Flying to Sweden via Gitmo or perhaps Diego Garcia..
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden, following a ruling by a judge at South East London's Belmarsh magistrates court this morning. Assange has seven days to bring an appeal against the extradition to Sweden to face questions regarding two alleged sexual assaults in the country. Judge Howard Riddle …
He's going to Sweden.
The US DoJ hasn't finished building their case against him yet.
If he was smart, he'd go to Sweden, either face trial, get a plea deal, and serve any time he may face. Then quietly go back to Australia which btw, he has recently said he wanted to return to....
You have to understand is that the whole thing about Sweden is that if he's convicted, he has zero chance of getting Swedish Citizenship. That's what he wants.
The simple truth is that if Julian went back to Sweden to face his accusers and profess his innocence. He wants the media storm. He wants the attention.
So please take this one step at a time.
Assange is protected by Human Rights laws in both Sweden and the UK that prevent him being extradited to any country that is likely to torture him or execute him. He could only be extradited to the USA if they gave an undertaking that neither of these would happen.
I suspect the same is also true of Australia.
This applies to him regardless of his citizenship.
I agree this guy just wants publicity, even if he is charged and found guilty, Sweden would deport him to Australia, not the USA.
One wonders how much of UK tax payers money this tosser is intending to waste. Most of his problems are of his own making, if he had stayed where he was in Sweden this would all be over by now.
"Assange is protected by Human Rights laws in both Sweden and the UK that prevent him being extradited to any country that is likely to torture him or execute him."
The same law also applied to an alarming number of innocent people who were nevertheless extradited to illegal stateless prisons such as 'Gitmo. By and with the full knowlege of our own and other governments.
The "law" didn't stop any of it from happening.
The law which you put so much faith in, these days, is whatever they tell you it is.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"One would've thought that words from Swedish officials stating they would step aside precisely to allow Assange to be extradited to the US if the US requested it would be pretty damning evidence. But then, the judge did seem to use the weasel words "for torture as a traitor", so I guess if they extradite him for the death penalty and espionage then he can claim he was right- they didn't torture him or claim him a traitor."
Since Dan Goodin was so persistent with me on this issue, I want to clarify this statement...
The Swedish officials actually never said that. In looking through all of the news articles that I could find on Google, over the past couple of months, all I can find is Assange's defense lawyers making that assertion. There was one article in the NYT that tried to get a confirmation from the Swedes, but couldn't. If they did make any comments to that effect, I haven't been able to find it. Just Assange's lawyer talking out of his ass.
In the EAW appeal, the Swedish representative confirmed their obligations when it came to any extradition to the US which is still only hypothetical.
As to the Death Penalty for Espionage, the last execution was the Rosenbergs for their spying during WWII. (Yes they were tried and executed in 1953, however Julius Rosenberg had been spying for the Soviets since 1942...)
Since that time, there have been no death penalty sentences for Espionage.
And there are other charges than Espionage that the US DoJ could bring. Again those charges do not even put the Death Penalty on the table. And again... the Death Penalty would be off the table as a matter of fact because it is a non-starter in any extradition that the US might want to bring
"Since that time, there have been no death penalty sentences for Espionage."
Do notice also that it is implicit in arguments to the effect that the Rosenbergs were executed that Assange has committed some form of espionage.
<Old time music hall compere>
I thank you!
</Old time music hall compere>
"One would've thought that words from Swedish officials stating they would step aside precisely to allow Assange to be extradited to the US if the US requested it would be pretty damning evidence."
Poor reasoning, eh? A non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premiss, which is that the Swedes will step aside in the event that the US try to extradite him from the UK. This does not deal with their legal obligation, should they succeed in extraditing him from the UK, to first ask the UK if they can allow extradition to the US.
You are guilty of emitting the same badly thought out, illogical typographical, non veridical nonsense that most of those defending this sordid little man do. If he has committed rape then he must be dealt with accordingly. That he has previous, that offenders do follow a career path, these things are all grist to the mill. The way to stop future offending is to deal with existing offences. If he has raped a woman, and if he is convicted for it, then he will have 26 offences against his name, although for the first 25 he was given a woefully inadequate sentence, it being that he played a good violin in court. Probably as good as the one he now plays to the media, and people like you are hooked on it. Not the judges though.
after being told that there was nothing to answer for at that time, but then it became political and the Swedes changed their minds after he'd left. They say they want to question him, and possibly prosecute - he's never refused to make himself available for questioning in the UK.
I hate to break it to you but under cross, Assange's Swedish lawyer admitted that while he was in constant contact with the Swedish investigators/prosecutors, there was a 6 day period where he was out of contact with his client. He wasn't back in contact with his client until after Assange had left the country and the arrest warrant was issued.
These statements contradict his earlier testimony.
If you follow the time line laid out by the prosecution, you will clearly see that Assange obfuscated the legal process by fleeing the country.
Hence the arrest warrant. They did not 'change their minds' after he left, but that he was intentionally out of contact with his lawyer until after he left the country so that he could not be available for questioning and eventual charges being brought forth.
With Dan Gooding chiding me about getting my facts straight... one would hope that he would chide you for not doing the same.
It gets more and more preposterous. Now, you seem to be suggesting that simply being out of contact with your lawyer is evidence of fleeing or trying to pervert justice or something.........
Strangely enough, ensuring you are contactable 24 hours a day 7 days a week is not as yet part of legal requirements. When he lasted contacted the authorities (via his lawyer or not), they said they would not press charges and he was free to go. If things changed in the meantime and he didn't know, that's their problem. Given what they had told him, all the onous was on them to tell him they'd changed their mind, not for him to constantly check he hadn't missed something.
Some people will twist anything to try and prove their position including reading a devious meaning into any act regardless of evidence.
More and more preposterous?
I don't know about you, but when I've had to deal with lawyers in civil matters, I make sure that I'm always available. That is, they can always reach me and I will respond within 24 hours.
If for some reason I was involved in a criminal trial? You bet your sweet arse that I'd be easier to get a hold of.
And yes, during one civil issue, I was traveling and busy all over the US and Toronto. Much larger than Sweden and yes, there are places where cell phones don't work and Internet access was sketchy at best.
With respect to Assange... c'mon, really? 6 days with no ability to connect with his lawyer?
