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.

 

U.S. refuses to recognize diplomatic asylum of WikiLeaks founder

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
Assange is controversial figure and i share the sentiment that i personally dont like him. But personal feelings aside, i think it's perfectly reasonable for him to believe that the swedish goverment would extradite him to the United States, where he would face trial for exposing National Secrets or compromising National Security.
What he is assumed to be guilty of or what law he exactly broke, has never been clearly stated.

While I understand that argument I must come back to the law, much to the irritation of everyone. I point this out in hopes it might halp some people make sense of my position.

Whether or not it is the US, UK or Sweden a person is -
* - Innocent until proven guilty in a court
* - must have legal standing to challenge something.

In this case Assange used the legal system to fight extradition. He appealed at each stage and eventually lost his challenge. The argument being made from his side is based on something that has not occured to him.

* - The courts ask the following question
- does the person making the challenge have legal standing?
- Is the extradition request valid?

Its not up to the court who oversees an extradition request to try the case. Their authority is whether or not the request is valid.

In this case no he does not because of the argument they used - The US and what "might" occur. Since nothing has occurred there is no legal standing to the challenge. People seem to forget or ignore Assange also made legal challenges to the swedish issue in Swedish court. Their top court also ruled he lacked standing to challenge the actions because they have not occured yet. He next used the legal system in the UK and they made the same determination based on their responsibility / law.

If this was truely one big conspiracy against Assange I ask this - Why bother to use any of the court systems in the respective countries if the end result is Assange ignoring the ruling? Would it not have made more sense to just head to a foreign country with no extradition treaties?

I get the impression Assange is willing to use the legal system so long as it works in his favor. If it does not its labeled as a sham / bought by a foreign government / etc etc etc.



Originally posted by talklikeapirat
But the efforts of the U.S. Goverment to set a presedent have become undeniable apparent and that is a political matter. So for him to seek political asylum and for the ecuadorian government to grant it, is more than justified in light of the above.

But its not though.. Asylum is based on persecution, not prosecution. His argument involving the US has nothing to do with Sweden.


Originally posted by talklikeapirat
The swedish goverment has never explicitly denied, they wouldn't extradite him. They can't be forced to do so, but that is one more reason to act accordingly.
The United States have made it clear on various occasins that he's wanted, under what charges is still unclear.
Bradley Manning is now for over 800 days in military prison, still without trial.

Mannings trial is underway and has been under way for many months now. Manning falls under the UCMJ, which is different than civilian domestic laws.

Its not valid for Ecquador to issue demands in an area they, nor Sweden or the UK, have any authority to do so. Had the situation been different where the US granted Asylum based on a situation they are not involved in people on this site would be going batpoop crazy.



Originally posted by talklikeapirat
I understand that the argument, that revealing military or national secrets would threaten national security and jeopardize lives, is often used by goverments, the military, intelligence etc., i dont expect anything else. But the most incriminating releases were supposed war crimes and this very same argument has been far to often a justification for actions that caused the death of many peoples, pretty ironic.

Question - The stated goal of wikileaks / Assange was to end the wars and hold the US accountible. If thats truely the purpose then why did wikileaks hide those "crimes" under hundreds of thousands of documents that show absolutely no criminal activity / behavior?

Would it not have been more effective to release files that show criminal activity by the US government?
A whistle blower exposes criminal wrongdoing coupled with no attempt to resolve it. The release of all those documents is not the act of a person whistleblowing.




Originally posted by talklikeapirat
If i understand correctly, you said you were trying to highlight the double standard of people assuming what one side might do, by assuming what the actions of the other side might have done.
It didn't sound like a assumption to me, that's why i'm asking again.
How many people do you think have died because of wikileaks releases? We have collateral murder in the name of national security on one side, what do you have?


No - my point is to highlight the flaw with the arguments some are making. They dismiss the evidence against assange while making accusations against the US with no evidence to support it - a hypocritical double standard thats based on their personal opinions and not law. It has nothing to do with how many people died because of the release. I was pointing out how people process the information then dismiss what they dont agree with while applying that to the US.

We dont know how many civilians have been killed since the war on terror.
We dont know who was responsible for their deaths.
We dont know if wikileaks has caused any deaths from their release.

There is no evidence the US is trying to kill Assange.
There is no evidence the US legal system is trying to kill assange.

Some prominent people / government officals in Congress have voiced their opinions on what they think assange did and how he should be punished. A right guaranteed in our Constitution - 1st amendment. Those people have nothing to do with the judicial system or prosecution of crimes.

Again people make the argument that Assange is protected for his actions under our 1st amendment. Once again Assanges side of the fence argues / uses the law if it works in their favor but dismiss it when it does not.
They state as fact what would happen to assange if he comes to the US with nothing to substantiate the claim.

Their claims against the US are valid yet the claims made against assange are trumped up?

I have no issues with actions to hold the US government responsible / accountible for criminal violations. At the same time I think Assange / wikileaks should be held accountible for their crimes. Not all documents showed illegal activity, supporting the argument assange broke the law by releasing those non criminal items to the public.

Should assange / wikileaks be held to the same standard they set for the US government?
edit on 18-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The UK wont let him leave the embassy much less the country.Im reminded of US troops blaring rock music at the embassy that had given noriega sancturary after the Panama invasion.Yet we didnt storm the embassy.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentX09
The UK wont let him leave the embassy much less the country.Im reminded of US troops blaring rock music at the embassy that had given noriega sancturary after the Panama invasion.Yet we didnt storm the embassy.


I forgot about that...

Nothing like pissing of a Papal Nuncio...



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
when will people learn... the u.s only recognises international laws / accords when it suits them .... the rest of the time it does what it wants regardless of what the laws are.....



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888
when will people learn... the u.s only recognises international laws / accords when it suits them .... the rest of the time it does what it wants regardless of what the laws are.....


Exactly like what Assange is doing right now?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by AgentX09
The UK wont let him leave the embassy much less the country.Im reminded of US troops blaring rock music at the embassy that had given noriega sancturary after the Panama invasion.Yet we didnt storm the embassy.


I forgot about that...

Nothing like pissing of a Papal Nuncio...
Wow your right Xcat.it was the Vatican embassy!I guess we will see how the UK handles this soon enough.I hope we(US)dont get our hands on him cause hes looking at life.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Why should this suprise any of us.
The US refuses to recognize anyones rights on this planet.
The USA government think that they are above all laws.
The US thinks it owns the world and it can do whatever it wants when ever it wants to any of us.

The US is the high school bully of this world.
I just hope one day everyone gangs up on this high school bully and punches the S*** out of it.
And maybe then US will start respecting the rest of us.



edit on 18-8-2012 by WozaMeathed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This is how it is going to go down I predict.

Assange will eventually go to Ecuador. But first a false struggle to keep him out must be acted out. In order to save face. Assange in Ecuador is much more valuable to the UK, USA as well as Sweden than in a jail cell somewhere. The reason is because with all leaks, Assange is monitored and all sources are found out by intelligence agencies . Better to let him go and find his sources while he thinks he is defying the worlds evil is what these countries will finally decide upon.

We shall see.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra


Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Unity_99
 


not to mention that the swedes claim it's only for an interview
which assange has offered on multiple occassions to grant them,
just not from a swedish prison from which he can then be transferred
to a rendition center


lol


Something the Swedish government / legal system has already addressed.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


yes, by informing mr assange that they'd be happy to take him up on his offer
after he allows them to clap him in irons and toss him in a dungeon

suuuurrre, like the cops have done to the CopWatch guy





I get the impression Assange is willing to use the legal system so long as it works in his favor. If it does not its labeled as a sham / bought by a foreign government / etc etc etc.

you would of course never entertain the notion that assange was merely being consistent
and exposing the legal system for the fraud it is

just ask manning how presumption of innocence and a speedy trial are working out for him

or those teenagers killed on the emperors command via dronestrike
edit on 18-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WozaMeathed
Why should this suprise any of us.
The US refuses to recognize anyones rights on this planet.
The USA government think that they are above all laws.
The US thinks it owns the world and it can do whatever it wants when ever it wants to any of us.

The US is the high school bully of this world.
I just hope one day everyone gangs up on this high school bully and punches the S*** out of it.
And maybe then US will start respecting the rest of us.



edit on 18-8-2012 by WozaMeathed because: (no reason given)


and dont forget: The purpose of argument is to alter the nature of truth.

as is being so ably demonstrated too us


as we await patiently for the evidence





punches the S*** out of it.

'fraid not, nothing less than a righteous curbstomp [man-style]
will rid the world of exeptionalism and manifest destiny



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Thye US ths The US that....They have no respect for anybody else in ths world.....
they expect to get what they want when they want it at the most rdiculous price....
Truth be Known, the leaks were nothing serious, but the egg has dried on their face.....
The world has seen what lying conniving bastards those who have the least bit of power become....
the more power the worse it gets.....
Sweden s actng on the US behalf lke bum boy Britain did in the NASA hack...
They all support the same elite....and anythng that educates the masses to what they are up to will be severely punished....
Like Obamas war on whistleblowers.....
They will be commng for the guns soon enough, we have to make up our own minds which side has the moral high ground.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Arguing from a judicial standpoint, of course you are correct. The law is the law.
But that is exactly the point, most of what has been transpired during this entire affair can easily be called unprecedented. There is no surprise that the courts decided the way they have and it is also not surprising the U.S. doesn't recognize Assange as a political refugee, how can they.
The whole case has huge political and moral implications. So, the question would be is a court of law the appropriate place to make the decision, if his concerns are valid.
We all know that the U.S. can't let this go unpunished, how can they, and they've stated so many times. It's not true that there is no evidence and it all points in the direction of setting a precedence.

