Assange gets appeal date

@tumbleworld

Assange isn't charged in the US. They are still investigating him.

His only crime is that of rape in Sweden and that's what's on the table.

Everything else is a non issue.

Assange's own Swedish lawyers got flayed in court, pretty much admitting that he obstructed justice...

Not rape?

He's accused of having sex with a woman while she was unconscious, knowing she would not have consented had she been awake. That is rape by most people's definition. It's a serious crime.

(His not wearing a condom is the main reason she'd have refused, but it's claimed she wasn't given the chance to refuse because he took advantage of her while she slept. He claims she was only half-asleep, and personally I doubt there's enough evidence to convict, but there is a case to answer and the crime would definitely be rape.)

If you want references, read the official court judgment - the one he's now appealing against.

@John Deeb

Common sense?

You've probably seen the Harrison Ford move "The Fugitive" ? Its plot is based on the real life murder of Dr. Sam Sheppard's wife in Cleveland OH, back in the 50's.

Because Dr. Sheppard came from a prominent Cleveland family, the initial police investigation didn't turn up anything. It wasn't until a reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer continued to raise questions that public opinion forced the police to act and then charge Dr. Sheppard with murder.

The reason I raise this issue is to show you that there is always the chance for someone to use influence. Either to force or hinder prosecution.

There were two unrelated gun cases in Chicago, one pre McDonald vs Chicago's US Supreme Court decision and one post decision. In both cases, the prosecutors never pursued charges because they know that they could never find a jury that would convict even though the two people involved both broke the law.

Again these are cases where politics played a part in the cases.

But lets look at Assange.

The charges he faces are not politically motivated. Like a charge of Espionage.

The charges are actually on the list of charges that do not require to be compared to the charges under UK law. So under international law, if the EAW meets the requirements and its judged to be a valid EAW then Assange is off to Sweden.

To defend Assange by crying foul and saying that the rape charges are politically motivated is a moot point as far as the extradition hearings are concerned. He has to go to Sweden to fight the charges.

Re: common sense

"Maintaining the law is not about rubber stamping and bureaucratic procedures, or playing with definitions, applying them in random or in some wildly broadened sense. Anyone who tries to opine using such arguments just doesn't know that much about how these cases can go in court."

This is nothing to do with the properly constituted EAW warrant, in connection with an alleged offence, it being that Assange fled Sweden (and his lawyer is complicit with this [see below] and likely to hear a lot from his Bar association). The rubber stamp argument is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the matter at all; to repeat, the Swedish authorities have properly issued an EAW for Assange in connection with allegations of rape, and the case in UK courts is ONLY about whether or not the process has been carried out correctly. If it has then in law Assange must go and face the music in Sweden.

"For example extradition is not legal if a clear political element could be proven to be present."

A prime example of a non sequitur argument; it does not follow from the issuance of an EAW for an alleged crime (namely rape) that the matter is political. To be absolutely clear about this, the Swedish authorities have made it clear that they will NOT give Assange to the Americans, though they did make it clear that they would hold back on their NON political EAW case in the UK if the US wanted priority for any political case they had; the US have made it clear that their case is not properly prepared, though they are investigating.

As to the rest, it is nothing to do with trying the case, merely the issuance of a properly constituted warrant to allow the Swedish authorities to complete the investigations that Assange and his lawyer apparently frustrated; NB, Assange's lawyer had to back down, *in court*, from his claim that the Swedish police had not been in touch with him, asking for Assange to turn up for interview. I think the lawyer was until that point lying, but his bar association will doubtless determine this for themselves.

@AC

"Besides, if the system is being gamed to get Assange to USA, why shouldn't he game it to prevent it?"

Show one jot of evidence the system is being gamed to get Assange to the USA. Really, please do. You speak as if it is self evident, but this smacks of delusion.

If America wanted him, they would only have to ask the UK, and not charge him with a capital offence. Do you think the CIA will whisk him away in mid flight, somewhere over the North Sea?

He's already gamed the system enough, fleeing one country to avoid prosecution.

@AC

It's interesting in what moderators accept or reject...

But clearly this AC doesn't really read what I've posted.

Had he done so, he would have understood that in context I was referring to the fact that Assange only faces potential charges back in Sweden. Technically he has yet to be charged with any crime. Clearly if you wanted to be a grammar nazi, you would have pointed this fact out.

In reading you post you have this belief that Assange has done good. Unfortunately this viewpoint is more of a reflection on the demise of the Western educational system.

First, presenting information out of context usually does more harm than good. Assange does this not once but 3 times with respect to the US. Second Assange was too busy to vet his information, which is something that the traditional journalist is ethically bound to do. Third Assnge didn't censor his information until well after the fact and exposed sensitive information.

The bottom line is that more harm than good was done and it is unfortunate that you and others lack the necessary context to appreciate the repercussions of his actions. Manning would have been better served if he had dumped his intel into the laps of the NYT instead of Assange.

We live in a world where some idiot in Florida exercises his rights to burn a book and this insensitive act causes a riot thousands off miles away. People were killed over this. Like Assange, I doubt the 'pastor' really cared about the consequences of his actions...

@AC Huh?

"Even were he to be proved guilty of rape, being a communist, a child pornographer, and a witch, it doesn't make his ideas and comments on politics wrong. I wish more people would read his various political interviews, and not let the rape accusations distract from the massive corruption that he has been highlighting"

What massive corruption?

Seriously. The man doctors gun camera footage, dumps after action reports, and then diplomatic cables... What crimes have been revealed?

Show me one crime?