68 Replies to “The Decline And Fall Of The American Empire”

  1. @OZ, if you want life simpler, join the cradle to grave NDP.
    You assume everyone is a computer savy as you make yourself out to be, well I am not. And I don’t want to clog Kate’s blog with paragraph upon paragraph in response to your brief request.
    You want me to chew your bread for you too?

  2. “But you were also wrong in assuming the country where the accused is hiding has to have an equivalent law on its books, if we are talking England and Sweden.”
    ~Al the fish in MB
    Not wrong at all, Al.
    Article 4
    Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant
    The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant:
    1. if, in one of the cases referred to in Article 2(4), the act on which the European arrest warrant is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State; however, in relation to taxes or duties, customs and exchange, execution of the European arrest warrant shall not be refused on the ground that the law of the executing Member State does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain the same type of rules as regards taxes, duties and customs and exchange regulations as the law of the issuing Member State;
    Article 2
    Scope of the European arrest warrant
    4. For offences other than those covered by paragraph 2, surrender may be subject to the condition that the acts for which the European arrest warrant has been issued constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State, whatever the constituent elements or however it is described.
    The term “executing Member State” in this case would refer to the UK who would be executing the arrest/extradition warrant.
    http://tinyurl.com/67flyh

  4. @Oz, I missed that but you missed this, Article 2 Section 2 of the same document you provided the link to:
    http://tinyurl.com/67flyh
    “2. The following offences, if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant:
    – participation in a criminal organisation,
    – terrorism,
    – trafficking in human beings,
    – sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
    – illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
    – illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
    – corruption,
    – fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests,
    – laundering of the proceeds of crime,
    – counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,
    – computer-related crime,
    – environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
    – facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
    – murder, grievous bodily injury,
    – illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
    – kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
    – racism and xenophobia,
    – organised or armed robbery,
    – illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
    – swindling,
    – racketeering and extortion,
    – counterfeiting and piracy of products,
    – forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
    – forgery of means of payment,
    – illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
    – illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
    – trafficking in stolen vehicles,
    – rape,
    – arson,
    – crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
    – unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
    – sabotage.”
    ______________
    The key phrase is “without verification of the double criminality of the act”- meaning a similar law must exist in both EU countries in question.
    As the charge of “rape” excludes the double criminality clause requirement, it is now only how long a prison sentence Assange faces that could prevent extraditon. Given the step that rape was added to the charges and Sweden is providing that information to England, I think Assange is now facing extradition from any and all EU countries.
    (If you want to defend Assange any more Oz, you find out what the potential prison term for rape is in Sweden. I don’t speak Swedish, nor wish to gain first hand experience.)
    End of copy/paste from me on this topic, apologies to Kate.

  5. “double criminality of the act” is the European term for Double Jeopardy in the United States which means an accused can’t be tried twice for the same act.
    (in the European arrest/extradition law it means if he is tried in say, the UK, he can’t be tried for the same act in Sweden)
    Look it up and you’ll find that, heh, you’re wrong again, Al the fish.
    Oh, and Assange isn’t being charged with rape, the charge is “Sex By Surprise” which has no parallel in British jurisprudence.

  6. “double criminality of the act” is the European term for Double Jeopardy in the United States which means an accused can’t be tried twice for the same act.
    (in the European arrest/extradition law it means if he is tried in say, the UK, he can’t be tried for the same act in Sweden)
    Sorry, I was wrong about dual/double criminality being the same as double jeopardy.
    But still, Assange isn’t being charged with rape in Sweden.
    The charge is “Sex By Surprise”.

  7. So why is everyone so much more willing to wish death to Assange than to Manners, the soldier who treasonously took the documents in the first place? Is it because the latter is already behind bars, while the former is still out there somewhere?

  8. Oh, and I forgot to add that the framework of European arrest/extradition warrant law forbids Sweden from delivering Assange to a 3rd party state like the United States or any other 3rd party state.
    What it all comes down to is Assange says he had consensual sex and the complaintant claims she said no to sex without a condom but yes to sex with Assange.
    It’s a he said/she said standoff.
    Even if you concede that the complaintant said sex had to occur under condition of wearing a condom, there is no physical evidence to prove that sex occured without a condom because the complaintant didn’t lay a complaint until about a week later and there is no evidence of coercion.
    I don’t wish the death or imprisonment of Assange outside of the law.
    The law either protects us all or it protects none of us.
    I think it’s long past time that there was whistleblower legislation passed in all civilized countries and I think our governments are too corrupt, too inaccessible, too elitist, too unaccountable, have too many secrets, and tax us too much.

  10. Sorry OZ, missed your first sort of mea culpa at 7:11, as I started my response research at 7:05 time, and didn’t see it till after my prior post.
    Expecting a second mea culpa from you now. No bitterness involved on my part, nor I hope yours.

  11. The link was updated, and the charges were changed.
    Assange’s lawyer, Mark Stephens, said that the allegations against him were made after the two women he is alleged to have raped found out that he was in relationships with both at the same time. “Only after the women became aware of each other’s relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him,” Stephens said in a statement.
    I doubt he’ll be convicted.

  12. No, Al the fish, I don’t hold grudges against people who largely hold the same views as my own.
    Leftists, on the other hand…
    Cheers and have a great weekend, Al.

  13. @OZ
    Assange’s lawyer’s statement is to be expected, its his job to say Assange is innocent.
    “Doubt” is that like “maybe”? If so they can takes a hike together.
    You have a good weekend too OZ, but on Assange we still differ at this point in time. (Leaving the possibility open that one of us changes position as new information becomes available.)

  14. I think there won’t be any “tomorrow headlines”
    In October, Assange said that he will publish stuff on Russian government.
    Then Russians described what they will do to him if he does publish it.
    It is now December.
    There is no publication, yet, and Assange is still alive.

  15. “So why is everyone so much more willing to wish death to Assange than to Manners [sic], the soldier who treasonously took the documents in the first place? Is it because the latter is already behind bars, while the former is still out there somewhere?”
    Hmm, yes. It is PFC Manning who apparently compromised this material; and if found guilty, he will be the only “treasonous” person here.
    Assange hasn’t done anything illegal that will stand up in any court of law outside the US (and I’m willing to bet the case would be pretty hard to prosecute even there – especially since the US news media is now openly reporting on the leaked documents too.)
    Americans are understandably angry with Assange (personally, I find him a very unsavoury individual myself) but that’s hardly grounds for calling for “executive action”.
    Now Wikileaks is talking about releasing bank information. Ironically, that might actually be their undoing: the confidentiality of financial information – unlike that of US diplomatic documents – is much more likely to be protected by national proprietary/contract laws in most countries.

  16. Dave in Pa:
    going back further in history, the attempted, nearly successful assassination of Pope John Paul VI)
    Er, since there have been only two popes with the name “John Paul”, don’t you mean “going further into the future”, after we’ve had JP’s III, IV, and V?

  17. A Russian official claimed that 10 pirates seized by Russian special forces aboard an oil tanker last week were quickly freed but then died on their way back to the Somali coast.

    How does the saying go…”Fish or Cut Bait.” Shark bait do doubt.

  18. I still say Assange is taking a US government paycheck, but now I think the check is coming from the parts of the Big Washington Machine that don’t like George Soros.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation