Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[uke2se]

Right, this is what is what people have been insinuating. If the United States wanted to get a hold on Assange, they would do so through collusion with Swedish authorities and taking advantage of the legal system. There will never be a legal context in which a CIA SAD operation (for example) invades allied foreign territory to expropriate not only a non-US citizen, but now a person under political asylum from a third-party, against his will.

So, why not do this with the UK instead?

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

Shock! Horror! One month before the election Hugo de Chavez announces only that he has captured a guy who has confesed only to being a former US Marine and nothing else. Not even his name {cough}Marinus van der Lubbe {/cough}.

August 18th --> October 7th --> one month --> wait

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

So, why not do this with the UK instead?

Why not put special operations units in the UK? I think the same situation of foreign soil, non-US citizen, etc. applies...

 

[rwguinn]

Isn't preemptive outrage fun?

 

[Noztradamus]

Shock! Horror! One month before the election Hugo de Chavez announces only that he has captured a guy who has confesed only to being a former US Marine and nothing else. Not even his name {cough}Marinus van der Lubbe {/cough}.

mea culpa I meant two months

That said

August 18th --> October 7th --> one month --> wait

August 10th Hugo announces his August surprise to October 7th elections = approximately two months

You USAians are so provincial. There is a world out there you know, it's not always about you

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

You USAians are so provincial. There is a world out there you know, it's not always about you

I don't live in the US.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The addition of the European Union complicates law within European countries immensely, however, I picked this up from a reading of the full text of European Arrest Warrant.

I'm probably not good enough in reading legal text, but are you saying that that text would allow SWE to extradite to the US without asking UK for permission?

I am unaware that it is lawful in any context for the United States government to secretly collude with or coerce international court systems to extradite to the US persons of interest. That is the concern.

No, agreed, that was not what I meant. What I meant was that if the US sends a lawful extradition request, and both UK and SWE finds that it satisfies the relevant laws, he should be extradited.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I would agree with these statements, I find nothing wrong with your analysis. What I find supremely annoying is the attitude displayed by many here who somehow witnessed Julian Assange rape two Swedish women when he has not been found guilty by anyone other than the finger-warriors of the Internet. It's also immensely annoying having to read through tons of trolls absentmindedly stating that the United States government has no interest in Assange, and that he is merely looking to skip out on a sexual assault trial (when he hasn't been formally charged.)

I kind of agree, but here are some facts:

An arrest warrant is issued, based on what's called "probably cause", and according to the prosecution, he will be charged unless he during the interview offers new information.

He is a fugitive in the UK, since he broke his bail conditions.

US has not officially charged or or even asked for an extradition - in fact as you say he hasn't formally been charged in Sweden, but his arrest has been ordered. That is at least one step more that the US.

Regardless of the reason for him running, he is in fact running away from justice in Sweden. JA (and others) might believe that his reason makes sense, but that doesn't change the basic fact that the result is not being brought to justice in Sweden.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

I'm probably not good enough in reading legal text, but are you saying that that text would allow SWE to extradite to the US without asking UK for permission?

No, Articles 27 and 28 of the European Arrest Warrant details exceptions to the policy that the "requested person" may not be extradited to a "third State."

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.

Which is where 58(1) and 58(2) from the Extradition Act 2003 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom come into play,
"(1)This section applies if—
(a)a person is extradited to a category 1 territory (the requesting territory) in accordance with this Part;
(b)the Secretary of State receives a request for consent to the person’s extradition to a category 2 territory for an offence;
(c)the request is certified under this section by the designated authority.
(2)The designated authority may certify a request for consent under this section if it believes that the authority making the request—
(a)is a judicial authority of the requesting territory, and
(b)has the function of making requests for the consent referred to in subsection (1)(b) in that territory.
(3)A certificate under subsection (2) must certify that the authority making the request falls within paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection."

This interpretation essentially grants authority to the "Secretary of State" to extradite to a "category 2 territory" (a non-European Union State that has an extradition treaty with the United Kingdom) for the specific designations, ones pertaining to the discussion listed.

I kind of agree, but here are some facts:

An arrest warrant is issued, based on what's called "probably cause", and according to the prosecution, he will be charged unless he during the interview offers new information.

He is a fugitive in the UK, since he broke his bail conditions.

US has not officially charged or or even asked for an extradition - in fact as you say he hasn't formally been charged in Sweden, but his arrest has been ordered. That is at least one step more that the US.

Regardless of the reason for him running, he is in fact running away from justice in Sweden. JA (and others) might believe that his reason makes sense, but that doesn't change the basic fact that the result is not being brought to justice in Sweden.

I'm aware of the situation, and I completely agree, but it's easy to sit behind a computer monitor and say he should face his accusers when there is a possibility he could be extradited to the United States to officially face who knows what, unofficially charges of espionage. The United States would be showing its cards if it indicted or asked for extradition before Sweden has a chance to charge him. And I'll finish by noting if any one of us were in the same situation we'd each chuck the deuces to the Swedish courts as well.

 

[Here_to_learn]

No, Articles 27 and 28 of the European Arrest Warrant details exceptions to the policy that the "requested person" may not be extradited to a "third State." .

Thank you - that was what I had understood also. So legally it's certainly not easier to extradite to the US if he's in Sweden compared to if the same request would have been made to the UK.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I'm aware of the situation, and I completely agree, but it's easy to sit behind a computer monitor and say he should face his accusers when there is a possibility he could be extradited to the United States to officially face who knows what, unofficially charges of espionage.

Sure he could, but going to Sweden would make that extradition harder, not easier.

And I'll finish by noting if any one of us were in the same situation we'd each chuck the deuces to the Swedish courts as well.

And if we, when trying to avoid the courts, used a reasoning that is wrong, we should be called on it.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

Sure he could, but going to Sweden would make that extradition harder, not easier.

The difficulty with extraditing him from the United Kingdom is that per the European Arrest Warrant, Britain is legally obligated to arrest him and extradite him directly to Sweden. From my reading, the European Arrest Warrant in no way allows the UK to transfer Assange to the United States.

Another factor involved is one we have witnessed over the past couple of days, is that public opinion regarding Assange is much more positive than Sweden (which you could no doubt, probably confirm.) In the case of extradition to the US from the UK, my understanding is that the people would be absolutely livid if they witnessed their authority figures bowing down to the wishes of the United States government.

And if we, when trying to avoid the courts, used a reasoning that is wrong, we should be called on it.

That still isn't going to make me do it, though.

 

[Korren]

And I'll finish by noting if any one of us were in the same situation we'd each chuck the deuces to the Swedish courts as well.

Challenge the extradition in the UK courts? Possibly, depending on what legal advice I was given. Jump bail to seek political asylum in Ecuador? No.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

Challenge the extradition in the UK courts? Possibly, depending on what legal advice I was given. Jump bail to seek political asylum in Ecuador? No.

You're quite noble from behind your computer screen.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The difficulty with extraditing him from the United Kingdom is that per the European Arrest Warrant, Britain is legally obligated to arrest him and extradite him directly to Sweden. From my reading, the European Arrest Warrant in no way allows the UK to transfer Assange to the United States.

In the current situation yes, but it doesn't help the argument that the rape accusations in Swe is a honey trap designed to get him to Swe for onwards transport to the US.

Another factor involved is one we have witnessed over the past couple of days, is that public opinion regarding Assange is much more positive than Sweden (which you could no doubt, probably confirm.)

In certain groups on the Internet - absolutely. Among the general public I have no idea. If Assange is mentioned at all with people I meet here in Sweden, I'd say that most people just thinks he should stop ********ting and getting here to face justice.

In the case of extradition to the US from the UK, my understanding is that the people would be absolutely livid if they witnessed their authority figures bowing down to the wishes of the United States government.

Yes, that I believe - most probably here in Sweden also. Which is why I think it would take an extremely clear cut case from the US for a Swedish politician to grant an extradition request from the US.

 

[Korren]

You're quite noble from behind your computer screen.

Oh, come on. It's not like seeking political asylum to prevent being extradited to Sweden, of all places, is a commonplace legal strategy. It's farcial.

 

[BenBurch]

He knows what he did, and he is manipulating his few remaining supporters to keep him from having to go back to sweden. What he fears most is obviously the STD test.

 

[Moss]

He knows what he did, and he is manipulating his few remaining supporters to keep him from having to go back to sweden. What he fears most is obviously the STD test.

Why would he fear that?

 

[theprestige]

Why would he fear that?

Are you asking because you don't know what an STD test is, or because you haven't been following the case?

Either way, here's one answer: Because it's something that the Swedish government might actually do to him, if he returns to Sweden.

 

[Korren]

Are you asking because you don't know what an STD test is, or because you haven't been following the case?

Either way, here's one answer: Because it's something that the Swedish government might actually do to him, if he returns to Sweden.

Why? There's no longer any reason for one; by now, any potentially transferred STD would show up in a test of the receiver -- testing the source at this point is useless. It won't tell you anything.

The whole issue of STD testing is completely irrelevant to the case. It was the reason why the two women originally went to the police -- but it's never been the reason the police or the prosecution has had for investigating or prosecuting Assange.