Text Messages? e-mail? Voice mail? Contacting known friends?
Oh yeah that's right... he was in a Ted K cabin and was pretending to be a Luddite.
You can do whatever you like, but if he wants to go to a retreat with no access or simply not accept calls, that's his perogative. After all, he is innocent until proven guilty.......supposedly. If you choose to be available all the time, that's up to you. I would probably ensure I was available as well, but that's me. We all know Assange is a strange man, but not being in contact for 6 days does not automaticallty prove fleeing or evasion of whatever as you seem to suggest. it simply proves he wasn't in contact for 6 days!! If they really wanted to contact him that badly for interview or charge, they could always have issued a warrant for his arrest, however, it seems it wasn't that important!! Yes, his story changes sometimes, but so does the prosecution case. If they want to speak to him so urgently now they need to issue an international arrest warrant, how come they didn't issue an arrest warrant when he was non-contactable for 6 days? Their story makes as little sense and is as contradictory as his!!
Lets try and take this slowly...
A. is accused of raping not one but two girls.
There is an ongoing investigation. Early on in the investigation, he is questioned and the matter dropped. The lawyers for the girls objects and the case is picked up by Ny.
Initially, does Ny have enough evidence to hold Assange and restrict him from leaving the country? No. So Assange goes on his way. Ny starts her investigation. Wants to bring Assange in for questioning.
Now Assange's defense attorney earlier in the case said that Ny hadn't communicated that she had wanted to have Assange come in for questioning. Yet under cross, he recants his earlier testimony saying that it was a mistake. He then admits that Ny wanted to question Assange yet his lawyer wasn't able to communicate with him.
And of course the judge didn't buy it either.
Not to mention if it were a normal person, they'd have contacted their lawyer to see if it was ok to leave the country before they left the country. That would have meant that there is a reasonable expectation that Assange should have been in some contact with his attorney before leaving.
Now your counter...
You do realize that the arrest warrant was issued after he had gone missing for the 6 days and he was leaving the country as the arrest warrant was being issued.
So no their story makes a lot of sense.
The Judge saw through the defense's lie.
You've just done an about turn yourself. You've just admitted in your entry that there was insufficient evidence and no right to limit Assanges movements. You then contend he fled. If Ny got in touch with Assanges lawyer and said they wanted to make contact, but his lawyer couldn't contact him, so what!! That's fine, he's still done nothing wrong. If you want to hang around in constant communication and ask for permission to leave every country you're in all the time on the off chance they want to talk to you about something, that's your choice, but people normally have lives to get on with!! He had been told nothing was being done and no limitations had been placed on his movements, so job done. He is free to go anywhere he likes. Why should he keep calling his lawyer or make sure he's contactable. To his knowledge, everything is sorted......finished. The fact Ny suddenly wants to speak with him puts the onus on her contacting him and if she can't, that's her problem, not his.
If he was leaving the country as the arrest warrant was being issued, it rather implies the prosecutors are lying. If they knew he was leaving the country (otherwise it wouldn't have been an international arrest warrant!!), why didn't they simply go and get him as they must have known where he was!! If they didn't know where he was (and therefore he could have stayed in Sweden all along), why issue an internation arrest warrant? Doesn't make sense!! Either they did know or they didn't. Either way, there was no need to issue an international arrest warrant.
If they were that concerned about speaking with him, they could have put airports etc. on alert to arrest him as he left!! Of course, they never did that!! Too easy I suppose............All this suggests very strongly that the prosecutors have been lying as they both knew his was leaving (and therefore had to know where he was) and yet couldn't go and get him. Also, after six days, they didn't even put a watch on airports!! After all, leaving by scheduled flight is such a devious way!!
"Lets try and take this slowly...
A. is accused of raping not one but two girls."
OK, well your first premise is incorrect so the rest of your argument's not going to amount to much.
He's being prosecuted for 'sex by surprise' (not rape), i.e. sex without a condom after a woman requests it even if the sex is consensual. It's fine-able in Sweden by 5,000 kronor (about $715).
Nice attempt at a troll, but you're too much of an ass-hat to do it properly Mr. Gumbo.
"when I've had to deal with lawyers in civil matters, I make sure that I'm always available. "
Do you get sued often?
I assume from your creepy obsession and constant baseless accusations against assange that this isn't the first time you've found yourdelf on a groundless vendetta of hate against someone you took a dislike too.
--"Some people will twist anything to try and prove their position including reading a devious meaning into any act regardless of evidence."
That's *so* true.
After all, if there was a big conspiracy, it'd have been easy for the Swedes to pop over here, have a quick word with him, and then announce they were charging him.
Or just keep him in Sweden.
Which obviously means that the fact they *didn't* do either of those things proves there was some kind of big conspiracy....
"after being told that there was nothing to answer for at that time, but then it became political and the Swedes changed their minds after he'd left. They say they want to question him, and possibly prosecute - he's never refused to make himself available for questioning in the UK."
Wrong: Making himself available in the UK is an irrelevant, non sequitur offering. He left the country in spite of having prior agreed to meet the Swedish police so that the investigation could be finalised; in addition, his defence was told of his impending arrest by the police (big mistake really, because he fled), and guess what? Julian skipped away to the UK.
Now the UK are willing to let their European colleagues do what they had intended before Assange skipped, and jolly good too.
There is a question at the back of my mind about what the Swedish legal authorities will do to his Swedish counsel, who has already admitted in a British court that they had contacted him multiply about Assange's whereabouts. If they can prove that he informed Assange of his impending arrest and, in so doing, facilitated his departure from Sweden, I'd say there's a fairly substantial case there. If I were in their position I'd pursue it, if only because a precedent would otherwise be set.
Almost entirely wrong. He didn't flee at all. If you knew your stuff, you would know he initially atteneded questioning etc. and the Swedish prosecutors said they wouldn't press charges. He then asked if he could leave the country and they said yes. He therefore left. Then, the Swedish prosector did a complete u-turn, decided they wanted another word and threw their toys out their pram. Can't see he fled or did anything wrong at all. In fact, he acted perfectly during the investigation and decision not to charge.
El Reg was kind enough to post a link to the actual decision which goes in to some detail of the appeal hearing...
