Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[bit_pattern]

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.

Actually, no, he cannot be extradited from the UK as Wikileaks has not committed an offence under UK law.

 

[WildCat]

Actually, no, he cannot be extradited from the UK as Wikileaks has not committed an offence under UK law.

It's not clear he committed an offense under US law either, unless he paid for the material which was leaked and there's no evidence of that.

I really don't see the US attempting to extradite Assange, and I suspect Assange knows this as well. He's just trying to avoid getting tried for rape, and playing the martyr for his deluded supporters.

 

[Korren]

Actually, no, he cannot be extradited from the UK as Wikileaks has not committed an offence under UK law.

Well, yes -- but that goes for Swedish law too. The point is that if The People In Charge wanted to bend the laws in order to ship Assange to the USA where he could be tried and summarily executed by secret CIA tribunals (or something along those lines) there would _still_ be no point in first extraditing him to Sweden. It wouldn't make anything easier for anyone.

If people worried about Assange being whisked from the street by CIA operatives and shipped to Gitmo for internment, then at least you could understand where they're coming from -- there's a plausible (if not necessarily realistic) chain of cause and effect there. But for what people actually say they're worried about when it comes to Assange's extradition to sweden, there's this disjoint in their chain of reasoning that just doesn't make sense. "The People In Charge don't care about their own laws -- so we can not apply the laws to Assange or bad things will happen to him!"

Really, if The People In Charge were able and willing to ignore laws to get at Assange, being extradited to Sweden should be the least of his worries.

 

[nathan]

... there would _still_ be no point in first extraditing him to Sweden. It wouldn't make anything easier for anyone.

well, they could claim the plane got lost on the way and accidentally landed in the USA

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's not clear he committed an offense under US law either, unless he paid for the material which was leaked and there's no evidence of that.

I really don't see the US attempting to extradite Assange, and I suspect Assange knows this as well. He's just trying to avoid getting tried for rape, and playing the martyr for his deluded supporters.

That only makes sense if you buy the story that absolutely nothing about the charges are politically motivated.

If Assange has grounds to think that the charges are politically motivated then he's got grounds to think firstly that he might not get a fair trial, and secondly that he might be targeted for further trouble once he's in their hands.

Speaking more generally to the thread as a whole, can we please put an end to the idiotic mantra "If the USA had it in for Assange they'd just kidnap him. The fact that he has not been kidnapped is ironclad proof that the USA has absolutely no interest whatsoever in making his life difficult in any way. In fact it proves the USA loves him and wishes him nothing but the best."? It's a hilariously silly argument.

I realise the US government has done some dumb things in its time, but do you really think that it's utterly incapable of doing a cost/benefit analysis of multiple ways of getting what it wants? I'm not attributing conspiracy-theory hypercompetence to anyone here, just minimal brain function. I think we need to remain open to the possibility someone in the US government doesn't like Assange very much, would like to make an example of Assange if it's possible and convenient, and also is not a blithering idiot.

 

[Dcdrac]

I rellay do not know if he is being set up or not at the back of my mind if he really did not rape anyone why run like he has?

 

[lionking]

I rellay do not know if he is being set up or not at the back of my mind if he really did not rape anyone why run like he has?

Catch up then, because he didn't "run" anywhere.

 

[Korren]

Catch up then, because he didn't "run" anywhere.

The lazy bastard!

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I rellay do not know if he is being set up or not at the back of my mind if he really did not rape anyone why run like he has?

Catch up then, because he didn't "run" anywhere.

I'm sure we can get a few pages of pedantic nitpicking about what exactly constitutes running out of this, but I'm happy to include claiming political asylum in an embassy in the definition.

 

[theprestige]

Catch up then, because he didn't "run" anywhere.

He was in Sweden, he made an appointment to talk to Swedish prosecutors, and then he missed his appointment and ended up in the UK.

Yeah, he ran. He ran like Forrest Gump. If Forrest Gump were a douchebag. Who runs.

 

[Here_to_learn]

That only makes sense if you buy the story that absolutely nothing about the charges are politically motivated.

If Assange has grounds to think that the charges are politically motivated then he's got grounds to think firstly that he might not get a fair trial, and secondly that he might be targeted for further trouble once he's in their hands.

That does not automatically follow.

If you buy one of the stories that the charges are politically motivated, you still have explain which one, and how they relate.

Some stories make the political motivation out to be some kind of radical feminist agenda, some stories claim a US connection to the people involved.

If we for example buy the story that the prosecutor, together with the lawyer for the women, and the courts that have been involved all are some kind of radical feminists, and therefor want to punish/make an example of JA, that does not automatically lead to that JA would be in for any further trouble one he is extradited to Sweden.

For that you also would need a second "story" of either Sweden, or a combination of Sweden and UK to break the law for JA to be sent on to the US.

 

[EHocking]

Huh? What is Sweden's dog in this fight?

It is merely my personal opinion that the bringing of charges against Assange in Sweden were "helped" by Swedish authorities being influenced by outside parties, i.e., the US.

I could be wrong, I'm probably wrong.
The women may well have decided to repursue their grievances against Assange without any outside influence at all.

 

[lionking]

That does not automatically follow.

If you buy one of the stories that the charges are politically motivated, you still have explain which one, and how they relate.

Some stories make the political motivation out to be some kind of radical feminist agenda, some stories claim a US connection to the people involved.

If we for example buy the story that the prosecutor, together with the lawyer for the women, and the courts that have been involved all are some kind of radical feminists, and therefor want to punish/make an example of JA, that does not automatically lead to that JA would be in for any further trouble one he is extradited to Sweden.

For that you also would need a second "story" of either Sweden, or a combination of Sweden and UK to break the law for JA to be sent on to the US.

Oh come off it. Do you seriously think that Sweden would go to these lengths simply to interview someone who hasn't been charged with anything, and with a very flimsy "he said, she said" narrative supporting prosecution, if it wasn't Assange? That's simply naive. This whole thing is totally political, and Sweden does not come out of this looking good.

Unless, of course, you can point to any precedents.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Oh come off it. Do you seriously think that Sweden would go to these lengths simply to interview someone who hasn't been charged with anything, and with a very flimsy "he said, she said" narrative supporting prosecution, if it wasn't Assange? That's simply naive.

If this case was simply about interviewing JA, that could be relevant. Since it's not about that, your post is irrelevant.

This whole thing is totally political,

That's your opinion of course, but you still have to explain which "political" story you claim, is it the feminist one, or the US connections one, or both, or some combination of it, or maybe something else?

and Sweden does not come out of this looking good.

There we agree, there has been a lot of bad press, and a lot of criticism being sent around, some of it motivated.

Unless, of course, you can point to any precedents.

Precedents for what exactly? That a person is "häktad" before he is "åtalad" (indicted)? As has been explaned several times, that is common practice in Sweden. As has been pointing out, Sweden has been criticized to overuse of communications restrictions for people detained, so it should be pretty obvious that there are precedents...

 

[bit_pattern]

It's not clear he committed an offense under US law either, unless he paid for the material which was leaked and there's no evidence of that.

I really don't see the US attempting to extradite Assange, and I suspect Assange knows this as well. He's just trying to avoid getting tried for rape, and playing the martyr for his deluded supporters.

Do you dismiss the Stratfor emails out of hand?

 

[lionking]

If this case was simply about interviewing JA, that could be relevant. Since it's not about that, your post is irrelevant.

edit

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh come off it. Do you seriously think that Sweden would go to these lengths simply to interview someone who hasn't been charged with anything, and with a very flimsy "he said, she said" narrative supporting prosecution, if it wasn't Assange? That's simply naive. This whole thing is totally political, and Sweden does not come out of this looking good.

Unless, of course, you can point to any precedents.

As has been pointed out he can't be charged unless he is there to be charged. For him to be there they need to Extradite him as he did a runner

 

[nathan]

Oh come off it. Do you seriously think that Sweden would go to these lengths simply to interview someone who hasn't been charged with anything,

Sweden has shown that *right now* they have enough to charge him. That's one of the necessary conditions of winning the extradition. The interviewing-prior-to-charge is how the Swedish system works. If JA declines to say anything at interview, (I presume) Sweden's obligated to charge him.

I do not know whether Sweden's system has a right to silence similar to USA's 5th amendment, or more similar to the UK's (where silence can limit your defences in court).

 

[JihadJane]

Speaking more generally to the thread as a whole, can we please put an end to the idiotic mantra "If the USA had it in for Assange they'd just kidnap him. The fact that he has not been kidnapped is ironclad proof that the USA has absolutely no interest whatsoever in making his life difficult in any way. In fact it proves the USA loves him and wishes him nothing but the best."? It's a hilariously silly argument.

Indeed. It's an extraordinarily infantile "analysis" but, more alarming still, it's possible that its promoters actually believe it! Probably because they believe that it is ontologically possible for "us" to take political prisoners, because "we" are the good guys.

Well, yes -- but that goes for Swedish law too. The point is that if The People In Charge wanted to bend the laws in order to ship Assange to the USA where he could be tried and summarily executed by secret CIA tribunals (or something along those lines) there would _still_ be no point in first extraditing him to Sweden. It wouldn't make anything easier for anyone.

If people worried about Assange being whisked from the street by CIA operatives and shipped to Gitmo for internment, then at least you could understand where they're coming from -- there's a plausible (if not necessarily realistic) chain of cause and effect there. But for what people actually say they're worried about when it comes to Assange's extradition to sweden, there's this disjoint in their chain of reasoning that just doesn't make sense. "The People In Charge don't care about their own laws -- so we can not apply the laws to Assange or bad things will happen to him!"

It's been pointed out to you but you just dismissed it as "nonsense". There's your disjoint!

Really, if The People In Charge were able and willing to ignore laws to get at Assange, being extradited to Sweden should be the least of his worries.

Two infantile straw men and one argument from incredulity in one post. Good going!

 

[barium]

I do not know whether Sweden's system has a right to silence similar to USA's 5th amendment, or more similar to the UK's (where silence can limit your defences in court).

More like the US I'd say. The courts will not hold silence during pre-trial interrogations against you.