UK threatens to enter the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Wikileaks founder recently granted asylum in - Polidicks

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260135]Well, even if the sexual assault case is valid, he'll get it much worse than he should due to the issues with the US.[/QUOTE] fine just don't pretend like your assumptions are anything more than assumptions [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260135]And the allegations for assault are very much likely politically motivated.[/QUOTE] how can sexual assault charges be politically motivated? you're obviously implying he didn't sexually assault anyone which i guess means you have some information that no-one else has. feel free to share it. [editline]15th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260135] Ecuador could give him a trial[/QUOTE] Ecuador can't give him a trial for something that happened in Sweden, that's a gross violation of jurisdiction. that's the whole reason he's seeking asylum

[QUOTE=thisispain;37260170]fine just don't pretend like your assumptions are anything more than assumptions how can sexual assault charges be politically motivated? you're obviously implying he didn't sexually assault anyone which i guess means you have some information that no-one else has. feel free to share it.[/QUOTE] I'm connecting the dots, really, he could have actually assaulted them. It is the fact that if he goes to trial in the US/UK/whatever country that is with the US, he'll be fucked regardless. Keeping him safe from being sent away forever because of Wikileaks is a tad bit more important than the sexual assault case, to be frank.

So basically Assange released a bunch of sensitive information about corporate/government misconduct which to no surprise pissed off corporate America and the government and now he apparently raped someone. hmm. Interesting story. I am not being sarcastic.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260236]I'm connecting the dots, really, he could have actually assaulted them.[/QUOTE] so you're not denying that there's a legitimate sexual assault case? [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260236]Keeping him safe from being sent away forever because of Wikileaks is a tad bit more important than the sexual assault case, to be frank.[/QUOTE] so basically you are okay with him possibly sexually assaulting two people just because of his association with wikileaks. that's good to know

[QUOTE=thisispain;37260170] Ecuador can't give him a trial for something that happened in Sweden, that's a gross violation of jurisdiction. that's the whole reason he's seeking asylum[/QUOTE] And what would stop them? Sweden? International law?

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260293]And what would stop them? Sweden? International law?[/QUOTE] uh do you know what asylum is?

[QUOTE=thisispain;37260291]so you're not denying that there's a legitimate sexual assault case? so basically you are okay with him possibly sexually assaulting two people just because of his association with wikileaks. that's good to know[/QUOTE] I may have been a bit too heated before when I said the case was bullshit. I wouldn't be okay with him assaulting the two, though if he is tried for that case, he'll be tried with the other one along side it. That's unavoidable, and escaping both charges is the only alternative.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260424]though if he is tried for that case, he'll be tried with the other one along side it. [/QUOTE] what is your reasoning for that? there's no window of criminal suits where during one criminal case you can shove a whole bunch of other ones along it. if they wanted to charge him with something not related to sexual assault they would have done it a long time ago, nothing's stopping them or anyone from doing it.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260236]I'm connecting the dots, really, he could have actually assaulted them. It is the fact that if he goes to trial in the US/UK/whatever country that is with the US, he'll be fucked regardless. Keeping him safe from being sent away forever because of Wikileaks is a tad bit more important than the sexual assault case, to be frank.[/QUOTE] Assange hasn't has anything to do with Wikileaks for a long time, other than to milk its supporters for money to keep his legal team running. Money that could be spent on, say, getting Bradley Manning proper legal defense. You know, the guy who has [I]actually[/I] been suffering for his association with Wikileaks.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37260328]uh do you know what asylum is?[/QUOTE] The right for someone persecuted for political or religious reasons to take refuge under another nation? Well, circumstance would mean that he can't be tried for sexual assault without facing the other charge, unless Ecuador and Sweden came to an agreement.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;37260467]Assange hasn't has anything to do with Wikileaks for a long time, other than to milk its supporters for money to keep his legal team running. Money that could be spent on, say, getting Bradley Manning proper legal defense. You know, the guy who has [I]actually[/I] been suffering for his association with Wikileaks.[/QUOTE] yeah i mean this really is just a dude running away from a sexual assault case. doesn't really have much to do with Bradley Manning or Wikileaks.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;37260467]Assange hasn't has anything to do with Wikileaks for a long time, other than to milk its supporters for money to keep his legal team running. Money that could be spent on, say, getting Bradley Manning proper legal defense. You know, the guy who has [I]actually[/I] been suffering for his association with Wikileaks.[/QUOTE] Though apparently the U.S is still after him, so he still needs protection just as much as Bradley Manning deserves freedom from the hellhole he is kept in.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260479]The right for someone persecuted for political or religious reasons to take refuge under another nation?[/QUOTE] it means you can't be tried with the same charges you were running away from. that's what would stop Ecuador from charging him with sexual assault.

Unless I am wrong about that, then all of my arguments are negated and I need to quell myself from posting in SH again. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;37260519]it means you can't be tried with the same charges you were running away from. that's what would stop Ecuador from charging him with sexual assault.[/QUOTE] Except sexual assault isn't a political issue, so then the use of the term asylum is being used loosely. I thought that he was running away from the US.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37260547] Except sexual assault isn't a political issue, so then the use of the term asylum is being used loosely. I thought that he was running away from the US.[/QUOTE] The US isn't after him. if the US wanted to extradite Assange they couldn't do it based on sexual assault, it would be a completely different case.

jesus christ uk what are you doing stay the fuck out of this, there is no reason for us to be involved in this bullshit.