Here's the cross of Assange's own Swedish defense lawyer:
In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact
him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.
Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight.
Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong.
As you can see, there is some doubt to your recollection of the facts of the case.
That will not stop people from denying the fact, regrettably. One of the amazing things about this case is the tendency, both from Assange himself/his defence and from his public supporters, is their complete denial of the facts, and embrace of supposition that is not concordant with them.
This silliness is both immature and dangerous. It will take a long time to clean up the mess here, and arresting the LoIC dupes is but a beginning. It will happen though.
>>"He left because the charges where dropped.. "
Where's the reliable source for all the repeated claims that 'charges were dropped'?
I see an awful lot of claims, but no real evidence.
And if one of the complaints against the EAW is that Julian hasn't ever been charged with anything, how can charges that never happened in the first place be dropped?
Surely, people making poor arguments tend to make Julian's supporters look ignorant, and do him a disservice?
He is an Australian national, so not really our problem
Sweden does not have a (documented) record of torture or human rights abuse
Sexual offences are an extraditable offence
He is physically fit (or at least fit enough to bonk)
He may be eccentric but he is not a nutter
Fits the bill on all counts, so just have to wait for the next episode of this soap opera.
Part of the defence was, I believe, that what he was being charged with wasn't a sexual offence in the UK.
And the "Australian national" thing is irrelevant as we are obliged (morally and constitutionally) to not send anyone somewhere to suffer unfairly, regardless of nationality.
Personally, I think he should go and defend himself. If he's innocent, congrats, if not, obeying the law in the country you're visiting and taking personal responsibility is part of life. I've got nothing against the guy, but he sounds like he's just trying to avoid giving his side of the story in a court.
I may be naive, but I don't believe Sweden will be able to get away with an extradition to the USA, even if they wanted to. Any extradition from the UK would not allow a forwarding extradition without concluding the original trial, and we constitutionally can't extradite someone to a country where they face cruel punishment (i.e., death).
I'd be first in line to protest his release should he be couriered out of Sweden.
(Beer, since I'm off tomorrow)
As the Swedish prosecutor pointed out... In the treaty, RAPE is actually #23 on the list (going from memory) of charges where you don't have to consider if it is a crime in the country he/she is being extradited from.
As to an extradition to the US...
If/when the US DoJ brings charges, he can and will be extradited. Whether that's in Sweden, the UK, or Australia. There is no issue of the Death Penalty because it will be off the table in order to get the extradition process started. Not to mention the fact that for any charge outside of the Espionage Act, the death penalty isn't allowed.
Surely you mean, they make the laws, we need to live by them.
But even that isn't true as many judicial reviews resulting in verdicts that so called laws are actually illegal will attest.
Also, I believe it is everyone's duty to refuse to obey unjust laws whoever makes and upholds them.
I take your point that I got the dates etc. slightly wrong. However, it doesn't alter the fact that in recentish history (50-60 years), Sweden has been guilty of gross human rights abuses. So, trying to appear morally better than everyone else is a bit rich. I can't find the reference now, but I'm sure I found a journalistic article that said it went into the 70s at least. But either way, the point is valid and applicable and they're trying to make themselves out to be morally better than everyone else.
Wikipedia isn't always right!!
It wasn't "rape" as in "hold them down and penetrate by force" it was more a case of (allegedly) not using a condom during consensual sex (or not using a good enough one or something). The women only complained when they found out about one another and the case was already dismissed once, only to be resurrected in odd circumstances by a Swedish MP (AIUI anyway).
Do not confuse what he has been accused with in Sweden with the UK understanding of "rape". It bigs-up what be has been accused of and belittles actual rape.
But as this is an EAW, he has little hope of fighting it. It was a crime in Sweden, he can be extradited, the fact it is not an offence in the UK is irrelevant. Hell, Poland uses EAWs for traffic offences! The rule of thumb is - once an EAW is issued and you are caught in the UK, the EAW trumps all UK law and it is game over. The UK authorities will just hand you over, regardless of offence and regardless of the requesting regime (e.g. Greece, not really known for the quality of its judicial system). There is a long list of precedents with this being the case.
It really is quite disgusting.
When you think about it they remain allegations until a trial has been completed and a verdict delivered. So the onnly alternative to extradition to face allegations is to have a trial held without the presence of the defendant, which doesn't sound like a good thing at all...
"Should we all be extraditable to face allegations? Doesn't feel right to me."
Until you are convicted of a crime, any crime, all you do is face allegations.
The Swedes feel that the women's evidence and accusations are credible enough for a trial.
So too did Assange because he intentionally left jurisdiction and denied these women their rights under Swedish law.
(You do remember where Assange's own Swedish Lawyer, under oath, admitted that while he was in contact with the Swedish investigators, he was not in contact with Assange for 6 days and recanted his earlier testimony.)
No means No!
Of course they are merely allegations. Until anyone is found guilty of something in a court of law there can only be allegations. Even if the alleged criminal admits the crime, shows video proof of the crime and has a signed letter from God stating he committed the crime.
And so, yes, under the EAW we are all extraditable to face allegations. If they are false / wrongful then you have recourse for compensation and possibly a criminal case against anyone who broke the law in doing so.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
for reasons even more flimsy than the ones the Swedes are invoking to bring Assange back. And don't give me any of that sovereign region crap. Britain proper had to sign off on the release of a mass murder to return to a dictator who has actually done things worse than what you Brits routinely accuse us Americans of doing.
The Swedes passed their screwed up law to protect the Human Rights of Women. Live with it or raise an outcry against the inherent unfairness of the piece of shit law. But stop ragging on the US for protecting national interests instead of fixing what you screwed up in the first place.
"Sweden does not have a (documented) record of torture or human rights abuse"
#1 from the worlds finest search engine.
Nice try.. but next time please try harder.. Please also note how frequently the word 'rendition' appears there and in all the other results you could have found.
""Sweden does not have a (documented) record of torture or human rights abuse"
Oh YES it DOES actually."
All countries do. Likewise, show me a human being who has not broken a law, or a moral code.
Tying ourselves up in PC knots is silly. If Assange had sex with a woman against her wishes, as stated, then he must be prosecuted in the appropriate jurisdiction, the one he (already a convict) so manifestly skipped, as demonstrated in a British court.
