Dirtbox wrote:A quick Google suggests Sweden does have an extradition treaty with the US but it excludes 'political offences'. America would need to get creative with the charges. |
Wikileaks • Page 72
-
TheSaint 20,950 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 16 years ago -
Dirtbox 92,595 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 19 years ago -
This has really made me angry.
We have world wars going on, refugees fleeing for safety and Russia throwing its weight around.
Yet some bloke who thinks he is above the law because he released a load of secret document, thinks he is untouchable because he is a 'messiah', the worlds conscious (yet when the real hero Manning rots in a US jail) makes the UN spend time and money to write a report which has NO LEGAL BASIS.
What about the report on the woman who believes has been raped, what about her feelings? Do they not count? So Assange can run around doing what he likes because he is above the law?
Edited by LetsGo at 20:54:23 04-02-2016 -
Bit bored nobody took your bait? -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoAt least he's trying something new. He wrote a whole post and didn't mention EU immigration or any celebrity deaths once. -
He says he is really angry but I want frothing at the mouth pics to prove it. -
Decks 31,013 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoI'm sure he can do one of him dribbling. As long as you don't mind the crayon up the nose. -
Psychotext 70,652 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 15 years agoHe genuinely cares guys. GENUINELY. -
Dirtbox 92,595 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 19 years ago -
twelveways 7,131 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 15 years agoHe's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years ago@LetsGo
@LetsGo
1) The UN may not have a legally binding basis, but they're widely respected as one of the foremost international authorities on Human Rights laws, they ratify human rights judgements, and so their opinion on these matters is often taken as being as good as a court ruling.
2) Assange has repeatedly made it very clear he is perfectly willing to be questioned by the Swedish prosecution if they visit him in the embassay. They've declined.
3) He is not facing any legal charges. Sweden itself says he is wanted for questioning, not to face charges.
4) The woman accusing him wrote a long thing online about how to destroy a man's life by making false allegations of rape. She then went to extraordinary lengths to attempt to delete that information when it looked like it might, y'know, cast doubt on the veracity of her claims.
5) She also colluded with a second woman. Last I checked, witnesses aren't supposed to be communicating about an outstanding legal case in a bid to rig their testimonies to corroborate each other.
6) His accuser has been utterly discredited.
7) Even if he was guilty, he would be out by now if he had been jailed for the offense.
8) Chucking in "omg Syria" and "russia throwing its weight around" is a ridiculous fucking strawman argument that has nothing to do with this. Syria has nothing to do with it. I don't use my monthly phone bill being high to try to argue that the cost of my muesli needs to be lower.
9) The ridiculous amount of money spent by the UK government on (initially) 24 hour manned guards and now covert surveillance, for a crime that ISN'T actually rape (and it winds me up that the UK press keep saying he's being accused of rape when he isn't) itsn't down to Assange. The government made that decision to waste their money effectively keeping him under a form of house arrest, not Assange.
10) When Assange took refuge in the embassy, it was amidst a background of US politicians saying he should be extradited and put to death. I'd be pretty fucking scared under those circumstances.
11) You started by saying that he should be innocent until proven guilty. Then you proceeded to treat his guilt as a given in your subsequent posts. You, sir, are a twunt and playing so hard into the tabloid media's hands it's almost funny.
Edited by spamdangled at 08:43:38 05-02-2016
Edited by spamdangled at 08:45:18 05-02-2016 -
twelveways 7,131 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 15 years ago'scuse my ignorance but why is the taxpayer paying millions? -
LittleSparra 7,926 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 6 years agotwelveways wrote:
They always do. That's their job!
'scuse my ignorance but why is the taxpayer paying millions? -
TPReview 1,380 posts
Seen 9 months ago
Registered 9 years agoI thought he wasn't so worried about the Swedish charge, which would likely not stand up in court, it's just that if he gets exradited to Sweden he thinks they will then extradite him to the US, where he will be tried for treason? -
Jeepers 16,616 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoLetsGo, Mongo and Acidizer in the same thread? It's the MongOff we've all been waiting for. -
TheSaint 20,950 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 16 years agoNothing says martyr like hiding in an embassy. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoAcidizer wrote:
The rape complaints may well be bogus, but he can't just dodge them. I'm sure he has good enough lawyers, meanwhile the tax payer is run for millions while he camps his pasty arse in some third world embassy who are just looking for brownie points for standing up to the west, and don't give a fuck about him.
The guy is a fantasist ego maniac, he thinks he's 007. Silly knob has wasted 3 years of his life playing the martyr.
The UN has issued 'an opinion'. Good, now fuck off. There's an actual legal case going on.
Assange is a total twat. But last I checked, being a twat doesn't justify not being treated equally. Hell, I'd argue that the case is so well known now that it would be impossible to find an impartial jury to try the case anyway.
Oh, and I'm not "victim blaming". She made accusations. The publically available evidence doesn't tally with her version of the story. I don't like Assange, I think he's a fucking egomaniac that takes the credit for the work done by others while happily throwing his sources to the wolves. But at the same time I don't want him raked over the coals in public. I honestly don't think it would even be possible for him to have a fair trial now. It's been nearly 5 years of trial by TV. Good luck finding an impartial jury.
Edited by spamdangled at 10:11:06 05-02-2016 -
twelveways 7,131 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 15 years agoHe looks a little like Noel Edmonds with his beard. -
twelveways 7,131 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 15 years agoI thought Mowgli was banned for life... -
AwesomeWells 1,119 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 15 years agoI'm sure there's some legal specifics I'm unaware of but how on earth can going in somewhere and refusing to come out possibly be construed as illegal detention? -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoNovaMan wrote:
When that history involves writing a how-to guide on how to destroy men's reputations by making false accusations of rape?
Going into her history and using that to discredit her claim is the absolute fucking worst form of victim blaming.
Yep, I'm sure that has NO relevance to this case...
She may be telling the truth. He may be. Trial by television isn't how this should be playing out. Assange has pretty much assured that it would play out like this, but at the same time the swedes could have questioned him in the embassy. They could have taken into account the very publically available evidence that called their complainant's integrity into question (evidence that she then tried to erase from the internet once it was mentioned in public, I might add).
He might be lying. Maybe he really did try to poke his dick in her while she was sleeping, which is what she is accusing him of. If he really did it, if she is telling the truth, then fine. But amidst the original background of US politcians saying he should be put to death, I can't really blame him for thinking that he was better off seeking political asylum. But the whole thing has gone on for so long now that it's just a farce. Sweden has dragged out the case long beyond what is reasonable and not investigated clear, publically available evidence that calls their witness' integrity into disrepute. I seem to recall they are already over the statute of limitations for pursuing the case (I may well be wrong on that front, but I remember it being a talking point last year).
It also sits wrong with me that America is shit hot and all over this like a dog on shit, despite being nothing to do with the case itself. No threat of extradition? So why is America all over it?
Edited by spamdangled at 10:52:35 05-02-2016
Edited by spamdangled at 10:58:10 05-02-2016 -
@NovaMan
I'm saying that she may have been raped. But the fact she wrote a bible on how to destroy men's reputations by making false allegations of rape, and then she tried to delete that after people dug it up, is rather suspect and goes towards motive and her credibility. Plus the fact that she colluded with another woman.
If she's telling the truth, why has she tried so hard to hide her actions? I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between Assange and "the woman"'s versions of events. Personally, I think the whole thing has shown Assange to be a total egomaniac, shown up the farce that is the european arrest warrant, and overall shown how useless the UK press is when it comes to dealing with sexual abuse stories.
Edited by spamdangled at 11:07:59 05-02-2016
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
