Assange to face extradition

[Pickman's model]

Just a little while ago, the US Govt. sent soldiers in helicopters to execute bin Laden in Pakistan.

They don't seem to be caring as much about all that 'rights' business, as they purported to before.

and julian assange did what that's the equivalent of killing 3000 people live on tv?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

and julian assange did what that's the equivalent of killing 3000 people live on tv?

The rule of law is the rule of law.

If quantity of victims was the test, then Anders Breivik arguably should be executed as well.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I've not read the entire thread so this may have been discussed, but I've been thinking about this, and am now wondering if Assange possibly actually sought asylum because he got wind that the US were about to issue their own charges that might have trumped the Swedish charges, and resulted in him being extradited from the UK not to Sweden, but to the US directly.

This would really be the only scenario that would actually make sense to me, unless this really is just a ploy to avoid the charges in Sweden. Having read all the statements released, I'd be surprised if this was his motivation though, as to me I'd have though that even if convicted, he'd be given the lowest sentence allowed, as the allegations are about as far from the norms of rape allegations as it's possible to get while still actually falling into that category.

I'd speak to that Occam fella if I were you, think he might be willing to lend you his razor

 

[cesare]

So his source says. Who better to say?

And I don't think he quite understands what he's taken on in shoutily demanding that Jack of Kent retract.

Swedish law seems so much more straightforward than ours. My link at #1006 is interesting, plus there's a download on the same page to the relevant legislation (all in English).

 

[Pickman's model]

The rule of law is the rule of law.

If quantity of victims was the test, then Anders Breivik arguably should be executed as well.

given what i understand to be your profession i'm not surprised you should emphasise the paramount importance of the law. but somewhere along the way you seem to have forgotten about jurisdictions and the varying penalties and indeed deeds that pass as crimes between them.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

given what i understand to be your profession i'm not surprised you should emphasise the paramount importance of the law. but somewhere along the way you seem to have forgotten about jurisdictions and the varying penalties and indeed deeds that pass as crimes between them.

Say what?

 

[Pickman's model]

Say what?

i understand you're a lawyer but you don't seem to understand there's more than one legal system. you sound like a confused septick.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

i understand you're a lawyer but you don't seem to understand there's more than one legal system. you sound like a confused septick.

I get the theory you're expounding: I don't see how it applies to the facts of anything being discussed here.

 

[Pickman's model]

I get the theory you're expounding: I don't see how it applies to the facts of anything being discussed here.

i'm not expounding a theory, i'm talking about solid facts. every country has a different legal system - the canadian, for instance, is different to the argentinian. and these different legal systems prescribe different penalties for different acts. and some acts which are proscribed in some countries aren't in others - for example, holocaust denial is a crime in germany but not in gabon. the penalties which are laid down for crimes vary from country to country - murder in norway does not attract the same punishment as murder in nebraska.

so when you spout shit as you did in 1022, perhaps you should reflect, in the light of my first paragraph, what an awful gobshite you make yourself appear.

 

[CyberRose]

That's not what I said.

But to expand on it, one of the charges relates to consensual sex where the girl then alleges that part way through assange deliberately nipped the end of the condom so that it leaked, which is the bit she'd not consented to. Now, if this were true, then it probably would fall into the rape category legally, but I just can't see it getting anything like the sort of sentence that someone would get for a situation where no consent existed at all.

TBH though, I can't really see that this has much if any chance of him being found guilty of it, unless he confessed to it, as it's obvious that he could just state that the condom must have broken itself and he'd pretty much have to be found not guilty on grounds of reasonable doubt, or whatever similar rule they have over there. This isn't me judging whether he's actually guilty of it or not, just saying that I see it as being very doubtful that any court would be able to convict him of it.

The other case possibly does have more chance of getting a conviction, but again she says in her statement that (paraphrasing) she was happy to be having sex with him until she discovered that he wasn't wearing a condom, and even in her statement she doesn't actually say that she told him to stop, just asked him if he was wearing a condom, then said that he'd better not have HIV, which I'd think a court would decide is a pretty unclear way of saying for him to stop. This probably has a slightly greater chance of a successful prosecution, but I'd still expect any sentence to be at the lower end of the scale.

To anyone saying 'rape is rape', you'd have to explain why the sentences for rape range from 4 years to life (in the UK). Also of relevance here is the prior consensual sex, which in this country at least is classed as a mitigating factor, which also feeds into my thinking that he'd likely be facing sentences at the very low end of the sentencing spectrum if he was convicted.

What I'm trying to say here is that I just don't see that he was really facing sufficiently long sentences if convicted to justify taking refuge in an embassy where he must have known he could end up spending years effectively under house arrest.

Therefore I'm tending more to the view that he actually did genuinely take refuge from fear of extradition to the US, rather than to escape the charges in Sweden. Before reading the statements, I'd had the opposite viewpoint fwiw.

Al he has to do is deny the allegations and it becomes word against word which has zero chance of a conviction, which is why the conviction rate for rape is so low

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

i'm not expounding a theory, i'm talking about solid facts. every country has a different legal system - the canadian, for instance, is different to the argentinian. and these different legal systems prescribe different penalties for different acts. and some acts which are proscribed in some countries aren't in others - for example, holocaust denial is a crime in germany but not in gabon. the penalties which are laid down for crimes vary from country to country - murder in norway does not attract the same punishment as murder in nebraska.

so when you spout shit as you did in 1022, perhaps you should reflect, in the light of my first paragraph, what an awful gobshite you make yourself appear.

What you've said isn't responsive to the original posts re: the current lack of respect in the US for the rule of law, and I'm not interested in pointing out, step by step, where you've gone astray.

 

[DexterTCN]

and julian assange did what that's the equivalent of killing 3000 people live on tv?

Challenged the power of america.

 

[Random]

All bets are off regarding Bin Laden. He's the epitome of evil, no lawyer would defend him. I utterly fail to see how this Australian celebrity would get similar treatment.

 

[butchersapron]

Challenged the power of america.

This is a real post.

 

[Random]

Challenged the power of america.

You literally worship America

 

[Wilf]

All of this 'it might not be rape' stuff is pointless. The only question is whether there are enough plausible accusations for the Swedish system to run it's course. None of us know what went on, none of us know how it will turn out if it goes to court - that's the point of the investigation and why it needs to be completed.

The one thing Assange can be sure of is that the publicity and scrutiny means he'll get the closest thing to a fair trial there can be. That same publicity means the Swedes won't pass him over to the U.S anyway - he'll certainly have more of a chance of avoiding extradition than less famous hackers (handed over by the UK of course). I'm not one for normally noting the willingness of government's to behave properly, but Assange has actually got the Swedish state in a place where it can do little else but observe his 'rights'. I suspect he knows this, but fears the rape investigations more than any onward flight to Guantanamo - and that's the key to the whole thing. Shan't bother with the Bin Laden comparisons.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You literally worship America

I think he was being facetious.

 

[cesare]

Check out DAG's website, out of interest. Butcher's, it currently summarises the questions you were asking yesterday.

 

[DexterTCN]

I think he was being facetious.

Random made me lol, to be fair. I wasn't bothering to get into it.

 

[Pickman's model]

What you've said isn't responsive to the original posts re: the current lack of respect in the US for the rule of law, and I'm not interested in pointing out, step by step, where you've gone astray.

i've taken matters from 1021 on, and i haven't delved into the genealogy of your posts further - there's been no need, as i've only been concerned with 1021 on.

leave it if you wish: but please don't come up with some cock and bull story like this which does you no favours.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

i've taken matters from 1021 on, and i haven't delved into the genealogy of your posts further - there's been no need, as i've only been concerned with 1021 on.

leave it if you wish: but please don't come up with some cock and bull story like this which does you no favours.

This is just an offhand discussion on the internet; it's not some attempt to win friends and influence people. Whether a post 'does me no favors' isn't really a concern. If I believe something or think it at the time, I'll post it. How you react to the post, is your business.

 

[Pickman's model]

Good for you.

 

[agricola]

Hmm.

The first time I met Assange, he was convinced a sniper was targeting him through the windows of a conference centre. A few hours later, he was happily typing in front of the same windows. I asked why he believed he was a target. "I can't tell you," he said. Then, five minutes later, he did. He told me I should come to Washington DC for a press conference. Why? I can't tell you. Again, five minutes later, he told me about the Collateral Murder video.

