Assange to go!

People are getting quite a but muddled here. Assange's legal team were arguing:
1. The European Arrest Warrant was malformed in that it was for the purpose of interview rather than the purpose of prosecution.
2. In addition or alternatively, the type of offence does not fall within those that is subject to a EAW in that it's not rape within the proper meanining of the term.
3. If the EAW is valid such extradition would be contrary to Assange's human rights as he would not receive a fair trial due to a number of different issues with the way the Swedish legal system works and due to the demeanor of te would-be prosecutor
4. If he is sent to Sweden there is a material risk that he would be further sent to America where his right to life and right against torture may be breached. The point is that this would potentially be a direct consequence of the actions of an English court and therefore has to be considered.
5. In any case, the EAW is unnecessary in that the interview can take place via videolink.

That's off the top of my head, as far as I can remember, but should help to clarify.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
I'm completely undecided on what to make of this, but I fancy playing devil's advocate..

How so? He is alleging that the charges are cooked. If that is the case, it is EU (and UK, I believe) law that he be protected and granted asylum if necessary.
Click to expand...

Whether the accusations are false or not is up to the Swedish Courts and a Jury to decide.

Sweden has a fair and robust justice system and as such does not qualify as a country from which you would grant asylum.


Dj_Jestar said:
That is exactly the allegations he is making, that he is being persecuted.. therefore completely relevant!
Click to expand...

He is not be persecuted by the Swedish state however, they have every right to investigate the charge against him and he is required to stand trial.

Sweden has no history of human rights abuses. Assange is merely using this as a defence, it doesn't mean it has any basis.

Assange: "Hey guv, I'm innocent, they are making it all up"

Britain: "Ok, here is asylum"

what nonsense.





Dj_Jestar said:
Not so irrelevant. EU law/human rights stipulates that someone can only be extradited where they will face a fair and humane trial. I believe they are contesting that the death penalty is not humane, and that the trial itself will not be fair. We're in the EU, thus it is very much our jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Sweden has not got the death penalty, it also abides by EU human rights legislation and international law. It's criminal justice system is one of the fairest in the world and thus the accusation that he will not receive a fair trial is nonsense.

Dj_Jestar said:
Not so, everything will be investigated again for such a high profile case, particularly with the above points.
Click to expand...

None of the above points are relevant as none of them hold water against Sweden.
 
fini said:
That's off the top of my head, as far as I can remember, but should help to clarify.
Click to expand...

The first few are fair points in law to argue and be judged upon (which is what should have happened). The problem is that everyone - including Assange's legal team in public - is playing the 'WikiLeaks' card and concentrating on the last few. That serves no purpose other than attempting by implication to make a mockery of the Swedish judicial system.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Whether the accusations are false or not is up to the Swedish Courts and a Jury to decide.

Sweden has a fair and robust justice system and as such does not qualify as a country from which you would grant asylum.




He is not be persecuted by the Swedish state however, they have every right to investigate the charge against him and he is required to stand trial.

Sweden has no history of human rights abuses. Assange is merely using this as a defence, it doesn't mean it has any basis.

Assange: "Hey guv, I'm innocent, they are making it all up"

Britain: "Ok, here is asylum"

what nonsense.







Sweden has not got the death penalty, it also abides by EU human rights legislation and international law. It's criminal justice system is one of the fairest in the world and thus the accusation that he will not receive a fair trial is nonsense.



None of the above points are relevant as none of them hold water against Sweden.
Click to expand...
He is contesting it is NOT a fair trial! It doesn't matter what Sweden's justice system is like, in fact it isn't even relevant that it is Sweden - he is contesting that whatever trial he faces will be unfair. :)
 
fini said:
People are getting quite a but muddled here. Assange's legal team were arguing:
1. The European Arrest Warrant was malformed in that it was for the purpose of interview rather than the purpose of prosecution.
2. In addition or alternatively, the type of offence does not fall within those that is subject to a EAW in that it's not rape within the proper meanining of the term.
3. If the EAW is valid such extradition would be contrary to Assange's human rights as he would not receive a fair trial due to a number of different issues with the way the Swedish legal system works and due to the demeanor of te would-be prosecutor
4. If he is sent to Sweden there is a material risk that he would be further sent to America where his right to life and right against torture may be breached. The point is that this would potentially be a direct consequence of the actions of an English court and therefore has to be considered.
5. In any case, the EAW is unnecessary in that the interview can take place via videolink.

That's off the top of my head, as far as I can remember, but should help to clarify.
Click to expand...



All of which a British court has found irrelevant to the case.

Sweden is not Iran, Assange will receive a fair trial. The risk of extradition to the US is no more than it is if he resides here. Sweden are bound by the same EU law as Britain and the accusations of state influence on the outcome of a trial are unfounded.

His lawyers are arguing that he is being persecuted for his political activities, however Sweden is a signatory of ECHR and thus that cannot be the case and a court should and have rejected that defence.

There can be no dispute that the offence Assange is accused of is an "extradition Offence" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/10), Sexual Assault and Rape are both "extradition Offences" under (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/64).

There are Bars to extradition (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/11), again he doesn't seem to have a case against this either.

and lastly they have the Human Rights argument (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/21) which again has been dismissed as Sweden is subject to the same EU ECHR legislation as we are.

It is up to Assange and his defence team to bring evidence that the trial will be unfair or against his Human Rights, something they have failed to do and I suspect that the appeal is merely a delaying tactic and that he will be eventually extradited to Sweden where he will either stand trial or be released without charge depending on the evidence against him.

The argument of video interview is moot, as the Swedish authorities do not give that option. Neither do our own Police either. That is simply an offer by Assange's team that was rejected.






He is accused of rape, he should be extradited.
 
Last edited:
Dj_Jestar said:
He is contesting it is NOT a fair trial! It doesn't matter what Sweden's justice system is like, in fact it isn't even relevant that it is Sweden - he is contesting that whatever trial he faces will be unfair. :)
Click to expand...

As Sweden is a member of the ECHR that argument has no legal basis in regard to extradition on a EAW.

Extradition Act 2003: Sec 21

(1)If the judge is required to proceed under this section (by virtue of section 11 or 20) he must decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).

(2)If the judge decides the question in subsection (1) in the negative he must order the person’s discharge.

(3)If the judge decides that question in the affirmative he must order the person to be extradited to the category 1 territory in which the warrant was issued.

(4)If the judge makes an order under subsection (3) he must remand the person in custody or on bail to wait for his extradition to the category 1 territory.

(5)If the judge remands the person in custody he may later grant bail.
Click to expand...


No extradition warrant has ever been refused to a country whose laws are subject to the ECHR. Sweden is a signatory to the ECHR.

Assange has to bring specific evidence that he will receive an unfair trial, he has failed to do so.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is I want to see what's in the encrypted insurance file.

We all know that he sexed up these women, whether any of the cases could be considered a rape or not (I highly doubt they could, unless there's a high pressure from government on Swedish courts). That's what he does on his trips around the world, he screws around (he admitted in one interview that getting women in bed isn't anything that he has troubles with).

He surprise buttsecksed one woman and another had doubts a night after. Highly doubtful that if it was a case of anyone of you, we would consider it anything but a time for a good laugh.

With that said, I'm not saying that he was right or wrong doing so, some women are really stupid and vulnerable and a charismatic guy that Assange probably is, could easily use that to fill his physiological needs.

We also know that all this dirt was dug up purely because of his political affiliations with freedom of information. Does anyone seriously consider it a coincident that such accusations came to light all at the same time (and as far as we know, didn't happen at the same time) and right after some major leaks concerning Western countries are released?

BTW, I found the Guardian to have a good coverage of recent and past leaks if anyone's interested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks
 
How come a swedish judge previously threw out the case against assange? - he was in the country for months and no arrest was made for the allegation of 'rape'. Surely if he has a viable crime to answer for, why did the swedish justice system not arrest and prosecute him when he was living in sweden and offered to speak directly with the swedish authorities with his lawyers?

The whole thing stinks of something very very rotten indeed.
 
Castiel said:
Which is largely irrelevant.


Then accusations are made and he is required to face them. Sweden is not Iran, he will get a fair trial and if he is innocent he will be able to put his case and that is all that need be required by the British Courts to allow extradition.

Whether the accusations are false or not (I don't think they are) is not for us to decide, it is for the Swedish Courts to decide.

If the United States think they have a case against him for espionage then they can apply for an extradition warrant themselves which would be far easier to get from Britain than Sweden anyway.
Click to expand...

Not relevant to the question of his extradition, no, but I still find it highly suspect.
 
jumpy said:
How come a swedish judge previously threw out the case against assange? - he was in the country for months and no arrest was made for the allegation of 'rape'. Surely if he has a viable crime to answer for, why did the swedish justice system not arrest and prosecute him when he was living in sweden and offered to speak directly with the swedish authorities with his lawyers?

The whole thing stinks of something very very rotten indeed.
Click to expand...

A Swedish judge did not throw out the case. A Swedish prosecutor dropped the charges and then her superior looked at the charges and decided that there was a case to answer, at which point Assange legged it.
 
vonhelmet said:
You mean insofar as he was apparently so excited about becoming a high profile whistle blower that he promptly raped two women who then only decided to report the incidents when his name hit the big time?

Yeah, it does sound suspicious.
Click to expand...

The original "rape" charges were brought against him months ago, after the leaks but before they made big news AFAIK.

Brian8bit said:
Stuck his old chap in a man hating lesbian, then her friend who have a habit of crying raping.
Click to expand...

Nah, actually from the statements made (released to papers in part, months ago) it seems more like a jealous stalker who persuaded another woman to go to the police station with her and got persuaded to cry rape as well.
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression from the radio report I heard that it was all to do with the condoms presence, not whether the sex itself was consenting.

I found this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-julian-assange

The story appears to proceed as follows: Miss A, having invited Assange to speak to a leftwing campaign group in the town of Enkoping, suggested he stay in her flat, although the two had not met. Both agree that they slept together on the night before the event, during which the condom split.

The following day, the woman attended and helped facilitate the event, at which Miss W was also present. According to her police interview, Miss W accompanied the Australian and some male guests to lunch at which he flirted with her; afterwards the pair went to the cinema, where she told police she had performed oral sex on him. They slept together that night, using a condom, and again the following morning, when both parties appear to agree that a condom was not used, after which Assange left.

What happened next will be the subject of any legal process, but according to her testimony Miss W, for some reason, got in touch with Miss A (they did not previously know each other); some days later the two went to a Stockholm police station where they said they were "seeking advice" on making a complaint against Assange. Miss A is understood to have told police that he had ripped the condom on purpose, while Miss W said the unprotected sex act had been without her consent. They were reportedly advised by the police officer that these allegations amounted to rape against Miss W and sexual molestation against Miss A.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom