Jump to content
Malkieri

Assange granted Ecuadorean Asylum

Recommended Posts

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

Does the same arrangement exist between the USA and the UK, as exists between the USA and Sweden?

 

This seemingly carte blanche "we ask you deliver" arrangement?

 

That's another concocted lie.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

 

It is much easier to extradite Assange out of England. Richard Dwyer can attest to that.

 

I asked before, and still no-one has answered... are you going to be the one who stands up and tells two women that their alleged rape is irrelevant and that St. Assange should escape all consequences of his alleged actions just because he is an editor of wikileaks?

 

Actually, it's not a lie.

 

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.

Source (was mentioned in your previously linked article).

 

I don't like linking blogs, but it is written by a British criminal defence QC, so it's probably worth something.

 

So all the Swedes have to do is conduct the trial, then afterwards swing him over to the US without reference to the UK government. All they have to do is get a guarantee that the death penalty is off the table and that he'll be held in a state-side super-max or similar (i.e. not gitmo), and that'll deal with the inevitable human rights claims. Given Sweden's complacent history of extradition to the US or it's agencies (see Ahmed Agiza & Muhammed Al-Zery), I wouldn't be surprised if the US considered a Swedish extradition easier & more expedient.

 

On your (blatently false dilemma) point of Assange escaping justice, his Swedish, British and American defence attorneys are on the record saying they want to defend the case in Sweden. I, like any sane & reasonable person, would to see justice, either for the man's reputation or for the alleged victims, done.

 

So lets assume he's guilty of rape, and sits x amount of time in jail.

 

After that Sweden would be able to deport him on an extradition order to the United States. This makes Sweden the most insanely long route for the US to go through since they could have put in an extradition order to England already since its that damned easy.

 

This is why your stupid conspiracy theories make no sense. England has a history of deporting its own citizens to the United States! Sweden might have the same history.

 

Why would the US extradite out of Sweden when it can easier do so out of England?

 

And why should Assange not face his allegations?

 

I've got a very limited interest in this, but my first thought would be because people will have forgotten about him by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

Does the same arrangement exist between the USA and the UK, as exists between the USA and Sweden?

 

This seemingly carte blanche "we ask you deliver" arrangement?

 

That's another concocted lie.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

 

It is much easier to extradite Assange out of England. Richard Dwyer can attest to that.

 

I asked before, and still no-one has answered... are you going to be the one who stands up and tells two women that their alleged rape is irrelevant and that St. Assange should escape all consequences of his alleged actions just because he is an editor of wikileaks?

 

Actually, it's not a lie.

 

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.

Source (was mentioned in your previously linked article).

 

I don't like linking blogs, but it is written by a British criminal defence QC, so it's probably worth something.

 

So all the Swedes have to do is conduct the trial, then afterwards swing him over to the US without reference to the UK government. All they have to do is get a guarantee that the death penalty is off the table and that he'll be held in a state-side super-max or similar (i.e. not gitmo), and that'll deal with the inevitable human rights claims. Given Sweden's complacent history of extradition to the US or it's agencies (see Ahmed Agiza & Muhammed Al-Zery), I wouldn't be surprised if the US considered a Swedish extradition easier & more expedient.

 

On your (blatently false dilemma) point of Assange escaping justice, his Swedish, British and American defence attorneys are on the record saying they want to defend the case in Sweden. I, like any sane & reasonable person, would to see justice, either for the man's reputation or for the alleged victims, done.

 

So lets assume he's guilty of rape, and sits x amount of time in jail.

 

After that Sweden would be able to deport him on an extradition order to the United States. This makes Sweden the most insanely long route for the US to go through since they could have put in an extradition order to England already since its that damned easy.

 

This is why your stupid conspiracy theories make no sense. England has a history of deporting its own citizens to the United States! Sweden might have the same history.

 

Why would the US extradite out of Sweden when it can easier do so out of England?

 

And why should Assange not face his allegations?

 

Fucking exactly!

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, I don't know how he could be surprised at any of this. He pissed on the biggest military power in the world and is now surprised they want his head?

 

In my opinion if you're going to create a website like WikiLeaks, you've got to be willing to make a martyr out of yourself should the US try to execute or detain you.

Thats it, i really dont know what he expected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Conspiracy to extract Assange out of Sweden when it is much easier to do so out of England, does not pass the truthyness test.

Does the same arrangement exist between the USA and the UK, as exists between the USA and Sweden?

 

This seemingly carte blanche "we ask you deliver" arrangement?

 

That's another concocted lie.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...nge-extradition

 

It is much easier to extradite Assange out of England. Richard Dwyer can attest to that.

 

I asked before, and still no-one has answered... are you going to be the one who stands up and tells two women that their alleged rape is irrelevant and that St. Assange should escape all consequences of his alleged actions just because he is an editor of wikileaks?

 

Actually, it's not a lie.

 

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.

Source (was mentioned in your previously linked article).

 

I don't like linking blogs, but it is written by a British criminal defence QC, so it's probably worth something.

 

So all the Swedes have to do is conduct the trial, then afterwards swing him over to the US without reference to the UK government. All they have to do is get a guarantee that the death penalty is off the table and that he'll be held in a state-side super-max or similar (i.e. not gitmo), and that'll deal with the inevitable human rights claims. Given Sweden's complacent history of extradition to the US or it's agencies (see Ahmed Agiza & Muhammed Al-Zery), I wouldn't be surprised if the US considered a Swedish extradition easier & more expedient.

 

On your (blatently false dilemma) point of Assange escaping justice, his Swedish, British and American defence attorneys are on the record saying they want to defend the case in Sweden. I, like any sane & reasonable person, would to see justice, either for the man's reputation or for the alleged victims, done.

 

So lets assume he's guilty of rape, and sits x amount of time in jail.

 

After that Sweden would be able to deport him on an extradition order to the United States. This makes Sweden the most insanely long route for the US to go through since they could have put in an extradition order to England already since its that damned easy.

 

This is why your stupid conspiracy theories make no sense. England has a history of deporting its own citizens to the United States! Sweden might have the same history.

 

Why would the US extradite out of Sweden when it can easier do so out of England?

 

And why should Assange not face his allegations?

 

I've got a very limited interest in this, but my first thought would be because people will have forgotten about him by then.

 

Then dont forget about him.

 

Complain about the big bad evil United States WHEN there's even a hint of an extradition order.

 

Until then St. Assange gets to be like the rest of us mortals with no guarantees of the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So lets assume he's guilty of rape, and sits x amount of time in jail.

 

After that Sweden would be able to deport him on an extradition order to the United States. This makes Sweden the most insanely long route for the US to go through since they could have put in an extradition order to England already since its that damned easy.

 

This is why your stupid conspiracy theories make no sense. England has a history of deporting its own citizens to the United States! Sweden might have the same history.

 

Why would the US extradite out of Sweden when it can easier do so out of England?

 

And why should Assange not face his allegations?

Fucking exactly!

 

+1

 

Let's assume he isn't guilty.

He get's to sweden, they talk to him for half an hour.

As there is no case against him (he's never been charged) the EWA doesn't give him any protections.

The CIA talks to the Swedish Intelligence Agency, and he's on the next plane to Cairo or Gitmo, where he can "help the US with their inquiries" for the next 10 years?

 

Your argument is based on the assumption they want to convict Assange, and that they can convict Assange.

I don't know whether they can (they decided they couldn't before).

 

As for deporting him to the US, there is going to be far less political fallout from doing so in Sweden, where he's effectively been character assassinated already.

 

But hey, call me crazy right?

I know I usually fall for all those sweet conspiracy theories.

 

Then dont forget about him.

 

Complain about the big bad evil United States WHEN there's even a hint of an extradition order.

 

Until then St. Assange gets to be like the rest of us mortals with no guarantees of the future.

Let me know next time Sweden puts out an EWA and a red interpol notice on someone who left the country legally, after assisting authorities who decided he had no charges to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So lets assume he's guilty of rape, and sits x amount of time in jail.

 

After that Sweden would be able to deport him on an extradition order to the United States. This makes Sweden the most insanely long route for the US to go through since they could have put in an extradition order to England already since its that damned easy.

