Is any one in the Guatemalan government (a) calling for the trial of someone who has never been there and (b) has the power to make somewhere like Sweden do something illegal?
No, now stop being foolish and claiming that the global reach of the US is remotely comparable to Guatemala.
And that's irrelevant - you have no idea who wants a piece of Assange.
Once again, if the "global reach" of the US was in play here, why was he safe in the UK? Not one of his supporters has ever been able to answer that question properly - if anything, he should have been less safe fleeing to the UK, but no, he chose to come here. Why? If his goal was to stay out of the hands of the US, France would have been a better option before the UK, as France has stood up to the US and UK several times in recent years. So why the UK?
Irrelevant. The subject is negotiating terms and conditions whether or not you like it.
Assange can make all the demands he wants, that doesn't make it a negotiation.
That's all you can ever say since you can't prove a negative. Nonetheless, Sweden is on record as colluding much more strongly than allowing a flight to stop there. They physically handed people to the CIA to be tortured, something there is no record of the UK doing.
And there are also copious records that the judicial system of Sweden did not agree with that treatment, with significant damages being awarded and residency permits being issued.
I'm still trying to ascertain how you think what happened in Sweden was anything other than an illegal act that has been acknowledged and corrected...
You can't deny it happened though, and the "legal recriminations" were tiny.
Well, the Swedish government wasn't disbanded and people weren't imprisoned, but there were legal recriminations, which pours water on your assertions that it will happen again in the case of Assange.
And in any case, why shouldn't Assange be extradited to the US?
Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US?
Because Assange has never been to the US and has never committed a crime there.
He has also never been to Guatemala and never committed a crime there. Are we going to have to enumerate every country that Assange has never been to and never committed a crime in?
An arrest warrant is not a negotiation, the subject does not get to detail terms and conditions.
Well, it seems given that Assange is not under arrest, reality disagrees with you.
An arrest warrant means there is a warrant for his arrest. It has nothing to do with whether the subject is actually, currently under arrest.
Assange is free to continue to avoid being arrested, but that doesn't mean he can set terms and conditions for his surrender to the authorities. The arrest warrant can remain in force for as long as needed.
The "extradition to the US" thing is another of Assanges distractions, as it would have been easier to extradite him from the UK than it would from the US
Except you know, Sweden just handed people over to the CIA to be tortured with no evidence, no trial and no judicial oversight of any sort. The UK has never done that.
And your point is? How does any agreement not to extradite prevent that?
Also, as there have been extraordinary rendition flights from the UK to the US, all you can say is that the UK have never been caught...
which allows the US to require Assange to be extradited with minimal reason.
But they do need a reason, unlike Sweden who has a record of not requiring reasons.
Also, torture.
Under the Extradition Act 2003, all that is needed is "reasonable suspicion" for someone to be extradited from the UK to the US. You also ignore the fact that there were legal recriminations for the Swedish government in the specific cases on which you are basing your comments about Sweden, with significant damages being awarded to multiple individuals.
This wasnt a UN resolution nor a formal statement, it was an opinion issued by the Working Group On Arbitrary Detention, an independent body formed by a UN mandate to investigate reports - it has no legal position, no legal standing and its opinions are not backed by a judicial stance or position.
Its a ludicrous opinion that they came to, because in their full explanation on the matter, they consider not only Assanges current situation in the Ecuadoran embassy to be "unlawful detention", but also every moment he spent under judicial remand in the UK - including his original arrest prior to bail, his detention at his friends house during the court cases and appeals, *and* his self-imposed detention in the Ecuadoran embassy.
So yes, the Working Group On Arbitrary Detention considers the legal processes of the UK to be "unlawful detention", a situation that *millions* of cases over hundreds of years in the UK and hundreds of cases over dozens of years in the European Court of Human Rights has never, ever come to.
The Working Group On Arbitrary Detention, a panel of 5 people, seems to think it has a better opinion than tens of thousands of judges and judicial representatives across several countries.
Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US? Assange isn't bargaining from a position of power, why should Sweden agree to anything?
