|
Pon de Bundy posted:What's stopping the U.S. from just taking him back to America VIA the C.I.A or NSA? It's not like any of these countries could do anything about it. Jack poo poo would be my guess. A lot of these Latin American countries with lax extradition laws have lax bounty hunting laws to match. I know that's the case with Columbia, but I couldn't say for sure with Ecuador.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:33 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 14:33 |
|
|
Rabbi Satan posted:I know, right? The United States of America trying with all its C&D, political, and legal might and leverage to put an Australian man who allegedly committed surprise sex in Sweden to 2 Swedish women, in jail, because America is Land of the Free and Home of the Brave (TM) and is seriously concerned for human rights! Also, the accusations happened early on in the piece, but the house arrest and extradition threat for it (with still no charge!) only happened after that huge batch of US diplomatic cables was released. Immediately after. It couldn't have been any clearer that it was a direct reaction. Absolutely he should stand trial for surprise sex if there a strong case against him. But there is no way he's going to get a fair trial, and besides if he turns up in Sweden he'll be extradited to the US and never be heard from again. This extradition and house arrest has nothing to do with actual crimes committed, and everything to do with the US doing its best to suppress an opponent.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:34 |
|
|
pacman posted:He is a publicly known media figure (with a television show) being kept under house arrest. I think it would be too difficult to kidnap him without too many people asking questions. Also, since he is under house arrest, he isn't really able to do any more damage to the US than he has already done... so it's good enough to leave him under house arrest until there is a better time to make a move on him. Does Sweden have a extradition treaty with the US where it bypasses the courts or something? People seem to be assuming that, for some reason, it will be easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden than from the UK. Why?
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:34 |
|
|
Why is everybody in this thread just assuming that the U.S. will torture him? You can't just start off with that as a premise without backing it up. I mean the U.S. has done some shady and inhumane poo poo but to automatically assume that the default punishment for him is torture...?
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:34 |
|
|
jackyl posted:And you just made my point about disseminating information versus running a web site. Again, Assange is a threat to the US government? No. He ran a web site that Manning had heard of; I made a similar point earlier, but Wikileaks was basically FuckedCompany with a longer shelf life and a sideways turn in direction. I do, however, think that Assange is a figure who was openly and famously defiant of the demands of the United States so now they want to make an example of him. This is, of course, horrible. This is why the United States is pursuing WikiLeaks and not The Guardian or the New York Times, who at one point were posting articles before WikiLeaks did themselves. But it's monstrous no matter why they're doing it.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:34 |
|
or we'd be reading about Lowtax evading surprise sex charges in Ecuador; after all, where the information ends up is the threat, right? Not where it comes from.
|
No Wave posted:If you want to express your support for the accusers and how unfortunate it is that Assange isn't standing trial, fine. I agree that it's unfortunate that he can't have an impartial trial for the surprise sex allegations. But I see the impossibility of a fair trial as the fault of the United States. The more I think about it, the more amazing this statement is. The entire point of WikiLeaks is to expose ruling classes who consider themselves above the law. If Dominique Strauss-Kahn had fled to Ecuador to escape the (dropped) surprise sex charges from his maid permanently, the Internet would be in perpetual outrage. But Julian Assange is now officially too good for petty things like a fair trial, because he is a "hero of the people". Populist politics can wash away any rapes or terrible things you did in your past.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:34 |
|
|
Pon de Bundy posted:What's stopping the U.S. from just taking him back to America VIA the C.I.A or NSA? It's not like any of these countries could do anything about it. Proving they have the biggest dick. If he gets picked up and dissapeared sure that's one problem solved and a conspiracy proven but if the US gets every country he runs too to grab ankle for old uncle sam it soothes the damaged ego and shows everyone how mighty and powerful they are.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:35 |
|
|
If the US wanted him they would ask Britain, not wait for some roundabout scheme involving Sweden.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:35 |
|
|
FBI also tried setting him up with the Stratfor leaks by having Sabu ask for cash for the material, but the spools were sent by someone else before that could happen.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:35 |
|
|
Pon de Bundy posted:What's stopping the U.S. from just taking him back to America VIA the C.I.A or NSA? It's not like any of these countries could do anything about it. Yeah, gently caress international relations, they should totally just have bust in there on day 1 and grabbed him. What were those limeys gonna do about it, anyway? Ha ha ha ha ha. You're the US's bitch, bitch.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:36 |
|
|
Nagato posted:The more I think about it, the more amazing this statement is. pacman posted:I agree he should face trial for the surprise sex accusations, but I do not think he should go to Sweden and face trial until it is guaranteed he won't be sent to the United States for torture. It sucks that the United States are an evil torturing super power, but you can not anymore expect a fair trial or to be treated justly by the United States, especially if you are seen as a political enemy. So, I'm not sure what should be done, but I think granting him temporary asylum in Ecuador would be a good, humanitarian thing for the Ecuadorian government to do until his safety from torture in the United States is guaranteed.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:37 |
|
|
Nagato posted:But Julian Assange is now officially too good for petty things like a fair trial, because he is a "hero of the people".
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:38 |
|
|
destati posted:Why is everybody in this thread just assuming that the U.S. will torture him? You can't just start off with that as a premise without backing it up. I mean the U.S. has done some shady and inhumane poo poo but to automatically assume that the default punishment for him is torture...? I would like you to back up your use of the past tense. They tortured Bradley Manning, and our treatment of foreign detainees has been even worse as the default for the past decade. We literally have secret prisons. We are still pretending like we're thinking of giving people trials when we send them here from the middle east. Why wouldn't they torture Julian Assange?
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:38 |
|
|
Nagato posted:The more I think about it, the more amazing this statement is. You need to be charged before there is a trial. And weren't you the one who called him 'creepy' because he had an online dating profile? You have pre-judged him based on nothing except your own stupid prejudices. And what makes you think it would be a fair trail? He has been railroaded from the start of this whole thing.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:38 |
|
|
Hammerite posted:Yeah, gently caress international relations, they should totally just have bust in there on day 1 and grabbed him. What were those limeys gonna do about it, anyway? Ha ha ha ha ha. You're the US's bitch, bitch. Not that it's right by any means, but this is the U.S. policy.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:40 |
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:You need to be charged before there is a trial. An even better point -- in Sweden he would be a free man, so why did he skip bail now instead of just waiting until he went there? And don't give me this conspiracy theory crap, I've never heard of America picking up people out of Sweden without the justice system working in both countries.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:40 |
|
|
Jesto posted:Kidnapping Julian Assange from another country to drag him into the US to torture and imprison him is the sort of thing that would cause an international incident. And it would probably lead more people to his cause and radicalize his supporters against the US. This is an overexaggeration. Any supporter of wiki leaks is as radically anti-US as they're gonna get, and the remainder are going to see a rapist fleeing extradition who also happened to have posted sensitive military documents on the internet.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:40 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:This is an overexaggeration. Any supporter of wiki leaks is as radically anti-US as they're gonna get, and the remainder are going to see a rapist fleeing extradition who also happened to have posted sensitive military documents on the internet.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:42 |
|
|
Nagato posted:An even better point -- in Sweden he would be a free man, so why did he skip bail now instead of just waiting until he went there? And don't give me this conspiracy theory crap, I've never heard of America picking up people out of Sweden without the justice system working in both countries. How is saying the US is trying to get him extradited here a "theory"? In fact, how is US intelligence trying to snatch people from foreign nations using extradition at all unbelievable?
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:42 |
|
|
Xombie posted:I would like you to back up your use of the past tense. There's highly set precedent in the Supreme Court in the past decade that non-U.S. detainees still have habeas corpus.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:43 |
|
|
destati posted:There's highly set precedent in the Supreme Court in the past decade that non-U.S. detainees still have habeas corpus. And how many of them have been to trial?
