What did you do when the Olympic Torch passed by?

[FamilyWiggs]

FF - I am no expert. But my understanding is that the stage we are at (2nd round of questions, he's already faced the first round of questioning in Sweden before leaving the country) has been judged by our courts as akin to being charged, and thus the arrest warrant and extradition request are valid and must be enforced.

The "home" nationality of a suspect is irrelevant. If they are wanted in another country and we are served a warrant or extradition request whilst they are within the UK, we have to consider it an enact it. And let's not forget that extradition treaties are two-way things. We wouldn't want UK justice being thwarted by a foreign national residin in a third country. Nor would we want the inordinate delays of repatriaton proceedings followed by extradition proceedings.

It should be sufficient that an independent judiciary consider an extradition case on its legal merit,s and the safeguards of the legal systems of the country requesting the extradition. All of it of course has politicaloersight, in that the Home Secretary has a final arbiter role.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Not to mention some harsh sentences for looting during last summer's Tottenham riots.

:roll: Must. Not. React. :wink:

 

[Flyfisher]

I wasn't intending to cast judgement on the rioting sentences, merely comparing them to the Pussy Riot sentences because most of the coverage I've read has been critical of Russian 'heavy-handedness' and seemingly ignoring similar sentences handed down in the UK.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I wasn't intending to cast judgement on the rioting sentences, merely comparing them to the Pussy Riot sentences because most of the coverage I've read has been critical of Russian 'heavy-handedness' and seemingly ignoring similar sentences handed down in the UK.

Fair enough. From the little I've read, the concern over the Pussy Riot sentences is not so much that they were because singing in a church, but because the songs were critical of Putin and that is why they were harsh.

 

[Flyfisher]

It should be sufficient that an independent judiciary consider an extradition case on its legal merit,s and the safeguards of the legal systems of the country requesting the extradition. All of it of course has politicaloersight, in that the Home Secretary has a final arbiter role.

I agree that, in an ideal world, it should sufficient to trust the legal system of another country. I'm just not entirely convinced that we live in that ideal world. Anyway, isn't it the politics of the matter that are the concern, not the strictly legal ones? If Assange is guilty of the Swedish allegations then I have no problem with him being locked up for a considerable time. I'm less comfortable with the possibility of him being somehow spirited away to the USA for a fitting with an orange jumpsuit for mere suspicion while they come up with some real evidence of wrong-doing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9349617/Seven-Britons-extradited-for-every-one-American-MP-claims.html
It is alleged that the US only needs to demonstrate “reasonable suspicion” that someone may be guilty of a crime in order to seek their surrender from Britain, whereas more information is needed to show “probable cause” and extradite a suspect from America.

Also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/14/government-extradition-law-reform

 

[Flyfisher]

I wasn't intending to cast judgement on the rioting sentences, merely comparing them to the Pussy Riot sentences because most of the coverage I've read has been critical of Russian 'heavy-handedness' and seemingly ignoring similar sentences handed down in the UK.

Fair enough. From the little I've read, the concern over the Pussy Riot sentences is not so much that they were because singing in a church, but because the songs were critical of Putin and that is why they were harsh.

Yes, that seems to have been the concern, but my point in comparing the sentence to the Gilmour/riots sentencing in the UK was to suggest that the Russian sentences were actually comparable and thus not obviously just because they were critical of Putin.

Having said that, by demonstrating in a place that was bound to cause great public offence and outrage, I'd say they stupidly handed Putin the trump card by giving him the perfect excuse for a harsh sentence on the grounds of clear public offence (just like the harsh sentences handed out to the Tottenham rioters). It was an almost perfect win-win situation for Putin - a harsh sentence that is popular with a very large section of the Russian electors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19302986
Opinion polls in Russia have shown little support for Pussy Riot.
One recent poll of Russians released by the Levada research group showed only 6% sympathised, while 51% felt antipathy or had nothing good to say about them.
One band critic, Igor Kim, told the BBC News website from Moscow: "Shouting and screaming and spreading hate in Church is unacceptable and is contrary with Christian ethics."

 

[Gareth Hughes]

One band critic, Igor Kim, told the BBC News website from Moscow: "Shouting and screaming and spreading hate in Church is unacceptable and is contrary with Christian ethics."[/i]

Unless you're a Cardinal, of course :twisted:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

One band critic, Igor Kim, told the BBC News website from Moscow: "Shouting and screaming and spreading hate in Church is unacceptable and is contrary with Christian ethics."[/i]

Unless you're a Cardinal, of course :twisted:

Absolutely Gareth. But then I don't understand why the Scottish Government is bothering to consult the Cardinal over its plans anyway. :roll:

Here's a different religious mob* attacking a "blasphemous" disabled child: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19311098 :twisted:

Hopefully, the time is approaching when mankind will look back on its dalliances with imaginary friends in much the same way as we fondly look back on the flat earthers. 8)

*other zealots are available.

