@AC Not entirely true.

There is no Human Rights Act issue here.

Its a simple extradition of a man who has been accused of Rape in Sweden and there is a EAW on the table so that he may be sent back to Sweden to face those allegations and be charged with a crime.

The whole Human Rights Act is a ruse and even that is bogus on so many levels.

Bored?

Sorry, had to point that one out.

If Assange gets to go back to Australia, then it would mean that the UK violated a treaty with a fellow EU country. (Sweden is in the EU, right?)

The Aussies don't want him, however they will afford him all the protection they can give him as an Australian citizen. So when he does get sent back to Sweden, and he his charged, he can then ring up his consulate and ask for legal advice.

I'll wager they'll say " ... bad boy Julian... next time wear a rain coat or when in Sweden, if they'll let you back in.. just say no and take a cold shower. ..."

What, again?

It was transporting his ancestors that got us in this mess to begin with.....

Showers

Given that the leaked documents contain derogatory comments about Julian's personal hygiene, a shower, cold or otherwise, might not be a bad idea. :)

@AC Common Sense?

I'm sorry... but maybe being a Yank, I've seen too many police and legal dramas in my day.

Common sense says that the Swedes have enough to charge Assange. But that they want to question him and depending on his answers charge him with a more serious crime. They haven't charged him because he left their jurisdiction and made himself unavailable to be questioned.

I would also suspect that they would like to get him to clarify some of the information that they have against him. Giving him time to prepare an alibi or excuse? C'mon. Get real.

You're making the assumption that the charges aren't viable. Somehow the Swedes who know their law seem to think they are viable, hence the extradition...

And you're right. A simple 2 hour flight to Sweden for Julian would be enough to question him. So why won't he make the flight? You know back to the jurisdiction where the officers of the law in Sweden can actually then charge him? Oh that's right. Lets forget about the fact that the Swedish Police only have jurisdiction in Sweden?

Re: @AC Common Sense?

"I would also suspect that they would like to get him to clarify some of the information that they have against him. Giving him time to prepare an alibi or excuse? C'mon. Get real."

You havent seen enough TV court stuff, we call this DISCLOSURE (UK & US), the police have to give him all the evidence in advance of a trial, so that he can prepare his defence.

What?

"And you're right. A simple 2 hour flight to Sweden for Julian would be enough to question him. So why won't he make the flight? "

Since Assange is presumed to be innocent, I don't really see why he should be expected to put himself out to help these Swedes.

If I wanted to punch someone's lights out, I would go round their house and do it. I would ring them up and ask them to come around my place so I could duff him up.

If they want to question him, they know where he is. They could jump on a plane talk to the guy and then fuck off back. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper and quicker.

Hell, they could pick up the phone if they just wanted to speak with him. This IS the 21st century people!

Get real, Mr Gumby

It would take a great idiot to willfully submit to an apparently hostile legal system somewhere abroad -- Mr. Assange may be a weird character, but he doesn't seem to be quite that stupid. He asserts his good rights to defend himself in the place of his choosing. If the Swedes want him, they have to present a good case that satisfies international law.

"Common Sense" has nothing to do with it, and considering the large range of Common Sense presented in this forum, this may be a very good thing.

@despairing citizen

Perhaps you missed the point Assange's very own lawyers have made...

He has yet to be charged. Therefore the Swedish courts do not have to provide all of the information that they have. Just enough to assure the UK courts that its really a rape allegation and that he'll be charged in Sweden.

So yes, the prosecution cannot withhold evidence during trial, but we aint there yet.

@skelband...

Ok....

Lets see if I get this straight....

You're in Sweden, you punch someone's lights out.

The cops question you, but they don't yet have enough evidence to hold you. You say "Hey! I'm supposed to be in the UK for work... " They then say... ok, but you need to make yourself available and return if we request it.

You hop off to the UK. You don't return. The Swedes then determine they have enough evidence to charge you.

You fight extradition. You claim they haven't charged you yet so you can't be extradited. They show you that they have you on tape punching this guy's lights out. But they want you back for 'questioning' and will actually charge you with a crime.

Now they want to question you before they charge you because they want to determine your mental state. Did you get in to a heated argument? Did you intentionally walk over and pick a fight with him? Was the basis for your fight because he was a minority and this was a hate crime? None of that is known until they interview you and at that time, they will charge you.

Of course you get extradited, you enter the interrogation, keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer do your talking. Then they charge you with whatever they think will stick.

Does that sum it up enough for you?

@Sgt Shultz...

Lets just cut to the chase.

