Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-05-2016, 05:21 PM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by notquitekarpov View Post
Let him argue the case against his extradition to Sweden in an English court.
He did. It went all the way to the UK Supreme Court. They ruled that the EAW was valid (and that the actions alleged would be rape if tried in the UK). It was on this final ruling, during which he had been under house arrest because his friends posted a fortune in bail, that Assange jumped bail and fled to the embassy.

He has had a full and fair hearing, with full access to the due process of the law. The only reason he has spent so long indoors is because he chose to evade the legal process.
  #52  
Old 02-05-2016, 08:11 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,812

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneburg View Post
If you feel attracted to me, there are much better come ons than that. No need to make up hypotheticals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneburg View Post
Oh, you're one of those Trump people who like shitting on women for the way they look? Gotcha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
Yes and you defend rapists because he can stick a thumb in Uncle Sam's eye.
Your personal jabs do nothing to promote serious discussion.

Take it to The BBQ Pit or knock it off, completely.

[ /Moderating ]
  #53  
Old 02-05-2016, 08:44 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,253
I think the allegations of rape are probably fabricated. Which means Governments have colluded to arrest him. In those circumstances I wouldn't want to let them get me either.

Swedish prosecutors want to "question" him. But he hasn't been formally charged, yet he faces extradition, even though the law has changed in the meantime meaning UK is not bound to extradite. It's a big mess.

In any case, why can't the Swedish "questioning" be done via email, or in a neutral territory where no one gets arrested?
  #54  
Old 02-05-2016, 08:47 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,892
Why should suspects get to dictate how authorities get to interview them?

ETA: besides, why on earth would anyone need to fabricate charges like this? If the paranoids are right that the US wants to get its hands on him, let's just remember that the CIA kidnapped a terrorism suspect in Italy (resulting in Italy indicting several American operatives), and US Special Forces nabbed a terrorist off the street of Libya.

The idea that a sexual assault victim has to be fabricated in order for the US to get its hands on bad people is contrary to experience.

Last edited by Ravenman; 02-05-2016 at 08:51 PM.
  #55  
Old 02-05-2016, 08:55 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Swedish prosecutors want to "question" him. But he hasn't been formally charged, yet he faces extradition, even though the law has changed in the meantime meaning UK is not bound to extradite. It's a big mess.
Previous articles have indicated that under Swedish criminal procedure, the prosecutors are required to have an interview with a potential accused, before they are able to charge him with anything. This is not the way it works in common law jurisdictions, but I can see that this requirement for an interview is considered an important procedural protection for a suspect under Swedish law.

So, by refusing to be interviewed, he is apparently preventing a charge from being laid.

Quote:
In any case, why can't the Swedish "questioning" be done via email, or in a neutral territory where no one gets arrested?
Again, in a recent news article, I read that the Swedish government was trying to work out an arrangement with the Ecuadorian embassy to allow them to interview Assange there, but that proposal fell through. If that had occurred, Assange could have been interviewed without stepping foot outside the Ecuadorian embassy.
  #56  
Old 02-05-2016, 08:56 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Why should suspects get to dictate how authorities get to interview them?
I didn't say they should. In any case, authorities don't get to dictate how they interview suspects - the law (as decided by the government of the people in each jurisdiction) is very clear about what is permissible and what is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The idea that a sexual assault victim has to be fabricated in order for the US to get its hands on bad people is contrary to experience.
Maybe they just want to fuck with him. And why not? It's a good example.
  #57  
Old 02-05-2016, 08:57 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
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.

Actually, don't bother. The question of Assange's extradition was appealed by his legal team all the way to the UK Supreme Court, who found that his extradition to Sweden would be lawful. It's at that point that Assange jumped bail and decided to hide in a room in the Ecuadorean Embassy.
  #58  
Old 02-06-2016, 07:04 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
I didn't say they should. In any case, authorities don't get to dictate how they interview suspects - the law (as decided by the government of the people in each jurisdiction) is very clear about what is permissible and what is not.
And fleeing a jurisdiction to avoid the legal process is illegal everywhere.

Quote:
Maybe they just want to fuck with him. And why not? It's a good example.
So you agree Assange is full of nonsense when he claims he's at risk of being sent to Guantanamo?
  #59  
Old 02-06-2016, 07:42 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
So you agree Assange is full of nonsense when he claims he's at risk of being sent to Guantanamo?
Technically, everyone is at risk of being sent to Guantanamo. For some people, it's just a very very small risk.
And yes, I agree Assange is full of nonsense.
  #60  
Old 02-06-2016, 10:55 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,921
One assumes if this was all some elaborate ruse to throw him into Guantanamo, there's absolutely nothing stopping MI5 from just bashing down the gates of the embassy and tossing him into an unmarked van. What's Ecuador going to do - declare war?
  #61  
Old 02-06-2016, 11:29 AM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Technically, everyone is at risk of being sent to Guantanamo. For some people, it's just a very very small risk.
And yes, I agree Assange is full of nonsense.
You've yet to explain why you think the two women made up the claims of him raping them.

Why is that? What is it about the women that causes you to think they're lying? Please be as specific as you can.

Thanks.
  #62  
Old 02-06-2016, 11:31 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
One assumes if this was all some elaborate ruse to throw him into Guantanamo, there's absolutely nothing stopping MI5 from just bashing down the gates of the embassy and tossing him into an unmarked van. What's Ecuador going to do - declare war?
I don't think the UK is interested in violating one of the most sacrosanct principles of global diplomacy and becoming a rogue nation and global pariah just to capture Assange. They don't even want him, Sweden does.
  #63  
Old 02-06-2016, 11:45 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Julian has done important work. A free society should have nothing to fear from a leak publishing website, because the public should be able to judge the leaks and decide for themselves if its an issue or not.

The fact he apparently couldn't keep it in his pants is unfortunate. But after seeing what happened to Chelsea Manning if I was Julian I'd probably have done the same as him. He has very little chance of getting a fair trial if he does fall into the hands of the US justice system. Maybe he's just delaying the inevitable but he's been able to continue his work from the Ecuador Embassy and that counts for something.
  #64  
Old 02-06-2016, 11:53 AM
AK84 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
You've yet to explain why you think the two women made up the claims of him raping them.

Why is that? What is it about the women that causes you to think they're lying? Please be as specific as you can.

Thanks.
The case is nearly 5.5 years old, but the case was very very transparently an attempt by the United States government to somehow get Assange. No one back in late 2010 (or no one with half a brian) thought so otherwise. One of the accusers had worked for a CIA front.
  #65  
Old 02-06-2016, 12:32 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,892
Yep, this conspiracy to set up Assange for sexual assault was hatched on the same soundstage where the moon landing was filmed. We're through the looking glass, people.
  #66  
Old 02-06-2016, 01:10 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The case is nearly 5.5 years old, but the case was very very transparently an attempt by the United States government to somehow get Assange. No one back in late 2010 (or no one with half a brian) thought so otherwise. One of the accusers had worked for a CIA front.
That entire argument depends on the idea that it's easier for the US to nab Assange from Sweden than from the UK.

Why is that?
  #67  
Old 02-06-2016, 02:39 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,921
Seems like it'd be a lot easier for the US to just indict him themselves rather than negotiate some sooper-sekrit plan with the British to extradite him to Sweden on a sex charge.
  #68  
Old 02-06-2016, 11:02 PM
AK84 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampti
Seems like it'd be a lot easier for the US to just indict him themselves rather than negotiate some sooper-sekrit plan with the British to extradite him to Sweden on a sex charge.
Indict him on what charges? The Justice Department concluded that they had no real case, he is not American after all, he did not obtain those documents himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
That entire argument depends on the idea that it's easier for the US to nab Assange from Sweden than from the UK.

Why is that?
Well Sweden has a pretty poor record as far as CIA rendition is concerned. Also remember the charges against him were dropped and then reopened after the whole Manning fiasco.
  #69  
Old 02-06-2016, 11:09 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
I can believe that if the US doesn't have enough evidence to indict him, then they do want him to go to jail for the swedish charges, since that achieves the goal of stopping him from running wiki leaks. It's very possible they put pressure on Sweden through back channels to pursue the charges and give the maximum sentence if he is found guilty.

Last edited by coremelt; 02-06-2016 at 11:10 PM.
  #70  
Old 02-06-2016, 11:26 PM
AK84 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,086
This is very obviously a case of pour encourager les autres anyway. Which it ironically failed in doing as Snowden demonstrated three years later.
  #71  
Old 02-07-2016, 01:53 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
One of the accusers had worked for a CIA front.

The evidence I can find for that claim is sketchy at best:
http://www.rawstory.com/2010/12/assa...user-cia-ties/

Quote:
While in Cuba, Ardin worked with the Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White), a feminist anti-Castro group.

