Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > Diamonds and Tuxedos
test
Diamonds and Tuxedos Glamour, elegance, and sophistication. That's what it's all about here in ECCIE's newest forum which caters to those with expensive tastes, lavish lifestyles, and an appetite for upscale entertainment.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 279
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163231
Yssup Rider60927
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48646
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42577
CryptKicker37215
The_Waco_Kid37006
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-24-2011, 06:12 AM   #1
charlestudor2005
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: In hopes of having a good time
Posts: 6,942
Encounters: 8
Default Assange to be Extradited

Guess now we'll see if this is a legitimate extradition or one orchestrated by the US.

Quote:
Judge says WikiLeaks' Assange can be extradited

By CASSANDRA VINOGRAD
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 24, 2011; 7:49 AM


LONDON -- Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden in a sex crimes inquiry, a British judge ruled Thursday, rejecting claims by the WikiLeaks founder that he would not face a fair trial there. Assange's lawyer said he would appeal.
Judge Howard Riddle said the allegations of rape and sexual molestation by two women against Assange meet the definition of extraditable offenses and said the Swedish warrant had been properly issued and was valid.
Assange, 39, a key figure in the release of tens of thousands of secret U.S. government and military documents, has been out on bail during the extradition fight. He has seven days to appeal the ruling in British courts.
After hearing three days of testimony this month, Riddle concluded "there is simply no reason to believe there has been a mistake" about the European Arrest Warrant issued by Swedish authorities.
In his ruling, the judge dismantled the defense case against extradition point by point. He rejected the claim that comments made against Assange by Swedish prosecutors and politicians would pervert the course of justice.
Assange's lawyers also said that Sweden's custom of hearing rape cases behind closed doors meant he would not get a fair trial, but Riddle said the practice was common in Sweden.
Assange's lawyers have questioned Sweden's judicial process and expressed concern their client risks being handed over to the United States, which is investigating whether Assange and WikiLeaks have violated U.S. laws by distributing secret government documents.
WikiLeaks has released tens of thousands of U.S. military documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on U.S. diplomatic efforts worldwide, deeply angering U.S. officials.

The judge said it was wrong for the defense to raise the question of a possible extradition to the U.S. or the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, given the absence of any evidence that Assange risks torture or execution.
The Swedish case stems from charges of sexual misconduct made against Assange by two women after he visited Sweden last August. Lawyers for Sweden have argued that authorities made repeated attempts to interview Assange while he was in Scandinavia, to no avail.
In Sweden, Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer representing the two women, said the decision had been expected.
"It's just too bad that it took so long," Borgstrom said. "(Assange) will probably appeal this decision for some reason that is hard to understand. He claims that he hasn't committed a crime so he should just come here and sort it out. I expect that he will be on Swedish soil before the summer."

Bjorn Hurtig, Assange's Swedish lawyer, told The Associated Press that he was already preparing to represent his client.
"If he comes to Sweden I think he has great chances of being freed," Hurtig said. "And I'll be waiting for him, ready to fight for him tooth and nail."
The hearing Thursday attracted Assange's usual coterie of high-profile supporters, including Bianca Jagger and Jemima Goldsmith.
About a dozen WikiLeaks and Assange supporters in ski hats and parkas gathered outside the court hours before the hearing, hanging banners and signs saying "Free Julian Assange and Bradley Manning," the U.S. Army private suspected of leaking the documents to WikiLeaks.
Vaughan Smith, the founder of the Frontline Club who has been hosting Assange at his country estate, said the ruling was "disappointing."
Smith said Assange remains welcome at his house.
"He's good company," Smith said.
charlestudor2005 is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 07:35 AM   #2
Mazomaniac
Valued Poster
 
Mazomaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 30, 2010
Location: 7th Circle of Hell
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
Guess now we'll see if this is a legitimate extradition or one orchestrated by the US.
Not for a while. This one will go to the Supreme Court. There's a reasonable case to be made here on the open trial issue. I'd expect at least another year.

Cheers,
Mazo.
Mazomaniac is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 07:44 AM   #3
Rudyard K
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Rudyard K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,206
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
Guess now we'll see if this is a legitimate extradition or one orchestrated by the US.
And if so...that would be illegitimate, why?
Rudyard K is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 07:53 AM   #4
charlestudor2005
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: In hopes of having a good time
Posts: 6,942
Encounters: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazomaniac View Post
Not for a while. This one will go to the Supreme Court. There's a reasonable case to be made here on the open trial issue. I'd expect at least another year.

Cheers,
Mazo.
Which Supreme Court? What cause of action?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudyard K View Post
And if so...that would be illegitimate, why?
I guess the inference I was trying to make was whether or not he eventually wound up in the US, no matter the machinations. Currently, the only action is between the two sovereigns: UK & Sweden. If he winds up in Guantanamo or in custody of the US, it would seem that the US would have to initiate that somehow.
charlestudor2005 is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 07:57 AM   #5
Whirlaway
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Here.
Posts: 13,781
Encounters: 28
Default

He isn't a journalist and doesn't deserve the protections of freedom of the press.

Unlike responsible journalists, who vet their sources, he didn't even read the military data he released, much less tried to understand if it would result in the killing of innocents, cause harm to US stratgies/tactics and soldiers on the ground, and those trying to help the US.

He should be put to trial in a military court of law.