An arrest warrant is not a negotiation, the subject does not get to detail terms and conditions.
The "extradition to the US" thing is another of Assanges distractions, as it would have been easier to extradite him from the UK than it would from the US. And yet he lived here in complete safety for years before consigning himself to the Ecuadoran embassy. People should read up on the Extradition Act 2003, which allows the US to require Assange to be extradited with minimal reason.
Why should Sweden have to interview someone not on their own terms? There is no requirement for an interview to take place at the pleasure of the person being interviewed.
Aside from that, you do know that Ecuador has been blocking Swedish attempts to interview Assange in their embassy for the past 3 years, right? One thing after another, with even a treaty being signed just in January about legal cooperation, and still the Ecuadorians are blocking Swedish access to Assange on embassy property.
Even if the statute of limitations on the original charges expire, he is still in breach of bail conditions and as such the immediate arrest warrant is for that - the first point of call should he step outside of the embassy will be to be put infront of a judge, who will remand him into custody for breach of bail conditions. This will happen for as long as the bail warrant is outstanding against him, and as such is now an issue unto itself.
Even if Sweden drop charges, at this point he could find himself doing prison time for the bail offences alone.
Yup, the ruling is essentially a deconstruction of the rule of law - a lawful agency and government is no longer allowed to pursue someone who has had a lawful arrest warrant issued against them if said person decides to place themselves into a situation where their only possible actions are "surrender to the authorities" or "remain in self detention".
What was this UN panel smoking at the time they came to the conclusion they did? Was Osama bin Laden "unlawfully detained" in his Pakistani compound because the world was looking for him?
No, the UK does not say that - this has been settled three times in British courts with regard to this specific case, and each time the EAW has been found to be legal and correct, with many pages spent explaining the determinations in detail.
Oh give me a fucking break, yes he has mental issues, no that doesnt fucking mean we have to cater to his every whim when he says stupid shit in a very public manner - he thinks Twitter is a shit hole, but he contributed to it up til today. Good riddance imho - he is every much the attention whore he comes across as, no need to indulge him.
Yes, the room had started to smell a bit, but now Mr Fry has left said room, the smell is improving moment by moment.
He does this every year, hes quite the prima donna over here in the UK. I don't really care for him, its not as if Twitter is going to be less of a place without him - until he decides to return (again) in a couple of months.
You don't seem to get that this is as much a game of "wack-a-mole" as is killing off The Pirate Bay. An Indian call centre doesn't give a toss that its causing third parties problems, so long as they have their leased line then they can gain access to the global telecoms network anywhere in the world - they can make millions of calls a week, so if it takes them a day to find a new route then they don't particularly give a damn in the mean time, its the cost of doing business to them. No one is going to take their leased line off them...
Even BT doesn't vet companies that connect directly to its network, so its not going to be able to force anyone else to vet who connects to theirs - and the point I am raising is that most telecoms networks cannot vet who connects to them. One call centre can spread its call load out over dozens of intermediaries, all coming into the UK from different foreign telecoms networks. You simply cannot resolve that problem.
Not really, because all that happens then is Indian telecoms companies hand off to South Africa, who hands off to BT. No change then, another origin to deal with.
Same issue with VOIP, they dont have to terminate in the UK, they can terminate anywhere in the world.
The problem with the way the international telecommunications systems are set up is that no, you dont know where the call originates from, just that a network next to yours is handing it to you - its essentially one massive Tor network where the upstream routing information passed around cannot be trusted. You bill the person than handed it to you, they bill the person that handed it to them and so on.
This is why Indian call centres can buy blocks of a million phone numbers, hit UK targets all week and not be penalised for it.
BT cant solve this on their own, because that would require them to be able to force other telecoms companies to solve their own problems with the setup or simply reject 99% of all international calls made.
If the "crime" had no equivalent in the UK, then Assange would have easily won his case in the UK at the very first court hearing, as the concept of "dual criminality" is paramount when it comes to extradition warrants and UK law - you cannot be extradited from the UK if the charge you are to be extradited for is not a crime in the UK, and on all the charges on the extradition warrant against Assange the requirement of dual criminality was satisfied.
It is amusing to see in these threads those people who actually know nothing about the facts of the extradition case against Assange.
No, skipping bail is illegal in the UK, especially after the extradition warrant against you is found to be 100% valid and legal. The rest of the legal case is Swedens, the bit ruled on by the UK passes UK law just fine.
Read the British judges conclusions - they consider the concept of "dual criminality", which is a requirement for extradition from the UK. Under UK law, the same charges are indeed classed as rape. So yes, it is exactly what it seems.
How is the UK acting "shitty" here? He was allowed legal representation, allowed to appeal his case to the highest court in the land, lost at each level with each judge giving a detailed reasoning to each of his legal teams arguments, and he still went on to commit a crime in the UK. Regardless of how Swedens case is ruled on, there is no way the UKs actions can be considered unlawful in this instance - Assange jumped bail. His bail sponsors already lost their case to have the money back, so Assange is facing an open and shut case should he surrender to the UK authorities.
Civilian air traffic control for Northern Ireland is handled by the Prestwick control centre of the National Air Traffic Service, which is licensed by the CAA (a Department for Transport statutory corporation, owned by the British government).
Yes, the government that covers the UK is colloquially known as the British Government. So yes, the British Government does control the airspace over Northern Ireland.
Heh, one caught my eye yesterday - a life time subscription to a VPN service for $25. Yeah, thats going to last more than a month or so when everyones downloading 1TB a month...
The Scottish government do not retain control of the airspace over Scotland, it is a contiguous airspace zone with the rest of the airspace over England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore its not Scottish airspace, its British airspace.
Any entity can hold a Supplemental Type Certificate not just the original manufacturer, and they can even test and fly them as experimental without either manufacturer or FAA or EASA approval - they just cant carry fee paying passengers.
Slashdot Mirror
Is any one in the Guatemalan government (a) calling for the trial of someone who has never been there and (b) has the power to make somewhere like Sweden do something illegal?
No, now stop being foolish and claiming that the global reach of the US is remotely comparable to Guatemala.
And that's irrelevant - you have no idea who wants a piece of Assange.
Once again, if the "global reach" of the US was in play here, why was he safe in the UK? Not one of his supporters has ever been able to answer that question properly - if anything, he should have been less safe fleeing to the UK, but no, he chose to come here. Why? If his goal was to stay out of the hands of the US, France would have been a better option before the UK, as France has stood up to the US and UK several times in recent years. So why the UK?
Irrelevant. The subject is negotiating terms and conditions whether or not you like it.
Assange can make all the demands he wants, that doesn't make it a negotiation.
That's all you can ever say since you can't prove a negative. Nonetheless, Sweden is on record as colluding much more strongly than allowing a flight to stop there. They physically handed people to the CIA to be tortured, something there is no record of the UK doing.
And there are also copious records that the judicial system of Sweden did not agree with that treatment, with significant damages being awarded and residency permits being issued.
I'm still trying to ascertain how you think what happened in Sweden was anything other than an illegal act that has been acknowledged and corrected...
You can't deny it happened though, and the "legal recriminations" were tiny.
Well, the Swedish government wasn't disbanded and people weren't imprisoned, but there were legal recriminations, which pours water on your assertions that it will happen again in the case of Assange.
And in any case, why shouldn't Assange be extradited to the US?
Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US?
Because Assange has never been to the US and has never committed a crime there.
He has also never been to Guatemala and never committed a crime there. Are we going to have to enumerate every country that Assange has never been to and never committed a crime in?
An arrest warrant is not a negotiation, the subject does not get to detail terms and conditions.
Well, it seems given that Assange is not under arrest, reality disagrees with you.
An arrest warrant means there is a warrant for his arrest. It has nothing to do with whether the subject is actually, currently under arrest.
Assange is free to continue to avoid being arrested, but that doesn't mean he can set terms and conditions for his surrender to the authorities. The arrest warrant can remain in force for as long as needed.