Professor Michael Seltzer pointed out that the group is led by Carlos Alberto Montaner who is reportedly connected to the CIA.

Shamir and Bennett also describe Ardin as a “leftist” who “published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba.
Is there something a little less flimsy that you're aware of?
  #72  
Old 02-07-2016, 05:38 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Indict him on what charges? The Justice Department concluded that they had no real case, he is not American after all, he did not obtain those documents himself.
So the evil plan is that Sweden gets its hands on this hero, who then isn't subject to extradition to the US because he isn't facing any charges here?

So, where is the problem?
  #73  
Old 02-07-2016, 05:10 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Well Sweden has a pretty poor record as far as CIA rendition is concerned.
But so too does the UK. Actually, most of Europe does: Report on CIA rendition reveals massive scale of European assistance:

Quote:
A new report by the Open Society Justice Initiative names 54 foreign governments that participated in the CIA program. Countries such as Ireland, Finland and Denmark allowed US agents to secretly transfer terror suspects at their airports. Sweden arranged for suspects to be flown directly to Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak's intelligence-gathering partnership with the US government played out in an unknown number of soundproof cells. The UK government helped with every aspect of rendition, from arresting suspects to submitting questions for interrogation.
Given the extremely close military and intelligence links between the US and the UK, what is the basis for the argument that Sweden is more likely to send Assange to the US than the UK would be?

Also, the whole point of extraordinary rendition is that it is done in secret. Assange has one of the highest profiles imaginable. How easy would it be to perform the rendition from either the UK or Sweden?

Assange was moving about freely in the UK for some months, under the terms of his bail (until the Supreme Court ruled against him and he jumped bail by going to the Ecuador Embassy). If the US is so keen on grabbing him, why didn't they do it then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Also remember the charges against him were dropped and then reopened after the whole Manning fiasco.
That by itself doesn't strike me as very compelling. Prosecutors review charges regularly if new information comes to light. Since we don't know exactly what the status of the Swedish prosecution is, because of Assange's refusal to be interviewed, it is hard to judge the merits of the re-opening.

Last edited by Northern Piper; 02-07-2016 at 05:14 PM.
  #74  
Old 02-07-2016, 05:18 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
I didn't say they should. In any case, authorities don't get to dictate how they interview suspects - the law (as decided by the government of the people in each jurisdiction) is very clear about what is permissible and what is not.
Correct. And the courts of Sweden and the United Kingdom have held that the European extradition warrant was properly issued and that Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face the Swedish justice system.
  #75  
Old 02-08-2016, 02:19 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
It's because Assange is a postmodern who is the on the 69th suprasexual level according to the Inturdgral theory something something where giving a middle finger to the US government outweighs rape and the rest of us are silly moderns and premoderns who actually raise a fuss over that crime, amirite?

It's a pity that Assange-sex criminal and traitor to the West-hasn't yet to be reduced to a smoking hole in the ground on the orders of the President. Hopefully at the least, eugenics legislation in Sweden will be briefly revived to ensure his sterilization and chemical castration.
Literally none of your post is true.

Assange is avoiding being extradited to the USA. This is well-established. Supposedly, Sweden doesn't usually consider what Assange did to be legally actionable, which makes this prosecution suspicious.

The USA is not going to bomb the Ecuadorian embassy.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 02-08-2016 at 02:23 AM.
  #76  
Old 02-08-2016, 02:27 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
So then let the prosecutors and defense lawyers handle it and get to the bottom of the case.
Nope, you just called for his extra-judicial killing.
  #77  
Old 02-08-2016, 02:34 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yep, this conspiracy to set up Assange for sexual assault was hatched on the same soundstage where the moon landing was filmed. We're through the looking glass, people.
"Location: Washington, DC"

