Assange to face extradition

[belboid]

Yeah, because so far he's been doing the right thing, every step of the running away.

As for the Ecuadorian interview, like fuck is Assange going to have the interview, Sweden decide to charge and then Julian's going to voluntarily submit to going to Sweden.

He might well not. But then its all on him isnt it?

He would have no excuses. His bluff would have been called.

So thats what they should do.

 

[butchersapron]

Cos DAG wants to claim its all about 'cast iron' - when Assange and his defenders have always said it cant be 'cast iron', but that it can be sufficient.

And, I disagree on the other bit, at least three are pretty unambiguosly argued.

What four do you think stand?

 

[Balbi]

He might well not. But then its all on him isnt it?

He would have no excuses. His bluff would have been called.

So thats what they should do.

It's not for people who have consistently avoiding answering questions and got stuck in a corner to start dictating terms. He'll be questioned in the same way any other suspect would be questioned. The only reason he's been pursued with such unusual vigour is because he's managed to run away with vigour equal to or greater than his pursuers. It's all om him. Stop prevaricating, stop trying to combine his personal actions with his professional ones. Go to Sweden and answer the damn questions.

 

[belboid]

The only reason he's been pursued with such unusual vigour is because he's managed to run away with vigour equal to or greater than his pursuers.

Oh come on. He is being pursued because he is Julian Assange. If it were anyone else, he wouldn't be being pursued at all.

 

[junglevip]

Sweden's legal system does not - as far as I know - have a beastly reputation for unfair trials, stitch ups and dodgy sentencing, so I'm failing to see why there's such a fuss about Assange having to go back there to face these sexual assault charges.

I think if you tried a little bit harder you'd find something

EDIT:

The Pirate Party chap was on about this in an interview recently (top research eh?)

 

[belboid]

What four do you think stand?

Not entirely sure any do, I'll have to go and re-read it. The q's re being interviewed in Sweden & promises e onward extradition were the crucial ones tho

 

[Wilf]

Still lying about the 'it wouldn't be rape' thing eh? My hype on Pilger was one thing, but you're denying that penetration without consent isn't rape. Which the UK courts disagree entirely with. Yuck.

In the middle of the swirling mass of legal and political arguments, that is indeed the most yucky bit. That Galloway - or others I thought might have been more principled - might be willing to bend, play with or simply deny that point is vile. Mistrusting US/UK/Swedish politicians is one thing, but allowing that wider political context to soften your stance on consent is quite another.

For me, there's some really simple points at the heart of this:
1. Are the accusations against Assange plausible enought to warrant a full investigation? It really is hard to answer anything other than yes to this.
2. Does the U.S desire to get their hands on Assange/frighten future whistle blowers mean the Swedish authorities are actively involved in a process of using the rape thing to ultimately pass him on? There may be suspicions and certainly there will be channels of communication (just as there are in London of course), but I really haven't seen anything significant. He should simply go back and answer the case against him.

 

[cesare]

We did talk about the issue of being beyond merely "helping with enquiries" last night:

belboid said: ↑​

not at all - it may be that they want to charge him. But that was explicitly what many of the Assange critics were denying a few months ago, when it so suited them to do so.​

And I replied: My only point so far on this aspect, is that (as our Supreme Court decided) the matter is beyond "helping with enquiries" and therefore extradition to arrest, formal questioning, and then charging if appropriate.


That's the order it has to be done in, arrest first (which is what the EAW is for). They can't arrest him in the Ecuador Embassy.

 

[Balbi]

Oh come on. He is being pursued because he is Julian Assange. If it were anyone else, he wouldn't be being pursued at all.

They seek him here, they seek him there....do me a favour, the same kind of bullshit produced by his defenders who view Julian's professional work as sufficient cause to dismiss the whole rape thing out of hand because there are people out to get him.

1) there are lots of people pissed off with julian because of wikileaks

2) julian did some naughty shit in sweden

3) julian is hiding in an embassy, factually, because he has to submit to extradition to sweden to answer for 2.

4) julian is telling the world that he is in the embassy because of 1)

4 is factually inaccurate. It is a lie.

 

[belboid]

1) Yes, absolutely.

2) He is so accused, it is not a 'fact'

3) Debatable

4) True

5) Wrong. It is a point of dispute.

 

[belboid]

That's the order it has to be done in, arrest first (which is what the EAW is for). They can't arrest him in the Ecuador Embassy.

So what? they can interview him and say they wish to arrest him when he is on Swedish soil. Call his bluff

 

[Wilf]

Oh come on. He is being pursued because he is Julian Assange.

Maybe he is, or at least the Swedes will be spending more money on it, more time on it - though equally, you could say the reason he's had millionaire backers putting up bail and 3rd countries taking him into their embassy is that he's Julian Assange. Ultimately, it comes down to whether there's a genuine case to answer. If there is, he should answer it, in Sweden. That only gets overidden if there's some significant evidence that the Swedes are involved in a mega plot to deliver him to the U.S - and what I've seen on that so far is thin going on non-existent.

 

[belboid]

What four do you think stand?

I dont think four do stand. There's only the one about Ecuador 'protecting freedom of the press' about which I am not fussed either way, I think its a red herring.

 

[belboid]

If there is, he should answer it, in Sweden.

Absolutely. As long as they give as much of a guarantee as possible that he wont be extradited on.

 

[junglevip]

Maybe he is, or at least the Swedes will be spending more money on it, more time on it - though equally, you could say the reason he's had millionaire backers putting up bail and 3rd countries taking him into their embassy is that he's Julian Assange. Ultimately, it comes down to whether there's a genuine case to answer. If there is, he should answer it, in Sweden. That only gets overidden if there's some significant evidence that the Swedes are involved in a mega plot to deliver him to the U.S - and what I've seen on that so far is thin going on non-existent.

I doubt the likes of us will ever get truth about the goings on of international politics.

 

[butchersapron]

I dont think four do stand. There's only the one about Ecuador 'protecting freedom of the press' about which I am not fussed either way, I think its a red herring.

So, four are knocked down.. Four might be, you're not sure?

 

[laptop]

I doubt the likes of us will ever get truth about the goings on of international politics.

Barring a new organisation that can distribute leaks, and whose figureheads understand that to live outside the law you must be honest in all respects...

 

[belboid]

So, four are knocked down.. Four might be, you're not sure?

DAG makes 5 specific claims. 3 are debunked, imo. Two are of debatable relevance to the actual issues re extradition.

 

[smokedout]

Absolutely. As long as they give as much of a guarantee as possible that he wont be extradited on.

They can't give a legally cast iron guarantee, that's a constitutional fact. So they could give a vague guarantee, which they could then break. Assange's team now want a flaky guarantee from a government which is claimed by them to be a double dealing US puppet.

So the question is does Assange really want that guarantee, would he really go to Sweden if he got it, or is this a clever legal demand and attempt to claim the moral high ground by issuing a demand he knows the Swedish won't and can't make?

 

[elbows]

I doubt the likes of us will ever get truth about the goings on of international politics.

There is plenty of truth on offer. Sometimes have to wait a while, and it cant be distilled down to a single really simple truth due to the number of players and layers. But many of these layers are not really hidden. Others are very murky and will never escape substantial doubt, but acts in these layers are often motivated by agendas that are visible to us, and its not absolutely necessary to know with certainty what happened in these realms in order to understand the truths of international politics.

 

[belboid]

They can't give a legally cast iron guarantee, that's a constitutional fact. So they could give a vague guarantee, which they could then break. Assange's team now want a flaky guarantee from a government which is claimed by them to be a double dealing US puppet.

So the question is does Assange really want that guarantee, would he really go to Sweden if he got it, or is this a clever legal demand and attempt to claim the moral high ground by issuing a demand he knows the Swedish won't and can't make?

What they want is a guarantee that Assange won't be extradited for political crimes. They CAN give that assurance, they can say any wiki related attempt would be dismissed.

Is Assnge bluffing that he'd go with such an assurance? I don't know. Let's call him on it.

 

[smokedout]

What they want is a guarantee that Assange won't be extradited for political crimes. They CAN give that assurance, they can say any wiki related attempt would be dismissed.

Is Assnge bluffing that he'd go with such an assurance? I don't know. Let's call him on it.

They can say any old shit they like and do the opposite. Why should Assange trust them? Why is he asking for this?

 

[belboid]

They can say any old shit they like and do the opposite. Why should Assange trust them? Why is he asking for this?

Ask him.

But why not ask, given the above, why aren't Sweden agreeing to JA's demands?

 

[Balbi]

Why the hell should they? Sets a very dodgy precedent.

 

[butchersapron]

Ask him.

But why not ask, given the above, why aren't Sweden agreeing to JA's demands?

What reasons can you come up with?

 

[laptop]

But why not ask, given the above, why aren't Sweden agreeing to JA's demands?

Because the demands are designed not to be agreed to, because his plan is to kick up maximum fuss in the UK?

 

[cesare]

It does make me wonder if Jeffery Archer and the like insisted on being questioned in their front room after being arrested.

 

[belboid]

Why the hell should they? Sets a very dodgy precedent.

Overseas interviews have been carried out in the past, so no precedent. Not sure about declarations about further extradition, but given that political extraditions are explicitly barred, there could be no problem with repeating that fact. And giving a definition of 'political' in the relevant context. Nothing 'dangerous' about that, is there? Especially given (do you not agree) that he does have a real fear of such extradition

What reasons can you come up with?

Because Sweden want it all ways. Fuck 'em.

Because the demands are designed not to be agreed to, because his plan is to kick up maximum fuss in the UK?

Good tactics. Why wont Sweden learn from them and call his bluff?

 

[Belushi]

Because Sweden want it all ways. Fuck 'em.

Good tacti

As they are perfectly entitled to do. He is suspected of an extremely serious crime don't forget, second only to murder.

 

[butchersapron]

Because Sweden want it all ways. Fuck 'em.

Any better ones?