Here's what the Swedes have to say:

Excerpts taken from:

http://www.fsilaw.com/sitecore/content/Global/content/~/media/Files/Publications/IP_Media/Julian%20Assange%20Case%20Papers/Judicial%20Authority%20materials/Skeleton%20Reply%20of%20the%20Swedish%20DPP.ashx

"11. The defence asserts that the EAW was issued for the purpose of interrogation and not for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. However there is no equivocal statement or ambiguity in the warrant to substantiate this assertion. On the contrary the EAW, read as a whole, makes it plain that the warrant is issued for the purpose of a criminal prosecution."

But lets not stop there...

12. Clear offences are alleged, contrary to provisions of the relevant Swedish statutes; the description of the conduct identifies facts that have been established against Mr Assange; and the wording of the introductory phrase of the EAW taken in its proper context (which clearly excludes the possibility that this is a conviction case) expressly ask for extradition for the purposes of prosecution. For the importance of these features see Fox v Public Prosecutor's Office, Landshut, Germany [2010] EWHC 513 (Admin) and Mighall v Audiencia Provincial di Palma de Mallorca [2010] EWHC 568 (Admin).

13. An attempt has been made by reference to a statement by a translator, Christophe Brunski, to criticise the translation of the term ‘lagföring’ as criminal prosecution in the EAW. The difficulty for his approach is that the official Swedish language version of the Framework Decision uses precisely this term in Article 1.1 and on the annexed form to mean ‘criminal prosecution’: ‘Den europeiska arresteringsordern är ett rättsligt avgörande, utfärdat av en medlemsstat med syftet att en annan medlemsstat skall gripa och överlämna en eftersökt person för lagföring eller för

verkställighet av ett fängelsestraff eller en annan frihetsberövande åtgärd.

(English version)

The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.’

14. It is impossible to suggest that the request for the purposes of ‘lagföring’ is anything other than a lawful request for the purpose of the Framework decision and the Extradition Act 2003.

So that's what the Swedes say.

As to your point:

"He asserts his good rights to defend himself in the place of his choosing. If the Swedes want him, they have to present a good case that satisfies international law."

Perhaps you don't really have a good understanding of the law and fleeing jurisdiction. Simply put. Regardless of what Assange wants, the Swedes are the law since the crime took place in Sweden. You flee said jurisdiction, the Swedes will legally issue an EAW and will demand the extradition of said suspect. That's the law. The trial will occur in Sweden. Based on the url I provided... its a very strong document and IMHO Assange had best pack a bag.

Please pay attention to the timeline

Assange did not make himself unavailable, he asked for and was given leave of Sweden. Given the, let's say interesting, associations of high ranking swedish politicians and given the interesting connections of the alleged victims of his alleged misdeeds and given the number of people who want to get even with him for reasons not in the least connected with his alleged misdeeds, it seems like common sense that he insists on his right not to go back to Sweden.

But then he is no Yank, so there might apply another definition of common sense in his case.

Re: @Sgt Shultz...

"Simply put. Regardless of what Assange wants, the Swedes are the law since the crime took place in Sweden. You flee said jurisdiction, the Swedes will legally issue an EAW and will demand the extradition of said suspect. That's the law. The trial will occur in Sweden."

This is why the interviews must be conducted by the Swedish police on their soil, plus a few other things, such as the ease with which dissimulation can be effected in low res media such as Skype, and the need to have a suspect readily and easily available for questioning by people trained in law enforcement in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Yo! Spoon!...

Dude!

Coming late to the game and apparently not prepared is par for the course of your average commentard.

Have you read the linked documents in the article?

I read Assange's Skeleton and then the Swede's skeleton. Which I guess is the base arguments for each side. (Why the English call it the Skeleton is beyond me and I'm sure some smeg head UK lawyer wantobe will explain...)

The point is that the Swedes have already answered this point and they do intend to charge him.

hooray... → #

Yes, more lap-dog coporate media guff to distract from the real story -

...that the worlds defacto power brokers are largely a corrupt, nefarious bunch of greedy, self-interested back stabbing slimeball pieces of sh*te who will actively seek to discredit, disgrace and if necessary dissapear anyone who reveals the ugly truth about them.

@davcefai

What you heard was that if the US were to charge Assange with a crime, that they would allow the US's extradition to supersede their request for extradition.

Your conclusion of 'Assange's rendition will be almost assured' is based on the imagination of Assange and his lawyer.

The interesting thing you haven't asked yourself is this... Why would Assange's lawyers keep touting this potential thread against Assange if in fact there was no evidence linking Assange to Manning? In short, just because the US Government hasn't found any, doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that has Assange worried.

But this is all BS. Assange gets extradited to Sweden, they are obligated under the same EU law that doesn't allow them to extradite Assange to the US as long as the death sentence is on the table. Don't believe me? Try this quote on for size...

