Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[tyr_13]

Yes, are you joking? You really believe the United States federal government would order CIA SAD to expropriate a non-US citizen living outside the United States' jurisdiction, with the entire world watching?

You do realize that this same objection applies to extraditing him from Sweden, making a mockery of the UK and Swedish justice systems? The world watches that too.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

You do realize that this same objection applies to extraditing him from Sweden, making a mockery of the UK and Swedish justice systems? The world watches that too.

Because kidnapping an alleged rapist who just so happened to also spit in your face is literally the same thing as having a convicted criminal extradited to stand "trial" for further "crimes."

For some reason I can't figure out why 1 != 2.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes, are you joking? You really believe the United States federal government would order CIA SAD to expropriate a non-US citizen living outside the United States' jurisdiction, with the entire world watching?

Perhaps you need to reread what I said because no I don't. I believe that it'd be easier and have less blow back than illegally extraditing him by poilitically interferring with foreign courts though.

By your indirect admission, in the past, the United States government has illegally manipulated a vast number of situations it should not have been involved in anyway, so why would they care about the "fundamental principles" of another country's sovereignty or system of justice?

Try the 2nd Admenment. How many trigger happy people are there in the US just waiting for the Govt there to prove it is a Tyranny that doesn't obey it's own laws?

If Julian Assange went missing, would you seriously sit behind your computer screen and try to convince us the Department of Defense was merely twiddling its fingers at the time?

Where do you get that idea? In fact I pretty much have said the opposite, that if the US was going to go after Assange, that would be the most likely senario. Personally I don't think they will do it, well unless perhaps he ends up in Ecaudor, then anything is possible.

And don't attempt to turn my statements into, "Why would the DoD want him?" I'm merely criticizing your somewhat foolish assessment that the US government is as stupid as you think it is.

How about I criticize your rather poor attempts at reading comprehension instead? Nowhere have I claimed the US government is stupid, in fact exactly the opposite, I have stated and will continue to state I don't think, and see no evidence, that they are stupid enough to try and gain Assange illegally in any way, be it by kidnapping, or manipulating foreign and domestic courts.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I am certainly not advocating that the US kidnap Assange or manipulate the courts. Both of those outcomes would be despicable. I don't think either situation is desirable.

Nor do I, but this is exactly what the CT crowd are claiming is happening, or going to happen. When pressed for evidence the answer seems to be "But it's the US, they're evil enough to do it."

I am merely suggesting that kidnapping a high-profile foreign national, who has an Australian passport, on British soil, would also create an international **** storm. It would be complete violation of British sovereignty. Blatant kidnapping is as much a disaster as being rumbled manipulating a foreign court. You seem to think that Assange could be taken by some black-ops team and no-one would notice he had gone or put up much of a fuss. There would be severe ramifications for such behaviour. You say that there is precedent. Tell me what the precedent is for the US to kidnap a foreign national on British soil, a foreign national that is in the spotlight of the international media?

I agree that there would be issues, but the problem is that most of the CTs stop right here. Oh woe how terrible it'd be if they did that. They then conclude that because the US can't do it that way without international condemnation, that they must be doing it instead by politically manipulating their own courts and those of foreign nations without stopping to consider the ramifications of that and what it would lead too. I think that any attempt to get Assange illegally will create serious issues, so they won't do it.

I could point out that the diplomatic ramifications of having a black ops team operating in a friendly country would be nowhere near the ramification of politically interfering in the justice system of that same country though.

Also I didn't say that the precedent was to kidnap those in the international spotlight, merely that in the last 10 years the US had resorted to kidnapping people it considered a threat, even from friendly countries. In fact it's exactly those actions that a number of CTs point to, to claim that Assange is in danger from the US. You can't have it both ways.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Is it not feasible that there could already be a sealed indictment sitting around somewhere? Certainly that's what the Stratfor emails allege.

Any evidence other than heresay without a legitimate chain of custody?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Because kidnapping an alleged rapist who just so happened to also spit in your face is literally the same thing as having a convicted criminal extradited to stand "trial" for further "crimes."

For some reason I can't figure out why 1 != 2.

