Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Assange to face extradition

Polarisation. Wikileaks, excepting the stuff that didn't redact names, was good. As editor in chief, Julian did good.

Allegations of molestation and rape, bad. As an individual, Julian is alleged to have done a bad thing.

He answers questions, maybe gets charged, maybe doesn't. But, the very, very public way that he has conducted his defence against the allegations, criticised the prosecutor and used the good thing he did as a reason why he shouldn't have to answer for the bad thing he needs to answer questions about - well, that's bad.
 
belboid said:
...or the women accusing him.
Click to expand...
The women didn't accuse him of rape. The women went to the police to see if JA could be legally forced to take an STD test. When the police said they were going to charge him with sexual assaults etc. the woman who had been giving a statement refused to answer any more questions and refused to sign the forms to confirm what had been discussed.
 
belboid said:
The UK? Harder to be deported from actually.
Click to expand...

To the U.S, if they file charges, which they haven't? Tell that to that golf club schmooze.

If Romney wins in November, Assange is going to wish he'd just answered the damn questions two years ago.
 
belboid said:
No he doesnt.
Click to expand...
In saying 'at least implying' I was being careful as to what he might have been saying. Okay, to turn it into a question, what is his motive in dangling this?

Accompanying this has been a vituperative personal campaign against Assange. Much of it has emanated from the Guardian, which, like a spurned lover, has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. On 20 August, Harding was outside the Ecuadorean embassy, gloating on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”. It is ironic, if entirely appropriate, that a Guardian editorial putting the paper’s latest boot into Assange bears an uncanny likeness to the Murdoch press’s predictable augmented bigotry on the same subject. How the glory of Leveson, Hackgate and honourable, independent journalism
Click to expand...
 
belboid said:
Random has given reasons as to why Sweden are acting that way - they keep everyone on side without having to openly 'do' anything. But all that does is mean there can be no justice for Assange or the women accusing him.
Click to expand...
TBH I'm trying hard to avoid taking sides in this. To not give the Swedish state/legal system/political elite an easy ride, just because so many things that Assange's team says about Sweden are false. If the Swedish government was sympathetic then one minister or politician could probably say something about how they reject the idea of charges over leaks, and that the US teatment of Manning is inhuman. This statement might be on-binding to the Swedish legal system, but would still show the very real safeguards against Wikileaks extradition for JA.

But they won't, as it suits them to be bloody minded, and the women suffer as well.
 
Balbi said:
He answers questions, maybe gets charged, maybe doesn't. But, the very, very public way that he has conducted his defence against the allegations, criticised the prosecutor and used the good thing he did as a reason why he shouldn't have to answer for the bad thing he needs to answer questions about - well, that's bad.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with criticising a prosecutor, but thats by the by. All the above may well be true, but doesnt alter the fact that it can be resolved by Sweden promising ot to extradite - put the onus back on Assange.

Balbi said:
To the U.S, if they file charges, which they haven't? Tell that to that golf club schmooze.

If Romney wins in November, Assange is going to wish he'd just answered the damn questions two years ago.
Click to expand...
I know that, fule. My point was that the UK is actually harder to be deported from than Sweden.

Wilf said:
In saying 'at least implying' I was being careful as to what he might have been saying. Okay, to turn it into a question, what is his motive in dangling this?
Click to expand...
That seems to be saying that they shouldnt have acted like money grabbers previously, that they had already indulged in shitty behaviour towards Assange (and wikileaks), not that they should ignore any other story.
 
George W Bush is sat in his mansion giggling like a crazed ape at this. His 'you're either with us, or against us' stuff has really, really caught on.

And the next time I am up on charges, I am certainly going to imply that because my prosecutor believes in equality for men and women that their judgement is suspect. I am certain that is a correct and proper way to conduct myself, as I flee for the nearest embassy.
 
Ive made myself clear, wikileaks is good and the exposure of the workings of the diplomatic circuit etc was good. However, avoiding answering these questions is a bad thing, as is the treatment of the allegations by Assange and his supporters. He answers the questions, i have no problem. If the US tried to extradite him, I would have a problem with that. That's not polarised, that's accepting he's a flawed human being like the rest of us, who in the case of the allegations in Sweden has made a series of poor choices which may taint his former good works the longer he drags it out.
 
Balbi said:
Ive made myself clear, wikileaks is good and the exposure of the workings of the diplomatic circuit etc was good. However, avoiding answering these questions is a bad thing, as is the treatment of the allegations by Assange and his supporters. He answers the questions, i have no problem. If the US tried to extradite him, I would have a problem with that. That's not polarised, that's accepting he's a flawed human being like the rest of us, who in the case of the allegations in Sweden has made a series of poor choices which may taint his former good works the longer he drags it out.
Click to expand...
the emboldened bit is where I have the problem.

It isn't him unreasonably dragging things out - he has (do you not agree?) good reason to feat extradition to the US. So it is the Swedish state that is dragging thngs out. So criticise them for their behaviour, not Assange.
 
He doesn't get to make demands that would change the terms of international treaties simply because he booted a lion up the arse and now he's afraid of the fucking toothy end. And the U.S have no warrant for his extradition, nor have they attempted to get one. The charges they can use are probably based around the espionage act of 1917, which would given Assange's lawyers more fun than a whole bench of judiciary feminists.

The placing of burden on Sweden assumes that the U.S will instantly act the minute he's in Sweden, just like they instantly acted while he was in the UK for 22 months and Sweden before that. And that's an assumption that's been propagated by Julian Assange as a reason why none of this means he has to do anything, and why we should all support him.

It also fails to mention why he should go to Sweden.

That's where I have a problem with it.
 
Balbi said:
He doesn't get to make demands that would change the terms of international treaties
Click to expand...
No such demand has been made. You are completely and utterly wrong.

The placing of burden on Sweden assumes that the U.S will instantly act the minute he's in Sweden, just like they instantly acted while he was in the UK for 22 months and Sweden before that. And that's an assumption that's been propagated by Julian Assange as a reason why none of this means he has to do anything, and why we should all support him.
Click to expand...
Again, wholly wrong. There is no such assumption. The claim is that it would be a whole lot easier to extradite him from Sweden, when the US finally do make their claim (as everyone knows they wish to).

That's where I have a problem with it.
Click to expand...
Your problem lies with things which are not true, tho.
 
I want to be free from extradition over wikileaks - so, that doesn't change the nature of the extradition treaty, or swedish legal precedent which deals with them on a case my case basis as they happen?

And yes, he does think if he goes to Sweden he'll end up in the U.S on the basis of....oh, some people in the U.S made statements that they would like to get their hands on him. And it wouldn't be easier to extradite him from Sweden, again, no not really. Could they interview him in London, again, no - the Swedish interview process precedes charging, so he needs to be within Sweden and its legal system in case charges were brought.

Or, just read this. It shows Assange is no safer from the U.S should they decide to act in the U.K or Sweden. It explains why Sweden can't give him extradition immunity. And why they can't interview him in London, or the Ecuadorean embassy.

An evidenced piece of mythbusting.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Also, when the U.S decide to actually get him, all the balconies and embassies in the world really won't stop them. He's wasting time complaining, when he should have gone through the questions in Sweden and geared himself up for the bigger fight which is to come.

And belboid, for all your pernickerty fact checking of other posters - you showed earlier you didn't even know which charge was the one that is considered rape in the UK and Sweden. Maybe you should read a little more, and spend less time as a sub-par version of butchersapron, who is both forensic and informed.
 
Balbi said:
Or, just read this. It shows Assange is no safer from the U.S should they decide to act in the U.K or Sweden. It explains why Sweden can't give him extradition immunity. And why they can't interview him in London, or the Ecuadorean embassy.

An evidenced piece of mythbusting.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
Click to expand...
oh dear god! I've read that - and given the link which goes through it showing why it, and you, are wholly wrong. Keep up. Your arguments are all over the shop.
Balbi said:
And belboid, for all your pernickerty fact checking of other posters - you showed earlier you didn't even know which charge was the one that is considered rape in the UK and Sweden. Maybe you should read a little more, and spend less time as a sub-par version of butchersapron, who is both forensic and informed.
Click to expand...
Wrong yet again. You are the one confusing cases (and judging them before any charges are even brought).
 
belboid said:
its (still) all in here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt

It shows (I donyt know which point you specifically want correcting on) that Assange can be interviewed in London, that the Swedish government can give assurances about onward extradition, that London is less likely to extradite htan Sweden, and various other important details. Which do you want?
Click to expand...

It doesn't show any of those things. It wants to, but it doesn't.
 
Oh sweet jesus, Sweden won't circumvent their entire extradition process including the prosecutor general and other bodies commenting on the individual extradition request as it is made simply to make Julian feel more at home.

Also, his important quote from Marten Schultz also goes on to talk about the extremely open and uncorrput Swedish system. Greenwald goes on to describe sweden's legal system as secretive. And it's not easier from UK or Sweden, just because it takes a long time to extradite is a feature of extradition law. Look at the 500 days it took for the appeals against the EAW to come to nothing for Assange.

And further down, he states it is true that neither Sweden nor the UK can provide a guarantee. Which is my point. Providing legal protection against something which hasn't and/or may not happen isn't the way the process works. Case by case.

Killer argument? More like a faint brush of blunt nails.
 
Essentially, as we're talking extradition, as both Greenwald and Allen Green point out, it's a fucking legal nightmare. States stick rigidly to their processes, because without them it descends into a farcical situation.

And trying to gain protection legally for something you think might happen isnt the job of a judiciary, its the job of an insurance company.
 
belboid said:
its (still) all in here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt

It shows (I donyt know which point you specifically want correcting on) that Assange can be interviewed in London, that the Swedish government can give assurances about onward extradition, that London is less likely to extradite htan Sweden, and various other important details. Which do you want?
Click to expand...

Did you read the links in that article. It claims to provide an evidence based reason why the NS article is wrong, but all the links provide purely theoretical interpretations of swedish law rather than casework (just as everyone is doing here), and absolutely nothing to back up the extradition from the UK being harder argument.

what needs to happen is for the Swedish legal position to be clarified one way or another. JA should have swedish supporters start a legal challenge.
 
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
837
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
779
stavros
S
Back
Top Bottom