Re: Best outcome.

but he hasn't been accused of rape. he's wanted for questioning over a post coital withdrawl of consent. Little bit of a difference.

Re: Best outcome. @Doug10

Exactly. There's no reason the Swedish delegation couldn't request Ecuador to allow the Swedish legal attache to visit the Ecuadorian Embassy to ask questions. There was no reason for extradition.... unless the US has promised some favorable credits, trade allowances, military equipment, whatever, to Sweden to extradite for *questioning* and then flip him to the US.

Re: Best outcome.

Obviously, you have never been to Ecuador. You should be aware that the Chinese are playing a very large part in the exploitation of oil reserves in the Amazonian areas of Ecuador, much to the detriment of local Ecuadorians, including tribal peoples. At least the United States oil companies employed local people, unlike the Chinese who are shippping (or perhaps flying) in their own nationals to do the work.

Re: Best outcome. @Chad H

' Here's what a UK judge had to say

"there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" '

So that judge decided that J. Assange was guilty without needing a trial?

My recollection of the contemporaneous reports of the original investigation is that JA was staying in the first woman's flat. After the no-condom incident he continued in her company, and they had gone out for a meal together. It was only after he had left her flat and had consorted with the second woman that a complaint was made to the local police. This complaint was investigated, all the parties involved were questioned, and the authorities decided their was no case to answer. JA was told he was free to travel. This was reported in the Swedish press and translations appeared in the English media. Subsequently a different procurator/politician in another part of Sweden decided to raise new proceedings in a different city with respect to the original case. No new evidence seems to be involved, but an arrest warrant was issued, and then extradition applied for.

This course of action by a politically motivated procurator (not the police in the city where the incident(s) occurred) does not have the hallmarks of a genuine criminal investigation. Together with the refusal to question JA before he is taken into custody in Sweden, plus the refusal to state that there will not be handed to the US strengthens the suspicion that this is intended as a prelude to proceedings in the USA connected to the current secret Grand Jury hearings.

Re: Best outcome.

"Well done Ecquador, you have done the right thing morally and intellectually."

The Hispanic colonists of south American territory?

http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador

These people treat their own citizens in a manner reminiscent of Chavez and other socialist would be/becoming dictators/presidents for life. Why don't you try living there for a while and see if you enjoy their rule of law?

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/31/ecuador-calls-for-an-end-to-colonialism-in-malvinas-puerto-rico-and-guantanamo

Oh, colonial rule, what they have in Ecuador. The history of Hispanic colonialism in south America is more brutal than they like to admit or remember.

Re: Best outcome. @Doug10

"What exactly has he been charged with?

As far as I'm aware he hasn't been sharged with anything and is simply wanted for questioning over having consensual sex without a condom after the girl or girls decided a few days after the act that maybe that hadn't been such a good idea.

The questioning could be achieved without requiring extradition, so why all the effort to get him to Sweden?"

The procedure in the Swedish CJS is to interview, arrest and charge; the Swedish police unwisely advised his legal representative that they intended to enact this chain, and the next day he appeared in England. His solicitor denied, in an English court, that the Swedish police had even contacted him but, on inspecting his mobile phone in court, had to retract this claim. His professional association made it clear that they wanted to pursue the matter with him, and another dubious episode in the whole affair has tainted what was presumably a clean record, all because of a man who pays himself £80,000 a year, who took a substantial advance from a publisher on his autobiog and then retracted (keeping the money), who wanted to institute a pay wall for access to what he described (when it was 'stolen' from him by Domscheit-Berg) as "his" property (property of various governments actually), the man who spoke excoriatingly of the Afghan informants whose position he gave away (they knew what they were getting in to and accepted the risk) in front of two journalists (one from the Grauniad IIRC):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/leaked-details-put-informant-lives-in-danger/story-e6frg6so-1225898206990

The man is a convict ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Hacking_and_conviction ) and even hacked the Australian police computers connected with the investigation into his illegal activities, and what we now see is the logical outcome of failing to punish properly a criminal convicted on 25 counts. He was warned that another prosecution would result in incarceration, and seems to have taken this seriously; there appear to be no 'dabs' on the evidence linking Assange with the theft of data, but I am willing to bet there is a trace somewhere.

