Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[DreadNiK]

I think that it's bizarre to see people who, I assure you, would have been seething if a rapist had gotten away under any other circumstances going and demonizing the victims in this case.

has he been convicted of rape? I must have missed that?

as I say I haven't paid close enough attention, the evidence might be pretty compelling and you might be pretty well justified in not being more cautious with terminology there...

 

[EHocking]

Ok - that does make me rethink a bit, otherwise theoretically Assange could pop out the embassy, shoot a passer-by and return to the embassy and still be completely safe in all scenarios (assuming Ecuador still gives him asylum), which is clearly not right.

I guess this means the specifics are actually more important than I first thought...

yeah - despite the tub thumping, I doubt the British would be foolish enough to use this Act over such a low-level crime such as breaking his bail conditions, and this is the only crime he has committed in the UK. It is quite a step away from the Ecuadorians harbouring a murderer or terrorist.

 

[BenBurch]

British law is famous for going to the mat on small matters.

 

[EHocking]

I still can't believe people are stupid enough to think it would be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK. I mean, that's just warped thinking of the worst kind.

That's because politicians are doing the thinking.

I probably would be easier for the US to extradite from the UK - but the Brits are making sure that that particular stink is not laid at their door.
Better option is to allow extradition to Sweden for a "real" crime, then sit back and let the Swedes cop the international condemnation for crumbling to the US demands.

More Herod than Pilate in this case...

 

[BenBurch]

The only way Sweden could extradict him is with an indictment or warrant.

None will be forthcoming.

 

[richardm]

Found this:

Francis FitzGibbon QC
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.

To my mind, you didn't bold the bit that's probably exercising Assange. That's the second bit that I've bolded. It's possible to imagine a scenario where the Swedes rapidly complete the investigation, conclude that there are no charges to answer, and then they're off the Article 28 hook and Assange is on the next plane across the Atlantic.

Why they can't just extradite him direct from the UK I don't know; perhaps our government thinks it would be bad politically to do that and the Swedes don't, but to extradite a rapist to Sweden doesn't have any political ramifications.

I'm fairly certain that Assange will end up in the USA at some point, but whether this is really a strategic game to get him there sooner rather than later, who knows. I certainly don't.

 

[uke2se]

not that I think it matters a lot, and I could be way off or have my timings wrong but my understanding he only started getting chased on this rape accusation AFTER the wikileaks scandal but is alleged to have committed the crime PRIOR to releasing the cables, so to any particularly paranoid/cynical observer it looks like the rape charge is by the by and the end game is to get him to USA where they can throw the book at him for revealing classified intel...

The people accusing him of rape are two volunteer wikileaks employees. There's a cause and effect issue here, it seems. Whatever the case, justice must be done, and Assange must face his accusors.

 

[uke2se]

That's because politicians are doing the thinking.

I probably would be easier for the US to extradite from the UK - but the Brits are making sure that that particular stink is not laid at their door.
Better option is to allow extradition to Sweden for a "real" crime, then sit back and let the Swedes cop the international condemnation for crumbling to the US demands.

More Herod than Pilate in this case...

But as has been explained in this thread, that wouldn't work. The UK must approve any extradition from Sweden to a third nation, and neither the UK nor Sweden can extradite someone who might face the death penalty.

 

[Aepervius]

I still can't believe people are stupid enough to think it would be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK. I mean, that's just warped thinking of the worst kind.

The man is sought for questioning in an ongoing investigation, in which he is accused of rape. People cheering Ecuador on for harboring a potential rapist is just amazing to me.

I haven't been able to check the information, but ecuador apparentely asked the involved countries , sweden, and the US that Assange would not be extradited to the US. They both apparentely refused. Then it asked sweden to come and itnerrogate Assange in UK in the embassy, which they again refused. If verified, not that I am paranoid, but why Sweden escalated the situation by refusing both things ? That story isn't as clear cut as some guy being requested for an itnerrogation about an alleged rape. Also please note that every single one of us is potentially breaking law. That does not count IMHO, innocent until proven guilty and so forth. You may think he is the msot sordid rapist ever, but legally he is not until proved guilty.

 

[nathan]

Then it asked sweden to come and itnerrogate Assange in UK in the embassy, which they again refused. If verified, not that I am paranoid, but why Sweden escalated the situation by refusing both things ? .

Perhaps because the extradition was granted for *prosecution*?

 

[Aepervius]

But as has been explained in this thread, that wouldn't work. The UK must approve any extradition from Sweden to a third nation, and neither the UK nor Sweden can extradite someone who might face the death penalty.

And as bolded above that argument do not hold water, as soonas the charge about rape are cleared one way or another.

 

[Aepervius]

Perhaps because the extradition was granted for *prosecution*?

So far as I can remember he is only wanted for questionning ins weden, not for prosecution. The prosecution is actually about jumping bail IIRC.
That still don't explain why sweden did not want to give any guaranteee to not extradite assange to the US.

