dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
41
share rss forum feed

PrntRhd
Premium
join:2004-11-03
Fairfield, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Frodo

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

Equador is misguided.
They can provide asylum to protect someone who is being sent to a country where the individual would not survive or would be tortured. It is Equador's right to protect a refugee against those types of human rights abuses. The same right Sweden has.
That is not the case when the extradition is for a sexual assault case, a charge that would be handled the same way in Sweden, the UK, and most of the developed world. No one is saying Sweden would torture or kill Assange, so the extradition should be allowed as all levels of the UK courts have already ruled.
Assange is not a political prisoner in the UK, he is a person accused of a crime in a third country that was detained in the UK.
If Assange wants to hide in the Equador embassy in Sweden after justice is done, so be it.

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1
said by PrntRhd:

Equador is misguided.

Ecuador agrees that Assange should answer for the allegations in Sweden. However Ecuador wants assurance that in allowing Assange to be extradited to Sweden, he is not subsequently extradited to a 3rd country with a kangaroo government, a country that fancies themselves as the world's policeman for a political prosecution.

So, if one truly wants these sexual assualt allegations to be resolved, then one would hope Sweden and Great Britian issue the guarantees.

PrntRhd
Premium
join:2004-11-03
Fairfield, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Equador is asking for conditions on an extradition that is not to be decided by Equador.
Have we reached the point where every country in the world has veto power over court decisions in every other countries' courts? The UK has every right to be pissed at the interference.

As to Assaunge bringing a case to the World Court, he is not a country.. under what jurisdiction is he?

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1
said by PrntRhd:

The UK has every right to be pissed at the interference.

The UK can be pissed all they want to. But Assange is not an ordinary defendant. He is a person that politicians in a 3rd country, a corporate controlled and run banana republic that fancies themselves as the world policeman have called for his assassination. Therefore Ecuador is within its rights to requests guarantees that Assange not be extradited to such a banana republic.

Great Britain and Sweden maintain that the extradition is for the sexual assault allegations. Why not simply issue the guarantees that the extradition will be confined to dealing with these allegations, and then the matter can be resolved in Sweden.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

1 recommendation

said by Frodo:

Great Britain and Sweden maintain that the extradition is for the sexual assault allegations. Why not simply issue the guarantees that the extradition will be confined to dealing with these allegations, and then the matter can be resolved in Sweden.

Because that's not the way the legal systems, of ANY nation, actually work. Assange is not charged with any crime in the US, nor has the US asked for him to be extradited, from anywhere. They have been reported as "considering" charges. So what? Until there's an extraditable charge, and a request for extradition made, the UK or Sweden, have absolutely nothing to decide. Nobody is going to give anyone carte blanche immunity from extradition over some entirely hypothetical charge. Sorry, but for now, this looks like a guy trying to skip out on his rape charges, whatever else he may or may not have done aren't the current questions of the day...
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong