Assange Watch

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Aug 2015, 20:50

Snail wrote:So someone remind me, why didn't USA get UK to extradite him originally. Apart from no USA charges.

They probably though that Sweden would be able to do their dirty work for them. Ecuador was a surprise to them.

And yes, UE, that was certainly one of John's sillier statements!

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Aug 2015, 20:54

He was, however, previously not in the Embassy.

I am happy to look at the wider question in terms of extradition if you can give me links to that. You make a reasonable argument, but I would need to check the fact behind it.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Aug 2015, 21:01

johnhemming2 wrote:He was, however, previously not in the Embassy.

Well he wasn't born in the embassy!

He only went there when he thought the risk of being sent to Sweden (and then USA) became immanent.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Aug 2015, 21:13

A quick google search finds
http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-s ... 012-8?IR=T

Where Sweden also won't extradite him if he faces the death penalty.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 06 Aug 2015, 21:37

johnhemming2 wrote:A quick google search finds
http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-s ... 012-8?IR=T

Where Sweden also won't extradite him if he faces the death penalty.

But will be more than happy to if he faces rotting away for the rest of his life in some US hellhole of a prison. As you well know and understand.

So, that's alright then, eh?

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 06 Aug 2015, 21:46

Jh: Yes, and anyway the USA could have given a guarantee that the death penalty won't be used.

the rape allegation smear has always seemed bogus to me. Maybe too much uncertainty over a successful prosecution in the US. So get at him some other way.

--
Sweden or UK - the extradition is similar.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Aug 2015, 22:02

I could understand an argument (which is what was initially made) that he might face the death penalty on extradition from Sweden. That, however, is not the case. The question then is whether extradition from Sweden is easier than the UK. I would think not, but am willing to look at evidence (source references please) to justify the case that it is.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 06 Aug 2015, 22:10

Ive been busy reading, and if seems that its harder to extradite him from Sweden than the UK. AFAIK, he can't be extradited from Sweden for a political crime(espionage), or a military one. Maybe I'm mistaken, but we all know how easy it is to go from the uk to america.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Aug 2015, 22:17

John and Snail,

All the information you require is in here:

https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

It ought to be completely bloody obvious that Assange is stuck in that embassy for the sole reason that the only alternative currently on offer is to end up in US custody for the rest of his life.

It most certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to avoid a trial in Sweden on the most obviously trumped up rape case (not charge...he still has not been charged) in legal history. A rape case where the supposed victims have openly stated that they were not raped? What other possible explanation is there for this crazy non-case against him, and the bizarre behaviour of the Swedish prosecutor, apart from that the US wants him and the only way it can be guaranteed to get him is via Sweden. This theory makes perfect sense. No other theory makes any sense at all.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Aug 2015, 22:24

That is a website with one side of the argument which is not particularly well argued.

What I need is a proper analysis of the reason why Sweden is worse than the UK.

I am not inclined to spend a lot of time on it, but the original argument about the death penalty does not hold water.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Aug 2015, 22:27

johnhemming2 wrote:That is a website with one side of the argument which is not particularly well argued.

What I need is a proper analysis of the reason why Sweden is worse than the UK.

I am not inclined to spend a lot of time on it, but the original argument about the death penalty does not hold water.

So are you seriously telling me you think it is more likely - or even remotely plausible - that Assange has taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's worried about facing a rape charge in Sweden where the supposed victims have openly and clearly stated that they were not raped, and the fact that the US quite obviously want to get hold of him as got nothing to do with it???

How can anybody in their right mind think this???

Do you know how much it has cost the UK taxpayer to police the Embassy since he took refuge in it? Somebody wants him very badly indeed, and the idea that it is Sweden because of this rape case is simply not believable. The crime he's accused of in Sweden is not that serious, even if there was any evidence he'd actually committed it. The US, on the other hand, has a reason to want to get hold of him very badly indeed.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 06 Aug 2015, 22:35

Not to mention the fact the Sweden has form when it comes to extraditing and extraordinary rendition to the US;

https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/swe ... -rendition

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Aug 2015, 22:38

I am simply saying that I see no evidence that the UK is better than Sweden.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 06 Aug 2015, 22:40

johnhemming2 wrote:I am simply saying that I see no evidence that the UK is better than Sweden.

No, you weren't. You were also seeking to imply that there is no particular danger to Assange if he goes to Sweden. Which is, of course, complete bullshit. But, then, you knew that. The danger to Assange, is worse than that, though. Both Sweden and the UK are more or less equally dangerous to him. Hence his current enforced situation as political prisoner in the Ecuadorian embassy.

tpals · Post by **tpals** » 06 Aug 2015, 22:47

Little John wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:I am simply saying that I see no evidence that the UK is better than Sweden.
No, you weren't. You were also seeking to imply that there is no particular danger to Assange if he goes to Sweden. Which is, of course, complete bullshit. But, then, you knew that. The danger to Assange, is worse than that, though. Both Sweden and the UK are more or less equally dangerous to him. Hence his current enforced situation as political prisoner in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Really? I thought he was trying to cover up that he didn't have a clue about something that was a major news event in his own country.