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

[QUOTE=thisispain;37261148]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.[/QUOTE]Exactly, which is why I have no idea why people are saying such a thing. The US isn't even silly enough to attempt to extradite a person in the public eye, it's just too obvious.

[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] He would never be extradited by the UK on the silly charges the US might come up with, and sweden has a way better extradition treaty with the US.

[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. [editline]15th August 2012[/editline] 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] Actually, Ecuador already do [url=http://www.wbur.org/2012/05/18/ecuador-guaman-brockton]try Ecuadorian citizens accused of crimes outside of Ecuador in an Ecuadorian court.[/url] This happened a few towns away from where I live, and even though he murdered a woman and her toddler, he only got 25 years; he'll be eligible for parole in less.

he's a native ecuadorian though. it's different, Ecuador has the right to sentence them

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37261220]He would never be extradited by the UK on the silly charges the US might come up with, and sweden has a way better extradition treaty with the US.[/QUOTE]But what charges has the US presented him with? As far as I know, the US has been silent about assange.

So much for finesse, UK.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;37260811]It's just been revoked.[/QUOTE] Nope. Live stream outside the embassy: [url]http://www.ustream.tv/channel/alburyj#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=11808532&utm_medium=social[/url]

[QUOTE=thisispain;37259670]you're not supposed to see the evidence that's how trials work[/QUOTE] You've been spewing self centered opinionated crap as fact this entire thread. You clearly don't have any idea how trials work, or even how the law works; Stop pretending you do. Discovery (or disclosure in the UK) is part of pre-trial affairs in which both parties are allowed to collect (and use) evidence that the opposing party has collected through specific requisitions. Evidence in a trial is not secret, all evidence to be used in a trial must be presented to both the judge and the opposing party, AND be accepted as evidence in the specific trial. Any evidence admitted by either party and accepted for use in the trial can be used by both parties. Any and all evidence can also be rejected by the judge for a plethora of reasons, and objected by the opposing party as not being relevant to the matter at hand. If you tried to present withheld secret evidence at a trial, you're going to piss the judge off and most likely be held in contempt of the court. You could also very well lose the trial.

[QUOTE=bohb;37261991]You've been spewing self centered opinionated crap as fact this entire thread. You clearly don't have any idea how trials work, or even how the law works; Stop pretending you do. [/QUOTE] eh i was talking about USSR. USSR isn't the one that's supposed to see the evidence. of course both fucking parties have to see the evidence, do you think i'm a fucking idiot? USSR is the one asking for evidence to which i very reasonably said that he's not supposed to see it. it's called context, learn it before you start mouthing off at me

[QUOTE=thisispain;37262076]eh i was talking about USSR. USSR isn't the one that's supposed to see the evidence. of course both fucking parties have to see the evidence, do you think i'm a fucking idiot? USSR is the one asking for evidence to which i very reasonably said that he's not supposed to see it. it's called context, learn it before you start mouthing off at me[/QUOTE] If he or anyone else wants to see the trial evidence, all they have to do is subpoena the trial evidence, it's not that difficult. You're wrong again.

[QUOTE=bohb;37262123]If he or anyone else wants to see the trial evidence, all they have to do is subpoena the trial evidence, it's not that difficult. You're wrong again.[/QUOTE] there's no trial yet!

[QUOTE=thisispain;37262161]there's no trial yet![/QUOTE] There were several trials, are you ignorant and blind? The first trial was in Sweden where he was tried [I]in absentia[/I] and the judge issued a warrant to have him detained. Subsequent trials happened in England where Assange appealed to both the high and supreme court to not be extradited to Sweden.

[QUOTE=BorisJ;37261561]Nope. Live stream outside the embassy: [url]http://www.ustream.tv/channel/alburyj#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=11808532&utm_medium=social[/url][/QUOTE] Albury took his feed down but this one is still up [URL="http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=11808409&utm_medium=social"]http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=11808409&utm_medium=social[/URL]

[QUOTE=bohb;37262376]There were several trials, are you ignorant and blind? The first trial was in Sweden where he was tried [I]in absentia[/I] and the judge issued a warrant to have him detained. Subsequent trials happened in England where Assange appealed to both the high and supreme court to not be extradited to Sweden.[/QUOTE] we're talking about the sexual assault trial, that's what the evidence was about?

