BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Doesn't matter. Swedish legal precedent says that the Embassy would not be acceptable no matter the status of it in international law.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Julian Assange: rapist or not?
- Thread starter egslim
- Start date
- Status
Doesn't matter. Swedish legal precedent says that the Embassy would not be acceptable no matter the status of it in international law.
That's a common misconception, but not true. Embassies are inviolate, but that is all.
Here_to_learn
Illuminator
For those interested in more details and legal analysis of a potential US extradition from Sweden, there are two blogposts worth reading.
First Mark Klamberg - a post that covers the conditions that need to be fulfilled for Sweden to grant an extradition to the US.
The second post is from Pål Wrange - this one among other things covers the temporary surrender clause.
Both lecture at the Stockholm University, on the subject of international law.
First Mark Klamberg - a post that covers the conditions that need to be fulfilled for Sweden to grant an extradition to the US.
Mark Klamberg said:
The second post is from Pål Wrange - this one among other things covers the temporary surrender clause.
Pål Wrange said:
Both lecture at the Stockholm University, on the subject of international law.
No. it doesn't. it says:
"The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her."
In fact, the "other woman" (Wilén) didn't want to report rape.
http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20110201,00.shtml
As far as we know, Wilén's testimony wasn't read back to her and she didn't sign it or approve it. The police later attempted, illegally, to alter the report.
Hasn't Assange already been arrested, in absentia? What is stopping Sweden questioning Assange anywhere in the world, if they want to?
Last edited:
nathan
Zygoticly Phased
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,477
sigh, you're repeating that untrue claim about extradition for *just* questioning.
But anyway, in addition to what others have said about whether an Embassy counts as the country's soil, let's examine this possibility from a practical POV.
If indeed the Embassy is exactly like the country, then the Swedes should be able to detain JA following questioning, while they either fact check his statements or decide to prosecute (after all, if this happened in Sweden, do you think JA'd get bail?). Wouldn't such detention be viewed as illegal confinement by the UK and/or Ecuador. If so, this'd be a clear criminal act occurring on embassy grounds and the 1987 act would allow the UK to enter. It'd be hilarious if Ecuador started asking for the UK to enter the Swedish embassy in that case
Then, should they decide to prosecute, they could have the entire court in the Embassy and if convicted and sentenced to detention, detain him there. Hm, that doesn't sound right.
Further, if it is Swedish soil, the US could presumably request extradition from Sweden the moment he enters, and as extradition from Sweden is apparently so easy, it would be granted. Now to get him from Swedish embassy to the US would require the permission of the UK, which is exactly the permission that would be needed to get him from actual Sweden itself, if he were extradited there. So, being interviewed in the Swedish embassy would not give him the protection he claims he needs under the claim that being interviewed in that embassy is equivalent to actually going to Sweden.
Wudang
BOFH
This thread would be a lot shorter if people actually read that article. It doesn't clear up everything but it covers a number of issues that people here keep bringing up. Once they stop posting noise perhaps a clearer discussion can emerge.
I have read it and it doesn't answer my question. He was arrested, in absentia, very early on in the case and then they let him go. If I am mistaken, perhaps you could point out where the article answers my question.
The section “By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press”, BTW, is full of irrelevant gobbledygook.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
That 100% BS - but I know you know you are lying.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I'm not repeating it, I'm quoting the BBC.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
No.
Like I said before, if you're this uninformed, don't butt in.
barium
Thinker
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
- Messages
- 139
The questioning he's wanted for is the one everyone about to be arrested goes through. Should Sweden have arrested him at the embassy and demanded free passage to Sweden instead of just waiting for the EAW to go through and not create a diplomatic conflict?
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
So, as per your own argument, at least one of the women claims that Assange raped her. Good. That's settled then. I'll take this as an admission that you were lying earlier when you said none of the women had claimed Assanged raped them.
Source for this illegal altering of police reports, please.
Swedish. Law.
