Slashdot Mirror
Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK
concertina226 writes "Lawyers representing Julian Assange have demanded that he be questioned in London over rape and sexual molestation allegations. 'Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion. Assuming that the prosecutor does not have a prejudiced opinion regarding the question of guilt, and is prepared to treat the different versions objectively, it is obvious that an interrogation with Julian Assange would benefit everybody, including the injured parties,' the lawyers wrote."
That's something I still don't understand. Why does he claim the Americans could arrange an extradition from Sweden more readily than from the UK?
My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden. A compaint has been filed and he was wanted for interrogation over the filed complaint. Considering the deeper implications of travelling into Sweeden, I can understand his reluctance to do so, especially if he believes the complaint as no bases.
Under the circumstances, en interrogation in England is the best solution for every parties. If, following the interrogation, formal charges are layed and is is accused of rape, his situation will change anyway and probably won't have the choice to face the charges there, regardless where he is.
or, how about stop hiding like a baby
... said the anonymous coward.
Yes, but the reason he's there is that the UK seemed to be about to extradite him to Sweden. He was quite happy living in the UK so long as it didn't mean going to Sweden.
It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....
What that other reason is is hard to tell, exactly. It might be that he is genuinely guilty-as-not-yet-charged in Sweden. Or it could just as easily be that he has an enormous ego, a superiority complex and a highly-developed paranoia that makes him see persecution in everything, whether it looks plausible to a sane person or not.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
What deeper implications of travelling into Sweden, exactly? You mean escaping the UK's we'll-give-you-anyone-you-ask-for extradition treaty with the USA? I can see how that would be a problem for him, yes.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
yeah, go to the country where you are a wanted criminal... just like Amanda Knox is going to do right?
Difference is, she's not a suspect, she has been found guilty of murder.
Sweden is bound by different extradition agreements. It is not meant to grant onwards extradition to a third country without agreement from the extraditing country. But at the same level of the legal hierarchy there is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests. This is the temporary surrender/conditional release regime - automatic extradition on a loan basis.
Really?
http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dok...
http://translate.google.se/tra...
What utter bullshit, and the usual pro-Assange smears when this shit comes up.
Most "everybody else" is not being hunted by the United States. Frankly, if they want to call this an exception to the rule then yes, make an exception for Julain Assange and get of your ass and question him in the UK. This is indeed a special case.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Funny stuff there... just a couple of weeks ago a guy was found not guilty of rape in sweden even though the woman protested and tried to get away and kept saying no, screaming and crying the whole time. These facts wasn't even disputed by the guy but he claimed that he thought she was into rough sex and got away with it. He also beat, choked and sodomised her. If anything sweden needs tougher laws against rapists.
Besides, since Assange says that he won't go to sweden for a trial if that would be the outcome of the hearing it's kind of a moot point.
Assange's resistance to extradition to Sweden is I think because he believes he is more vulnerable to extradition lock away in a Swedish Jail, not because the extradition process is easier from there to the US than the UK, just that he won't be able to skip bail and the country locked away in a jail. EAW extradition proceedings from the UK to Sweden were in motion, he was out on bail when he skipped off into the Ecudorian embassy. If he had been charged in Sweden for rape, combined with the obvious flight risk someone like Assange represents, bail would have been very very high or not available. Assange's thinking is it would be at that point that the US would start extradition proceedings.
An interesting point here is it is implicit that Assange will not stand and fight any extradition proceedings if he can skip the country. It is a strategy that has left him imprisoned in an embassy in London. Also it has effectively accomplished what the authorities of many countries wanted to achieve, he is trapped, with a progressively smaller political voice.
Look at how long it took the UK courts to decide that he really should be extradited to Sweden. That too me shows that the UK system kind of works. When he gets over here to Sweden the question of extradition to the US would not be a court matter but a matter for the Foreign Minister and thus could happen in seconds. At least in the UK he has some protection against that.
Turns out that, as he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, he's already escaped the UK ...
Swedish police have visited other countries to 'interview' suspects in the past - including murderers - and presumably will do so in the future, so it does seem a little odd that they're so reluctant to pop over to the UK to interview a suspected 'rapist' who has offered to assist countless times.
The whole issuing of the European Arrest Warrant in the first place is decidedly odd too ... and brings into question the general use of such warrants.
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
"Not sure the UK would have extradited him to the US, and if they agreed to do so it would have been _years_ of court battles before it happened "
If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad. The fact that he found a bolt hole almost immediately doesn't exactly convince me of his innocence OR that he has much moral fibre. As with a lot of political noise makers like him , its a case of do as I say, not as I do. He might play the raised fist freedom fighter doing his bit for the oppressed of the world, but in reality he's just another wannabe politician in a bad suit. Put in him in a position of power and he'll bad as venal, grasping and useless as the rest of them.
Isn't he on Ecuadorian soil, that happens to be located in the UK?
Yes
Actually no. Not that this adds anything to the discussion since the practical situation is effectively the same, and it's a useful colloquial phrase, but an embassy in the UK is still technically "UK soil."
So Assange is in no way "in Ecuador," but the Vienna Convention means the UK has no right of access to him while he's inside the embassy.
I had heard that the only bit of true foreign soil within England is the JFK memorial at Runnymede, but it's also said to have been "gifted back" to the UK, so I don't really know what it counts as.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So you're saying his request to be treated like everybody else is actually a request to be treated different from everybody else?
No
It isn't.
And why should Sweden be more likely to hand his as over to the US when the UK has much tighter bonds across the pond??
I call bullshit. /C
It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Our extradition treaty with the US has far fewer safeguards than does Sweden's. And Sweden wouldn't be able extradite him to the US anyway without him going back to the UK first. I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning. He seems to have a case to answer, as well he would if the allegations against him were made in the UK (not that this matters legally for a European Arrest Warrant to be valid, but it makes a difference morally).
How about you stop hiding away and come out to answer the charges against you? You can stay there for as long as you like, but don't expect us to listen to any terms you dictate.
So tell us, Anonymous Coward - why should be listen to you?
It isn't an exception to question him in the UK.
The exceptions are
a) refusing to do so
b) issuing an EAW for someone not actually wanted to face charges
c) issuing an EAW for someone who was allowed to leave by the issuing government
d) issuing an EAW from the PROSECUTING LAWYER *NOT* the judge
(eliding all the errors in procedure that have killed any possible case in the actual docket)
If you think Ny has any control over the situation you are very naive.
I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.
You do know that the British courts have already decided to extradite him to Sweden, don't you? He didn't run off to the embassy until his appeal of the extradition failed.
There may very well be good reason for JA to not want being extradited to Sweden, but there may be other reasons than discussed previously here that explain why the Swedish authorities are acting the way they are.
One reason is that the prosecutor in charge of the case may have found herself a useful tool that she can use to further her own ambitions in something completely unrelated: she is known to be a feminist and has stated in at least one interview that it must be possible to punish men even after a court has found them to be innocent. She is also a member of the same political party as one of the (possible) victims. Which just happens to be the same political party to which the defense attorney belongs! My conclusion is that the suspicion of internal politics cannot be put to rest until more evidence appears.
-----------
Just to point out a few strange facts in this sordid case:
- JA found out he was wanted for questioning not by being told be the authorities, but by being told be the media. I cannot remember another case where this has happened.
- the prosecutors office called a press conference to announce JA was wanted for questioning. I have never heard of them doing anything similar in any other case.
- the two (possible) victims of rape have the same lawyer. Also this is a first: it does not matter how many victims are involved in a court case, they get their own lawyer and do not share this lawyer with anybody else involved in the same case.
-----------
Full disclosure: I live in Sweden and it is my personal opinion that the prosecutor handling this case at the moment is doing so for personal reasons and should be removed from her position.
Character assassination is very much a useless response. I would expect it from a politician, but think someone with "moral fibre" would tend to stand up for the rights of people they don't like, not help build the fire for an old fashioned witch burning. The arrogance of believing you know what JA thinks also does not put your post in a good light from a "moral fibre" perspective, it is more likely to be seen as a projection of your own thought processes than an accurate account of JA's thought processes.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Well he's not requesting to be treated like everybody else; he's requesting to be interrogated on Ecuadorian soil, which seems reasonable in this case. Why would a Swedish justice system prioritize a technicality over actually trying to move a rape case forward if they really gave a damn about the supposed rape victims?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
No, he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is on British soil. Britain does not regard foreign embassies as foreign soil (neither do most countries). The Geneva Convention prohibits forced entry into embassies and grants diplomatic immunity to anyone within them. This means that people in an embassy are still covered by the laws of the host country, but the only redress that the host nation has is to deport them as soon as they leave the embassy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The Geneva Convention
For some reason, probably related to lack of coffee, I typed Geneva when I meant Vienna.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion.
It's in the summary, you know.
He'll stand in a British court.
To answer the charge of skipping bail, contempt of court, etc. Then he can - LIKE HE ALWAYS COULD HAVE - argue that he should be legitimately put on trial in a "friendly" country. And he'll go through the legal system, same as anyone else. And then the legal system will decide if the law allows him to or not (I imagine it would be hard to argue UK jurisdiction over Swedish charges performed by an Australian, but it's not infeasible if enough prejudice could be proven).
Problem is, you didn't want to argue that several years ago. And you skipped bail, so we have no reason to believe it's not a delaying / avoidance tactic. So now you'll stand in a British court, probably be imprisoned by us for skipping bail for so long and so deliberately, and then WILL NOT ESCAPE our custody if they are required to hand you over to the Swedish anyway. Which they probably are, given the way EU law works.
Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly. We would have all kept an eye on it to make sure suspicious things didn't happen, and at no point would you have broken the law.
But he didn't. He went through the courts and when he didn't get the answer he wanted, he skipped bail deliberately. So go rot in jail for a year or two FIRST and then you can come back to the original rape-charge issue and we'll think about it.
You don't need a treaty to extradite somebody.
Here in the Netherlands, people are eagerly extradited to the US all the time, even though our government is under no obligation to do so. It's often over minor stuff, and sometimes the alleged crimes were not even committed on US soil. There's an agreement about sending such people back to serve time in a dutch jail, but I know of one person (Raymond K.) who was sent to a maximum security prison in the US. He was convicted for xtc smuggling on the testimony of an anonymous witness who had made a plea bargain with an american prosecutor(very dubious in Dutch legal context). The DEA is active in the Netherlands btw, and runs sting operations (=entrapment under dutch law).
Then there's the case of Sabir K., who claims to have been tortured by US agents:
http://wtvbam.com/news/articles/2012/apr/17/dutch-court-backs-extradition-of-bomb-suspect-to-us/
A few days ago, vietnamese student Lee Vu lost his appeal, and it seems the Netherlands will extradite him to the US asap over charges of computer fraud. He claims he is a victim of identity theft.
I don't know about the situation in Sweden, but it may be the same over there. If it isn't, Assange could still simply be abducted, which has happened at least 100 times in recent times in Europe alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Extraordinary_renditions_and_black_sites_in_Europe
If I were him, I wouldn't set a foot on European soil ever again. Same goes for Snowden.
Perhaps you could try responding to things I actually said, if you're going to the effort to click "Reply" on my post.
And perhaps you could explain why the Swedish government would while the British wouldn't, since he was quite happy to stay with them for a long time.
My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden.
Under the Swedish legal system he has to be interviewed by the prosecutors before he can be charged. There are other nations in the EU that have similar legal systems.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Because the Pirate Bay trial showed that the Swedish courts are easily controlled by the US entertainment industry, so just imagine how much more the US justice system can control the Swedish courts.
Really? You don't think that the US can make up some espionage or terrorist charges so that Assange can be extradited to the US from Sweden? Don't be so gullible man.
Where as the people making a case against him appear to have pulled the wool over the eyes of another extremely gullible demographic: you. If comparing people who don't share your position to naive teens in a painfully obvious attempt to play the man instead of the ball is the best you've got then debating on the internet is probably about the right level for you.
It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....
In the pirate bay case history has shown us that sweden and it's authorities easily succumb to the pressure from U.S. I think that Assange's fear of return to the sweeden is very well justified.
As for character assassination - judging people by their actions is entirely legitimate and nothing that man has done has convinced me that the way I see him is wrong.
Except your not. You're inventing actions then judging him for them.
He went to the embassy because the UK had already agreed to extradite him to Sweden.
That's a fact, you can look it up.
He doesn't want to go to Sweden because they have a history of handing people to the US to be tortured without even a trial.
That's also a fact, you can look it up.
It has nothing to do with him being extradited to the US from the UK. That's simply something you made up in order to smear his character.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
[citation needed]
You seem to have conveniently forgetting him happily saying in the UK for quite some time before running to the embassy, without apparently a single fear he would be extradited anywhere.
Or, of course, that he went to Sweden of his own free will in the first place. No fear he'd be extradited then.
Why do you think they can do that for Sweden, but couldn't do it for the UK during the long time he was staying there?
Nevermind : http://www.thelocal.se/2014011...
I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
If you think the US government only cares about this because of Hillary and the current administration, you are very naive. It doesn't matter who the next administration is, they don't want people leaking state secrets.
A common fallacy. He's on UK soil.
We just have an internationally-recognised agreement that we do not enter it without permission. It belongs to the UK. We even considered forcing the embassy out of OUR building so that he was no longer in "the embassy". It was legal, but it's dubious and probably immoral and we didn't do it.
But an embassy is the soil of the host nation. There's just an agreement that we won't enter without permission unless there are extraordinary circumstances (e.g. a fire).
I'm really surprised how many highly rated comments claim extradition from the UK would be easier. Extradition from Sweden to the US would almost certainly happen. Take for example this fact:
How could anyone reasonably expect him to willfully submit to that? It seems highly likely he would end up rotting in a US jail for life, unheard and unseen.
Not really. "Ireland" isn't part of the UK. It's not British either.
UK = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE THING!)
GB = England, Wales, Scotland.
Ireland is Irish, uses Euros, has its own government, and is independent of the UK. That's part of what the whole historical Irish/UK problems were about - an independent Ireland free of UK interference and "giving back" Northern Ireland (AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE THING) to Ireland (Eire).
The Garda are Irish. It's the UK spying on the Irish. Which we've been doing since the 70's at least, after all the trouble with the IRA blowing up our buildings and killing our civilians (and, obviously in modern times, us doing things just as illegal back to them).
I used the word "hope" and was writing about someone else's hope so your lack of reading comprehension skills has somewhat derailed your "clever" comeback of trying to shoot the messenger.
For future reference:
http://howbritishareyou.com/wp...
If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.
This is almost exactly what happened, but thanks for your uninformed reckon.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
So you're trying to impose a naive view of "hope" onto Assange? No, that sounds stupid. If you accuse somebody else of being naive, don't get upset when it gets thrown back in your face when you act naive. It's nothing about "shooting the messenger".
"It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden." -- except he isn't in the UK. He's in Ecuador. And when Whitehall floated the idea that they could violate the integrity of the Ecuadorian embassy to arrested him, it blew up in their faces. Doing so would effectively open up their embassies to similar retaliation by every other country in the world.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
As for whether or not Assange believes himself when he claims he fears extradition to the US - He only faced two years in a cushy Swedish prison. He has now lived trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy for four.
Try 18 months, not four years.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
If you think Ny has any control over the situation you are very naive.
I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
Yes, a sane, balanced view of the situation. Almost as sane and balanced as Julian's.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
This doesn't get mentioned enough:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Sweden can extradite a suspected criminal to any country that asks, no appeal.
The UK can extradate a criminal only if the act is a crime in the UK's regime (e.g. you can't extradite to Saudi Arabia someone who draws a picture of Mohammed smoking a cock) and only to a few countries, the USA being one, without having some evidence that a case needs to be answered.
So your bullshit call is complete and utter uninformed and INTENTIONALLY AND GLADLY uninformed bollocks.
Ah, math fail on my part. I just did 2014 - 2010. Good catch.
Wow... So that BS went on for almost two years before Assange holed up in London? Funny how fast the wheels of justice turn, sometimes.
Citation?
I've seen that asserted a lot, never seen any evidence offered.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Of course, he spent YEARS in the UK while the Swedes' extradition request worked its way through the courts. If the USA wanted him, why didn't the USA try to extradite him from the UK during that time?
Face it, the evidence is that the USA has no real interest in Assange.
Obama has been willing to assassinate US citizens (twice, at least, and they're debating how to go about doing it again, I see in the news), so why wouldn't he just take out Assange the old-fashioned way if we cared about Assange at all?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
And, like everyone else, the prosecutor should interrogate him in the town/city where the crime was committed.
Refusing to return to the country with jurisdiction and demanding to be interrogated in a third country is special treatment.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Like, you know, "everybody else" would have to do?
Unless they're Amanda Knox?
I'm sure you know UK, but you don't know Sweden. The ruling party has close ties to the US. They've used Karl Rove as a consultant, and the foreign minister has admitted to passing on highly confidential information to the US embassy in the 70s - inter-party negotiation positions, stuff he wasn't even allowed to share with his own party.
They would pay a political price for just turning over Assange. But they would do it. They would need only the flimsiest of excuses. To be seen as US' puppets in their own country's eyes? No big deal to them, rubbing elbows with the US is worth it.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
It doesn't matter - because he's not staying in the UK - he's staying in the *equadorian embassy* which means hes actually on the soverign state soil of *equador* who has aggreed to offer him protection by letting him stay *in equador*.
There has been no extradition request for Knox yet, and even if one is issued there's every chance the US would not extradite because of double jeopardy. You can't be tried twice for the same crime under US law, and that is reflected in our extradition treaties.
UK is more powerful , and more nationalistic. The Conservatives may be just as deferential to the US in private as Sweden's ruling party, but they would pay a big price with their constituents if they acted like lapdogs in public.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
If this argument had any legal standing it would present it in court not in the media. IMHO it is just another example of the Assange's egotism and narcissism
He's in the UK, in the Ecuadoran embassy. Embassies are not extraterritorial soil, but are protected under the Vienna Convention. Under the Convention, the UK can't enter without approval from Ecuador, which makes it similar in practical effect, but it's not the same as being on Ecuadorian soil.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Try dangling this in front of your nose. After a day or two, you might see it.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/1...
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
I call Bullshit on youir Bullshit, but thanks for playing
The UK - US do not have a bilateral agreement to hand over an individual without a court case, but Sweden - US do have that type of agreement
The tighter bonds are there between the UK - US governments but the laws of the UK do not allow what the US - Sweden agreement allows them.
Thanks for playing ..... nope wait a minute, thanks for losing at simple logic.
It does, because he isn't ... as is pointed out every time this pointless story comes back to /.
"Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
And that requires being inside there borders? At this point he has effectively sought and been granted political asylum by Ecuador, that intentionally trumps any other nations claim on him or there would be no point to political asylum.
No sir I dont like it.
Look at how long it took the UK courts to decide that he really should be extradited to Sweden. That too me shows that the UK system kind of works. When he gets over here to Sweden the question of extradition to the US would not be a court matter but a matter for the Foreign Minister and thus could happen in seconds. At least in the UK he has some protection against that.
As far as I know you have some amount of protection when extradited. You can only be taken to court for the crime in the extradition request and if guilty, put to jail for that crime, not for anything else. And you have the right to be returned to where you came from afterwards. So worst case: Be sent to Sweden, go to jail, leave jail, demand to be brought back to the UK, go to court there for skipping bail.
Firstly (and the ONLY case brought to the UK courts to see if it was valid, NOTHING to do with probable guilt), it was filled in by the prosecutor, NOT a judge.
The EAW is for someone who has actually committed a serious crime and been found guilty and/or bount to court appearance. Julian asked to leave and was told he could. And they don't want to charge him (if they did, they would not be able to send him to the USA until after the court case, whereas if it's just to answer questions, there is no court case in Sweden to get out of the way and the foreign minister can just sign Julian away to US authorities).
The EAW contains the CLAIMS that the PROSECUTOR wishes to ask about, not the charges he's facing, as is supposed to happen.
If convicted, he would likely serve some time in Sweden, then be extradited to his native Australia on release. Australia does have a history of being a US puppet, so perhaps he is more worried about being extradited from Australia than anywhere.
Sorry, extradited was not the right word, he would be deported on release from prison.
There has been no extradition request from Italy.
Under the circumstances, en interrogation in England is the best solution for every parties. If, following the interrogation, formal charges are layed and is is accused of rape, his situation will change anyway and probably won't have the choice to face the charges there, regardless where he is.
I think for some parties it is best when he stays locked into that embassy. So they are not gonna change anything and Assange must stay there until he is willing to risk to go to Sweden.
It's obviously nothing other than a failed attempt to insult me because you recognised my handle from an earlier discussion. I'm sure you've got far more interesting things to do than twisting the words of others out of shape. You are not fooling anyone. The audience you are playing to does not exist by this point and we both know you are just ineptly playing a very childish game here.
That didn't help Christopher Tappin (exactly the sort of person your typical Home Counties Tory might be expected to support)
This is indeed a special case.
No
It isn't.
Yes, it is. Or do you know about any other case where interpol issued international 'red notice' over such trivial/weak accusations?
