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.

 

Julian Assange: UK issues 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by jhn7537
 


I don't know. That is the thing with this case.......

I actually think he may be guilty of rape. He needs to stand trial for it either way. In my mind, the Wikileaks thing is entirely separate and should be treated as such. If guarantees are publicly given that he won't be extradited to the USA then he should certainly be extradited to Sweden to stand trial for rape.

The problem is that guarantees can't really be given and even if they are, they can't really be believed.

How about meeting in the middle and giving him a trial on a North Sea ferry somewhere between the two?


You have no idea...... OMG he didn't use a condom or did it break! LMFAO at anyone who might believe this is a crime worthy of the this treatment.....

secondly, this will make no embassy safe anywhere in the world from a host country ... like China, Iran, or North Korea... even the Chinese did not raid the American Embassy looking for the blind radical....




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by namehere
 


" if he's so innocent then why is he running?"

Lets see why is he running, FBI,CIA, OSS, MI5, MI6 all NWO puppets just waiting to pounce! There is no such thing as Justice in this world never has been, thats why shes blind!
edit on 16-8-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


Urm, isn't that for the Swedish courts to decide? Or do you have some other knowledge? The fact is that Sweden wants for him to stand trial for a criminal offence. LMFAO at people that claim to know the facts of a criminal case (these are presented to the court rather than the media, just in case you aren't sure how justice works outside the US).

Anything else is pure conjecture.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


"Sweden wants for him to stand trial for a criminal offence. LMFAO at people that claim to know the facts of a criminal case (these are presented to the court rather than the media, just in case you aren't sure how justice works outside the US)."

Sweden want him for doing a bird without a Jimmy on or a hole in said Jimmy, would you turn up to answer for something as silly as that?

Sweden want him so they can extradited him to the US. Its simple enougth to understand! There is no way he should have to answer for this crap! It just not on.



edit on 16-8-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


I disagree entirely. He should certainly stand trial in Sweden. He should not be extradited to the USA though. And that is what the claim for asylum is all about - the fear that he will be extradited to the USA after going to Sweden.

If you break the laws in a country then you are subject to the judicial processes of that country. It is simple enough to understand or do you disagree with that?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
Anything else is pure conjecture.


What is conjecture, that Sweden has a record of basic treason?

Let's see, a black op raid at a sweden airport to snatch someone comes to mind.

Sweden has a record of allowing the US to snatch people they want, if they're not turned over voluntarily by the courts.

Carl Bildt, being the current prime minister ... and him having a "track" record of being a US/British tool, comes to mind.

Oh, and let's see ... WWII comes to mind, when Sweden played both sides.

I don't think Sweden is trustworthy in this case ... especially when a flaky "rape" charge is concerned, with a "willing" girl, at the helm.

Anybody looking for a Swedish wife?

edit on 16/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


"I disagree entirely. He should certainly stand trial in Sweden. He should not be extradited to the USA though. And that is what the claim for asylum is all about - the fear that he will be extradited to the USA after going to Sweden."

Well i think we can all live with that as long as theres no extradision to the US, but it wont go down that way mate.

"If you break the laws in a country then you are subject to the judicial processes of that country. It is simple enough to understand or do you disagree with that?"

I disagree with the Justice system in the UK, essentially you buy it, ile try and explain. If you can afford a decent brief then he/she is obviously going to be able to run circles round the daft goverment employed PF with your charge sheet, remember the PF is at the botton of his/her profesion. Plus money talks and Judges/Sheriffs pump rent boys, sort them out and they will sort you out so to speak!

This happens by the way, i have seen it done!(Not the pumping) LoL


edit on 16-8-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

A bigger point should be made, Assange (charged with a sexual offence in a country it is alleged to have happened in - their laws, not the UKs) has applied for political asylum. Unfortunately for him, political asylum is not a get out of jail free card for non political offences - that is a fact and it would apply to you, me and in fact as far as I am aware any country that recognises asylum.

If you agree or disagree with the charge then that's really up to you (by which I mean anyone who reads this), but it doesn't change the facts. Read the analysis section in the link below...

www.bbc.co.uk...


FFS, If I'd get a cent every time I have to do this. There are no charges. Someone speaking about facts that is kinda



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I get those objections but failing to allow extradition for a criminal offence (rather than political asylum) actually goes against international agreements.

Send him to Sweden to stand trial but include disclaimers stating subsequent extradition to the USA would be illegal, etc, and voila, problem solved - he gets his chance to clear his name and no chance of further extradition. Obviously not quite that simple but you get the point.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Ha, fair enough. Not an image i wanted in my mind though........can just see the wig slipping down the sweaty, bald, fat head.......



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
I get those objections but failing to allow extradition for a criminal offence (rather than political asylum) actually goes against international agreements.


No, it isn't ... and you should know better, than to come out with this simplicity.

When a person applies for refugee status. You must asses wether his life is in danger, and you can not send him to a country, where there is reason to believe he will be turned over to a harmful state.

Irrespective of his crime, if the punishment/request is not fitting the crime (as in this case, he is requested for "questioning" on the basis of "suspicion", where the weight of the persecution far outweighs the charges), where the ramifications may be his death. The charges are dubious, and "border" on justification. Giving even further weight to the belief of political grounds. And as I said before ... there is no way you can turn a man back to a country, where there is reason to believe that country will turn him over to another (the US), who has political motivations, and there is reason to believe is a threat on his life.