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:45 |
|
|
pacman posted:I really think he is mostly just afraid of being sent to the United States. Even his own mother said that if he were to go to Sweden, he would just get sent to the US and tortured. Yeah I think he's basically in fear of his life at this point and not entirely irrationally. It's hard to blame him, it's certainly rational for him to conclude that he will be tortured if the U.S. gets their hands on him.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:45 |
|
|
Xombie posted:And how many of them have been to trial? Man, I have no clue. I'm just skeptical of the idea that extradition to the U.S. automatically means torture and nobody's questioning this assumption. Call me naive if you want I just don't want to believe that our justice system is really that hosed up.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:46 |
|
|
destati posted:Man, I have no clue. I'm just skeptical of the idea that extradition to the U.S. automatically means torture and nobody's questioning this assumption. Call me naive if you want I just don't want to believe that our justice system is really that hosed up. Because the other person who was remotely connected to him that the US got a hold of was tortured. Gitmo, secret prisons, the CIA just offing people, these are real things that the US government has had to admit, since they were reported on by real journalists, not just crazy haired guys from History channel documentaries. And this is just the stuff that they were careless enough to let slip. Julian Assange has pissed off a lot of very powerful and sadistic bureaucrats.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:47 |
|
|
destati posted:Why is everybody in this thread just assuming that the U.S. will torture him? You can't just start off with that as a premise without backing it up. I mean the U.S. has done some shady and inhumane poo poo but to automatically assume that the default punishment for him is torture...? The major evidence I am using is the US's history of CIA black sites and treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The treatment of PFC Bradley Manning. Also, the stuff they don't even hide like our current prison system for just normal crime is arguably full of torture with extended solitary confinement and the state being complicit with prison surprise sex. I don't have any direct evidence the US has stated their intention to torture Assange, but I feel there is enough evidence about the behavior of the US toward political enemies they have taken captive to see his fear of torture as justified.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:47 |
|
|
destati posted:Man, I have no clue. I'm just skeptical of the idea that extradition to the U.S. automatically means torture and nobody's questioning this assumption. Call me naive if you want I just don't want to believe that our justice system is really that hosed up. Fair point, but from Assange's viewpoint, do you think he wants to take that risk? I mean look what they did to Bradley Manning. Regardless of whether or not Sweden would actually extradite him to the U.S. or the U.S. would torture him, I'm certain he believes that both of those would be the case.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:47 |
|
|
Why is he more likely to be extradited to the US in Sweden than the UK? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17370772
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:49 |
|
|
Xombie posted:Because the other person who was remotely connected to him that the US got a hold of was tortured. He was also court martialed. I don't think the circumstances are the same here; a court martial is very different from a civilian court.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:49 |
|
|
^^^ Are you serious? You really think they're going to go "oh well this guy's not military so I guess we can't torture him"?destati posted:Man, I have no clue. I'm just skeptical of the idea that extradition to the U.S. automatically means torture and nobody's questioning this assumption. Call me naive if you want I just don't want to believe that our justice system is really that hosed up. Read up on Bradley Manning, then come back and see if you can make the same claim.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:50 |
|
|
destati posted:He was also court martialed. I don't think the circumstances are the same here; a court martial is very different from a civilian court. What says Assange would ever see a civilian court either? "Enemy Combatant."