"48. Insofar as complaints are made about the conditions of Mr Assange’s detention in Sweden or the likely fairness of his trial or the danger of his extradition to the USA so as to threaten a breach of 3, 6, 8 and 10 of the ECHR, Sweden as a contracting state has undertaken to abide by its ECHR obligations and to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined, including those guaranteed by Articles 3, 6, 8 and 10. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, it must be presumed that Sweden will comply with its obligation in respect of persons who may be extradited to it and issues alleging any basic breach of fair trial rights or conditions of detention or arising out of any threatened extradition to the USA can and should be raised by Mr Assange in Sweden and not the Courts of the United Kingdom, see Klimas v Prosecutor General's Office of Lithuania [2010] EWHC 2076 (Admin)."

Kinda ends that twisted logic of Sweden being a puppet to the US.

You just don't like this guy do you?

"The fact that the defense attorney's trotted out this garbage just shows how weak an argument that they have against the extradition to Sweden."

I think you'll find that Sweden have the weight of proof, not Assange's lawyers.

Some of the reported "defences" are a bit dubious, but in the main, I think that they do have the legal right on their side. You can't be extradited to question someone, only to charge them. That is fact and there is no getting around it.

@skelband...

You should read the following:

http://www.fsilaw.com/sitecore/content/Global/content/~/media/Files/Publications/IP_Media/Julian%20Assange%20Case%20Papers/Judicial%20Authority%20materials/Skeleton%20Reply%20of%20the%20Swedish%20DPP.ashx

Its the Swede's argument rebutting the defense's appeal.

There's a whole section on the extradition process, here's some excerpts...

"18. The fact that a prosecutor may interrogate a person who she seeks for the purposes of prosecution does not affect the validity of an EAW, see Naczmanski v Regional Court, Wloclawek [2010] EWHC 2023 (Admin). As Elias LJ pointed out in paragraph 29; ‘there may be other objectives in addition to prosecution; plainly, the authorities may well hope that they can gain valuable evidence from this appellant concerning the activities of other criminals with whom he has been associated but, in my judgment, that does not invalidate the warrant if, as the Polish authorities have said in terms, they wish to secure the defendant's extradition for the purpose of prosecuting him for various offences which he has committed and which have been identified in the relevant warrants.’

19. As is apparent from the extremely limited evidence on Swedish procedural law laid before the court by the defence; the case is still formally at the stage of preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation may not in practice be completed until there has been a meeting and interrogation of the accused person. The only exception to this right is where such a

process can have not value. See section 18 of the Manual for Swedish Prosecutors exhibit MS/2. The fact that some further pre-trial evidential investigation in Sweden might result in no trial taking place does not mean that Mr Assange is merely suspected as opposed to being sought for the purpose of a contemplated prosecution, see Patel v. The Office of the Attorney General, Frankfurt [2011] EWHC 155 (Admin) para 45. An application for detention and arrest (such as upheld in this case by the Svea Court of Appeal) can only be made if there is probably cause to establish the commission an offence by the accused person (see section 1 in chapter 24 of the Manual).

20. Although the prosecution does not consider further information is required to substantiate the purpose of the EAW, it has submitted supplementary information, namely Marianne Ny’s statement, confirming that the EAW was issued for the purpose of conducting the criminal prosecution of Mr Assange."

-=-

In short I believe that the Swedes have met their burden for this extradition to go forward.

The more you know...

Sir

"Their voice or opinion carries the same weight as 'Joe the Plumber' has on Congress, the USDoJ or even the President of the US."

Or perhaps even Oprah? I can't imagine her opinion counts for much either then, but she did manage to put a black president in the whitehouse.

@ skelband ... just to clarify the facts...

You wrote:"I think you'll find that Sweden have the weight of proof, not Assange's lawyers."

At trial? Yes. The defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

However we're not at trial.

What we are seeing is a lawful EAW being served in the UK and Assange surrendered. Assange is appealing the validity of the EAW.

So here's the thing. The assumption is that the EAW on the face of it, is valid and legal. The burden of proof is on Assange to show that the EAW is not in fact valid.

So for this act in the play we call Assnage, the defense (Assange) has to meet the burden of proof that the EAW is not valid.

The Swedes have an easy job. All they have to do is counter the arguments raised by the defense. If they can do that. Assange goes back to Sweden to face trial.

Whatever happens at trial... thats a different matter. ;-)

Re: If only.

""there is a real risk he could be made subject to the death penalty"

We can but hope..."

This reminds me of a line given the to part of Sarn't Major in Full Metal Jacket; "Hell I like you, I'll even let you fsck my sister!"

Love of the death penalty

LOL

Or, go die there, indeed.

Maybe the death penalty would be a little too much - perhaps just a severe beating in a darkened alley way..?

@Dennis Wilson...

