London cops order Julian Assange to turn himself in
WikiLeaker-in-chief Julian Assange was served with an extradition notice by the Metropolitan police this morning. Scotland Yard said that the 40-year-old Australian, who holed himself up in the Ecuadorian Embassy's digs in London a week ago in an effort to seek political asylum, was required to "attend a police station at date …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Might as well just bite the bullet.
Eventually, he'll get cocky and find himself in a country where he can be arrested again. The laws in Sweden are lax enough that he might as well just turn himself in, do a year or three in a cozy Swedish prison and write a book.
Re: Might as well just bite the bullet.
Not so cozy..... once in Sweden the US will restart proceedings to extradite him to the States where he faces BIG deterrant style jail time.
It's why many people are cynical about the rape charges which should really be taken seriously.
As it stands it is highly convient for the US that the charges in Sweden put him in a country which will be happy to extradite him to the US.... it seems the UK turned them down (genuine suprise there !)
Re: Might as well just bite the bullet.
Wrong again; under the terms of the EAW procedure Sweden cannot extradite the man to the US unless the UK gives assent. He is safer in Sweden than he is in the UK.
Re: Might as well just bite the bullet.
precisely ... US/Sweden extradition arrangements don't include the "we think he's a villain ... send him over to us" that the US/UK one does ... from Sweden, even if was allowed after extradition from UK, the US would have to prove that it was likely that he'd be found guilty in the US and not just that they had a reason to take him to court as they could do in the UK.
Bull
UK has no jurisdiction over Sweden, so I cannot accept that claim.
Re: Bull
Why don't you read the terms of the European Arrest Warrant, under which the issuing nation cannot extradite a subject (arrested under it ) to a third country. It is as simple as yuman rights, 123, abc.
HTH. HAND.
Re: Might as well just bite the bullet.
Scorchio!! has it right.
If the US wants Assange, he's going to be fair game once this whole rape thing goes away.
By the time Assange goes to Sweden and faces the music, Manning's court martial should be winding down. Already at the Article 32 hearing there was evidence presented of Assange communicating w Manning prior, mos the actual theft.
All of this evidence would be admissible, not to mention the possibility of Manning becoming a very cooperating witness against Assange once he is face with a very long jail term.
So its quite possible that when Assange gets the boot from Sweden, he'll be put on a plane out of the country most likely Australia so he can once again be united with his mum. (Read some of the articles in ABC ...)
Re: Might as well just bite the bullet.
Not back to Australia, please not Australia. Can't you keep him there?
Re: Bull
I thought the EAW wouldn't let someone be re-extradited *for the same offence*?
If he is extradited to Sweden, I can see the questioning going thusly:
"Oh, we've decided you have no case to answer so there will be no rape charges, you're free to g- *ring ring* Hello Mr US embassy. What's that? You want to extradite Mr Assange on the entirely different charge of <insert>? Why certainly"
Re: Bull
Lol Scorchio!! has it wrong again\still, if i could be bothered I would run through all the posts from the last thread on this:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2012/06/19/assange_ecuadorian_embassy/
The statement which you keep mentioning: "The Swedes want to question him prior to officially charging him which is their legal procedure. He fled their jurisdiction prior to being brought in for this questioning and eventual arrest."
Re: typical US law extends to everything
Is totally wrong.....
Not sure what you've been smoking but if you do a little bit more research, you would actually find the initial warrant\accusations (not a Euro warrant) of rape was dismissed by Eva Finne which would potentially would have carried a custodial sentence and only the minor "annoyance" accusation remains.
It was then at the beginning of September that a new warrant (again not a euro warrant) was issued for both offenses again during which time assange was also undertaking a hearing for a Swedish work permit and was still in the country.
On Sept 15th he was given permission to leave the country following a 5week stay to answer the allegations made against him (the prosecutions own timeline\evidence supports this)
November 28th Swedish court issued the ECW followed shortly after by an Interpol red flag, these were both issues after he had already left the country and initially answered questions.
Re: Might as well just bite the bullet.
Why would it be easier for the USA to get him from Sweden?
Nobody ever seems to want to answer that question but its always being touted by Assange's fanbois that it is inevitable for him to go there after Sweden. The UK has the most lax extradition agreement with the USA of anywhere (so much so it was stupid of Assange to come to the UK), so why go to such lengths to get him via Sweden?
I'd even go so far as to say it would be easier for the Americans to take him from Ecuador if he gets granted asylum than from Sweden, given the levels of corruption in Ecuador all they would need to do is hand over enough $$$ to some corrupt cops or officials to have him shipped.
Personally I doubt it will get that far, the UK police will not let him walk out of the embassy on a plane as if his asylum bid is successful, It sets a dangerous precedent that encourages other people wanted under criminal law from running to the nearest embassy to try to escape law enforcement.
Re: Might as well just bite the bullet.
The US will get him anyway if they really want him, a lot of this hype is just about buying time and making himself visible so they cant just snatch him off the street.
When you break apart the situation it comes to down to a few simple points, questions and options which are:
A) Assange hasn't done anything wrong at all
B) Assange did rape\molest\abuse (delete appropriately) the two women
C) Assange was setup by the two women because each of them found out about the other
D) Assange was setup by the two women as part of a honeypot trap
As far getting him from Sweden, at the moment the Swedish public aren't in uproar about an already one sided extradition treaty with the US. If the request came into the UK gov most of the public would go ballistic that we cant extradite terrorists because of their human rights etc but the US can have anyone they like from our shores who they think is a terrorist. When you add the fact the US would want to try him for treason which is punishable by death then the Human Rights issues could get bigger.
Re: Bull
Huh?
Really, I wonder what goes through the minds of some people.
Why would the US want to have Sweden issue another EAW?
Hypothetical situation...
He goes to Sweden. He faces his charges and if/when found guilty, pays the fine, does the potential jail time, whatever... then gets the boot from the country.
Most likely he's put on a plane back to Australia because that's the country on his passport.
There if the US wants him, they can file charges and issue an extradition warrant.
Assume that Assange will try and fight the extradition. (Note: No death penalty issue since Manning the prime conspirator isn't facing the death penalty, so Assange wouldn't either.)
Because of his actions in the UK, there is a strong argument for no bail. (Assange shows he's a runner).
Assange then sits in jail while facing the extradition and eventually he'll lose. If it takes 4 years or longer, he'll sit in an Aussie jail cell. I don't think that time would count as time served so if he faces a trial in the US and is found guilty.... he will still face 10+ years of hard time.
Note this is all hypothetical. The cruelest thing the US Could do is to ignore him and when he pisses off the KGB/FSB, they look the other way.
Re: Bull
Did you ever bother to read any of the court documents?
Sorry but Schoroi has it right.
@SJRulez ... Re: Bull
Sorry to disappoint... but had you actually read the court documents and transcripts you will see what you claim is what the defense counsel purports to be true. However, when under questioning, Assange wasn't free to leave the country and that the prosecutor was having conversations with Assange's attorney. The attorney was well aware that the investigation was on going.
To your point that the charges were 'dropped' by Eva Finne is incorrect. Assange was never charged with the crime in the first place. Eva Finne may have decided not to pursue charges for several reasons which the prosecutor who is pursuing charges doesn't agree with. It doesn't matter.
We can assume under advice of counsel, Assange fled Sweden in an effort to avoid the charges. While this is an assumption, it is based on the fact that his attorney perjured himself in court documents by claiming that he had no communication with the Prosecutor, or her office that they wanted to bring in Assange for questioning and eventual charges were to be filed. He may have dodged the emails, phone calls, etc... but he couldn't dodge those SMS text messages left by the prosecutor.
In short, he lost all credibility in the eyes of the UK court.
Re: @SJRulez ... Bull
What is the counsel's name? I'm going to try and grep out the results of his 'interview' with his professional association. A good spanking I suspect.
Re: @SJRulez ... Bull
How is this for spicy meat balls: http://www.thelocal.se/32354/20110302/
"[...] District Judge Howard Riddle, accused Hurtig of deliberately misleading the court, calling him "unreliable".
[...]
Following the criticism, the Swedish Bar Association has decided to demand Hurtig provide an explanation of his actions.
"We sent Hurtig a letter last week and asked him to explain himself," Bar Association secretary general Anne Ramberg told the TT news agency.
She described Judge Riddle's statements as a "extremely serious critique" of the Swedish lawyer.
"If I'm not satisfied with Hurtig's explanation, I may go to the bar association's governing board, and after that the disciplinary committee, which has the final say on any possible consequences," she said."
