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?
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.