As to the sex, Scandinavian and Germanic countries have a thing for sexual hygiene that is absent in the UK (perhaps this explains our high teen pregnancy rates and the recent concern over STDs in this country), as is clear in this instance alone: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10983227

Assange's case merits appropriate examination in the jurisdiction where the alleged offences are said to have occurred.

Re: Best outcome.

"not charged, only wanted for questioning (AFAIU)."

You understand wrongly; the Swedish police informed his lawyer that they wanted (following the required format in the Swedish CJS) to interview, charge and arrest him for rape. The next day Assange appeared in the UK. Assange's Swedish professional association announced intent to interview their member who at first, in an English court, claimed he'd had no contact from the Swedish police but, on scrutinising his mobile phone record (still in court) had to retract his statement. Shabby lawyer for a shabby man? This is so very unsavoury, tawdry, and matches the charges.

Re: Best outcome. @Doug10

">The consent was conditional on the condom

I understand that but are you really suggesting that even he is so pig ugly that they had sex in total darkness and the girls didn't know he was bareback?"

In the case of his sexual liaison with one of the women, he used a condom the night before; the next morning she awoke to find Assange copulating and asked him if he was wearing anything, to which he allegedly responded "yes, you".

Re: Best outcome.

"How sad that after the masterful Olympics filled the whole nation with a sense of national pride that the government has reduced itself to US lapdogs once again and caused us to be collectively embarrassed to call ourselves British."

If only our courts had said "fuck you and your promises to stay in a nice MANSION during court proceedings, because we can't trust you after you just fled to another country last time the police wanted a word. You can sit in jail for a few weeks like anyone who didn't have your expensive lawyers and media status."

...then none of this would have happened.

Re: Best outcome.

"Maybe the law is wrong - or is being used maliciously - I don't see why Sweden can't question him here in the UK - or agree not to extradite him to the US – I don’t think either of these requests are unreasonable"

I can see now why RSMs despise barrack room lawyers. Here for your delectation is the truth and not some Monday morning quarterback's wild guesstimation (from this link http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf ):

"Ground of appeal 3 - Was Mr Assange accused of an offence in Sweden?

The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:

"In the present case, as is accepted there is nothing on the face of the EAW which states in terms that Mr Assange is accused of the offences. ... The fact that the term “accused of the offence” is not used does not matter if it is clear from the EAW that he was wanted for prosecution and not merely for questioning." (para 148)

He went on to say:

"In our judgment Mr Assange is on the facts before this court “accused” of the four offences. There is a precise description in the EAW of what he is said to have done. The extraneous evidence shows that there has been a detailed investigation. The evidence of the complainants AA and SW is clear as to what he is said to have done as we have set out. On the basis of an intense focus on the facts he is plainly accused. That is ... decisive." (para 151)"

"He added:

"... even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange." (para 153)

The Court dismissed this ground of appeal."

"Ground of appeal 4 - Proportionality (paras 155 - 160)

Mr Assange submitted that even if under the EAW he was technically a person accused of offences, it was disproportionate to seek his surrender under the EAW. That was because, as he had to be questioned before a decision was made on prosecution, he had offered to be questioned over a video link. It would therefore have been proportionate to question him in that way and to have reached a decision on whether to charge him before issuing the EAW. (para 155)

The Court dismissed this argument on the facts. The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:

"First, in this case, the challenge to the issue of the warrant for the arrest of Mr Assange failed before the Court of Appeal of Svea. In those circumstances, taking into account the respect this court should accord the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea in relation to proceedings governed by Swedish procedural law, we do not consider the decision to issue the EAW could be said to be disproportionate.

