Why don't you check out Wired's title and get back to us with an update of your theory?
Changing the title as you suggest would mislead people. Bruce is intellectually honest enough to state other possibilities for what has happened despite what he believes. And to be clear, he doesn't really have any evidence for his belief. There are a number of reasons to believe that things didn't unfold as Bruce suggests.
You have once again made a post with a significant gap between reality and your views.
A fugitive (or runaway) is a person who is fleeing from custody, whether it be from jail, a government arrest, government or non-government questioning, vigilante violence, or outraged private individuals. A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person, can either be a person convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country.[1]
Fits both Snowden and Assange rather well.
To correct you, Snowden did escape, and his location is not generally nor publicly known to any meaningful degree other than Moscow. He is basically in hiding and guarded by Russian state security*.
* State Security, the Russian initials being GB, is what used to be on the shoulder boards of the KGB. How fitting.
Haven't you followed this closely enough to know that there were two (2) different prosecutors involved with this - a man and a woman? Don't you know that they reached different conclusions about the worthiness of the case and took different actions? Can you guess what order those different conclusions occurred?
Guantanamo Gay is used to hold people either known to be or suspected of affiliation with al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups. Are you now claiming that Julian Assange is a terrorist? Please note that I wrote terrorist, not "terrorist." Your claim about Gitmo is nonsense.
The whole "US will extradite/render Assange from Sweden because it's easier" thing is nonsense. It is a fairy tale told by Assange's supporters to explain away his reluctance to face Swedish justice over allegations of sexual assault. It also is a mark of gullibility and ignorance to accept it. To extradite Assange from the UK would only require the UK to agree. To extradite Assange from Sweden would take both the UK (under European treaty) to agree and Sweden to agree. Only in the imagination of Assange's supporters is it easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK where he has been for years.
Assange is wanted by Sweden over allegations that he committed multiple acts of sexual assault in Sweden. Assange isn't wanted by the United States for terrorism which is what extraordinary rendition was used for in a small number of cases. Since Assange is wanted by Sweden for criminal acts in Sweden and not by the United States, which doesn't even have a warrant out for him, there is no reason to believe any of the nonsense about the US either extraditing him or using rendition (problematic now as your link helpfully shows) to try to take him from Sweden. There is every reason to believe he will fact questioning, probably a trial, and possibly imprisonment in Sweden.
Assange is an ordinary man, not a head of state, facing a allegation of a common crime. There is no reason for the Swedish state to offer him any guarantees regarding international relations, even if the Swedish PM could make those guarantees (which some claim that he cannot). The bizzare idea that it is easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden instead of the UK overlooks some basic facts and math. From the UK the US only has to get one country to agree to extradition: the UK. From Sweden the US has to get two countries to agree: the UK (under European treaty) and Sweden. If the UK's standards of justice prevent it from handing over Assange from the UK it will prevent them from agreeing for Sweden to hand him over. The entire idea pushed by Assange's advocates is a bizarre fairy tale.
The Big Lie is that Assange if facing anything but Swedish justice in Sweden.
Permission? Really? So what punishment would they face if they didn't do that?
Refusal of their extradition requests? Does that work for you?
Its always easier to get forgiveness than permission.
Not really, no. You can have permission to walk out of a store with a coat for $50. If you walk out without paying for it and thus gaining the permission you can end up with a large legal bill, possibly jail time, a fine, or probation. The $50 cost of permission would be much cheaper and easier.
Do you think Assange now wishes he had gained permission for sex instead of assaulting a sleeping woman (among other circumstances and another woman)? It seems forgiveness in this instance is proving problematic for him with many consequences.
The US has no warrant out for Assange. Even if it did, it would almost certainly be for espionage or maybe computer crime, not terrorism. Those cases aren't ones handled by CIA. CIA has been involved in counter-terrorism. Are you going to try to claim that Assange is part of al Qaeda? You fairly often peddle bullshit in your posts, but that would be a bit much even for you.
The fact that you can find an example of something happening doesn't establish it as generally accepted or common practice.
Having had court cases make it to the Supreme Courts of two nations to challenge his extradition and losing every time would indicate to most people that he doesn't have much of a case. It also makes it more difficult to portray him as being abused by the process.
There is no need for Sweden to give any assurances to Assange. Why is he so special? He can face justice the same as anyone else. Others have pointed out that this is a guarantee that the Swedish PM could not give under Swedish law. Perhaps it is so, perhaps not, but why should Sweden have to give any guarantees about international relations to someone wanted for questioning over allegations of rape? It is too much and indulgles the fantasy that Assange could be extradited from Sweden (for which both the UK and Sweden would have to agree) instead of extraditing him from the UK (for which only the UK would have to agree) where he has been for years now.
The most likely outcome of his questioning seems to be the filing of charges (as per Swedish law) and then a trial. The clear answer is Assange expects to be convicted and so will do almost anything to avoid the comparatively spa like treatment of Swedish prison.
There isn't any sense in which Assange is "stateless." He is an Australian citizen with an Australian passport, none of this has effected that, including the fact that he is a fugitive from justice.
For bonus points I'll throw is the same goes for Snowden. He is still an American citizen and could return any day he cares to. But like Assange he is a fugitive from justice. In time he will probably take Russian citizenship if he hasn't already.
The argument as I understand it is that the UK has fairly serious requirements for extradition, whereas Sweden is expected to just cough him up on request.
It is a nonsense argument.
If the US tried to extradite Assange from the UK the UK has to agree. If the US tried to extradite Assange from Sweden both the UK and Sweden have to agree under treaty.
It's a fairy tale to try to explain away Assange not wanting to go back to Sweden to face Swedish justice. The fairy tale that the US will take him from Sweden is much more politically palatable than admitting Assange doesn't want to go to prison for rape. It provides cover for both Assange and his supporters. After all, Assange is already widely known to be a "dick" and his projected image as a sort of transparency and "civil rights" advocate takes a hit when you have to start with, "Assange may a dick and a rapist, but I support his civil right activism because...."
Before transporting him to Guantanamo, the Americans placed Kurnaz in a US prison in Kandahar after he was turned over to them by the Pakistani security forces, who had arrested him in early December 2001 on his way to Peshawar airport. The US military believed it had another al-Qaida fighter under lock and key.
When he arrived at Guantanamo in October 2002, he had no idea that he would be spending almost five years on the island and that, from then on, he was categorized as a "member of al-Qaida's global terrorism network" by the Americans, as it states in his assessment, dated May 19, 2006, which was obtained by SPIEGEL as part of its reporting project with the whistleblower platform WikiLeaks.
The fact that they were mistaken doesn't change that.
Assange spent 10 days in jail in December 2010, before being bailed to the stately home of a supporter in Suffolk. There, he was free to come and go in daylight hours, yet he says he felt more in captivity then than he does now. "During the period of house arrest, I had an electronic manacle around my leg for 24 hours a day, and for someone who has tried to give others liberty all their adult life, that is absolutely intolerable. And I had to go to the police at a specific time every day – every day – Christmas Day, New Year's Day – for over 550 days in a row." His voice is warming now, barbed with indignation. "One minute late would mean being placed into prison immediately."
You must have skipped this paragraph from the article I referenced:
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
When she awoke she found Assange having sex with her. She was asleep when Assange start having sex. She couldn't have consented.
Nah, not really. Gitmo is for terrorists (not "terrorists") and if the US was going to charge him it would be for espionage, which isn't terrorism. It wouldn't be a slam dunk by any means, unless Assange could be proven to have helped Bradley Manning steal classified data. Then the chances for a conviction improve, but still not a slam dunk. But hey, who knows, maybe they'll try going after him for criminal copyright violation. (I wonder how many MP3s Assange has?)
I'll give you points for effort, and a sense of humor.;)
The guy definitely has the "winning" personality of another Hans Reiser, which is to say, classic narcissistic personality disorder; he's about as likable as anal ulcers...
If that is true, shouldn't there be a cream to help make Assange tolerable,... even in only in small doses? From what I've read even his "friends" would find it helpful.
it's also pretty clear that Sweden is acting as a cat's paw for the U.S. because of information disclosed on Wikileaks.
I doubt it. The US doesn't control Assange's penis which is the source of trouble there.
It's obtuse to believe Assange would be extradicted from Sweden to the US. He is currently in the UK which has an extradition treaty with the US. From the UK only 1 country (UK) has to agree. If he goes to Sweden there are two countries that have to agree to extradition: UK & Sweden. It is practically certain that before anything else he will be in Swedish court, and likely then to Swedish prison. And where do you think he is likely to go from there? Back to the UK to answer changes related to his bail jumping and criminal flight from extradition.
The idea that Assange is going to be sent to Sweden to be bounced to the US is in essence a fairy tale that Assange's supporters tell to explain away his avoidance of Swedish justice for his criminal sexual conduct.
I would suggest that Assange surrender himself to British authorities. After extradition to Sweden he would either be released to walk the streets, or sent to luxurious Swedish prison where he could walk the yard. Of course in either case at the end of his time in Sweden he would likely be returned to the UK to face the consequences of jumping bail which means he is likely to have the opportunity to walk in a British prison yard for a time, and then back to the streets.
Isn't it harmful to the human dignity of his victims to deny accused rapist Julian Assange a day in court? Let him walk the prison yard, or the streets, not a makeshift area created for a fugitive from justice.
The UK has an extradition treaty with the US. Even if we assume that silly theory is true, things get more complicated by sending him to Sweden, not less. In the UK only 1 country has to consent to his extradition: the UK. In Sweden there are 2 countries that have to agree to his extradition: the UK that has him now (and has extradition treaty with the US) and Sweden.
The idea you are supporting there is a nonsensical Rube Goldberg legal "contraption" that makes no sense. In essence it is a lie that Assange's supporters tell to explain away his avoidance of Swedish justice for his criminal sexual conduct.
Sweden would have to get the permission of the UK to extradite Assange. Even if it were to happen (not likely) that isn't going to happen until Swedish justice is satisfied.
It isn't common for prosecutors to go to a foreign country to interview fugitives from justice, which is what Assange is. They probably expect to file charges after the interview and go to trial, so there is even less incentive to go to a foreign country to interview him when the key events will all happen in Sweden.
Assange is getting far more favorable treatment that most fugitives that have jumped bail, and yet his defenders keep crying foul, as if he was being subjected to terrible injustice. That is nonsense. Complete rubbish. His case has been to TWO supreme courts in two different countries and he keeps losing. This has all been to avoid extradition and questioning. Not imprisonment, just questioning. That seems unusually favorable treatment. How is it that you think (mistakenly) that he has somehow been mistreated or short changed? How?
Perhaps you should go read a fuller description of events, including the allegation that Assange started having sex with one of the women while she was asleep. (You may recall that sleeping people can't give consent.) It isn't quite so favorable to Assange.
Jozsef Mindszenty stayed in the US embassy in Budapest for 15 years, 1956-71. But it is a large building. He could walk around, climb stairs, etc. Julian is staying in a small room. Even in prison people are allowed to walk outdoors.
Assange is in that embassy by choice. He could clear this all up by going for questioning, and possibly trial. If he is not guilty, then he goes free. If it turns out that he is found guilty he would likely find his overall circumstances improved in Swedish prison, including opportunities for exercise.
As things are Assange is imprisoning himself. It remains to be seen if the Swedish legal system will have a role. Hopefully Assange will not permanently harm his health by his negligence and what is in effect self abuse.
Assange isn't being extradited to the United States, he is being extradited to Sweden. Your example has nothing to do with this case. The women making the complaint say that Assange assault them. There isn't much room for confusion here.
Let it go to trial, then we will see. Almost everyone on Slashdot loves having courts decide things, all manner of things, until it comes to Assange, Manning, and Snowden. Then, not so much.
I'm sure even Julian Assange understands the idea of consent and its limits, but probably not as it applies to him.... especially the limits part. How are you with the idea?
If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms.
There is no can of worms in that regard. Courts in the UK up through the UK Supreme Court have found that the crimes he is accused of are crimes in the UK, subject to prosecution, and they have approved his extradition.
I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden...
Yes, there is a statue of limitation in Sweden, and some of the crimes will be running into it in a few months. Assage is trying to run out the clock to escape trial for rape and other acts of sexual assault.
Assange recently lost an appeal to the Supreme Court of Sweden to have the warrant for him withdrawn. He is still subject to extradition. Now his lawyers are going to try taking their "case" to international courts claiming that the proceedings against Assange aren't fair, that he has been denied justice somehow. That's a laugh, especially since their claim essentially reduces to Assange has been denied speedy justice without taking notice of the fact that Assange is a fugitive from justice. The man is a study in pathology.
Would that be a surprise to you? You do know that Snowden stole something like 70,000 (IIRC) British government Top Secret documents held by the NSA and leaked them far and wide? Have you somehow missed the repeated stories on Slashdot about GCHQ based on British documents that Snowden leaked? Do you think it somehow odd that leaked British government documents about British government intelligence programs and operations could have an impact on British government intelligence operations? Is the cause and effect here somehow elusive?
It seems to me you've too much snark, too little knowledge, and apparently no insight.
... Far from seeking to protect their lucrative trade ties, the real explanation for the opposition of France and Russia to the war was that both countries' political establishments were deeply implicated in a lucrative scam to divert the profits of the UN's oil-for-food programme into their own private coffers.
From the moment the oil-for-food programme was introduced in 1996, Saddam concentrated all his energies on attempting to subvert it. The complex oil-for-food programme was introduced so that the profits from UN-supervised Iraqi oil sales would pay for essential healthcare supplies. The programme was conceived, it should be remembered, to counter the mounting effectiveness of the propaganda campaign of hard-Left activists such as George Galloway, the former Labour MP, who argued that the wide-ranging UN sanctions introduced following the Gulf war were responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi children.
But as the ISG report clearly demonstrates, Saddam skilfully worked the system so that the profits were diverted to fund his regime rather than feed his people. An important element of this fraud was that a significant percentage of the funds was diverted to set up a voucher system that could be used to bribe a wide network of international politicians who could be counted upon to do Saddam's bidding.
Between them, France and Russia received 45 per cent of the vouchers, with China coming third. In late 2002 and early 2003, France, Russia and China led the anti-war movement at the UN. In France, the vouchers were given to a number of politicians with close links to Mr Chirac, while in Russia they were paid directly to Mr Putin's private office, providing him with his own ready-made slush fund.
Saddam's clever manipulation of the voucher system was a brilliant success: it not only caused a deep split within the security council, it helped him to make irrelevant the much-vaunted policy of containment that was supposed to prevent him from re-emerging as a dominant force the the Middle East. It also enabled him to fund illicit imports of weapons and the technology needed to resume production of weapons of mass destruction, which was his declared aim once the sanctions had been lifted.
By the way, what did the British government have to say about military action in Syria? Do you recall? Just in case you don't:
You should probably reexamine your ideas of virtue in regards to international relations. They don't seem to hold water. In fact they are probably dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you check out Wired's title and get back to us with an update of your theory?
Changing the title as you suggest would mislead people. Bruce is intellectually honest enough to state other possibilities for what has happened despite what he believes. And to be clear, he doesn't really have any evidence for his belief. There are a number of reasons to believe that things didn't unfold as Bruce suggests.
You have once again made a post with a significant gap between reality and your views.
I'll indulge you this time.
