Yes and I think Naomi Wolf has absolutely no knowledge or insight whatsoever into the Swedish legal system and therefore absolutely no clue whats she's talking about.
Just the part about expensive corporate lawyers for example. The Swedish legal system simply doesn't work that way, the lawyers would get a predetermined rate paid by the Swedish government, not from the women involved. Famous lawyers/legal firms typically take these sort of high profile cases on despite getting standard pay because they get publicity.
1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.
There was an indication of lack of consent, one of the women claims Assange had sex with her while she was asleep, thus there is a possible lack of consent.
Also, in Sweden sexual abuse falls under public prosecution, if the prosecutor finds something in the woman's story that seems to violate the law they are bound by law to pursue the matter, regardless of whether the woman thinks what happened was wrong/illegal.
No he cannot legally be forced to travel to the US from Sweden unless he's a US national(which he isn't) or if he was properly extradited in accordance with Swedish law. Also Swedish law prohibits turning someone over to a country where they would face torture or death.
This is not about Diplomatic Immunity, a nation can only revoke the diplomatic immunity of their own ambassadorial staff, the host nation cannot do that.
However, the host nation can withdraw the extraterritorial(something typically granted to foreign embassies but not Consulates) status of any embassy on their soil
That means that the embassy is now like any other building in that country, the host nation can still not intentionally or through negligence harm the ambassador or any other staff enjoying diplomatic immunity(doing so would be an act of war) but they can go in and arrest Assange should they wish to.
The US is well within their rights to punish Bradley Manning with whatever punishment the UCMJ permits.
Assange however is not a US citizen and cannot be expected or required to abitde by US law unless he is within the borders of the United States.
If North Korea did what Assange did it would be an Act of War since North Korea is a country and not an individual but since Assange did not do it on behalf of another nation and since individuals acting on their own cannot commit acts of war(unless doing so at the behest of a nation) the situation is completely different.
Yes sadly that happens and much to my disappointment it has happened in Sweden, but sweeping 2 random nameless Egyptians under the carpet is something completely different compared to a high profile person like Assange.
And when that case was uncovered the sitting minister of foreign relations would have been in some seriously big trouble had she not been murdered by a random nutcase while on a shopping spree.
Until Assange is extradited to the US and suffers torture or death I will choose to believe in our democracy which while not perfect is a lot better than the US or the UK at the moment.
Ah yes you are correct my bad. Well that event cause some pretty heavy complaints and an appeal to the European High Court of Justice I think. That case was complicated by physicians announcing Pinochet suffering from some limited dementia which made him ineligible to stand trial for his crimes and at the times those crimes where committed I think the UK had an absolute immunity law concerning heads of state etc furthermore complicating things. Another factor complicating it was that Spain was bringing the case against Pinochet on behalf of Spanish citizens however those citizens where Chilean refugees granted asylum I think. So the case was not as clear cut as some may make it out to be.
Swedish law does not permit extraditing someone to a country where they may fay torture or the death penalty so no the only way Assange would become a victim of the US torture machine would be if he was caught by the US someplace else(someplace like for example Ecuador?)
If the US wanted Assange extradited from Sweden to stand trial they would have to offer significant guarantees that he would not be tortured or risk facing a possible death penalty, on this Swedish law is crystal clear.
No it is not, intentionally bringing harm to an ambassador or other staff enjoying diplomatic immunity would be, merely revoking the extraterritorial status of an embassy is not or Sweden and by extension the entire EU would currently be at war with Belarus.
That would be an act of war, the UK is well within their right to revoke the extraterritorial status of the Ecuadorian embassy, they are still not permitted to cause harm to the Ecuadorian ambassador or any other staff enjoying diplomatic immunity. But should the Ecuadorian guards use force to prevent the UK police from entering that is essentially the same as an armed invasion of the UK(albeit a very small one).
Further more Assange does not qualify as a refugee on the grounds laid down in the Geneva convention or the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. And as such Assange has no universal right to asylum thus the UK is not required to respect the Asylum granted him by Ecuador.