[QUOTE=Noss;37260639]jesus christ uk what are you doing stay the fuck out of this, there is no reason for us to be involved in this bullshit.[/QUOTE] he was arrested in the UK, it would be a political circus if the UK didn't let Sweden take Assange.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37260462]what is your reasoning for that? there's no window of criminal suits where during one criminal case you can shove a whole bunch of other ones along it. if they wanted to charge him with something not related to sexual assault they would have done it a long time ago, nothing's stopping them or anyone from doing it.[/QUOTE] Sweden does not charge people with anything when they're not in sweden. Assange himself has not been charged with anything yet which is the reason why this whole thing is fucking ridiculous. They want to bring him in for questioning and for some reason he HAS to be brought to sweden for it. There are treaties for these kind of things, they can question him in the UK, there is no legitimate reason for his extradition except that sweden requested it, for no legitimate reason.

So out of interest what are the legal implications if they actually did this? Like is there anything legally stopping this happening?

[QUOTE=thisispain;37260593]The US isn't after him. if the US wanted to extradite Assange they couldn't do it based on sexual assault, it would be a completely different case.[/QUOTE] Well, it seems my own stupidity in legality and whatever political issues that surround this as well as the situation itself, as well as neurotic nature when it comes to most political conflicts, has gotten at me again. I guess I do need stop myself from posting in this section of the forum again.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37260487]yeah i mean this really is just a dude running away from a sexual assault case. doesn't really have much to do with Bradley Manning or Wikileaks.[/QUOTE] No, this is a dude running away from an unfair extradition. There is no legitimate reason to bring him over to sweden because he hasn't even been fucking charged with anything yet.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37260704] Assange himself has not been charged with anything yet[/QUOTE] that's not true at all. he's under arrest. [url]http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7570-the-charges-against-julian-assange[/url] [editline]15th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=mobrockers2;37260742]No, this is a dude running away from an unfair extradition. There is no legitimate reason to bring him over to sweden because he hasn't even been fucking charged with anything yet.[/QUOTE] he's a criminal according to Sweden. i think that's a pretty legitimate reason.

It's just been revoked.

[QUOTE=Jsm;37260712]So out of interest what are the legal implications if they actually did this? Like is there anything legally stopping this happening?[/QUOTE] I'm sure brussel won't be too happy with the UK if they did this. I'm sure no country in the world will be happy if the UK did this. What it basically means is that an embassy has immunity up until the UK decides they don't like what you're doing and remove your diplomatic status. No country will be happy with that.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37260815]I'm sure brussel won't be too happy with the UK if they did this. I'm sure no country in the world will be happy if the UK did this. What it basically means is that an embassy has immunity up until the UK decides they don't like what you're doing and remove your diplomatic status. No country will be happy with that.[/QUOTE] That much is true, though I guess my preconceived notions that he was going to be extradited to and tried in the US was stupid.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37260487]yeah i mean this really is just a dude running away from a sexual assault case. doesn't really have much to do with Bradley Manning or Wikileaks.[/QUOTE] If he goes to Sweden to get questioned the USA will have a much easier time having him extradited.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37260758]that's not true at all. he's under arrest. [URL]http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7570-the-charges-against-julian-assange[/URL] [editline]15th August 2012[/editline] he's a criminal according to Sweden. i think that's a pretty legitimate reason.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority[/URL] [QUOTE]Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[35] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning.[/QUOTE] He has not formally been charged with anything yet and the warrant for his arrest was to bring him in for questioning, nothing more. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BorisJ;37260923]If he goes to Sweden to get questioned the USA will have a much easier time having him extradited.[/QUOTE] And before anyone says that it can't be done without the UK's consent because they are the ones lending assange out to sweden, sweden has a special treaty with the us which can be used to circumvent that. The treaty is basically request extradition and receive without questions.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37260967][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority[/url] He has not formally been charged with anything yet and the warrant for his arrest was to bring him in for questioning, nothing more.[/QUOTE] that's a formality. he's charged with crimes which is the cause for the warrant. nobody gets arrested just for questioning. it's akin to any law system. if you commit a crime you get arrested under the charge of say murder, but you aren't officially charged under law with murder till you get a free trial. it's a warrant based on sexual assault, just because he hasn't had a trial yet doesn't mean he's not charged and liable to be put to trial.

[QUOTE=BorisJ;37260923]If he goes to Sweden to get questioned the USA will have a much easier time having him extradited.[/QUOTE]Then why is he moving to a country that has an extradition treaty with the US? Secondly, the UK has an extremely one sided extradition treaty with the US, why didn't they just pick him up from there if he's wanted so much.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;37261112]Then why is he moving to a country that has an extradition treaty with the US? Secondly, the UK has an extremely one sided extradition treaty with the US, why didn't they just pick him up from there if he's wanted so much.[/QUOTE] because he's not wanted by the US. there's no charge, he's not going to be extradited from anywhere until the US takes a warrant out for his arrest. and that would be a VERY different case from this sexual assault case.