Assange to go!

Caporegime
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
31,391
Location
Nordfriesland, Germany
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
In October, the Australian-born WikiLeaks founder had complained Ecuador was violating his "fundamental rights" and he was living in an "inhuman situation". He took the claim to an Ecuadorian court but it was thrown out.

Mr Assange had claimed new asylum terms forcing him to pay for medical bills, laundry and phone calls and to clean up after his pet cat violate his rights and are meant to coerce him into ending his asylum.
I assume that amongst his few remaining human rights was always the right to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy - taking his defecating cat with him?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
LOL, the thread on Wikileaks' Twitter feed is an absolute riot. Dozens of people lining up to give Assange a good kicking! :D

1.png


7.png


5.png


4.png


3.png


2.png


6.png
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Posts
8,410
Location
In the Gym
We've had no charges levelled against this man.

Posters in here have bleated he will not be extradited. The issue is: It's not them facing a possible consequence.

He is targeted solely due to the fact he released information that was extremely damaging to those in power. There used to be a word for it... Journalist... But that's long since gone out of fashion and all we are left with is leftist activists.

While we are on the subject of "law" (the topic that only applies to certain people), what about multiple UN rulings that state he should be allowed to leave unimpeded and be compensated? Does that ruling not apply?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
We've had no charges levelled against this man.

Posters in here have bleated he will not be extradited. The issue is: It's not them facing a possible consequence.

He is targeted solely due to the fact he released information that was extremely damaging to those in power. There used to be a word for it... Journalist... But that's long since gone out of fashion and all we are left with is leftist activists.

While we are on the subject of "law" (the topic that only applies to certain people), what about multiple UN rulings that state he should be allowed to leave unimpeded and be compensated? Does that ruling not apply?

So you think a mainstream paper would have released all these docs if they were handed to them as they were to wikileaks?
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
31,391
Location
Nordfriesland, Germany
We've had no charges levelled against this man.

He's literally been hiding in the embassy to avoid a fair trial on the rape charges levelled against him. That's why he broke bail in the first place.

While we are on the subject of "law" (the topic that only applies to certain people), what about multiple UN rulings that state he should be allowed to leave unimpeded and be compensated? Does that ruling not apply?

I assume your referring to this silliness ( https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E )? Because the Working Group doesn't make legal binding rulings and the laws requiring his arrest are actual laws, that's why (and just as well because it's also that ruling is one of the dumbest bits of reasoning I've ever read).
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Posts
8,410
Location
In the Gym
He's literally been hiding in the embassy to avoid a fair trial on the rape charges levelled against him. That's why he broke bail in the first place.

Wrong (again), there has never been a charge for rape. He sought asylum as he was worried Sweden would extradite to the US. The argument from people (quite possibly you too) was that Sweden don't extradite to the US. Then it was proven that Sweden does extradite to the US (in fact in nearly every case they did so).


I assume your referring to this silliness ( https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E )? Because the Working Group doesn't make legal binding rulings and the laws requiring his arrest are actual laws, that's why (and just as well because it's also that ruling is one of the dumbest bits of reasoning I've ever read).

Really:
International Human Rights Law said:
The opinions of the WG are legally binding to the extent that they are based on BINDING international human rights LAWS, such as the international covenant on civil and political rights

So some rules don't apply... But others do... Sounds quite arbitrary that Jack, but from someone wrong twice in one post I expect nothing less ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom