Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is there information comparing the total cash spent on policing the Ecuadorian embassy with other embassies? Just out of curiosity.

What a self-important little twit the guy is.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc

We even have people wanted for murder on the run.

Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.

And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.

I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!

And I think that you need to reread what was posted.

Nowhere did it explicitly say that the 10million was strictly on surveillance.

Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.

"Policing the building" can include much much more than "strictly surveillance".

At any rate, it's a huge waste of British taxpayers' money

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Of course we won't see eye to eye on this; I'm not willfully blinding myself to certain bits based on some kind of "hunch" I'm having or whatever.

Remember that during Assange's "holiday" at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Metro Police had to be out in rather large numbers to deal with demonstrations/protests/whatever.
You think that kind of work is free?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc

We even have people wanted for murder on the run.

Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.

And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.

I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!

And I think that you need to reread what was posted.

Nowhere did it explicitly say that the 10million was strictly on surveillance.

Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.

"Policing the building" can include much much more than "strictly surveillance".

At any rate, it's a huge waste of British taxpayers' money

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Of course we won't see eye to eye on this; I'm not willfully blinding myself to certain bits based on some kind of "hunch" I'm having or whatever.

Remember that during Assange's "holiday" at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Metro Police had to be out in rather large numbers to deal with demonstrations/protests/whatever.
You think that kind of work is free?

True if we placed a arrest order on him at every airport, and passport check and flagged him for arrest and detention by border security he could not go anywhere outside uk. If he tried. Caught.

He is too distinctive to hide now.
No need to police, UK a island. No free land borders to cross. And you need to present id for a Irish ferry I'm sure even if just photo id.

He need a illegal passport to get out otherwise and that is a extra crime to his list and if caught. A serious offense.

He doesn't. Ecuador could issue him with a refugee passport and he could travel on that. It would be easy for boarder staff at airports and ports to miss him then as well.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.

If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.

The reason of which is, again, because the Swedish government cannot promise the outcome of a judicial decision.

Extradition hearings require a judge. The judge makes a ruling.

Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.

This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.

And if the rape case is a complete fabrication, which is seeming more likely with the distinct lack of evidence Sweden has had forthcoming, is it still douchey to be upset about that? Victims of false rape accusations are going to be upset even if the allegation doesn't have any political motivation at all.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's dangerously close to what Assange has been doing since day one.

Attack the victims, attack the victims, attack the victims.
Two women came forward to accuse him and the initial reason was to get the police to force him to take a test for STDs, as both women had a similar story regarding condoms/being boozed up with him.
He's since claimed that one of the women was sexually active and that the other was a boozehound.

There's two possibilities here.

1) The women involved in the investigation are telling the truth, contrary to Assange's version of events, and they are indeed victims.

2) The women involved are lying, or persuaded to participate in a groundless case, which is what Assange asserts, meaning that he is the victim.

Obviously, if the 2nd option is true then there is nothing 'douchey' about him being angry about it. There's no possible way to ascertain that outside of a court of law and, given that there is no version of events available to the public that paints Assange in those events in a damning light. That's not to say people should be asserting his innocence as a matter of fact, but in light of the flagging investigation any automatic assumptions of his guilt are completely groundless.

Would the current Swedish or UK governments stand up to US pressure to hand over Assange to them on a silver platter? Don't even kid yourself.

So you know this much about the Swedish government, but not that Sweden can't promise the outcome of a judicial hearing?

Refer to my point above. The fact that Sweden legally can't make such a guarantee doesn't mean the threat of US extradition should be dismissed out of hand. I sincerely doubt Assange has been huddled inside the building for this many years to avoid becoming embroiled in a lesser sex offence investigation alone. One only has to look at the vitriol of public figures in the US towards him to see that the threat is not imagined.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/10/julian-assange-guard-london-police-10m-bill-ecuadorian-embassy

So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.

That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.

Not as much as you think it does.

Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.

The point that you're ignoring is this:
There's a misconception that Assange has been accommodating and reasonable this whole time. If that were true, he wouldn't have made his surrender to the Swedish government conditional on them doing something that he (via his legal team) would know that the Swedish government cannot do as it is, effectively, unconscionable to the way their government works.