But legally nothing changes with regards to extradition even if he's convicted in a rape trial. Swe is still not allowed to extradite him to the US without UKs permission, and neither of them may allow the extradition if he's accused of a political crime, or a capital offence.

So then the matter is about public opinion - would the public be more forgiving that both the legal and political system in Sweden for example breaks the law if JA first is convicted? I'm not so sure that the difference will be that great. Will those that believe him to be an innocent framed man change their mind if he's convicted by the same courts that so far has agreed to extradite him? And for those that already believe he's guilty nothing will change. So that leaves the fence sitters then.

But in the end, it's not about what the public thinks, it's about how the press in Sweden would reacts to the Swedish politicians doing something illegal to a public figure. And from what I believe, they would love that story, and not stop it until some politicians are gone.

And with the current government being a minority government, and general elections coming up in 2014, there's not a lot needed to ensure loss of power.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Because kidnapping an alleged rapist who just so happened to also spit in your face is literally the same thing as having a convicted criminal extradited to stand "trial" for further "crimes."

For some reason I can't figure out why 1 != 2.

Because doing so would likely be illegal under Sweden, UK, European, and likely US law.

If you actually do some research and learn about the extradition laws of the countries you'll learn how and why a person can be extradited, and quite simply, the US would have to be twisting its own laws to the point of breaking to actually trump up charges that would match something that is illegal in Sweden allowing an extradition trial to take place, and even if they got that far, the level of evidence to extradite from Sweden is massively higher that that required to do the same in the UK. They'd run into many of the same issues currently being experienced in the Dot Com trial going on here.

The whole CT of the extradition to Sweden being a step to getting him to the US relies on the absurd belief that the Swedish Government is so corrupt and deep in the pockets of the US, that they are willing to break their own Laws, and European Laws to hand over Assange where the UK isn't. Sweden can't just stick him on a plane to the US, and if they did, they'd be trashing their own justice system, as would the US in doing so. Think about the ramifications of that, where there is no longer an politically independent legal system and no trial can be provably free of political interference. Consider what it would mean living in a country where if you annoyed the Government they could just trump up some charges and find you guilty. What is that called? Do you really think that the citizens of that country would take such a shift in their judicial system lying down? I don't. Without an impartial justice system, western society can't function, instead we are left with a Tyranny.

 

[BenBurch]

Nobody wants him any more. Nobody will ever trust him or anything he runs with a leak ever again, we have everything he had, and we can't find a law to charge him with if we did want him.

Except for the rape charges, I would be happy (and I mean that literally) to see him spend the rest of his life as a guest of Ecuador, imprisoned there by his own paranoia. Exile is so gothic!

 

[trustbutverify]

Assange has what he always wanted, the undying attention of his ideologically constipated worshipers and a gaggle of unclaimed kids for which he takes no financial responsibility.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If such rendering of Assange to the US is illegal, it wouldn't matter if he's a convicted rapist or not, it's still illegal and makes a mockery of the Justice systems of those involved.

Sorry but you're not following.

Suppose Assange is convicted of something you can call "rape".

Do you think that would make it easier or harder, politically speaking, for the government of the UK to decide to legally extradite Assange to the USA? Or to legally consent for Sweden to hand him over?

I have thought through the issues, apparently a heck of a lot more than most of his supporters.

But not all, I submit, if you want to pigeonhole me as a supporter.

 

[nathan]

If JA really feared extradition to the US, fleeing to France would have made much more sense than fleeing to the UK. A film director is an existence proof one can freely live in France out of reach of the US. I mean, even if the UK is a bit safer than Sweden in that regard (which I dispute), France is demonstrably *much* safer.

 

[lionking]

Assange has what he always wanted, the undying attention of his ideologically constipated worshipers and a gaggle of unclaimed kids for which he takes no financial responsibility.

I find posts like this terribly amusing. So many people here are saying that Assange is of no great importance, yet the hatred is palpable. He's made powerful governments (including my own) look stupid by exposing their duplicity. The leaks have put nobody at risk.

If that makes me an ideological constipated worshipper (whatever that means)
so be it.

 

[nathan]

The leaks have put nobody at risk.

Incorrect. It has put some informants lives at risk.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8413010#post8413010

 

[Democracy Simulator]

I could point out that the diplomatic ramifications of having a black ops team operating in a friendly country would be nowhere near the ramification of politically interfering in the justice system of that same country though.

Essentially, this is where I disagree with you. If the US were to kidnap Assange, it would not merely be the fact of a black ops team operating in a friendly country, it would be a flagrant and well-publicised trampling of UK sovereignty and Australian citizenship and there would be a massive public outcry. It would be a PR disaster. I don't think that there is much to choose in terms of a negative impression between manipulating foreign justice systems and such a high-profile kidnapping. Unless of course, you manipulate foreign justice systems and do it in such a way, that it is not flagrant and you get away with it. Which is what is being alleged in some quarters.

I think Assange should go to Sweden and stand trial and I think that he eventually will. I also think that he probably knows that this will happen. Yet, I don't blame him for the action he is currently taking as I guess that he rationally thinks that it will protect his interests. There must be a certain comfort for Assange in remaining in the spotlight and becoming more of a cause célèbre. My best guess from the facts that we know is that Assange is not guilty of rape. I could be wrong.

 

[lionking]

Incorrect. It has put some informants lives at risk.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8413010#post8413010

Who exactly has suffered as a result of the leaks? Perhaps I wasn't as precise as I should have been. There may be some hypothetical risk, but has any risk been realised? I think there would have been headlines if this were so.

No, the only harm has been to the hubris of governments.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Essentially, this is where I disagree with you. If the US were to kidnap Assange, it would not merely be the fact of a black ops team operating in a friendly country, it would be a flagrant and well-publicised trampling of UK sovereignty and Australian citizenship and there would be a massive public outcry. It would be a PR disaster.

Ok, this is not kidnapping in any way, but according to JA, US FBI is operating on UK soil:

Julian Assange: Well, I'm not sure 'more than happy' is the correct word, Phillip, I think 'mightily pissed off', but I'm understanding it might be necessary to resolve the situation. Yeah, so I was given... I only visited Sweden because the FBI came to the UK and raided one of my alleged source's mother's house, Bradley Manning, in Wales. So the FBI was here in the UK, stomping around the UK, and we thought I'd better get out. And I managed to get some people to write an invite to a talk on the first casualty of... Sorry, the first casualty of the war is the truth, in Sweden, and use that invite as sort-of a safe passage to get out through UK customs to Sweden.

But maybe this is just normal police cooperation, I'm not sure what is allowed between US and UK, but I thought that UK should not allow FBI to operate independently in the UK?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Incorrect. It has put some informants lives at risk.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8413010#post8413010

So some hearsay that Assange expressed an opinion in a restaurant is proof that it has put informants' lives at risk?

Do you actually have proof that it put informants' lives at risk?

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

Perhaps you need to reread what I said because no I don't. I believe that it'd be easier and have less blow back than illegally extraditing him by poilitically interferring with foreign courts though.

"...rather than having the situation where all three justice systems can claim clean hands as they did the right thing, and the US Govt copping some more flak for continuing to do the same things it has been doing for the last 10 years since 9/11 anyway?"

You quite clearly stated that of the two options, you believe the United States government's best method of extraction would be to send a special operatives team to foreign soil to acquire a high profile, non-US citizen against his will. You then chalk up the reasoning behind it to being, "Well, we all know they do it anyway." Where is my misinterpretation?

Try the 2nd Admenment. How many trigger happy people are there in the US just waiting for the Govt there to prove it is a Tyranny that doesn't obey it's own laws?

Let's get one thing straight first: the United States government continually displays that is has very little regard for its own laws... when it thinks it won't be caught. I'm still failing to comprehend how kidnapping an Australian citizen, now under asylum from another sovereign nation, outside of the legal jurisdiction of the United States government, with the eyes of the entire world watching is in any way, shape or form a good idea.

Where do you get that idea? In fact I pretty much have said the opposite, that if the US was going to go after Assange, that would be the most likely senario. Personally I don't think they will do it, well unless perhaps he ends up in Ecaudor, then anything is possible.