[QUOTE=thisispain;37263016]we're talking about the sexual assault trial, that's what the evidence was about?[/QUOTE] And you continue to reek of ignorance. The entire point of the first trial was to determine if there was enough plausible evidence for sexual assault to issue a warrant for an arrest.

[QUOTE=bohb;37263265]And you continue to reek of ignorance. The entire point of the first trial was to determine if there was enough plausible evidence for sexual assault to issue a warrant for an arrest.[/QUOTE] issuing warrants doesn't have two parties i don't know why you're being such a dick, three times already you've tried to "zing" me or something. first you say i didn't know that disclosure existed, even though [b]it was fucking plain that wasn't the context[/b] then you say you can subpoena the trial evidence? [b]he hasn't had a fucking trial yet[/b] no-one's presented the evidence yet because the case hasn't been brought to a jury. got a regular lionel hutz here, why don't you show me the statute that lets you subpoena the trial evidence in Sweden? why don't you guide me through the procedure that allows USSR to access the evidence to the criminal court-case (the one that hasn't actually happened yet) of Mr. Assange? maybe then i'd see this as more of an informative conversation, and less of an attempt to bitchslap me over the internet.

[QUOTE=Griml3xx;37262634]Albury took his feed down but this one is still up [URL="http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=11808409&utm_medium=social"]http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=11808409&utm_medium=social[/URL][/QUOTE] These protesters are fucking stupid

[QUOTE=thisispain;37263474]issuing warrants doesn't have two parties[/QUOTE] The last time I checked, it was the state (1) and the person the warrant is for (2) I count two parties, though my math was never that good. [QUOTE=thisispain;37263474]i don't know why you're being such a dick, three times already you've tried to "zing" me or something.[/QUOTE] I find it funny you call me a dick, yet you said this earlier: [QUOTE=thisispain;37262076]it's called context, learn it before you start mouthing off at me[/QUOTE] You have this huge ego that you seem to have to satisfy by always being right and ridiculing others because you think you're superior (hint: you aren't.) [QUOTE=thisispain;37263474]first you say i didn't know that disclosure existed, even though [b]it was fucking plain that wasn't the context[/b] then you say you can subpoena the trial evidence? [b]he hasn't had a fucking trial yet[/b] no-one's presented the evidence yet because the case hasn't been brought to a jury.[/QUOTE] Not all trials are jury trials, and not all trials require a jury. And I still don't grasp why you can't understand that warrant and extradition trials are still trials, and are still related to the sexual assault charges. [QUOTE=thisispain;37263474]got a regular lionel hutz here, why don't you show me the statute that lets you subpoena the trial evidence in Sweden? why don't you guide me through the procedure that allows USSR to access the evidence to the criminal court-case (the one that hasn't actually happened yet) of Mr. Assange? maybe then i'd see this as more of an informative conversation, and less of an attempt to bitchslap me over the internet.[/QUOTE] It's cute you try to compare me with a fictional Simpsons lawyer, and funny that you're trying to infer I'm an idiot. Since you're having a temper tantrum on the level of a 5 year old, plus a huge ego, I'll let you find the facts yourself.

[QUOTE=bohb;37264028]The last time I checked, it was the state (1) and the person the warrant is for (2) I count two parties, though my math was never that good.[/QUOTE] no it's the officer of the law asking for the warrant from the judge [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(law)[/url] see the subject isn't there, ergo there are no two parties. there's no prosecution or defense so uh no the person for whom the warrant is for isn't actually there [QUOTE=bohb;37264028] You have this huge ego that you seem to have to satisfy by always being right and ridiculing others because you think you're superior (hint: you aren't.)[/QUOTE] what you fucked up the context, how is that my fault? [QUOTE=bohb;37264028]Not all trials are jury trials, and not all trials require a jury. And I still don't grasp why you can't understand that warrant and extradition trials are still trials, and are still related to the sexual assault charges.[/QUOTE] what no that's totally not what i was even I GRASP IT JUST FINE, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE CRIMINAL CASE, IN WHICH THERE IS A JURY, HASN'T COMMENCED BECAUSE JULLIAN ASSANGE ISN'T ACTUALLY IN SWEDEN. ONCE THE TRIAL COMMENCES THE EVIDENCE WILL BE PRESENTED [QUOTE=bohb;37264028]It's cute you try to compare me with a fictional Simpsons lawyer, and funny that you're trying to infer I'm an idiot. Since you're having a temper tantrum on the level of a 5 year old, plus a huge ego, I'll let you find the facts yourself.[/QUOTE] BUT YOU WERE MAKING THE CLAIM?? this is the worst debate ever

