I’m not big into CT, but I do think that Assange is subject of a Government Conspiracy to silence him because of his political activities. It seems to me that each WikiLeak is closely followed by a fresh charge of sexual assault somewhere, and that there never seems to be any material evidence, and that the accusations have disappeared like smoke every time. This time, maybe not, but time will tell.
Anyways, I sort of take it for granted that there’s a giant Government Conspiracy against him, and that it’s pretty blatant/obvious. And I guess that makes me a textbook example of a Conspiracy Theorist.
I thought the only time he’s been formally charged with sexual assault was in Sweden. My feeling initially was the charges were dubious, but Sweden ain’t exactly Texas in terms of having harsh criminal justice and they seem to be really serious about following up on the case. If anything several years later I feel like the Swedes probably have decent evidence he did something illegal.
I don’t buy that Sweden is some utopia, but overly zealous on prosecuting people for crimes isn’t really something I think of when I think of Sweden. I imagined the accuser or whoever would have backed down long ago, but with both the UK and Sweden instead seeming pretty serious about it you have two democratic countries and their court systems that have had some review of the evidence and have decided he needs to be tried before a Swedish court.
Under extradition laws and treaties, Sweden would have to seek the consent of the UK government to do that, and the UK would have to consent for it to happen. If that’s the plan, wouldn’t it be simpler for the US to have applied directly to the UK itself?
Well, well,well what do you know. I had no idea that was the case and i will accept that without a cite, although i would prefer one. I assumed that the Swedes would be happy to extradite him, probably read it on the internet. I am concerned that noises have been made in the US about charging him with sedition, although you would have to twist the definition of sedition as he is not a citizen. Thanks CAPT
Wikileaks volunteers other than Assange have been routinely harassed by government.
My own thoughts without cite:
Stopping WL from receiving funding was probably the primary objective, and it has been accomplished. The powers that be were not going to allow the kind of games being played to go on, you don’t get to publish stolen classified material and then hide behind TOR and world citizen claims.
Well he clearly didn’t rape anyone, nor should his extradition be taken as evidence that he did, it’s simply part of a pan-EU agreement to extradite anyone you’re asked to. Which has, incidentally, led to numerous miscarriages of justice. The evidence was weak enough that the prosecution dropped all charges, only for a different prosecutor to later bring the charges back after Wikileaks became globally famous for thumbing it’s nose as the USA. Even if he did everything he’s accused of it wouldn’t be rape without Sweden’s uber-feminist rape laws.
Slight hijack, but I was amused by the two plans in this article to get Assange out of the U.K. if Ecuador decides to grant him asylum.
The first plan was to use an extra large diplomatic bag. LOL! But they said that probably wouldn’t work and the Nigerians tried something like that years ago, with no success.
The second plan is much more interesting, and pretty funny, since it actually involves traveling to the U.S. - the place he most wants to avoid - before going on to Ecuador. It would entail Ecuador appointing Assange to be one of their U.N. representatives, in which case the U.K. theoretically couldn’t interfere with him traveling to the U.N. HQ in New York, and then the U.S. couldn’t interfere with him traveling from there to Ecuador.
I desperately want this to happen just for the entertainment value.
And he has not been charged with anything in Sweden either. What it’s all about is that he had sex with two women and had removed his condom without their consent. They both, independently of each other, sought advice about how to get him tested for VD and from then on it escalated. What all this fuss is about is that the prosecutor wants to hear his opinion on the matter so she can decide whether she should press charges against him or not and for what. In my opinion he seems more and more like a paranoid drama queen.
Like the OP, I’m getting an unpleasant feeling from being on the side of the CTs for a change, but this seems naive:
Do you really think it would have escalated to this extent had it been just some ordinary guy? “They just want to ask him a question” – gimme a break.
I think it is just an excuse to try to get hold of him and if he’d shoplifted a book 10 years ago they would be using that instead.
For me the only question is if they want him to immediately extradite him, or initially just to get him in custody and then decide what to do.
That has nothing to do with US law. 100 Doper dollars on he never sets foot in the US unless he wants to. He won’t be extradited to the US. There will never be any charges against him. Especially for sedition. He’s just not worth the effort to try and bend the law to fit and I doubt they’ll find a court that will allow it even if they wanted to.
It’s a general principle of extradition law that when a country surrenders someone to another country, it’s only for the purpose of the crime alleged in the extradition request. The requesting country can’t “bait and switch” - ask for extradition on a relatively minor matter, then once the person is extradited, charge with a much more serious crime, or a greater number of crimes. This principle is called the “rule of specialty.”
One aspect of the rule of specialty is that the requesting country cannot then turn around and extradite him to a third country. The US recognizes this principle, as this document from the State Department[pdf] states:
Note: I’m not sure what this document is; appears to be an extract from a US extradition treaty.
Britain’s Extradition Act 2003 sets out this principle as well. It divides countries into 2 categories. Category 1 countries are the European countries that have agreed to the European Arrest Warrant system, and includes Sweden. Category 2 countries are other countries that Britain has an extradition treaty with, such as the US.
Section 58 of the UK Act sets out the process that must be followed if a Category 1 country such as Sweden has received a fugitive from Britain, and then applies to Britain to extradite that person to a Category 2 country, such as the US. The Secretary of State essentially has to decide if the accused could have been extradited to the Category 2 country if the accused were still in the UK.
So, given all that, what’s the point in some secret conspiracy by the US to try to get Sweden to extradite, and then apply to Sweden to extradite?
Thanks for the info, I apparently have been paying too much attention to the Pro Assange crowd. Makes you wonder what his motives are as I am sure his lawyers have informed him of this fact. Time will tell.
As a Swede, I can assure you that this country is genuinely suprised by this conspiracy theory; to us (generally speaking) it is plain dumb. The crime Assange is accused for is a crime in most European countries, it absolutely not a “Special Swedish Femininist Law”. According to the accusation (if I remember correctly), Assange had sex with one girl while she was still asleep, that is, without her consent, which she felt uncomfortable with. The other I believe was having sex with a girl without condom, which she insisted he’d use; and when checking for HIV and such, the doctor she was talking to insisted she should tell the police. I don’t remember the details, but the point is that this is a crime in most European countries, England included. So he has to be brought to Sweden to stand charges. Also, I don’t believe Sweden can extradite Assange to USA even if this was a great conspiracy without the approval of the EU.
I have no dog in this fight, but if it is of any interest the conspiracy theory is met by a :eek: in Sweden, lawyers and laymen alilke.
The conspiracy would have nothing to do with that, but instead would posit that the girls were paid to say this. Or at least that the U.S. pushed them to testify. after looking for anything they could on him.
I have no problem with this being a crime. I have a problem with there being any evidence after the fact. I can’t see a prosecutor taking on a case like this with so little chance of conviction. This is classic he said vs. she said.
[QUOTE=Wakinyan;1521828 According to the accusation (if I remember correctly), Assange had sex with one girl while she was still asleep, that is, without her consent, which she felt uncomfortable with. The other I believe was having sex with a girl without condom, which she insisted he’d use; and when checking for HIV and such, the doctor she was talking to insisted she should tell the police[/QUOTE]
How did he manage the first? I’m male and I know I’ve never just slept through someone having sex with me, and I find it hard to believe very many women would not wake up at some point during the act. The only way I could see this happening is if the lady in question were intoxicated or unknowingly drugged, in that case if the accusations are true then that makes Assange guilty of date rape, which makes him a little bit of a piece of shit in my book.