It also involved one of the women not being conscious, which is rape in most countries' definitions, including Sweden, the UK and the US. Apparently not Ecuador, though. Stay classy, Ecuador!
In the other case the allegation involved the use of physical force after consent had been withdrawn. Apparently this, too, is legal in Ecuador.
PS. vaginal Americans may wish to cross <em>one</em> country off their list of potential vacation destinations.
He didn&#039;t personally own those shares. They were purchased by one of the Bain entities in the period between 1999-2002, his name appears in an SEC filing because he still had 100% ownership of the Bain entity at the time. It was that filing that led to the whole spat about whether or not he was retired. But those who accept that he <em>was</em> retired are also going to exonerate him of any blame associated with the medical waste company; that happens to cover almost all of the people who would actually have a major problem with the company in question.
I&#039;d be interested to know what proportion of the Mormon church&#039;s operating budget is spent on attempting to convert mainstream Christians. I mean, a pretty big proportion of their budget (apart from, of course, fighting tooth and nail against same-sex marriage) is spent on &quot;missions&quot; (read: recruitment), right?
I&#039;ve always wondered how well it would go down in the South if you could say $x million of Mitt&#039;s money went towards trying to convert good Baptists to Mormonism.
Actually, New Yorker angles at a good point, that kind of shows the most likely way this could hurt Romney.
Romney&#039;s campaign is centrally based on the claim that his Bain experience means he underestands the economy. The Gawker papers could quite easily be used to build the case that Romney&#039;s Bain experience means his understanding of the economy is mostly limited to knowing how to avoid paying taxes by creating fictions, and that this is entirely irrelevant to running a national economy, and that furthermore there is tremendous danger in allowing someone who believes it <em>is</em> relevant to run a national economy, as they will likely believe many things that are <a href="http:\/\/www.pkarchive.org\/trade\/company.html" target="_blank">the opposite of the truth</a>.
I guess I wasn&#39;t even a little careful with the way I expressed myself.<br /><br />There are significant questions of fact which raise considerable doubt at this point as to whether the accusations against Assange will stand up. I have no problem with people suggesting that the case against him is weak and that he should be acquitted. I have a huge problem with people denying that the accusations themselves are of crimes. I have a huge problem with people attempting to claim that what he is accused of is not rape and sexual assault.
<blockquote>That being said, however, if the US isn&#039;t interested in extraditing Assange on unrelated matters whose criminal nature is, frankly, dubious, they definitely have a funny way of signalling as much.</blockquote>
If the US wanted to extradite Assange, they&#039;d have been positively falling over themselves to do so while he&#039;s in the UK, given the bilateral agreement between the US and UK which effectively requires UK courts to extradite anyone the US says it wants, for almost any reason. In particular, there&#039;s no requirement that the US provide UK courts with any evidence of guilt, they don&#039;t have to make even a prima facie case.
If the US wanted him extradited, the US-UK extradition treaty would make it about elebenty bajillion times easier to get him from the UK than it would be to get him from Sweden.
The US-UK treaty doesn&#039;t really require any more than a quick note saying &quot;Please send us Julian Assange, we don&#039;t like him and think he&#039;s a bad man. Thanks, Barry&quot;, and the UK courts would be compelled to serve him up, without any evidentiary hearings.
<blockquote>Actually, I don&#039;t believe any of the conduct the victims alleged against him -- putting aside his version of events -- would even constitute a crime either in the United States or in Great Britain.</blockquote>
On the status of the alleged behavior in English law, there is, it turns out, no room for doubt at all, because the extradition court was required to address this point, and that court&#039;s decision has been upheld both by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Pages 22-23 of the <a href="http:\/\/www.judiciary.gov.uk\/Resources\/JCO\/Documents\/Judgments\/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf" target="_blank">extradition court&#039;s ruling</a> address all four points in the European Arrest Warrant, and find that each of them would constitute a criminal act under English law.
Glenn Greenwald isn&#039;t an expert in European law, though.
A European Arrest Warrant was issued. It was examined by the British courts and held valid. A European Arrest Warrant may only be issued as a warrant for trial, it is not valid as a warrant for questioning. This doesn&#039;t fit particularly well with the Swedish justice system, which requires in-person interviews after the completion of the investigation before formal charges may be brought, but clearly the UK courts, at multiple levels, considered the status of the case to be equivalent to charges having been brought in the British system, otherwise they could not have found the warrant valid and could not have approved the extradition.
He&#039;s saying now he doesn&#039;t want to release his taxes because he doesn&#039;t want to reveal how much he tithed; that&#039;s a private matter. And Ann cries when they hand over the tithe check, because it&#039;s all just so wonderful and meaningful.
jesus and OT but listening to jane mayer on fresh air discussing bamz&#039; lack of post CU fund-raising savvy is scaring the living daylights out of me.
It also involved one of the women not being conscious, which is rape in most countries&#039; definitions, including Sweden, the UK and the US. Apparently not Ecuador, though. Stay classy, Ecuador!
In the other case the allegation involved the use of physical force after consent had been withdrawn. Apparently this, too, is legal in Ecuador.
PS. vaginal Americans may wish to cross <em>one</em> country off their list of potential vacation destinations.
Why not read what the alleged crime actually was, instead of repeating biased mischaracterisations of what it might have been?
Seriously, this shit is really winding me up. Since when did nonconsensual sex become OK if you support the guy?
He didn&#039;t personally own those shares. They were purchased by one of the Bain entities in the period between 1999-2002, his name appears in an SEC filing because he still had 100% ownership of the Bain entity at the time. It was that filing that led to the whole spat about whether or not he was retired. But those who accept that he <em>was</em> retired are also going to exonerate him of any blame associated with the medical waste company; that happens to cover almost all of the people who would actually have a major problem with the company in question.
I&#039;d be interested to know what proportion of the Mormon church&#039;s operating budget is spent on attempting to convert mainstream Christians. I mean, a pretty big proportion of their budget (apart from, of course, fighting tooth and nail against same-sex marriage) is spent on &quot;missions&quot; (read: recruitment), right?
I&#039;ve always wondered how well it would go down in the South if you could say $x million of Mitt&#039;s money went towards trying to convert good Baptists to Mormonism.
Actually, New Yorker angles at a good point, that kind of shows the most likely way this could hurt Romney.
Romney&#039;s campaign is centrally based on the claim that his Bain experience means he underestands the economy. The Gawker papers could quite easily be used to build the case that Romney&#039;s Bain experience means his understanding of the economy is mostly limited to knowing how to avoid paying taxes by creating fictions, and that this is entirely irrelevant to running a national economy, and that furthermore there is tremendous danger in allowing someone who believes it <em>is</em> relevant to run a national economy, as they will likely believe many things that are <a href="http:\/\/www.pkarchive.org\/trade\/company.html" target="_blank">the opposite of the truth</a>.
You don&#039;t believe that having sex with an unconscious person is a crime?
I strongly recommend, for your sake, that you never put that theory to the test.
Similarly, the use of physical force in a sexual act after consent has been withdrawn.
Now, the threat to break into the Ecuadorean embassy is truly absurd, that would be an act of war.
I guess I wasn&#39;t even a little careful with the way I expressed myself.<br /><br />There are significant questions of fact which raise considerable doubt at this point as to whether the accusations against Assange will stand up. I have no problem with people suggesting that the case against him is weak and that he should be acquitted. I have a huge problem with people denying that the accusations themselves are of crimes. I have a huge problem with people attempting to claim that what he is accused of is not rape and sexual assault.
<blockquote>That being said, however, if the US isn&#039;t interested in extraditing Assange on unrelated matters whose criminal nature is, frankly, dubious, they definitely have a funny way of signalling as much.</blockquote>
If the US wanted to extradite Assange, they&#039;d have been positively falling over themselves to do so while he&#039;s in the UK, given the bilateral agreement between the US and UK which effectively requires UK courts to extradite anyone the US says it wants, for almost any reason. In particular, there&#039;s no requirement that the US provide UK courts with any evidence of guilt, they don&#039;t have to make even a prima facie case.
If the US wanted him extradited, the US-UK extradition treaty would make it about elebenty bajillion times easier to get him from the UK than it would be to get him from Sweden.
The US-UK treaty doesn&#039;t really require any more than a quick note saying &quot;Please send us Julian Assange, we don&#039;t like him and think he&#039;s a bad man. Thanks, Barry&quot;, and the UK courts would be compelled to serve him up, without any evidentiary hearings.
<blockquote>Actually, I don&#039;t believe any of the conduct the victims alleged against him -- putting aside his version of events -- would even constitute a crime either in the United States or in Great Britain.</blockquote>
On the status of the alleged behavior in English law, there is, it turns out, no room for doubt at all, because the extradition court was required to address this point, and that court&#039;s decision has been upheld both by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Pages 22-23 of the <a href="http:\/\/www.judiciary.gov.uk\/Resources\/JCO\/Documents\/Judgments\/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf" target="_blank">extradition court&#039;s ruling</a> address all four points in the European Arrest Warrant, and find that each of them would constitute a criminal act under English law.
Glenn Greenwald isn&#039;t an expert in European law, though.
A European Arrest Warrant was issued. It was examined by the British courts and held valid. A European Arrest Warrant may only be issued as a warrant for trial, it is not valid as a warrant for questioning. This doesn&#039;t fit particularly well with the Swedish justice system, which requires in-person interviews after the completion of the investigation before formal charges may be brought, but clearly the UK courts, at multiple levels, considered the status of the case to be equivalent to charges having been brought in the British system, otherwise they could not have found the warrant valid and could not have approved the extradition.
He&#039;s saying now he doesn&#039;t want to release his taxes because he doesn&#039;t want to reveal how much he tithed; that&#039;s a private matter. And Ann cries when they hand over the tithe check, because it&#039;s all just so wonderful and meaningful.
And here I thought it was put the LOTION in the basket.
jesus and OT but listening to jane mayer on fresh air discussing bamz&#039; lack of post CU fund-raising savvy is scaring the living daylights out of me.
I&#039;m also not impressed that when he went to the embassy and left British jurisdiction, one friend who had stood bail for him then became liable to pay 20 thousand pounds. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikilea...">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
Mr. Assange is a disguise artist&#039;s dream. He&#039;s a <i>tabula rasa</i>.