Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[eirik]

Why should he be?

Since you seem to think that Sweden will extradite him to the US. Why was that not a concern when he attended the conference or whatever, but it is an issue now that he is accused of rape.

Seems rather... opportunistic.

Which legal definition are you happy with?

The Swedish. If you are unhappy about it, specify which part you disagree with and why.

It may be true. Have you considered that possibility?

Yes.

He has offered himself for questioning on several occasions.

No, he has not. He has set forth conditions for questioning that Swedish authorities can not oblige, and he knows it. The proceedings are prescribed by law, not by negotiations. You know, equal treatment and all that jazz.

He looks to me and many others like an escaping whistleblower.

I and many others do not care what you and others think. He is not above the law. [insert joke on Assange being an escaped alledged whistleblowee, not a whistleblower].

No, that is the experience of several other whistlblowers

Which whistleblowers would that be?

Aah, the thought-stooping "conspiracy theory" phrase. Sad.

No, the thought-stooping fallacy would be the insertion of infalsifiable conspiracy theories in a rape case.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Not true. They can question Assange anywhere in the world if they want to.

Really? I guess Sweden isn't in the world then....

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

Ah, are you talking about extraditing from Sweden to the US again? If so, I'm still waiting for an answer to this from a coupe of pages back:

Terribly sorry, I got caught up in this mess PhantomWolf initiated.

Extradite from Sweden: Needs permission from Sweden & UK.
Extradite from UK: Needs permission only from UK.

Where is our disagreement in this?

So, I've asked you before and you haven't answered, here is the question again - how would the US/Sweden treaty in your opinion overrule the EAW?

14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812 assumes all other exceeding legal avenues are followed; the United Kingdom arrests Assange under the authority of European Arrest Warrant... transfers him to Sweden, the issuing Member State, per the terms European Arrest Warrant... whose judicial authority could extradite him to the United States, upon permission from the executing Member State, the United Kingdom, whose Secretary of State has the power to grant, according to the Extradition Act 2003.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

Which clearly states that the receiving nation cannot further extradite the accused to a non-EU country without the permission of the sending country, something I and others have been saying since the start of their thread.

From my post, number 1669:

According to 28(4), "Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person."

Thus, in order for the issuing Member State (Sweden) to extradite to a third State (the United States of America), a high-level authority from the executing Member State (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) would need to consent to the process. - me​

Where is that one quote again?

I know you have reading issues... - PhantomWolf​

 

[Here_to_learn]

Extradite from Sweden: Needs permission from Sweden & UK.
Extradite from UK: Needs permission only from UK.

Where is our disagreement in this?

Well, you have previously posted this:

Of the two countries, Sweden facilitates his extradition to the United States the quickest and easiest, through the "Temporary Surrender" clause in Article VI of 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812.
[...]
If the United States does want to extradite him, Sweden is the better choice over the United Kingdom, as mentioned above, per the "Temporary Surrender" clause in Article VI of 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812, a clause which the United States does not have in their treaty with Britain.

So, if Sweden still has to ask UK for permission, why would it be better/quicker/easier for the US to go via Sweden?

 

[uke2se]

He wasn't

No, he wasn't. He was rather scared of Swedish authorities after being suspected for rape.

Where does this definition come from and how is it relevant to the allegations against Assange?

It's my paraphrasing of a judgement made by the High Court based on English law. It is relevant as that's what Assange is accused of.

Seems like like a number of people posting here know already...

You seem rather sure, true. You ought not be, though.

Not true. They can question Assange anywhere in the world if they want to.

Not true for this type of questioning that can lead to a charge, which is only possible on Swedish soil. Do try to keep up, Jane.

Why not? He's been granted political asylum. Get used to it!

Non sequitur. He's already in prison. Get used to it!

Strange question, perhaps rooted in willful ignorance! See other thread on this topic for plenty of examples.

None of those are examples of what Assange did.

I don't know the complete list. Start with Craig Murray and Janis Karpinski.

They are both in prison now, right? Oh wai...

It's no more of a conspiracy theory than is alleging that Assange is rapist.

That's not a conspiracy theory though, Jane. Words mean stuff. Get used to it!

 

[WildCat]

Which it won't be because that would turn a stalemate into a crisis. Assange won't stay there for ever and he's not getting out in a 'diplomatic bag', so why should the UK do anything rash and hasty?

Oh it's fine by me if spends the rest of his life in that small embassy rather than face the rape charge.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

So, if Sweden still has to ask UK for permission, why would it be better/quicker/easier for the US to go via Sweden?

Ah, ok, I see what you are asking now. The "Temporary Surrender" clause in Article VI of 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812 would allow the United States government to avoid this type of situation from occurring with Assange, if they were to request extradition.

Janis Sharp, his mother, said the further delay was "morally wrong" as McKinnon, 46, could not cope any longer after a 10-year campaign against his extradition. "She should have a little bit of compassion and make a decision now. It is absolutely ruining everybody's life. She could make a decision before the Olympics."​

 

[JihadJane]

“In December 2001 Swedish police detained Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden. The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P. They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured”

wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden

 

[uke2se]

“In December 2001 Swedish police detained Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden. The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P. They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured”

wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden

Don't you remember, Jane? This has already been discussed. Sweden was soundly critiziced by Amnesty and the UN for their repatriation (as opposed to extradition) of these men. It was a huge affair here.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Ah, ok, I see what you are asking now. The "Temporary Surrender" clause in Article VI of 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812 would allow the United States government to avoid this type of situation from occurring with Assange.

