Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Served With Extradition Notice By British Police
An anonymous reader writes "London's Metropolitan Police have delivered an 'Extradition Notice' to Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, who sought refuge and political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London last week. Scotland Yard have said in a brief statement that 'the notice requires Julian Assange to attend a police station of our choosing at a set time.' SY also said, 'This is standard procedure in extradition cases and is the first step in the removal process. He remains in breach of his bail conditions and failure to surrender would be a further breach of those conditions and he is liable to arrest.' However, under international diplomatic arrangements, the British Metropolitan Police cannot actually go into the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Mr Assange. Assange would have to leave the embassy to be lawfully arrested. This raises the following question of course: Is this the 'endgame' for Julian Assange as far as extradition is concerned? If the Ecuadorians fail to grant Assange political asylum, which is a possibility, will he be arrested by Metropolitan Police, and sent to Sweden to stand trial for two alleged counts of 'rape?' Will Sweden then hand Assange over to the United States, where many well known and quite senior politicians have publicly stated that they think 'Assange should be punished severely' for publishing confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on Wikileaks?"
Scare quotes are absolutely appropriate.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Statements made by his own lawyer about what Assange did talk about actions that are legally rape, both in Sweden and in the UK. That's not my opinion, but has been said by other lawyers.
I don't agree that he should be extradited just for questioning, I think there should be charges first, but the courts have upheld the extradition so Assange should just go and answer the questions. Of course, based on the above quotes, he is guilty and does not want to go and face justice.
In any case, if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the US, Sweden is a hell of a lot safer for him than the UK! The UK government hands over anyone and everyone if the US shows as much as a passing interest in prosecuting. Our government doesn't even ask for evidence! On the other hand, Sweden will not extradite anyone for political crimes or where the death penalty may be applied. In addition to extradition from Sweden being far less likely than from the UK, if he were in Sweden then both the UK and Swedish governments would have to agree for further extradition to the US to take place. Picking Ecuador as a place to flee to just proves that Assange is a hypocrite. Ecuador has a rubbish record on freedom of speech.
I support Wikileaks. I stand for freedom of speech. That doesn't change what Assange did.
Assange is not a hero anymore, he's just trying to avoid justice.
A latent existence
He can ride in an ecuadoran-flagged vehicle to the airport and board an ecuadoran-flagged aircraft and fly anywhere in the world he wishes without setting foot on British soil.
Any diplomatic conveyance flying the flag of its home country is considered sovereign soil under international diplomacy law.
Wasn't there something about him having sex with her while she was asleep? That isn't exactly consensual.
Um, it wasn't a broken condom, it was no condom and in her sleep, and yes it was rape. The British Magistrate's court and High Court said so. Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law?
A latent existence
In Sweden, you can't be charged until you've been questioned. So he's not really wanted for questioning, he's wanted for "questioning".
Seem like he stayed there until they said it was ok to go. "Assange has made himself available to the Swedish prosecution from the beginning: he stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks waiting to be interrogated, and left Sweden after asking permission to do so from the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny (which she granted)." http://justice4assange.com/Investigation.html
Come on. This has been talked about everywhere. You can't possibly be unaware by now that what you describe ("consent was withdrawn, yet he continued") is not even alleged by the prosecutors.
And come on again. You can't possibly not know that this entire affair is because of the conspiracy to extradite from Sweden. The "crime" he committed isn't even a prison offense. It's not that he "doesn't want to pay for what he did to those girls" as you put it - girls which by the way, praised him in a party following the "rape", and by the way, were even unaware they've been "raped" until the nice prosecutor told them so.
I'm not sure what your angle is, but you are woefully misinformed and misinforming to be accidental.
Wow, this post went from "+4 Insightful" to "0 Troll" in the time it took me to get a glass of milk -- WTFLOL?!
"Army of fake social media friends to promote propaganda
It's recently been revealed that the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like. It could then potentially have their "fake" people run smear campaigns against those "real" people."
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17852/army_of_fake_social_media_friends_to_promote_propaganda
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Funny how those charges were dropped for lack of evidence, then mysteriously reopened...
Palm trees and 8
The article talks about "standing trial" in Sweden - where charges have not even been filed against him. "Extradition for inquiry" by a judge does not met a recognised standard for extradition, and the British justices tortured the statutes and precedent to accomplish their writ.
The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Wrong. He had sex with them with their consent, then they retroactively attempted to withdraw their consent - AFTER they were visited by a prosecutor.
You can't retroactively withdraw consent for something that has already occurred.
Oh, and using QED like that just makes you sound like an asshole.
All too true. Greg Caton (herbalist) was kidnapped from Ecuador because the FDA needed to protect the profits of multi-national pharmaceutical corporations.
see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=en-us&q=greg%20caton%20ecuador%20kidnapped%20plane%20judge
You get a 4 points insightful for saying 100% wrong statement?
There is no charges of rape in Sweden, there is only allegations of rape. He is being extradited for questioning. Such an important case for Sweden but they never bother to charge him for a whole year.
Here, read the news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/28/julian-assange-london-police-station?newsfeed=true
They even have special bullet point at the end to help you.
But is ok you can just steal the quotes from rape to make 'charges' :)
It is apparent that you haven't actually read the charges or the complaint. He started in both cases with things that most civilized countries consider rape or some other crime. Unless you think it's appropriate that I walk up to your sister/wife/mother and hold them down, use my legs to forcefully spread theirs and then start pressing my penis against them. In what country is that legal? As the UK judges said, the fact that later they agreed to have consentual sex with a condom does not make the first act legal. In some countries saying you are going to use a condom, but then don't is illegal (apparently not in the UK). And again, in most countries, if the man purposely breaks the condom and the woman says stop, and he does not, that is illegal (again, apparently not in the UK). And waking a sleeping woman you has already said she doesn't want to have sex with you by initiating sex before they are fully awake, and not stopping when she says so, is illegal in almost every civilized country, including the UK.