CNN

U.S. authorities may be looking for just the right moment to try to detain WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is the subject of a wanted-persons alert sent to police agencies around the world, CNN's senior legal analyst said Wednesday.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called WikiLeaks' disclosure of the documents an attack on America's foreign policy and an attack on the international community.
"It's certainly my belief, based on what the attorney general said, that they have already got an arrest warrant for him and they are just waiting for the appropriate moment in the appropriate country," Toobin said.


Apparently, this might not be evidence enough to hold water in a court of law, but it is certaily enough for him to not to believe otherwise.
Again, Assange is polarizing figure and it is more than unfortunate that his name is so entangled with wikileaks and their stated purpose.



We dont know how many civilians have been killed since the war on terror.
We dont know who was responsible for their deaths.

Yes, we do.
NY Times

The reports in the archive disclosed by WikiLeaks offer an incomplete, yet startlingly graphic portrait of one of the most contentious issues in the Iraq war — how many Iraqi civilians have been killed and by whom.



We dont know if wikileaks has caused any deaths from their release.

Yes, we do. None reported so far.

I can somehow follow your argument that everyone should be treated equally before law and in a perfect world, where justice was truly blind you might have a point.
But by no means are the actions of the two entities, the U.S. and wikileaks or Assange, in any way comparable.

IraqBodyCount
edit on 18-8-2012 by talklikeapirat because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 

wassend one of the lady;s an mossad whore?????



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Sure. Absolutely none.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlindBastards
This case is a bit ridiculous. What crime has he committed on US soil?

I think this says it well...
www.wsws.org...



Your article itself is a farce. How can Assange be tried for treason if he is not a US Citizen? That said, he deserves an espionage charge and trial,and yes, sources did lose their lives because he published their names for all to see. If he cared half as much about the world as he claims, he would have redacted the names in the material.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
yes, by informing mr assange that they'd be happy to take him up on his offer
after he allows them to clap him in irons and toss him in a dungeon

Im sure you have proof to back your statement up right? Leaps of logic, while fun, has no place in this situation.


Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
suuuurrre, like the cops have done to the CopWatch guy

For starters this has nothing to to with whats going on.
Secondly you are ignoring the fact that state law enforcement has nothing to do with assange and that issue, it would be the FBI or another federal investigative body.

While copwatch has a noble purpose they fail miserably when it comes to their members knowing and understanding the law.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
you would of course never entertain the notion that assange was merely being consistent and exposing the legal system for the fraud it is
So because the courts didnt rule in the manner you wanted the courts are a fraud now? Thank you for proving my point. As far as consistency goes Assange is in no position to lecture since his actions his actions to date are anything but.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
just ask manning how presumption of innocence and a speedy trial are working out for him
I will get right on that as soon as you learn how the UCMJ and military courts work. After that you need to cover exactly how a speedy trial works and what it is / means.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
or those teenagers killed on the emperors command via dronestrike

Which has nothing to do with the sex charge issue in Sweden.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You keep pointing out how he is avoiding the case in Sweden, first of all he is wanted for questioning, there is no arrest warrant. Since when has there ever been a case where tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been spent to extradite someone for questioning? Sweden had loads of time to interview and press charges, but even the prosecutors couldn't agree on filing charges. Everyone except for you can see the writing on the wall, and the US not recognizing his asylum is even more proof of what they plan on doing.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
yes, by informing mr assange that they'd be happy to take him up on his offer
after he allows them to clap him in irons and toss him in a dungeon

Im sure you have proof to back your statement up right? Leaps of logic, while fun, has no place in this situation.


Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
suuuurrre, like the cops have done to the CopWatch guy

For starters this has nothing to to with whats going on.
Secondly you are ignoring the fact that state law enforcement has nothing to do with assange and that issue, it would be the FBI or another federal investigative body.

While copwatch has a noble purpose they fail miserably when it comes to their members knowing and understanding the law.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
you would of course never entertain the notion that assange was merely being consistent and exposing the legal system for the fraud it is
So because the courts didnt rule in the manner you wanted the courts are a fraud now? Thank you for proving my point. As far as consistency goes Assange is in no position to lecture since his actions his actions to date are anything but.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
just ask manning how presumption of innocence and a speedy trial are working out for him
I will get right on that as soon as you learn how the UCMJ and military courts work. After that you need to cover exactly how a speedy trial works and what it is / means.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
or those teenagers killed on the emperors command via dronestrike

Which has nothing to do with the sex charge issue in Sweden.