Interpol red notices are just requests for extradition. They get issued whenever one Interpol member state requests arrest and extradition of someone who's currently in another state, regardless of the severity of the crime. There were 8126 in 2012. There was absolutely nothing unusual about Interpol issuing a red notice for Mr. Assange.
"Face it, the evidence is that the USA has no real interest in Assange." - that's bullshit. Even while denying that he's under indictment, the official who said it was only half-hearted in his denial: "Nothing has occurred so far," ( -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/... )
"So far" being the operative word. And that sounds like a lot more interest than none at all.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
If convicted, he would likely serve some time in Sweden, then be extradited to his native Australia on release. Australia does have a history of being a US puppet, so perhaps he is more worried about being extradited from Australia than anywhere.
Exactly. I have a feeling that the problem here is that Assange knows he is actually guilty as hell in regard to being a shit in exactly the way these women allege. He has been warned by his lawyer that if he returns to Sweden and pleads guilty he will be given a trivial punishment, but then also deported as an undesirable back to Oz. Even if the US did not want him when he got there chances us in the UK would not allow him back into the country, we can do that for any non European we want if they are "not conducive of the public good" in the opinion of the home secretory.
I do not doubt he has been set up, but think that for anyone to know to set him up like this there must of been an awareness that he regularly behaved in a pretty awful way towards members of the opposite sex and that this was a prime way of punishing him. They exploited this but he could have avoided this by not being such a shit in the first place.
The US probably don't care whether he ends up in one of their prisons or not, currently he has his very own prison set up in an embassy.
I dont read
It's obviously nothing other than a failed attempt to insult me because you recognised my handle from an earlier discussion.
Sorry, I've debated many people here and did not recognize you. What I picked up on was you calling somebody naive and then making your own naive statement.
we both know you are just ineptly playing a very childish game here.
I think you are, in that you can't admit when you are wrong. Not a single thing in your most recent post addresses anything I said, as in how would it make sense to describe a naive hope to Assange? It goes even further than that, because to sum up the releases by Wikileaks as "leaks that embarrassed Hillary" would no doubt piss of Assange.
So what you've done is make your own naive statement, and then try to salvage it by saying it's something Assange is hoping for. Keep on digging that hole.
Because the UK is not as corrupt as Sweden. They actually follow the rule of law there, but in Sweden the US could just send some agents to Sweden and he could be flown out of there on the next plane.
Transparency International, an NGO devoted to fighting corruption, gives Sweden a better score (89/100) than the UK (76/100).
Look up the law in Spain, which is bound by the same arguments in Sweden.
Sweden was basically singled out, and forcibly coerced by US.
I had heard that the only bit of true foreign soil within England is the JFK memorial at Runnymede
Actually, the Rothschilds have their own Vatican; I believe it's known as the City of London.
LOL! Oh please, just go back to your student debating society where people might take your argument seriously :o)
I suggest looking up the allegations against him before going on with your claims in some detail. Even in worst case scenario where judge also happens to be extremist feminist and actually agrees with insanity that is the case, he's extremely unlikely to get jail simply due to legal constraints on punishments.
Sweden has a long history dating all the way back to WW2 on selling out people to foreign powers in exchange for better relations, technology licenses and so on.
That's a reason, for example, why Sweden has the biggest military industrial complex in relation to population in the world.
"Sweden because they have a history of handing people to the US to be tortured without even a trial."
Oh riiiight. Can to point us to a list of people extradited by sweden who are now being "tortured" in the US?
Whats that? You can't because you're talking out your arse? I'm shocked.
I like the tinfoil hat you've got going there btw.
And considering the merits of the case, he'd be given a suspended sentence even if they did decide to convict him, which in light of the facts of the case is highly improbable.
Of course, with enemies like he has, facts will be engineered very quickly.
I believe the logic is based on conditional consent: She says "Yes, if you use a condom", he doesn't use a condom, therefore she never said yes, which makes it rape.
I agree it seems a little drastic putting it on the same level as a back-alley assault (though perhaps Sweden has multiple degrees of rape as we do for murder), but it's a lot more severe of an act than just "being a dick". Embarrassing somebody in public is dickish, possibly impregnating a woman so that she has to chose between having a unwanted child or an abortion, is *way* past that.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Let me toss a scenario for you:
Man and woman meet over drinks. They get drunk, and woman shares a fairly standard thing - she has a rape fantasy and she's drunk enough to suggest it. Guy agrees. They do the whole thing.
It turns out to be a whole lot worse than what paperback novels aimed at women portrait the act as. Woman regrets the act and goes to the police. Bam, rape charges.
Now if you take in account just how many paperback novels featuring soft rape fantasy there are aimed at women and just how well they sell, as well as drinking culture among women in Sweden and known lack of inhibitions that it produces, you're suddenly faced with a choice of sending an innocent man to prison just because he didn't compare with men from paperback novels.
And if you do that, you may as well start sending women to jail because they don't match to porn stars in bed either.
"why didn't the USA try to extradite him from the UK during that time? "
Because the extradition only applies if the crime is one that applies in the UK. Being a non-US residient and not bound by any non-disclosure, JA's actions are not illegal in the UK, therefore not an extraditable offence.
Well tell that to the two Egyptian asylum-seekers that where grabbed on the street and deported illegally out of the country by the CIA with the full knowledge and approval by the corrupt Swedish government.
Here are the details of that illegal extradition.
I don't know a thing about law in Europe or England but is a man required to respond to questioning when accused? Considering the danger in which Julian lives if there is any question asked at all it should be by telephone. And he should have legal counsel well versed in the laws of all nations involved in the dispute. Frankly if hard proof is less than available the accusations are without substance anyway. The US wants him so badly that they would hire people to make all kinds of allegations to get their hands on him.
It's far from a sane, balanced view, simply because it's not a choice between "the current US administration" and a next one that "doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary" - it would be a choice to wait for various future states, not one future state and one current.
If Assange really is just waiting out the current administration, he will be up against either a Republican administration that really likes the NRO, NSA, CIA and all the rest having near unlimited powers, and will put anybody those organizations don't like on their "High Priority - No Good Bum" list, or a Democratic administration where Hillary herself is likely to be Commander in Chief. There's very, very little chance the US will actually elect either a Republican that actually wants to reign in Homeland Security and would promote compromise on the Assange case to help do it, or a Democrat that isn't Hillary herself. Both states that migh prevail if Assange waits are likely to be worse than the state right now, from his point of view.
Saying Assange is playing a waiting game is effectively saying he is desperate, and gambiling on very low odds outcomes.
Who is John Cabal?
Actually he's being accused of sleeping with two women without telling them.
Pretty much everything else is window dressing. The case has all the feature of moden Swedish feminism, ranging from giving university lectures on "how to use rape accusations to put your ex-boyfriend in jail"...
Doing this is probably illegal, do you have any reference to this? Sounds like a myth like the one presented in Turkish media among others: that Swedish women go to Turkey, have sex, accuses partner of rape and then get money from their (Swedish) insurance. Strangely the insurance companies had never heard of anything like that - there isn't even something like a "rape insurance".
How would a used condom be proof that it wasn't used? You aren't making any sense. Anyway I have trash in a bin for over a week sometimes, do you empty yours daily?
The two Egyptian asylum-seekers that where grabbed on the street in Sweden and deported illegally out of the country by the CIA didn't have much protection.
But yes the punishment would probably be a fine (which are mostly symbolic).
What I don't understand is why Assange just doesn't get assurance that he will not be deported to the US if he is as innocent as he claims. Such agreements aren't that uncommon FYI.
Here are two Egyptian asylum-seekers that where extradited illegally from Sweden by the CIA and tortured.
The "crime" US wants him for is treason. His lawyers could argue that it carries a possibility of death penalty and therefore it is impossible for UK to hand him over. Sweden does not have such qualms. But UK can extradite him to Sweden because Sweden has no death penalty and the rape charge is much lesser charge.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I never liked the guy, just saying, and he has probably done something bad with the women accusing him, but the whole thing is quite spectacular. Had it been someone else, the swedish prosecutor would gladly allow him to be questioned in the UK, and then - perhaps - called for an extradiction if something comes up that warrants that, after the interog. There's something fishy about the whole thing: the case, the women, the prosecutor, the "escape", etc.. mmm... I know that I think... Wanna hear? Ok.. here it goes: 1. Guy has megalomania. 2. Get's women drunk, tries to sleep with them, and does. 3. Women regret the thing, or tried to say no to him (see point 1). 4. Women contacts police. 5. "Shiaaat, I'm Julian Ass.. The U.S of A will hunt me down for this..." 6. The U.S. of A hunts him down. These cases, "the-woman-say-no-in-somewhat-of-a-drunk-state-and-the-guy-has-megalomani-and-the-whole-thing-gets-complicated", we have them all the time nowadays. Said thing. A no is a no, no mather how drunk you are. Disclaimer; I'm swedish. PS. By the way, I'm on Mac OS X, what happened to my CR/LF?
Read the facts of the case. They are freely available. It's not "me" who is "not making any sense" but the woman who came to accuse Assange. Those are HER claims.
That's why the first prosecutor, who didn't have history of radical feminism threw the case out until someone (likely in intelligence) noticed the case and figured out it could be used against Assange.
P.S. I have no idea about myths in Turkey. I just happen to live next door and it's common knowledge here in Finland that when you bang swedish girls on the Turku-Stockholm minicruises, you may get accused of rape a few weeks later. It rarely amounts to anything though.
And I do mean bang. That's what you do on those cruises. That and drink. There's a saying around here that amounts to "what happens on minicruise stays on minicruise). That also helps when one of them has a husband or boyfriend gets all jealous about her banging other men on the cruise and she claims rape. Police in Sweden usually treats those "late claims" with all the seriousness they deserve.
Because US would be stupid to provide one. And US isn't stupid.
P.S. Swedish and Finnish legal systems are very similar - ours was built on theirs and we have a very similar cultural background. The fact is that while the judges have significant amount of weight in our systems as to how the sentencing will go. They are the legal experts after all.
Why not?
As a swede, I'm offended that he is pissing on our legal system.
I say invade the house and drag his sorry as back to face the interview.
IF he would have done that directly he would have been released pending a charge (not likely)
If it would go to court he would be aquitted. He word against the ladies.
And if he now was paranoid about "honey-pot ladies" why the f-k didn't keep it in his pants?
For all the good he has done, this is just stupid.
Funny but I am pretty sure Sweden is the nation that is after Assange in this case. He really should just go to France, they have a long history of protecting famous rapists.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Protection applies only if you are a Swedish citizen. The judicial systems does not even have to be involved at all if a foreigner such as Assange would be deported to the US.
Nor does Sweden. The suggestion that Sweden had such an agreement came from a misreading of their extradition treaty; the same term appears in the UK law and is about extraditing people temporarily after the extradition has been approved.
It seems that every time Assange comes up I have to paste this, so here goes. From the English High Court judgment, he is accused of 4 offences, as follows:
So what he is is alleged to have done (whether or not he did so) is definitely rape under both Swedish and English law.
According to the English High Court, the rape allegation comes from him having sex with someone while she was asleep - the non-use of a condom being an aggravating factor.
The not-using-a-condom is a separate offence of sexual molestation, with the other woman. He's also accused of a second count of sexual molestation against her (for rubbing himself against her, against her will) and one of unlawful coercion for using force against her.
And yes, from my understanding of Swedish law, they do have different degrees of "rape", and even if they don't, they will almost certainly have different levels of sentence.
The point of asylum is to piss on another nation state it's working as intended. Equador has decided that it's more likely a witch hunt to pin something on him and/or that they just like the political angle.
No sir I dont like it.
For the US to extradite him from Sweden they'd also need permission of the UK (under the EU Surrender/Extradition Framework). Which means the case would first have to go through the Swedish courts, then the English courts, maybe the CJEU and probably the ECtHR.
In contrast, extraditing him from the UK would require just the English courts and ECtHR - so would be significantly easier.
The problem is that the guy in that video apparently hasn't read the actual treaty. Nor, it seems, have the people who wrote this page on Justice4Assange which has the video embedded and even quotes the relevant passage of the treaty.
Yes, there is a temporary surrender provision, but it only applies if the extradition has already been approved, i.e. if the Swedish (and English, and European) courts have approved it.
How can he be accused of treason in the US if he is not a US citizen?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Wouldn't just the prosecutor need to drop the current case and then the UK permission wouldn't be needed and then he could be extradited with out any problems? But in any case the Swedish government has shown before that they don't exactly follow the law.
Maybe he shouldn't have been playing mr. Rapist, then. If the victim were my sister or daughter he would have larger problems than a remote chance on extradition. If you ask me, Assange is full of bullshit, he is soooooo important, the whole world's apparently after him.
"[I]t is incorrect to say that the final decision to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US would be made by the courts... Swedish extradition law clearly states that the Swedish government is the body deciding on any extradition request"
Here is the long explanation involving quotes from several law professors who know their stuff.
If he is in Sweden, having been surrendered, then the UK's permission will be needed to extradite him further. That's in Article 28(4) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant:
It doesn't matter if Sweden drops the charges or accusations, they couldn't extradite him to the US without permission from the UK.
On the Agiza and al-Zery issue, to me that is an argument against extraordinary rendition happening from Sweden; it was well over a decade ago, and caused such a huge scandal nationally and internationally, with changes to rules and laws, that it is unlikely to happen again, in an even higher profile situation, with a new government. Iirc there was likely to be a major investigation with legal action against the relevant Swedish officials, but that wasn't likely to go anywhere as the foreign minster at the time was murdered between the renditions and the scandal breaking.
Were Sweden to break the law and extra-judicially surrender Assange to the US, there would be a major international scandal, as they would be almost certainly breaking Swedish, EU and ECHR law, to help the US in what is probably already an unpopular situation. I don't think it would end well for the Swedish government - not least because they'd struggle to ever get an extradition or surrender warrant in similar circumstances ever again.
What those quote are saying is that if the Swedish courts say he can be extradited, the Government can say he can't be.