Perhaps I phrased question in a confusing manner, what I meant was, if Assange went missing, or happened to die, would you believe the US government if it feigned innocence? Your "most likely senario" sets up a situation in which the United States government blatantly disregards the sovereignty of other nations... Western, allied nations at that. Even though we all know the federal government doesn't care, your set-up presents a public announcement and dangerous precedent that international borders are not at all respected, which is why the easier route is always the one that occurs in the shadows.

How about I criticize your rather poor attempts at reading comprehension instead? Nowhere have I claimed the US government is stupid, in fact exactly the opposite, I have stated and will continue to state I don't think, and see no evidence, that they are stupid enough to try and gain Assange illegally in any way, be it by kidnapping, or manipulating foreign and domestic courts.

How about you look up the word "assessment?" And while we're nit-picking about reading comprehension, I never said you "claimed" the US government was stupid, just that you think they are.

They then conclude that because the US can't do it that way without international condemnation, that they must be doing it instead by politically manipulating their own courts and those of foreign nations without stopping to consider the ramifications of that and what it would lead too.

The United States government has clandestinely participated in de-stabilizing and attempting to de-stabilize South American, African, and Middle Eastern governments for the past sixty years, what makes you think they care about ramifications?

By your own admission, the government has sent special forces and CIA special operatives into countries. I seem to remember sometime last May, a small command unit entered Pakistan without the permission of their federal government, and how much controversy it caused. Except Pakistan isn't a Western country, and the mission objective wasn't an international "hero" who exposed corruption taking place within the federal government of the United States of America.

I could point out that the diplomatic ramifications of having a black ops team operating in a friendly country would be nowhere near the ramification of politically interfering in the justice system of that same country though.

Except it's more difficult to expose one, while the other is quite obvious. There are these words... clandestine, cover-up, secrecy, corruption... look them up.

Any evidence other than heresay without a legitimate chain of custody?

I will defer to this previous quote:

I would try to fight any kind of extradition attempts against me if I believed I was innocent AND was privy to the kind of information contained in the Stratfor emails detailing spectre secret grand juries being set up. Worrying about CIA plots isn't just delusional rantings if it has a firm foundation in reality.

The Stratfor emails indicate quite clearly there is a possibility the United States government may attempt to gain access to Assange. It's quite easy for you to dismiss them when an entire federal government doesn't hate your guts.

Swe is still not allowed to extradite him to the US without UKs permission, and neither of them may allow the extradition if he's accused of a political crime, or a capital offence.

Article VI of Treaty 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812 with regards to extradition agreements between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Sweden may provide a loophole in this situation.

If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense/ the requested State may:

(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or

(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution* The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the pro- ceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.​

To go along with this, last year, the Council of the European Union issued a guide to the "Working Party on Co-operation in Criminal Matters" entitled, "Handbook on the practical application of the EU-U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance
and Extradition Agreements"

(g) Temporary Surrender (Article 9)
This provision, which is common in modern extradition treaties, facilitates the orderly and efficient prosecution of a person sought in two jurisdictions by allowing the temporary transfer of the person to the Requesting State for prosecution, when that person is subject to proceedings (either prosecution or service of a sentence) in the Requested State. The transfer is subject to conditions agreed to in advance of the transfer. The provision also permits the defendant to receive credit in the Requested State for time served in custody while under prosecution in the Requesting State.​

Unfortunately I cannot post links as of yet, however these documents are readily available via Google. More over, your own statement provides the biggest loophole, as the United States could simply issue an extradition request, on bases other than political or military offenses.

 

[nathan]

Suppose Assange is convicted of something you can call "rape".

Seriously? You're attempting a 'rape rape' argument?

So some hearsay that Assange expressed an opinion in a restaurant is proof that it has put informants' lives at risk?

Um, ok, a journalist quoting JA is hearsay? right. Then everything reported here about what JA claims is heresay, unless he said it to the member quoting him. that's not going to get us very far.

 

[nathan]

Who exactly has suffered as a result of the leaks? Perhaps I wasn't as precise as I should have been. There may be some hypothetical risk, but has any risk been realised? I think there would have been headlines if this were so.

Did you read the article? The journalist claimed it had put leaker's lives at risk. JA did not dispute that.