Assange chums must cough up £93,500 bail over embassy lurk While Julian Assange™ continues to sun himself under a SAD lamp in London's Ecuadorian Embassy, the supporters who put up his bail money - and so kept him out of British custody and free to hole up in the embassy - have been ordered to cough their cash up. Nine supporters of Assange have been told by judicial authorities to …
Well the whole thing is rendered moot by the revelation that, out of principle, they have declined to try even verbally to urge him to surrender.
But I still submit it's force majeur if the procedures of bail are trumped by the statute law that recognises the embassy as inviolate diplomatic territory; the law and the principle here is that you can't be held accountable or responsible for a situation you don't control and are expressly forbidden by law from interfering with - i.e. the embassy.
I disagree that diplomatic asylum is a 'force majeure.'
War, strike, riot, and crime are events caused by human behavior that would be considered a 'force majeure.' But we assume these events did not exist when the 'contract' was agreed to. Diplomatic relations, diplomacy and diplomatic asylum existed before this particular 'contract' was signed, thereby making 'force majeure' an ineligible defense for not fulfilling it.
They do have the responsibility.
You can't be charged with Kidnapping if they are posting the bond.
In essence, Assange was released in to their custody. They are responsible for him.
Assange's rights are severely limited while out on bail or even incarcerated.
The whole thing is that Julian is no gentleman. I guess they learned that the hard way.
Not nearly as ironic as someone trying to prevent their being locked up in a small room in a highly secure building for an indeterminate amount of time, skipping bail and hiding out in a small room in a highly secure building, etc. etc...
@Psyx
Yes, that one is a little daft, especially when you factor in the US has a "fast track" extradition procedure in effect with Britain that they lack with Sweden.
So, if they want him, it's very much against their interests that he goes to Sweden. If you want a conspiracy theory with legs, start asking how much the US is paying the Ecuadorian government to keep him stuck in the UK while they make a decision and possibly move to get the paperwork sorted out........
"If you want a conspiracy theory with legs, start asking how much the US is paying the Ecuadorian government to keep him stuck in the UK..."
Meh: They don't really need him to be anywhere specific any time soon. The US has a very long reach. And the longer that they *don't* do anything, the more stupid Assange makes himself look.
Assange can hide in a 'safe' country, but that means he'll be away from the Western media where accidents can happen and -more to the point- where he can't be so much of a media whore. Truth is that he loves the attention, so will be unable to keep himself out of countries that would willingly hand him over forever.
The problem with most of the conspiracies that I've seen is that they don't actually make any *sense*.
I still don't get the whole "It's a US plot". I mean if they had wanted to deport him to the states, the UK as already shown it's willingness to deport even it's own citizens to the US for completly made up offences. Why bother with sending him to Sweden first when they could have just sent him strait to the US?
"I still don't get the whole "It's a US plot". I mean if they had wanted to deport him to the states, the UK as already shown it's willingness to deport even it's own citizens to the US for completly made up offences. Why bother with sending him to Sweden first when they could have just sent him strait to the US?"
The US doesn't "yet" have an extradition case. I think the people who think they would like to (who may or may not be wearing tin foil hats), would say that the aim of tying him up in a judicial process - either here or in Sweden - will keep him in an extradition safe country, providing them time to batter the truth out of bradly manning, er, I mean, complete the necessary paperwork.
So let's take Assange's story at face value.
Had he just gone quietly, the case would have been over by now - and he seems quite confident of his innocence, so presumably he'd be a free man - or at least appealing in Sweden.
Instead, he's now wanted across the whole of the EU for both the original arrest warrant and for absconding while on bail.
In other words, he's almost certainly going to be spending several years in a British prison (where it's really easy to extradite to the US), regardless of the outcome of the Swedish investigation.
All the while giving the US even more time to come up with something to extradite him for.
Well done Assange. Either you're an idiot, or you don't actually believe the US angle and just wanted to run away - regardless of what it cost any of your friends.
"...providing them time to batter the truth out of bradly manning, er, I mean, complete the necessary paperwork."
They stopped interrogating him ages ago and already have sufficient evidence to link Wikileaks to him, via the electronic trail and Bradley opening his mouth. So that doesn't really hold much water as regards an explanation.
Bradley Manning is in trouble for allegedly copying and providing to Wikileaks classified materials which he had no authorization for access.
Julian Assange, as point man for Wikileaks, might be wanted for actually publishing those materials. But the U. S. government has no need of information from Bradley Manning or, indeed, anyone else, to charge, if they can, on that. The fact of publication speaks for itself. I am not a lawyer and have no knowledge of the laws, if any, that would apply to a foreign national (e. g., Assange) who publishes U. S. classified information outside the U. S. The whole "getting JA to Sweden so the U. S. authorities can extradite him" is rubbish.
Please get your facts straight.
In Manning's Article 32 hearing, evidence was presented as fact which links Assange to the actual theft. There was evidence showing conversations between Manning and Assange as Manning was breaking in to the systems where he stole the documents.