However, that decision still has to be made legally; i.e. in accordance with the law. So the Government couldn't (I hope) refuse an extradition because it was one of their ministers and they liked him. They would need a reasonable ground (or whatever their legal equivalent is - I don't know much about Swedish extradition procedures, but I do about English ones). While I disagree with this article's conclusions, it has some stuff pointing out how the Government would have specific grounds for refusing an extradition request... but to me it seems perfectly reasonable for them not to give hypothetical guarantees - particularly if those guarantees are enshrined in law anyway (such as not extraditing people for political crimes, or in cases of discrimination and persecution). If they get an extradition request, they can dismiss it immediately if it is manifestly unfounded under one of these grounds (or any other ground) but until they receive a request, they can't know if that's the case.
Not just that country. You would be perceived as a nation which does not respect embassies if its in their convenience to do so.
Sweden has the biggest military industrial complex in relation to population in the world
Israel and Switzerland have pretty big military industrial complexes as well. In Sweden's and Switzerland case its because of their policy of neutrality.
Now is it double jeopardy when there was a trial, an appeal, and an appeal to the appeal?
Next, the appeal to the appeal to the appeal! One trial - not two - so no double jeopardy.
If the roles had been reversed - the US would be busting a gut to get someone extradited. Two faced or what???
so why wouldn't he just take out Assange the old-fashioned way if we cared about Assange at all?
I think that they believe that if they can interrogate him, he will reveal other sources (insiders) who may currently be a danger to national security.
The cult of "national security" can justify pretty much any thing, including rendition, torture, or assassination, if they can justify it to protect the bedwetting conservitard cowards, who are willing to spend any amount of other people's tax money to protect their economic hegemony.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Difference being that Israel is a state in perpetual war and under perpetual siege as well as perpetual occupier, while Swiss military industry focused mainly on firearms rather than high tech equipment - it's their speciality and they are very good at it. Sweden on the other hand exports cutting edge high tech, such as Gen 4.5 fighter aircraft equipped with AESA radars.
All while Sweden is not under any kind of military threat and hasn't been for a long time. And its own military is in complete shambles as has been rather openly admitted recently, which comes for a reason - they are secured by friendly Norway from north and west, friendly Finland from east and friendly Denmark from south. They have no reason to spend on it.
Vast majority of their military technology is export oriented, which is very unusual for a country that hasn't been under any significant threat of war in a long time and has no real strategic military threats on horizon. To continue to function they need good relations with major component suppliers, main one being US. It has been stipulated that one reason for massive capitulation of Sweden on IP rights front to US has been US threat to block sales and licenses of AESA radar components to Saab (which would render Gripen largely unsellable).
There is a lot of US licensed technology in Gripen. AESA radar may be one but the F404 engine is another. There aren't a lot of countries which can manufacture their own military jet aircraft engines. The fact that Sweden can do it, even if its under license, is pretty surprising by itself. There are a lot of countries in Europe which manufacture weapons despite not being actively involved in wars. Besides Switzerland, there's Belgium for example. As for Switzerland they manufacture more than just handheld weapons. Contraves would be one example.
....in the first world. They may have hippie health care and higher education, but their judicial system is a medieval star chamber.
Except, unlike anywhere else in the first world, you do not have the right to have an attorney present while being interrogated by police or prosecutors. Who can hold you in custody for months without a hearing or outside contact.
Except it's not. Swedish authorities have done just that before, but refuse to do so with Assange. For some reason.
Besides, this is all moot given the fact that Assange has offered to return to Sweden if the government promises not to then hand him over to the U.S., but Swedish authorities refuse to do so.
Which tells anyone with a function brain that there's a motivation here that has nothing to do with rape allegations.
Except Sweden ALWAYS COULD HAVE taken up Assange on HIS OFFER TO RETURN TO SWEDEN if authorities promised that he would NOT be extradited to the U.S.
If it's really about answering rape allegations, then let it be about answering the goddamn rape allegations instead of an excuse to hand him over to get the Bradley Manning treatment.
Somebody once published the women's accounts on Slashdot. Going from memory,
The first woman testified that Assange stripped her forcibly, breaking a necklace, lay on top of her and wouldn't let her get to a condom, and then had sex with her. That's rape by any reasonable definition.
The second woman had voluntary sex with him using a condom, and woke up in the morning to find that Assange's uncondomed penis was in her. That would appear to be sex without consent, particularly since there's no evidence she ever gave Assange permission for sex without a condom.
I have no knowledge on whether these accounts are true, but if they are it's rape.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Can't get to the site through the work filter, but is this the same case that everybody else is citing?
That was two men, one incident, over ten years ago. The handing-over was widely criticized, both in and out of the country, and has since been declared illegal by Sweden. Got another case?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Is having sex with someone while they're sleeping rape under English law? My uninformed understanding is that the other person must be incapacitated in some way, whether chemically incapacitated, or by some disability or some such. It may be gauche to come on to someone while they're asleep, but unless you have some reason to know that they won't wake up or respond then it isn't rape.
Though you wouldn't usually jump right into intercourse without a bit of, you know, groping. Anticipation is important yo. Foreplay.
Under English law, if someone is asleep there is a presumption that they have not consented to the sexual activity, and that the awake party (or parties) are aware of this.
However, it is just a presumption. If a defendant can raise some evidence to say that the other party had consented before (impliedly or explicitly), or they reasonably believed they have, the prosecution must then prove that there wasn't consent, and the defendant didn't believe there was.
So in most cases where someone is asleep and sex starts, it never gets reported to the police (even if it is, actually, rape). Alternatively, if it does come to the attention of the police, the victim might give evidence that they had consented (which might happen in Assange's case). In my limited understanding, these issues only go to the police when it is clearly rape, or there is some other factor. In Assange's case, it was they allegedly went to the police to ask if they could force him to take an STI test, and the police recognised that what was described could amount to rape etc. Which makes me wonder how many other women around the world have been in similar situations with him, but not felt able or willing to go to the police.
Being incapacitated with drugs etc. works similarly; there is a presumption of no consent, but the defence can try to remove it.
So in general, if you are likely to engage in any sort of sexual activity with someone, it is best to get a signed consent form filled out in advance (possibly witnessed) - at least, that's what I picked up from studying sexual offences...
I agree that the severity of the case is irrelevant. The number that I want to know is: In how many of those 8162 cases had charges not been filed?
Obviously different countries have different legal systems, but where I live, requesting an extradition without first charging someone with any crime at all is very unusual indeed.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
What a great story that is. How often does it actually happen in practice, as a percentage of actual sexual assaults?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"Debated" - don't dignify it with such a title. Also it's obvious that the little spot with a different color you see on my posts attracted your attention. You clear just wanted to annoy me and didn't even bother to properly read what you'd replied to (missing the "I think" and other obvious signs that it's an opinion and not an assertion of fact) before putting in the pointless insults. Do you need attention that badly? What is going wrong with your life to drive that? Why are you pretending to be sub-literate just to annoy others? What is your damage?
That is how I see it.
When a party has had consentual sex several times prior to intercourse while sleeping, it shoul be apparent that the claim is false. If illegal entry was also a charge perhaps there would be some merit. As it was, they had consentual sex a few hours prior, fell asleep, and he decided to wake her up sexually. This happens normally in relationships.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I suspect that USA will NOT do anything to him (and would be upset if we did, though I still believe that manning, along with snowden, deserve the death penalty).