In Sweden, the US only needs to request a "temporary transfer", which, if approved by the Swedish police, will send Assange on a plane and to the US on the presumption that someday he'll be back to face charges in Sweden as well. Unlike the UK, there is no court in the way. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden
If the US really wanted him they would already have him. The US government has already shown they really don't give a shit about him. He is not worth the bother. The guy is publicity hound so why oblige his narcissism and give him a bigger pulpit to preach his gospel? They got the person who allegedly stole the data off military computers which is clearly a civilian and military crime. The most Assange could have every really been charged with is receipt of stolen property. If it had been data stolen from the Russians and most likely China Assange would have already suffered some kind of fatal accident.
Not until a day after the act when the girl found out that he was sleeping around. He's just a normal sleaze and not a criminal one.
Diplomatic immunity isn't granted by the country the person is from, it is granted by the country the person is in. So if you are someone who is from the UK working at the embassy in the US in some capacity that would grant immunity they present you to be recognized to the US. The US then does so, if they want to (generally there is no problem with this) and you then have immunity.
Countries can't just randomly declare their citizens immune. It is an international treaty thing, not a unilateral thing. Country A says "We present you this person to be our ambassador and ask you to accept them as such," and country B says "We accept this person as your representative and grant them status as such."
So Ecuador could request Britain recognize him and grant him immunity, but such a thing would never be granted and would hurt their relations.
Best they can do is grant him asylum, but then it just depends on how bad the UK wants him. As you say the cars aren't some magic shield and that aside they could simply surround the plane they are taking him to with police, or refuse it the right to land in the first place.
He spoke to the prosecutor involved in the case before he left Sweden and asked them if they wanted to speak with him. They didn't, as the had decided that there was not a case to answer. It was only later that it was revived.
Bear in mind that in Assange had consensual sex with both of these women, and that it was only later they decided that they thought he acted improperly and lodged a complaint. I have heard it said that this was after they realised that he was sleeping around.
"has reduced Assange's credibility to zero"
Maybe in your eyes mate. I, and a lot of other Australians I know, still hold him in the highest regard. He has been sticking it to the man (not just the US interestingly, Wiki-leaks have and will publish leaks from wherever they get them) and I hope he continues to do so from Ecuador.
"Extradition for inquiry" by a judge does not met a recognised standard for extradition, and the British justices tortured the statutes and precedent to accomplish their writ.
The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.
The Interpol warrant was a total sham too. Interpol's constitution only allows them to get involved when crimes are committed in more than one country and where there's a minimum 1-year jail sentence if they're convicted. Assange only did something in one country and it carries a maximum 750 Euro fine.
No sig today...
Given the UK's extradition treaty with the US basically hands over our sovereign rights to the US with ridiculously low standards for extradition why would it make any sense to extradite him to Sweden first?
Because extradition from the UK requires you to be accused of a crime and the USA can't come up with one.
Extradition from Sweden doesn't require a crime, they can send you to the USA for 'questioning' (with zero paperwork, too - double win!)
Full details here: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
No sig today...
He's being charged in Sweden, not in the US, and he is almost certainly not going to face US charges.
So...why doesn't he go to Sweden, plead guilty, pay the 750 Euro fine for his "crime" and walk free?
Oh, wait, there's that whole USA-Sweden thing where the Swedes can transfer him to the USA at the drop of a hat: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
No sig today...
It's not called rape, even in sweden.
And we call fingering someone against their will (if there is penetration involved) rape.
However, having sex without a condom when you told someone that they only want to have sex with you with a condom is definitely breaking the terms of engagement since it puts a risk of pregnancy and stds into the picture.
Which fundamentally changes the act.
Of course it's blown WAY out of proportion.
And, no, most real victims of rape (not violent attack rape that is but the domestic kind which is BY FAR the most common type) I've actually talked to are very, very sensitive to all types of sexual abuse and won't condone any of it since they know how vulnerable you are.
Just like people who have been physically abused are way more sensitive about even "friendly" physical fights.
Would you point out to me where the treaty allows for extradition for questioning when no charges have been filed? http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/024.htm
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Well he may have gotten the source wrong, it's not in Interpol's constition, but he was correct about the facts: a European Arrest Warrant requires that the fine for the crime is at least one year of jail time: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st10/st10975.en07.pdf
This is the second time in this thread you've wrongly accused pro-Assange posters of getting the facts wrong, and I've read like 10% so far.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
One of the many lies about the Assange case. He's facing up to four years in prison.
These are not trivial charges. He's accused of pinning someone down sexually until she consented to sex with a condom to avoid sex without the condom, then deliberately breaking the condom, then continually making sexual advances on the person later, and with another woman, having sex with her while she slept, in violation of the terms of consent she had had when awake (usage of a condom) (not that a sleeping person can consent in *any* circumstances). Two British courts have found the charges against him credible.
Yes, the use of Interpol is of course selective. But that's what Interpol is used for, going after high-profile cases and especially cases deemed to be high risk of international flight. Assange fits the typical Interpol target to a tee.
Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?
Because they did get the facts wrong. He's facing four years prison.
Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?
Article 2.1
Though don't mind me bursting your bubble.