Seriously, start reading our freaking posts.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
No. Quoting entails posting entire sentences. You are paraphrasing erroneously.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Let's look at the people Assange-apologists have uttered support for thus far in the thread:
Various dictators
A convicted kiddie fiddler
A woman who tortued POWs
The government of Ecuador with it's ****-poor record on human rights and freedom of speech
And, of course, the accused rapist himself.
Grasping at straws much?
Various dictators
A convicted kiddie fiddler
A woman who tortued POWs
The government of Ecuador with it's ****-poor record on human rights and freedom of speech
And, of course, the accused rapist himself.
Grasping at straws much?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I put the full quote there, then repeated what seemed to be the pertinent point.
I will requote what I posted before so you can tell me where I got it wrong.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I don't know if WSWS quotes them accurately, but Four Corners is not a 'tv show' it is one of the few remaining serious, investigate journalist programs on TV that can be taken seriously.
nathan
Zygoticly Phased
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,477
You do realize you had to repeat it in order to place the quote here? You didn't place any words distancing yourself from what that quote claimed, ergo, I concluded it was a claim you agreed with, and you were repeating it.
I'm now confused as to what you think, because your rebuttal to my comment that you're continuing to repeat an untrue claim, simply says 'it', apparently indicating you agree with my assessment that it's an untrue claim. Or is that just careless wording on your part, and you do think Sweden succeeded in its extradition claim because it just wanted to question JA?
ETA: And if you still think you're not repeating, what was the purpose of extracting just that quote from the BBC article and adding no additional commentary?
Last edited:
Childlike Empress
Banned
As I mentioned there is a transcript at the program's site, and also a source list, so one doesn't have to rely on WSWS' summary (which is accurate as far as I saw) even if one doesn't want to watch it. The two buttons down on the page:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm
Last edited:
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
How do you arrest someone in absentia? You can issue an arrest warrent, but that isn't arresting them, it's an order for the police to do so. You can only arrest someone when you actually physically have them so they can be brought into custody.
Here_to_learn
Illuminator
Just a comment - the discussion on if Sweden could interview JA in the UK was argued in English courts, and they came to a decision. If you would like to bring that question up again, at least start from that legal decisions and take it from there. To start from scratch and pretend that it hasn't been settled is in my opinion dishonest.
Now, if you can start from that decision and come up with a legal argument that is better than the one JAs legal team could up with, that'd be interesting. Start with Legal Myth 4 on David Allen Greens post - that one has the source links to the decisions.
Regarding if JA has already been arrested - surly it's possible to see the difference between the arrest being ordered and actually happening. Read the Agreed facts document, and you can see that arrest happened on the same day that JA left Sweden for the UK (27th), after JAs counsel had failed to reach him to setup an interview (since the 21st). He was indeed free to leave the country when he left, but the prosecution had tried to schedule an interview with him for almost a week before he left.
On oct 12th again JAs legal counsel told the prosecutor that he hadn't been able to reach JA,and the prosecutor said that she would issue an EAW unless JA attended an interview.
So no, he was not under arrest when he left, and there hasn't been an arrest warrant that was removed. However the first EAW (nov 26th) was missing information, and a second one was issued on Dec 2nd.
Now, if you can start from that decision and come up with a legal argument that is better than the one JAs legal team could up with, that'd be interesting. Start with Legal Myth 4 on David Allen Greens post - that one has the source links to the decisions.
Regarding if JA has already been arrested - surly it's possible to see the difference between the arrest being ordered and actually happening. Read the Agreed facts document, and you can see that arrest happened on the same day that JA left Sweden for the UK (27th), after JAs counsel had failed to reach him to setup an interview (since the 21st). He was indeed free to leave the country when he left, but the prosecution had tried to schedule an interview with him for almost a week before he left.
On oct 12th again JAs legal counsel told the prosecutor that he hadn't been able to reach JA,and the prosecutor said that she would issue an EAW unless JA attended an interview.
So no, he was not under arrest when he left, and there hasn't been an arrest warrant that was removed. However the first EAW (nov 26th) was missing information, and a second one was issued on Dec 2nd.
- Status