Revoking diplomatic immunity is not an act of war or Sweden and in the extension the EU(because all member states are required to protect each others) and NATO(because there are NATO members in the EU, see the aforementioned as to why they would be required to intervene) would currently be at war with Belarus.
Assaulting an ambassador would be an act of war, revoking an embassy is not because an embassy is still part of the host nation, the host nation just cedes certain rights upon that territory for the duration of the diplomatic mission. So as long as the UK does not bring any harm to the Ecuadorian ambassador or any other staff with diplomatic immunity no act of war has been committed.
Because interrogating a suspect over telephone/video accomplishes nothing. Sure interviewing a witness that way is fine.
Obviously nothing he says can be trusted and as long as he isn't in custody the interrogators have no way of putting pressure on him.
I doubt Sweden will drop the charges, it's too late for that now, what will happen is either:
1. He voluntarily goes to Sweden.
2. Ecuador tries to smuggle him out of the country and he gets apprehended at the airport because at some point or another he's gonna be out of a diplomatic vehicle, besides, the police can .
3. He sits in the Ecuadorian embassy until the statute of limitations run out(about 10 years I think)
He exhausted all his legal options in the UK, he is now a fleeing criminal(running from bail is a crime) so yes he can objectively be portrayed as having said "screw you"
How about this for a practical reason. Obviously nothing he says can be trusted(he promised not to run when someone posted bail for him), the interrogators have no possibility to pressure him if the interrogations take place at his pleasure at the Ecuadorian embassy.
Also as long as he is not under Swedish control, or under arrest in the UK any interrogation that might strengthen the suspicions against him would only make him likelier to try to run to the next embassy.
Better to have the UK send Ecuador a sharply worded letter that he is not an ambassador and request that he be asked to leave the embassy, should they refuse or try to give him diplomatic immunity the UK can always refuse it. And even if that doesn't work Ecuador will probably grow tired of him leeching off them once the publicity quiets down and then he will kindly asked to leave.
As stated before, Ecuador isn't known for it's strong stance on human rights and freedom of the press etc. and there is no reason to believe they hav started, they are just doing this for the publicity and perhaps a chance to give the US the finger.
Pretty much the same thing applies in the UK tho except that they seem to be much more extradition friendly.
Sure they can lie and cause a major diplomatic incident with the entire EU, I don't think the US would want that they disliked enough as it is already.
Besides the Swedish government would have to approve an extradition which I doubt they would with all the publicity there is around Assange.
They have no reason to believe Assange would tell the truth in any interrogation and since it's on his terms they have no way of pressuring him, simply they have nothing to gain by an interrogation on his terms.
Yes the authorities can't charge you with a crime in your absence but they do ahve the option to bring somone in by force should they be reluctant to appear of their own free will and if the authorities can't get a hold of the person they will arrest him in his absence and put the trial on ice until such a time as the person is arrested and brought before the court.
A formal questioning can be by a court, a prosecutor or an appointed lead interrogator(must be a police officer) and no it doesn't have to be face to face but the government has nothing to gain by interrogating Assange on his terms so why should they accept his terms?
Yet again, Assange is a proven flight risk, the Swedish justice system has nothing to gain by meeting him on his terms.
Swedish law prohibits extraditing a person to a country where they might face torture or the death penalty.
Swedish law also prohibits extradition when the person would face a special court such as military tribunal and also prohibits extradition of someone who would face a regular military court(such as for example deserters etc. regardless of penalty)
Also somone under investigation or serving a punishment in Sweden may not be extradited until they have served their term or all charges have been dropped and should the prosecutor drop the case Assange would most likely be returned to the UK
So only if the US pledges to try him in the regular court system and not use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him and if the court also pledges not to sentence him to death might he be extradited to the United States.
It's the exact same thing as with South Africa. Chile is not a part of the EU, Sweden is and that is why. You are trying to argue that apples and cars is the same thing, well they're not.
The UK has no choice, the Swedish justice system filed a valid European Arrest Warrant, the UK is required by EU treaties to enforce and obey those.
With Chile or any other non-EU country the UK government can do whatever they want, they can choose to sign an extradition treaty to regulate such things or they can choose not to or anything in between.
Well if the woman consents under the requirement that he wear a condom and and he does not(or intentionally breaks the condom etc.) then it was in fact not consensual according to Swedish law and the woman has the right to withhold consent at any point during the act.
There is no practical reason to ever question a suspect on the suspects conditions. Besides, Assange is a proven flight risk(he violated his bail terms) so if a hypothetical hearing strengthened the suspicions against him he wouldn't exactly be less motivated to attempt to flee again.
To my knowledge there exists no requirement that an interrogation be held in Sweden.
The most relevant law text I found is the following:
5 Förhör skall, såvida icke därigenom förundersökningens behöriga gång motverkas eller polisens eller åklagarens arbete avsevärt för svåras, hållas å tid och plats, som antagas medföra minsta olägenhet för den som skall höras. Förhör skall ock i övrigt anordnas så, att onödig tidsspillan för den hörde undvikes.
Den som skall höras bör, där så kan ske och det ej finnes olämpligt med hänsyn till utredningen, i god tid kallas till förhöret.
Om ersättning av allmänna medel till den som under förundersökning inställt sig till förhör gäller vad därom är särskilt stadgat.
But hearing a suspect on the suspects terms would probably be seen as unduly obstructing the work of the police or prosecutor and as such should not be done.
Sweden is a member of the EU, South Africa is not. As a member of the EU UK is required to process any valid and properly filed European arrest warrant. >The UK cannot refuse to follow a European arrest warrant, they can however refuse to extradite somebody to any non-EU country. That's the difference, it has nothing to do with political double standards
Swedish law expressly forbids extraditing anyone to a country where they would risk torture and/or death so no Sweden would not extradite Assange to the United States as long as the death sentence is a possible sentence. Swedish law requires that both the Swedish Government and the Swedish High Court(the High Court will investigate whether the extradition is permissible according to Swedish law) approve of any extradition, should either of those instances withhold their approval the extradition cannot happen according to Swedish law.
I disagree that the EU would be better off with a unified standard, the EU is not the United States of Europe, the member states should have broad freedoms on how they want to write their legal framework. What the EU could and in my opinion should do is establish some sort of minimum required protection for the accused and the content provider, something which according to the article seems to be lacking in some of the less "civilized" member states, that is however not the same as a unified standard.
Personally I do not think the complaining party should have have a "in good faith" protection. If you want to take content down you better be 100% sure it is infringing and that the use is not permitted by fair use etc or you should not send the complaint.
A counter claim should have a "in good faith protection" however because there should not be the same assumption that they know the law. And yes the content host should be required to restore the content with expediency(within 48h) if a counter claim is sent, this can then be forwarded to the complaining party who can then go to a court and have the content pulled if they still believe they have a case.
The complaining party should have the entire burden of proving infringement and be fully liable if they were wrong, that way they cannot go on "fishing expeditions" without risking serious fines and/or damages.
Not only limited to Germany, much of northern Europe has benefited from EU, Scandinavia, Germany, France, Netherlands, etc. those that has been have been adversely affected are the PIIGS groups of countries.
The big reason is probably because no competitor has sent a complaint to the Commission against Apple, the Commission will probably only take independent action if it perceives some huge breach, otherwise it will most likely trust the competitors to bring complaints when they feel they have an unfair disadvantage.
Another problem is probably the definition of a market, at the time the commission possibly lumped digital music sales with regular music sales causing Apple to not have a dominant market position, same for Mp3 players, they might have been lumped with MiniDisc players and other digital music players. I don't know but those are some of the possible reasons.
And yes you are right that you have to actually derive an unfair advantage from your monopoly in a market for there to be an antitrust breach, if you simply leverage your dominant position but don't gain anything from it that would probably not be considered a breach since it didn't negatively affect their competitors or the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and I think Naomi Wolf has absolutely no knowledge or insight whatsoever into the Swedish legal system and therefore absolutely no clue whats she's talking about.