At least one expert in extradition had said before today that Assange's legal arguments were not strong enough would fail and so it turned out. There is no indication at all that the extradition will be hijacked by the US and the opinion appears to be that it would be easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than Sweden.
Why would he think he is safer from prosecution in the UK where we have that very one sided Extradition Treaty with the US? It would be far harder for the US to get him out of Sweden than it would be to do it here.
He has not been charged as the Swedes have the decency to want more evidence or to give him the chance to answer the evidence before charging him. They probably want him close to hand should his answers be unsatisfactory, rather than interviewing him over VOIP or in another country.
Assange's lawyer can stir up all he wants and play to the media as much as he likes. Assange dipped his wick and needs to explain to the Swedes that it was consensual. They have a decent judiciary and so there is no case for refusing his extradition. Whether he is guilty is not for the UK courts to decide upon.
"They probably want him close to hand should his answers be unsatisfactory, rather than interviewing him over VOIP or in another country."
It's more than that; the to and fro progress of an interview depends to a substantial extent on non verbal cues of the sort not clearly available using VOIP, which does not cut it where interview techniques are concerned, because it hampers them.
You do realize that the reason Assange went to the UK was to ditch out of Sweden. Lets get real. Assange was facing 'rape' charges in Sweden where what the Swedes would consider 'rape' and what they would do to prosecute wouldn't get prosecuted in the UK or anywhere else for that matter.
I would have to guess that the Swedes didn't care for Assange thumbing his nose at their laws.
He was probably betting on them not pursuing the case because its probably not worth it. (Of course his profile which got him in to their 'beds' is probably the reason why the Swedes are pursuing it.)
To Assange, he wanted Swedish citizenship because then it would afford him and Wikileaks more protection.
If he is found guilty of the charges, he'll be sentenced and upon completion, he'd be put on a plane and sent back to Australia. What the Australians do is also in question. One article talked about Australia considering revoking his passport.
At any time, if the US can put together a case against Assange, you can bet he'll be extradited.
Assange could attempt to fight the extradition, but he's pissed off the same governments that could help him probably wont.
“No indication”, WTF!, that's utter Bullshit. In fact its worse than Bullshit, its very duplicitous. Oh and what's this about “So much paranoia”, that's intentionally derogatory against anyone who dares to question the motives behind this case. (I also note you use a statement of fact about likelihood of extradition to cover your otherwise very derogatory & duplicitous post. Its duplicitous because there is no way you can't see what is being done behind this case, as I intend to show).
I was going to do a post about “What is the next chess move? ... What will America do?” .. but now I'll direct it against your post.
I was going to say, have the US government been waiting until now to suddenly and finally announce formal charges against him in the US?. After all, Sweden have already repeatedly said they would defer to the US. If the US announced charges before he is extradited to Sweden, that puts the UK in a difficult position *publicly* as then the danger of him facing the death penalty is very real and public. (Privately of course they would probably be only to happy to hand him over to the US, after all it helps the UK's “special relationship” with the US).
The thing is if the US government are going to make a move, they will wait until he is in Sweden as Sweden have already repeatedly shown their willingness to hand him over to the US.
Also from the last 2 lines of the BBC article, "In response to the suggested risk of extradition to the US and a possible death penalty, Clare Montgomery QC said Sweden provided "protection against that sort of threat and violation" taking place."
However, Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities said the European Court of Human Rights would intervene if Mr Assange was to face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial. That wording is extremely careful to leave open the prospect of completely ok for him to stand trial, as long as its not seen as “inhuman or degrading treatment or unfair”.
These legal people pick their words extremely carefully as its their job to be exact in what they say. So Sweden are once again leaving it open ended to hand him over. We all know the US want him, its only matter of them finding a way to charge him and make it stick. Some of the US government have even called for his death FFS, so its bloody obvious (to everyone) the US want him to be punished.
I was going to go with a Big Brother icon for the UK, US and Swedish governments, as they would all be only to happy to work together (after all, the UK has its “special relationship” with the US to consider and Sweden wants its own “special relationship” with the US … which basically means bend over and do what the US wants and then be given some access to US money in return ... by the way governments, we have some very old words used for the oldest profession for that kind of behaviour!).
No matter how far the governments take their very public flogging of him, it won't stop others standing up to the governments as well. We are increasingly seeing that around the world now. People have had enough of the arrogant greedy Narcissistic lying bastards in government. So whatever the governments do to Assange and/or Wikileaks, they are not going to stop the people standing against them. All these moves to punish will do, is increase public anger against the governments.
The more people the governments imprison (and even some governments kill!), then the more people will stand up and argue back at their governments. Whatever the governments do to Assange, its not going to stop the pressure on them. The pressure is also the only way to get some fairness from the Narcissistic people in governments, because as they don't have empathy, they need to be forced to think of the people. Wikileaks has highlighted how the governments lie to the people. Don't forget that.
"After all, Sweden have already repeatedly said they would defer to the US. If the US announced charges before he is extradited to Sweden, that puts the UK in a difficult position *publicly* as then the danger of him facing the death penalty is very real and public. (Privately of course they would probably be only to happy to hand him over to the US, after all it helps the UK's “special relationship” with the US).
The thing is if the US government are going to make a move, they will wait until he is in Sweden as Sweden have already repeatedly shown their willingness to hand him over to the US."
You have contradicted yourself and more. Not only can they NOT extradite him from Sweden without UK permission, but Swedes have already said they will defer their case - not hand him over - if the UK are FIRST approached by the US.
So you have just emitted a long, smelly BS rant.
There's a lot of political stupidity in the USA, even suggestions Assange should face the death penalty. And I'm not sure |I could rely on a British court, faced with an extradition request from the USA. Sweden, on the other hand, doesn't have that "Special Relationship" fetish, and this case has put them on notice to be very careful about the Americans and what they might request.
Is it a cunning plan? Who knows.
There may be calls from some of the US' nuttier politicians, but the only way that someone would be extradited from the EU (UK included) to America is with assurances that there would be no death penalty sought. There would also likely be a no "hard time" assurance sought.