 

[LadyArowana]

I think we should let the man go to Ecuador, and stay there, forever, punishment enough.

And if that nice Mr Putin had any sense he would let the little punkettes generate a teensy bit more sympathy and then on Friday afternoon issue a pardon so they could go home for the weekend and everyone will think he's done a good thing.

As for religion, and whether one is doing it right I find this a handy guide http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

 

[biffvernon]

I took this from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11949771

I see you've fallen for the propaganda then. That BBC from last January is grossly disingenuous. Study the sequence of events http://nnn.se/nordic/assange/sequence.htm

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I took this from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11949771

I see you've fallen for the propaganda then. That BBC from last January is grossly disingenuous. Study the sequence of events http://nnn.se/nordic/assange/sequence.htm

Er...no. I've read a report of what the European Arrest Warrant contains. Whether those allegations are correct, or whether the events are open to other intepretations/explanations is precisely the point of the judicial processes in Sweden. A court will determine the facts (assuming charges are laid). We tend to allow independent prosecutors in open court in front of jurors argue the case, rather than take the word of consipracy websites like the Nordic News Network (have you read some of the other stuff on that site? :roll: )

Are you saying the BBC report (and any others you care to read) of the counts in the EWA is factually incorrect - it doesn't contain those four counts? I have no idea whether he is guilty or not - only a court can determine that on the evidence laid before it. But the arrest warrant and extradition request includes those items reported.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Since we are so far off topic, let me bring it back together by posting something Scandinavian that should have been in the Olympics.

Period mobile phone throwing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19310319



And on that touch of humour, I'm going to leave the thread. 8)

 

[biffvernon]

I've read a report of what the European Arrest Warrant contains.

Oh dear me. What happened in between two women enquiring whether they can get a man with whom they had consensual sex to have an HIV test and that European Arrest Warrant appearing?

The Swedish prosecutor decided there was no case to answer.

Wikileaks demonstrated the American war crimes.

Then all hell broke lose in the propaganda war. Sadly, millions of people, aided and abetted by much of the mass media, have fallen for it.

 

[biffvernon]

Here's a handy reference sheet in case you meet anyone else who is unaware of the truth:

 

[Pford75]

Biff - For once I agree that the whole process has a bit of a 'whiff' about it....but I can't let the poorly typed propaganda sheet from Occupy (or should that be 'vacate'?) get away with one of the most outrageous twists of the truth.

In all instances, the 2 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop

Well, in one case it is correct that there was consensual intercourse. But the allegation is that there was then a second intercourse occurring whilst the plaintiff was asleep. Following the reasoning of Occupy, consenting once implies consent forever - which is clearly rubbish.

they never expressed non-consent

Kind of difficult to do when you are asleep......

I'm of a similar view to FF, that the Swedish authorities should avail themselves of the offer to meet with Assange at the embassy. If, following that discussion, they decide that they wish to proceed to formal court hearings/prosecution etc. then I would support the British authorities in their efforts to extradite him. If they decide not to proceed, then the problem goes away.

It's all very unsavoury with noone (Assange, plaintiffs, UK Gov, Swedish Gov) coming out of this looking great.

But the socialist movement has truly lost it's moral compass when it is supporting a rich, powerful businessman in avoiding the legal process following allegations of rape of two women. People are so caught up in their demonisation of the US, that they easily lose sight of what is 'right'

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I'm of a similar view to FF, that the Swedish authorities should avail themselves of the offer to meet with Assange at the embassy. If, following that discussion, they decide that they wish to proceed to formal court hearings/prosecution etc. then I would support the British authorities in their efforts to extradite him. If they decide not to proceed, then the problem goes away.

All very reasonable - except that my understanding is that that is precisely one of the tests that the UK courts applied to the extradition request; and judged that the 2nd round of questioning in the Swedish systems was pretty much equivalent to the UK stage of a charge being laid. And that requires extradition to face those questions in person. Can you really see Assange subsequently exiting the Embassy if the second round of questions leads to a formal charge?

As to your other point, yes it is quite ironic to see the twists that the left have got themselves into over this. George Galloway being an example of the current "logic" being presented.