Just the part about expensive corporate lawyers for example. The Swedish legal system simply doesn't work that way, the lawyers would get a predetermined rate paid by the Swedish government, not from the women involved. Famous lawyers/legal firms typically take these sort of high profile cases on despite getting standard pay because they get publicity.
1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.
There was an indication of lack of consent, one of the women claims Assange had sex with her while she was asleep, thus there is a possible lack of consent.
Also, in Sweden sexual abuse falls under public prosecution, if the prosecutor finds something in the woman's story that seems to violate the law they are bound by law to pursue the matter, regardless of whether the woman thinks what happened was wrong/illegal.
No he cannot legally be forced to travel to the US from Sweden unless he's a US national(which he isn't) or if he was properly extradited in accordance with Swedish law. Also Swedish law prohibits turning someone over to a country where they would face torture or death.
IANAL
This is not about Diplomatic Immunity, a nation can only revoke the diplomatic immunity of their own ambassadorial staff, the host nation cannot do that.
However, the host nation can withdraw the extraterritorial(something typically granted to foreign embassies but not Consulates) status of any embassy on their soil
That means that the embassy is now like any other building in that country, the host nation can still not intentionally or through negligence harm the ambassador or any other staff enjoying diplomatic immunity(doing so would be an act of war) but they can go in and arrest Assange should they wish to.
The US is well within their rights to punish Bradley Manning with whatever punishment the UCMJ permits.
Assange however is not a US citizen and cannot be expected or required to abitde by US law unless he is within the borders of the United States.
If North Korea did what Assange did it would be an Act of War since North Korea is a country and not an individual but since Assange did not do it on behalf of another nation and since individuals acting on their own cannot commit acts of war(unless doing so at the behest of a nation) the situation is completely different.
Yes sadly that happens and much to my disappointment it has happened in Sweden, but sweeping 2 random nameless Egyptians under the carpet is something completely different compared to a high profile person like Assange.
And when that case was uncovered the sitting minister of foreign relations would have been in some seriously big trouble had she not been murdered by a random nutcase while on a shopping spree.
Until Assange is extradited to the US and suffers torture or death I will choose to believe in our democracy which while not perfect is a lot better than the US or the UK at the moment.
Ah yes you are correct my bad. Well that event cause some pretty heavy complaints and an appeal to the European High Court of Justice I think. That case was complicated by physicians announcing Pinochet suffering from some limited dementia which made him ineligible to stand trial for his crimes and at the times those crimes where committed I think the UK had an absolute immunity law concerning heads of state etc furthermore complicating things. Another factor complicating it was that Spain was bringing the case against Pinochet on behalf of Spanish citizens however those citizens where Chilean refugees granted asylum I think. So the case was not as clear cut as some may make it out to be.
Swedish law does not permit extraditing someone to a country where they may fay torture or the death penalty so no the only way Assange would become a victim of the US torture machine would be if he was caught by the US someplace else(someplace like for example Ecuador?)
If the US wanted Assange extradited from Sweden to stand trial they would have to offer significant guarantees that he would not be tortured or risk facing a possible death penalty, on this Swedish law is crystal clear.
IANAL
No it is not, intentionally bringing harm to an ambassador or other staff enjoying diplomatic immunity would be, merely revoking the extraterritorial status of an embassy is not or Sweden and by extension the entire EU would currently be at war with Belarus.
That would be an act of war, the UK is well within their right to revoke the extraterritorial status of the Ecuadorian embassy, they are still not permitted to cause harm to the Ecuadorian ambassador or any other staff enjoying diplomatic immunity. But should the Ecuadorian guards use force to prevent the UK police from entering that is essentially the same as an armed invasion of the UK(albeit a very small one).
Further more Assange does not qualify as a refugee on the grounds laid down in the Geneva convention or the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. And as such Assange has no universal right to asylum thus the UK is not required to respect the Asylum granted him by Ecuador.
