So this Assange business. As far as I can make out, this UN panel has no legal weight, has not shown

[Berni]

its working in deciding he's been 'arbitrarily detained' and is basically a faceless kangaroo court. Also, since it is specifically set up to be a working group on arbitrary detentions, guess what? It tends to decide if asked that people are being arbitrarily detained. Big shock there.

The facts are these:

1/ Assange has not been detained. Instead he has chosen to detain himself in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to evade lawful arrest and extradition proceedings.

2/ The extradition order to which he is subject is entirely lawful under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant and involves extradition to a liberal, democratic country with an excellent human rights record.

As far as I can see, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for this finding. It's simply an overtly political attempt to subvert British and European rule of law.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Berni]

The demand for compensation is particularly f**king cheeky.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Berni]

The only way that might happen is if the Swedes drop the final charge... :-(

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Or let the inquisitors sweat him at Sarratt for a while first. Then let Fawn loose on what's left of him.

[Classic Jorge]

[Luis Anaconda]

“[Assange] is not being detained arbitrarily. Three-and-a-half years ago, he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex offences. He had fought extradition through every court, and at each his case was rejected. “Arbitrary” detention means that due legal process has not been observed. It has. This is a publicity stunt

[Berni]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Rich White Man reinforcing patriarchal downpressing by *****ular intrusion = hang him. On the other hand, Rich White Man who hates the West and is prepared to sell it out to its enemies = Saint.

I expect they just tossed a coin.

[Luis Anaconda]

and look at this guy

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cach2lPW4AAv-Ss.jpg

[Classic Jorge]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Classic Jorge]

which we had a right to know, that wasnt really damaging in a military or operational sense but was more damaging in a reputational sense.

Obviously, if one were to look at holing the whole business below the water line than a sex abuse allegation would be a great way to do that as, just like you say, most of his supporters were rather right on.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Classic Jorge]

I mean, it does seem to me that they really could do whatever they want without any oversight or fear of censure.

[Berni]

Yes, I know. The idea that anyone knows better than us pricks my self-regard, too, but it remains the case.

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

[Classic Jorge]

I mean, the people who shouldnt be scrutinizing it would be the military and the politicians, both of whom would have huge conflicts of interest.

I like the idea that "he's assisted ISIS", like turning Syria and Iraq into a modern armoured version of the wild west wasnt some assistance in the first place.

[Luis Anaconda]

after everyone has been allowed to read it? That doesn't make an awful lot of sense

[Classic Jorge]

No, I just made the point that the people currently deciding these things have a massive conflict of interest, which is in itself a pretty unhealthy situation.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Classic Jorge]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Is she also qualified to judge what is or isn't prejudicial to the security of my family?

[Luis Anaconda]

if the alternative is just letting any old random person decide what becomes public and what doesn't, does it?

[Berni]

[Classic Jorge]

[Classic Jorge]

[Luis Anaconda]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

the security services, you know, made up of chaps trained and skilled in this specialist field, but an 'alleged' sex criminal with interesting hair?

Tell me, when you feel ill, do you consult a doctor, or do you prefer to seek advice from a random fellow in the street?

[Classic Jorge]

Having, as they do, a massive conflict of interest.

It's like putting Jimmy Saville in charge of investigating historical sex abuse at the BBC

[Berni]

The issue here is that he is offended by the very notion of secrecy. But without secrecy, there can be no effective government or security, so adults have to accept that there are things we can't be allowed to know and don't need to know.

He, in his arrogance, rejects that notion.

[Luis Anaconda]

http://www.awimb.com/fudforum/index.php?t=tree&th=591394 &mid=4086586&rid=167&S=52a4eb698a4f0a449182229e6 e1c9079&rev=&reveal= (http://www.awimb.com/fudforum/index.php?t=tree&th=591394&mid=4086586&rid=167&S=52a4eb698a4f0a449182229e6e1c9079&rev=&reveal=)

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

You're floundering around in a sea of pure, unadulterated drivel here, j, and watching you drown in your own nonsense is making me sad. Let's all behave with a little dignity now and change the subject.

[Classic Jorge]

Embarassing? DA-Notice. Inconveniencing? DA-Notice. Committed an atrocity? DA-Notice.

It's a piss take and runs completely counter to democratic principles.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

One day, someone in a security organisation that doesn't even officially exist is going to say, 'basta, enough with this lunatic'.

:hehe:

[Classic Jorge]

They know what's best for us :rolleyes:

You wouldve made a terrific comrade.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

handle things for us. HMRC, the DVLA, the NHS, the gulp actual government! We pay them to do things for us that we don't know best about.

You and the rapist know equal amounts about matters of national security, viz, f**k all.

[Classic Jorge]

The reason we all know f**k all about that stuff is that they are allowed to carry on doing what they do secretly.

Obviously I'll bow to your superior knolegde gleaned from John le Carre books and demonstrated by your overworn forelock.

[Berni]

see why it might be suppressed. I see no problem with that whatsoever. There are bigger fish to fry, so let's not sweat the small stuff.

Besides, can you tell me what democratic purpose is served by releasing gun cam footage from an Apache helicopter that shows Taliban being blown apart by a minigun? There is none. It's just death porn so that those who hate the military can use it as specious evidence of what evil *******s the military are - when in fact it just shows them doing a good job. The only possible purpose of releasing that footage is to try and undermine the war effort.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Things will make much more sense when you grow up to be a big boy. You shouldn't worry that the world seems a confusing place at the moment; most of us got over this stage at around 15, but you'll get there in the end, honestly. :opowertothepeople:

[Berni]

people would die and our national security would be f**ked. That's not really the case with the DVLA.

[Classic Jorge]

[Classic Jorge]