Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

[theadore]

4 legal myths about assange case

Secretary General of Swedish Bar Council on Criticisms of the Swedish case against assange (from Dec 2010)

Interesting reading

[Joe]

Interesting indeed.

The way I see it, his fear of being extradited to Sweden surely cannot now be based on a belief that there would be a request from the US for extradition there. Surely after this whole saga, the America know that if they made such a request, and it was granted, and he went on to be convicted of whatever it is they think he did wrong with regards to wikileaks, that there would be an International uproar.

So on that basis, and reading a little more about the case today I can't' really see why he won't just face trial in Sweden?

Unless he believes that he's guilty......or that the US have so much influence over the Sweedish judicial system to allow a false conviction to be made.

[theadore]

That's the only real possibility... and why his supporters keep pointing to some alleged connections between the victims and the CIA.

It remains massively unsubstantiated... and in any case, a matter for the courts to decide.

If anything this ongoing saga is doing Wikileaks itself no good at all. Organisations like this depend on their credibility and the longer this farce goes on the more that is eroded.

[Joe]

If anything this ongoing saga is doing Wikileaks itself no good at all. Organisations like this depend on their credibility and the longer this farce goes on the more that is eroded.

Unless the scenario in which he does get extradited via Sweden to the US was to occur. Which I think is unlikely as I mentioned.

One thing I've not really delved into is; are the charges he faces in Sweden likely to lead to a conviction? I've (I think) read that they're quite unsubstantiated accusations which would likely lead to a not-guilty decision?

[Rover the Top]

I never actually disagreed with your original post, expect the bit about 'being in danger of condoning rape'.

This whole 'argument' has just been about whether you were playing devil's advocate. I guess you probably weren't after thinking about it for a while. I was equating you saying 'some people might believe x,y,z with you arguing in favour of it so you could make your next point. I'm currently unemplyed and very bored, and seemingly got the subtlties of the concept wrong So I guess I now at least have a thorough understanding of 'playing devils advocate'. So let's leave it at that

Fair enough, Joe. I'll admit I get riled by the devil's advocate accusations because there's an implication of dishonesty in there, some people seem to use it instead of a counter argument, and I find it a bit insulting...

[Rover the Top]

4 legal myths about assange case

We seem to have pretty much covered those already in here. Nice to see that we're not making things up. And I do like the term 'zombie facts'...

[mrblackbat]

Zombie Facts

[Rover the Top]

They are facts about zombies. Theadore's article uses the word 'zombie' as an adjective, although that probably wasn't clear from my post. And, probably in both cases, the use of the word 'fact' is misleading...

[mrblackbat]

I know. I did read the article. But I too like the phrase "zombie facts" especially when they're actually made up rubbish about zombies!

[Rover the Top]

How's Ecuador's relationship with Argentina?

[Rover Ryan]

How's Ecuador's relationship with Argentina?

Last I heard they are getting on swimmingly!!
Interesting question. Building up to a point RT?

[Rover the Top]

It just seems that every morning there's fresh quotes from the Ecuadorian government trying to score as many points as they can out of this situation. I was wondering what they're getting out of it, as they're certainly not bothered about freedom of speech? Their quarrel is with the UK, not Sweden or the USA. I know that Argentina have been trying to get other South American nations to support their claim on the Falkland Islands, and comments from Ecuador about 'colonialism' make the connection between the two issues. If it's just about Assange, then it's a stalemate, the UK can't touch him inside the embassy, but have no reason to let him leave without being arrested. But he could be used as a bargaining chip in another political issue.

[Rover Ryan]

Could be to piss off the US after finding out all the backstabbing emails that were revealed curtsey of wikileaks.
Could be because they generally feel that Assange is innocent and is being wrongly targeted and they want to help him.
They don't necessarily have to have a political agenda but it wouldn't surprise me if there was more to it.

[theadore]

Their current President is massively anti-US and a big supporter of Chavez. I think its more likely to do with the lefty-clique that surrounds Assange these days and sticking two fingers up at the US (and its lapdogs).

[Rover the Top]

Why would the USA be pissed off by Ecuador calling the UK evil colonists? And you really think it's plausible that Ecuador would create an international stand off by obstructing the justice system in another country and preventing evidence for the case to be collected, purely on a belief that if that evidence was put together and viewed fairly it would show he is innocent?