Fugitive
A fugitive (or runaway) is a person who is fleeing from custody, whether it be from jail, a government arrest, government or non-government questioning, vigilante violence, or outraged private individuals. A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person, can either be a person convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country.[1]
Fits both Snowden and Assange rather well.
To correct you, Snowden did escape, and his location is not generally nor publicly known to any meaningful degree other than Moscow. He is basically in hiding and guarded by Russian state security*.
* State Security, the Russian initials being GB, is what used to be on the shoulder boards of the KGB. How fitting.
Haven't you followed this closely enough to know that there were two (2) different prosecutors involved with this - a man and a woman? Don't you know that they reached different conclusions about the worthiness of the case and took different actions? Can you guess what order those different conclusions occurred?
Guantanamo Gay is used to hold people either known to be or suspected of affiliation with al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups. Are you now claiming that Julian Assange is a terrorist? Please note that I wrote terrorist, not "terrorist." Your claim about Gitmo is nonsense.
The whole "US will extradite/render Assange from Sweden because it's easier" thing is nonsense. It is a fairy tale told by Assange's supporters to explain away his reluctance to face Swedish justice over allegations of sexual assault. It also is a mark of gullibility and ignorance to accept it. To extradite Assange from the UK would only require the UK to agree. To extradite Assange from Sweden would take both the UK (under European treaty) to agree and Sweden to agree. Only in the imagination of Assange's supporters is it easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK where he has been for years.
Assange is wanted by Sweden over allegations that he committed multiple acts of sexual assault in Sweden. Assange isn't wanted by the United States for terrorism which is what extraordinary rendition was used for in a small number of cases. Since Assange is wanted by Sweden for criminal acts in Sweden and not by the United States, which doesn't even have a warrant out for him, there is no reason to believe any of the nonsense about the US either extraditing him or using rendition (problematic now as your link helpfully shows) to try to take him from Sweden. There is every reason to believe he will fact questioning, probably a trial, and possibly imprisonment in Sweden.
Assange is an ordinary man, not a head of state, facing a allegation of a common crime. There is no reason for the Swedish state to offer him any guarantees regarding international relations, even if the Swedish PM could make those guarantees (which some claim that he cannot). The bizzare idea that it is easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden instead of the UK overlooks some basic facts and math. From the UK the US only has to get one country to agree to extradition: the UK. From Sweden the US has to get two countries to agree: the UK (under European treaty) and Sweden. If the UK's standards of justice prevent it from handing over Assange from the UK it will prevent them from agreeing for Sweden to hand him over. The entire idea pushed by Assange's advocates is a bizarre fairy tale.
The Big Lie is that Assange if facing anything but Swedish justice in Sweden.
Permission? Really? So what punishment would they face if they didn't do that?
Refusal of their extradition requests? Does that work for you?
Its always easier to get forgiveness than permission.
Not really, no. You can have permission to walk out of a store with a coat for $50. If you walk out without paying for it and thus gaining the permission you can end up with a large legal bill, possibly jail time, a fine, or probation. The $50 cost of permission would be much cheaper and easier.
Do you think Assange now wishes he had gained permission for sex instead of assaulting a sleeping woman (among other circumstances and another woman)? It seems forgiveness in this instance is proving problematic for him with many consequences.
The US has no warrant out for Assange. Even if it did, it would almost certainly be for espionage or maybe computer crime, not terrorism. Those cases aren't ones handled by CIA. CIA has been involved in counter-terrorism. Are you going to try to claim that Assange is part of al Qaeda? You fairly often peddle bullshit in your posts, but that would be a bit much even for you.
The fact that you can find an example of something happening doesn't establish it as generally accepted or common practice.
Having had court cases make it to the Supreme Courts of two nations to challenge his extradition and losing every time would indicate to most people that he doesn't have much of a case. It also makes it more difficult to portray him as being abused by the process.
