* Posts by Scorchio!!

1640 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Jul 2010

Assange granted asylum by Ecuador after US refused to rule out charges

Scorchio!!
Happy

"what on Earth makes you think we'd be able to extradite this wanker to the US?"

I bet he wishes that he'd stuck to onanism though. I'm just saying. ;->

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Best outcome.

"It is one thing to apply the law, but another to strip the embassy of its immunity so they can storm it."

False reasoning. The British government merely pointed to the law, implying that they can close the embassy and send the staff home. Since putting people in 'diplomatic bags' is illegal, that leaves a number of questions and comparisons; housing a murderer (Libyan embassy) housing a rape suspect (Ecuadorian embassy), both serious crimes, interfering with due process in EU countries or directly committing offences, or even facilitating criminal behaviour (contempt of court in respect of European extradition warrant/EAW in respect of suspect rape charges x 4).

Diplomats and their embassies facilitating crime and giving shelter to criminals? This is the sort of thing that results in closure of embassies, especially when the embassy is of a country with such a dire and reprehensible human rights record:

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador

http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-08-16/ecuadors-record-on-freedom-of-speech-criticised-by-human-rights-groups/

http://beta.humanrightsecuador.org/?p=532

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/americas/ecuador

With a human rights and right to free speech like the above I'm very surprised that Assange has the barefaced cheek to apply to Ecuador, yet I thought again; he will have known of Ecuador's support for Argentina on the Falkland Is question, and seems to have cultivated this brutal regime well in advance of being subjected to an EAW. OTOH, it is quite clear that there is a benefit for Ecuador, one which goes far beyond the Falkland Is question, because they can say how good they are on press freedoms and human rights; look, we saved the 'journalist' whom you sought to persecute and strip of his human rights... ...over a mere rape charge.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Who cares about him?

"Contempt of court, as you call it, is just another convenient excuse in a long-running campaign to gag a political dissident."

Be bolloxed. He chose the contempt of court route, no one fitted him up, he did it of his own accord. He, the man with an £80,000 salary, a massive advance for the autobiog from which he withdrew, leaving the publisher to recoup the contracted advance by publishing, he smearing them in the way he smears anyone who does not do what he the great turkey feels they ought to; the man who wants a pay wall for 'his property', namely the information stolen from the US, the man who claimed that someone *stole* his property from him, gave it to the Grauniad and others, when all along it was not his at all. The man's hubris will topple him harder than most people think, in the long run.

Scorchio!!
Thumb Up

Re: Going back a dozen or so centuries...thank goodness the British Royal Family...

"1200 years ago there wasn't a Britain. Closest you get is Briton or the Latin name for the island Britannia. Which is different.

Mind you, 1200 years ago we were actually here..."

Indeed and, whilst we were colonists elsewhere, we did not colonise on the south American continent or its occupied islands; the Falklands were unoccupied, then settled and twice 'taken' by people descended from Spain whose monarch felt grandiose enough to give them away. Here we are, hundreds of years later, the sophisticated culture of south Amerinds now ground into the dust by catholic murderers who had no respect for it, just as they did not for the people of these islands. Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose)

Scorchio!!

"This is disturbingly funny, even though I may not be able to shake that image for quite a while..2

I think that the OP may be half remembering the late Steven Milligan, MP, who killed himself by sexual asphyxiation, with a satsuma in his mouth, thus adding to the prevailing belief that Tory scandals are almost always sexual ones. I actually felt sorry for the poor man.

Scorchio!!
Joke

"No, I'm not at all surprised that you're a fascist homophone."

And you are an imposer!

http://homophone.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophone

Scorchio!!
FAIL

"Keep hearing the name Pinochet mentioned...."

I bet you think that all modern Germans are responsible for the behaviour of their forebears too.

Watch out for this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9480944/Julian-Assange-to-issue-statement-in-front-of-embassy-haven.html

I hope that he remains on embassy property. Not really. I want him to lose his balance and fall on to the land in front of the embassy, presumably that will be the hall outside the flat in which the embassy is located.

Scorchio!!

Re: This is pure theatre on the part of Assange and Ecuador

"Both Sweden and the UK are signatories to the EU Human Right acts"

Please excuse me for correcting you; the human rights act is the domain of the European Court of Human Rights ( http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/homepage_en ), which has nothing to do with the EU. It's ironic that Churchill had much to do with setting up what has become a hot bed of political correctness, and sad.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: It's just a matter of (the whips and scorns of) time

"And you, so outraged by Assange not facing up to allegations of rape, are the picture of insouciance when it comes to some UK or US agent slipping Bolognium into his Lapsang souchong."

And you, so outraged by them, are happy with the probably dead (at the hands of the Taliban) Afghan informants ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html ) that you can sneer over your cup of mocha with Ratafia biscuits and make points of social style. Perhaps you think that war is a question of smart weapons and ice cool nerves, where heroic troops supply aid in one hand, and with the other snipe the pistol out of the terrorist's hand, all the while under a safe curtain of air support, equipped with smart guns, rockets and bombs, such that only the bad guys are KIA, oh yes.

The world glugged down Gerry Adams' (leader of Sinn Fein) claims that there was a shoot to kill policy, never mind the fact that accuracy is the domain of snipers, with the average soldier shooting at the abdomen... ...whilst terrorists lay culvert bombs/IEDs, and are forgiven. Even when they massacre children. That said, and a defence of bomb happy troops is a part of this, I would like ToniBliar et al. in the Hague, yes; he committed soldiers to a lie, and for that he must pay.

The world is a cold hard place. It always will be. Not only will nations make war, but people will raise private armies, drug barons, terrorist barons, and fight the states that protect their citizens. Meanwhile, people like Julie Asshat will expect the highest of standards from others, while putting substantial numbers of people at risk. War and preparedness for war requires secrecy. Give away your orbat and you are dead.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. Indeed, if you want it you have to fight for it. My reminders will fall on deaf ears because since WWII relatively few have an experience of war and can understand the point. Before you ask, yes I do have that experience.

I hope that I didn't cause you to stamp your feet and smash your mocha cup on my mess tin.

Scorchio!!

Re: It's just a matter of (the whips and scorns of) time

"Now he will face trial or mysteriously be found dead"

"Mysteriously found dead?"

"That sounds medieval. Something out of an old melodrama," to quote Eve Harrington."

Probably he wouldn't be found for a decade or two. Unless of course he mysteriously develops a virulent strain of HIV, or Ebola. (Wait, eBola, or was that iBOLA?) To borrow a line from the Godfather; "Oh, Julie, won't see him no more".

The Russians would have done the job irrespective of sensitivities, in full public glare they'd have poured the polonium into Julie's ears. This is what happens when most of the state duma are former KGB and FSB placemen, including the prez.

Scorchio!!
Thumb Up

Re: Can we now bet on the outcome?

"I mean, let's turn this into something that is at least mildly entertaining.."

A couple of years ago some of us laid in the popcorn. I've run out now, but am caring for a sick relative, and this is quite entertaining. Very entertaining.

Scorchio!!
Happy

Re: Assange is going to end up in US hands.

"The US is laughing its head off, because they have done exactly ZERO. Assange is doing all the scaremongering to prevent having to account for what he did in Sweden and now breaking his bail conditions. I find it spectacularly ironic that it is exactly Assange (tm) who knows full well he is bullshitting.."

...and the moral of the story is, always knock before entering and always dress for wet weather. Better still don't have sex with women in strange countries whose laws you do not know.

Here is a Russian folk tale version of the moral; a forester is walking home one moonlit night, and sees a blackbird fluttering helplessly on the frosty ground. He picks it up, opens his jacket and puts it next to his chest, for warmth. On returning to his hut he notices the muck pile is still steaming, opens up a small cavity and puts the bird in up to its neck. Time passes... ...the bird awakens and, feeling better, starts to sing... ...a passing fox notices and decides "I'll have some of that" and eats it. The moral of the story is that it is not always your enemies who get you in it, it is not always your friends who pull you out of it, and there is absolutely no sense in singing about it when you are up to your neck in it.

HTH Julie, HTH, and have a nice trip.

Scorchio!!
Joke

Re: Confucius say: "Journey of 10,000 miles begins with getting to the kerb."

"In Assange's case, easier said than done."

All your kerb are mine.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Good job Ecuador

"If no one can guarantee he won't be sent off to a country with a poor record on corruption and human rights then they did the right thing."

Amazingly this is just what Julie wants:

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador

http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

Want to see some more puppies?

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Well Done Equador

"How come Sweden couldn't interview Assange in the month he stayed there, but only found they needed him the day he left for Berlin?"

After the Swedish police told his Swedish counsel of intent to interview, charge and arrest Assange he disappeared, reappearing in England. In an English court his Swedish counsel at first denied the Swedish police had contacted him, but had to retract, in public, in an impeccable legal forum, Assange's court case in England.

As to Assange's flight from Sweden, I am no longer prepared to suspend my beliefs and disbeliefs; his behaviour has strengthened my opinion (I stress that this is an opinion, and opinions can be freely held without legal comback or hindrance as a entitled in English law) that he is indeed a rapist.

"Brave Sir Julian ran away Bravely ran away, away When danger reared its ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled Yes, brave Sir Julian turned about And gallantly he chickened out Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat Bravest of the brave, Sir Julian!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/14/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador-wikileaks?CMP=twt_gu

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Well Done Equador

"Equador has done a fine thing and we should thank them!"

Fine, upstanding protectors of indigenous peoples, the law and of course journalists:

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador

http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

Scorchio!!
Thumb Up

Re: isnt this getting a bit silly now

"When it comes to rape there can be no grey areas, it's either rape or not rape, if the woman (or man) does not give or cannot give consent then it is rape, it's as simple as that, and as one of the woman did not give consent to sex without a condom, then it most certainly is rape."

'Are you wearing anything [Julian]?' 'Yes, you'; allegedly.

Scorchio!!
Joke

Re: It's interesting ..

"Mines the one with Diplomatic bag down the side..........."

I prefer undiplomatic bags myself; sleazy and demure, as Schwarzenegger once said.

Scorchio!!
Thumb Up

Re: Best outcome.

"If only our courts had said "fuck you and your promises to stay in a nice MANSION during court proceedings, because we can't trust you after you just fled to another country last time the police wanted a word. You can sit in jail for a few weeks like anyone who didn't have your expensive lawyers and media status."

...then none of this would have happened."

Indeed, and the prosecution's original claim that Assange is a likely absconder is no longer a claim; it is a fact.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Best outcome.

"Maybe the law is wrong - or is being used maliciously - I don't see why Sweden can't question him here in the UK - or agree not to extradite him to the US – I don’t think either of these requests are unreasonable"

I can see now why RSMs despise barrack room lawyers. Here for your delectation is the truth and not some Monday morning quarterback's wild guesstimation (from this link http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf ):

"Ground of appeal 3 - Was Mr Assange accused of an offence in Sweden?

The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:

"In the present case, as is accepted there is nothing on the face of the EAW which states in terms that Mr Assange is accused of the offences. ... The fact that the term “accused of the offence” is not used does not matter if it is clear from the EAW that he was wanted for prosecution and not merely for questioning." (para 148)

He went on to say:

"In our judgment Mr Assange is on the facts before this court “accused” of the four offences. There is a precise description in the EAW of what he is said to have done. The extraneous evidence shows that there has been a detailed investigation. The evidence of the complainants AA and SW is clear as to what he is said to have done as we have set out. On the basis of an intense focus on the facts he is plainly accused. That is ... decisive." (para 151)"

"He added:

"... even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange." (para 153)

The Court dismissed this ground of appeal."

"Ground of appeal 4 - Proportionality (paras 155 - 160)

Mr Assange submitted that even if under the EAW he was technically a person accused of offences, it was disproportionate to seek his surrender under the EAW. That was because, as he had to be questioned before a decision was made on prosecution, he had offered to be questioned over a video link. It would therefore have been proportionate to question him in that way and to have reached a decision on whether to charge him before issuing the EAW. (para 155)

The Court dismissed this argument on the facts. The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:

"First, in this case, the challenge to the issue of the warrant for the arrest of Mr Assange failed before the Court of Appeal of Svea. In those circumstances, taking into account the respect this court should accord the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea in relation to proceedings governed by Swedish procedural law, we do not consider the decision to issue the EAW could be said to be disproportionate.

"Second and in any event, this is self evidently not a case relating to a trivial offence, but to serious sexual offences. Assuming proportionality is a requirement, it is difficult to see what real scope there is for the argument in circumstances where a Swedish Court of Appeal has taken the view, as part of Swedish procedure, that an arrest is necessary." (paras 158 - 159)

He added:

"... The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution. … Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute." (para 160)

Conclusion (para 161)

The Court dismissed the appeal."

Scorchio!!

Re: Best outcome.

"Agreed, but then nobody ever suggested that William Hague is not an idiot."

Nobody that you have observed, that is. There again, to my knowledge no one has ever suggested that you are not a paedophile. Would you be happy with a leap from logic here?

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Best outcome. @Doug10

">The consent was conditional on the condom

I understand that but are you really suggesting that even he is so pig ugly that they had sex in total darkness and the girls didn't know he was bareback?"

In the case of his sexual liaison with one of the women, he used a condom the night before; the next morning she awoke to find Assange copulating and asked him if he was wearing anything, to which he allegedly responded "yes, you".

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Best outcome.

"not charged, only wanted for questioning (AFAIU)."

You understand wrongly; the Swedish police informed his lawyer that they wanted (following the required format in the Swedish CJS) to interview, charge and arrest him for rape. The next day Assange appeared in the UK. Assange's Swedish professional association announced intent to interview their member who at first, in an English court, claimed he'd had no contact from the Swedish police but, on scrutinising his mobile phone record (still in court) had to retract his statement. Shabby lawyer for a shabby man? This is so very unsavoury, tawdry, and matches the charges.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Best outcome. @Doug10

"What exactly has he been charged with?

As far as I'm aware he hasn't been sharged with anything and is simply wanted for questioning over having consensual sex without a condom after the girl or girls decided a few days after the act that maybe that hadn't been such a good idea.

The questioning could be achieved without requiring extradition, so why all the effort to get him to Sweden?"

The procedure in the Swedish CJS is to interview, arrest and charge; the Swedish police unwisely advised his legal representative that they intended to enact this chain, and the next day he appeared in England. His solicitor denied, in an English court, that the Swedish police had even contacted him but, on inspecting his mobile phone in court, had to retract this claim. His professional association made it clear that they wanted to pursue the matter with him, and another dubious episode in the whole affair has tainted what was presumably a clean record, all because of a man who pays himself £80,000 a year, who took a substantial advance from a publisher on his autobiog and then retracted (keeping the money), who wanted to institute a pay wall for access to what he described (when it was 'stolen' from him by Domscheit-Berg) as "his" property (property of various governments actually), the man who spoke excoriatingly of the Afghan informants whose position he gave away (they knew what they were getting in to and accepted the risk) in front of two journalists (one from the Grauniad IIRC):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/leaked-details-put-informant-lives-in-danger/story-e6frg6so-1225898206990

The man is a convict ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Hacking_and_conviction ) and even hacked the Australian police computers connected with the investigation into his illegal activities, and what we now see is the logical outcome of failing to punish properly a criminal convicted on 25 counts. He was warned that another prosecution would result in incarceration, and seems to have taken this seriously; there appear to be no 'dabs' on the evidence linking Assange with the theft of data, but I am willing to bet there is a trace somewhere.

As to the sex, Scandinavian and Germanic countries have a thing for sexual hygiene that is absent in the UK (perhaps this explains our high teen pregnancy rates and the recent concern over STDs in this country), as is clear in this instance alone: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10983227

Assange's case merits appropriate examination in the jurisdiction where the alleged offences are said to have occurred.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Best outcome.

"Well done Ecquador, you have done the right thing morally and intellectually."

The Hispanic colonists of south American territory?

http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador

These people treat their own citizens in a manner reminiscent of Chavez and other socialist would be/becoming dictators/presidents for life. Why don't you try living there for a while and see if you enjoy their rule of law?

