Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[JihadJane]

Assange is not being extradited to the USA. Assange is not being prosecuted in US courts, he has not been accused of anything in US courts, he is not wanted by US legal authorities.

This case has nothing to do with the USA, except, possibly, in the minds of people who are either paranoid or whose understanding of the case is already bound to an established narrative.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

It is very clear that there are powerful elements in the US which are out to get Assange, including wanting to kill him.

If he is offered assylum it will have everything to do with the risk of him being extradited to the USA and subjected US kangaroo justice and the brutal treatment that the authorities is known to hand out to political dissidents (e.g. indefinite imprisonment without trial, state-sanctioned assassination, torture, death penalty).

It means that we shouldn't be letting some pretend country mug us off. Give them a chance to come out quietly before sending the army in

Might makes right?

Imperialism?

Invade the USA?

What are you on about?

 

[Korren]

He's not wanted for a common crime. He's wanted for questioning about allegations that were made after the case against him had been declared by Swedish authorities to be without merit, allowing to freely leave Sweden.

This is wrong on pretty much all accounts. He's wanted for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The case against him was never found to be without merit by Swedish authorities (an early arrest warrant was withdrawn, but that's not the same thing), and at the time Assange left Sweden he was quite aware that there was an ongoing criminal investigation against him and that he had a second interview scheduled with the Swedish police which he would have to return for. It was only after Assange failed to turn up for this second interview that Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for him.

Protecting someone from the likelihood of torture and murder (US justice system) is a very strong diplomatic position.

It would be if it wasn't completely without merit in this case.

 

[Korren]

It is very clear that there are powerful elements in the US which are out to get Assange, including wanting to kill him.

It's also clear that that's completely irrelevant to his extradition to Sweden.

 

[lionking]

Never thought I would agree with Jihad Jane, but Assange is being stitched up. I have no doubt he would be extradited to the US if he is sent to Sweden.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Plus he is wanted in the UK for breaking his bail conditions and not surrendering himself.

 

[Korren]

Never thought I would agree with Jihad Jane, but Assange is being stitched up. I have no doubt he would be extradited to the US if he is sent to Sweden.

That's silly.

First of all, due to the way the European extradition agreement work, if he's first extradited from the UK to Sweden then he can only be extradited from Sweden to a third country with consent from the UK.

Secondly, the extradition agreements between the UK and USA are more liberal (i.e. requires a lower legal standard before extradition can occur) than the ones between Sweden and the USA: even without the added hurdle mentioned above of the UK having to give permission, it would be more difficult to extradite him to the USA from Sweden than it would be to extradite him to the USA from the UK.

Thirdly, extradition requires that the alleged crime is also punishable in the country the person is extradited from. Sweden has some of, perhaps even the, world's most far-reaching legal protection of the freedom of the press and of journalistic sources -- this was why Assange wanted to get Swedish citizenship in first place. Sweden might be the worst possible country to try and get an extradition related to Wikileak publishing from.

The idea that Sweden would just be a stop-over for a one-way trip to the USA for Assang makes no sense. If the USA wanted to have Assange extradited to them, it would be a lot easier and more likely to succeed to try and have him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Moving him from UK jurisdiction to Swedish jurisdiction wouldn't make anything easier for the USA -- instead they'd need cooperation of two countries instead of just one.

 

[psionl0]

That's silly.

First of all, due to the way the European extradition agreement work . . .

The only thing I will say on this matter is that it seems weird that someone could be extradited for "questioning" ie without being charged with a crime.

Normally the country requesting extradition would have to charge the person with a crime and extradition would only go ahead if the alleged offence is also an offence in the host country.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The only thing I will say on this matter is that it seems weird that someone could be extradited for "questioning" ie without being charged with a crime.

Normally the country requesting extradition would have to charge the person with a crime and extradition would only go ahead if the alleged offence is also an offence in the host country.

If I remember the passage from the UK courts proceedings, the requirement is that someone is extradited for being a "accused person", which he is, and the basis for dual criminality is also met.

On 2nd November 2011
, the High Court dismissed the appeal, pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the 2003 Act. The Court held that:

[...]

b. The offences in the EAW did meet the dual criminality requirement, having regard to ss.74, 75 and 76 of the SexualOffences Act 2003 (§§55-127);

c. The Applicant was an “accused” person, applying the House of Lords’ decision in Re Ismail [1999] 1 AC 320 (§§128-154);

(Assuming you meant the extradition to Sweden, and not anything else)

 

[Korren]

The only thing I will say on this matter is that it seems weird that someone could be extradited for "questioning" ie without being charged with a crime.

In the Swedish legal system, they complete the investigation and then decide if any charges should be made -- there is a legal requirement that trial must be held within two weeks of charges being laid. Also, Swedish law requires that a person is physically present before charges can be laid against them.

 

[bit_pattern]

First of all, due to the way the European extradition agreement work, if he's first extradited from the UK to Sweden then he can only be extradited from Sweden to a third country with consent from the UK.