There is no need for Sweden to give any assurances to Assange. Why is he so special? He can face justice the same as anyone else. Others have pointed out that this is a guarantee that the Swedish PM could not give under Swedish law. Perhaps it is so, perhaps not, but why should Sweden have to give any guarantees about international relations to someone wanted for questioning over allegations of rape? It is too much and indulgles the fantasy that Assange could be extradited from Sweden (for which both the UK and Sweden would have to agree) instead of extraditing him from the UK (for which only the UK would have to agree) where he has been for years now.
The most likely outcome of his questioning seems to be the filing of charges (as per Swedish law) and then a trial. The clear answer is Assange expects to be convicted and so will do almost anything to avoid the comparatively spa like treatment of Swedish prison.
There isn't any sense in which Assange is "stateless." He is an Australian citizen with an Australian passport, none of this has effected that, including the fact that he is a fugitive from justice.
For bonus points I'll throw is the same goes for Snowden. He is still an American citizen and could return any day he cares to. But like Assange he is a fugitive from justice. In time he will probably take Russian citizenship if he hasn't already.
The argument as I understand it is that the UK has fairly serious requirements for extradition, whereas Sweden is expected to just cough him up on request.
It is a nonsense argument.
If the US tried to extradite Assange from the UK the UK has to agree.
If the US tried to extradite Assange from Sweden both the UK and Sweden have to agree under treaty.
It's a fairy tale to try to explain away Assange not wanting to go back to Sweden to face Swedish justice. The fairy tale that the US will take him from Sweden is much more politically palatable than admitting Assange doesn't want to go to prison for rape. It provides cover for both Assange and his supporters. After all, Assange is already widely known to be a "dick" and his projected image as a sort of transparency and "civil rights" advocate takes a hit when you have to start with, "Assange may a dick and a rapist, but I support his civil right activism because ...."
Allow me to thank you, it isn't often that you help me to make my point. He was believe to be a member of al Qaeda.
An Innocent in the Terror Prison: The Guantanamo File on Germany's Murat Kurnaz
Before transporting him to Guantanamo, the Americans placed Kurnaz in a US prison in Kandahar after he was turned over to them by the Pakistani security forces, who had arrested him in early December 2001 on his way to Peshawar airport. The US military believed it had another al-Qaida fighter under lock and key.
When he arrived at Guantanamo in October 2002, he had no idea that he would be spending almost five years on the island and that, from then on, he was categorized as a "member of al-Qaida's global terrorism network" by the Americans, as it states in his assessment, dated May 19, 2006, which was obtained by SPIEGEL as part of its reporting project with the whistleblower platform WikiLeaks.
The fact that they were mistaken doesn't change that.
You think Assange isn't a fugitive? Yes, he is. He jumped bail in the UK and fled extradition.
Julian Assange: the fugitive
Assange spent 10 days in jail in December 2010, before being bailed to the stately home of a supporter in Suffolk. There, he was free to come and go in daylight hours, yet he says he felt more in captivity then than he does now. "During the period of house arrest, I had an electronic manacle around my leg for 24 hours a day, and for someone who has tried to give others liberty all their adult life, that is absolutely intolerable. And I had to go to the police at a specific time every day – every day – Christmas Day, New Year's Day – for over 550 days in a row." His voice is warming now, barbed with indignation. "One minute late would mean being placed into prison immediately."
Julian Assange supporters ordered to forfeit £93,500 bail money
This gets a little tedious.
You must have skipped this paragraph from the article I referenced:
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
When she awoke she found Assange having sex with her. She was asleep when Assange start having sex. She couldn't have consented.
Q) Sex without consent is what?
A) Rape
Nah, not really. Gitmo is for terrorists (not "terrorists") and if the US was going to charge him it would be for espionage, which isn't terrorism. It wouldn't be a slam dunk by any means, unless Assange could be proven to have helped Bradley Manning steal classified data. Then the chances for a conviction improve, but still not a slam dunk. But hey, who knows, maybe they'll try going after him for criminal copyright violation. (I wonder how many MP3s Assange has?)