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/31/ecuador-calls-for-an-end-to-colonialism-in-malvinas-puerto-rico-and-guantanamo

Oh, colonial rule, what they have in Ecuador. The history of Hispanic colonialism in south America is more brutal than they like to admit or remember.

Scorchio!!

Re: Getting him out

"play counter strike over the buildings lan"

It is a flat.

Scorchio!!
Joke

Re: About time

"If I were Assange (tm) I would start keeping away from the windows and check my food very carefully in the dark."

After a few months I won't be surprised to hear that even his shit glows in the dark.

Assange's fate to be revealed at high noon

Scorchio!!

Re: Whatever law is cited...

"@Scorchio!!

You're talking about legal extradition. You're missing the option of illegal extradition."

I can't be sure if I've replied to you because I have a lot on the boil here. However, the simplest procedure would be to allow Assange to escape to Ecuador and put someone in place to have him killed, or arrange for him to fall down a ravine, in front of a bus/some other simple and final end.

Scorchio!!
Happy

Re: Legal basis?

"Are you a thick as shit in the neck of a bottle troll, or something? "

Oooh, language little boi. The EAW legislation is such that the country (that's a country called Sweden, little boy) issuing an EAW cannot, if successful in retrieving their target, allow the individual to be extradited to another country without the original country's legal say so (that's the United Kingdom, little boy).

If you think that, with the shit storm made by paranoid people like you, the Swedes are about to break the laws on EAW procedures I think that you are truly paranoid. I recommend that you go to this site for help on the matter: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

HAVND, and watch out for cracks in pavements.

Scorchio!!
Thumb Up

"Jedward."

ToniBliar.

Scorchio!!
Devil

"f) find out that when a girl says "no" she really does mean "no"."

Hmm. "Hey, bubba, are you wearing anything?" "Yes Julie, you".

Scorchio!!

Re: Getting him out

"Someone watches QI. :-)"

This is going to sound bad, but what is QI; I don't receive television where I live.

Scorchio!!
Thumb Up

Re: To modify your analogy slightly

"If this was about Assange, him pissing off to Ecuador is the BEST result for everyone who is involved with him:

The US get to quietly murder him."

Indeed, but I don't think it will be a bullet or poison. They'll inject him with an incurable disease, plus preferably a STD. He'll waste away, people will say he got what he deserved.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Whatever law is cited...

"@That Steve Guy

You moron.

Criminal: a person who has been convicted of a crime.

Are you claiming that Mr. Assange has been convicted anywhere in the world?"

Clever boi! Well dun! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Hacking_and_conviction

Scorchio!!
Black Helicopters

Re: Whatever law is cited...

"@Scorchio!!

You're talking about legal extradition. You're missing the option of illegal extradition.

Are there black helicopters outside your room? Do you think that people are reading your thoughts, or inserting thought into your head? Then this is for you; http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Scorchio!!
Stop

Re: Whatever law is cited...

"the accusation is from a woman who wrote a paper on getting "revenge" on unfaithful men by accusing them of sexual misconduct"

Full bibliographic citation plus full data indicating the name and other details of the accuser, or retract the claim.

I have a feeling that the accuser's name has not been released yet, but notwithstanding that, produce the data.

Scorchio!!
Angel

Re: Legal basis?

"There's a sort of poetic justice in having them have to put up with Assange in their cramped embassy for a few years."

I understand that his personal hygiene is not too good. There was a long article covering everything about him plus an interview, and this came up as well as the tendency of girlies to wash and iron his clothes for him. The poor love. ;->

Scorchio!!
Angel

Re: Legal basis?

"WWTBOFHD?"

'Throw the prisoner out of the airlock'.

Scorchio!!

Re: Legal basis?

" "No. Even if you want to argue that CD plates prevent police stopping him"

Which they don't."

Indeed, but you have to allow for the k00kier posters that have arrived.

" "he has to tread on the soil between the ground floor flat in which the embassy is housed and the car outside"

Not that that is Ecuadorian soil anyway. We have legal recourse to enter. It wouldn't be "playing nice", but Ecuador have already thrown the rules of diplomacy out of the window."