It's no different than some schmuck robbing a bank and demanding a helicopter to take him to a non-extradition country. The police will smile and nod; but that bird is not going to fly.

It's someone making unreasonable demands and then claiming "I tried to negotiate!" afterwards.

There's two possibilities here.

1) The women involved in the investigation are telling the truth, contrary to Assange's version of events, and they are indeed victims.

2) The women involved are lying, or persuaded to participate in a groundless case, which is what Assange asserts, meaning that he is the victim.

Obviously, if the 2nd option is true then there is nothing 'douchey' about him being angry about it. There's no possible way to ascertain that outside of a court of law and, given that there is no version of events available to the public that paints Assange in those events in a damning light. That's not to say people should be asserting his innocence as a matter of fact, but in light of the flagging investigation any automatic assumptions of his guilt are completely groundless.

By your logic, Bill Cosby should be a free man.

The reason there is a "flagging investigation" is the Swedish government has not had realistic access to the main suspect since he left their country.
Yeah yeah yeah, they questioned him in 2016 at the Ecuadorian embassy, but the times had to get shifted around so that his "legal team" could be there and he posted the transcripts of what was said and then had the audacity to claim that the Swedish investigators showed up and refused him access to his Swedish lawyers.

Refer to my point above. The fact that Sweden legally can't make such a guarantee doesn't mean the threat of US extradition should be dismissed out of hand. I sincerely doubt Assange has been huddled inside the building for this many years to avoid becoming embroiled in a lesser sex offence investigation alone. One only has to look at the vitriol of public figures in the US towards him to see that the threat is not imagined.

And, again, that "vitriol of public figures in the US towards him" was not as heavy during the Obama administration.

Assange helped galvanize the rhetoric of the Republican party against the Democrats. He's reaping what he sowed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.

That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.

If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.

The wonderful reality when a random guy decides to declare that he is the public face of an organization with the stated goal of publishing the dirt of major governments around the globe, only to turn around and complain that people are being "political" when it comes to anything involving him.

I guess the best thing you can do to avoid any criminal charges of any kind is to spend your life being an donkey-cave, because then you can claim that you never broke any laws and shouldn't be investigated and people are just being mean because you are an donkey-cave.

 d-usa wrote:
The wonderful reality when a random guy decides to declare that he is the public face of an organization with the stated goal of publishing the dirt of major governments around the globe, only to turn around and complain that people are being "political" when it comes to anything involving him.

I guess the best thing you can do to avoid any criminal charges of any kind is to spend your life being an donkey-cave, because then you can claim that you never broke any laws and shouldn't be investigated and people are just being mean because you are an donkey-cave.

The amount of bending over backward that is being done to defend Assange is baffling. He's no saint and has harmed innocent people in his efforts to get the 'truth' out. But for some reason the man who doesn't care about outing homosexuals in Saudi Arabia is beyond doubt when it comes to a rape case?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.

Not as much as you think it does.

Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.

How on earth is his eventual extradition to the US (by either the UK or Swedish governments) at all unlikely?

The point that you're ignoring is this:
There's a misconception that Assange has been accommodating and reasonable this whole time. If that were true, he wouldn't have made his surrender to the Swedish government conditional on them doing something that he (via his legal team) would know that the Swedish government cannot do as it is, effectively, unconscionable to the way their government works.

It's no different than some schmuck robbing a bank and demanding a helicopter to take him to a non-extradition country. The police will smile and nod; but that bird is not going to fly.

It's someone making unreasonable demands and then claiming "I tried to negotiate!" afterwards.

There's two possibilities here.

1) The women involved in the investigation are telling the truth, contrary to Assange's version of events, and they are indeed victims.

2) The women involved are lying, or persuaded to participate in a groundless case, which is what Assange asserts, meaning that he is the victim.

Obviously, if the 2nd option is true then there is nothing 'douchey' about him being angry about it. There's no possible way to ascertain that outside of a court of law and, given that there is no version of events available to the public that paints Assange in those events in a damning light. That's not to say people should be asserting his innocence as a matter of fact, but in light of the flagging investigation any automatic assumptions of his guilt are completely groundless.

By your logic, Bill Cosby should be a free man.

The reason there is a "flagging investigation" is the Swedish government has not had realistic access to the main suspect since he left their country.
Yeah yeah yeah, they questioned him in 2016 at the Ecuadorian embassy, but the times had to get shifted around so that his "legal team" could be there and he posted the transcripts of what was said and then had the audacity to claim that the Swedish investigators showed up and refused him access to his Swedish lawyers.

Refer to my point above. The fact that Sweden legally can't make such a guarantee doesn't mean the threat of US extradition should be dismissed out of hand. I sincerely doubt Assange has been huddled inside the building for this many years to avoid becoming embroiled in a lesser sex offence investigation alone. One only has to look at the vitriol of public figures in the US towards him to see that the threat is not imagined.

And, again, that "vitriol of public figures in the US towards him" was not as heavy during the Obama administration.

Assange helped galvanize the rhetoric of the Republican party against the Democrats. He's reaping what he sowed.

You keep arguing that Sweden has it's hands tied in the matter of extradition, that the judicial powers have the final say in an investigation that has been heavily political motivated with direct involvement of cabinet Ministers. This is simply not true. Swedish legislation gives the executive a 'wide discretion' when dealing with extradition matters. There could very easily be a way for Sweden to guarantee that extradition to a particular country would not be heard, or could be heard ex parte absentia. It is not that they absolutely can't, no way around it, it is that they don't want to work around it.

If you're going to bury you're head in the sand to avoid the political motivations behind this case I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

http://theindicter.com/swedens-argument-for-refusing-to-issue-non-extradition-guarantees-to-mr-assange-is-fallacious-and-hides-real-commitment-to-the-u-s-analysis/
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/former-chair-of-un-working-group-on-arbitrary/7147786
http://theindicter.com/sweden-doesnt-follow-u-n-but-u-s-prosecution-of-assange-requested-by-the-us-snowden-document-reveals/

 Kanluwen wrote:

So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.

That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.

If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.

???

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.

Not as much as you think it does.

Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.

How on earth is his eventual extradition to the US (by either the UK or Swedish governments) at all unlikely?

How on earth is it a guarantee?


That's the point you keep glossing over.

You keep arguing that Sweden has it's hands tied in the matter of extradition, that the judicial powers have the final say in an investigation that has been heavily political motivated with direct involvement of cabinet Ministers. This is simply not true. Swedish legislation gives the executive a 'wide discretion' when dealing with extradition matters. There could very easily be a way for Sweden to guarantee that extradition to a particular country would not be heard, or could be heard ex parte absentia. It is not that they absolutely can't, no way around it, it is that they don't want to work around it.

Actually I keep arguing that for someone who whined about how governments are behaving in unlawful or shadowy ways, it's amazing how he wants a government to behave in exactly that way when it benefits him.

And the last part of your statement should really have told you all that needs to be said.
Sweden doesn't want to violate its own laws in a manner that is, essentially, compromising the principles of their judiciary.

If you're going to bury you're head in the sand to avoid the political motivations behind this case I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

http://theindicter.com/swedens-argument-for-refusing-to-issue-non-extradition-guarantees-to-mr-assange-is-fallacious-and-hides-real-commitment-to-the-u-s-analysis/
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/former-chair-of-un-working-group-on-arbitrary/7147786
http://theindicter.com/sweden-doesnt-follow-u-n-but-u-s-prosecution-of-assange-requested-by-the-us-snowden-document-reveals/

There's no point continuing the discussion with someone whose entire argument is based upon the idea that "Eventually, Sweden would have given him to the US so he should be kept safe!".

 Kanluwen wrote:

So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.

That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.

If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.

???

Blame the edit system. I had pointed out some numbers regarding NYPD's security estimates for Trump Tower in NYC.

Simply put:
Don't spout off things like that without context. The 10 million GBP number being thrown about has, contextually, a very important caveat that you seemed to have missed in your quest to show how Assange has been "super duper wronged".

That caveat?
The 10 million GBP number is for "policing the Ecuadorian embassy" from June 2012 to October 2014.

As of right now, NYPD is ballparking a figure of close to $24million(with $7million being reimbursed by Congress) USD annuallyfor guarding Trump Tower just because Melania lives there and it's being used as a target for protesting/demonstrations.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.

Not as much as you think it does.

Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.

How on earth is his eventual extradition to the US (by either the UK or Swedish governments) at all unlikely?

How on earth is it a guarantee?


That's the point you keep glossing over.

You keep arguing that Sweden has it's hands tied in the matter of extradition, that the judicial powers have the final say in an investigation that has been heavily political motivated with direct involvement of cabinet Ministers. This is simply not true. Swedish legislation gives the executive a 'wide discretion' when dealing with extradition matters. There could very easily be a way for Sweden to guarantee that extradition to a particular country would not be heard, or could be heard ex parte absentia. It is not that they absolutely can't, no way around it, it is that they don't want to work around it.

Actually I keep arguing that for someone who whined about how governments are behaving in unlawful or shadowy ways, it's amazing how he wants a government to behave in exactly that way when it benefits him.

And the last part of your statement should really have told you all that needs to be said.
Sweden doesn't want to violate its own laws in a manner that is, essentially, compromising the principles of their judiciary.

If you're going to bury you're head in the sand to avoid the political motivations behind this case I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

http://theindicter.com/swedens-argument-for-refusing-to-issue-non-extradition-guarantees-to-mr-assange-is-fallacious-and-hides-real-commitment-to-the-u-s-analysis/
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/former-chair-of-un-working-group-on-arbitrary/7147786
http://theindicter.com/sweden-doesnt-follow-u-n-but-u-s-prosecution-of-assange-requested-by-the-us-snowden-document-reveals/

There's no point continuing the discussion with someone whose entire argument is based upon the idea that "Eventually, Sweden would have given him to the US so he should be kept safe!".

Let's assume Assange surrenders himself and ends up in UK or Swedish custody. Do you honestly believe that the US will not request his extradition, and do you believe that such a request will not be complied with?

 Kanluwen wrote:

So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.

That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.

If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.

???

Blame the edit system. I had pointed out some numbers regarding NYPD's security estimates for Trump Tower in NYC.

Simply put:
Don't spout off things like that without context. The 10 million GBP number being thrown about has, contextually, a very important caveat that you seemed to have missed in your quest to show how Assange has been "super duper wronged".

That caveat?
The 10 million GBP number is for "policing the Ecuadorian embassy" from June 2012 to October 2014.

As of right now, NYPD is ballparking a figure of close to $24million(with $7million being reimbursed by Congress) USD annuallyfor guarding Trump Tower just because Melania lives there and it's being used as a target for protesting/demonstrations.

The residence of the First Lady of the United States of America, the symbol of President Trump's considerable personal wealth, and in no small way a definitive symbol of his current presidency to the opposition.

Comparing the costs of protecting that gigantic tower from the vitriol of his detractors and very real enemies to the costs of constant 24 shifts and surveillance on a relatively insignificant south american embassy hosting someone that has jumped bail doesn't quite hold up.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.

Not as much as you think it does.

Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.

How on earth is his eventual extradition to the US (by either the UK or Swedish governments) at all unlikely?

How on earth is it a guarantee?


That's the point you keep glossing over.

You keep arguing that Sweden has it's hands tied in the matter of extradition, that the judicial powers have the final say in an investigation that has been heavily political motivated with direct involvement of cabinet Ministers. This is simply not true. Swedish legislation gives the executive a 'wide discretion' when dealing with extradition matters. There could very easily be a way for Sweden to guarantee that extradition to a particular country would not be heard, or could be heard ex parte absentia. It is not that they absolutely can't, no way around it, it is that they don't want to work around it.

Actually I keep arguing that for someone who whined about how governments are behaving in unlawful or shadowy ways, it's amazing how he wants a government to behave in exactly that way when it benefits him.

And the last part of your statement should really have told you all that needs to be said.
Sweden doesn't want to violate its own laws in a manner that is, essentially, compromising the principles of their judiciary.

If you're going to bury you're head in the sand to avoid the political motivations behind this case I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

http://theindicter.com/swedens-argument-for-refusing-to-issue-non-extradition-guarantees-to-mr-assange-is-fallacious-and-hides-real-commitment-to-the-u-s-analysis/
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/former-chair-of-un-working-group-on-arbitrary/7147786
http://theindicter.com/sweden-doesnt-follow-u-n-but-u-s-prosecution-of-assange-requested-by-the-us-snowden-document-reveals/

There's no point continuing the discussion with someone whose entire argument is based upon the idea that "Eventually, Sweden would have given him to the US so he should be kept safe!".

Let's assume Assange surrenders himself and ends up in UK or Swedish custody. Do you honestly believe that the US will not request his extradition, and do you believe that such a request will not be complied with?

A request might be made, but there is no guarantee that it would be complied with.

As someone in this very thread mentioned, Sweden isn't too fond of Trump.

 Kanluwen wrote:

So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.

That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.

If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.

???

Blame the edit system. I had pointed out some numbers regarding NYPD's security estimates for Trump Tower in NYC.

Simply put:
Don't spout off things like that without context. The 10 million GBP number being thrown about has, contextually, a very important caveat that you seemed to have missed in your quest to show how Assange has been "super duper wronged".

That caveat?
The 10 million GBP number is for "policing the Ecuadorian embassy" from June 2012 to October 2014.

As of right now, NYPD is ballparking a figure of close to $24million(with $7million being reimbursed by Congress) USD annuallyfor guarding Trump Tower just because Melania lives there and it's being used as a target for protesting/demonstrations.

The residence of the First Lady of the United States of America, the symbol of President Trump's considerable personal wealth, and in no small way a definitive symbol of his current presidency to the opposition.

Comparing the costs of protecting that gigantic tower from the vitriol of his detractors and very real enemies to the costs of constant 24 shifts and surveillance on a relatively insignificant south american embassy hosting someone that has jumped bail doesn't quite hold up.

A relatively insignificant South American embassy hosting "someone that has jumped bail" and made themselves a public front for WikiLeaks.

Say whatever you want at this juncture, but it's clear that you are extremely biased towards viewing this as a situation where everyone else is wrong but not Assange or his actions.

So, here's a question: at what level of apparent guilt for what crime does the "OMG THE US MIGHT GET HIM" excuse lose its power? Is being involved with wikileaks blanket immunity to prosecution for any crime, or is there a point where Assange just has to face the charges like any other person?

 Peregrine wrote:
So, here's a question: at what level of apparent guilt for what crime does the "OMG THE US MIGHT GET HIM" excuse lose its power?

Rapist Polanski has been working it for 40 years, so it could be quite a while.

There is absolutely no reason for the political pressure to renew and continue the investigation (direct from a cabinet Minister) unless there was an intention to earn some political gravitas with the US. Liberal Swedes may have no love for Trump, but there is no indication that the government has changed any agreement they had with the previous administration.

 Kanluwen wrote:

A relatively insignificant South American embassy hosting "someone that has jumped bail" and made themselves a public front for WikiLeaks.

Say whatever you want at this juncture, but it's clear that you are extremely biased towards viewing this as a situation where everyone else is wrong but not Assange or his actions.

My point was that the figure of 10 million pounds is certainly unusual if one was to assume that the motivation for detaining Assange was not political. People jump bail all the time, not even a fraction of the cost is spent pursuing them.

But we can leave off here, I doubt continuing like this will get us anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, here's a question: at what level of apparent guilt for what crime does the "OMG THE US MIGHT GET HIM" excuse lose its power? Is being involved with wikileaks blanket immunity to prosecution for any crime, or is there a point where Assange just has to face the charges like any other person?

The public doesn't really have access to much of the evidence garnered from the Swedish authorites, but what has been revealed isn't exactly foolproof. You'll have some diehards that would defend Assange against the US no matter the crime or evidence, and you'll have some vitriolic detractors so set on shutting him down they'll ignore any indication of innocence. As far as public support goes, I imagine the mere mention of anything related to child abuse would have his fans abandon him in short order. No matter how groundless such accusations were.

On top of that, there are many that will refuse to believe that their nation, or the US at least, could ever be involved in anything so underhanded. We've already seen a few of them in this thread, accusing others of essentially wearing tinfoil conspiracy hats for even suggesting that the motivation behind this ordeal is politics not justice.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
There's two possibilities here.

1) The women involved in the investigation are telling the truth, contrary to Assange's version of events, and they are indeed victims.

2) The women involved are lying, or persuaded to participate in a groundless case, which is what Assange asserts, meaning that he is the victim.

Obviously, if the 2nd option is true then there is nothing 'douchey' about him being angry about it. There's no possible way to ascertain that outside of a court of law and, given that there is no version of events available to the public that paints Assange in those events in a damning light. That's not to say people should be asserting his innocence as a matter of fact, but in light of the flagging investigation any automatic assumptions of his guilt are completely groundless.

There's a third possibility. The women might genuinely believe their version of events, and believe they were violated by Assange, and at the same time Assange might genuinely believe he did nothing wrong, and received consent for everything he did. I don't know the details of case that well, but the charges aren't about rape drugs or use of threats that either did or did not happen, it's about molestation without consent and a possibly forced consent - these can be very difficult grey areas.

I sincerely doubt Assange has been huddled inside the building for this many years to avoid becoming embroiled in a lesser sex offence investigation alone.

I think people will do a hell of a lot more than Assange has done to avoid being labeled a rapist. Whether they did it or not that's a thing most people will fight like hell to avoid.

That said, Assange is certainly trying to avoid being extradited to the US, that is also part of his reaction to the attempt to extradite to Sweden. As to whether Sweden would actually do that is not known, certainly not to people in this thread, but its pretty clear that Assange thinks it likely and so it is almost certainly part of his motivations for acting as he has.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Answer the 3 questions please.

Yeah, no. I'm not going to answer anything.

The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in ridiculously nebulous nefarious schemes.
The whole reason why this story became such a big deal as well is because he's been pushing that narrative since the outset of these charges.

You don't get put on Interpol's most wanted list for a broken condom, man. Don't tell me it wasn't political.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The amount of bending over backward that is being done to defend Assange is baffling. He's no saint and has harmed innocent people in his efforts to get the 'truth' out. But for some reason the man who doesn't care about outing homosexuals in Saudi Arabia is beyond doubt when it comes to a rape case?

Wikileaks gave a private release of information to Belarus, that identified pro-democracy actors in that country, many of whom are now political prisoners. They coordinated their DNC leaks to most benefit the Trump campaign (such as putting out salacious sounding, out of context quotes on emails about Clinton's Wall St speaches just hours after the Access Hollywood story broke), and of course they gave Trump campaign staffers forewarning of the leaks before they were made (Roger Stone knew of the Podesta emails a week before they were first released). The idea that wikileaks is just a neutral organisation trying to make governments transparent is past naive at this point.

Of course, that doesn't mean he should necessarily be extradited to the US, and he certainly shouldn't be facing the absurd jail times that were threatened at the time. But the defence some people have attempted that wikileaks acts neutrally towards all governments and all political parties isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You don't get put on Interpol's most wanted list for a broken condom, man. Don't tell me it wasn't political.

You've been misled. Interpol's "most wanted" list isn't like the FBI's most wanted or anything like that. Some parts of the internet tried to make it out that Assange was being put on a list alongside gangsters and serial killers, but those are silly parts of the internet that talk nonsense. What actually happened is that Sweden contacted interpol to have a "Red Notice" put out for Assange, this is a process that makes it known to all member countries that there is a warrant out for this person's arrest, so countries can identify these people and contact the country that issued the warrant. Pretty much anyone who jumps bail and leaves the country, or has an investigation conclude they need to return to that country to face charges will have a Red Notice put out on them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
My point was that the figure of 10 million pounds is certainly unusual if one was to assume that the motivation for detaining Assange was not political. People jump bail all the time, not even a fraction of the cost is spent pursuing them.

There will be lots more money spent on high profile cases, regardless of the underlying crime. Between police and legal expenditure, the city of LA spent about 25 times more on the OJ trial than the average murder trial, because that's just how it works. High profile cases become more important, draw in more resources. And to a large extent it is money well spent, LA was a laughing stock for not getting a conviction on OJ, even if they'd gotten convictions on the next 100 murderers who came through, they were known for screwing up OJ. Imagine if one night Assange slipped away, and the UK admitted it had two officers working broken shifts because that's all the resources they had for this. It would make the country look like second amateurs.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
There is absolutely no reason for the political pressure to renew and continue the investigation (direct from a cabinet Minister) unless there was an intention to earn some political gravitas with the US. Liberal Swedes may have no love for Trump, but there is no indication that the government has changed any agreement they had with the previous administration.

Ministerial interference in the judiciary's business is unconstitutional in Sweden, what Ygeman did was comment on the UNWGAD ruling because it's his job to comment on such things when asked by the press.

The assertion made in your first source that Sweden's status as a "Rechtstaat" is suffering because we're refusing to circumvent the principles of the Rechtstaat is absolutely insane. There's a bunch of other stuff in that source that I'd object to as well, but that'd be off-topic.

EDIT: To elaborate a bit on the Swedish domestic angle; in 2001 the Swedish government expelled two Egyptian-Swedish citizens and handed them over to the CIA. When this inevitably became public knowledge there was a public outcry and a major loss of prestige for the Social Democrats, who lost the 2006 election (the revelation was in late 2004 IIRC). The Social Democrats have been burned once already on extraditing people on spurious ground to the US. Add to that the fact that this already is a highly politicised case and that Assange is white and there is compelling interest for Sweden to NOT extradite him to the US

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, here's a question: at what level of apparent guilt for what crime does the "OMG THE US MIGHT GET HIM" excuse lose its power? Is being involved with wikileaks blanket immunity to prosecution for any crime, or is there a point where Assange just has to face the charges like any other person?

The public doesn't really have access to much of the evidence garnered from the Swedish authorites, but what has been revealed isn't exactly foolproof. You'll have some diehards that would defend Assange against the US no matter the crime or evidence, and you'll have some vitriolic detractors so set on shutting him down they'll ignore any indication of innocence. As far as public support goes, I imagine the mere mention of anything related to child abuse would have his fans abandon him in short order. No matter how groundless such accusations were.

On top of that, there are many that will refuse to believe that their nation, or the US at least, could ever be involved in anything so underhanded. We've already seen a few of them in this thread, accusing others of essentially wearing tinfoil conspiracy hats for even suggesting that the motivation behind this ordeal is politics not justice.

The public includes you, so you have no proof that these accusations are either false or groundless. Did we seriously just go to "meh its just rape, now if it was pedophilia"? So his fans are perfectly ok with him dodging rape accusations but the line gets drawn at pedophilia? Really? I mean I know this is Dakka but


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The amount of bending over backward that is being done to defend Assange is baffling. He's no saint and has harmed innocent people in his efforts to get the 'truth' out. But for some reason the man who doesn't care about outing homosexuals in Saudi Arabia is beyond doubt when it comes to a rape case?

Wikileaks gave a private release of information to Belarus, that identified pro-democracy actors in that country, many of whom are now political prisoners. They coordinated their DNC leaks to most benefit the Trump campaign (such as putting out salacious sounding, out of context quotes on emails about Clinton's Wall St speaches just hours after the Access Hollywood story broke), and of course they gave Trump campaign staffers forewarning of the leaks before they were made (Roger Stone knew of the Podesta emails a week before they were first released). The idea that wikileaks is just a neutral organisation trying to make governments transparent is past naive at this point.

Of course, that doesn't mean he should necessarily be extradited to the US, and he certainly shouldn't be facing the absurd jail times that were threatened at the time. But the defence some people have attempted that wikileaks acts neutrally towards all governments and all political parties isn't true.

True, Wikileaks is very slanted towards a certain set of nations and the involvement of certain people in the organization. Its hilarious that people defend this man as a whistle blower and champion of government transparency, when all he does is capitalize on the works of others such as Chelsea Manning. He doesn't even take the time to check anything before he just dumps it. For extra laughs, you should check out the tweet Wikileaks send to Snowden to accuse him of sucking up to Clinton while being neck deep up the Trump campaign: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/758781081072046080 Hypocrisy just doesn't begin to describe the immense irony.

I agree he should certainly not necessarily face extradition or absurd jail time. But I feel that he should need to be held accountable for leaking personal and private information of people who have done absolutely zero things wrong. 5 minutes of work could have prevented that harm, yet he couldn't even be bothered to protect the "little guy".