I think you might be a little biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Technically, everyone is at risk of being sent to Guantanamo. For some people, it's just a very very small risk.
And yes, I agree Assange is full of nonsense.
Everyone? Me? You? Hillary Clinton? Ravenman?
  #78  
Old 02-08-2016, 04:33 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Supposedly, Sweden doesn't usually consider what Assange did to be legally actionable, which makes this prosecution suspicious.
I do not believe that is correct. Do you have a cite?
  #79  
Old 02-08-2016, 05:07 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Assange is avoiding being extradited to the USA. This is well-established.
Cite?
  #80  
Old 02-08-2016, 07:39 AM
Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suburbs of Detroit, MI
Posts: 9,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
The fact he apparently couldn't keep it in his pants is unfortunate. But after seeing what happened to Chelsea Manning if I was Julian I'd probably have done the same as him. He has very little chance of getting a fair trial if he does fall into the hands of the US justice system. Maybe he's just delaying the inevitable but he's been able to continue his work from the Ecuador Embassy and that counts for something.
Again, the US is just a boogeyman here. There has never been any indication that the US government wants to arrest Assad. But Assad's absurd claims of persecution don't hold up unless he has an enemy out there somewhere, so he nominated the US as that bad guy.
  #81  
Old 02-08-2016, 08:01 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,892
(psst -- Assad is the guy with the porn star mustache that's hiding out in the Middle East; Assange is the vampire-looking dude that's hiding out in the embassy.)
  #82  
Old 02-08-2016, 08:43 AM
T.M. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: England
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignotus View Post
Oh! I thought that was clear; I live in Sweden. And yes, definite proof is probably hard to find.
(Of course, Assange may actually be guilty of rape or sexual assault; let's not forget that possibility!)
Has he actually been charged or do the Swedish police just want to question him, if they only want to question him why not come to London?
  #83  
Old 02-08-2016, 08:48 AM
Rune is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 4,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
It's because Assange is a postmodern who is the on the 69th suprasexual level according to the Inturdgral theory something something where giving a middle finger to the US government outweighs rape and the rest of us are silly moderns and premoderns who actually raise a fuss over that crime, amirite?

It's a pity that Assange-sex criminal and traitor to the West-hasn't yet to be reduced to a smoking hole in the ground on the orders of the President. Hopefully at the least, eugenics legislation in Sweden will be briefly revived to ensure his sterilization and chemical castration.
Shouldn’t he be like convicted before we agree to call him a rapist and sex criminal? So an alleged case of tricking a women to unprotected sex which was already once dismissed by the prosecutors. Most countries also follow the principle of double criminality, but this is a rather singular paragraph in the Swedish books he’s being charged with, does it even exist in British law? In any case, it very much at this point appear to be a political case rather than a criminal, but I do wonder why the women would let herself, and continue for years to let herself, be used for this end.

I don’t really care about the guy, he’s just one guy and a rather insufferable one at that by all accounts. So I’d also like to see if there is a somewhat objective assessment, weighting all the positive to the negatives, to see if what he has done is a net positive, or net negative.
  #84  
Old 02-08-2016, 09:02 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.M. View Post
Has he actually been charged or do the Swedish police just want to question him, if they only want to question him why not come to London?
I asked this once before and didn't see an on-topic answer: why should suspects ever get to prevail in establishing extraordinary conditions for criminal investigations? Assange has essentially jumped bail: he's on the lam, just in one spot. The warrant issued by Sweden is valid on its face, and a fleeing suspect should have no inherent right to demand that authorities do what is convenient for him.
  #85  
Old 02-08-2016, 09:03 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi
It's because Assange is a postmodern who is the on the 69th suprasexual level according to the Inturdgral theory something something where giving a middle finger to the US government outweighs rape and the rest of us are silly moderns and premoderns who actually raise a fuss over that crime, amirite?

It's a pity that Assange-sex criminal and traitor to the West-hasn't yet to be reduced to a smoking hole in the ground on the orders of the President. Hopefully at the least, eugenics legislation in Sweden will be briefly revived to ensure his sterilization and chemical castration.
Literally none of your post is true.

Assange is avoiding being extradited to the USA. This is well-established. Supposedly, Sweden doesn't usually consider what Assange did to be legally actionable, which makes this prosecution suspicious.

The USA is not going to bomb the Ecuadorian embassy.
foolsguinea, I think your sarcasm detector isn't working.
  #86  
Old 02-08-2016, 09:15 AM
Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suburbs of Detroit, MI
Posts: 9,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
(psst -- Assad is the guy with the porn star mustache that's hiding out in the Middle East; Assange is the vampire-looking dude that's hiding out in the embassy.)
Oops. You're right. I goofed. Although I wouldn't say Assad is "hiding" anywhere. Recent reports suggest he's doing pretty well crushing the so-called moderate rebels.
  #87  
Old 02-08-2016, 09:26 AM
Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suburbs of Detroit, MI
Posts: 9,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
The USA is not going to bomb the Ecuadorian embassy.
I dunno about that. Back during the Balkan War, the US "accidentally" blew up the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Which, by an amazing coincidence, just happened to be housing some kind of Chinese missle expert that NATO did not want getting involved in the war.