 

[biffvernon]

Here's one that is more professionally typed, by the New York Times, from Michael Moore and Oliver Stone:

WE HAVE SPENT our careers as filmmakers making the case that the news media in the United States often fail to inform Americans about the uglier actions of our own government. We therefore have been deeply grateful for the accomplishments of WikiLeaks, and applaud Ecuador’s decision to grant diplomatic asylum to its founder, Julian Assange, who is now living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.
Ecuador has acted in accordance with important principles of international human rights. Indeed, nothing could demonstrate the appropriateness of Ecuador’s action more than the British government’s threat to violate a sacrosanct principle of diplomatic relations and invade the embassy to arrest Mr. Assange.
Since WikiLeaks’ founding, it has revealed the “Collateral Murder” footage that shows the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Baghdad civilians by a United States Apache attack helicopter; further fine-grained detail about the true face of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; United States collusion with Yemen’s dictatorship to conceal our responsibility for bombing strikes there; the Obama administration’s pressure on other nations not to prosecute Bush-era officials for torture; and much more.
Predictably, the response from those who would prefer that Americans remain in the dark has been ferocious. Top elected leaders from both parties have called Mr. Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” And Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has demanded that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations of sexual assault in 2010.
All such allegations must be thoroughly investigated before Mr. Assange moves to a country that might put him beyond the reach of the Swedish justice system. But it is the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of an investigation, not Mr. Assange.
Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear his willingness to be questioned in London. Moreover, the Ecuadorean government made a direct offer to Sweden to allow Mr. Assange to be interviewed within Ecuador’s embassy. In both instances, Sweden refused.
Mr. Assange has also committed to traveling to Sweden immediately if the Swedish government pledges that it will not extradite him to the United States. Swedish officials have shown no interest in exploring this proposal, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt recently told a legal adviser to Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks unequivocally that Sweden would not make such a pledge. The British government would also have the right under the relevant treaty to prevent Mr. Assange’s extradition to the United States from Sweden, and has also refused to pledge that it would use this power. Ecuador’s attempts to facilitate that arrangement with both governments were rejected.
Taken together, the British and Swedish governments’ actions suggest to us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden. Because of treaty and other considerations, he probably could be more easily extradited from there to the United States to face charges.
Mr. Assange has every reason to fear such an outcome.The Justice Department recently confirmed that it was continuing to investigate WikiLeaks, and just-disclosed Australian government documents from this past February state that “the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr. Assange has been ongoing for more than a year.”
WikiLeaks itself has published e-mails from Stratfor, a private intelligence corporation, which state that a grand jury has already returned a sealed indictment of Mr. Assange. And history indicates Sweden would buckle to any pressure from the United States to hand over Mr. Assange. In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the CIA, which rendered them to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them.
If Mr. Assange is extradited to the United States, the consequences will reverberate for years around the world. Mr. Assange is not an American citizen, and none of his actions have taken place on American soil. If the United States can prosecute a journalist in these circumstances, the governments of Russia or China could, by the same logic, demand that foreign reporters anywhere on earth be extradited for violating their laws. The setting of such a precedent should deeply concern everyone, admirers of WikiLeaks or not.
We urge the people of Britain and Sweden to demand that their governments answer some basic questions: Why do the Swedish authorities refuse to question Mr. Assange in London? And why can neither government promise that Mr. Assange will not be extradited to the United States? The citizens of Britain and Sweden have a rare opportunity to make a stand for free speech on behalf of the entire globe.
Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are Academy Award-winning filmmakers.

The thing is, the whole affair is not about sex. It's about exposing war crimes committed by the USA. Stop fretting about whether someone did or did not manage to have sex with somebody who was asleep but consider the Iraqi civilians gunned down in the street from an American helicopter. http://www.collateralmurder.com/

 

[Flyfisher]

The thing is, the whole affair is not about sex. It's about exposing war crimes committed by the USA. Stop fretting about whether someone did or did not manage to have sex with somebody who was asleep but consider the Iraqi civilians gunned down in the street from an American helicopter.

Fair point, so why are you getting so exercised about Assange's treatment? By your reckoning, Assange is now an irrelevance to your main issue, yet he's the one who is still getting all the media coverage and that Moore article will help that to continue. I would guess the USA is quite pleased about this as it takes the spotlight away from the actual leaks.

 

[biffvernon]

Fair point, so why are you getting so exercised about Assange's treatment?

Moore and Stone summed it up better than I can in their last couple of paragraphs.

If Mr. Assange is extradited to the United States, the consequences will reverberate for years around the world. Mr. Assange is not an American citizen, and none of his actions have taken place on American soil. If the United States can prosecute a journalist in these circumstances, the governments of Russia or China could, by the same logic, demand that foreign reporters anywhere on earth be extradited for violating their laws. The setting of such a precedent should deeply concern everyone, admirers of WikiLeaks or not.
We urge the people of Britain and Sweden to demand that their governments answer some basic questions: Why do the Swedish authorities refuse to question Mr. Assange in London? And why can neither government promise that Mr. Assange will not be extradited to the United States? The citizens of Britain and Sweden have a rare opportunity to make a stand for free speech on behalf of the entire globe.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes I understand all that.

But your earlier point was that the real issue was "about exposing war crimes committed by the USA".

That Moore/Stone article is a good defence of freedom of speech and all that good stuff, but says nothing about any alleged US war crimes.