The "extradition to the US" thing is another of Assanges distractions, as it would have been easier to extradite him from the UK than it would from the US
Except you know, Sweden just handed people over to the CIA to be tortured with no evidence, no trial and no judicial oversight of any sort. The UK has never done that.
And your point is? How does any agreement not to extradite prevent that?
Also, as there have been extraordinary rendition flights from the UK to the US, all you can say is that the UK have never been caught...
which allows the US to require Assange to be extradited with minimal reason.
But they do need a reason, unlike Sweden who has a record of not requiring reasons.
Also, torture.
Under the Extradition Act 2003, all that is needed is "reasonable suspicion" for someone to be extradited from the UK to the US. You also ignore the fact that there were legal recriminations for the Swedish government in the specific cases on which you are basing your comments about Sweden, with significant damages being awarded to multiple individuals.
This wasnt a UN resolution nor a formal statement, it was an opinion issued by the Working Group On Arbitrary Detention, an independent body formed by a UN mandate to investigate reports - it has no legal position, no legal standing and its opinions are not backed by a judicial stance or position.
Its a ludicrous opinion that they came to, because in their full explanation on the matter, they consider not only Assanges current situation in the Ecuadoran embassy to be "unlawful detention", but also every moment he spent under judicial remand in the UK - including his original arrest prior to bail, his detention at his friends house during the court cases and appeals, *and* his self-imposed detention in the Ecuadoran embassy.
So yes, the Working Group On Arbitrary Detention considers the legal processes of the UK to be "unlawful detention", a situation that *millions* of cases over hundreds of years in the UK and hundreds of cases over dozens of years in the European Court of Human Rights has never, ever come to.
The Working Group On Arbitrary Detention, a panel of 5 people, seems to think it has a better opinion than tens of thousands of judges and judicial representatives across several countries.
So in short, fuck them.
Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US? Assange isn't bargaining from a position of power, why should Sweden agree to anything?
An arrest warrant is not a negotiation, the subject does not get to detail terms and conditions.
The "extradition to the US" thing is another of Assanges distractions, as it would have been easier to extradite him from the UK than it would from the US. And yet he lived here in complete safety for years before consigning himself to the Ecuadoran embassy. People should read up on the Extradition Act 2003, which allows the US to require Assange to be extradited with minimal reason.
Why should Sweden have to interview someone not on their own terms? There is no requirement for an interview to take place at the pleasure of the person being interviewed.
Aside from that, you do know that Ecuador has been blocking Swedish attempts to interview Assange in their embassy for the past 3 years, right? One thing after another, with even a treaty being signed just in January about legal cooperation, and still the Ecuadorians are blocking Swedish access to Assange on embassy property.
Even if the statute of limitations on the original charges expire, he is still in breach of bail conditions and as such the immediate arrest warrant is for that - the first point of call should he step outside of the embassy will be to be put infront of a judge, who will remand him into custody for breach of bail conditions. This will happen for as long as the bail warrant is outstanding against him, and as such is now an issue unto itself.
Even if Sweden drop charges, at this point he could find himself doing prison time for the bail offences alone.
Yup, the ruling is essentially a deconstruction of the rule of law - a lawful agency and government is no longer allowed to pursue someone who has had a lawful arrest warrant issued against them if said person decides to place themselves into a situation where their only possible actions are "surrender to the authorities" or "remain in self detention".
What was this UN panel smoking at the time they came to the conclusion they did? Was Osama bin Laden "unlawfully detained" in his Pakistani compound because the world was looking for him?
No, the UK does not say that - this has been settled three times in British courts with regard to this specific case, and each time the EAW has been found to be legal and correct, with many pages spent explaining the determinations in detail.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sy...
Points 120 onward.
Oh give me a fucking break, yes he has mental issues, no that doesnt fucking mean we have to cater to his every whim when he says stupid shit in a very public manner - he thinks Twitter is a shit hole, but he contributed to it up til today. Good riddance imho - he is every much the attention whore he comes across as, no need to indulge him.
He quit because people reacted to a poor in-joke. Thats it.
Yes, the room had started to smell a bit, but now Mr Fry has left said room, the smell is improving moment by moment.