 

[uke2se]

I haven't been able to check the information, but ecuador apparentely asked the involved countries , sweden, and the US that Assange would not be extradited to the US. They both apparentely refused.

Sweden didn't say they wouldn't strap him on a rocket and shoot him to the moon either. Sweden are under no obligations to make promises to Ecuador.

Then it asked sweden to come and itnerrogate Assange in UK in the embassy, which they again refused.

Swedish law doesn't allow for that.

If verified, not that I am paranoid, but why Sweden escalated the situation by refusing both things ?

As explained above. Swedish law has probably (a good case) been violated by Assange. This is not a diplomatic matter in any way other than that the UK has agreed to extradite Assange to face Swedish justice. Ecuador is interfering, disrupting both Swedish and UK justice. That is simply not acceptable.

Assange is a normal human being. He's a good self-publicist, but he's not above the law.

That story isn't as clear cut as some guy being requested for an itnerrogation about an alleged rape.

Yes, it is, or at least it would have been if Assange didn't cut and run from justice.

Also please note that every single one of us is potentially breaking law. That does not count IMHO, innocent until proven guilty and so forth.

There's a good case against Assange. Good enough that he'll likely be charged. In Sweden that means an investigation has shown his guilt. Sweden doesn't employ a jury system.

You may think he is the msot sordid rapist ever, but legally he is not until proved guilty.

Which he probably will be when extradited.

 

[uke2se]

And as bolded above that argument do not hold water, as soonas the charge about rape are cleared one way or another.

As soon as the charge about rape are cleared (which they most likely won't be. The investigation against Assange shows very probable guilt on his part), Sweden can't extradite him to the US for a crime that could result in the death penalty.

 

[uke2se]

So far as I can remember he is only wanted for questionning ins weden, not for prosecution. The prosecution is actually about jumping bail IIRC.
That still don't explain why sweden did not want to give any guaranteee to not extradite assange to the US.

The Swedish justice system is not like the US.

 

[barium]

That still don't explain why sweden did not want to give any guaranteee to not extradite assange to the US.

Because, even though the government can veto an extradition, it looks bad if they go in beforehand and tell the courts what outcome they want if the US issues a warrant. We generally don't like it when our politicians tries to influence the courts.

 

[Korren]

not that I think it matters a lot, and I could be way off or have my timings wrong but my understanding he only started getting chased on this rape accusation AFTER the wikileaks scandal but is alleged to have committed the crime PRIOR to releasing the cables, so to any particularly paranoid/cynical observer it looks like the rape charge is by the by and the end game is to get him to USA where they can throw the book at him for revealing classified intel...

Timeline:

2010-02-18 Wikileaks publishes the Reykjavik 13 cable
2010-06-25 Wikileaks published the Afghanistan documents
2010-60-30 Wikileaks publishes an encrypted "insurance" file, containing the diplomatic cables
2010-08-?? Some time in August, Assange gives David Leigh the passhprase to the encrypted file
2010-08-10 Assange arrives in Sweden
2010-08-14 Assange meets and has sex with "Miss A"
2010-08-17 Assange meets and has sex with "Miss W"
2010-08-20 The first arrest warrant for Assange is issued.
2010-08-21 The first arrest warrant is withdrawn. (But there is still an investigated in progress of the charges of sexual molestation.)
2010-09-01 Ny reopens the rape investigation and extends the investigation of the molestation claim.
2010-10-18 Assange is denied residence in Sweden
2010-10-22 Wikileaks publishes the Iraq documents
2010-11-20 The international arrest warrant is issued
2010-11-18 The first batch of redacted cables are released

(I'm not quite sure at what point Assange actually left Sweden, but I think it was sometime in mid- to late September.)

 

[Korren]

And as bolded above that argument do not hold water, as soonas the charge about rape are cleared one way or another.

Assange was already in Sweden and had in fact applied for a work and residence permit there. If they had some sinister plan to extradite him to the USA, all they had to do was grant him residency and wait for the USA to request him extradited.

 

[Korren]

So far as I can remember he is only wanted for questionning ins weden, not for prosecution. The prosecution is actually about jumping bail IIRC.

He is not formally charged with a crime yet, but that's because of the way the Swedish legal system works. They can't charge him until he's physically present. He is, however, wanted for questioning as a suspect.

That still don't explain why sweden did not want to give any guaranteee to not extradite assange to the US.

Why should they? Generally speaking, prosecutors don't let suspects set the terms under which they are arrested.

 

[Here_to_learn]

To my mind, you didn't bold the bit that's probably exercising Assange.

No, I bolded a bit that answered a question in the thread about who decides in the UK.

That's the second bit that I've bolded. It's possible to imagine a scenario where the Swedes rapidly complete the investigation, conclude that there are no charges to answer, and then they're off the Article 28 hook and Assange is on the next plane across the Atlantic.

I remember reading that there's a grace period between ending te prosecution that the extradition refers to, and being allowed to start something new, so during that time JA would be free to travel.

However, I'm on my way to a meeting right now and can't find the bookmark for that post, so I'm afraid I can't give any references right now.