Revoking diplomatic immunity is not an act of war or Sweden and in the extension the EU(because all member states are required to protect each others) and NATO(because there are NATO members in the EU, see the aforementioned as to why they would be required to intervene) would currently be at war with Belarus.
Assaulting an ambassador would be an act of war, revoking an embassy is not because an embassy is still part of the host nation, the host nation just cedes certain rights upon that territory for the duration of the diplomatic mission. So as long as the UK does not bring any harm to the Ecuadorian ambassador or any other staff with diplomatic immunity no act of war has been committed.
Because interrogating a suspect over telephone/video accomplishes nothing. Sure interviewing a witness that way is fine.
Obviously nothing he says can be trusted and as long as he isn't in custody the interrogators have no way of putting pressure on him.
I doubt Sweden will drop the charges, it's too late for that now, what will happen is either: 1. He voluntarily goes to Sweden.
2. Ecuador tries to smuggle him out of the country and he gets apprehended at the airport because at some point or another he's gonna be out of a diplomatic vehicle, besides, the police can .
3. He sits in the Ecuadorian embassy until the statute of limitations run out(about 10 years I think)
He exhausted all his legal options in the UK, he is now a fleeing criminal(running from bail is a crime) so yes he can objectively be portrayed as having said "screw you"
How about this for a practical reason. Obviously nothing he says can be trusted(he promised not to run when someone posted bail for him), the interrogators have no possibility to pressure him if the interrogations take place at his pleasure at the Ecuadorian embassy.
Also as long as he is not under Swedish control, or under arrest in the UK any interrogation that might strengthen the suspicions against him would only make him likelier to try to run to the next embassy.
Better to have the UK send Ecuador a sharply worded letter that he is not an ambassador and request that he be asked to leave the embassy, should they refuse or try to give him diplomatic immunity the UK can always refuse it. And even if that doesn't work Ecuador will probably grow tired of him leeching off them once the publicity quiets down and then he will kindly asked to leave.
As stated before, Ecuador isn't known for it's strong stance on human rights and freedom of the press etc. and there is no reason to believe they hav started, they are just doing this for the publicity and perhaps a chance to give the US the finger.
Pretty much the same thing applies in the UK tho except that they seem to be much more extradition friendly.
Sure they can lie and cause a major diplomatic incident with the entire EU, I don't think the US would want that they disliked enough as it is already.
Besides the Swedish government would have to approve an extradition which I doubt they would with all the publicity there is around Assange.
They have no reason to believe Assange would tell the truth in any interrogation and since it's on his terms they have no way of pressuring him, simply they have nothing to gain by an interrogation on his terms.
Yes the authorities can't charge you with a crime in your absence but they do ahve the option to bring somone in by force should they be reluctant to appear of their own free will and if the authorities can't get a hold of the person they will arrest him in his absence and put the trial on ice until such a time as the person is arrested and brought before the court.
A formal questioning can be by a court, a prosecutor or an appointed lead interrogator(must be a police officer) and no it doesn't have to be face to face but the government has nothing to gain by interrogating Assange on his terms so why should they accept his terms?
IANAL
Yet again, Assange is a proven flight risk, the Swedish justice system has nothing to gain by meeting him on his terms.
Swedish law prohibits extraditing a person to a country where they might face torture or the death penalty.
Swedish law also prohibits extradition when the person would face a special court such as military tribunal and also prohibits extradition of someone who would face a regular military court(such as for example deserters etc. regardless of penalty)
Also somone under investigation or serving a punishment in Sweden may not be extradited until they have served their term or all charges have been dropped and should the prosecutor drop the case Assange would most likely be returned to the UK
So only if the US pledges to try him in the regular court system and not use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him and if the court also pledges not to sentence him to death might he be extradited to the United States.
It's the exact same thing as with South Africa. Chile is not a part of the EU, Sweden is and that is why. You are trying to argue that apples and cars is the same thing, well they're not.
The UK has no choice, the Swedish justice system filed a valid European Arrest Warrant, the UK is required by EU treaties to enforce and obey those.