Assange attributed his drive to his first experience with power as a young man (hacking into the email of a Pentagon general). I said maybe I liked investigating politicians' expenses because that had been my first big investigation as a student. "No, it's different when you're a young man." Can't women be driven the same way? "No, they're not." It was a definitive statement, no supporting evidence needed.

I followed up with requests to interview him for my book. I received florid emails such as, "I will have you, Heather, of course I will. But let us be messiahs to generation WHY, not a bunch of ageing hacks looking for a pension... regards from intrigue hotel... I have more interesting adventures for you..."

When he suddenly turned up in London, he wanted me to put him up and act as some sort of mother surrogate. "I have a fever. I'm not sure yet if it's going up or down," he told me. "I need some mothering. Someone to make me chicken noodle soup and bring me cookies in bed."

I later heard from two other women who said Assange pulled the same "poor little lost boy" trick on them in an attempt to finagle his way into their homes. I said that was not how I conducted interviews. He complained that I didn't have a maternal instinct, adding in drama-queen fashion: "I have two wars to stop."
I replied: "Yeah, it's a tough life being a messiah." His response left me speechless: "Will you be my Mary Magdalene, Heather? And bathe my feet at the cross."

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

and julian assange did what that's the equivalent of killing 3000 people live on tv?

Buttfucked the USA on the internet. The USA might see some equivalency there.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hmm.

Yep: rapist!

 

[free spirit]

I'd speak to that Occam fella if I were you, think he might be willing to lend you his razor

you think it that unlikely that the US might consider trumping the Swedish charges and getting him extradited to the US from the UK instead (or from sweden once he's in custody)?

There's also the other aspect that once he's in custody either here or in Sweden, he's then got absolutely no chance of making it to an embassy at that point to go for political asylum if the US do bring charges against him at that point and ask for him to be extradited. If he doesn't believe either UK or Swedish law will protect him at that stage, then I can understand why he might feel he needs to take pre-emptive action now while he still had the option.

Like I saw, having read through all the statements, I really don't think he had anything much to fear from the rape charges themselves, as even if they actually were true, it'd still be their word against his, with no witnesses and lots of mitigating evidence, so he'd surely have been advised that the chances of conviction were very low.... in which case why'd he go and place himself voluntarily under indefinite house arrest just to avoid those charges?


there is of course the possibility that he's so paranoid that he basically imagined the US must be plotting to get him, and convinced himself this was what was happening so much that he legged it to the nearest embassy for protection against something that he'd basically just imagined.

I'm thinking it's probably a bit of a combination of both scenarios tbh.

 

[free spirit]

Al he has to do is deny the allegations and it becomes word against word which has zero chance of a conviction, which is why the conviction rate for rape is so low

that's pretty much my point in a nutshell.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

there is of course the possibility that he's so paranoid that he basically imagined the US must be plotting to get him, .

If US lawmakers have branded him a terrorist, called for his extrajudicial execution; and are trying to change the laws in order to make it easier to get at him..............is he paranoid to think the US is plotting against him?

 

[free spirit]

If US lawmakers have branded him a terrorist, called for his extrajudicial execution; and are trying to change the laws in order to make it easier to get at him..............is he paranoid to think the US is plotting against him?

of course not.

But that's not to say that they were actually definitely planning to issue an arrest warrant and extradite him the minute he was taken into custody here or in Sweden. They may have been, and he may have had specific info that his is what was being planned, alternatively the strain may have got to him a bit and he essentially panicked himself into assuming the worst and legged it.

I can understand his logic though, of realising that if you're going to do something like this then you have to be proactive about it and not wait until the arrest warrant is issued as the first you'd probably know about it would be when they turned up to extradite you.

 

[cesare]

One of Greenwald's quoted sources might have slagged his argument slightly today. @klamberg demonstrates the impossibility of Sweden assuring no extradition.

Its surrounding the supreme court, and its need to assess each case as it arises. The government has a veto, but cannot use it if the supreme court decides that all criteria for extradition have been met. And if not, then the supreme court won't allow extradition anyway. But they cannot pre-judge an extradition request before the details have been made.

He sets this out very clearly at his site :http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-to-us-via-sweden.html