 

This is why your stupid conspiracy theories make no sense. England has a history of deporting its own citizens to the United States! Sweden might have the same history.

 

Why would the US extradite out of Sweden when it can easier do so out of England?

 

And why should Assange not face his allegations?

Fucking exactly!

 

+1

 

Let's assume he isn't guilty.

He get's to sweden, they talk to him for half an hour.

As there is no case against him (he's never been charged) the EWA doesn't give him any protections.

The CIA talks to the Swedish Intelligence Agency, and he's on the next plane to Cairo or Gitmo, where he can "help the US with their inquiries" for the next 10 years?

 

Your argument is based on the assumption they want to convict Assange, and that they can convict Assange.

I don't know whether they can (they decided they couldn't before).

 

As for deporting him to the US, there is going to be far less political fallout from doing so in Sweden, where he's effectively been character assassinated already.

 

But hey, call me crazy right?

I know I usually fall for all those sweet conspiracy theories.

 

Then dont forget about him.

 

Complain about the big bad evil United States WHEN there's even a hint of an extradition order.

 

Until then St. Assange gets to be like the rest of us mortals with no guarantees of the future.

Let me know next time Sweden puts out an EWA and a red interpol notice on someone who left the country legally, after assisting authorities who decided he had no charges to answer.

 

 

Thats imho what you're missing, he's not going there to be talked to and be let go. He's going in there to face trial, and be interrogated beforehand.

 

Thats part of what pisses me off so badly with this guy, he's donning the cape of a hero of free government and open information to protect himself from getting himself put on trial for multiple rape charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats imho what you're missing, he's not going there to be talked to and be let go. He's going in there to face trial, and be interrogated beforehand.

 

Thats part of what pisses me off so badly with this guy, he's donning the cape of a hero of free government and open information to protect himself from getting himself put on trial for multiple rape charges.

No he's not. They talk to him, then they have two weeks to decide to charge him.

He hasn't been charged. There is no guarantee that they will charge him. There is no requirement that they do so.

 

Which is why the EWA won't prevent them extraditing him without asking the UK first.

 

From Mrs Ny's own statement to the High Court in the UK:

 

"According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated."

 

So they haven't decided at this stage, whether we will be charged. At this point, all they've said is that it's probable. You might not like Assange, but don't let that colour your judgement. Let's assume it's any other Australian, at risk of extradition to the US to face crimes he has not committed in that country. Do you disagree with my points above, in general, without reference to the identities of the accused in this case?

Edited by TinBane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats imho what you're missing, he's not going there to be talked to and be let go. He's going in there to face trial, and be interrogated beforehand.

 

Thats part of what pisses me off so badly with this guy, he's donning the cape of a hero of free government and open information to protect himself from getting himself put on trial for multiple rape charges.

No he's not. They talk to him, then they have two weeks to decide to charge him.

He hasn't been charged. There is no guarantee that they will charge him. There is no requirement that they do so.

 

Which is why the EWA won't prevent them extraditing him without asking the UK first.

 

From Mrs Ny's own statement to the High Court in the UK:

 

"According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated."

 

So they haven't decided at this stage, whether we will be charged. At this point, all they've said is that it's probable. You might not like Assange, but don't let that colour your judgement. Let's assume it's any other Australian, at risk of extradition to the US to face crimes he has not committed in that country. Do you disagree with my points above, in general, without reference to the identities of the accused in this case?

 

I think I understand your interpretation.

 

But I think that you are interpreting through the lens of local or US centric law.

 

So I disagree with the points you have raised as a valid defence to your argument.

 

"preliminary investigation" isn't equal to ask a few questions and then let you go.

 

Preliminary investigation in Swedish law is, arrest, which then can lead to pre trial interrogation/detention and in the case of the EAW, the standing of trial within two weeks.

 

i.e They could skip the "interrogation" and move straight to a trial.

 

However he is wanted to stand trial for sexual assault and two counts of rape.(not just for questioning)

 

 

To answer your second question , how would I react to an Australian being extradited to face charges that he hadn't committed in another country?

 

Well If he hadn't committed the crime then I would assume he would be doing whatever he could do to clear his name, If he ran from the charges I would lean towards

thinking maybe he's guilty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand your interpretation.

 

But I think that you are interpreting through the lens of local or US centric law.

 

So I disagree with the points you have raised as a valid defence to your argument.

 

"preliminary investigation" isn't equal to ask a few questions and then let you go.

 

Preliminary investigation in Swedish law is, arrest, which then can lead to pre trial interrogation/detention and in the case of the EAW, the standing of trial within two weeks.

 

i.e They could skip the "interrogation" and move straight to a trial.

 

However he is wanted to stand trial for sexual assault and two counts of rape.(not just for questioning)

 

To answer your second question , how would I react to an Australian being extradited to face charges that he hadn't committed in another country?

 

Well If he hadn't committed the crime then I would assume he would be doing whatever he could do to clear his name, If he ran from the charges I would lean towards

thinking maybe he's guilty?

If he was wanted to stand trial for the crime, then he would have been charged.

I understand the difference, in that the Swedish procedure is different.

However, that said, this is being enforced under "goodwill" legislation as part of the agreement. The binding components of the agreement, gives the UK the right to intervene in further extradition, ONLY if he is charged. Which works because an EWA exists so that people who have been charged, can be extradited easily.

 

The purpose of the EWA is to give EU countries access to people accused of serious crimes, with little paperwork. The implementation is thus, that as part of the process the extraditing country is still involved. You know what? I said this several posts ago, but if they do not charge Assange, he can be extradited without the EWA giving the UK any say in the matter. That's the crux of my disgruntlement with the events transpiring.

 

I don't particularly care why you think I object. But I feel the need to raise the point that I think it's fair for Assange to face justice in Sweden, assuming it isn't a game to extradite to the US.

 

In the UK or US, once you are charged you have certain protections, and there are certain procedures to follow before the case is dropped.

 

"Preliminary investigation in Swedish law is, arrest, which then can lead to pre trial interrogation/detention and in the case of the EAW, the standing of trial within two weeks."

 

Sure, it is in Sweden. However I take exception to your wording. The standing of trial is in no way a forgone conclusion. He may stand trial if extradited, or he may not. Under the EWA, in the strictest sense, Sweden can do what they like with him if he is not charged, because the provisions of the EWA which give the UK power over his further extradition apply to people who are charged, which is the fundamental assumption of the EWA.

 

So the assertion that it will be harder to extradite him is a falsehood.

IF Swedish prosecutors decide that no charges will be laid (which they can still do, right?) then the Swedish can do what they like with him.

The only exception, is if Swedish courts are as pliant towards goodwill clauses, and honour the UK's right to intervene.

The EWAs are manifestly not intended as a mechanism of moving prisoners for the purposes of extraditionary ease.

Given Sweden's history with extra-judicial deportation/extradition, it's a possibility (is it not) that once he is not charged, he can be sent to the US without a Swedish court having a say in the matter?

After all, the prosecutor decides whether to charge him, not the judge.

 

So it's possible that he's extradited to Sweden, talks to police, has no hearing at all, and ends up in Gitmo/Egypt/US before he can even lodge papers with a Swedish court.

 

If he has a case to answer to these women, then I'm all for him answering it. I don't know whether he committed those crimes, or how "criminal" they are. But he should face justice in Sweden for crimes he may have committed in Sweden.

 

What I am opposed to, is him either facing "Justice" in the US for crimes he has not committed in the US.

Or even worse, for him to disappear into the war-criminal fantasy land of Gitmo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand your interpretation.

 

But I think that you are interpreting through the lens of local or US centric law.

 

So I disagree with the points you have raised as a valid defence to your argument.

 

"preliminary investigation" isn't equal to ask a few questions and then let you go.

 

Preliminary investigation in Swedish law is, arrest, which then can lead to pre trial interrogation/detention and in the case of the EAW, the standing of trial within two weeks.

 

i.e They could skip the "interrogation" and move straight to a trial.

 

However he is wanted to stand trial for sexual assault and two counts of rape.(not just for questioning)

 

To answer your second question , how would I react to an Australian being extradited to face charges that he hadn't committed in another country?

 

Well If he hadn't committed the crime then I would assume he would be doing whatever he could do to clear his name, If he ran from the charges I would lean towards

thinking maybe he's guilty?

If he was wanted to stand trial for the crime, then he would have been charged.

I understand the difference, in that the Swedish procedure is different.

However, that said, this is being enforced under "goodwill" legislation as part of the agreement. The binding components of the agreement, gives the UK the right to intervene in further extradition, ONLY if he is charged. Which works because an EWA exists so that people who have been charged, can be extradited easily.

 

The purpose of the EWA is to give EU countries access to people accused of serious crimes, with little paperwork. The implementation is thus, that as part of the process the extraditing country is still involved. You know what? I said this several posts ago, but if they do not charge Assange, he can be extradited without the EWA giving the UK any say in the matter. That's the crux of my disgruntlement with the events transpiring.

 

I don't particularly care why you think I object. But I feel the need to raise the point that I think it's fair for Assange to face justice in Sweden, assuming it isn't a game to extradite to the US.

 

In the UK or US, once you are charged you have certain protections, and there are certain procedures to follow before the case is dropped.

 

"Preliminary investigation in Swedish law is, arrest, which then can lead to pre trial interrogation/detention and in the case of the EAW, the standing of trial within two weeks."

 

Sure, it is in Sweden. However I take exception to your wording. The standing of trial is in no way a forgone conclusion. He may stand trial if extradited, or he may not. Under the EWA, in the strictest sense, Sweden can do what they like with him if he is not charged, because the provisions of the EWA which give the UK power over his further extradition apply to people who are charged, which is the fundamental assumption of the EWA.

 

So the assertion that it will be harder to extradite him is a falsehood.

IF Swedish prosecutors decide that no charges will be laid (which they can still do, right?) then the Swedish can do what they like with him.

The only exception, is if Swedish courts are as pliant towards goodwill clauses, and honour the UK's right to intervene.

The EWAs are manifestly not intended as a mechanism of moving prisoners for the purposes of extraditionary ease.

Given Sweden's history with extra-judicial deportation/extradition, it's a possibility (is it not) that once he is not charged, he can be sent to the US without a Swedish court having a say in the matter?

After all, the prosecutor decides whether to charge him, not the judge.

 

So it's possible that he's extradited to Sweden, talks to police, has no hearing at all, and ends up in Gitmo/Egypt/US before he can even lodge papers with a Swedish court.

 

If he has a case to answer to these women, then I'm all for him answering it. I don't know whether he committed those crimes, or how "criminal" they are. But he should face justice in Sweden for crimes he may have committed in Sweden.

 

What I am opposed to, is him either facing "Justice" in the US for crimes he has not committed in the US.

Or even worse, for him to disappear into the war-criminal fantasy land of Gitmo.

 

We definitely agree on one thing

 

His extradition to Sweden to face charges shouldn't be a game to get him deported to the US . I absolutely agree on this. I want to see him front up for the charges in Sweden.

 

Here's some more info

 

According to the mutually conceded facts on court records , Assange was wanted for interrogation (the one he's wanted for now) on the 28th of September while he was still in Sweden.

 

He then left the country on the 27th.

 

When his lawyer finally contacted him and said advised him he needed to do this, he tried to dictate the terms upon which he would be tried for rape saying ill be available after the 9th or 10th of October. (this is 2011 by the way)

 

Then when he failed to show they did this (almost two months later)

 

"On 24th November the Court of Appeal ruled on detention and the degree of rape, after hearing

written submissions from Ms Ny and Mr Hurtig. Ms Ny’s submissions outlined the steps she

said she had taken to interrogate Mr Assange".

 

 

Now, almost a year later he still hasn't fronted for detention and interrogation as per Swedish law.

 

So , after a year, they rightly enforce the EAW to get this guy to front.

 

 

 

He claims now (falsely) that they want him for extradition to America when he knows exactly why he's wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the mutually conceded facts on court records , Assange was wanted for interrogation (the one he's wanted for now) on the 28th of September while he was still in Sweden.

 

He then left the country on the 27th.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post, but you might want to either correct or clarify that part. Right now, you're implying that Assange is in possession of time travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more info

 

According to the mutually conceded facts on court records , Assange was wanted for interrogation (the one he's wanted for now) on the 28th of September while he was still in Sweden.

 

He then left the country on the 27th.

 

When his lawyer finally contacted him and said advised him he needed to do this, he tried to dictate the terms upon which he would be tried for rape saying ill be available after the 9th or 10th of October. (this is 2011 by the way)

 

Then when he failed to show they did this (almost two months later)

 

"On 24th November the Court of Appeal ruled on detention and the degree of rape, after hearing

written submissions from Ms Ny and Mr Hurtig. Ms Ny’s submissions outlined the steps she

said she had taken to interrogate Mr Assange".

 

 

Now, almost a year later he still hasn't fronted for detention and interrogation as per Swedish law.

 

So , after a year, they rightly enforce the EAW to get this guy to front.

From your last link:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

 

From Mrs Ny's own submission -

 

"A domestic warrant for the respondent’s arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW. " - He was only wanted for interrogation on the 24th of Nov.

 

From the judges deliberation -

 

"Against such criticism as remains of the Swedish prosecutor there is the mutual respect and confidence that this court has in the appropriate authorities of our European counterparts. This mutual respect underpins the whole framework of the European Arrest Warrant. Where there are ambiguities, and where there is a need for further information, this court almost always looks first to the judicial authority of the requesting state for clarification. That clarification is, in my experience, always accepted by the parties and the court. I recognise that others may have had different experiences, but that is undoubtedly rare. The starting point is that this court can rely on information supplied by the judicial authority, particularly in a European Union country. So I start with a strong presumption that Ms Ny is the best person to know why extradition is requested, and that she will provide the best and most reliable explanation. However, it seems to me that potentially such an explanation can be rebutted by other evidence. What is the other evidence here? "

 

"I am not helped by comments Ms Ny may have made before the warrant was issued. Her position may have changed over time, for example after Mr Assange did not present himself in Sweden for interview.

It is clear that Ns Ny confirmed to the Australian ambassador in December 2010, after the EAW had been issued, that if a decision is made to charge Mr Assange, he and his lawyers will be granted access to all documents related to the case (no such decision has been made at this stage.) The decision to charge is not necessarily the same as a decision to prosecute. It is common ground that mere suspicion that an individual has committed offences is insufficient to place him the category of an “accused” person. There is no statutory definition of accused person, nor for this purpose is there any statutory definition of “prosecution”. Given the diverging systems of law involved, that is not surprising. It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person who is wanted for prosecution. It is accepted by all parties in this case that it is wrong to approach this question solely from the perspective of English criminal procedure. In our jurisdiction prosecution will normally be started by the laying of an information, or a decision to charge. In many, perhaps most, other European countries the position is different. It is necessary to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the question of whether as a matter of substance rather than form Mr Assange is wanted for prosecution. The fact that Sweden requires a person to be interrogated, before a formal decision to charge is made, is not determinative. Each country has its own procedures for prosecuting offences. The fact that the defendant would be interviewed upon his return is no clear indication that this is a criminal investigation rather than a criminal prosecution."

 

"It may be that after interrogation and further enquiries the matter will not be pursued. As Ms Ny says, a formal decision to charge is taken at a later stage in Sweden than it is here. In this jurisdiction a person can be charged with rape or sexual assault by a custody sergeant and may then wait many months before the case is discontinued. In Sweden the decision to formally charge is followed very shortly by the trial itself, if the defendant is in custody."

 

In short - Assange's Swedish Lawyer did such a bad job of managing things in Sweden, that the English courts will take Mrs Ny at her word, and she is not required to submit to cross examination WRT to deciding Assange's extradition.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully Assange faces the allegations in Sweden, with access to all the evidence that may help him out (much of which has not been investigated by the prosecution yet). It seems improbable that he won't end up facing them sooner rather than later, but it would be nice if Sweden would at least confirm that the UK will be involved in any US extradition process, as is their right under the EWA agreements. It would at least silence most worried observers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good observations and clarifications in this article, too long to post the whole thing.

 

 

Professional jealousy; dogmatic institutionalism; craven loyalty to power. Glenn Greenwald fires a devastating salvo at the British and American press for their dogged campaign of “disgusting slander” against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

 

“[L]et us pause to reflect on a truly amazing and revealing fact, one that calls for formal study in several academic fields of discipline,” Greenwald writes.

 

“Is it not remarkable that one of the very few individuals over the past decade to risk his welfare, liberty and even life to meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national security state (and those of its obedient allies) depends just so happens to have become—long before he sought asylum from Ecuador—the most intensely and personally despised figure among the American and British media class and the British ‘liberal’ intelligentsia?”

 

—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly. Follow him on Twitter: @areedkelly.

 

Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:

 

There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged media contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this brilliant 2008 post, in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can).

 

Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of their society’s power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world’s most powerful factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial dissidents and insurgents – they’re persecuted, demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants to power, and courtiers.

 

Then there’s the ideological cause. As one long-time British journalist told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward Assange: “Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle.” That’s the warped mindset that led to so many of these self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraq and other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And it’s why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which they are unfailingly loyal.

More at the link: Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont know what else is wanted , a written and signed confession from the Militant Islamic groups thanking Assange for all the informantion? complete with an up to date kill count?

It's pretty simple, you point to the part of the leaks where information could be used to harm the US/Allies men but, of course, wouldn't right now (otherwise you're doing their work for them).

 

You could have held this "I bet there's something that'll kill someone in there" view when they first come out but it's been a couple of years - they would have found the things that were potentially endangering and changed them. What was potentially endangering and what have they changed as a result?

 

OK, it's been a few days and no-one's responded to this. Fair enough, it can be hard to research these things and find sources. So I settled down to slog through a bunch on inane arguments and articles over the interwebs trying to find something for you.

 

So I googled "what harm has wikileaks done to soldiers". Seemed as good of a place to start as any. The first result:

 

Lawyers Argue Over Harm Done in WikiLeaks Case - Hey, hey! A recent article about exactly what I'm after and talking about guys whose job it would have been to slog through paperwork for a couple of years and find harm! It's even on a fairly pro-armed-forces site (military.com) so if anything it'll be biased towards the prosecution, which is exactly the info I'm after! Let's get into it!

 

Military prosecutors say the consequences of the leaks -- big or small -- aren't relevant. A leak is a leak, they say, and 24-year-old Bradley Manning is guilty of sending hundreds of thousands of documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Prosecutors say they aren't required to prove the leaks caused harm. And they don't want jurors improperly confused or distracted by the suggestion the leaked material didn't significantly affect national security.

 

Ohhhhhh. They don't want to have to show he did harm. I wonder why that is?

 

And then:

 

More than two dozen so-called "damage assessments" were conducted by the departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security and other agencies, according to Manning's lawyers. Those assessments aren't public, but Coombs said the damage is minimal or "speculative at best."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to summarise....

 

The EAW was issued because Assange allegedly fled the country the day his lawyer was told he faced imminent arrest after a second round of questioning as per Swedish law.

 

That about right?

 

And we've also determined that it would be easier for the states to get him out of England than out of Sweden, or at least just as easy?

 

And by popular consensus, the conspiracy theory of the States throwing him in GTMO is more important than the allegation by a respectable state and by two women, that they were raped by Assange?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the lols....

 

Is this the photo that could clear Assange?

 

It seems an unremarkable image: a group of friends smiling broadly. But this is the photograph Julian Assange hopes will clear his name.

 

The face of the woman on the left has been obscured for legal reasons.

 

For although she is seen beaming, she would later tell police that 48 hours before the picture was taken, the WikiLeaks founder pinned her down in her flat and sexually assaulted her.

So the photo was taken 2 days after the alleged rape, and clearly before she knew she had been raped. :)

 

Have we reached peak stupid YET? I mean c'mon, all the guy wants is a chance to face his accusers in Switzerland with a guarantee that they wont forward him on to Amerika.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the lols....

 

Is this the photo that could clear Assange?

 

It seems an unremarkable image: a group of friends smiling broadly. But this is the photograph Julian Assange hopes will clear his name.

 

The face of the woman on the left has been obscured for legal reasons.

 

For although she is seen beaming, she would later tell police that 48 hours before the picture was taken, the WikiLeaks founder pinned her down in her flat and sexually assaulted her.

So the photo was taken 2 days after the alleged rape, and clearly before she knew she had been raped. :)

 

Have we reached peak stupid YET? I mean c'mon, all the guy wants is a chance to face his accusers in Switzerland with a guarantee that they wont forward him on to Amerika.

 

Do you know how many altar boys continued smiling in photos next to the priests who abused them, for decades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the lols....

 

Is this the photo that could clear Assange?

 

It seems an unremarkable image: a group of friends smiling broadly. But this is the photograph Julian Assange hopes will clear his name.

 

The face of the woman on the left has been obscured for legal reasons.

 

For although she is seen beaming, she would later tell police that 48 hours before the picture was taken, the WikiLeaks founder pinned her down in her flat and sexually assaulted her.

So the photo was taken 2 days after the alleged rape, and clearly before she knew she had been raped. :)

 

Have we reached peak stupid YET? I mean c'mon, all the guy wants is a chance to face his accusers in Switzerland with a guarantee that they wont forward him on to Amerika.

 

Do you know how many altar boys continued smiling in photos next to the priests who abused them, for decades?

 

 

Out of all the predictable replies I thought of, that was number one on the list. Of course young kids usually don't have a say in where and who they will be photographed with, grown women usually do. The fact still remains, if he can get a non-extradition guarantee from Switzerland then he'll happily go and get it sorted out. Regardless of did he/didn't he, letting Amerika get its hands on Assange is what this is all about. I'm still a bit surprised you can't see that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tantryl - in your words, what would you class as material that would be harmful to soldiers?

 

Do you think the people in the middle east need to see videos like this while we are still in occupation ? Do you think videos like this will bring peace or reprisal attacks?

Noting the culture in the middle east is one where revenge is a right, do you think the family members of innocent people killed would let this fly?

 

 

In WW2 the Nazi's would kill 100 civilians for each German killed and that is without a "God" telling them they HAVE to, Now we have viral videos to show everyone our crimes against their people and more importantly their god. Welcome to the insurgency Moderate Islamic's

 

Posted Image

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we have viral videos to show everyone our crimes against their people...

Oh yes we do.

 

Isn't that the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we have viral videos to show everyone our crimes against their people...

Oh yes we do.

 

Isn't that the point?

 

Yeah, but later on. It works against the cause during occupation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we have viral videos to show everyone our crimes against their people...

Oh yes we do.

 

Isn't that the point?

 

Yeah, but later on. It works against the cause during occupation

 

 

Only if your cause is to invade other people's countries and kill lots of innocent civilians. It's abhorrent and NO different from any hostile invasion from history, including the period when the marauding Muslim hordes that you love to hate threatened to take over the whole known world. The only consolation my conscience has is in knowing our government, just like the governments of the other invading western nations has gone rogue and doesn't give a flying fuck about 'representative democracy' anyway. No matter how much we (could) protest or speak out they just do what they damned well please anyway. So you can call the consequences of their actions 'terrorism' if you like, others call it blowback. Another appropriate word is 'Karma'. But bring their deeds into the light in a GOOD thing, of course they don't want that, darkness and evil always hates the light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand that, but name a war where bad shit doesn't happen? Do you think this will change the way wars are fought? next time everyone will be a little bit more careful?

 

Its a pipe dream, and thats why Australia and England isnt helping him and thats why America want him. Even tho i think you are right to a certain aspect, if you where completely correct, Assange would be able to walk out of that embassy and go for a tour around the USA with no worries, because he didn't do anything wrong, right?

 

Also, you are blaming an entire nation for a few peoples actions, do you think high command ordered extra civilian killings? how exactly does karma get distributed?

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×