Britain is wrong in this manner, and the british courts probably based their rulings on the preposition, that the Swedish charges are not severe. After all, he's merely wanted for questioning ... and that makes him fall between chairs, in the legal system.
edit on 16/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Live Stream: www.ustream.tv...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


"Ha, fair enough. Not an image i wanted in my mind though........can just see the wig slipping down the sweaty, bald, fat head"

Not a nice image mate, im at my dinner as well! LoL



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 



diplomatic immunity, in international law, the immunities enjoyed by foreign states or international organizations and their official representatives from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are present. The inviolability of diplomatic envoys has been recognized by most civilizations and states throughout history. To ensure exchanges of information and to maintain contact, most societies—even preliterate ones—granted messengers safe-conduct. Traditional mechanisms of protecting diplomats included religious-based codes of hospitality and the frequent use of priests as emissaries. Just as religion buttressed this inviolability, custom sanctified it and reciprocity fortified it, and over time these sanctions became codified in national laws and international ...


I guess it's OK to make plans to storm this Embassy?

JA is a hero for exposing the true nature of things. TPTB don't like it and will try to eliminate him and others like him to maintain the status quo. If you think the US is about freedom and justice for all, I suggest you start reading.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by modsrdicks
JA is a hero for exposing the true nature of things.


JA is an arrogant little #e who likes playing God and has no regard for the consequences to anyone else. Or, indeed, it would seem to himself (I guess he thought he'd never get caught, as is often the case with sociopaths like him)

Ecuador is just an fairly insignificant S American country that saw a chance to play with the big boys. I hope they don't come to regret it.

And Britain has not threatened to storm the Ecuador embassy - we've simply pointed out that we think they have contravened the Vienna Convention (ie article 14) by harbouring a fugutive from the law, and that we may legally revoke the status of their embassy in order to enter and arrest said fugitive in order that we may extradite him to Sweden, in accordance with our obligations under international law.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
As I understand it, even if Assange is granted asylum, which he has not been.. The UK is within their full legal right to enter and place him under arrest.. they could have done it from day one but didn't ... I read about this the day he entered, I wish I could find it .. I believe it is specific to the UK

And even if being in the embassy offers him some kind of protection, which it doesn't, he can never leave the country because the moment he sat foot out of there to try to catch a plane.. he would be arrested immediately.


The letter said: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy."


It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange.

Here's the law that allows it .. www.legislation.gov.uk...
edit on 8/15/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)


Now imagine if China would do the same with the US Embassy there in order to get hold of the people applying for asylum...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by moniker
Now imagine if China would do the same with the US Embassy there in order to get hold of the people applying for asylum...


Indeed

www.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by VoidHawk
NO, they are chasing a man who is innocent!!
Wait untill its your turn and you might not make a joke about it.


It does beg the question that if he is innocent, then why not just go to Sweden to face the charges? They only want to bloody question him anyway. I know he fears extradition to the US, but surely he knew the risks when leaking Top Secret info, whether it was perceived to be for the greater good or not. If he had dealt with this like a grown up, instead of playing cat and mouse, he could have got guarantees from the Swedes.


If it got leaked that easily it can't have been that top secret information in the first place, can it?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by jhn7537
 


I don't know. That is the thing with this case.......

I actually think he may be guilty of rape. He needs to stand trial for it either way. In my mind, the Wikileaks thing is entirely separate and should be treated as such. If guarantees are publicly given that he won't be extradited to the USA then he should certainly be extradited to Sweden to stand trial for rape.

The problem is that guarantees can't really be given and even if they are, they can't really be believed.

How about meeting in the middle and giving him a trial on a North Sea ferry somewhere between the two?


You have no idea...... OMG he didn't use a condom or did it break! LMFAO at anyone who might believe this is a crime worthy of the this treatment.....

secondly, this will make no embassy safe anywhere in the world from a host country ... like China, Iran, or North Korea... even the Chinese did not raid the American Embassy looking for the blind radical....



Seen in another thread China did exact same thing. To a police chief. I think it was an UK Embassy the post said he went too.Im not going to go track post down but it was also backed up with a news site. Raiding American Embassy and raiding Ecuador Embassy is two VERY different things.
edit on 16-8-2012 by JWalk89 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by modsrdicks
JA is a hero for exposing the true nature of things.


JA is an arrogant little #e who likes playing God and has no regard for the consequences to anyone else. Or, indeed, it would seem to himself (I guess he thought he'd never get caught, as is often the case with sociopaths like him)

Ecuador is just an fairly insignificant S American country that saw a chance to play with the big boys. I hope they don't come to regret it.

And Britain has not threatened to storm the Ecuador embassy - we've simply pointed out that we think they have contravened the Vienna Convention (ie article 14) by harbouring a fugutive from the law, and that we may legally revoke the status of their embassy in order to enter and arrest said fugitive in order that we may extradite him to Sweden, in accordance with our obligations under international law.

What the hell? "JA is an arrogant little #e who likes playing God" "Ecuador is just an fairly insignificant S American country" easy.. easy..




new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join