"Second and in any event, this is self evidently not a case relating to a trivial offence, but to serious sexual offences. Assuming proportionality is a requirement, it is difficult to see what real scope there is for the argument in circumstances where a Swedish Court of Appeal has taken the view, as part of Swedish procedure, that an arrest is necessary." (paras 158 - 159)

He added:

"... The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution. … Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute." (para 160)

Conclusion (para 161)

The Court dismissed the appeal."

Re: Best outcome.

"If only our courts had said "fuck you and your promises to stay in a nice MANSION during court proceedings, because we can't trust you after you just fled to another country last time the police wanted a word. You can sit in jail for a few weeks like anyone who didn't have your expensive lawyers and media status."

...then none of this would have happened."

Indeed, and the prosecution's original claim that Assange is a likely absconder is no longer a claim; it is a fact.

Re: Best outcome. @Doug10

> Why all the effort by him to not face this in Sweden if he's so innocent as you want to claim?

Because he believes the extradition to Sweden is just a cover to get him extradited to the US from Sweden.

But if that's the case, why didn't the US just ask the UK to extradite? Going by the O'Dwyer case, we would have bent over backwards to help...

Re: Best outcome. @Doug10

"What exactly has he been charged with?"

He has * committed* contempt of court and jumped bail. It doesn't really matter about the Swedish law now: He's broken ours.

Re: Best outcome. @Doug10

"But if that's the case, why didn't the US just ask the UK to extradite? Going by the O'Dwyer case, we would have bent over backwards to help..."

Because that wouldn't have given joe public a conspiracy, clearly.

Re: Best outcome.

"It is one thing to apply the law, but another to strip the embassy of its immunity so they can storm it."

False reasoning. The British government merely pointed to the law, implying that they can close the embassy and send the staff home. Since putting people in 'diplomatic bags' is illegal, that leaves a number of questions and comparisons; housing a murderer (Libyan embassy) housing a rape suspect (Ecuadorian embassy), both serious crimes, interfering with due process in EU countries or directly committing offences, or even facilitating criminal behaviour (contempt of court in respect of European extradition warrant/EAW in respect of suspect rape charges x 4).

Diplomats and their embassies facilitating crime and giving shelter to criminals? This is the sort of thing that results in closure of embassies, especially when the embassy is of a country with such a dire and reprehensible human rights record:

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador

http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-08-16/ecuadors-record-on-freedom-of-speech-criticised-by-human-rights-groups/

http://beta.humanrightsecuador.org/?p=532

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/americas/ecuador

With a human rights and right to free speech like the above I'm very surprised that Assange has the barefaced cheek to apply to Ecuador, yet I thought again; he will have known of Ecuador's support for Argentina on the Falkland Is question, and seems to have cultivated this brutal regime well in advance of being subjected to an EAW. OTOH, it is quite clear that there is a benefit for Ecuador, one which goes far beyond the Falkland Is question, because they can say how good they are on press freedoms and human rights; look, we saved the 'journalist' whom you sought to persecute and strip of his human rights... ...over a mere rape charge.

Re: It's interesting ..

Nonsesnse. There is nothing that the US can do to him in Sweden that they can't do here.

Sweden checklist

No extradition for political offences - check

No extraditiOns where the death penalty is in play - check

Even if the swe gvt is enclined to extradite, the uk still has to agree - check.

@Combat Wombat: Kiwi Leaker was Re: It's interesting ..

I'd never think I'd cheer for the All Blacks' nation but yes, in this case, I will! Go NZ!

Re: It's interesting ..

That you think he is above the law.

He's not special or above British/Swedish/US Law simply because he leaked some very secret docs belonging to a very large super power. Sorry but he brought this situation on himself. The sooner the Swedes get done with him the better. You never know he might walk from those charges and the US may well give him a pass on it all. But alas even if that is so our American cousins tend not to forget with any great ease and will make his life difficult if they cannot find a way to give him a day in court.

Assange is not a Saint nor a pillar of Journalistic integrity.

Mines the one with Diplomatic bag down the side...........

Re: It's interesting ..

"Mines the one with Diplomatic bag down the side..........."

I prefer undiplomatic bags myself; sleazy and demure, as Schwarzenegger once said.

Re: It's interesting ..

"You would think the US wouldn't be pursuing this so hard unless they had an ace up the sleeve"

Cite any evidence. ANY evidence at all that the US is 'pursuing' this. All those extradition applications, perhaps?

Statements from the US about it?

Re: It's interesting ..

"only there won't actually be an extradition to the US... the current plan is to extradite him to Sweden, but strangely via an out of the way airport where just so coincidently there is a company that operates aircraft with no markings for the CIA. My guess is that the moment he lands on Swedish soil, he will be kidnapped while in transit and extraordinarily rendered back to Gitmo Bay..."

Except that's a stupid plan, especially when he'd be about to ruin his reputation in court and the media are watching, and especially as it would make Sweden look stupid so they wouldn't allow it to happen. If you care to unmask yourself I hereby wager you one hundred pounds and a pint of beer that the scenario you describe will not happen.

Stand by your words if you are convinced.

Re: isnt this getting a bit silly now

Yes, you're a useful idiot. Pretty vile and disgusting if it was what he was being accused of. But it isn't. You see, she did give consent, and then found out that JA is not such a nice bloke...

To compare that to non consensual sex is quite frankly abhorrent to both those who really have been assaulted and those who have been falsely accused (especially in light of the fact there will never be any justice for them, anonymity for life for the liar, no smoke without fire for the innocent).

Sexual assault allegations are the new witch trials, there have been one too many high profile cases where plod has been only too happy to try to prove how much they care about the 'victim' without ensuring that she rot in jail when the truth comes out. This is not helped by idiots like yourself who see 'sex crime' and know right away that means guilty.

That said, avoiding due process of law through hiding in an embassy is not really a good approach for anyone, sets a bad precedent and is more about playing politics than anything else.

Re: isnt this getting a bit silly now

TWO sources of smoke? Wow!

He: "Do you smoke after sex?" She: "I don't know, you naughty boy, I've never looked."

Re: isnt this getting a bit silly now

Unfortunately these things are almost never black and white. We would all be better off if that were the case, but often it hinges on a who said what and when, with 2 different accounts and little in the way of real evidence. You are of course right that if someone changes their mind and says stop then it means stop. They can also change their mind and say no condom? Oh ok let's go anyway. As far as I can see there was no complaint at the time, no attempt to stop things there and then or to call the police. At a later date when there seems to be possible other motives suddenly this comes to light.

The plod, one assumes, have a duty to investigate such a complaint and it seems the prosecutor spoke to JA but then refused all other avenues to ascertain if there was sufficient evidence to proceed or likelihood of getting a conviction. Unless there is something specific we are not being told there doesn't seem to be any realistic chance of a conviction here so not sure why everyone's time is being wasted. A balancing of rights for the accuser and accused might help in making JA (and many others) accused of this sort of crime more likely to go through a process that will, at best, show that there is not enough evidence to make them guilty, rather than showing them to be innocent. Right now even if innocent you're looking at arrest and possible charges creating a permanent record which will affect things like visa applications and jobs requiring any form of clearance. If you're unlucky enough to be found guilty in the popularity parade that such a trial really is then you're in even more trouble. If you're guilty you will get everything you deserve but right now because of the general view on sex crimes we should tread much more carefully around who we accuse and what minimum standard of evidence is required to move forwards with even an arrest.

Either way I think triggering a diplomatic incident is pretty dumb but it would all be for the good if it could be a catalyst for more rational thinking about sex crimes, likelihood of conviction and realistic compensation for the reputational damage done by false accusations. Perhaps some real thinking about how we purge false allegations and investigate/punish those who make them?

FYI, 2 sources of smoke does not a fire make.