Man ATW, I can't believe you posted a 2 year old article to support your claim against someone that lives in the country.
The Guardian article I posted says that Saudi is the single largest source of funds for Islamist and terrorist activities. It also explicitly cites the UAE. It also says that the governments of these countries "look the other way". Where is the line between being actively involved and allowing something to happen, thereby tacitly approving of it? Is it really illogical? As you said yourself, Saudi is the ideological source behind Wahhabism and Salafism. Yes, the ruling families stand to benefit massively from appearing to be friends with the West. Does that mean they cannot secretly still hate the West, as it seems to be completely the opposite of what their fundamentalist interpretation of Islam stands for, in many respects? Your "in every country of the world, some terrorism financing occurs" excuse is extremely lame and weak. The article says Saudi is the single biggest financier of terror, and also explicitly cites the UAE, and says both governments do very little to fight it. You have displayed your hate against the USA many times here. You work for the UAE government. You have shown your fanatism when it comes to Islamic ideology (wanting to see an old mean in fear for the rest of his life over a cartoon). Hmm. 2+2. As to your "bet", if you can access Wikileaks, it doesn't prove anything. We both know that the Internet is heavily censored in UAE (more so than in any other of the >50 countries I have visited so far in my life). Many articles state that Wikileaks is blocked in the UAE. You work for the government. You might have special access. You have also frequently posted here about ways to circumvent the blocking. Also, the articles stating that it is blocked are from 2010. There are tons of mirrors of Wikileaks around the world which have come up since then. Some might have simply slipped through the cracks of your censors. What exactly would it prove if some of those mirrors are not blocked where you work? Nothing.
Interesting. I never knew having the moral high ground permitted one to jump bail and flee the country. I'll have to try that the next time I commit a crime for a very good reason.
Kojirou, if he were extradited to the US from Sweden, what do you expect would happen? I know we don't know, but based on what we do know historically, what would you guess would happen?
I think the more relevant question is why do people have so little faith in the Swedish legal system? They aren't and have never been lackies for anyone. http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/sweden-furious-over-assanges-justice-criticisms-204888.html After Ecuador granted Assange asylum, Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt wrote: "Our firm legal and constitutional system guarantees the rights of each and everyone. We firmly reject any accusations to the contrary." Along with other Nordic countries, Sweden sees itself as a legal safe haven and has welcomed thousands of leftist refugees from dictatorships in Latin America in the 1970s to Iraqis fleeing the US-led invasion and war after 2003. The World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2011 report ranked Sweden first of 66 nations on fundamental legal rights.
Probably nothing nearly as bad as this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/uae-death-sentence-handed_n_1627270.html UAE: Death Sentence Handed Down To Briton Convicted On Drug Charges DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- A Briton has been sentenced to death in the United Arab Emirates, the British Embassy confirmed Tuesday, after he and another man were convicted on drug-related charges. The unnamed British man and a Syrian citizen were found guilty of trying to sell 20 grams (about 3/4 of an ounce) of mar1juana to an undercover officer, local newspapers reported. "We can confirm that a British national is facing the death penalty in the United Arab Emirates," a British Embassy spokeswoman said. "We will remain in close contact with him and continue to provide the appropriate consular assistance." She declined to identify the man or comment on details of the case. She spoke on condition of anonymity in line with embassy policy. Emirati court and Justice Ministry officials gave no details about the case by phone Tuesday. A spokesman at the Syrian embassy could not be reached for comment. Websites of the National and 7 Days newspapers reported that the two men were found guilty by an Abu Dhabi criminal court. They were identified as a 21-year-old Briton and a 19-year-old Syrian. Initial court verdicts are typically subject to appeal in the Emirates, a seven-state federation that includes the cosmopolitan commercial hub of Dubai and the more conservative oil-rich capital, Abu Dhabi. It is not unusual for the emirates' rulers to pardon convicted criminals or lighten their sentences. Although the country is known for soaring skyscrapers and glitzy shopping malls, its legal system is based heavily on traditional values that frown upon drug use and indecent behavior. --------------- Let's keep in mind that someone who works for a state that would sentence someone to death over 20 grams of mar1juana keeps lecturing us here about how he is talking from a higher moral ground than the US.
Isn't that exactly what a lackie would say as well? How does that statement from the Swedish authorities themselves show that Assange should have faith in the law and particularly the extradition treaty between the US and Sweden? Have you considered the case of Pinochet who the UK refused to extradite on "humanitarian grounds" despite being wanted for human rights abuses against Europeans and Latin Americans? How about the fact that Sweden extradited a person accused of terrorism to Mubarak's Egypt with US help in order to circumvent anti-torture laws in Sweden? Have you considered Sweden's post WWII use of torture? The fact that the US in all its modernity still tortures people in secret facilities after secret trials which are all shielded from US and international law by virtue of unverifiable declarations of potential state insecurity? Frankly, if there is a 1% chance that he ends up at the mercy of the US, then he should be concerned. Sweden can officially ask the US if it is considering an extradition request to Sweden based on its existing knowledge of Assange's actions. The US can say yes/no. This whole thing can be clarified. The fact that this has not happened is worrisome. If the man was not at risk, then the US and Sweden and the UK would all want to avoid the PR disaster that this has caused. His actions are not surprising. To him, ending up in the US is probably the broad equivalent of someone ending up in Iran specifically for being critical of the current Iranian regime. The World Justice Project was launched by the American Bar Association. Its founder is a former president of the ABA if I'm not mistaken.
There is no torture in Sweden. Extraditing someone to a country in the Muslim world where torture might have taken place might have been a mistake, and a technical violation of a treaty, but Sweden has one of the most "proper" justice systems in the world. The United Arab Emirates, on the other hand, the government which Mathloom works for - completely different story. Aside from countless human rights violations in general, there are direct links between Emiratis linked to the Emirati government and torture. This is how that looks (warning: graphic video): <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/E0lBt1Ak5Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Someone who works with and for these people, namely Mathloom, is the guy who keeps lecturing us here about how the US are evil and violate human rights... Another outrageous statement by the Islamist propagandist and USA hater Mathloom. Equating the USA with the current Iranian regime. Unbelievable.
His actions are not surprising, and he should be concerned. He hurt many people around the world with his actions, and put the lives of numerous good people in danger. He potentially raped multiple women in Sweden as well. If I were him, I'd absolutely be concerned, and I'd flee as far as I could from prosecution for my actions if I had that ability. But from everyone else's perspective, I see no reason to be sympathetic to his plight or supportive of his fleeing from facing justice. From Sweden's perspective, I see no reason to grant him special status and interview him in the UK or make any guarantees for him just because he's famous. From the US perspective, I see no reason to release any knowledge I have of his crimes to help him decided whether he needs to try to flee or not. Relevance? It's not like the project picked the US #1.
Longer video of torture committed by UAE government member's relative and "Royal Sheik", aided by someone in a UAE police uniform: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XHgaMqTzWaE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I don't like Assange much personally, from what I have seen of him, but from everything I have read, what he is accused of isn't really "rape". All sex was consensual. It's a lesser charge specific to Swedish law related to not having used condoms.
I understand your viewpoint, and would agree with you if I believed he really hurt anyone who had done nothing wrong. In my view though, he may have hurt 1% of the world and helped 99% of the world. Since that 1% is overwhelmingly linked to your country, I understand that you would be more concerned about this than any non-American. Personally I am indifferent about nationality. Regarding the rape, I'm standing back. It doesn't seem like it's legit, but with a serious issue like rape I'm not willing to back him without a trial or questioning. I think the trial/questioning of this would be at least close to fair. Relevance: it cannot be considered an independent indicator of how Assange would be treated by American/Swedish authorities. The fact that Sweden is historically extradition-happy even when knowing that subjects will be tortured is IMO far more relevant.
No, what's relevant is that you knowingly and willingly work directly for a government that is linked to torture itself.
How is this relevant? You might as well ask "if he were extradited to Russia from Sweden, what do you expect would happen?" Or China. Or the UAE. Or so on, or so forth. It's just as likely as him being extradited to the US. I know it may hurt poor Assange's ego, but the United States is not going to go ahead and screw up its entire extradition system for this slimy pathetic little ****. Having worked with asylees and refugees, this is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. In any asylee case, the asylee has to prove that he will be in imminent physical danger if he is returned to the country he has fled from. The country possesses no obligation whatsoever to prove that the guy would be safe if he returned. After all, how could a country do such a thing? It's proving a negative.
1) It's totally relevant. His potential treatment determines how this whole thing gets handled. But let's assume it's irrelevant. Can you go ahead and let us know what you think would happen just for the record? 2) That is incorrect. There are different rules and regulations for asylees and refugees everywhere, there is different levels of compliance with those rules, and where these rules are consolidated (international law) the US is among a a whole lot of countries which serially breaches international law so they are irrelevant. 3) A country can make a statement regarding whether they are pursuing extradition of an individual. You are being obtuse in assuming there is absolutely no way to clarify his current status within the US.
Mathloom, did you/do you have knowledge of the torture of the Pakistani business man by a member of the dictatorship family that you work for? Thanks for updating us.
I have no idea, because for starters, I have no clue what grounds the United States would use to argue that Assange should be extradited to the United States. So let's start with that. As you believe that the United States would attempt to have Assange come to our soil, what argument would we use to justify it to the Swedes? I call BS. Show me international law that says that the burden of proof is on the country that the refugee has fled from and that they have to establish that the refugee will not be in danger if he returns. Wrong. The US is currently not pursuing extradition of Assange. There is no way to deny this. What Assange is ranting about is that he wants a guarantee that the US will never attempt to extradite him and that the Swedish will never do so. No sovereign state will ever give that up for anyone, ever, especially since that is a total subversion of the entire judicial process.
I'm not surprised none on the pro-war right have any defense of the U.K. refusing to extradite Pinochet.
Well, one, this is the first any one's suggested a comparison between them and two, while I know Pinochet never was convicted, I'm pretty sure he died in Chile, which seems to indicate that the UK did extradite him or at least didn't do what Ecuador is doing.