His document dump of diplomatic cables is another issue.
Whirlaway is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 08:06 AM   #6
charlestudor2005
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: In hopes of having a good time
Posts: 6,942
Encounters: 8
Default

There was another thread that had a long discussion about the US's ability to indict, extradite and try Assange since he's never submitted to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

The other points you bring up re: journalist, "responsible" journalist, and the duty he owed, if any, to the US are all arguable.
charlestudor2005 is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 08:11 AM   #7
Whirlaway
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Here.
Posts: 13,781
Encounters: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
There was another thread that had a long discussion about the US's ability to indict, extradite and try Assange since he's never submitted to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

The other points you bring up re: journalist, "responsible" journalist, and the duty he owed, if any, to the US are all arguable.
I know what I said. Interesting that you don't dispute my overriding point which is:

Journalists vet their sources and information. Assange didn't. He just dumped the information onto the web to see where the shit would hit the fan.

He isn't a journalist and doesn't deserve Constitutional protections afforded to journalists under court rulings.
Whirlaway is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 08:37 AM   #8
Texas Contrarian
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Mar 29, 2009
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 3,327
Default

How can anyone comment intelligently on this matter without reading herfacechair's opinion?
Texas Contrarian is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 08:40 AM   #9
Mazomaniac
Valued Poster
 
Mazomaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 30, 2010
Location: 7th Circle of Hell
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
Which Supreme Court? What cause of action?
??? The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, of course. Where else?

Assange has a good - although probably losing - argument based on the secrecy of rape trials in Sweden. Article VI of the European Convention on Human Rights and the implementation of it in the UK under the Human Rights Act of 1998 clearly require a public hearing in all criminal cases except that "the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."

Sweden doesn't allow for open trials in sexual assault cases even when the facts of the case and the identity of victim are already publicly known or when the victims themselves have already come forward with their story. I think Assange has a pretty good argument that secrecy is not allowed under the ECHR in such cases even though Sweden continues to impose it.

It's a weak argument, but a valid one. We have public trials in order to ensure that the justice system is working. I doubt there's a person in this country who would consider a secret trial appropriate in a criminal case. We condemn that sort of thing in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Why shouldn't we impose the same rules in the West? Unfortunately, in this case I doubt that we will.

Cheers,
Mazo.
Mazomaniac is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 08:42 AM   #10
Mazomaniac
Valued Poster
 
Mazomaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 30, 2010
Location: 7th Circle of Hell
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight View Post
How can anyone comment intelligently on this matter without reading herfacechair's opinion?
C'mon Captain.

Sleeping dogs and idiots should be allowed to rest in peace.

Cheers,
Mazo.
Mazomaniac is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 08:43 AM   #11
Texas Contrarian
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Mar 29, 2009
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 3,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazomaniac View Post
C'mon Captain.

Sleeping dogs and idiots should be allowed to rest in peace.

Cheers,
Mazo.
LOL!

Yeah, you're probably right.

Just couldn't resist!
Texas Contrarian is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 08:54 AM   #12
Rudyard K
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Rudyard K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,206
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
If he winds up in Guantanamo or in custody of the US, it would seem that the US would have to initiate that somehow.
Which begs the question again?...that becomes illegitimate, Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
The other points you bring up re: journalist, "responsible" journalist, and the duty he owed, if any, to the US are all arguable.
Kind of like legitimacy.
Rudyard K is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 09:21 AM   #13
charlestudor2005
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: In hopes of having a good time
Posts: 6,942
Encounters: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway View Post
Journalists vet their sources and information. Assange didn't. He just dumped the information onto the web to see where the shit would hit the fan.

He isn't a journalist and doesn't deserve Constitutional protections afforded to journalists under court rulings.
I think whether or not he is a journalist is an irrelevant argument compared to jurisdiction.

But to take your argument head on: journalists vet sources and information when presenting facts. For instance Woodward and Bernstien didn't publish any "Watergate" fact until they had corroborated it from two sources, however anonymous.

However (and I didn't get into Assange's mind), what if he was not publishing the material as facts? Just as material that came into his possession? Leaving it for others to determine the legitimacy and facts of the material? Wouldn't it be like me copying and pasting a Wikipedia article here? I don't speak for its validity and leave it to others to determine whether or not it is valid.

And could you please explain what you mean by "Constitutional" protections afforded journalists? And which one of those Assange is claiming?
charlestudor2005 is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 09:34 AM   #14
Whirlaway
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Here.
Posts: 13,781
Encounters: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
And could you please explain what you mean by "Constitutional" protections afforded journalists? And which one of those Assange is claiming?
I don't know we will have to wait and see what his legal defenses are (if charged in a US jurisdiction).
Whirlaway is offline   Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 11:30 AM   #15
Camille
Pending Age Verification
 
User ID: 511
Join Date: Apr 3, 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 883
My ECCIE Reviews
Default

The Court of European Human Rights is losing its damn mind in terms of consistency and accountability.
Last year, 2 terrorists from somewhere like Pakistan who had tried to bomb England (and were caught in England) were refused extradition on the basis that the Court of European Human Rights said these men would be tortured and killed if returned to their own country. Yet now they appear not give a toss that the argument is that upon extradition to Sweden, Assange will not get a fair trial. What? We don't care about the fair trial we only care about the impending punishment? Human rights my arse. What a load of bollocks.
Camille is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved