Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-08-2016, 03:11 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
If evidence emerges that the British had beat Assange with rubber truncheons and put him on a show trial on the orders of the government, my views would be different.

But so far as I can tell from the news accounts, the Swedes and the British have been observing the rule of law and due process, with the legal questions about the validity of the extradition process being determined by independent courts, according to law.
Agreed. If he is just a garden variety rape suspect hiding from extradition then you can't really say that he is being unlawfully held against his will. He can come out and face the music any time he wants. The only way to believe that this is some form of unauthorized detention is if you believe that there is some shadow conspiracy that means that if he shows his face he will unlawful dark acts done against him. In that case the extra legal aspect is the dark acts that will be done against him, and that is what should be condemned by the UN, not the fact that some police are hanging out front in case he makes a run for it.
  #102  
Old 02-08-2016, 03:31 PM
Anarcho Liberalist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I've skimmed through the opinion of the Working Group, and Im puzzled by two things.

[...]

Second, they also count the time in the embassy as arbitrary detention. But he's there because he wants to be, because he wants to avoid legal process. Bottom line is that I don't see how avoiding due process at your own desire can count as arbitrary detention on the part of the government.
This is my nr 1 problem with the opinion of the Working Group. I have been reading up on the case and must conclude that they willingly ignore the fact that Sweden has explained on several occasions that he's not 'just wanted for questioning' but that Swedish law simply demands that he's brought in to go through the procedural motions before he can officially be indicted.

Why did they ignore this crucial aspect? I can't think of any other reason than that they have their own agenda.

Maybe the Working Group came to the conclusion that all their important work on arbitrary detention by dubious regimes with well known appalling human rights records wasn't getting enough attention? (Newspaper reader: 'Oh no! The military dictatorship in country XYZ does horrible things to opposition journalists. What else is new?'). So they went after a high profile case in a western democracy. The general outcome was clear from the beginning: the free speech hero is unlawfully detained. And it worked. Let's be honest: who was aware of this particular panel until their much covered and debated opinion on the Assange case?

I know I'm speculating and I'm by no means implying that mistakes in that area are never made by western democracies. I just can't help suspecting that when decisions are made on which cases to explore and what conclusions to draw are at least in part driven by vanity and/or bureaucratic wars over funding, official priorities etc.
  #103  
Old 02-08-2016, 04:29 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu
yet he faces extradition, even though the law has changed in the meantime meaning UK is not bound to extradite.
A cite for this would be nice.
The change in the UK law is summarized in the Opinion of the Working Group, at p. 11, note 1:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opinion of the Working Group
The changes to UK extradition legislation following Mr. Assange’s case. In brief, the United Kingdom has now concluded:
(i) By virtue of a binding decision of the UK Supreme Court in 2013, that the UK will no longer, where a request is made under a European Arrest Warrant, permit the extradition of individuals where the warrant is not initiated by a judicial authority. It has determined that the requirement of a “judicial authority” cannot be interpreted as being fulfilled by a prosecutor as is the case in relation to Mr. Assange.
(ii) By virtue of legislation in force since July 2014, that the UK will no longer permit extradition on the basis of a bare accusation (as opposed to a formal completed decision to prosecute and charge) as is the case in relation to Mr. Assange.
(iii) By virtue of the same legislation now in force, that the United Kingdom will no longer permit extradition under a European Arrest Warrant without consideration by a court of its proportionality (Mr. Assange’s case was decided on the basis that such consideration was at that time not permitted).
On point (i), this is one of the differences between civil law jurisdictions and common law jurisdictions. Civil law countries traditionally give prosecutors greater procedural authority than prosecutors in a common law regime. A common law prosecutor doesn't normally have the power to issue an arrest warrant; it has to come from a judge, who reviews the prosecutor's application. The UK has evidently decided that for purposes of extradition, they will require that the arrest warrant be issued by a judge. I would think that continental European countries will be reviewing their criminal procedures to add in a requirement for a judicial warrant for extradition cases.

Point (ii) seems to be in reaction to the Swedish criminal procedure where a charge occurs quite late in the process. At first glance it looks to be a major shift in favour of Assange's arguments that the extradition process is unfair, since he shouldn't be extradited if he hasn't been charged. However, the Working Group's summary of the changes to the UK law omits a key point, made by a legal blogger in Julian Assange: do recent changes to extradition law make any difference?

Quote:
The new section 12A brings in a new bar to extradition under a European Arrest Warrant if the requesting country has not made a decision to charge, and the CPS (which in this case represents the “category 1 territory”, Sweden) cannot satisfy the extradition judge that
the person’s absence from the category 1 territory is the sole reason for that failure.
This might or might not help someone in Assange’s situation. Arguably his absence from Sweden is indeed the “sole reason” why he’s not been charged; it’s even more strongly arguable that his absence is the sole reason why no decision has been made whether to charge him or not. But there would certainly be room for Assange’s lawyers to argue, based on points his supporters have made in public about the possibility of interviewing him by video, that his absence from Sweden isn’t the “sole reason” he’s not been charged.
Curious that the Working Group does not mention this qualification on the issue of a charge being needed for extradition, which is particularly relevant to the way Assange has acted in this case?

As to point (iii), I would have thought that on any assessment of proportionality, a pending rape charge would rank pretty high in favour of extradition.

In summary, it doesn't look like the changes to UK law would have automatically resulted in a different outcome if they had been in force at the time of the application for extradition in the UK (other than the requirement for a judicial warrant, not a prosecutor's warrant).

In any event, none of these changes were retroactive, so there is still an outstanding extradition order, upheld by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Last edited by Northern Piper; 02-08-2016 at 04:30 PM.
  #104  
Old 02-10-2016, 01:13 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
But you don't think it's possible that, you know, Assanage raped two women?
Possible? Sure, lots of things are possible. But unlikely. It's pretty much an open secret that the U.S. is after him, and conveniently he gets convicted of something that had already been dropped?

It doesn't take some vast conspiracy. It takes some officials who are prejudiced against him as people on this board to take another look at something previously resolved, and finding an issue.

From there, the U.S. publicly will ask for extradition, and it's all above board, no conspiracy needed. The only reason they don't do it now is because it would give everyone reason to help him out.

What I don't get is how this board was all split down the middle about (even leaning favorable towards) Manning but bought all the bullshit about Assange. It's the same exact issue. The people that tortured Manning (sleep deprivation is a torture technique) are going after Assange.

If they actually did care about the charges, they could investigate him where he is. They refuse. When there's a way to get your stated goal but you refuse to take it, the rational assumption is that your stated goal is not your entire goal.

Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it's not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so.
  #105  
Old 02-10-2016, 02:05 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Possible? Sure, lots of things are possible. But unlikely...

...Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it's not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so.
Why is it so likely that two women would lie about Assange having sexually assaulted him that you are prepared to drop the allegation out of hand?

What could the UK and Sweden do to convince you that this prosecution is genuine.

Why do you believe that the public statements from both Sweden and the UK that they would not extradite him can be ignored?
  #106  
Old 02-10-2016, 04:52 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,780
And why didn't the US ask for extradition when he was under house arrest in the UK? This theory that the evil American shadow government is powerless until Assange arrives in a neutral, non-NATO country is absurd.

And in any case, news reports last night indicate that the Swedish prosecutor is caving to the idea of interviewing him in the UK.

Last edited by Ravenman; 02-10-2016 at 04:52 AM.
  #107  
Old 02-10-2016, 05:14 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
and conveniently he gets convicted of something that had already been dropped?
He hasn't been convicted, he is wanted for the formal questioning without which charges cannot be brought to court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it's not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so.
Neither has to prove a negative. I don't know what the Swedish authorities' objections are to sending prosecutors to question him where he is, but it may well have something to do with his clearly attempting to evade the normal processes of their justice system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
What I don't get is how this board was all split down the middle about (even leaning favorable towards) Manning but bought all the bullshit about Assange.
What I don't get is why you assume the allegations against Assange are so obviously untrue as to require all the normal processes of law and justice to be set aside.
  #108  
Old 02-10-2016, 09:37 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT
Possible? Sure, lots of things are possible. But unlikely. It's pretty much an open secret that the U.S. is after him, and conveniently he gets convicted of something that had already been dropped?
He hasn't been convicted of anything yet. I don't have any idea of what you mean by 'something that had already been dropped'. Are you claiming both women and the state has dropped charges and just brought them back up at the behest of the US??

So, anyway, you answered the question...you think it's unlikely that this guy raped two women and you buy into the conspiracy theory that the US government is really behind it all. Gotcha. Thanks for laying that out plainly at least.

Quote:
It doesn't take some vast conspiracy. It takes some officials who are prejudiced against him as people on this board to take another look at something previously resolved, and finding an issue.
Yeah, it actually does take a vast conspiracy for this to happen the way you are implying. You have to have the US putting pressure on Sweden and the UK, you have to have Sweden and the UK going along with the pressure, and you have to have these two women in the CT as well. It's a lot of people who need to be involved for this to happen. Hundreds really. But, you know, the more folks in a conspiracy the better the chance it will last for years and no one but some eagle eyed guy like you will be able to detect it and dismiss the rape charges out of hand as obvious ploys by the US to get their hands on one guy!

Quote:
What I don't get is how this board was all split down the middle about (even leaning favorable towards) Manning but bought all the bullshit about Assange. It's the same exact issue. The people that tortured Manning (sleep deprivation is a torture technique) are going after Assange.
Well, you have those who have a working Occam's Razor and a decent bullshit detection kit, and those, such as yourself, who go by gut feelings and connect the dot sooper sloooothing techniques.

Quote:
If they actually did care about the charges, they could investigate him where he is. They refuse. When there's a way to get your stated goal but you refuse to take it, the rational assumption is that your stated goal is not your entire goal.
I don't think that because the prosecutors in Swede want to interview him in Sweden because of crimes committed in Sweden and not in a situation where he isn't even nominally in their control means they don't 'care about the charges'.

Quote:
Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it's not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so.
How would they convince a CTer such as yourself? What could or would they say that would convince you on this? They have both made public statements that they won't extradite him to the US...the US has not asked for him to be extradited either. What more would convince you? Would anything?

Last edited by XT; 02-10-2016 at 09:38 AM.
  #109  
Old 02-10-2016, 01:55 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
If they actually did care about the charges, they could investigate him where he is. They refuse. When there's a way to get your stated goal but you refuse to take it, the rational assumption is that your stated goal is not your entire goal.
It's not so simple as you make it sound, and in fact they have not refused to explore that option. In fact, contrary to your statement, the Swedish authorities have been working towards that end for about two years, and recently reached an agreement with the Ecuadorians for the interview to occur in the Embassy.

First, this is a formal stage in the Swedish criminal investigation system. If there is a deviation from the strict requirments of Swedish criminal procedure, would it taint the subsequent trial, if there is one? The Swedish prosecutors have to be able to come up with an interview process that can be done in the Embassy of a second country, on the territory of a third country, and be confident that the interview process will meet the requirements of Swedish criminal law and will be accepted by the Swedish courts. That is not something that can be easily done on the fly, any more than an American prosecutor could unilaterally change the rules for a grand jury to be held.

Second, once the Swedish prosecutors have their ducks in a row for their law of criminal investigations, they run into another major legal issue: it's a basic principle of state sovereignty that one state cannot exercise sovereign power on the territory of another state.

Since an interview by Swedish prosecutors is an exercise of state sovereignty, they cannot do it on British territory without the permission of the British government. And, the British have to be assured by the Swedes that the way that the interview occurs on British territory is consistent with British law. A big question that occurs to me is whether this type of interview, under Nordic civil law, is consistent with the English right to remain silent, protected by English common law.

Then, once the Swedes have satisfied the British that the interview can occur consistently with British law, they have to move on to the Ecuadorians. Since Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Swedish prosecutors cannot interview him without getting the consent of the Ecuadorian government. And just like the British, the Ecuadorians have to be satisfied that the Swedish interview process is consistent with Ecuadorian law and constitutional provisions.

Then, once the Swedes have worked out all those arrangements in principle, they have to be approved by the British, Swedish and Ecuadorian governments, apparently at quite a high level, such as the Swedish Cabinet.

If you had read the earlier parts of the thread, you would perhaps have noticed that the Swedish authorities have been working on this option for quite some time. The earliest article I have found is from 2014, indicating that they have been discussing it with the Ecuadorians. And they have recently announced an agreement that would allow the interview to occur in the Embassy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post

The Swedish authorities have been working on interviewing him in the Ecuador embassy, but there have been some legal hoops to go through, apparently because it is a major deviation from their normal criminal procedure.

It involved getting the consent of the UK to conduct a Swedish legal investigation in the UK, then working out the terms with the Ecuadorian government, which then needed to be confirmed by the Swedish and Ecuadorian governments. Arrangements were finalized in December 2015 and January 2016:

Ecuador, Sweden break legal impasse over Assange questioning

Julian Assange to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors in London
So now it looks like it's up to Assange to agree to be interviewed, as the Swedish authorities have done all that work to make it so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it's not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so.
What would you accept as proof that it's not about wikilinks, when both the Swedish and the British governments have been in court in their respective countries, arguing in favour of the extradition under the ordinary law of the land, putting forward all the proof that they normally need to do to warrant extradition, and the courts, independent of the government of the day, have consistently ruled in their favour?

What would convince you?
  #110  
Old 02-10-2016, 02:27 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
From there, the U.S. publicly will ask for extradition,
Why didn't the US ask for extradition when he was at large in the UK, not in an embassy? The UK is not exactly hostile to the US, after all.

Quote:
Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it's not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so.
I don't see that they have the opportunity to do so, as there are people who fervently believe that Assange is a saint, those sluts are filthy liars, and everything is some kind of plot in spite of the evidence to the contrary. What would they actually have to do to convince you that this is actually a criminal trial about someone committing sex crimes and not about wikileaks, for example?
  #111  
Old 02-10-2016, 02:36 PM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,360
As far as I can see, the argument that these women were US stooges is predominantly based upon questioning why else someone would ever have slept with him.

If I were Assange, I don't think I'd appreciate this defence.
  #112  
Old 02-10-2016, 07:11 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
He hasn't been convicted of anything yet. I don't have any idea of what you mean by 'something that had already been dropped'. Are you claiming both women and the state has dropped charges and just brought them back up at the behest of the US??
I think BigT to the fact that the Swedish prosecutors issued an arrest warrant shortly after the complaint was lodged. They withdrew it the next day, with the prosecutor saying he didn't think there was sufficient evidence of rape.

The two complainants then filed an appeal to another office in the Swedish prosecutorial service, and a week after the first prosecutor dropped the warrant, the second prosecutor re-instituted it.

Personally, I don't put much weight on this, for two reasons:

1. When a criminal investigation is in the early stages, it can be very fluid, with some uncertainty at first about how serious it is.

2. The complainants apparently exercised a right under Swedish law to appeal the dropping of the warrant, and presumably were further interviewed as part of that process. That may have provided additional information.

So it's not a case that charges were dropped and then re-instituted months later; it was an arrest warrant, re-instituted just a week later, after the complainants spoke again to the prosecutorial service. In the early stages of a criminal investigation, that doesn't strike me as unusual.

My personal reaction is that this
  #113  
Old 02-27-2016, 11:15 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,848
An update: Julian Assange: Swedish court asked to overturn arrest warrant after UN finding

Quote:
Lawyers for Julian Assange have asked a Swedish court to overturn an arrest warrant for the WikiLeaks founder after a UN panel decided that his stay in Ecuador’s London embassy amounted to arbitrary detention.
...
“We consider that there have arisen a number of new circumstances which mean there is reason to review the earlier decision,” Thomas Olsson, one of Assange’s lawyers, said on Monday.
...
The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, said the UN working group on arbitrary detention’s non-binding finding had no impact on the case.
  #114  
Old 02-29-2016, 10:25 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Assange only has five more years (Sweden's statute of limitations) of Ecuadorian hospitality and then he can then go back to allegedly molesting women.

No means NO Assange!
  #115  
Old 02-29-2016, 10:44 AM
aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,167
Wow, lot of Assange hate here. I don't believe that it's coincidental that these charges sprang into existence at a time when the US were after Assange's blood. Frankly I don't care what sort of asshat the guy is. I can't and won't forget the service he's done us all by exposing government chicaneries.
  #116  
Old 02-29-2016, 11:14 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,374
Why can't someone do us a service exposing government consipiracies and also sexually assault women? Bill Cosby had a 50 year entertainment career, he also sexually assaulted women. The comedy doesn't negate the assault and the assault doesn't negate the comedy.

Of course I'm not saying that Assange is factually guilty, I have absolutely no way of determining that. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. The fact that he exposed government secrets that needed to be exposed has no bearing on that. People who do the sorts of things Assange does usually aren't super-pleasant people to be around. They fight their fights not because they're plaster saints, but because they're pricks who get an ego boost by sticking it to the powers that be. Again, being a miserable prick doesn't make someone wrong or right.
  #117  
Old 02-29-2016, 11:26 AM
Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suburbs of Detroit, MI
Posts: 9,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
Why can't someone do us a service exposing government consipiracies and also sexually assault women? Bill Cosby had a 50 year entertainment career, he also sexually assaulted women. The comedy doesn't negate the assault and the assault doesn't negate the comedy.

Of course I'm not saying that Assange is factually guilty, I have absolutely no way of determining that. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. The fact that he exposed government secrets that needed to be exposed has no bearing on that. People who do the sorts of things Assange does usually aren't super-pleasant people to be around. They fight their fights not because they're plaster saints, but because they're pricks who get an ego boost by sticking it to the powers that be. Again, being a miserable prick doesn't make someone wrong or right.
Unfortunately, it seems that most of Assange's supporters do think Assange should get a pass because he's the Wikileaks guy.

In others words, laws should always be enforced, unless you're trying to enforce them against someone I like.
  #118  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:04 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
Seems like in 5 years somebody could have shown up at the embassy (or made a simple phone call) to ask him the questions they want to ask him. He's not wanted for questioning, they want him in their custody. And if they want me to take any of this seriously, they can charge him with a crime first.

Until then he's just a political refugee and I don't think he needs to be locked up in Guantanamo, or the UK or Sweden's equivalent.
  #119  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:07 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
And if they want me to take any of this seriously, they can charge him with a crime first.
Haven't read this thread (and its summary of Swedish criminal procedure), eh?
  #120  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:19 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Seems like in 5 years somebody could have shown up at the embassy (or made a simple phone call) to ask him the questions they want to ask him. He's not wanted for questioning, they want him in their custody. And if they want me to take any of this seriously, they can charge him with a crime first.

Until then he's just a political refugee and I don't think he needs to be locked up in Guantanamo, or the UK or Sweden's equivalent.
This is an international criminal situation. International laws apply. Those take time settle. Lots of time.

There are two women in Sweden who expect justice for what is a criminal matter.

Assange, and Assange supports, believe Assange should be immune from criminal charges because he's Assange. Sweden and Britain disagree with that assessment.

I don't believe anyone expects you to take any of this thread seriously.

Last edited by doorhinge; 02-29-2016 at 03:22 PM.
  #121  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:33 PM
psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
Unfortunately, it seems that most of Assange's supporters do think Assange should get a pass because he's the Wikileaks guy.
Really? Can you point to a few people who have said this?
  #122  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:38 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
I don't think he should get a free pass for his alleged crime. But he has not been charged. He is wanted for questioning. He has not been questioned in five years. Yet it's solely Assange's fault these women have been denied justice?

Do Swedish police not have long distance telephone service? Can they not fly over and question him in person? Don't give me that "sovereignty" bullshit. Charge him with a crime or leave him alone. Until then I'm going to rightly view this as a witch hunt.
  #123  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:43 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
He is wanted for questioning. He has not been questioned in five years. Yet it's solely Assange's fault these women have been denied justice?

Do Swedish police not have long distance telephone service? Can they not fly over and question him in person?
Ahem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Haven't read this thread (and its summary of Swedish criminal procedure), eh?
  #124  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:51 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
I read the thread and it doesn't clarify. Do Swedish police have telephones? Why can't they use them?
  #125  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:55 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,095
The suspect interview is an integral and required part of a Swedish criminal charging document. It's not like the US where they can charge anyone with anything whenever they feel like it. So the interview must conform to a specific set of standards, and there is likely no precedent for this sort of situation. I suspect the Swedish prosecutors are worried that if they interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy he will later seek to dismiss the charges on the grounds that he was being impermissibly detained when the interview occurred.
  #126  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:56 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
I don't think he should get a free pass for his alleged crime. But he has not been charged. He is wanted for questioning. He has not been questioned in five years. Yet it's solely Assange's fault these women have been denied justice?

Do Swedish police not have long distance telephone service? Can they not fly over and question him in person? Don't give me that "sovereignty" bullshit. Charge him with a crime or leave him alone. Until then I'm going to rightly view this as a witch hunt.
"Sovereignty bullshit"? There are three countries involved in this. Why? Because that asshole Assange committed crimes in Sweden, tried to hide in England, and then chose to hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. Yes, it is solely Assange's fault these women have been denied justice. It's also solely Assange's fault that Britain and Ecuador have to deal with Assange's horseshit. Assange is free to leave Ecuador at any time. And he's free to hop a flight to Sweden at any time.
  #127  
Old 02-29-2016, 03:59 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
"Sovereignty bullshit"? There are three countries involved in this. Why? Because that asshole Assange committed crimes in Sweden, tried to hide in England, and then chose to hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. Yes, it is solely Assange's fault these women have been denied justice. It's also solely Assange's fault that Britain and Ecuador have to deal with Assange's horseshit. Assange is free to leave Ecuador at any time. And he's free to hop a flight to Sweden at any time.
And Swedish police are not free to leave Sweden or hop a flight to England? Or pick up a phone? How is a cop calling or visiting a person in the UK a sovereignty issue?
  #128  
Old 02-29-2016, 04:10 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
The suspect interview is an integral and required part of a Swedish criminal charging document. It's not like the US where they can charge anyone with anything whenever they feel like it. So the interview must conform to a specific set of standards, and there is likely no precedent for this sort of situation. I suspect the Swedish prosecutors are worried that if they interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy he will later seek to dismiss the charges on the grounds that he was being impermissibly detained when the interview occurred.
So they'd rather not question him at all and certainly lose the case than question him, charge him, and attempt to bring him to justice for his alleged crimes? Not seeing the logic there.

What if, say, some big American publisher of Anti-Russian literature is accused by Russian police of drunk driving? You think the word of a single unnamed Russian should be adequate grounds for shipping an American citizen half way across the world into the hands of Putin, who vocally thinks this guy should be in a Siberian prison camp over what he has published?

Sorry, American citizen or no, I'm going to want more evidence than that to hand a man over to a powerful regime that hates him. Charge him with something first, at the very least. Show me the evidence or try him elsewhere.
  #129  
Old 02-29-2016, 04:14 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
And Swedish police are not free to leave Sweden or hop a flight to England? Or pick up a phone? How is a cop calling or visiting a person in the UK a sovereignty issue?
You want that Sweden should rewrite its constitution just for the sake of making it easier to question one guy wanted on a minor sex charge?
  #130  
Old 02-29-2016, 04:17 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Sorry, American citizen or no, I'm going to want more evidence than that to hand a man over to a powerful regime that hates him. Charge him with something first, at the very least. Show me the evidence or try him elsewhere.
Sweden is a powerful regime that hates Assange?
  #131  
Old 02-29-2016, 04:30 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Sweden is a powerful regime that hates Assange?
Well, you know what the moose there are like.
  #132  
Old 02-29-2016, 04:32 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
Every government is powerful. Every government hates Assange. If they're constitutionally required to extradite a person before they can even charge him with a crime, yes, they should change that, because that is a stupid rule. Or else just accept that the system they have chosen failed them in this particular case.

Last edited by DrCube; 02-29-2016 at 04:34 PM.
  #133  
Old 02-29-2016, 04:38 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Every government is powerful. Every government hates Assange.
Cite?

Quote:
If they're constitutionally required to extradite a person before they can even charge him with a crime, yes, they should change that, because that is a stupid rule.
They're not "required" to do any such thing. It is Assange that has forced the government down this path by making himself a fugitive rather than facing justice. You may as well insist that the US government was wrong to not unilaterally abolish the death penalty because it stood in the way of Ira Einhorn's extradition for a non-capital crime.
  #134  
Old 02-29-2016, 04:44 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
If they aren't required to extradite him in order to charge him, why haven't they charged Assange? Where is the evidence? Where is the criminal charge? It's just an international fishing expedition.

Even some random Joe Blow shouldn't be required to take a few thousand mile trip any time someone in another country wants to talk to him. That's what phones are for. If they want me to take these criminal charges seriously, they can actually charge him with a crime. Until then it should be treated with no more legitimacy than it would if random unnamed people in foreign countries accused me or you of a crime. Words are easy. Put up the evidence and publicly make a criminal charge, or I'll continue to treat it like a joke.
  #135  
Old 02-29-2016, 04:47 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,095
If a random unnamed country issues a warrant for your arrest, your continued freedom is solely a matter of what your host country chooses to do with you. Your defense against trumped up charges in tin-pot dictatorships is not changing those countries' laws. It's the laws of your own country that prevent extradition by pretext. The fact that you don't think English courts - of all the places Assange could have been - will protect Assange from extradition if the charges are bogus suggests you aren't going to accept that any prosecution is valid anyway.
  #136  
Old 02-29-2016, 04:51 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
If they aren't required to extradite him in order to charge him, why haven't they charged Assange?
They are required by law to interview him before charges can be filed.

Haven't you gotten this yet?
  #137  
Old 02-29-2016, 05:16 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
They are required by law to interview him before charges can be filed.

Haven't you gotten this yet?
Yes, which is why it baffled me that you just said they weren't required to in your previous post.

It's a dumb rule and it has failed them in this case. If anyone else thinks any country ought to be able to summon the citizens of another country across the world based on nothing but one person's accusation, you're wrong. I'm not sure what else I can say. I don't really give a shit about the bureaucratic details or fine print here. I care about right and wrong, and what Sweden is trying to do here is wrong. Charge him with a crime or don't.
  #138  
Old 02-29-2016, 06:40 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychonaut View Post
Really? Can you point to a few people who have said this?
DrCube, for one.
  #139  
Old 02-29-2016, 07:59 PM
j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
...If they're constitutionally required to extradite a person before they can even charge him with a crime, yes, they should change that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
They're not "required" to do any such thing. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
If they aren't required to extradite him in order to charge him, why haven't they charged Assange? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
They are required by law to interview him before charges can be filed.

Haven't you gotten this yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Yes, which is why it baffled me that you just said they weren't required to in your previous post....
This reads as if "extradite" and "interview" are being used as synonyms.
  #140  
Old 02-29-2016, 08:47 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,780
I wouldn't read too much into whether a particular poster really means "interview" or "extradite." We just had someone suggest that Sweden revise its criminal justice system so that Assange isn't inconvenienced in any substantial way. Particulars of the legal process is way too in the weeds for discussions like this.
  #141  
Old 02-29-2016, 09:09 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by j666 View Post
This reads as if "extradite" and "interview" are being used as synonyms.
In this case, where the person is a foreign citizen, they are. Did they not foresee this scenario when they wrote the Swedish Constitution? A foreigner committing a crime?
  #142  
Old 02-29-2016, 09:22 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I wouldn't read too much into whether a particular poster really means "interview" or "extradite." We just had someone suggest that Sweden revise its criminal justice system so that Assange isn't inconvenienced in any substantial way. Particulars of the legal process is way too in the weeds for discussions like this.
That is a pretty poor read, friend. I've reiterated that I wouldn't find this situation tolerable regardless of who is accused. You can't just summon people from around the world. You have to actually charge them with something. Present evidence, that sort of thing. You know, due process. You can't just say, "so and so accused you of something, you're going to have to get on a plane and fly halfway across the world to answer a few questions". Pick up the phone and ask what you want to ask, make the charge, or stop playing the game.
  #143  
Old 02-29-2016, 09:45 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
You can't just summon people from around the world. You have to actually charge them with something. Present evidence, that sort of thing. You know, due process.
And Assange took his case to a British court to argue that he wasn't subject to extradition to Sweden.

News flash: he lost, and then absconded. It appears that the judge rule against every argument Assange's counsel put up.

If you make your case to a judge and lose, I think as a general rule, you've had your shot at due process. Now I suppose you're going to insist that extradition treaties be rewritten so as not to impact Assange at all, eh?
  #144  
Old 02-29-2016, 10:00 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
And Swedish police are not free to leave Sweden or hop a flight to England? Or pick up a phone? How is a cop calling or visiting a person in the UK a sovereignty issue?
The interview process is an integral part of Swedish criminal procedure, and therefore an aspect of Swedish sovereign power. Under Swedish law, they apparently cannot charge until that interview has occurred.

It is a long-standing principle of international law and comity that one state does not exercise its sovereign power in the territory of another state, without the permission of the other state.

In this case, there are two other states involved: the UK, because Assange is in the UK, and Ecuador, because Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. For Swedish authorities to perform the interview, they therefore need the permission of both the UK and Ecuador, because the formal interview process is an exercise of state sovereignty.

This is a pretty standard rule. Closer to home, Canadian cops can't come south to the US and conduct investigations without the permission of the US authorities, and US cops can't come north to Canada without the permission of Canadian authorities. That's why Canada and the US have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, to make that type of cross-border cooperation possible.

In the Assange case, the news reports (cited up-thread) indicate that the Swedish authorities have been working for a couple of years to try to arrange the interview, in a way that is consistent with Swedish criminal law, and is permitted by both the British and Ecuadorian governments. That arrangement was finalized in December and January. It's now up to Assange to agree to the interview.
  #145  
Old 03-01-2016, 04:02 AM
psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
DrCube, for one.
Where has he said this? In this thread, at least, he started off posting some woefully ignorant stuff about legal procedures, but I don't see where he's specifically said that Assange should be off the hook specifically because he's the Wikileaks guy. In fact, in one of his first posts he said the exact opposite:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube
I don't think he should get a free pass for his alleged crime.
  #146  
Old 03-01-2016, 05:47 AM
j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by j666 View Post
This reads as if "extradite" and "interview" are being used as synonyms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
In this case, where the person is a foreign citizen, they are.
No, they are not. They are not the same word, they do not mean the same thing.
  #147  
Old 03-01-2016, 06:05 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
.....You know, due process. You can't just say, "so and so accused you of something, you're going to have to get on a plane and fly halfway across the world to answer a few questions". Pick up the phone and ask what you want to ask, make the charge, or stop playing the game.
(post shortened)

You're arguing with Swedish criminal law. And with international law.

Assange is Australian. The crimes were committed in Sweden. Assange hightailed it to England. And then ducked into the Ecuadorian Embassy, which is Ecuador. It took a long time for international laws/treaties to be established between individual nations. It takes a long time to settle the international legal issues created by Assange the asshole.

By my estimate, asshole Assange is looking at 5 more years in Ecuador unless Assange chooses to walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy.
  #148  
Old 11-14-2016, 08:33 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,046
8 months later Assange was questioned today.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ver-accusation
  #149  
Old 11-14-2016, 09:41 AM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,340
There are flights from Sweden to London after all!
  #150  
Old 11-14-2016, 11:26 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,848
As mentioned several times in this thread, it's not simply a case of the Swedish prosecutor talking to Assange. The interview has to meet the requirements of Swedish criminal law, and also meet any conditions imposed by the Ecuadorian government, since the interview is occurring in the Ecuadorian embassy.

This is apparent from the way the interview will be conducted, as set out in the Guardian article linked by AK84:

Quote:
According to the arrangements agreed by the two countries, the questioning will be carried out by an Ecuadorean prosecutor, putting questions that have already been submitted by the Swedish prosecution authority.

Isgren will be able to ask for clarification of Assange’s answers, but cannot put fresh questions to him. The interview, which will be conducted with the aid of translators, will then be transcribed and sent to the Swedes.
When there are criminal cases that involve the sovereignty of two or more countries, it is pretty much inevitable that delays will occur, and that nothing will happen unless the legal requirements of both countries are satisfied.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017