitution is against the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki? No?
Originally posted by insaan
Surely US laws are against abducting innocent people around the world and torturing them. No?
Originally posted by insaan
Surely US laws are against spying on American population? No?
Originally posted by insaan
So laws have been manipulated to serve the wishes of the powerful in US, why claim laws are absolute and they serve the people when evidence shows it is the opposite.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I assume that if you do something good then you have free rein.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Imagine, as a cop, you save a life. You now have free rein to do other illegal activity such as taking one.
This seems to be the argument for Assange.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by ArtooDetoo
Just a question, how can Ecuador help Assange by granting him asylum ? I mean, he will be arrested as soon as he steps out of the embassy, will he not ?
Correct - they cant assist assange unless they sneak him out of the country some how. The moment he steps foot outside the embassy British suthorities will arrest him.
As I was statging before this is nothing more than a political stunt by Ecquador and nothing more.
Out of all the countries on this planet - ecquador? just Ecquador?
If it truely were a fundamental issue with due process there are many other countries who are not friendly towards the US that would have jumped at protecting Assange.
i]Originally posted by Xcathdra
Correct - they cant assist assange unless they sneak him out of the country some how. The moment he steps foot outside the embassy British suthorities will arrest him.
A permanent diplomatic mission is typically known as an embassy, and the person in charge of the mission is known as an ambassador. The term "embassy" is often used to refer to the building or compound housing an ambassador's offices and staff. Technically, however, "embassy" refers to the diplomatic delegation itself, while the office building in which they work is known as a chancery
Ambassadors can reside within or outside of the chancery; for example, American diplomatic missions maintain separate housing for their ambassadors apart from their embassies. Ambassadors residing outside of the chancery retain special protection from the host country's security forces and the ambassadorial residences enjoy the same rights as missions. Like embassies, such residences are considered inviolable and, in most cases, extraterritorial. The residences of high commissioner, who are similar to ambassadors, have the same rights
Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Seagle
Funny thing about criminal investigations, new evidence comes up all the time and they are under no obligation except to the lawyers involved (and even then only with a discovery motion) obligated to tell the public what that evidence is.
All Sweden wanted was for him to return and be questioned again, they were not going to arrest him at the point they made the formal request, however his actions, if innocent of anything, show a distinct disdain for the rule of law and that he is somehow above said laws. That's what's got him in trouble, not these charges at this point, but if I were an investigator, I would start to wonder why a person was fighting questioning so hard if they were truly innocent... People just don't do this.
Something's not right and leaving the US out of this, because the lawyer for the two girls said today that he wishes it would focus on what is really important, which is them and the trauma they suffered, and less upon some fantasy that he's going to the US for execution, even this private lawyer confirmed there is NO EXTRADITION TO THE US on the table..
Originally posted by Seagle
[LOL Just give it up you cantankerous troll.
Originally posted by Seagle
I find it offensive that someone like yourself hijacks a thread and writes pages of crap telling everyone they are wrong and that they don't understand the law and blah blah blah. You try to impress by pretending you are the pre-eminant authourity on international diplomacy when its so obvious that you are far from it because of the simple fact you don't even understand the simple concept of what an 'EMBASSY" actually is. You have no right to How can you expect anyone to
Originally posted by Seagle
If you spent less time copying and pasting from the web and took the time to actually read what others have to say you could have saved yourself and the rest of us from three further pages of embarresment because I tried to explain it to you back on page 6. Lets try again-
Originally posted by Seagle
An Embassy is not a building, you cannot step outside it. The embassy is the diplomatic mission itself.
The building is actually called a 'chancery'
Originally posted by Seagle
If its in a location outside the capital it is called a consulate.
A permanent diplomatic mission is ......
Originally posted by Seagle
This little fact makes your entire argument as to why Assange will be arrested completely null and void. If you don't understand what an embassy is you can't understand the international law surrounding diplomatic missions.
end of story
Originally posted by Seagle
Have you read the transcripts of the police interviews? There is no other evidence that could come up because even if you agree that refusing to wear a condom during consensual sex is a crime in Sweden that did not happen. In one of the girls statements she claims that she was worried that he was going to take it off so she kept checking and each time she found that it was on. To cur a long stroy short, days later after finding out that Assange had slept with the other girl she went to the police because she thought that it was possible he may have put a hole in the condom and could have an STD?
Originally posted by Seagle
In the other girls statement she says he didn't wear a condom once but admits she didn't tell him to stop him or to put one on. She let him continue to stay at her house for another week afterwards
Both girls remained with him for days afterwards and Assange's version of events are exactly the same as theirs apart from the fact he had no idea that one of the girls wondered if he had tampered with a condom or that the other had an issue with the unprotected sex they had.
There is no charge because their is no crime and no victim persuing him. Any sane person would find the police transcripts as completely rediculous and there is clearly other forces at work here.