He does this every year, hes quite the prima donna over here in the UK. I don't really care for him, its not as if Twitter is going to be less of a place without him - until he decides to return (again) in a couple of months.
You don't seem to get that this is as much a game of "wack-a-mole" as is killing off The Pirate Bay. An Indian call centre doesn't give a toss that its causing third parties problems, so long as they have their leased line then they can gain access to the global telecoms network anywhere in the world - they can make millions of calls a week, so if it takes them a day to find a new route then they don't particularly give a damn in the mean time, its the cost of doing business to them. No one is going to take their leased line off them...
Even BT doesn't vet companies that connect directly to its network, so its not going to be able to force anyone else to vet who connects to theirs - and the point I am raising is that most telecoms networks cannot vet who connects to them. One call centre can spread its call load out over dozens of intermediaries, all coming into the UK from different foreign telecoms networks. You simply cannot resolve that problem.
Not really, because all that happens then is Indian telecoms companies hand off to South Africa, who hands off to BT. No change then, another origin to deal with.
Same issue with VOIP, they dont have to terminate in the UK, they can terminate anywhere in the world.
The problem with the way the international telecommunications systems are set up is that no, you dont know where the call originates from, just that a network next to yours is handing it to you - its essentially one massive Tor network where the upstream routing information passed around cannot be trusted. You bill the person than handed it to you, they bill the person that handed it to them and so on.
This is why Indian call centres can buy blocks of a million phone numbers, hit UK targets all week and not be penalised for it.
BT cant solve this on their own, because that would require them to be able to force other telecoms companies to solve their own problems with the setup or simply reject 99% of all international calls made.
No, this ruling was issued by a panel of senior judges, not the government. In the UK, senior judges are independent of the government.
Uh, no - jet engines are extremely efficient - very much north of 90% across the entire operational range of a flight.
If the "crime" had no equivalent in the UK, then Assange would have easily won his case in the UK at the very first court hearing, as the concept of "dual criminality" is paramount when it comes to extradition warrants and UK law - you cannot be extradited from the UK if the charge you are to be extradited for is not a crime in the UK, and on all the charges on the extradition warrant against Assange the requirement of dual criminality was satisfied.
It is amusing to see in these threads those people who actually know nothing about the facts of the extradition case against Assange.
No, skipping bail is illegal in the UK, especially after the extradition warrant against you is found to be 100% valid and legal. The rest of the legal case is Swedens, the bit ruled on by the UK passes UK law just fine.
Read the British judges conclusions - they consider the concept of "dual criminality", which is a requirement for extradition from the UK. Under UK law, the same charges are indeed classed as rape. So yes, it is exactly what it seems.
How is the UK acting "shitty" here? He was allowed legal representation, allowed to appeal his case to the highest court in the land, lost at each level with each judge giving a detailed reasoning to each of his legal teams arguments, and he still went on to commit a crime in the UK. Regardless of how Swedens case is ruled on, there is no way the UKs actions can be considered unlawful in this instance - Assange jumped bail. His bail sponsors already lost their case to have the money back, so Assange is facing an open and shut case should he surrender to the UK authorities.
Civilian air traffic control for Northern Ireland is handled by the Prestwick control centre of the National Air Traffic Service, which is licensed by the CAA (a Department for Transport statutory corporation, owned by the British government).
Yes, the government that covers the UK is colloquially known as the British Government. So yes, the British Government does control the airspace over Northern Ireland.
Heh, one caught my eye yesterday - a life time subscription to a VPN service for $25. Yeah, thats going to last more than a month or so when everyones downloading 1TB a month...
The Scottish government do not retain control of the airspace over Scotland, it is a contiguous airspace zone with the rest of the airspace over England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore its not Scottish airspace, its British airspace.
Subscriptions were cheap and it was easy to get huge amounts of space for free - the service was more likely hemorrhaging money as a result.
Any entity can hold a Supplemental Type Certificate not just the original manufacturer, and they can even test and fly them as experimental without either manufacturer or FAA or EASA approval - they just cant carry fee paying passengers.