It is the fact that Manning failed to cover his digital tracks properly that came out in the Article 32 hearing which also really spooked Assange.
With respect to the publishing of classified docs, Elsberg's win in the US Supreme Court provides some shielding to reporters and journalists who post leaked information based on the fact that the leaked documents/data shows probative value.
Weak as it is, had Assange just published the ill gotten materials, he would probably have nothing to fear in the US. The 1971 Elsberg decision would keep Assange safe and gave the Washington politico types a moment to stop and think....
While the Article 32 hearing takes the evidence at face value as fact, the defense would have the chance at the court martial to question the evidence. If true, Assange would be a world of hurt over his involvement and facilitation of theft. Elsberg copied and leaked the information. Big difference. ;-)
I do agree that the issue in Sweden on behalf of the US is rubbish.
Considering what we've seen over the past decade, you have a touching faith in U.S., British, and now apparently Swedish, regard for 'law'. The Swedish judiciary only went ahead with their case against Assange after the Swedish government intervened and reversed a decision not to pursue it.
"Considering what we've seen over the past decade, you have a touching faith in U.S., British, and now apparently Swedish, regard for 'law'. The Swedish judiciary only went ahead with their case against Assange after the Swedish government intervened and reversed a decision not to pursue it."
For some reason my first response was rejected, but hopefully this will make it past the censors....
You seem to treat the entire governing body as "The Government". You're implying something that didn't occur.
To give you a parallel case, Drew Peterson (A now infamous cop from a Chicago Suburb) was recently found guilty of having killed his second wife in her bathtub making it look like an accident.
As to what happened to his third wife is still a mystery and unless he confesses, we won't know what happened.
But I digress. The reason I point to this case is that initially the investigators considered his second wife's death an accidental drowning in her tub. It wasn't until the third wife's disappearance that they re-investigated her death.
Using your logic, the "US Government intervened" which is true since the local prosecutors are part of the US Government, yet false because it implies that someone at the Country level of government intervened.
I seriously doubt that the Governor of IL or even the State's Attorney got involved.
To your point, my faith in "law" stems from the fact that if we choose to ignore law, we're screwed.
Assange has put himself in to the spotlight and for that, it would be highly unlikely any US official will do anything that wasn't by the book. Note however, Julian has some new 'playmates' that have a serious track record of not being so nice. Lets hope Julian is smart enough to not drink the tea or to take a stroll out in the rain...
First, you are correct. The US haven't made a case against Assange.
But you are incorrect in the assertions that keeping him in Sweden is part of a US cock up.
When Sweden is done with him, He's bound for Australia.
In Australia, the Australian Government has options in which they can detain him or make it impossible for him to leave the country. Or at least make it very difficult.
BM banged up and some might add that a bit of torture has been used.
JA banged up and some might also say a bit of torture has been used while others might argue otherwise.
All this happens across several nation states giving a loud and clear message that Uncle Sam don't like meddlers whether or not it has explicitly been planned that way?
As a ps:
add into the equation the numerous thousands of years humans have graced the planet and still prefer weapons of awesome destruction while people starve unto death. What does that make us humans to be?
Who haven't been consulted as to the cost of keeping a team of coppers outside the Ecuadorean embassy. I for one don't want my taxes spent this way when there are crimes which concern us to be cleared up. If the Swedish taxpayers were paying for the cost of this, that would be another matter.
As far as I'm concerned, let him try to do a runner and risk being arrested at whichever port he arrives at. We're much best off shot of him regardless. The charges against him in Sweden may be disrespectful against the persons of his accusers. But they are not of a nature which are prosecutable in front of a UK court. So if the Swedes want him, they should be paying for the police guard outside the embassy.
Taxpayers have rights too, and it's time laws were passed to make the courts recognise these rights.
This is incorrect - the initial ruling by the Magistrates' Court in the extradition process finds:
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.
And the High Court in considering this point ruled:
It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.
So it is quite clear that the allegation would be taken seriously in the UK too - of course this is an allegation and what remains is for a court case to be brought and to be properly proven or dismissed. Which is where the European Arrest Warrant kicks in - in particular note that the "interview" that he is required to attend is in fact tantamount to arrest. The Swedish prosecutor stated for the initial Magistrates' hearing:
Subject to any matters said by him [in the second interview] which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
you can all re-iterate your sock-puppet - ten separate identities per workstation (C)(TM) - discussions over at the Grauniad where they have an AssangeTM comments section open today: Guardian GaGa
Not long ago we have been informed that a condom does not contain Assange's DNA, and so the "Key evidence in Assange case dissolves" which is the title of the article from Sept, 17th 2012. Are there any updates from Sweden about that ?
I mean, British administration of justice is not considering the new findings, and so Scotland Yard still has to arrest Julian as soon as he gets out of Ecuadorian embassy, or what ?
They should be made to pay all of it. They collectively wagered £125,000 on JA not being a duplicitous bail absconder and lost. WTF 'doing the right thing' has to do with it escapes me - try that with your friendly local bookie when you try to welsh & see how much he lets you off.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