Indeed, but it seems to have escaped the resident k00k population's attention that, in between the car and embassy lies ground over which the Met have unrestricted control. Even if he appeared in a car with CD plates, somehow dodging the cordon, they'd simply block the car until he was 'released'. A T-ray scanner, kept outside the premises, will quickly reveal if a) Assange has left the building and b) if Assange is in a diplomatic 'bag'. He cannot win, unless he has a 'cunning plan'.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Legal basis?

"I didn't make the "walking softly" reference in the case of this person "

No, but you picked up the ball and ran with the conflation others have been making as pointed out by the original poster:

"On one side we have appeals to legalism with rants about HE BROKE THE LAW while at the same time all the "walking softly" approach where said "law" is bent to suit the nations involved behind closed doors."

This has bollox to do with diplomacy in the current context, this has to do with another in which the Ecuadorian government is manipulating an issue (the Falkland Is at one end, Guantanamo at the other, another form of issue conflation by the Hispanic colonialists of Ecuador/etcetera) because they conflated two issues, as I have pointed out a couple of times: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/31/ecuador-calls-for-an-end-to-colonialism-in-malvinas-puerto-rico-and-guantanamo . I don't see them returning Ecuador to the indigenous peoples any day soon.

"who you know is not convicted of *these* crimes. Or even charged for that matter."

No, I KNOW that Assange was convicted on 25 counts, which you would have known had you followed the story, thus he is a convict:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Hacking_and_conviction

Assange is a convict: A convict is "a person found guilty of a crime and sentenced by a court" or "a person serving a sentence in prison" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict ). He was convicted on 25 counts and let off lightly on grounds of a traumatic childhood, and that he was merely exercising intellectual curiosity when he hacked (e.g.) the Pentagon, and hacked the Australian state police force that was investigating him (I had to laugh when I read that piece of naïveté). He was advised that the penalty for being found guilty again would likely involve a fairly long spell inside. It would seem that he has managed to find someone who is willing to do his dirty work for him, using classic SE rather than hacking skills.

Is this why Assange is in such a panic? Does he really believe that being in Sweden risks him being extradited to the US, terms and conditions of an EAW notwithstanding? Or does he fear being branded a sex offender, does he KNOW that he has not a leg to stand on?

Certainly something troubles him, and his claims do not stack up.

HTH, old bean.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Whatever law is cited...

"Since you are familiar with non-sequitur, you will undoubtedly be intimately familiar with ad hominem too."

Indeed I am and, faced with repeated silliness in response to the facts I decided to ask the question, rather than to deploy a judgement; your projection is greatly appreciated though.

"Under Swedish law, Sweden cannot allow extradition to Egypt "

This is not Egypt, it is not America, this is an EAW compiled under European law; the state issuing the EAW cannot, by this very law, allow an EAW arrested individual to be extradited to another state without asking the state to whom the original EAW was issued for authority. Furthermore, in pointing this out to the US, the Swedish authorities offered the US the option to apply to the UK for extradition before they took the option themselves, and the US declined. Is this too difficult for you, or would you like captions for the thinking impaired?

As far as your claim that there is a non sequitur here, think again; what I said was not intended to follow from the point you made, nor is it necessary to; this case is taking place in the full glare of international publicity and the superior legal formation in the matter is the EU, not Sweden.

Scorchio!!

Re: "Even the Guardian have been getting stuff wrong"

"Does that imply that you think you know of an occasion when the Guardian got something right?"

They thought they were right about the sinking of the General Belgrano, until the appropriate heads of Argentinian service agreed that it was at the start of an attack manoeuvre, beginning with the away pass prior to turning. They fully intended to sink our ships, and that is the way war goes.

You will probably the current imbroglio has an obvious explanation, inasmuch that the current descendants of Hispanic colonists do not like the British one bit, and Ecuador is clearly no exception:

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/31/ecuador-calls-for-an-end-to-colonialism-in-malvinas-puerto-rico-and-guantanamo

Heh.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Legal basis?

"On one side we have appeals to legalism with rants about HE BROKE THE LAW while at the same time all the "walking softly" approach where said "law" is bent to suit the nations involved behind closed doors."

