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?"
Hopefully Assange gets protection in Ecuador soon and can continue his work rather than having to face baseless and hilariously named smears by the Swedish "legal" system.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Can you be extradited twice? Shouldn't it be Sweden what seeks extradition from Ecuador?
In a matter of time Julian will be.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why are we using scare quotes for the word "rape"? Whether you believe the accusations, or whether you believe those accusations should count as rape, he would actually go on trial for two counts of rape... not for two counts of 'rape'.
Will Sweden then hand Assange over to the United States
I thought that was the point of all of this?
. .
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.
Here in Australia our wimpy Labour government is kowtowing to the US political powers and refusing to provide aid. New Zealanissas no better in the face of the Dotcom matter. I am quite surprised that the US was unable to obtain extradition from the UK but suspect that the political cost there might be too high.
Whatever, Julian, it was nice hearing from you. But you must be made an example of, to show that no one can get away with treading on the tail of a tiger. Specially not an upstart Aussie!
He has been screwed from day one, and nobody's going to help him because the United States is the thug nobody will stand up to. The message we've been sending post-9/11 has been consistently "We'll do whatever the hell we want, and if you get in our way, we'll squish you like a bug." We've created an entire extrajudicial system to punish anyone who disagrees with the current regime, setup internment camps for political prisoners, and we torture and kill civilians and foreign nationals after judging them in secret in the President's own Star Chamber.
Everything else is really pretext. The 'rape' charges, the media spin and control, the reveal that our government has an entire task force dedicated to psyops to discredit anyone who disagrees with our foreign or domestic policies... the government is out of control. We've become the terrorists we sought to destroy... and frankly... until someone punches America in the face so hard they flinch, nothing's going to change.
Although that said, our huge military investments while our infrastructure rots away and our middle class disintegrates is creating the exact same socioeconomic conditions that led to the sudden coup de etat and dissolution of the USSR. I would not be surprised if there is a civil uprising here in the next 10 years and the United States breaks up into several smaller countries. This may in fact have been the long-term strategy of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. -- we have such a big ego and need for total dominance that we'll literally spend ourselves into a hole we can't get out of trying to maintain that, rather than acknowledging that we lost a fight and you know, that's okay sometimes (like every other country has had to). If all it took to bring down the largest military and economic power on the planet was a few airplanes flown into the side of buildings and some sabre rattling from some country built out of dirt claiming they're going to make nuclear weapons... It'll be the most effective force multiplication ever seen in warfare. Ever.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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?"
Tune in next week.. On 'As the Wiki Turns'...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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
The charges aren't alleged, but real and confirmed. Assange is charged with rape, not 'rape', and the allegations against him will be proven or discredited along with the charges in court, should it come to that.
could it be?
Well first he would have to be charged with something, he's still only wanted for questioning.
He fears 'due process.' If I had pissed off all the powerful people he's pissed off, I'd fear it, too.
I've learned you can't blame the American people. We get absolute corporate-knob-slobbering propaganda for news. Ask anyone for details on any story besides the bumper sticker slogan and i guarantee you'll get the implied falsehoods we were supposed to absorb. Without getting partisan, there were two major stories that broke here in the States this week and the reality is so far from the reporting when you take the time to dig into the details.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Last year in Hong Kong, which is under common laws system, a young political activist was charged of committing rape. Throughout the trial period, no evidence of violent, unconsenual intercourse, or any trace of the victim being subjected to helpless state was presented, still the activist was successful charged and the court ruled a prima facie case.
The case was finally dropped simply because the girl dismissed the charge for unspecified reason and then disappeared. This young activist has never been so active ever since.
So no matter how you argue on insufficient evidence or legal fallacy, it is rape as long as the girl testified it is. Assange chose to flee from the prosecution because he knows better, he knows every well what would be the result if he chose to face the trial.
2) "Rape Allegations": Pay close attention ladies! Sure I know you read "Twilight" and think having sex with a vampire would be cool! As you can see, not so much! Seriously though, own your mistake. Just because the "vampire" liked to spray his semen everywhere and is now living in a freshman dorm doesn't mean you should change your mind and accuse him of rape! Any more than you should accuse that frat guy at that kegger in '86.
3) Picking him up when he tries to board a plane: Smart diplomatic staff knows to use the "chunnel" to drive to an airport in France. Problem solved.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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? Not only that but, under the terms of the European arrest warrant the UK would have to agree to let Sweden extradite him to the US.
At the same time if Sweden wants to just interview him why not send a couple of officers over to the UK, talk to him and if he is not convincing then extradite him to face charges? However this I can put down to incompetence/bureaucratic stupidity. The US concerns I think are just Assange's over active imagination. I'm sure the US wants to get him but they could do that far more easily in the UK than Sweden.
It's got people talking about the (perceived, at least) blunders of their governments, at the very least. This is a worst a start. It definitely has made me question my own government (US) more, and it sends the message that they are not immune to scrutiny.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Name one.
it seems to be the kettle with plenty dirty laundry airing the pot's dirty laundry.
I certainly hope you don't expect your world 'heros' to be squeaky clean - if you do then all I can say is that you're more brainwashed than you might think.
His work? What do you mean? What change has happened as a result of his work?
Here your ignorance and short-sightedness is exposed for all who can see to see. As a product of your own society and upbrining, you expect fantastical, magical results from the small flash of time that Wikileaks had. You expect big, outwardly visible changes. How blissfully ignorant you are.
You should very well know that our society is wrapped in cotton wool, that we are 'guided' as to what we should think, what should be considered socially acceptable and that we are given little room to think badly of our governments. Dislike them? Oh, yes. Do anything about it? Absolutely not!
Do you know what? For the first time in decades, an independent organisation awoke people everywhere to the often horrific actions taken by our governments (on our behalf, remember). For just but a second, peoples eyes were torn from their soap operas and hypno-toad shows and injected with a sudden sense of reality. People were outraged! People sided with the philosophical viewpoint of Wikileaks, that our governments that act on our behalf should be transparent - that corruption and lies should be exposed.
Within a few months though, Wikileaks was hamstrung by the full force of entire governments bending every extent of their control to their needs, its flawed public figure was effectively smeared and demonised and the public that was once behind the organisation was coaxed and cajoled into accepting the goverments view on the issue.
Now? "Wikiwhat, sorry? Oh, that thing - isn't that dude a rapist?"
I pity the organisation and I pity the man. Mark my words in stone young sheep, 20 years from now history will look back on this organisation and man and recognise flawed heros before their time. That is if history remembers it.
I think the story is she wanted him to be forced to have an AIDS test. Everything beyond that got political and can't be blamed on her, but instead ambitious lawyers using it to push personal political agendas. Before charges can be laid legal definitions over there have to be changed to match that political agenda.
It's "funny" how "the law" can stop and break down anyone without any consequence. By the law I of course mean the ones with power and money. You go against them, you'll die or everything will be taken from you including your freedom, til you eventually wish you die.
It's unfair, yet what can we do, what do we do? Nothing.
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.
.. valid reason .. good faith
you must be new here :)
Well, Assange stayed in the UK for 18 months on the grounds that Sweden would be much more US-friendly than even the UK, and would immediately extradite him. It looks like he now wants to do everything to ensure that nobody can ever falsify that theory. It would be terrible for him if the Swedish authorities just released him after two hours of questioning. The guy has pretty much painted himself into a corner by now.
It's called rape by those who think Assange needs extradition here on slashdot.
ok.
DI does not apply if there is a warrant out in a criminal matter.
Therefore, to avoid a diplomatic incident which could result in the expulsion of the Embassy staff (maybe even the Ambassador), the Ecuadorian embassy could be ordered to release a wanted "criminal" into British custody. He would be arrested by security staff in the Embassy and turned over to British police.
If, on the other hand, he is granted asylum, he could be helicoptered out to any of dozens of private airstrips around London (the Embassy does not have a helipad but there is one on the roof of Harrod's - still mildly inconvenient because it is right in the middle of the London No Fly Zone - Mohammed al Fayed has never been granted permission to use it!) then flown out to Ecuador in a Gulfstream (which can take off, fully loaded, from practically any 1-mile stretch of tarmac be it road or runway and make the flight with fuel to spare).