Seriously, if the US wanted Assange, the US would get Assange, Ecuador be damned. But the US doesn't want him. If we really wanted to shut down Wikileaks, then that super-duper Bond villain cave they operate out of would have suffered some sort of catastrophy by now. But in all likelyhood, probably some huge fraction of the "leaks" on Wikileaks are deliberate disinformation posted by various governments, and intelligence agencies around the world know it's all just part of the game.
  #88  
Old 02-08-2016, 09:43 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.M. View Post
Has he actually been charged or do the Swedish police just want to question him, if they only want to question him why not come to London?
According to this helpful blog, Legal myths about the Assange extradition, the Swedish criminal investigation system doesn't work the same way as common law systems. It begins with a preliminary investigation, which includes an interview with the suspect. Charges, if any, cannot be laid until almost the end of the pre-trial investigation, after the formal interview.

This was explained in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in reviewing the propriety of the extradition warrant issued by the Swedish prosecutor. It's more than just "wanted for questioning" - it is a formal stage in the Swedish criminal inquiry.

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
  #89  
Old 02-08-2016, 09:46 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I asked this once before and didn't see an on-topic answer: why should suspects ever get to prevail in establishing extraordinary conditions for criminal investigations? Assange has essentially jumped bail: he's on the lam, just in one spot. The warrant issued by Sweden is valid on its face, and a fleeing suspect should have no inherent right to demand that authorities do what is convenient for him.
This is a good point, and is illustrated by the fact that the Swedish prosecutor has been forced to end proceedings on the lesser complaint, of sexual molestation, because the statute of limitations has run out on it.

So by jumping bail, Assange has beat the rap on that charge. Is that the kind of behaviour that should be encouraged?
  #90  
Old 02-08-2016, 09:53 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Assange is avoiding being extradited to the USA. This is well-established.
Could you provide something in support of that? The article from the Washington Post, cited by AK84 up-thread, says that the US Justice Department has concluded that they can't charge Assange. He didn't actually leak the documents; Manning did that. Assange just published them, which likely doesn't amount to a criminal offence.

So what basis is there to argue that it is well-established that the US is trying to extradite him?

Julian Assange unlikely to face U.S. charges over publishing classified documents
  #91  
Old 02-08-2016, 10:24 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Also remember the charges against him were dropped and then reopened after the whole Manning fiasco.
The BBC has put together a timeline of the Assange saga, and I think it's hard to link the dropping of the investigation and then the re-operning to anything in the Manning prosecution.

Manning was arrested in May, 2010, and formally charged in July, 2010. The first court-martial proceedings were in April 2011, with a ruling that Manning was fit to stand trial.

The Assange complaints were laid with the Swedish prosecutors in August, 2010, who issued an arrest warrant on August 21, 2010: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused of rape

The prosecutors withdrew the warrant a day later, saying: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Swedish rape warrant for Wikileaks' Assange cancelled

However, the lawyer for the two women immediately filed an appeal of the withdrawal, to a special department of the public prosecution service.

On August 31, Swedish police question Assange in Stockholm.

The next day, September 1, the Public Prosecutions Director re-opened the investigation, saying more investigation was warranted before a final decision could be made: Sweden reopens Wikileaks founder rape investigation

It all happened over a ten day period at the very beginning of the investigation. It doesn't strike me as unusual that the situation could be fluid at that early stage, with the prosecutions service deciding to proceed with the investigation rather than dismiss it summarily.
  #92  
Old 02-08-2016, 10:27 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
At the same time, I think the US has brought a lot of this type of criticism on itself, by its policy of extraordinary renditions and running Gitmo for the express purpose of keeping the detainees from the US courts as much as possible, and to permit "questioning".

Once upon a time the US was the shining example of due process and fairness. Nowadays, not so much. As a result, its international credibility has been badly shredded, by its own actions.
  #93  
Old 02-08-2016, 10:33 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
According to this helpful blog, Legal myths about the Assange extradition, the Swedish criminal investigation system doesn't work the same way as common law systems. It begins with a preliminary investigation, which includes an interview with the suspect. Charges, if any, cannot be laid until almost the end of the pre-trial investigation, after the formal interview.
Thank you for linking to that article, it's very informative.
  #94  
Old 02-08-2016, 11:15 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
There's a link to the full decision in this commentary piece.
Thanks, Stanislaus.

It's also now linked at the bottom of the summary I mentioned in post 17. I'm pretty sure it wasn't there originally. It may have been embargoed until the two governments had formally responded?