Pretend that you're a soccer hooligan.

You hop a plane to Germany to catch a match.

While in Germany, you get pissed (drunk) and you start a bar brawl.

Before the cops can nab you... you ditch out and get out of the country.

But the cops caught you on cctv and identified you from your passport photo.

So they have enough evidence to charge you. (They have footage of you in the brawl and they have identified its you in the footage by your entry photo and passport photo.)

Now they want to extradite you, but they haven't charged you.

Clearly you're guilty of breaking the law, but they don't know if they should charge you for

Assault, Aggravated Assault, attempted murder, or a hate crime. (The guy you beat up happened to be a minority)

Now just so everyone stays focused, I'm making the following assumptions:

1) German law, like US law has various degrees of assault charges.

2) Assault is an offense that could be grounds for extradition.

So, what you're saying is that before you are extradited to Germany that the Germans have to first charge you with some sort of criminal assault, yet the Germans say that they will charge you with a crime once they can interrogate you.

The point is that you can be extradited and then charged. That is of course if you believe the Swedes.

What a big load of fail.

Taking your soccer example, the Germans would have to determine the charges based on the evidence that they have. I believe that there, as here, you have the right to remain silent when interviewed.

They can't legally beat additional evidence out of you to determine whether or not they can up the charges after they get hold of you.

It's the same everywhere in the free world. The police gather evidence, determine the charge then charge you. You don't have to incriminate yourself. The extradition bit is the last stage where the alleged perpetrator happens to be out of you jurisdiction for the charge itself.

The Swedes Can't Charge - They'd look stupid

An EAW is supposed to be issued in cases where charges have been brought or sentence has been passed and the miscreant has fled the country. Assange didn't flee the country - he made sure that Swedish prosecutors had closed the case and let him know he was free to go.

And then you have the charge. This is not rape, this is essentially incondiderate sex. if Assange is found guilty on all counts, he could face a fine of up to 7,500 kronor. Extradition is not seriously considered unless the charges brought against the individual carry a penalty of 3 years or more in proson.

So they can't charge him without being laughed out of court. So why are they making all this fuss? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Re: @skelband..

"They can charge you with at least assault, but unless they can determine your mens rhea ?sp? they couldn't prove a hate crime or any sort of premeditation."

Its mens rea, but I think that behavioural evidence count for more than state of mind. If the deed has been done mens rea are only important if the individual pleads mental state under an appropriate law. These vary from EU state to EU state. In France ISTR there is still crime of passion (crime passionelle) but not in the UK. Not guilty by virtue of insanity varies within the UK (England/Scotland), as does diminished responsibility. (From memory the latter does not exist in Scottish law and, yes, you will remember that the Libyan man convicted for Lockerbie had to be released under Scottish law, in spite of US Senators and Congressmen/women reviling "English" law.)

What these distinctions in fact do is raise another question; whilst the Assange supporters (and for that matter the lawyers!) say he should not be extradited to another jurisdiction, it has been based on what has been shown as a mixture of (desperate I am sure) spurious, contradictory, circular and non sequitur logic. However, in this analysis this logic can be applied across the English-Scottish border, and so on. You are doubtless familiar with this from the US State/Federal perspective.

Even in within an English jurisdiction similar problems could, at least in logical principle, be raised; what is a local bye law in Cambridge might be totally acceptable in another part of England alone. There is also the interesting question of police forces. It is normal for a police officer to arrest someone within her or his own jurisdiction (Scotland yard and a variety of national bodies excepted), but you will frequently find officers from other forces drafted in to carry out, for example, crowd control as happened recently in the case of the English Defence League marches in Luton, the mining strikes of the 80s, the eco warrior wars of the late 20th/early 21st century, and so on.

The matter is not as clear cut and simple as the simpletons running Assange's case make out, and their spurious logic to the effect that the Swedes, in saying they would drop their case in defence to a US attempt are in fact saying they would extradite him and then allow the US to have him (which under the EAW as you note is impermissible without first applying the UK perspective under which he is supposedly currently sheltering as under an umbrella) as risible, laughable, childish and worthy of a good spanking in court. It is not unknown for presiding judges/magistrates to make lawyers approach the bench and to administer a sound spanking for utter silliness, and I would not be surprised to see some of this where the silly logic of the current defence is concerned. Wild. Flaky. Childish.

@Divided

I don't think you've been paying attention.

Two educational pieces have emerged...

Swedish procedure doesn't allow for charges to be brought until they interview the accused.

(Read a post from me. Or follow the links in the article and read the Swedish Skeleton.)

Interviewing a person doesn't invalidate the EAW and the EAW was generated with the intent to proceed with criminal charges.

So the Swedes are compliant with the law and thus the extradition should proceed.