Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Assange to face extradition

smmudge said:
They knew when they were still trying to get evidence against him/wikileaks in December 2010, and given that the investigation appears recently to still be on going it would have been a rush at that stage.
Click to expand...
Who was? The people who wanted to talk to him? So having might be a bit of a rush.?
 
It only came to light that Assange was in the UK after he turned himself in at a police station after the arrest warrant was issued. So the US (who was still trying to get evidence against Assange and Wikileaks in the form of subpoenas from Twitter a week after he handed himself in) were going to finalise a case and lodge an order for his extradition from the UK (which would be solid enough to take precedence over the Swedish order already in place) such that the UK would have handed him over to the US before Sweden?

Right, OK.
 
smmudge said:
They knew when they were still trying to get evidence against him/wikileaks in December 2010, and given that the investigation appears recently to still be on going it would have been a rush at that stage.
Click to expand...

We are nearly two years down the road though now, and they still havent come up with anything. Given that the Swedish extradition is more for investigation purposes than any kind of trial, you would think that if there were any charges pending they would have made an appearance by now.
 
agricola said:
We are nearly two years down the road though now, and they still havent come up with anything. Given that the Swedish extradition is more for investigation purposes than any kind of trial, you would think that if there were any charges pending they would have made an appearance by now.
Click to expand...
Who? The Americans? They can't extradite him from the UK because Sweden put in a EAW first. They can't request extradition from Sweden because he's not there yet. Anyway, if they want to extradite him, it will look a lot better if done after some extra dirt has been dished on Assange in the Swedish courts. If I were a US prosecutor, I wouldn't be in any rush.

I'm not saying that is what's happening, only that it's feasible. It's one thing to think that Sweden will act reasonably in this case. It's quite another to expect the USA to do so.
 
doddles said:
Who? The Americans? They can't extradite him from the UK because Sweden put in a EAW first. They can't request extradition from Sweden because he's not there yet. Anyway, if they want to extradite him, it will look a lot better if done after some extra dirt has been dished on Assange in the Swedish courts. If I were a US prosecutor, I wouldn't be in any rush.

I'm not saying that is whathappening, only that it's feasible. It's one thing to think that Sweden will act reasonably in this case. It's quite another to expect the USA to do so.
Click to expand...

some extra dirt? What means that?
 
more hinting and wittering on the news from those promoting the idea that he really is that important that the Americans are bothered about him, possibly for a future wikileaks trial etc.

what level of truth do people think there is in this? the emphasis upon him personally seems pretty implausible to me, but who knows about future wikileaks trial stuff..
 
butchersapron said:
You what? Expand. The evidence, the argument and the facts. Right now.
Click to expand...

Lol "right now" butchers you are such a card :D

The argument put forward was this one:


Damarr said:
The US could have put in their request between his arrival in the UK and the magistrate ordering his extradition in early 2011 (the Home Secretary could have given it priority over the Swedish EAW until the extradition order was made).
Click to expand...

In retrospect we know that Assange came to the UK after he left Sweden in early November 2010. His arrest warrant was issued on 20th November. There may have been rumours he was in the UK but if it was known where he was he would have been arrested; instead he turned himself in on 7th December. This is what the BBC said on 1st December:

Mr Assange's whereabouts are unknown, although earlier in November he was believed to be in the UK.
Click to expand...

So the US couldn't have asked before 7th December, and I doubt they'd want to issue an arrest warrant when they didn't really know where he was.

Then in January 2011 the New York Times reported that a

subpoena was issued by the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on Dec. 14 and asks for the complete account information of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence specialist awaiting a court martial under suspicion of leaking materials to WikiLeaks, as well as Ms. Jonsdottir, Mr. Assange and two computer programmers, Rop Gonggrijp and Jacob Appelbaum.
Click to expand...

suggesting that they were still trying to get evidence against Assange and wikileaks on 14th December.

So Damarr's argument that a UK-US extradition is relevant is based on the possibility that sometime after December 14th (and before February when the Swedish extradition order was upheld) the US could have finalised a case against Assange, obtained an arrest warrant and issued an extradition order, which for some reason the Home Secretary would have given priority over the Swedish extradition order already in process. Just seems a bit far-fetched to me.
 
Not much time, but his whereabouts were not unknown - he was known to be in the UK because he was allowed to leave sweden for the UK on the express understanding that he return to sweden. He hasdargued that he need be in the UK to oversee the joint cable releases with the Guardian in November. They might not have not known his exact address, but that's not needed to make an extradition request of another country. The US simply could have applied for that extradition at any point after he arrived in the UK.
 
Do the police only put out arrest warrants for people they know the exact whereabouts of? Ludicrous idea that they couldn't request an extradition if they didn't know the exact street someone lives on.
 
The US would have had to have finalised a case and obtained an arrest warrant before they could apply for extradition.
 
smmudge said:
The US would have had to have finalised a case and obtained an arrest warrant before they could apply for extradition.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that as fact? Or are you assuming that?

My understanding is that arrest warrants are for just that - arrest (be they international, European or local warrants). I could be wrong, of course...
 
smmudge said:
The US would have had to have finalised a case and obtained an arrest warrant before they could apply for extradition.
Click to expand...
No they wouldn't - they would merely need to come up with a charge, a prosecution. The case does not need to be 'finalised'. What basis do you think the swedish extradition is being carried out on? Do you think their case is 'finalised'?
 
Alright finalised is too strong a word, but enough evidence to be able to obtain an arrest warrant from a court.
 
All it needs is:
(a)the person is accused in the category 2 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the request, and
(b)the request is made with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 2 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence.
Click to expand...

You don't have to argue that the case has merits, you don't have to reveal your evidence, you don't have to win the case.

I reckon the US could have come up with something like that pretty sharpish - don't you?
 
It's probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. The mighty US could not get a tame judge to issue an arrest warrant? Really? I think your naivety is showing there.
 
butchersapron said:
It's probable cause, not reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...

Same thing essentially.

And I think it is strange to think they would bother sharpish finding reasonable cause, taming a judge then getting an extradition order when they already know there is an ongoing investigation against Assange elsewhere!
 
I didn't say that they would! We were discussing whether they could, you suggested on pretty flimsy grounds that they were unable to.
 
Legal myths about the Assange extradition



One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

Two: “Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdom”

This is similarly untrue. Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.
(See Francis FitzGibbon QC’s Nothing Like the Sun for further detail on this.)
One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three.
In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom.

Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”

It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.
By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.
(See extradition and criminal lawyer Niall McCluskey for further detail on this.)
Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.
(See Mark Klamberg’s blog for further information on this.)

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
Click to expand...

I fully expect all these myth to re-appear on this and the other Assange thread.
 
JimW said:
Just came to post that as I saw it linked somewhere else. Won't stop the same circular arguments but at least we've got a handy cheat sheet.
Click to expand...

If you mean my reply to a poster with the link, I got it from butchers post here btw. Credit where it's due etc. (I should have mentioned it there)
 
cesare said:
If you mean my reply to a poster with the link, I got it from butchers post here btw. Credit where it's due etc. (I should have mentioned it there)
Click to expand...
I get to other places on the Internet, I'll have you know! :D
Saw this there too, which also deals with the "he's only wanted for questioning why can't they just interview him by Skype from the bogs in the embassy"? http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london
Not sure if we've had that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hitmouse
Tomahawk steakhouse to employees: loan us 10% of your wages or face the sack
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Throbbing Angel
Throbbing Angel
weltweit
MET to use face recognition cameras now
Replies
16
Views
829
ska invita
ska invita
BigMoaner
facebook announces metaverse - someone shut down the world please.
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
furluxor
furluxor
Smokeandsteam
Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
8K
NoXion
NoXion
brogdale
'TInGe' party cum face thread
Replies
9
Views
772
stavros
S
Back
Top Bottom