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Deems the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Julian Assange as arbitrary

Last edited by Northern Piper; 02-08-2016 at 11:16 AM.
  #95  
Old 02-08-2016, 01:32 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
I've skimmed through the opinion of the Working Group, and Im puzzled by two things.

First, they appear to count the time that Assange was initially in custody in the UK (10 days) and the time he was under house arrest in the UK as part of the detention (550 days). I don't think there was any doubt he was detained; but was it arbitrary? The detention was under the extradition process, and the detention was authorized by law. As well, the lengthy period of house arrest (550 days) was while Assange was challenging the extradition, first in the trial court, then in the Court of Appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. I fail to see how a detention in those circumstances is arbitrary. He chose to exercise his legal rights to challenge the warrant; he shouldn't then be able to say that the time it took for his challenge, through the courts and under due process, is arbitrary.

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.
  #96  
Old 02-08-2016, 01:45 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
It was on this final ruling, during which he had been under house arrest because his friends posted a fortune in bail, that Assange jumped bail and fled to the embassy.
Here's an article on how much some of his friends were on the hook when he jumped bail: Julian Assange supporters ordered to forfeit £93,500 bail money.

The magistrate gave each of them a bit of a discount. They were collectively liable for £140,000, but he accepted their arguments of hardship if they had to pay the full amount they had sworn surety to. Nonetheless, they each ended up forfeiting substantial sums.

Quote:
Making the ruling at Westminster magistrates court, the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, said he accepted that the sureties "acted in good faith", but said the system of sureties for defendants who want to remain at liberty would be undermined if cash was not forfeited.

"I accept that they trusted Mr Assange to surrender himself as required," he said. "I accept that they followed the proceedings and made necessary arrangements to remain in contact with him. However, they failed in their basic duty, to ensure his surrender."
...
"What is undoubtedly unique is that the defendant sought, and has apparently been granted, asylum by Ecuador," the chief magistrate said. "It was suggested that the defendant is simply seeking an alternative legal process. However, in principle I see no difference between seeking refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy, and taking flight to that country."
There was another group of friends who were also on the hook but it looks like they were well-heeled and had to pay the full freight, amounting to an additional £200,000:

Quote:
It is understood that a separate group of Assange supporters, thought to include the film-maker Ken Loach, the writer and campaigner Jemima Khan, the journalist John Pilger and the magazine publisher Felix Dennis have already forfeited bail cash worth £200,000 following a court order earlier this year.
  #97  
Old 02-08-2016, 01:52 PM
psychonaut is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
And where's the detention? The whole point of the charade at the Ecuadorean embassy is that he's not in the custody of either the UK or Sweden.
Interesting. How would you characterize József Mindszenty's 15-year stay at the American embassy in Budapest?
  #98  
Old 02-08-2016, 02:05 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,965
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.
  #99  
Old 02-08-2016, 02:35 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
The U.S. has not issued a warrant for Assange's arrest.

Sweden wants to interrogate Assange in connection with the rape of two Swedish women.

Britian intends to abide by the European Arrest Warrant, which it is legally required to do.

While the lesser charges Assange faced have exceeded the statute of limitations, the limitations on the charge of rape is 10 years.

Assange came out of the Ecuadorian embassy, saw that he still had a shadow, and realized that he is facing 5 more years of winter. In the Ecuadorian embassy. hehehe.
  #100  
Old 02-08-2016, 02:57 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
I can believe that if the US doesn't have enough evidence to indict him, then they do want him to go to jail for the swedish charges, since that achieves the goal of stopping him from running wiki leaks. It's very possible they put pressure on Sweden through back channels to pursue the charges and give the maximum sentence if he is found guilty.
But you don't think it's possible that, you know, Assanage raped two women? You'd rather think that there is some elaborate and convoluted scheme afoot by the US to get him than the simpler explanation that the Swedes might actually have real charges against him and actually want him to stand trial to defend himself against those charges? A lot of folks in this thread seem to have malfunctioning Occam's Razors when it comes to this guy. You all seem to believe that because he did something you like, that means he must be innocent and that there is this elaborate conspiracy by the US to get him brought up on charges in Sweden so we can get our mitts on him to do something something something and....PROFIT!! I'm sure Obama is getting daily updates on the quest to bring Assanage to justice at Gitmo!! A lot of this sounds like we need to be wearing tin foil beanies and talking about moon hoaxes and nano-thermite...

Last edited by XT; 02-08-2016 at 02:59 PM.
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 02:01 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