So, what's to stop America just extraditing him and then executing him anyway? Well, nothing but loss of any cooperation in future with the EU, serious loss of credibility around the world and a serious chilling of diplomatic relationships. Remember that they need us, not as much as we need them, but they really need us.
As for the Guantanamo allegations - The presendent himself is closing it down, noone new is going there, he would personally make his own life harder if he allowed anyone else to go there.
This really is a remarkably lame decision and brings extradition into disrepute.
Assange was basically charged with something akin to telling a lie to get a woman into bed. Well, I'm sorry to inform the Swedish, but this is hardly a serious offence and just makes their womenfolk seem stupid. Most women in this country have worked out long ago that men tell lies to get sex........get over it. If you're really that stupid to have sex with a man because he says he loves you a few hours after you've met, you really are stupid.
The Swedish prosecutor has changed her mind continually and been slated by a well respected member of the Swedish judiciary......retired. What he did might be morally wrong and might or might not be against Swedish law. However, it certainly isn't worth an extradition which should be for serious matters only and whilst a 'sex offence', it doesn't really rate against things normally considered sex offences in this country. Also, as the extradition is for questioning only and no charges have been brought....................
Judge is simply getting rid of something awkward rather than deal with it appropriately.
For people who think Sweden is a paragon of moral correctness and somehow 'enlightened' compared to this country, you should remember they forcibly steralised various categories of people (including mentally disabled etc.) into the 80s before stopping. Now, if you want a crime, perhaps they should go back over that one............
This post has been deleted by a moderator
">>"Sweden's reputation for fairness and justice was already ripped to shreds with The Pirate Bay raid... "
Ripped to shreds *where*?
And 'in me and my mates' heads' may not count for much as an answer."
Welcome to the wonderful world of Freetardia, where giving pointers to pirated material is acceptable, ditto the acts of piracy.
>>"Assange was basically charged with something akin to telling a lie to get a woman into bed."
Surely the issue of consent if pretty crucial?
There's quite a difference between telling a lie about how much you earn (or even how much you care about someone), and [allegedly] telling a lie about what kind of sex you're going to engage when a person's made it clear what their limits of their consent are.
>>"Well, I'm sorry to inform the Swedish, but this is hardly a serious offence and just makes their womenfolk seem stupid. "
I'm sorry to inform you, but I'm not sure 'the Swedish" will care much about your opinion, even if any of them actually hear of it.
"Points 1, 4 and 6 relate essentially to the same issue – disclosure of information inappropriately and publicly in an unfair way . It has also been suggested that the complainant’s lawyer in Sweden has made inappropriate remarks.
Miss Montgomery suggested that any comments from the Swedish Prime Minister may have been a response to comments made publicly on the steps of this court by the defence team here. I have heard no evidence that the defence team has publicly commented to the media, and so cannot say that that has happened ..
It is not possible for me to measure the impact of any such disclosures in this case .. I am absolutely satisfied that no such comments will have any impact on the decisions of the courts, either here or in Sweden"
"...and so cannot say that that has happened.
Certainly the conventional wisdom is that prosecutors, lawyers and politicians are best advised not to comment on a case until it is over. Sometimes public comment damages the cause more than it helps. However the reality is that such comments do occur. In this country police officers do comment on an investigation. Confidential information is sometimes leaked. Politicians may speak inappropriately. Defence lawyers do sometimes brief the press. It is not possible for me to measure the impact of any such disclosures in this case.
However I think it highly unlikely that any comment has been made with a view to interfere with the course of public justice. It is more likely that comments have been made with the intention of protecting reputations, including the reputation of the Swedish justice system.
Moreover, I am absolutely satisfied that no such comments will have any impact on the decisions of the courts, either here or in Sweden. I know that there will be three lay judges in any trial in Sweden. Despite the suggestion that they are selected because of their political allegiances, there is simply no reason to believe that they will not deal with the case on the evidence before them. Any earlier impression of the merits of the case, whether favourable or unfavourable to this defendant, will play no part. In this jurisdiction we have ample experience of defendants who have been vilified and yet acquitted. The jury system (and if I may say so the summary system) is robust. The defence has referred me to one case (McCann, Cullen and Shanahan) where a politician made comments that were later considered by the Court of Appeal to have had such a potentially prejudicial effect that the verdict of guilty recorded in the trial had to be overturned. However that was in relation to a comment about the right to silence made during final speeches of a trial where the defendants elected not to give evidence at the trial itself.
I am not in a position to say whether any comments made by the police and a prosecutor are unlawful in Sweden. One of the witnesses said they were unfair but not illegal. They would not necessarily be illegal here. The position may be different once a prosecution has actually commenced, as opposed to during the investigation."
Look, I hate to break it to you but Assange had been hyping his shite all over the place in an effort to raise money and his profile.
He recently admitted that his Smoking Gun against a certain US Bank was a bunch of documents that he couldn't make sense of.
They called his bluff.
"The fact of the matter is Julian Assange didn't do anything morally wrong."
The mind boggles; he had sex with a woman who stipulated that he could only do so if he wore a condom. He did not wear a condom. Swedish culture includes considerable attention to sexual hygiene, it being that terminal STDs are disliked there, even though in the UK attitudes differ.
Having sex with someone under these circumstances is rape in Swedish law, and actually I'd find it difficult to see it as other than rape, irrrespective of jurisdiction. The Swedes are not alone in their stipulations. In an odd way this case is in agreement with their attitudes:
As I say, the Brits are very bad at sexual hygiene and from that perspective alone I am unsurprised at the responses here. Given that most if not all of them are from men I am even less so.
'Nothing morally wrong'? How sad. Perhaps you like him feel that the women (wrongly) got themselves into a 'tizzy':
"he had sex with a woman who stipulated that he could only do so if he wore a condom. He did not wear a condom."
Funny how you can say that as though it's a fact without him even being to court yet isn't it?
People are not proven guilty without first being to court scorchio so for that i will fail you
""he had sex with a woman who stipulated that he could only do so if he wore a condom. He did not wear a condom."
Funny how you can say that as though it's a fact without him even being to court yet isn't it?
People are not proven guilty without first being to court scorchio so for that i will fail you"
I suggest that you pay attention to his spoken word on Radio 4.
For that you fail.
""he had sex with a woman who stipulated that he could only do so if he wore a condom. He did not wear a condom."
Funny how you can say that as though it's a fact without him even being to court yet isn't it?
People are not proven guilty without first being to court scorchio so for that i will fail you"
"He said he believed the most probable explanation for the allegations was that two women "found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had unprotected sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases".
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm )
It was a "ridiculous thing to go to the police about," he added. "
Oh ridiculous indeed:
And he "feels at peace", the convict with 25 convictions in one go to his name, one of which was for breaking into the very police computers containing details of the investigation into his criminal offences. Very credible. A barometer of morality, a Paris metre of respectability, a most trustworthy and reliable man. When he says a woman was 'in a tizzy' and that it was "a ridiculous thing to go to the police about" he is absolutely right. Just as the judge in Australia convicted him wrongly, Assange saying
“Your honour, I feel a great misjustice [sic] has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution.”
"I've been abusive to women before in my life and I felt I was done a misjustice [sic] in dealing with this situation that I got convicted for"
Oh, and the reason Jules avoids any semblance of direct contact with his 'clients? The reason why he's putting up such a fight now? This:
"If there is any repetition of this behaviour, I would have thought your chances of avoiding a jail sentence would be very slim."
( http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/assange-has-a-secret-of-his-own-1.1003105 )
Julian does not want to do time, more than anything in the world. He came close to it and what drives his behaviour now are the judge's words. He thought he'd got it sewn right up with Wikileaks; nuffink to do with me guv, it's just bits and bytes, information packets on the innernet. But oh those little packets of semen, how controversial they have become, eh? The interesting thing is that, whereas data packets can be transmitted through a proxy using the TOR onion skin (hah!) model, semen cannot, and the DNA evidence is compelling.
"... and maybe about Sweden's propensity of being fondled by the US administration.
Should be of interest
Nothing new to know on the US Administration - Sweden. We already know thanks to ThePirateBay.... "love is in the air"...
Sex life in Sweden can be fun it seems, allegations a few weeks after an interaction with no proof and your word against the other can get you to jail...now I understand that Swedish guy whom I met who said he wouldn't date in Sweden as it was too dangerous....
If I were swedish I might consider leaving the country for good.
>>"Nothing new to know on the US Administration - Sweden. We already know thanks to ThePirateBay.... "love is in the air"..."
So why was Julian being lauded as being some kind of fucking genius for trying to get registered as a journalist in Sweden then?
Had he not heard about the Pirate Bay stuff proving Sweden was Uncle Sam's lapdog?
>>"If I were swedish I might consider leaving the country for good."
If I were Swedish, I might think you were making the right decision.
This is a disgusting ruling, I don't care how many boxes were ticked the spirit of the law should be considered here: he's committed no offence (here, and at worst a technical one in Sweden) and the any "trial" he would face in Sweden would be an unfair one based on the media hype that surrounded this farce.
My faith in the Law here diminishes once again.
"but there's no reason that a trial has to be "unfair" because of media hype"
To be honest, if I were a Swede, I think I'd be more likely to be influenced against Assange by the media hype coming from him, his lawyers and various supporters than by any other hype.
"It's all a setup", "the only victim in all this is Julian, "he can't get a fair trial in Sweden", etc wouldn't tend to make me sympathetic to him.
It's high time this freedom-monger was brought to book.
The World Police *MUST* ensure that free speech and open government are squashed at all costs.
Look what free speech is doing to the Middle East - tearing it apart!
Only an ordered and controlled society can ensure liberty, anything else is anarchy.
Will no one think of the children?
I totally agree Mr BigYin. Its time people learned war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
This freedom-monger has disrupted our social harmonious slumber for too long, by helping to fill our heads with more troubling questions. Our telescreens into the Internet are filling up with troubling questions about the loyalties of our leaders. Our selfless leaders only have our best interests at heart. You can hear their selfless words every day on our telescreens. How could they, of all people, be self interested liers.
But fear not brothers and sisters, our leaders will prevail and we will get to see their true justice played out for all of us to see and learn from. It won't be long now to wait for our next 2 minute hate broadcast, so we can all join together in our condemnation of this rebellious trouble maker.
Then we can get back to watching Oceania's military victories over, (is it Eurasia or Eastasia we are at war with now, I forget). Anyway our leaders and their "important" friends deserve rich payment for all their troubles and so how dare anyone question our benevolent leaders intentions.
Our benevolent leaders selflessly choose to watch over us, so we can be safe.
I wonder if this is going to be the case for our times or the moment our generation has to tell others.
I also wonder why Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have the balls to demand more from the land they toil in, and we in Europe don't. Oh yeah, money....
So is there anything we, as citizens of whatever places we're from, can do about this? The BBC hasn't exactly put a fair case across. (I refer to John Humphreys interview with Assange 21st Dec on Youtube I think) Also we know the American international position, and the Swedish media has made an impact on public opinion there.
Maybe we in Britain can do something, possibly invite the prosecution here, or do it in Strasbourg or something?
While you're all thinking of things ;) can I ask some questions:
Do we know Obama has 'anti-british sentiment'? (P.S - Obama (I know you can read this) - If you have got a problem with me because I'm British: WTF?! I bought your book! - Come and say it to my face lol)
What about that Private Manning? Whats going on with him right now? I think it's worth keeping an eye on him while Assange is packing his things as we might get an idea of whats in store?
What worries me most is the implications inserted into just what Assange has said, they way he has conducted himself publicly and the documents he has released. This guy tells us he could have studied maths, but he writes about conspiracy theories and networks of individuals keeping sectrets in order to further the creation of wealth and pursuit of power.
His theory (as I understand it) is that the military and industrial interests pervert the course of democracy successfully through greed, corruption and bribery, in order to get certain goals achieved or make a certain amount of money from a situation taking place in the world (I.e War)
The secrets that are passing between these individuals ensure and maintain the process continues and expands into any other industries or public offices where there may be profit or gain in achieving goals.
Assange says conspiracies (the ones perhaps he is referring to when he talks about the political nature of the accusations (which haven't been made. erm) are like nails hammered halfway into a peice of wood. these nails represent actors or players in the conspiracy.
Wrap a long wire around nails and connect the wrapped wire to every other nail in the board. The wire represents the flow of info between the conspirators.
