Does the Swedish warrant have anything at all to do with Wikileaks, or was it all over some wierdo accusation of date rape or something similar?
I recall that there was something sexual in nature about the charges in Sweden, but can’t remember any details…
two allegations of sexual assault, nothing to do with wikileaks.
Seems to me to be a hard case to prosecute successfully.
This.
As others have said, this isn’t the UKs issue, they’ve been following the law as best they can but whatever happens some people will complain. I’m pretty sure that it Ecuador want him a way will be found to get him out the country.
And are their really police stationed outside the embassy inspecting every vehicle that comes and goes. It’s possible but doesn’t seem terribly … British. I imagine they’re taking the word of the Ecuadorian embassy, so with some minor disguising he could probably walk right out. Getting on a plane or a boat would be another matter. And there’s probably a couple of journos hanging around looking for a scoop, although it seems fairly low billing on the UK news now.
Of course that’s only if Ecuador actually want him.
the sexual case is the biggest load of garbage I have ever read
why do you think even to this day they have never even laid charges on him?
it was allegedly a rape because the condom broke! But then when they produced the condom it had no DNA evidence on it whatsoever
this is straight and simple the USA wanting to get him and if they do
God help the rest of us regarding a so-called free society
Yes, I am Australian, and I definitely want you Americans to keep your hands off him.
Likely because under civil law systems, charges aren’t laid in the same way as under the common law systems. The police can’t lay charges in Sweden; only the prosecutor can, and the prosecutor has not finished her investigation yet - that’s what the point of the extradition is, to allow the prosecutor to interview Asange under Swedish process, as outlined in wiki:
It was allegedly rape because consent was in one case allegedly not given (she was asleep), and in another allegedly removed. Consent can be removed and if so then continuing is rape. Hard to prove what actually happened. Step one under the Swedish system is to investigate.
The allegations of Sweden conspiring with the US to get him to the US seem a bit nutty.
it is better to be considered nutty and free than to
trust the same b*stards who have locked up Bradley Manning:p
This picture :
from this story :-
suggests yes. The picture is captioned
“A police officer stands guard outside Ecuador’s London embassy where Julian Assange requested political asylum.”
The British don’t have to inspect vehicles :- the embassy isn’t in it’s own compound, it’s a couple of rooms in a shared building. They simply have to watch a doorway or two.
And the first sentence of that article, if accurate, addresses my OP :-
“Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, faces immediate arrest the moment he leaves the Ecuadorean embassy in central London, even if he is granted political asylum, police and British government officials have indicated.”
And as an aside, I’m not as convinced as others that the British would happily see him depart their shores. Firstly, because the UK’s Supreme Court has ruled he should be extradited, so there’s a question of whether a judgement of their most senior court should be thwarted by a stunt like this. Secondly, it creates a bad precedent :- there are many embassies in London. If this succeeds, one could imagine some of those embassies being tempted to repeat it, in various situations.
Ok another scenario. Suppose Ecuador declares that Julian Assange is a “person under their national protection” grant him Asylum in Ecuador on grounds of political persecution and then declare formally that they believe the charges against him are politically motivated.
Both the UK and Swedish extradition treaties forbid extradition on politically or military charges. He could then leave the embassy where he’d get arrested for breaking his bail conditions, but presumably then he’d have another avenue of legal appeal to fight extradition.
It would create a huge political mess for the UK, which is probably what he wants.
I don’t agree with Bricker on a lot of things, but I agree on this. And I have a Master’s in International Law.
Also to nitpick a couple earlier posts, the issue of Ecuador’s embassy is one of inviolability rather than sovereignty. Contrary to common misconception, embassies are not the sovereign territory of the country occupying them.
This QA on BBC states states a former diplomat as saying the UK does not recognize diplomatic asylum.
They’ll still arrest him, but has anyone got an opinion on if he could use being offered political asylum as grounds for a new appeal? Assuming he gets offered Asylum and then voluntarily leaves the embassy and enters UK custody that is.
Can I ask:
Should the US somehow end up getting hold of him, what likely charges are they considering? Has he actually technically broken any US laws, or are they just sabre-rattling from a position of annoyance? Thanks.
Assange seems to think that the Swedish extradition is a ploy for the US to get hold of him. But if the US could extradite him from Sweden, why couldn’t they get him directly from the UK? Is there some difference in extradition laws?
UNITED STATES prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, according to a confidential email obtained from the private US intelligence company Stratfor.
In an internal email to Stratfor analysts on January 26 last year, the vice-president of intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks with the comment: ‘‘We have a sealed indictment on Assange.’’
I have read this article in The Guardian, Assange's asylum bid and Washington's WikiLeaks response: matching hysteria | Peter Galbraith | The Guardian
Is there any one who can say what the extradition laws are here? The author there gives the strong impression that it is very unlikely to be extradited from Sweden to the USA.
Assange is correct because there is a unique Swedish/US Bilateral Treaty that gets around safeguards of normal extradition through a fast-track “Temporary Surrender” clause. In theory USA would " return " him to Sweden after they have finished - but in this case i would have more faith in fairies at the bottom of the garden than USA sending him back to Sweden…ever
This website has a lot of interesting info
i think the author is wrong because it would not be " extradition " per se
and i dont care if anyone starts shouting " conspiracy theory " but i for one firmly
believe Karl Rove ( GWB Bush’s " The Architect " ) is heavily involved in trying to get Assange to USA
Rove Suspected In Swedish-U.S. Political Prosecution of WikiLeaks