Slashdot Mirror
Ecuador Will Be Handing Assange Over To UK Authorities 'In Coming Weeks Or Days': RT (express.co.uk)
Ecuador is planning to hand over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to UK authorities in the "coming weeks or even days," RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said, citing her own sources. Simonyan reported the news in a recent tweet, which was reposted by WikiLeaks. Slashdot reader Okian Warrior first shared the news. Daily Express reports: Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan is said to be involved in the diplomatic effort, which has come weeks ahead of a visit by new Ecuadorian president, Lenin Moreno, who called Mr Assange an "inherited problem." He also referred to the exiled WikiLeaks founder as a "stone in the shoe." Sources close to Assange claim he was not aware of the talks, but believe America is piling "significant pressure" on Ecuador to give him up, according to the Sunday Times. The sources claim that America has threatened to block a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) if he is not removed from the embassy, based in Knightsbridge, west London. UPDATE 7/21/18: The Intercept also confirmed the news. Glen Greenwald, former reporter for The Guardian, writes: "A source close to the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry and the President's office, unauthorized to speak publicly, has confirmed to the Intercept that Moreno is close to finalizing, if he has not already finalized, an agreement to hand over Assange to the UK within the next several weeks. The withdrawal of asylum and physical ejection of Assange could come as early as this week."
The actual situation
If he's handed over to the British, he'll go to jail for his violation of the terms of his bail; there's already a warrant out for him for this. During this time, Sweden can decide to reopen the case, now that he's available, if they choose. The three misdemeanors (2x molestation, 1x unlawful sexual coersion) have hit the statute of limitations, but the rape filing has a couple years left before its statute of limitations expires.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
For the record, the unexpired charge is:
The statute of limitations would have been hit in August 2020. #1-3 are already expired.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
I don't know about Sweden, but in the US you can't run the statute of limitations by being a fugitive from justice.
At least here in the US, once charges are filed, there is no further statute of limitations. The accused can get the charges dismissed if the trial is unreasonably delayed[1] through no fault of their own, but in this case it seems plausible that the lack of speedy trial has to do with the defendant.
[1] See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) for a more full discussion
Yes, he has a warrant out for him for bail jumping in the UK.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
In this case, it's word-told-in-person-and-SMSed against admitted-word.
Specifically: the incident in question occurred late morning after a night of refusing to consent to unprotected sex, from a person who had a well documented lifetime paranoia about unprotected sex. Earlier in the morning, she had complained - both on SMS with a friend, and in person to another friend encountered at the grocery store while out buying food for Assange - about his behavior, and how mad she was getting about him continually trying to F* her unprotected. She then returned home and went to sleep. Assange does not deny the prevous night's refusals to consent to unprotected sex; he just claims that she woke up and consented.
In short, Assange's argument is: This person, with a well documented history of paranoia about unprotected sex, who was literally complaining about his attempts to sleep with her unprotected right up to when she went to sleep, just suddenly woke up and had a change in lifetime philosophy with a person she had just been mad at.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
I don't subscribe to the "ends justify the means" theory here. Yeah, he's shown light on some scummy shit that needed being exposed. But you don't get to dodge justice and jump bail.
Nobody is above the law. Whistleblowers don't get a pass on non-whistleblowing-related shit.
Let's see how long it takes for him to be shipped from Sweden (where he might be guilty of something) to the USA, where he isn't guilty of anything except pissing off people with too much power.
Remember: Sweden had already closed the case against him and returned his passport after he voluntarily went to be interviewed. He's agreed many times to be interviewed by Sweden on neutral ground.
It was US pressure that reopened the 'case' against him and started all this crap. It's the USA that's really after him, not Sweden. Sweden is just an excuse.
No sig today...
Abu Ghraib and other abuses of POWs. Massive civilian casualties. Apache helo pilots gunning for civilians and lying that they encountered a battle on the ground.
That's my fault, I think.
The eds corrected it in the summary, but used my submitted title verbatim.
Sorry about that. I sometimes get word confusion from studying various languages. And yes, I did study *that* language for awhile.
(For comparison, is it Brazil or Brasil?)
You know who also got innocent people killed with their bombs? The US government and military.
I'm agreeing with you, but have more to add:
There were two women.
One said he raped her but she later revealed that she did, indeed, express a liking for rough sex.
The other woman only wanted to talk to Assange to inquire as to whether he had any sexually transmissible diseases, because a rubber broke.
That woman self-tested and was found to be OK.
Both women dropped the charges.
Sweden, on its own volition, issued an arrest warrant for Assange on the premise that they wanted to question him.
He said, "Fine. Let's meet and talk."
Sweden ordered him to come back there.
Fearing a trap, Julian declined.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
As far as Swedish media have reported (I live in Sweden), you are absolutely correct. But there are a few further facts that seem a bit odd:
- when he first left Sweden his attorney had previously asked the prosecutor if JA could leave the country. The prosecutor answered "yes."
- while in London JA has offered to be interrogated/questioned by Swedish police over internet or in person if Sweden would send a policeman to the UK. Sweden has rejected both offers on for me unclear grounds, most of which seem to be based on the fact that a Swedish policeman visiting the UK would not be able to apply the pressure of law on JA like he could in Sweden. However, this completely disregards the fact that UK police could apply the same pressure....
Even before the facts above took place, there were oddities in the case:
- according to media the first time the supposedly raped women contacted police, it was to find out whether or not they could force JA to take an STD-test
- somehow this inquiry was turned into a rape case by the policewoman they talked to
- the two supposed rape victim were interrogated over the phone and the conversation was not recorded, despite police regulations that rape victims _must_ be interrogated in the police station and the interrogation _must_ be recorded.
- both women were assigned the same attorney for defence. This verges on being illegal, as each victim of a crime should have a representative who cares only about them and no one else in the case: this way any possible confusion of who said what or what was done to whom (or similar confusion) is avoided.
- the first prosecutor who was assigned the case quite quickly came to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to do anything, and dropped the case
- the next prosecutor who took the case (apparently voluntarily) just happens to be a well-known feminist and member of the party who had the power of government at the time. One of the supposed rape victims is also a feminist and member of the same party. This prosecutor has at least once said something along the lines that it must be possible to punish men even if a court finds them innocent.
- this second prosecutor called a press conference and announced to the world that JA was wanted for interrogation in connection with a possible rape. JA found out he was wanted by reading the news....
IF there is pressure in the process. It pisses me off that I have to post this for you right from the goddam summary:
Sources close to Assange claim he was not aware of the talks, but believe America is piling "significant pressure" on Ecuador to give him up ...
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year. If sentence has been passed in the state applying for extradition, the penalty must be imprisonment for at least four months or other institutional detention for an equivalent period. Thus, extradition requires an offence punishable under the law of both countries ("dual criminality") that, in principle, is of a certain degree of seriousness.
Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. Nor, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgment has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law.
The state requesting for extradition must show that there is reason for extradition in the specific case. The outcome of the crime investigation in the requesting state - generally a conviction or a detention order - must be enclosed with the request for extradition. When extradition is granted, certain conditions may be laid down. For example, without the consent of the Government in the particular case, the person who is extradited may not be prosecuted or punished in the other state for any other offence committed prior to extradition (the "principle of speciality"). Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.
I'm not sure how Swedish law is on foreign nationals leaking government secrets, but one could argue that that resides under "military or political offences". I'm actually a bit surprised that there does not appear to be a provision requiring an expectation of a fair trial, though that could be what "being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect" refers to. Also note that:
If the person whose extradition is requested opposes extradition, it falls to the Supreme Court to examine whether extradition can be legally granted under the conditions laid down by law.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
You can't see that they're unarmed civilians, nor can you see any children. You can also hear the pilots saying they think it's more insurgents coming to help their buddies. What kind of asshole do you have to be to lie about that?
Hi. You should not listen to a thing RT has to say, and I wish Slashdot wouldn't okay articles sourced to them. They are a propaganda/disinformation outlet. I expect to be modded down by Russians now, so mods, I hope you're scanning at -1.
What you are explaining are the normal rules of extradition. But there is more. Let's say a German commits a crime in the USA, then travels back to Germany. And he gets extradited. Then either when his court case ends with "not guilty", or when his jail sentence ends, the Americans have to send him back to Germany. They have no right to send him anywhere else. They are also not allowed to prosecute him for anything than what was claimed in the extradition request.
Now Sweden has requested extradition from the UK. If or when the UK extradites him, Sweden can only prosecute him for the crimes in the extradition request, and they have no right to extradite him anywhere else. Even if the USA had a 100% legally perfect and justified extradition request, Sweden could not extradite him. Had he stayed in Sweden, they could extradite him, but not if he is only in Sweden because he was extradited.
The Russians have a term for this: Kompromat.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Here is a list of the journalists killed in Russia under Putin. I stopped counting at 100, and I had barely gotten to the Mevedev years. There were still a lot more to go. This isn't all of Putin's enemies who have been killed, just the journalists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are welcome on my lawn.