The fact is, that we have NO legal ability to go after him. He did not steal the information. He is not an American. He did not take an oath.
Of course, we can scream about it, but that is a different issue.
If I were Assange, I would be a lot more concerned about the rape charge. Sweden takes that VERY serious. In fact, his carping about USA, makes me wonder if he is not simply hiding from Sweden. IOW, he is pulling a republican approach to the real issues and screaming about nonsense.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Our extradition treaty with the US has far fewer safeguards than does Sweden's. And Sweden wouldn't be able extradite him to the US anyway without him going back to the UK first. I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning. He seems to have a case to answer, as well he would if the allegations against him were made in the UK (not that this matters legally for a European Arrest Warrant to be valid, but it makes a difference morally).
Because to go to Sweden he needs to leave the Ecuadorian embassy and the UK police can arrest and extradite him to the US.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....
Because he's not in the UK, he's in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, which is Ecuadorian soil according to treaties not even the US is mad enough to break. As soon as he leaves the embassy and enters the UK again, they'll have him bailed into a van and sent to the US for a show trial.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Uh , one example from 13 years ago which is nothing more than failed asylum seekers deported back to their home country after a failed asylum bit? Is that REALLY the best you can do?? FFS. Your sort will grab onto any passing turd won't you.
I was answering your claim that "rape is rape and BDSM practitioners are acutely aware of that" ignoring the fact that these cases have nothing to do with BDSM practitioners but are typically about two people who don't know one another before meeting for drinks that day. Not trying to argue some sort of massive collective anti rape conspiracy.
Effectively I'm hitting at the point that people who do this have not a faintest clue how the whole BDSM safeguard mechanism against pushing too far (safe words, proper gear, etc) works. That's not their intent to engage in that stuff in the first place, they're going for a quick thrill on both ends, and there's a fact that woman will always have a weapon to wield after the case if she's not satisfied. And as any psychologist who had to work with divorce will tell you, women tend to be significantly more emotional and vindictive in cases of things not going as they would want it in their relationships.
Since you think I was born yesterday I'll spell it out to you.
I foe'd you for obvious reasons last time so you've got that little spot that means "freak" above every post.
The issue is not the deportation which could be valid for all I know, but that it was carried out illegally. In a civilized country under the rule of laws there should not be any example of circumventing the law WITHOUT any consequences as was in this example. 13 years is not long ago, I doubt there have been massive changes in the legal and political system in Sweden in that time period.
If you want more examples you can take a look at the Pirate Bay trial, where the US entertainment industry basically controlled the Swedish courts to do their bidding.
so you've got that little spot that means "freak" above every post of mine you see
I suggest looking up the allegations against him before going on with your claims in some detail. Even in worst case scenario where judge also happens to be extremist feminist and actually agrees with insanity that is the case, he's extremely unlikely to get jail simply due to legal constraints on punishments.
Where did I suggest he would get jail time for what he is accused of in Sweden? I didn't. What i did suggest was that we would be deported back to Oz regardless.
I dont read
It's purely a question of where being charged fits into the legal process, I think. In the UK, for example, you're usually charged after being arrested, so you would be extradited first and charged second (because you can't be arrested until you arrive). An example of that was Hussain Osman, who was extradited from Italy and arrested and charged on arrival.
When a party has had consentual sex several times prior to intercourse while sleeping, it shoul be apparent that the claim is false.
I don't think that that follows as a matter of logic.
Then your logic skills are extremely poor. Not much more I can say, except that perhaps you are simply ignorant of the case and facts in the case.
There are surely circumstances where it "might" have been rape, but not very many that I can think of without inventing scenarios that did not exist. She broke up with him the night before, they were never intimate prior, she refused to have sex with him a few hours earlier, she was mentally handicapped in some way and he was taking advantage of that mental handicap, she was drugged or drunk (and even this is questionable given other factors). None of those things were the case, so it is obviously questionable at best that she was actually raped.
Further, she found out he had sex with another woman while they were in a sexual relationship. This would indicate a motive for revenge/spite further discounting the claim of rape.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If you can imagine situations in which it would still be rape despite the woman having consented earlier, clearly it doesn't logically follow that consenting earlier in the evening means it will not be rape to have sex with the person while they sleep.
In which case it all comes down to the facts, and anyone saying on Slashdot that they know whether he is guilty or not is kidding themselves, because they don't have all the facts.
You can go read the case and claims just like I did, there is no magic involved in a public case sorry.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That is given. These women are both activists for the causes similar to that of Assange and being made tools in US witch hunt is likely the last thing they intended.
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think that you've quite understood the process.
There has not been a public case yet in which the prosecutor has had to lay out the evidence against Assange. There has been no hearing where the object was to determine whether he was guilty.
I'm guessing that by "read the case" you mean the English High Court case, but that was an extradition hearing. The Court was not required to consider the strength of the case against Assange, and there was no obligation to prove the case. That comes later in the process.
What's available on the internet is a few leaked documents and some speculation - nothing on which to build a conclusion.
At present, the only person who has been able to consider all the evidence against Assange is the Swedish prosecutor, who considers that there is a case to answer. In due course a Court will determine whether Assange is guilty, but in the meantime, anyone saying that they've read a few scraps of information here and there, and are therefore able confidently to say that the prosecutor is wrong, hasn't understood how little they know of the facts.
Swedish law requires him to be interviewed before he can be charged. Of course they are going to issue the extradition request before charging him, otherwise they could never issue a single extradition request ever.
You bolded your own false strawman assertion of what you pretended I'd written instead of an actual quote from me that said no such thing and then are calling me a lair?
I just keeps on getting more ridiculous. Please take up a different hobby instead of trying to be a master at baiting - you may be good at it but it's a huge waste of your time and something to fill in slow time for me.
That wasn't my claim.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Sorry, I assumed that AC before you in this thread was you.
Out of interest - which side of the pond are you?
From what I've seen of the US coverage - she's being portrayed as some kind of saint-figure. If she'd had any sense she'd have kept out of sight, not written the book (and thus avoided the chat-show circuit) and let the media circus subside. Meanwhile, the real victims - the Kercher family - barely get a mention... it's all about "Foxy Knoxy" and how terrible it is for her.
And, as ever, where the US leads the UK follows... the media have a lot to answer for.
It is not me that does not understand. The case has been presented, the filing holds the claims and summary of evidence. Assange may not have been interviewed, but the "case" is open for public inspection. You don't need the legal briefs to understand the case, you need the case to understand the case. You don't need to "see" the evidence to know what is being presented.
You don't need to see a railroad to know a train is coming, which is why Assange refuses to return.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Could you provide a link to the evidence that you consider to be complete?
My understanding is that:
I think that if you post a link to the fully presented case it will probably clear things up.
The evidence is explained in the briefs, and no I won't provide it. Search the Swedish court systems and you will, I read the summary probably back a year and a half ago. As mentioned, this is not "the" evidence but a summary of what the prosecutor had to pursue the case as well as the allegations.
i) the case has not been presented;
The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.
ii) there has been no "filing" in the criminal case against him;
There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.
iii) the case - such as exists at the moment - is not open for public inspection (if it were, it would be a bit odd for the pro-Assange websites to be trumpeting leaked documents, surely?)
Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).
I think that if you post a link to the fully presented case it will probably clear things up.
If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Every little bit of information that has been leaked about this case has been reproduced on a thousand websites. If a case had been presented there would be innumerable translations and commentaries - it would be easy to find. A cynic would say that the reason you're refusing to give the link is that you know it doesn't exist.
To respond to your specific comments:
The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.
I know that there was an extradition hearing (judgment text). However, as I explained before, the case did not have to be presented at that hearing, and was not presented at that hearing. The Court reviewed a very small amount of material to ensure that the formal requirements of the Framework Decision were met - that's all. If you're basing a conclusion about Assange's innocence or guilt on that judgment you're building a tower without any foundations.
There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.
My use of the phrase "criminal case" was not an accident. My point is that there are no filings that form part of the process by which Assange's guilt or innocence are assessed. You refer me to the English extradition hearing, but that hearing did not (and could not) make any judgement about his guilt.
Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).
I still can't find this case that's open for inspection. The Swedish prosecutor has a chronology which doesn't refer to any charges having been filed. Justice for Assange has a list of available documents that doesn't include any Swedish case, and states that "no charges have been filed". If you know of this publicly available case, post it! I would love to read it! But nobody else - including the prosecutor and campaigners - seems to have any idea that it exists.
If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.
The reason that I ask you to post a link to the case that you refer to isn't that I'm lazy and want you to do the work - it's that I think that we are at cross purposes, and you are referring to something that I don't recognise as being a case that's sufficient to judge Assange's innocence or guilt. If you will just post the source that you're relying on we can get to the bottom of it quickly.
You keep confusing terminologies which could be the cause of your confusion. case != charge != summary != complete != filed != heard, etc.. All of those things are different legal terms and are not the same and can not be used interchangeably. The only case heard, regarding extradition, contained enough information to determine what the prosecutor "has" for evidence. It also contained the charges alleged by both women. Assange's attorneys filed responses/dispositions to those charges which contained his side. That is all public information. Events leading up to the charges are not "leaked", they were filed and have become public documents by Swedish law.
You don't need the remainder of the case heard, and Assange does not need to be on trial to begin to question the motives for the filed charges nor their authenticity.
I don't care if you want to do the work, or not. You made a false claim originally, and I still state it's false. Confusing terminology does not make it true, and claiming you have to see the exact evidence in order to know what the evidence is remains false.
If you choose to ignore that there are motives for his extradition that have nothing to do with these charges, that is further on you. Denial is a nice place to visit, but I personally don't want to live there.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Right, I think we've got to the position that I thought we might be in to start with. The only public case that you were basing all this on is the extradition hearing - the hearing in which the Court expressly stated that it was not judging Assange's guilt; in which there was literally no consideration of the evidence in relation to one of the allegations, and only cursory consideration in relation to the others; and in which the Swedish prosecutor didn't even appear.
I suppose if you want to come to a settled judgement on that basis, that's your prerogative. I suspect that it's too big of a gap for us to come to agreement; and in any case the legal system, like me, considers it only to have been a preliminary hearing.
It was not a criminal trial, so of course the case could not determine guilt. That does not discount or dismiss what was given in that case in the least. The same exact information would be given in a criminal trial if there was to be a trial.
You claimed that a person could not review that evidence to make a determination of guilt or innocence. That claim is invalid now, and was then. One _can_ review that evidence and make a good determination of guilt or innocence.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I'm afraid I don't quite follow.
You accept that the extradition hearing was not trying to determine whether or not Assange was guilty. The prosecutor needed to prove that the European arrest warrant was valid, but didn't need to prove that Assange was guilty. The prosecutor provided evidence to show the arrest warrant was valid, but didn't provide evidence to prove that Arrange was guilty.
What's the significant of the prosecutor not providing evidence for something that they didn't need to provide evidence for?
If A then B, this is very basic reasoning.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
OK, so help me out:
A. There is a hearing at which the prosecutor does not need to provide evidence of guilt.
B. At the hearing the prosecutor does not provide evidence of guilt.
C. ??
D. Assange is not guilty.
Are you saying (i) that there is no need for C, D just follows logically from A and B; or (ii) there is a need for a C - in which case what goes there?
Wrong, sorry but you need to think in more reasonable terms. In order to get the extradition order there must be a valid case. You are putting the A and B in the wrong order.
Further, you have added C and D which simply do not exist. While it may suite your opinion, it does not suite rational thinking.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There needs to be a case that satisfies the requirements for an extradition order. Those requirements do not include proving Assange is guilty, or likely to be guilty, or providing one single word of evidence proving his guilt.
If you don't like my ABCD provide your own chain of reasoning.
The reasoning that you claim I need to provide is exactly the legal process. The process in most European countries (Sweden, UK, German, etc..) is identical to the US. The rule of law has been defined and refined over hundreds of years and is based on Logic and Reason. Your version of the world requires lots of imagination and make believe. You are claiming that your imagination supersedes facts and law. I already pointed out that C and D so not exist. No more conversation needed here, have fun in your fantasy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I'm not asking what the legal process is; I'm asking what your chain of logic is that allows you to determine whether someone is guilty based on the evidence at an extradition hearing, where guilt wasn't in issue.
Here's what I think the position is: I think you're avoiding the question because you know that you can't come up with a logical answer, just like you refused to provide a link to the Swedish court case because you know it doesn't exist, and you refused to identify your evidence because you didn't have any. If I'm wrong, all you have to do is type in your solid logical chain and press submit.
The Legal process is the Legal process. This is a defined process, go get a book and study. It's based primarily on the Scientific Method, but considers much broader parts of Philosophy called Justice and Morality. Your method does not match! As soon as you have to invent reasons to think your way, it should be obvious that something is wrong. I gave the legal logic and you claimed your imagination was better. To you, I'm sure it is.
Cya buh bye
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As I said before, I'm not asking about the legal process. I'm asking about the logical process by which you personally are using the facts from the extradition hearing to determine that Assange is innocent.
I continue to believe that you are deliberately avoiding the question because you have no answer.
As stated previously, my position is the same as the legal process. I continue to believe that you simply ignore anything that might cause a threat to your opinion. Peace!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That's not an answer, because it doesn't tell me what you mean by "the legal process". Unless you explain how you think the legal process uses evidence I can't know what you mean.
If you are serious, all you need to do is write down what your logical process is. If you don't, well, it's very convenient that every time you're challenged on evidence or logic there's a reason that you can't answer the question.
So your work filter blocks Human Rights Watch? Interesting.
"Two men"? You mean two CIA agents, or two torture victims?
It got no meaningful consequences for anyone, either in Sweden or the US. Italy at least had the guts to issue arrest warrants for the CIA criminals, no such thing in lapdog Sweden.
I'm not here to entertain your easy dismissals. I'd say the burden is on you to show Sweden's government has changed character. Got anything?
They used to blindly give the US what they want, even when it violated fundamental human rights .If it was your human rights that were at stake, I think you should be forgiven for not trusting that they have changed.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.