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.
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
Hopefully Assange finally goes to trial so we can stop reading about every last thing he does to escape the Swedish legal* system.
* Note the lack of quotes.
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.
Even if you don't agree with the laws of a nation, you should follow them. If you are not prepared to do so, then you should not visit the nation. The only exception to this is when you disobey the law in civil protest.
He stands accused of "rape", but the term itself varies from country to country and across translations. In this case, afaik, two women consented to protected sex with him under specific conditions. Those conditions changed and consent was withdrawn, yet he continued. Think about it for a minute. If the woman says "stop" and you don't, then it most certainly is a form of rape. Perhaps you have no respect for women and thus consider it ok to continue after that point, but most jurisdictions in the West do not. The labelling of the crime may differ, but this is generally not allowed so there is no reason to denigrate the Swedish legal system on account of this.
Assange's work with Wikileaks, despite sometimes being apparently motivated by his egomania, is overall for the greater good. Governments argue that airing their dirty laundry for all to see places people in danger and threatens the national interest. They need to be taught that they are responsible for perpetrating such actions in the first place. For that reason, I hope that Assange will not be extradited to the US where he will face an increasingly unfair political process.
Despite that, his work does note give him a carte blanche to do whatever he wants. The fact that you would dismiss all accusations against him without even hearing the evidence shows that you think some people should be above the law. That attitude threatens society as a whole. Double standards for people based on how much you like them personally is not acceptable in a legal context.
Maybe there is a conspiracy to get him extradited to the US through Sweden. Maybe there isn't. Maybe he just doesn't want to pay for what he did to those girls because he doesn't think it's a big deal and, like you, doesn't respect the laws of sovereign host nations. We'll probably never know because there are so many other factors involved. I understand that modern media have taught most of us to view things in black and white, but please try to understand that this situation is much more nuanced than that. Maybe it makes your brain hurt to consider all of the different aspects, but the least you can do is try before making ignorant posts with simplistic opinions.
Wasn't there something about him having sex with her while she was asleep? That isn't exactly consensual.
Because it's not rape by any english language definition.
It's rape by the legal definition of the country charging him, which as far as I'm aware, is all that's necessary.
And what's this "english language definition" jingoistic crap? What does that have to do with anything? Are non-english speakers somehow incapable of deciding what the definition of rape is in their legal system?
Quotes are appropriate.
Bullshit.
The scare quotes are propaganda, designed to make people question the veracity of the accuser's claims.
Stop giving cover to that kind of nonsense.
It's rape by the legal definition of the country charging him, which as far as I'm aware, is all that's necessary.
And what's this "english language definition" jingoistic crap? What does that have to do with anything? Are non-english speakers somehow incapable of deciding what the definition of rape is in their legal system?
Even then, it needs to be under quotes. It denotes that this is the Swedish legal version of rape and not the regular definition of rape.
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.
The scare quotes are propaganda, designed to make people question the veracity of the accuser's claims.
As opposed to the facts surrounding the case causing people to doubt the verasity of the claims. You know, like the fact that the first prosecutor who handled the case dropped all charges for (and again, quotes are appropriate here), "lack of evidence." Like the fact that the "victims" were proud to have slept with Mr. Assange, with one attending a party in his honor after supposedly being raped by him. Nor the fact that both women consented and were able to give consent, and only decided after the fact, and after meeting with each other, to file charges.
None of that matters; it's the use of quotation marks around the word "rape" that will cause of us to doubt his guilt.
Palm trees and 8
"There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body."
Where did you get the strange idea that he was charged because he told a girl she was pretty?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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.
If I invite you to my house, and you come over and party and we have a great time and you go home afterwards, then later I find out that you were hanging out at the house of some dude I really hate, I can't suddenly claim you were trespassing.
Wasn't there something about him having sex with her while she was asleep? That isn't exactly consensual.
I know this is Slashdot and all, but even if you have no experience in the subject, at least consider the physics and biology involved.