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:50 |
|
|
Are people just seeing "surprise sex charge" and going on autopilot? Read this timeline. Look at 2010.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:50 |
|
|
destati posted:Man, I have no clue. I'm just skeptical of the idea that extradition to the U.S. automatically means torture and nobody's questioning this assumption. Call me naive if you want I just don't want to believe that our justice system is really that hosed up. This kind of an honest question. Who'd have custody? He angered a beehive.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:51 |
|
|
destati posted:He was also court martialed. I don't think the circumstances are the same here; a court martial is very different from a civilian court. You're right, our treatment of foreign nationals has a track record of being even worse. Before being in any civilian court, he's in the hands of US Intelligence, who can just tell civilian authorities to gently caress off until they're done with him.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:51 |
|
|
Xombie posted:Because the other person who was remotely connected to him that the US got a hold of was tortured. Bradley Manning is the criminal from the U.S. perspective. Assange is tangentially related to the crime and isn't even an American citizen. Just some guy with a website. I can't see him being tortured, but as others have said, the fact that its open for interpretation as a result of American policy recently is biting them in the rear end right now, because it wouldn't exactly be shocking to hear they were torturing him.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:52 |
|
|
Xandu posted:Why is he more likely to be extradited to the US in Sweden than the UK? quote:The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release’) clause. The UK’s judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:52 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:Bradley Manning is the criminal from the U.S. perspective. Assange is tangentially related to the crime and isn't even an American citizen. Just some guy with a website. I can't see him being tortured, but as others have said, the fact that its open for interpretation as a result of American policy recently is biting them in the rear end right now, because it wouldn't exactly be shocking to hear they were torturing him.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:56 |
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:You need to be charged before there is a trial. And weren't you the one who called him 'creepy' because he had an online dating profile? You have pre-judged him based on nothing except your own stupid prejudices. He has? No offense, but the guy has a history of social and sexual hangups that implicate he would be capable of what he's being charged for. And surprise sex is never something you'd want to try and pin on someone unless it was a smear campaign, as surprise sex trials are really really hard to finish, since they are usually he said/she said based. This is doubly true in this case since both of these would be classified as social rapes, which were originally set up as consensual encounters. If the US government framed Assange, they did a horrific job of it, there is no proof besides the girls word that he raped them, and he could easily wiggle his way out. It would have been much easier, and they'd be torturing him right now, if they just went to his place, grabbed a knife, then went and killed a hobo, bam instant conviction. I don't think Assange should go to any sort of secret prison, but he needs to be questioned by the Swedes for the rapes, as they likely were not something the evil US cooked up, but actually something he needs to be questioned about. And yes, he should also be forced to stand trial in the US, because his actions jeopardized the lives and families of quite a few people by giving away information that would make it really easy to figure out who is cooperating with us, and who is undercover. If it had just been diplomatic wires saying we hate the French, then fine whatever, but yeah, some of that info likely got innocent people killed. Half the posts in this thread are "HE MIGHT HAVE RAPED SOME PEOPLE, BUT IT'S PROBABLY A US COVER STORY, GO ASSANGE, GO TO FREEDOM." which is scary as hell.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:57 |
|
|
Xombie posted:The difference is that the US is somehow the more bureaucratic than the USSR was, which does stop them from just picking up people (but only since the UN started stopping us from simply assassinating people like we tried in the early Cold War.) Sorry, the US stopped assassinating people it disagrees with (and its own citizens)? When was that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...05WV_story.html
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:58 |
|
|
I'm sure the surprise sex charges are purely about bringing justice for a crime. The US cares about that sort of thing. Just look at how many of the corrupt officials Assange exposed are facing charges for their illegal acts. How many years did Hillary get for ordering officials to spy on foreign UN diplomats again? I mean, this is all about justice. It's not like we had US politicians openly stating Assange should be assassinated for releasing those cables. This is clearly about the US punishing a citizen of a foreign country for a crime that happened in another foreign country with no relation to America itself.
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:58 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 14:33 |
|
|
Rookersh posted:Half the posts in this thread are "HE MIGHT HAVE RAPED SOME PEOPLE, BUT IT'S PROBABLY A US COVER STORY, GO ASSANGE, GO TO FREEDOM." which is scary as hell. I need to repeat: Why is it all right for the New York Times to publish the wires and not Wikileaks?
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2012 03:59 |
|
