Security → Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

Does anyone really believe that Sweden isn't kissing Yankee ass?

The U.S. is PO'ed at him for releasing that info and now is asserting it's bully tactics again...........like setting him up on the sex charges.

The Brits and Sweden should be ashamed.

Do you have any evidence of US involvement in the Sweden sex crime charges? Or that these charges were, in any way, a set-up? If so, perhaps the Swedish justice system would like a word with you. Or you might have submitted such things to the various courts in the UK that considered whether or not to extradite him. Neither you nor anyone else presented any such evidence.

It’s outrageous that Bradley Manning’s trial has again been postponed by the action of the government 'til next spring. He will have spent—he's already spent more than 800 days in confinement, 10 months of it and more in conditions that Amnesty International called torture. The idea that President Obama ended torture is simply not true. He didn’t end it even in this country, in terms of isolated commitment, incommunicado, basically, and conditions of nudity, in some cases, intended to humiliate him—all intended to press him to cop a plea and reduce his sentence from the life sentence they’re asking to a much lower sentence, if he will only implicate Julian Assange in ways that would allow them to bring a trial without great embarrassment.

Now, let me enlarge on that for a moment. They don’t have to extradite anyone to bring someone under these charges under the WikiLeaks disclosures. Everything Julian Assange could possibly be charged with under our law was committed as an act by Bill Keller, the president—sorry, the managing editor of—the executive editor of the New York Times. I don’t mean the New York Times should be indicted or that Keller should be indicted. That would be an outrage, just as it is an outrage to think of indicting Julian Assange for exactly the same thing. But meanwhile, Bradley Manning is facing charges that he aided the enemy, absurd charges that amount virtually to treason. And many people have even called for execution of either of them. Well, obviously, the same charges then could lead to Julian Assange being tried under the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which has just been found unconstitutional by a courageous and right-thinking judge in the first—in the district of Manhattan—

AMY GOODMAN: The record of President Obama on whistleblowers: six whistleblowers charged under the Obama administration, more than in all—under the administrations of all past presidents combined, Dan Ellsberg?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Twice as many. Twice as many as all past presidents. There was a total of three under past presidents, one each. I was the first ever charged with those charges. Obama has brought six such charges. And apparently his grand jury in Virginia is seeking at least a seventh, and perhaps more, against Assange and others. Twice as many as all previous.

Me thinks you need to read up more on the story, but in Daniel Ellserg's words.

No. There's been no evidence presented anywhere, by Mr. Ellsberg, Assange's defense team, or anyone else that says this is anything but.....a rape investigation. Elaborate fantasies strewn about? Sure. Lots of those.

It's also worth noting, that Ellsberg turned himself in to US police and faced his accusers at trial, rather than cowardly holing himself up in some dip-shit Third World embassy...

...as yet for the night in question with 2 ladies at once...

Maybe then, while you are being straight forward and asking for facts, when then hasn't the govt of the ladies in question sat down to hear Julian's story, as there are no charges yet to be answered for there.

We are still on the same page then.
So why then can't the country of the nationality of the ladies in question give a signed document releasing his back to Equator after the trial?

But to hear the English were rumored to take by force is not due process, that is certain.

It was a pretty stupid idea anyhow...

Because to do so is to squash an extradition order that has not yet even been filed, let alone requested. No Country is going to do that.

You're misunderstanding the Rule of Specialty. It applies to a Country agreeing to only charge the defendant on the extradited charge. Not a hypothetical 3rd party Country's extradition request.

...
I found a state department document. (PDF)
»www.state.gov/documents/ ··· 7313.pdf

Under the section of Rule of Specialty:
"1. A person extradited under this Agreement shall not be arrested, detained, tried or punished in the jurisdiction of the requesting Government for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted nor be extradited by that Government to a third country..."

It would seem to me that there would have to be something to prevent two countries from acting in concert, otherwise the specialty clause would be circumvented. I'm not seeing anything that contradicts Ecuador's position.

the wording simply indicates that there shall be no extradition to a third country unless the original requested country agrees.

Frankly, I suspect the Swedes and Brits both just wish Assange would simply evaporate...

Frodo, if the rule of specialty does apply as Ecuador thinks it does, then why is there a need for any kind of guarantee of anything at all since he's already protected. Further, why the worry of going to Sweden vs being in the UK and being extradited for the same thing.