I am sorry to disappoint you but Assange is not a diplomat, and the 'walking softly' phrase is completely bizarre, irrelevant and non sequitur in the case of this convict, who is wanted in another EU jurisdiction.

HTH

Scorchio!!
Devil

Re: Legal basis?

No. Even if you want to argue that CD plates prevent police stopping him (since they would be carrying a wanted man I doubt it, and in these days of Police Cams I suspect the Ecuadorian government will be careful here), he has to tread on the soil between the ground floor flat in which the embassy is housed and the car outside; in between Julie and that car you will find several burly constables.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Legal basis?

"Obviously, but JA is already "in" on an Australian passport. So. The question remains. What happens when JA walks out of the embassy in possession of an Ecuadorian diplomatic passport?"

Because the UK won't accredit him for UK diplomatic status he goes to gaol. He does not pass go, he does not collect his £80,000 salary and, unless Scotty can beam him aboard, he goes to Sweden.

His Australian passport is an irrelevance because of crimes that Assange allegedly committed in Sweden.

This is the end of the road.

Scorchio!!

Re: Legal basis?

"The UK issues Ecuadorian diplomatic passports?"

Without their authority one for use in the UK cannot be issued. It therefore follows that, irrespective of how many diplomatic accreditations the tin foil brigade would like Ecuador to give in different countries, the one that matters is an accreditation in the UK, and ONLY the UK can authorise it. If you are holding your breath I have to tell you that you are out of luck.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Whatever law is cited...

"Shurely schome mishtake?"

Indeed you made one, and should apologise for what I can only describe as what seems to be a high frequency of non sequitur arguments coming from the pro Assange side of things; under the EAW Sweden cannot accede to any US extradition approach without first asking the UK for their permission to extradite. That is to say, he is safer in Sweden than here because he can play divide and rule through two legal systems instead of one.

Perhaps you don't understand this, perhaps you are not very intelligent, perhaps you are instead playing a silly game but, simply, under EU law/the EAW Sweden cannot allow extradition to the US without asking us nicely. This law was was written specifically to prevent people from moving pieces on the international chess board, the better to persecute others, and you should be very pleased too.

HTH.

Scorchio!!

Re: Whatever law is cited...

"While Sweden is perceived as a liberal state, the judicial system is not based on jury trial"

This is not new; much of the continent operates using the inquisitorial model of justice, rather than the adversarial form practised in our courts, parading prejudice, arrogance and smears in front of a jury in the hope of persuading them... ...as many continentals would see the matter.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Legal basis?

What I was asking was does a person in possession of a diplomatic passport have a greater measure of protection against a hostile foreign legal system than a normal passport holder? And if not what is the justification behind their issue?

No, this is what you posted:

"Surely he doesn't need to be made a diplomat, only given a diplomatic passport. It's not the same thing and fuck-all to do with the host nation."

In plain language, it has every fucking thing to do with the host nation who will not permit the issue of a diplomatic passport, because they control their borders, not the guest nation.

Scorchio!!
FAIL

Re: Legal basis?

"I do know several military people who travel on UK diplomatic passports who are most definitely not diplomats in any guest nation. Does this provide any additional protection to a normal passport? Bono estente."

To reiterate, the host country is responsible for the correct and proper issuance of diplomatic passports, and that is the UK in this instance; as with every host country they will only authorise such an issue to someone if they are not wanted for crimes in the EU and host nation. As it is a European arrest warrant has been issued for an alleged crime in an EU country, the full and proper judicial process for contesting the EAW has been exhausted and, the moment this happened, the alleged perpetrator took refuge in a the embassy of a foreign power, not for the purpose of genuine asylum, but to evade arrest on the grounds of a bona fide arrest warrant, it being that Assange fled jurisdiction (Sweden) when they were about to arrest and charge him and informed his legal advisor so (naive, yes).

Finally, under EU law someone taken from one country to another under an EAW cannot be extradited from the second EU country without prior legal assent by the first country. It would be easier to extradite Assange to the US from here than Sweden, because Assange would be subject to only one set of laws.

HTH.