Let that be noted by the Assange fan bois and gurlz.
Re: @Gumby
"In short, he lost all credibility in the eyes of the UK court."
Bail jumpers usually do.
Lotsa steps coming down from that apartment.
I wonder how many times he is going to fall down them now that he has embarrassed the local plod?
Re: Begs the question...
Yes, but only if it comes in through an unbroken diplomatic condom, or the US-UK conspirators might seed it with something unpleasant, IYKWIMAITTYD.
Would be quite funny
if he's not actually in there, having left through a back door immediately after being seen entering the building. I wonder if he'll end up doing a Lucan.
Re: Would be quite funny
Same thought occurred to me... then I realised taking refuge in an embassy plays straight into the American's hands. Simply wait until he leaves the embassy (either doing a Lucan, or giving himself up, doesn't matter), grab him, bundle onto a plane to Guantanamo and let everyone *think* "he's done a Lucan". Perfect result for the CIA: Wikileaks figurehead is seen to be a cowardly rapist and is in no position to cause any trouble ever again. Wikileaks falls to pieces. Future CIA operatives get an additional intimidation line, "any more of that and we put you in the cell next to Assange".
No idea if the Swedish case is good, or a honeytrap, but Assange isn't doing his case or his organisation any good now.
@ Allan Dyer Re: Would be quite funny
Sorry no.
Why would the US screw up a good thing?
First the US has a lousy recent history of wet work for the past 10-15 years.
Second, they will be pissing on a very good ally.
Third there are other options which are just as good and will end up having the same outcome without any risk.
Sorry, but either they[Ecuador] grant him asylum or they turn him out from their embassy.
From a political perspective, Ecuador would be on thin legal grounds to provide him asylum. Assange does not face any charges at home (Australia) or any charges from the US. The only legal issue he faces is the EAW back to Sweden where they will question him and then charge him for rape.
Ecuador would be within their rights to grant asylum, however, there would probably be some repercussions from Sweden since it would be direct interference in their EAW.
IMHO, Assange messed up on this one. I wonder if anyone gave him legal advice about seeking asylum. I think it will only extend the inevitable.
Re: @ Allan Dyer Would be quite funny
@Ian Michael Gumby...
"Why would the US screw up a good thing?"
Because that's what they usually do? (Sorry, cheap jibe)
"...lousy recent history of wet work..."
Yet they keep repeating their mistakes (Another cheap jibe)
"...pissing on a very good ally"
See first answer.
I agree with you, Ecuador is unlikely to grant him asylum, so will he turn himself in or do a runner? You're right again, he messed up, maybe he'll come to his senses and turn himself in. My only difference is suggesting the US has an option of Guantanamo bay, and they might still be arrogant enough to believe they can do it with no-one noticing.
Yep, the cloak, the dagger and the suspicious black hat.
Re: @ Allan Dyer Would be quite funny
Not sure why you got down voted... At least you were honest about the cheap shots... :-)
But there is one other reason why you won't see anything happening over the short time...
This is an election year. Assanage while a prat, embarrassed the current administration. So the wont do anything until after the election. Also note that they are under attack over the fast and furious gun sting that went horribly awry. You can bet that Assange will see the shit fly after the election and after the conclusion to Manning's court martial. You can expect the book to be thrown at him and he will become someone's prison be-itch. (but I think he may actually like that based on statements from his defense team)
They won't put Assange in G Bay. They should be in a process of shutting it down, Most likely a high security Fed Prison.
Of course I'm predicting he will be charged, found guilty and sentenced to 20 + years ... It's a safe bet unless Assange pisses off his Russian handlers or the Russian mob. They don't fool around.
Since he's now a wanted criminal in the UK, if he surenders himself into the UK system, the UK can complete the extradition to Sweden with the condition that Sweden cannot send him anywhere other than back to the UK so he can then go through the UK courts on his latest charges.
Quite
Assange may be a complete dick but his lawyers know a thing or two.
He's only putting off the inevitable though - 500 years in a US Jail married to Bubba.
But what did he expect? That's what ou get if you play with the big bad boys.
@Velv
Sorry but no.
Assange gets the boot from the embassy, he goes directly to jail until its time to board a plane to Sweden.
After Sweden, he gets the boot back to Australia.
In Australia, he could end up losing his passport. (There was an article on this...)
He could also be denied a Visa or entry in to countries.
He could theoretically could be denied entry in to the UK.
Technicalities
Can someone tell me how Mr. Assange was 'served' while taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy?
Did they knock on the door and ask for him by name? Did he come to the open front door and then they put the notice of service in his hands?
Seems unlikely.
Re: Technicalities
I should think a quick letter handed in at the door was enough - it's not like he can claim he didn't hear about it from somewhere.
It would be a spiteful thing to suggest that all Assange has to do all day is flick through the news channels on the TV to see if he's still being talked about, so I won't.
Re: Technicalities
Well. There are a couple of ways it could have been done...
I believe they could have served his lawyers with the papers, it would be legal in the US until the lawyers are removed from the case they are his legal representatives.
They could have arranged a meeting though diplomatic channels and had a face to face meeting with Assange. They just couldn't arrest him.
They could have served the papers to the embassy staff which would be under obligation to present them to Assange.
Re: Did he come to the open front door and then they put the notice of service in his hands?
He started to and then he noticed a huge butterfly net behind the back of the officer serving the summons. Remember he's neither the fool that Scorchio thinks he is or that Scorchio himself is.
Re: Did he come to the open front door and then they put the notice of service in his hands?
"He started to and then he noticed a huge butterfly net behind the back of the officer serving the summons. Remember he's neither the fool that Scorchio thinks he is or that Scorchio himself is."
Piss poor, piss poor; my point is that Assange cannot escape his fate unless he dematerialises himself en route to his escape vehicle, or adopts the previously noted escape method of using a diplomatic 'bag'. As I previously noted, having supplied a blanket/massive police 'escort', it will not be very difficult to manufacture a reason to halt the diplomatic bag's progress toward its chosen transport. The UK authorities can invoke a bogus accident or a terrorist incident and shut down a convenient area until the available supply of patience or air inside of the bag is exhausted.
The rat is in a trap, and nary an Asterix or an Obelix to save it from the jaws. I don't care how the message was delivered; that is not even a side salad, and the main course is indeed Assange, his apprehension and his delivery to the appropriate jurisdiction to face trial.
Assange's bizarre plea?
"Assange's bizarre plea for shelter from being extradited to Sweden to face allegations of coercion, sexual molestation and rape"
Except these charges are most probably the results of a honey pot operation by the US intelligence services. I figure his best bet is to start digging a tunnel :)
Re: Assange's bizarre plea?
Yeah a fudge tunnel, to put the honey pot in. what do you mean this is nothing to do with Winnie-The-Pooh?
It's pucker time Assange
He can't stay at the Embassy forever.
Re: It's pucker time Assange
I wonder what would happen if something uncomplimentary about Ecuador was published through wikileaks? Might make conversation a bit awkward at the breakfast table in the embassy.
Re: It's pucker time Assange
He could, and it would be hilarious.
FLAME: I know that eric blair wrote about this 64 years ago
but MINTRUTH is in full swing when the US department of attack (DoD) and the US Department of (overthrowing) State(s) are busy changing regimes left right and centre. We're even unbelievably starting to hear mintruth 'chatter' about weapons of mass destruction again, 2 articles this week alone on WMD. Try and search outside the seemingly corrupted bubble of the news media for who is reporting, say, on the allegedly fake news being made on film sets in Qatar. "Oh, this week its Syria lets change the Libya backdrop and film another atrocity" or read occasional snippets that just hint at the shovelfuls of propaganda being thrown around e.g. Channel 4's news Blog (here for more Assangeness copied from 'The Australian') http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/syria-rebels-led-journalist-into-death-trap/story-fn3dxity-1226389675683
Having spent quite a few years working in the Middle East I would never consider Syria as a nice or happy place. I sensibly avoided it like the plague, but the mass mind warp thats seems to be going on now is amazing. I don't trust the followers of Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab to have a post-overthrow plan for the next few domino states either...
Assange (TM) is a talented hacker who was able to run a ToR exit server and start to annoy the plans of the big boys, unravelling a teaspoon of some old secrets... He now has the inevitable and eventually painful problem that he didn't read his rights properly, remember: "You have the right to free speech as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it"
Re: FLAME: I know that eric blair wrote about this 64 years ago
Seriously, loosen up the tinfoil! A$$nut is not an American citizen and was not doing his WIkileaking from US soil, so the US Consititution and free speech mean nothing. They also don't excuse stealling secrets.
