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?"
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Right. Because you know more about British law than UK judges.
Lets correct some errors here that are running amok on Slashdot every time this comes up.
1) The Swedish legal system cannot file charges in absentia. They *have* to bring him to Sweden, question him again in person (whether or not they think any more information will come of it), and only *then* can they legally file charges against him.
2) The Prime Minister of Sweden has stated explicitly that in accordinace with European extradition law the UK would have to approve any further extradition request, so yes, it's an extremely strained argument to suggest that the UK, who extradites people to the US at the drop of a hat, is a safer place to be than Sweden.
3) The lower British court found (and higher court upheld) that not only is there probable reason to suspect that Assange broke Swedish law, but that the same acts would be criminal in the UK as well. It's not "rape" (with sarcastic quotation marks), as in the Slashdot summary. It's rape, no quotation marks.
4) Assange is not being charged with "sex without a condom", and anyone who repeats that lie is deliberately trying to distort the situation. Here's the actual accusations:
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?