Who makes that decision? The judiciary or the legislature? Either way, that wouldn't be a particularly comforting thought. The UK aren't exactly batting for him.

 

[Korren]

Who makes that decision? The judiciary or the legislature?

I would assume the judiciary, but I honestly don't know.

Either way, that wouldn't be a particularly comforting thought. The UK aren't exactly batting for him.

Maybe not, but if the UK wants him extradited to the USA, it makes no sense to first extradite him to Sweden. That's would just be a pointless complication that wouldn't make anything easier.

 

[JihadJane]

That's silly.

First of all, due to the way the European extradition agreement work, if he's first extradited from the UK to Sweden then he can only be extradited from Sweden to a third country with consent from the UK.

Secondly, the extradition agreements between the UK and USA are more liberal (i.e. requires a lower legal standard before extradition can occur) than the ones between Sweden and the USA: even without the added hurdle mentioned above of the UK having to give permission, it would be more difficult to extradite him to the USA from Sweden than it would be to extradite him to the USA from the UK.

Thirdly, extradition requires that the alleged crime is also punishable in the country the person is extradited from. Sweden has some of, perhaps even the, world's most far-reaching legal protection of the freedom of the press and of journalistic sources -- this was why Assange wanted to get Swedish citizenship in first place. Sweden might be the worst possible country to try and get an extradition related to Wikileak publishing from.

The idea that Sweden would just be a stop-over for a one-way trip to the USA for Assang makes no sense. If the USA wanted to have Assange extradited to them, it would be a lot easier and more likely to succeed to try and have him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Moving him from UK jurisdiction to Swedish jurisdiction wouldn't make anything easier for the USA -- instead they'd need cooperation of two countries instead of just one.

Both Sweden and the UK willingly participated in the USA's trans-national abduction and torture program. There is no reason to trust their integrity when it comes to not supplicating themselves to the demands of US State criminality. The US is a powerful rogue state, contemptuous of international law and human rights, and able to bi-pass international agreements with impunity.

Assange would be much more isolated from legal and other support once inside the Swedish justice system.


ETA: "...Sweden doesn't have bail, doesn't have money bail for foreigners, so he's likely to be held in custody. He is likely to be held in Gothenburg Prison, which has been criticised, condemned by the European Commission against Torture for the way it treats its foreign prisoners.

I think more importantly, he's going to be tried in secret, and this is outrageous by our standards and by any standards. It'll be secret justice. They hold rape trials customarily in secret."

- International human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC

'Assange would not face fair trial: Robertson'

 

[DrDave]

Both Sweden and the UK willingly participated in the USA's abduction and torture program. There is no reason to trust their integrity when it comes to supplicating themselves to the demands of US State criminality. The US is a powerful rogue state, contemptuous of international law and human rights, and able to bi-pass international agreements with impunity.

Assange would be much more isoated from legal and other support once inside the Swedish justice system.

Cool story bro

 

[Korren]

Assange would be much more isoated from legal and other support once inside the Swedish justice system.

Nonsense.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I would assume the judiciary, but I honestly don't know.

Found this:

If he fears that the Swedish prosecutor is merely a cat’s paw for the US government, who will demand his extradition when he arrives in Sweden, he has to take account of Section 58 of our Extradition Act 2003: if the Swedes want to extradite him to the USA, they have to obtain the consent of the British Home Secretary first. That rule derives from Article 28 of the 2002 EU Council Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA), which binds the Swedish government. After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government. But neither Sweden and the UK will extradite anyone to a country where the accused is in peril of the death sentence if convicted of an offence, or where prison conditions are so bad as to breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’).

ETA: Added bold to above quote.

 

[JihadJane]

Nonsense.

No it's not (see addendum to my post).

It would be if it wasn't completely without merit in this case.

Why do you think that?

Cool story bro

Why do you say that, sista?

 

[DreadNiK]

I don't care about the specifics of this case, but I'm amazed we (UK) are even considering violating embassy sovereignty - surely that's a very slippery slope to even put a toe on?

If you have enough reason to want to arrest someone, then you make sure they don't get to a foreign embassy, or it is tough luck. If you want to revoke the embassy's diplomatic status, even then you should still give them time to pack up their s*** and leave, and if they take an aslyum seeker with them, again, it is tough luck

Or have I just seen too many movies and TV programmes where they are desperately racing to get someone into the US embassy of a foreign country? (i.e. Red Corner?)

 

[BenBurch]

So Assange is going to be ... But Assange is aiming for life...] That would make me happy every single day.

 

[BenBurch]

Never thought I would agree with Jihad Jane, but Assange is being stitched up. I have no doubt he would be extradited to the US if he is sent to Sweden.

Bet you a C-note.

ETA: That wouldn't be fair, because I have been told it's not happening.

 

[BenBurch]

Plus he is wanted in the UK for breaking his bail conditions and not surrendering himself.

And will come back from Sweden to the UK automatically as a result.

Where he WILL be convicted and WILL serve time.