Assange also asserts that people have tried to attack the military industrial complex in the past by removing nails. This doesn't work as there are no shortage of potential nails, and no shortage of potential wire. He goes on to say that things like Wikileaks (mass dumps of sensitive information) are better as they make secret data public. the info going between the nails is worth less. As leaks continue, nails will drop out (info comes from whistleblowers etc) Nails will also lose trust in eachother and give up or consolidate what they have on their own, making them vulnerable.
Sorry to drone on but I think he has a point in a my humble opinion. This stuff is the source of the reason people in Africa are killing eachother and I'm paying for petrol through the nose and paying for young men to die in Afghanistan in a war they don't really agree with either.
Maybe a fresh look at changing this picture might be a good thing!
that if this extradition was for anyone but Assange the vast majority crying foul would not object in the slightest. It appears to me that many are coming at this with a preconceived idea of some underlying conspiracy and have totally bought into the (now discredited) defence arguments without considering the prosecutions position.
The facts are:
Assange deliberately avoided being interviewed about this is Sweden
Sweden are within their rights to request his extradition to face questioning.
The offences do have a legal equivalent in the UK.
I realize I'm just a techie and my undergrad courses were all in Engineering and Science.
But I expect that those who post here have at least some level of University eduction.
If you have been following the case, you have to understand the following:
* Assange skipped out of Sweden before he could be questioned and then charged.
* A EAW was issued.
* Assange turned himself in and appealed the extradition.
Under the law, the burden of proof is on Assange to demonstrate that the EAW itself is flawed. The courts start with the presumption that the EAW is a lawful request.
Assange through his lawyers asserted a couple of key arguments:
* The person who issued the EAW didn't have the authority to issue the EAW
* Assange hadn't been charged and that you can't issue an EAW just for questioning.
* Assuming the accusations to be true, what he is accused of is not a crime in the UK
Were the defense able to win one of those arguments, Assange would probably not be extradited.
In the court case, the Swedish prosecution team refuted these claims by the following:
* Affirmed that the person who issued the EAW has the authority to issue an EAW.
* RAPE is one of the thirty odd crimes where you don't use the local standards of law.
* The EAW was issued for the intent of prosecuting Assange upon his return to Sweden.
(That this is just so that they can 'question him' is hogwash.)
The point is that for every issue raised by the defense, the prosecution was able to demonstrate their case.
Point by Point, anything raised by the defense was effectively countered. Including getting the Swedish counsel for Assange to admit that statements he made under oath were incorrect.
Assange's defense team did not make a strong enough argument to halt the extradition.
If you read the skeletons for both sides, you would understand this.
I am shocked that in spite of all of the evidence now in the public eye that people still ignore the basic facts argued in court.
Assange will go back, be interviewed and then charged. (Unless he can prove his innocence.)
"You do not need to actually be charged with anything to be extradited from the UK. The precedent has now been set. Mere suspicion is enough, which the Yanks will certainly take advantage of in the future."
This is an entirely separate matter, that is, it is an EAW, not an AAW. Can't you read?
Out to the pub, hence the icon.
Since the extradition is for "questioning" presumably once that questioning is over, Julian can come back to the UK, regardless of the outcome.
If the Swedes then wish to lodge charges, then they must re-apply for extradition, otherwise they will be seen as extraditing for questioning but then slapping a charge on him.
What I mean is, he is extradited for questioning ONLY, when that ends, back he comes.
"He is being questioned on the assumption that there is a reasonable chance that after that he will be charged."....By the Americans.
If the Swedes manage to get him extradited on suspicion then it's just a formality for them to extradite him to America on the same grounds.
I believe that the second he arrives in Sweden, America will lodge a request for extradition. The Swedes will then go through the motions of questioning him, announce all investigations dropped and promptly deliver him to the awaiting Leer jet.
"If the Swedes manage to get him extradited on suspicion then it's just a formality for them to extradite him to America on the same grounds."
Perhaps IQs dropped a little; as much as your wishful thinking might have it, the Swedes cannot allow extradition to the US without UK say so. They are extraditing on a specific set of grounds that do not include this. In addition do note that the UK caveat on not extraditing for capital offences is also a Swedish one, though they have said they will forgo extradition to Sweden if the US approaches the UK. However, the US have not yet made a case and are still investigating the matter. A few years down the road it might be possible for the US to charge him, by which time he may be released. Expect to see the world dotted with FBI agents, waiting for Assange to fall into their open arms, but not for a long while yet. Verstanden?
Let's go and look out of the round window...
If this was a fair extradition case then the judge would have asked for asertions that the swedish authorities would not extradite him to the US. This is simply a travesty of justice and he has not got a cat in hells chance of staying alive once extradited to the US. One saving grace is that America is soon to be committed to the history books as a failed state and like Rome will come crashing down taking the oligarcy of the US and other countries with it.
"If this was a fair extradition case then the judge would have asked for asertions that the swedish authorities would not extradite him to the US. This is simply a travesty of justice and he has not got a cat in hells chance of staying alive once extradited to the US. One saving grace is that America is soon to be committed to the history books as a failed state and like Rome will come crashing down taking the oligarcy of the US and other countries with it."
Nay, the travesty is in thy logic and evidence. The EAW requires only that certain conditions are met, and they have been. This is not a question of false concepts of fairness, not least because Assange left Sweden to avoid being further questioned and the execution of a warrant for his arrest. That was the travesty.
Furthermore, not only do the Swedes not extradite to countries for capital offences, but it is also the case that they could not extradite Assange to Sweden and then let him go to the US without UK authority. The UK, in case it has escaped your attention span, also does not permit extradition for capital offences.
So the whole of your passage, probably substantially influenced by Assange and his defence counsel, is misguided, misinformed, no, downright wrong.
As for your Reg dead icon, well, how utterly childish. The 'saving grace' of US as failed state? Even more childish. The failed states of Afghanistan and those in the horn of Africa have caused the world much more misery than your statement acknowledges. Should the US fail then thousands of nuclear weapons would probably be at the beck and call of another form of religious fundamentalism, the christian sort. Anyone attempting make any form of capital out of human suffering and misery, of a sort which actually threatens them and any form of stable democracy in the world, well such an individual merits a good spanking. Consider that administered.
Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way."
This goes directly to the case in point. Here the judge believes that Hurtig intentionally mislead the court.
Do I really have to spell out the significance of this bullet point?
Should have taken the first Easyjet flight to Sweden when he was requested by the police for questioning/enquring. Answer a few questions and be done with it. Instead he dragged his heels as if he had something to hide.
Why should the police come to the UK to talk to him. The alleged crime was committed in Sweden. So he should have went to Sweden to answer his case. Seems mohamed wants the mountain to come to him. What a complete twunt!!!
Would you go back to a place where you know that you can go to jail on a woman's word?
If it was his word against the allegedly offended, the case would have been dismissed as it was in the first place.
When you get two women that complain AFTER they have met it can be one of two things:
- They both realized they were not alone and complained together and are having a tough time.
- They got jealous and lied.
Problem is they have no proof whatsoever and defendants get the befit of doubt ("in dubio pro reo"), except in the most crooked places of earth, (up to the swedes to show the kind of justice they have).
Therefore the case should have been closed unless Mr. Assange had been bragging around or recorded in tape, which I believe we would have already known.
Hence no proof, and the case should have been dropped...but alas it is not!.
My .50€ say he'll be extradited and jailed in Sweden even if there are no proofs and the SMS messages which allegedly indicate ill intent do exist .
He won't be prosecuted by the US but denied entry for life.
BTW: I find the English Judge reasoning to be sound , hence I can't say he did wrong applying the law in that way. It's the swedes I am concerned about.
P.S. If you read the sentence...how can it come in Sweden you are jailed and incommunicated during the whole process if arrested for rape? Will they gag ball you in the future?
>>"Would you go back to a place where you know that you can go to jail on a woman's word?"
A *woman* indeed.
For Allah's sake, everyone knows that their word is only worth a quarter of that of a man.
>>"If it was his word against the allegedly offended, the case would have been dismissed as it was in the first place."
And as we all know, it wasn't dismissed in the first place.
There were three opinions, based on taking different amounts of time to look at the evidence available at the time they were made.
Different value decisions were made, and it's not exactly logical to conclude that one decision out of the three must be Right because it's the one you want to be true.
>>"Problem is they have no proof whatsoever and defendants get the befit of doubt ("in dubio pro reo"), except in the most crooked places of earth, "
Though any number of alleged crimes of all kinds of severity *do* end up being judged primarily on the basis of the word of one or more people's word against one or more other people.
What's so bleeding special about Assange?
His defeat is our defeat.
Why? Because anyone here in this forum, any geek, nerd, business owner, any person with a little bit of common sense, every single journalist, news publisher and every human that thinks the internet is supposed to be for everyone is losing the fight against censorship, corruption and bureaucracy.
Sweden is just a big disappointment. UK and US, of course, already lost their way a long time ago, so no need to kick the dead horse.
If Assange loses, we all lose.
And for those that say he just wants publicity, remember that regardless of his personal reason
he should be allowed to post all that information on the internet without fear of prosecution.
From the leaked court documents: "Assange allegedly began having sex with her while she was asleep — the basis of the rape allegation". Is this really not a crime in the U.K.? Is it really not a crime in the U.K. to force yourself on someone condomless, when they have insisted you wear one? Back in the '80s in the US, these issues really came to the fore on many college campuses, with a number of colleges having to institute 'rape awareness' programs to incoming freshman about so-called 'date rape'. This absolutely would be considered rape in the US. Just wondering if there was any similar sort of dialog about this sort of thing in the UK.
If true, they appear to be passing off the task of vilifying Assange to more junior members of the team now. I wonder how many "undergrad courses" they have between them. Most individuals do only one.
I used to think they were State Department, but the recent change of tone and increase in sneering ad hominem comments leads me to suspect commercial mercenaries, possibly HBGary Federal.
The self deprecating message was to re-enforce the fact that it doesn't take a lawyer to understand the courts and matters of law.
In a trial, there is a presumption of innocence and that the burden is on the prosecution to make their case of guilt. So that when Assange gets back to trial in Sweden, he is innocent until the prosecution can present enough evidence of his alleged guilt.
But we're not at the trial stage, are we? (That was rhetorical...)
No, were at the stage where Assange fled the country and the Swedes want him back.
So they issued the EAW which under treaty, the UK courts are obliged to honor.
Assanage is given the chance to appeal the EAW. So the *burden* *of* *proof* is on Assange to show that the EAW is defective. Is that such a hard concept to comprehend?
So please stop this 'Innocence until proven guilty' crap. It doesn't wash.
The rape claim against him would definitely be a crime in England as well, if her story is true. He stayed with one of the women, and one night they had consensual sex with a condom. The next morning she woke up to find him inside her again, this time without a condom. As she had made clear to him before they'd only have sex if he wore a condom. Remember that English law requires consent for intercourse not to be rape, whereas Swedish law only makes it rape if consent is denied. So "this wouldn't be a crime in the UK" is bullshit, and, as stated above, rape is also one of the crimes where such an issue is not taken into account for extradition.
The women are not pressing charges but criminal cases like rape don't require them to do so, as it falls under public prosecution.
Would you like to be prosecuted by public prosecution for something of which there is no proof whatsoever?
Would you TRUST that you will get a FAIR trial?
Because that is what it seems to be the case here from my point of view. Even if the judge deems to grant extradition
>>"Would you like to be prosecuted by public prosecution for something of which there is no proof whatsoever?"
Personally, whether I was innocent or guilty of something, I'd probably prefer not to be prosecuted whatever the nature of the prosecution was.
It'd certainly be nasty to be innocent or to believe myself innocent in a case where it was my word against someone else's, though I'm not sure that'd be worse than a case that, for example, also involved circumstantial material evidence.
How many crimes do you think there are where making a judgement *doesn't* fundamentally rely on believing one person or set of people over another?
Even when there's forensic evidence, it's still ultimately a case of trusting scenes-of-crime officers and forensic scientists to be honest and competent.
Certainly, it's undeniably harder to get at the truth in a case where it seems to be just one person's word against another, but that could be the case even in claims by an alleged victim of attempted murder or claims by an alleged witness of actual murder.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020