The reason why the entire case is suspicious is because: 1. The two women that Assange had sex with originally simply wanted him tested for STD's, and went to the Swedish police to see if they could force him to take a test. Immediately afterward, the Swedish police issued a warrant for Assange's arrest for rape charges. Afterward, the two women refused to give any further statements to the police. 2. All testimony given by the two women after the initial series of events have been ignored by the Swedish police. 3. The warrant issued for Assange's arrest was a "red notice", a warrant typically issued for terrorists and other high-profile criminals, not rapists. There are several other points I can't remember off the top of my head but all of the above should be enough to at least make the events questionable.

[QUOTE=1239the;37264260] 3. The warrant issued for Assange's arrest was a "red notice", a warrant typically issued for terrorists and other high-profile criminals, not rapists.[/QUOTE] actually, that's because the red notice is the only actual arrest warrant interpol has [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_notice#Notice_types[/url]

Dunno if anybody has posted this yet but a live mobile stream from this funky-talkin' Lundun bloke. Livestreaming from a cell phone? Crazy technology these days mate. [url]http://bambuser.com/v/2905636[/url]

[QUOTE=thisispain;37264294]actually, that's because the red notice is the only actual arrest warrant interpol has [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_notice#Notice_types[/url][/QUOTE] Sex scandals are the best way to destroy one's credibility. No matter how this case will end and whether Assange will be extradited to Sweden to be surprisingly extradited to USA, he will be remembered as that terrorist rapist by millions of common folk.

I for one don't believe that the allegations are true. Considering what's at stake for the US I wouldn't put it past them to fabricate this sort of thing so that they can gain some level of control over his location

This would be a pretty dick move on the UK's part if they decide to just storm into an embassy like that.

[URL="http://www.ecuadorembassyuk.org.uk/announcements/ecuador-shock-at-threats-from-british-government"]Announcement by the Embassy[/URL] [QUOTE]“We are deeply shocked by British government’s threats against the sovereignty of the Ecuadorian Embassy and their suggestion that they may forcibly enter the embassy. This is a clear breach of international law and the protocols set out in the Vienna Convention. Throughout out the last 56 days Mr. Julian Assange has been in the Embassy, the Ecuadorian Government has acted honourably in all our attempts to seek a resolution to the situation. This stands in stark contrast to the escalation of the British Government today with their threats to breakdown the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy. Instead of threatening violence against the Ecuadorian Embassy the British Government should use its energy to find a peaceful resolution to this situation which we are aiming to achieve. “[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=thisispain;37261148]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.[/QUOTE] I know you're some kind of neo-feminist, and that's all good. Your life, your choices, your opinions. But you have to be goddamn fucking retarded to not realize this is all politically motivated.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37259670]you're not supposed to see the evidence that's how trials work ugh you don't know shit about whether it's unsupported or not what are you implying there? bradley manning was court-marshaled for espionage and abused. this dude is running away from a sexual assault case, how the fuck is there any comparison? against or for government transparency doesn't have shit to do with anything because this case is about sexual assault, not Wikileaks. we're creating this whole narrative around it that really has nothing to do with the actual charges. i compare this to the Roman Polanski case where everyone started talking about his movies as if making good movies gets you a get-out-of-jail-free card even though it had nothing to do with it. this is the same thing, Jullian Assange doesn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because he happens to be the founder of wikileaks.[/QUOTE] Problem is that at this point, they would probably find evidence of him raping Hitler if it was necessary. There's no chance his trial will be fair, no matter what he did.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;37265334][URL="http://www.ecuadorembassyuk.org.uk/announcements/ecuador-shock-at-threats-from-british-government"]Announcement by the Embassy[/URL][/QUOTE] Any official response to the statement from the British government yet?

[QUOTE=Griml3xx;37262634]Albury took his feed down but this one is still up [URL="http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=11808409&utm_medium=social"]http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=11808409&utm_medium=social[/URL][/QUOTE] Update: the one streaming that video was just arrested for standing on a public sidewalk during the protest. Edit: Someone took his place and is now streaming again Edit (again): they let him go for now, but now they have to stand across the street. Also a bunch more people are there now.