With Chile or any other non-EU country the UK government can do whatever they want, they can choose to sign an extradition treaty to regulate such things or they can choose not to or anything in between.
Well if the woman consents under the requirement that he wear a condom and and he does not(or intentionally breaks the condom etc.) then it was in fact not consensual according to Swedish law and the woman has the right to withhold consent at any point during the act.
There is no practical reason to ever question a suspect on the suspects conditions. Besides, Assange is a proven flight risk(he violated his bail terms) so if a hypothetical hearing strengthened the suspicions against him he wouldn't exactly be less motivated to attempt to flee again.
To my knowledge there exists no requirement that an interrogation be held in Sweden.
The most relevant law text I found is the following:
5 Förhör skall, såvida icke därigenom förundersökningens behöriga gång motverkas eller polisens eller åklagarens arbete avsevärt för svåras, hållas å tid och plats, som antagas medföra minsta olägenhet för den som skall höras. Förhör skall ock i övrigt anordnas så, att onödig tidsspillan för den hörde undvikes. Den som skall höras bör, där så kan ske och det ej finnes olämpligt med hänsyn till utredningen, i god tid kallas till förhöret. Om ersättning av allmänna medel till den som under förundersökning inställt sig till förhör gäller vad därom är särskilt stadgat.
But hearing a suspect on the suspects terms would probably be seen as unduly obstructing the work of the police or prosecutor and as such should not be done.
Sweden is a member of the EU, South Africa is not. As a member of the EU UK is required to process any valid and properly filed European arrest warrant. >The UK cannot refuse to follow a European arrest warrant, they can however refuse to extradite somebody to any non-EU country. That's the difference, it has nothing to do with political double standards
Swedish law expressly forbids extraditing anyone to a country where they would risk torture and/or death so no Sweden would not extradite Assange to the United States as long as the death sentence is a possible sentence. Swedish law requires that both the Swedish Government and the Swedish High Court(the High Court will investigate whether the extradition is permissible according to Swedish law) approve of any extradition, should either of those instances withhold their approval the extradition cannot happen according to Swedish law.
I disagree that the EU would be better off with a unified standard, the EU is not the United States of Europe, the member states should have broad freedoms on how they want to write their legal framework. What the EU could and in my opinion should do is establish some sort of minimum required protection for the accused and the content provider, something which according to the article seems to be lacking in some of the less "civilized" member states, that is however not the same as a unified standard.
Personally I do not think the complaining party should have have a "in good faith" protection. If you want to take content down you better be 100% sure it is infringing and that the use is not permitted by fair use etc or you should not send the complaint.
A counter claim should have a "in good faith protection" however because there should not be the same assumption that they know the law. And yes the content host should be required to restore the content with expediency(within 48h) if a counter claim is sent, this can then be forwarded to the complaining party who can then go to a court and have the content pulled if they still believe they have a case.
The complaining party should have the entire burden of proving infringement and be fully liable if they were wrong, that way they cannot go on "fishing expeditions" without risking serious fines and/or damages.
Not only limited to Germany, much of northern Europe has benefited from EU, Scandinavia, Germany, France, Netherlands, etc. those that has been have been adversely affected are the PIIGS groups of countries.
As long as civil matters does not require guilty beyond reasonable doubt I prefer the regular courts.
The big reason is probably because no competitor has sent a complaint to the Commission against Apple, the Commission will probably only take independent action if it perceives some huge breach, otherwise it will most likely trust the competitors to bring complaints when they feel they have an unfair disadvantage.
Another problem is probably the definition of a market, at the time the commission possibly lumped digital music sales with regular music sales causing Apple to not have a dominant market position, same for Mp3 players, they might have been lumped with MiniDisc players and other digital music players. I don't know but those are some of the possible reasons.
And yes you are right that you have to actually derive an unfair advantage from your monopoly in a market for there to be an antitrust breach, if you simply leverage your dominant position but don't gain anything from it that would probably not be considered a breach since it didn't negatively affect their competitors or the market.