lol
i'll say it again


The Purpose of Argument is to alter the nature of Truth



sophistry wont work on me, Counsel for the State,
[i'm presuming you've been ordained as a Legum]

this isnt a court, X, or a debate, because:

The Purpose of Argument is to alter the nature of Truth



so i refuse to play your game, which leads us only in circles, getting us nowhere

the accused [from my standpoint, that is] the US
has a looooooooong history of criminal and monstrous behaviour
and is performing the same dance steps as usual per documented history.

in addition, this being a matter between ecuador, gb, and sweden, why IS the us sticking its oar in, seeing as it repeatedly claims it has no dog in this hunt ?

as to your claims of deaths caused by wikileaks:



Im sure you have proof to back your statement up right? Leaps of logic, while fun, has no place in this situation.
ta ta



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
I think that even if he does get a free pass to Ecuador or goes to Sweden with an iron clad promise the wont be extradited to the USA he's either going to get assassinated or kidnapped by an illegal extradition team.


Someone needs to get him a Martin Jetpack and arrange for a boat in international waters. Navigating in the down the Thames all the way to Margate would be a piece of cake. Have an Equidoran-flagged ship waiting. And to really stick it to the Brits, have him carry a diplomatic pouch and name him as a consular emoloyee pro tem. Any act of aggression toward JA would be an act of war requiring an armed response by the OAS member nations. Argentina would love it - payback for the Falklands. The snivelling lapdog Brits will fold like a cheap origami chicken.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
Arguing from a judicial standpoint, of course you are correct. The law is the law.

What other standpoint is there? This is a legal issue and should be in the courts.


Originally posted by talklikeapirat
But that is exactly the point, most of what has been transpired during this entire affair can easily be called unprecedented.

An extradition request is not unprecedented...
An investigation into a law violation in Sweden is not unprecedented.
An investigation into a law violation in the U.K. is not unprecedented.




Originally posted by talklikeapirat
There is no surprise that the courts decided the way they have and it is also not surprising the U.S. doesn't recognize Assange as a political refugee, how can they.

There is no surprise the courts ruled the way they did because the argument by the defense is baseless. In order to get asylum a person needs to fit into one of the categories (political / religious / etc). If they dont qualify and a country grants asylum, why should it be recognized?.

Why is Ecquador violating the sovereignty / legal system of Sweden?


Originally posted by talklikeapirat
The whole case has huge political and moral implications. So, the question would be is a court of law the appropriate place to make the decision, if his concerns are valid.

How are you getting huge political / moral implications? 2 females filed complaints with Swedish authorities against assange revolving around sex crimes. This has nothing to do with any other issues, including the US.

It should be resolved in a court of law since there are claims of law violations, in both directions.



Originally posted by talklikeapirat
We all know that the U.S. can't let this go unpunished, how can they, and they've stated so many times. It's not true that there is no evidence and it all points in the direction of setting a precedence.

The US has not made any moves towards arrest / prosecution and unless you have some inside source we dont know what the US government may or may not do.


Originally posted by talklikeapirat
CNN
....removed link / text for response room.
Apparently, this might not be evidence enough to hold water in a court of law, but it is certaily enough for him to not to believe otherwise.
We will never know until assange comes out of hiding.


Originally posted by talklikeapirat
Again, Assange is polarizing figure and it is more than unfortunate that his name is so entangled with wikileaks and their stated purpose.
Their stated purpose was to expose government crimes / corruption. Something that does not require the dissemination of classified information that shows no legal wrongdoing.


Originally posted by talklikeapirat
Yes, we do.

We dont.. The source you linked even states that - Criteria on body count and where it comes from. I can tell you 40 million people died during WWII however I cant tell you who was responsible for all of those deaths. In the case of your link they use media, witnesses, hospitals, anonymous / off the record conversations. etc. So while it can be stated a civilian was killed it cannot be stated by whom.


Furthermore, the relatively uncomplicated nature of the essential data collected by IBC (where, when, how many) reduces the need for interpretation beyond the raw data, and thus reduces the risk of misinterpretation. One significant exception is the question of combatant/civilian status, whose uncertainty is responsible for a large part of the difference between the lower and higher number given in the IBC range



2.3 Official cumulative figures

Many civilian deaths from violence are not relayed as distinct incidents, or even as bodies being discovered at a particular location and time, but are presented as cumulative totals released by officials. Again, these are generally obtained by the media and relayed by them, either in reporting official statements or “off-the-record” information from their contacts.


We do not know who killed who or how it occured.



Originally posted by talklikeapirat
I can somehow follow your argument that everyone should be treated equally before law and in a perfect world, where justice was truly blind you might have a point.
But by no means are the actions of the two entities, the U.S. and wikileaks or Assange, in any way comparable.
Sure they are... Assange is accusing the US of violating laws while at the same time Assange is violating the laws of the U.K and Sweden.

The 2 are comparable.


edit on 18-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join