Ah, ok. So what you mean is that if US had planned everything, and set JA up in Sweden, and managed to get him arrested, they could potentially get him quicker from Sweden, compared to if they had orchestrated the exact same situation in the UK.

But, since he is in the UK, being extradited to Sweden (well, if...) all that is irrelevant, since in the current situation the UK would be involved regardless. So at this stage, there is nothing that would say that the extradition from UK to Sweden in any way would make it easier to extradite onward to the US.

 

[BenBurch]

This isn't entirely correct either. Part of the reason he set up the conference in Sweden and applied for residency is that he was worried that after the Wikileaks releases the US would come after him and it'd be easier to get to him in the UK.

Then he flees to the UK?

Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[eirik]

Where does this definition come from and how is it relevant to the allegations against Assange?

Swedish law. The Swedish rape-article, Brottsbalkens chapter 6:

http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19620700.HTM

1 § Den som genom misshandel eller annars med våld eller genom hot om brottslig gärning tvingar en person till samlag eller till att företa eller tåla en annan sexuell handling som med hänsyn till kränkningens art och omständigheterna i övrigt är jämförlig med samlag, döms för våldtäkt till fängelse i lägst två och högst sex år.
Detsamma gäller den som med en person genomför ett samlag eller en sexuell handling som enligt första stycket är jämförlig med samlag genom att otillbörligt utnyttja att personen på grund av medvetslöshet, sömn, berusning eller annan drogpåverkan, sjukdom, kroppsskada eller psykisk störning eller annars med hänsyn till omständigheterna befinner sig i ett hjälplöst tillstånd.
Är ett brott som avses i första eller andra stycket med hänsyn till omständigheterna vid brottet att anse som mindre grovt, döms för våldtäkt till fängelse i högst fyra år.
Är brott som avses i första eller andra stycket att anse som grovt, döms för grov våldtäkt till fängelse i lägst fyra och högst tio år. Vid bedömande av om brottet är grovt skall särskilt beaktas, om våldet eller hotet varit av särskilt allvarlig art eller om fler än en förgripit sig på offret eller på annat sätt deltagit i övergreppet eller om gärningsmannen med hänsyn till tillvägagångssättet eller annars visat särskild hänsynslöshet eller råhet. Lag (2005:90).

What do you disagree with in particular? Have fun.

Not true. They can question Assange anywhere in the world if they want to.

No, the police does not let the indicted set the rules, nor do they chase people around the globe when they simply can have him extradited.

Why not? He's been granted political asylum. Get used to it!

Yeah, he's sleeping on an air matrass in an office in the embassy. Hope he gets used to it if he wants to enjoy the asylum of the human rights-loving Equadorian authorities.

 

[kmortis]

The topic of this thread is NOT the other posters, who reported what, or anything other than what the title says it is. Keep it on topic. Keep it civil or you all will be sent to your rooms without any dinner.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Dcdrac]

Possible solution Assange agrees to go to a nuetral country to be questioned by the Swesdish Authorites if there is a case to answer he goes into their custody, if there is not he goes free.

 

[eirik]

Possible solution Assange agrees to go to a nuetral country to be questioned by the Swesdish Authorites if there is a case to answer he goes into their custody, if there is not he goes free.

Why not just go to Sweden. Are you suggesting they are not neutral?

 

[uke2se]

Possible solution Assange agrees to go to a nuetral country to be questioned by the Swesdish Authorites if there is a case to answer he goes into their custody, if there is not he goes free.

Doesn't work. Only solution: UK authorities arrest Assange, he is extradited to Sweden to face coming charges. Any other cause of events makes a mockery of the legal process and the concept of equality before the law.

 

[barium]

Possible solution Assange agrees to go to a nuetral country to be questioned by the Swesdish Authorites if there is a case to answer he goes into their custody, if there is not he goes free.

If there wasn't a case I doubt his lawyers would have went with the "what he did wasn't rape in the UK" defence during the extradition hearings.

 

[Joey McGee]

Oh it's fine by me if spends the rest of his life in that small embassy rather than face the rape charge.

I disagree. Like most delinquent adolescents he'll only really feel punished when you take away his internet connection.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

Ah, ok. So what you mean is that if US had planned everything, and set JA up in Sweden, and managed to get him arrested, they could potentially get him quicker from Sweden, compared to if they had orchestrated the exact same situation in the UK.

That is how I interpret the legislation involved.

But, since he is in the UK, being extradited to Sweden (well, if...) all that is irrelevant, since in the current situation the UK would be involved regardless. So at this stage, there is nothing that would say that the extradition from UK to Sweden in any way would make it easier to extradite onward to the US.

Again, correct. At this point, we simply don't know how the British would respond to a judicial request from your country's court system, whether they would mull over it, or grant it. I would lean towards the latter, considering their initial response to the actions of the Republic of Ecuador a few days ago, but that is merely speculation.

Fun fact, my political science professor and mentor lived in the same apartment unit as President Rafael Correa while he attended the University of Illinois.

Furthermore, I also discovered these incredibly interestingitems of interest:

Some countries are not required to provide prima facie evidence in support of their request for extradition. These countries are:

Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Macedonia FYR, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States of America.​

Where a case is sent to the Secretary of State she must consider whether surrender is prohibited because:

there are no speciality arrangements with the requesting country: The condition of “speciality” requires that the person must be dealt with in the requesting state only for the offences in respect of which the person is extradited (except in certain limited circumstances)​