Problem there is, I don't think there is a privately owned Gulfstream in the hands of an Ecuadorian citizen, I do know for certain they (Ecuadorian Government) do not have a single aircraft capable of making the 5800 miles without at least one fuel stop.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
...for instance here, I've come to the conclusion that Assange is not a nice person. But whether he is a rapist or just an ass is not yet known. So what on earth should society do in such cases?
Oh, I have this radical new idea; lets have a meeting where one side presents a case in favour of him being a rapist and the other side presents a case against it. We can call this a trial, and it should occur in the same area where the alleged incidence occurred. Assange has up until now tried all manner of ways to avoid this type of meeting, but several levels of English judges have ALL declared that he cannot avoid it any longer.
Sweden is not some banana republic with a dodgy legal system and mass corruption. It is a well-formed and reasonably well functioning system, comparing favourably to most. It is considered one of the least corrupt countries in the world.
Sweden does, however, tend to have quite strict women's rights and sexual abuse laws. In general the idea is that all parts of a sexual encounter should be consensual (not just whether to do it or not, but also how to do it, i.e. if a woman agreed to sex but not S&M, if you force her down and whip her while doing it, this is most likely rape), force isn't necessary to make an encounter illegal (just making it seem hard to get out of it, or simply ignoring pleas not to, is enough), and a woman's continued interaction with the man afterwards isn't seen as definite proof that the encounter was consensual. For instance, if you're in a position of power, and/or the woman's career or other ambitions depended on her continued interaction with you, or the woman may just feel threatened or blame herself afterwards. It is quite common for victims of abuse to assume it was their own fault, and it is very common for victims of abuse to keep seeing their abuser.
So far, Assange has resisted attempts at deciding his guilt or innocence, based on an argument that was very self-serving, and unlikely to be correct, and UK judges have called him on it. Now let him have his day in court in Sweden.
I've read about a law (I forgot the novel's title), that says that if a lot of people, say, the full Yankees stadium, wishes that a dry tree catches fire, it will catch fire.
What if a lot of people start to wish simultaneously that Julian disappears from Ecuador embassy building and appears in Quito, the capital city of Ecuador? It may well happen, in accordance with the Yankees stadium law.
technically it does NOT need to be a Ecuadorian plane! any plane that can make the trip could be used.
All they need to do is stick him in a crate (So it's a diplomatic pouch!) and they can take him on any aircraft that is heading in that direction.
(imagine the SH!tStorm if an diplomatic pouch was illegally opened by the police of a foreign nation)
So what would you do? put up in a small stuffy crate for a few hours or possible imprisonment for an undisclosed and non-specified length time in an American prison?
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Amazing how much the Assange Echo-Box distorts the actual claims. Educate yourself. Basically, nothing you wrote about the charges remotely resembles reality. And as for the tabloid claim, the texts in question were sent *after* they were contacted by the tabloid (not the other way around), *after* they went to the police, and were described as joking about the tabloid's offer. She did not write the revenge article and simply reposted it after her ex-fiance left her. And it was not about "with a fake rape claim"; the first bullet points were advising the person to reconsider taking revenge, and the only specific examples given are on ways to try to break up an ex and their lover, such as encouraging the lover to cheat on them in kind. And lastly, can any of you imagine what sort of stuff would come up if someone dug through *everything you've ever written on the internet regardless of context?*
Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?
Assange is a loser. He got lucky with ONE big scoop and he acts like he's hot sh--. He banged a woman in her sleep? Somebody put this loser out of our misery.
But there's too much weirdness about this case to just say "let's hold a trial like we normally would anyway." For my part, I think the extradition will proceed and I don't think he's going to make it to Sweden. He will be "lost" along the way and never heard from again. His supporters will say he was black-bagged (but no body will be found) and his detractors will say he escaped and staged it in such a way as to martyr himself.
