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?"
First, everyone who helped paying for his bail won't see their money back, because Assange is not at his bail address, thus violating bail conditions. And political asylum in Ecuador? Seriously? That would actually mean that eventually he would have to move to Ecuador, and to stay there. I'd rather spend a bit of time in Sweden than a lifetime in Ecuador. I don't think Ecuador is too much fun when your money runs out.
I wish you people could see just how silly that is.
The UK has an extradition treaty with the US that causes them to hand their own citizens over for crimes that aren't even crimes in the UK. The only way to avoid this is to prove you're going to be executed or civilly committed for life (that was the new one from a day ago). Yet you people think it's actually going to be easier to extradite him from Sweden, a country with very strong protections, no extradition treaty and a history of standing up to US requests.
And you believe this because it's a conspiracy theory that the US is just that diabolical. For all their bluster the US doesn't want to extradite him because they wouldn't be able to convict him of anything. The only reason they can even do anything to Manning is because they have an oath and the UCMJ to try him under.
This whole argument that they want to extradite him to Sweden so they can extradite him to the US should be insulting to the Swede's. He's going to end up in Sweden and this prosecutor that only charges people for rape and prefers to charge famous people (regardless of merits) for the publicity will likely charge him, he'll beat the charges and it'll be over. He won't be extradited to the US (they won't even ask) and you all will act like the publicity scared the US off and pretend none of this circus and accusations ever happened. It's so bloody silly it's not even funny.
First, let's correct the record here. The accusations aren't that he "did stuff during consensual sex". They're that he pinned down the first woman in a sexual manner trying to have sex without a condom, she consented conditionally on him using one to try to avoid unprotected sex, that he broke the condom anyway, and later continued trying to have sex with her on other occasions (she described the event that night to friends as "violent" sex, and that she didn't feel safe around him; she eventually moved out of her own apartment until he left). According to the accusations, with the other woman began in a fully consensual manner. He declined sex the first because she insisted on using a condom (according to her and other witnesses such as her ex-boyfriend of several years, she had never had sex in her life without a condom). Later he reluctantly agreed to sex with a condom. However, she went to sleep and woke up finding him having unprotected sex with her (not only in violation of the previous terms of consent, but also, a sleeping person simply cannot consent).
Not only are the accusations illegal in Sweden, but the British courts found them as credible charges in the UK as well.
Secondly, however - and the main reason for my reply - is this:
As someone who's actually been raped, you have no idea how offensive this notion that's circulating around is. Do you have any idea how hard it is to tell someone you've been raped? To even be willing to use that word to yourself? It took me about three months before I stopped using euphomisms like "unwanted sexual activity" or even "I've had friends tell me I should call it rape" (to avoid having to use the label myself). You don't want to see yourself as a victim and you don't want to empower the perpetrator, and there's almost always blurry lines (in my case, for example, I at one point consented to other sexual activity conditional on him stopping trying to get inside of me... he went back on his word, though).
At first it seems like something that you can just brush off and keep going. A bad night. Over with, in the past. It's only when it starts to affect your life that you have to accept that it's not that simple (in my case, freaking out on a phone call with a person whose voice I couldn't be sure who it was, for example). Most rape victims (myself included) *never* file charges. Because we know what a nightmare it can be, to go through that. I can't even imagine having to go through what these woman are going through with millions of people smearing them so viciously (without even knowing the actual accusations) simply because they like Assange. It must be a living hell.
Perhaps the charges won't be upheld. Rape prosecutions have a pathetic conviction rate anyway, due to the nature of the crime. But that's what trials are for.
And as for the rest:
He was only questioned in regards to one of the women, some sources say he promised to return, and regardless, charges can only be filed directly after questioning on Swedish soil.
Which isn't at all unusual. There's nothing in the world unusual about A) different prosecutors having different views on a case,or B) views changing as time goes on and new evidence / statements / etc come to light. In any country. But yes, Assange's attorneys are doing their best to try to spin it into a conspiracy.
Rape *is* a serious crime. And Interpol *does* pursue accused rapists. Yes,
Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?