 StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2
 ·CenturyLink
| reply to Name Game
Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months said by Name Game:...so what is the red tank and hoses in the corner by the wall with the holes in it ?
I believe that's Assange's penis pump 
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
 statestress magnetPremium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Purgatory
kudos:6
Webhosting
Android
Sonic.net
Washington & Balti..
UK Chat
| reply to Name Game
Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months said by Name Game:so what is the red tank and hoses in the corner by the wall with the holes in it ?
Fire extinguisher? |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| reply to Name Game
Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months said by Name Game:Edit: figured it out ..fire extinguisher and looks like was mounted on the wall at one time.
I like my theory better 
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
 Name GamePremium
join:2002-07-07
North Myrtle Beach, SC
kudos:7 | He is not on medicare yet 
»www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31···ail.html |
|
|
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to Frodo
said by Frodo: ...
I found a state department document. (PDF)
»www.state.gov/documents/organiza···7313.pdf
Under the section of Rule of Specialty:
"1. A person extradited under this Agreement shall not be arrested, detained, tried or punished in the jurisdiction of the requesting Government for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted nor be extradited by that Government to a third country..."
It would seem to me that there would have to be something to prevent two countries from acting in concert, otherwise the specialty clause would be circumvented. I'm not seeing anything that contradicts Ecuador's position.
If you peruse a number of extradition treaties, you will find the detailed wording varies with regard to the subject covered in your Rule of Specialty. Depending on when the treaty was negotiated and ratified, you may not even find that wording as such. In the case of some treaties (such at the original TIAS 5496 treaty with Sweden, unchanged by the later TIAS 10812 supplementary treaty mod), the wording simply indicates that there shall be no extradition to a third country unless the original requested country agrees.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775 |
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to Link Logger
said by Link Logger:What the UK should do is build a huge brick wall around the place,
Blake
You mean like the old wall around West Berlin, made my Stalin? Is that what and who inspired your suggestion? Yeah, dream on...
What the UK should do, they will do. And I hope they will do it, remembering history lessons.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| reply to Name Game
Ahhh, so that's where all those Medicare savings are going to come from...
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
| reply to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:the wording simply indicates that there shall be no extradition to a third country unless the original requested country agrees.
Apparently, Assange didn't trust England to prevent extradition to a 3rd country, so he went with Ecuador.
But I think England and Sweden should give the assurances necessary to Ecuador so that this extradition can proceed. Otherwise, it's going to look more and more like this Swedish extradition request was a pretext. I don't see what the problem is, if the extradition was genuinely to deal with the allegations made in Sweden. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by Frodo:said by Blackbird:the wording simply indicates that there shall be no extradition to a third country unless the original requested country agrees.
Apparently, Assange didn't trust England to prevent extradition to a 3rd country, so he went with Ecuador. But I think England and Sweden should give the assurances necessary to Ecuador so that this extradition can proceed. Otherwise, it's going to look more and more like this Swedish extradition request was a pretext. I don't see what the problem is, if the extradition was genuinely to deal with the allegations made in Sweden. I think the problem is that the UK and Sweden believe it's none of Ecuador's business what or how they do or don't extradite accused criminals between themselves (or others), that being a subject governed by the negotiated and signed bilateral treaties of the nations directly involved. The treaties, and their interpretations, are a matter strictly for the nations involved (and their respective agencies and judicial systems) to interpret and enforce. Further, given that there is no current request of record for Sweden to extradite Assange to the US, Sweden and the UK believe it is unwarranted Ecuadorian interference in the extradition process between Sweden and the UK over the current sex charges pending or being evaluated in Sweden. Sovereign nations are extremely sensitive about not handing veto rights to third-party nations over their future legal and diplomatic actions... and giving the Ecuadorians the demanded assurance is tantamount to giving the Ecuadorians (or any other similarly-inclined third party nation) veto-in-principle over the interpretation of a bilateral treaty between Sweden and the UK, now and future. Nations simply resist that sort of thing.
There may or may not be a diplomatic resolution of all this. The merits of the case itself are being driven beneath the risks of setting precedent (which carries enormous diplomatic weight among nations). Frankly, I suspect the Swedes and Brits both just wish Assange would simply evaporate, but the precedents at stake are just too important diplomatically to bend very far.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775 |
|
| reply to The Snowman
copy & paste:
Julian Assange row: Ecuador backed by South America
Ecuador's decision to grant Wikileaks founder Julian Assange asylum has been backed by foreign ministers from countries across South America.
A document agreed at the Union of South American Nations meeting in Ecuador said it supported the country "in the face of the threat" to its London embassy, where he has taken refuge.
The UK has said it could potentially lift the embassy's diplomatic status.
----------------
After Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino finished reading the final declaration from the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) summit, he joined hands with his fellow foreign ministers and raised them aloft.
The BBC's Will Grant said it was a a symbolic but important show of unity in a region which considers the UK government's approach over Mr Assange to have been colonialist and threatening.
Ecuador has described a letter from the British government drawing attention to the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 as "intolerable" and an "explicit threat".
Mr Assange called on the US to stop its "war on whistle-blowers" The act could allow the UK to lift the diplomatic status of Ecuador's embassy in London to allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange for breaching his bail terms.
»www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19314618 |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| reply to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:Frankly, I suspect the Swedes and Brits both just wish Assange would simply evaporate...
They're not the only ones...
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