People say "if the US wanted to kill him, they would just kill him." The problem with that is that unless they can stage it in such a way where it might look like an escape, he definitely will become a martyr and it will mess up their proceedings elsewhere. Other people will say, "If he wanted to escape he would just escape." The problem there is that it would unravel everything he has worked for, personally and globally.
I would love to see Assange delivered safely to Sweden and tried. If he does make it to court in Sweden I have confidence that his trial will be fair. If he is found guilty I think four years in prison could be good for him (you are not above the law, Julian) and the rest of the world (he's not a mythical creature, folks). I just don't think it's going to happen.
One more thing: just because someone's an asshole doesn't mean they can't also do good things, and just because someone's nice doesn't mean they can't do awful things. People are complex.
According to some sources the end of Gaddafi's regime was indirectly caused by Wikileaks.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
James Stanley, a career soldier, suffered soul murder as an Army lab rat. He was given LSD in 1958 without being warned of its dangers, as were 1000 other "volunteer" soldiers. Stanley suffered hallucinations, memory loss, incoherence, and a negative personality change. Fits of uncontrollable violence destroyed his family, and restricted his ability to earn a living. And he never knew why until 1975, when the Army invited him to participate in a follow-up study on "volunteers who participated" in LSD testing. In United States vs. Stanley, the Supreme Court majority decided against Stanley’s claim for damages. However, Justices Brennan, Marshall and O’Connor dissented, asserting their belief that the Nuremberg Code’s standard of informed consent applies to soldiers as well as civilians. In 1996 James Stanley finally wrangled a $400,000 settlement from the government, but no apology for having ruined his life.
MK ULTRA, the Nazi human experimentation program rolled into the CIA's MK ULTRA program, whose goal was ultimately group mind control and the production of programmed assassins (review closely the Robert F. Kennedy assassination). Just a small slice of MK ULTRA's victims list:
Stanley Glickman, Harold Blauer, James Stanley, Gail Kastner, Dorothy Proctor, Christine Bauman, Richard Carlson, Tony Vaitelis, Jean-Paul Martineau, the French people residing the village of Pont Saint Esprit in 1951, healthy American children in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, 1000 "volunteer" soldiers, at least 23 women prisoners were also used as human guinea pigs, the Ottawa Citizen published an expose showing that hundreds of federal prisoners throughout Canada were used for pharmaceutical trials of untested drugs, sensory deprivation, and pain and electroshock studies, and unknown patients victimized by U.S. doctors injecting plutonium and uranium into unwitting hospital patients.
"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?' "
Why the scare quotes around rape? And why 'alleged'? The counts are most definitely of rape, and they - the _counts_ definitely exist. He faces trial on two counts of rape. The trial will determine what actions actually took place - i.e. whether the actions *alleged* to have taken place by the police did in fact happen - and whether they meet the legal definition of rape. It's the actions that are alleged, not the charges, and there is no need for the scare quotes.
I've known multiple people who lived in the USSR and you, sir, are an ass.
Though I guess since both countries have done bad things, they are equal.
As far as I've been able to gather from Swedish media, Assange still isn't considered a suspect of any crime, nor has he been charged with a crime.
He is still just wanted for questioning, and Swedish police have refused an earlier offer to take a statement in Britain -- for no good reason as far as I can tell.
Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any law requiring (or even allowing) extradition for something as trivial as "we'd like to ask you some questions" -- neither in UK law, or in Swedish law.
I've yet to find any recent articles that actually explore this -- it's all about the accusations, and about the extradition -- but nothing about the legal basis for the extradition order.
Obviously not (I was here on the first day like many others but didn't get an account), but since my post was IMHO not worth modding one way or another and of little consequence I suspect somebody or an organised group is using all their mod points on comments they don't agree with in this article. I hate this paid for "social media manipulation" shit and suspect maybe there's a bit of that going on with the modding of this article.
Can Assange get any clues from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case
Casteism
Then throw the sob out after the first "rape". Otherwise it sounds like opportunistic sex on both sides with honey traps by two ambitious drama queens.
Once he's in Sweden, history will only remember that Assange was extradited from Sweden, the UK's dirty part mostly forgotten.