I'll give you points for effort, and a sense of humor. ;)
The guy definitely has the "winning" personality of another Hans Reiser, which is to say, classic narcissistic personality disorder; he's about as likable as anal ulcers...
If that is true, shouldn't there be a cream to help make Assange tolerable, ... even in only in small doses? From what I've read even his "friends" would find it helpful.
it's also pretty clear that Sweden is acting as a cat's paw for the U.S. because of information disclosed on Wikileaks.
I doubt it. The US doesn't control Assange's penis which is the source of trouble there.
It's obtuse to believe Assange would be extradicted from Sweden to the US. He is currently in the UK which has an extradition treaty with the US. From the UK only 1 country (UK) has to agree. If he goes to Sweden there are two countries that have to agree to extradition: UK & Sweden. It is practically certain that before anything else he will be in Swedish court, and likely then to Swedish prison. And where do you think he is likely to go from there? Back to the UK to answer changes related to his bail jumping and criminal flight from extradition.
The idea that Assange is going to be sent to Sweden to be bounced to the US is in essence a fairy tale that Assange's supporters tell to explain away his avoidance of Swedish justice for his criminal sexual conduct.
I would suggest that Assange surrender himself to British authorities. After extradition to Sweden he would either be released to walk the streets, or sent to luxurious Swedish prison where he could walk the yard. Of course in either case at the end of his time in Sweden he would likely be returned to the UK to face the consequences of jumping bail which means he is likely to have the opportunity to walk in a British prison yard for a time, and then back to the streets.
Isn't it harmful to the human dignity of his victims to deny accused rapist Julian Assange a day in court? Let him walk the prison yard, or the streets, not a makeshift area created for a fugitive from justice.
The UK has an extradition treaty with the US. Even if we assume that silly theory is true, things get more complicated by sending him to Sweden, not less. In the UK only 1 country has to consent to his extradition: the UK. In Sweden there are 2 countries that have to agree to his extradition: the UK that has him now (and has extradition treaty with the US) and Sweden.
The idea you are supporting there is a nonsensical Rube Goldberg legal "contraption" that makes no sense. In essence it is a lie that Assange's supporters tell to explain away his avoidance of Swedish justice for his criminal sexual conduct.
You're mistaken on several points.
Sweden would have to get the permission of the UK to extradite Assange. Even if it were to happen (not likely) that isn't going to happen until Swedish justice is satisfied.
It isn't common for prosecutors to go to a foreign country to interview fugitives from justice, which is what Assange is. They probably expect to file charges after the interview and go to trial, so there is even less incentive to go to a foreign country to interview him when the key events will all happen in Sweden.
Assange is getting far more favorable treatment that most fugitives that have jumped bail, and yet his defenders keep crying foul, as if he was being subjected to terrible injustice. That is nonsense. Complete rubbish. His case has been to TWO supreme courts in two different countries and he keeps losing. This has all been to avoid extradition and questioning. Not imprisonment, just questioning. That seems unusually favorable treatment. How is it that you think (mistakenly) that he has somehow been mistreated or short changed? How?
Perhaps you should go read a fuller description of events, including the allegation that Assange started having sex with one of the women while she was asleep. (You may recall that sleeping people can't give consent.) It isn't quite so favorable to Assange.
10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange
Jozsef Mindszenty stayed in the US embassy in Budapest for 15 years, 1956-71. But it is a large building. He could walk around, climb stairs, etc. Julian is staying in a small room. Even in prison people are allowed to walk outdoors.
Assange is in that embassy by choice. He could clear this all up by going for questioning, and possibly trial. If he is not guilty, then he goes free. If it turns out that he is found guilty he would likely find his overall circumstances improved in Swedish prison, including opportunities for exercise.
‘Prison is not for punishment in Sweden. We get people into better shape’
As things are Assange is imprisoning himself. It remains to be seen if the Swedish legal system will have a role. Hopefully Assange will not permanently harm his health by his negligence and what is in effect self abuse.
Assange isn't being extradited to the United States, he is being extradited to Sweden. Your example has nothing to do with this case. The women making the complaint say that Assange assault them. There isn't much room for confusion here.
Let it go to trial, then we will see. Almost everyone on Slashdot loves having courts decide things, all manner of things, until it comes to Assange, Manning, and Snowden. Then, not so much.
I'm sure even Julian Assange understands the idea of consent and its limits, but probably not as it applies to him .... especially the limits part. How are you with the idea?
I think there is a perfectly satisfactory answer in two parts:
1. It is very unusual to do so, especially in light of #2.
2. They expect to charge him, which means taking him into custody for trial.
If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms.
There is no can of worms in that regard. Courts in the UK up through the UK Supreme Court have found that the crimes he is accused of are crimes in the UK, subject to prosecution, and they have approved his extradition.
I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden ...
Yes, there is a statue of limitation in Sweden, and some of the crimes will be running into it in a few months. Assage is trying to run out the clock to escape trial for rape and other acts of sexual assault.
Assange recently lost an appeal to the Supreme Court of Sweden to have the warrant for him withdrawn. He is still subject to extradition. Now his lawyers are going to try taking their "case" to international courts claiming that the proceedings against Assange aren't fair, that he has been denied justice somehow. That's a laugh, especially since their claim essentially reduces to Assange has been denied speedy justice without taking notice of the fact that Assange is a fugitive from justice. The man is a study in pathology.
Would that be a surprise to you? You do know that Snowden stole something like 70,000 (IIRC) British government Top Secret documents held by the NSA and leaked them far and wide? Have you somehow missed the repeated stories on Slashdot about GCHQ based on British documents that Snowden leaked? Do you think it somehow odd that leaked British government documents about British government intelligence programs and operations could have an impact on British government intelligence operations? Is the cause and effect here somehow elusive?
It seems to me you've too much snark, too little knowledge, and apparently no insight.
Wait a minute, that was France...
You don't say? What a "surprise" ....
The sordid truth about the oil-for-food scandal
... Far from seeking to protect their lucrative trade ties, the real explanation for the opposition of France and Russia to the war was that both countries' political establishments were deeply implicated in a lucrative scam to divert the profits of the UN's oil-for-food programme into their own private coffers.
From the moment the oil-for-food programme was introduced in 1996, Saddam concentrated all his energies on attempting to subvert it. The complex oil-for-food programme was introduced so that the profits from UN-supervised Iraqi oil sales would pay for essential healthcare supplies. The programme was conceived, it should be remembered, to counter the mounting effectiveness of the propaganda campaign of hard-Left activists such as George Galloway, the former Labour MP, who argued that the wide-ranging UN sanctions introduced following the Gulf war were responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi children.
But as the ISG report clearly demonstrates, Saddam skilfully worked the system so that the profits were diverted to fund his regime rather than feed his people. An important element of this fraud was that a significant percentage of the funds was diverted to set up a voucher system that could be used to bribe a wide network of international politicians who could be counted upon to do Saddam's bidding.
Between them, France and Russia received 45 per cent of the vouchers, with China coming third. In late 2002 and early 2003, France, Russia and China led the anti-war movement at the UN. In France, the vouchers were given to a number of politicians with close links to Mr Chirac, while in Russia they were paid directly to Mr Putin's private office, providing him with his own ready-made slush fund.
Saddam's clever manipulation of the voucher system was a brilliant success: it not only caused a deep split within the security council, it helped him to make irrelevant the much-vaunted policy of containment that was supposed to prevent him from re-emerging as a dominant force the the Middle East. It also enabled him to fund illicit imports of weapons and the technology needed to resume production of weapons of mass destruction, which was his declared aim once the sanctions had been lifted.
By the way, what did the British government have to say about military action in Syria? Do you recall? Just in case you don't:
Cameron forced to rule out British attack on Syria after MPs reject motion
You should probably reexamine your ideas of virtue in regards to international relations. They don't seem to hold water. In fact they are probably dangerous.