Without drugs, staying asleep during sex just doesn't happen. Early morning drowsy sex often does happen (my partner calls it "waking her nicely", and between couples who've already established a sexual relationship, doesn't normally involve stopping to ask explicit permission.
If consent was withdrawn when she woke, then Assange should have done the same, but that's not what's being said in the accusations.
I support every woman's right to say "no" to sex at any time, and in normal circumstances I'd side with the Swedish girls involved. In this instance, the stories seem to be very carefully crafted to skirt the divide between outright prosecutable acts and legally consented sex. Crafted well enough in fact, to justify prosecution, while avoiding accusations of perjury.
I could be wrong, but that suggests to me that the women making the accusations might have been primed by legally-experienced third parties.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Australia may bend over for the US, but not in this case, for two good reasons:
1. The extradition treaty between Australia and the US would not allow Assange to be extradited in these circumstances (and while the government may do whatever the US tells them to do, the High Court is unlikely to, and make no mistake, that is where this will end up)
2. The political backlash domestically would be considerable. Extraditing an Australian citizen to the US for something that isn't a crime under Australian law and that didn't actually occur in the US? Would be pretty easy to kick up a massive media fuss about that I think.
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.
Would you bet your life on the fact that there is no US extradition move in place the moment he sets his foot on Swedish soil?
Could be a conspiracy theory, could be unlikely, but would you bet your life on it?
That's what Assange would be doing. Very easy to say "just go and clear your name and that will be the end of it". Not nearly so easy if it's your life on the line.
I'd rather have some people thinking I look guilty fighting extradition, than get to Sweden and immediately be placed on a flight to the USA (or worse). It's not like there is a way out of it by that stage.
Oh shit. I hope my wife doesn't read that. She finds out that stuff is illegal, I'm done for. I'm too old to do time.
So, what's Ecuador like?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
You're joking, right? If countries exploited that silly technicality, then the response would be to put a flag on a diplomatic wheelchair or diplomatic rollerskates to get from the car to the plane.
I need me some of those diplomatic rollerskates. Do they make an inline model, or better yet a diplomatic skateboard? There's some capitol hills than need grinding and thrashing.
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.
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.
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.
The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
I thought that at first, but now I'm not so sure. As others have said, there's a very one-sided extradition treaty in place between the UK and the US; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US could have had him sent directly to them.
But... even if the US were to get hold of Assange, there's a good chance they'd have a hard time proving he did anything wrong. And regardless of the outcome of any court case, the US can't possibly come out of it looking good.
If Assange is found guilty - a man who has demonstrated an amazing ability to garner publicity has just become a political prisoner in a supposedly first-world country. If he dies in prison, he's a political martyr.
If he's found not guilty, a situation that's already embarrassing becomes considerably more embarrassing. Not only can the US not keep secret documents secret, they can't do much about it if those secrets leak.
Better, then, not to extradite him to the US at all. But how to deal with all these embarrassing documents - and ensure that any future leaks in don't wind up with a similar result? Arranging for Assange to mysteriously commit suicide may satisfy a human need for vengeance, but risks making Wikileaks look like a credible source for future leaks and ensures that quite a few investigative journalists will start to do some serious digging through the leaked documents (which are mostly pretty boring, benign bureaucratic stuff).
So, what to do? Well, Assange has become the human face of Wikileaks. Discredit the human face, and with any luck the organisation will suffer with it. And the best bit from the US perspective is that Assange is playing right into their hands. Assange's reaction to these allegations has been:
- To remain associated with Wikileaks rather than publicly resign and pass the reigns over to someone else.
- To move hell and high water to avoid extradition to Sweden.
The US doesn't need to do anything more. If Assange's request for political asylum is granted, he's a man on the run from rape charges - his credibility (and by extension that of Wikileaks) is shot to hell. If Assange is extradited to Sweden, he'll doubtless be charged. Whatever happens after that point, his credibility is equally shot to hell.
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?
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?