Re: FLAME: I know that eric blair wrote about this 64 years ago
(I like the A$$nut invent, tho you forgot the (TM); the movie, after all, is inevitable).
Free Speech isn't just an american constitutional affair drafted by your national transitional council in 1787; the UN finally got round to declaring it for the rest of the world in Dec 1966 with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
article 19 of which claims " shall have the right to hold opinions without interference," "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".
As for stealing 'secrets' ,look at the unravelling KimDotNut affair and ask who has stolen 25 petabytes of world citizens' secrets? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't A$$nut this time. having internally archived that mountain of data, some percent of which is admittedly freetard related, you then wanted to delete it all!
Re: FLAME: I know that eric blair wrote about this 64 years ago
"....the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...." That article does not say it is legal to steal secrets from another country and then sell those secrets to others even if you do pretend it was all about free speech.
"....look at the unravelling KimDotNut affair...." Que? That has nothing to do with A$$nut. It's like saying the Iraqis shouldn't have put Saddam Hussein on trial because Pol Pot killed more people. If someone ends up being charged with a crime over the KimDotNut business then that's totally separate to A$$nut's little escapade.
Re: FLAME: I know that eric blair wrote about this 64 years ago
You don't know what you are talking about.
The US constitution is very specific about which rights apply to citizens and which apply to all people that are under the US's jurisdiction - the Bill of Rights applies to all people, and all people are constitutionally entitled to 'equitable treatment under the law'. If the US did apply to extradite Assange, then they are claiming that the acts he performed fall under their jurisdiction, hence those acts are protected by the parts of the constitution that apply to non-citizens.
However in reality, constitutions aren't worth the paper they are printed on and the US' is no different: publishing military secrets is not protected by free speech in the US (for citizens or anyone else). But that is just one of the many things you do not know.
@Matt Bryant... Re: FLAME: I know that eric blair wrote about this 64 years ago
First, any crime against the US regardless of where the crime took place will be prosecuted.
Lets also be clear that the publishing of the documents may have some potential legal coverage based on a journalist covering the VIet Nam war back in '71 and the US Supreme Court ruled giving some protection to the press.
What is causing Assange some royal pain is that there was evidence of his assisting Manning in the theft of the documents. This was presented at Manning's Article 32 hearing. Its this overt act of assisting in the theft that is so worrisome for Assange. If a grand jury finds the evidence credible, they could decide to charge Assange.
To your point about Assange not being an American citizen and the crime didn't take place on American soil... it doesn't matter.
Assange if charged will have the same rights as a US Citizen. Again this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. If anything he could be charged on the theft.
Re: FLAME: I know that eric blair wrote about this 64 years ago
".....If the US did apply to extradite Assange...." Which they haven't done (yet), so your nonpoint is completely moot. And, if they do charge him with something under the Espionage Act (likely) then he will be tried as a "foreign party" AKA a spy - new rules apply! But he still gets his due process, he won't just be chucked into a pit and forgotten about, so plenty of time for all you sheeple to whine and gnash your teeth during the trial.
Re: FLAME: I know that eric blair wrote about this 64 years ago
"[...] plenty of time for all you sheeple to whine and gnash your teeth during the trial."
Not me! I'll set my PVR to record every last second of the trial that is available on air over here. Then I'll master it onto Blue Ray as a keepsake for life. I'll buy a couple of very expensive bottles of French red, lots of fine food, and cook the most marvellous feast and invite my friends around, so that we can watch the conviction. Sentenced to be Bubba's biotch for the rest of his natural life. Oh bliss. Mind you, he'll have to either be acquitted or serve out a sentence in Sweden first, after which they'll have to expel him. Either way. Ain't no way he can hide after that.
This isn't a joke - rape is a serous offence
Assange is suspected of a serious offence and the Swedish justice system has a perfectly respectable record. There is no reason to believe he will not have a fair trial and extradition from Sweden would not be any easier than extradition from the UK.
Assange is a dick. Fortunately for him, being a dick isn't against the law however, having a dick and sticking it in someone without their consent is against the law and is an extremely serious offence and one that merits proper investigation.
The longer this goes on, the more this just looks like a rapist trying to avoid his just desserts.
This topic is closed for new posts.
