Assange to go!

[Modular]

good riddons

 

[Amp34]

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

Slightly different story to the one I read, which went in to more detail as to what exactly happened (written last August). Essentially one woman decided to volunteer for the talk Assage was giving to get close to him and flirt with him. He sleeps with her between sleeping with other woman (AFAIR), first (stalker) woman finds out about other woman and contacts her, persuading her to go to the police station for "moral" support. Woman B then gets persuaded to press charges.

Think it was in the mail though so accuracy could be a bit suspect...

EDIT:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...nge--women-involved-tell-different-story.html

A **** but if to be believed should he really be jailed for that?

 

[steve-h]

One thing that has happened since these charges against Assange were made, is that we've all but stopped talking about the massacre of innocent civilians by USAF helicopter pilots.

We've also stopped talking about the Taliban using villages as cover.

And the Americans killing hostages when they start throwing frag grenades around when they storm said villages.

...

good riddons

lol

 

[SuperMan]

Castiel none of this strikes you as even slightly suspicious?

 

[stockhausen]

Heard a lawyer specialising in extraditions on BBC R4 Law in Action this evening who suggested that Assagne had never had a snowball's chance in Hell of avoiding extradition and if he had any sense, the smug publicity whore would simply go back to Sweden and face the consequences of his arrogance - frankly I suspect that that would be best for Wikileaks as well.

 

[deko]

Well, I'l definitely make sure I wear a condom in Sweden.

Is anyone taking bets on how long he'll be in Sweden before he gets extradited to the US? Tenner on a week.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel none of this strikes you as even slightly suspicious?

Not particularly. It is more likely that the original prosecutor dropped the charges due to personal bias in favour of Assange because of his high profile and links to wikileaks rather than some complex CIA plot to discredit him.

The issue was bought up to a member of parliament by someone connected to one of the girls and then the chief prosecutor looked at the accusations again and decided that he did indeed have a case to answer.

No conspiracy or global effort to discredit him, simply two girls who he abused who want him tom answer for what he did.

And if he is innocent then a Swedish Court and Jury can and will find him so.

Everything else is hyperbole invented by Assange and the Press to confuse and complicate the issue.

Either way, the charges against him are irrelevant to the extradition case as long as they conform to the Extradition Act 2003, which as I pointed out before, they do.

 

[Dabbles]

Given the Americans' recent record I suspect Mr Assange is going to be made an 'example' of. They really do believe Hollywood when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.

Source: Guantanamo and the CIA 'secret interrogation camps around the world'.

It all fits 'too well' with the release of secret US info and it stinks.

 

[deko]

Not particularly. It is more likely that the original prosecutor dropped the charges due to personal bias in favour of Assange because of his high profile and links to wikileaks rather than some complex CIA plot to discredit him.

The issue was bought up to a member of parliament by someone connected to one of the girls and then the chief prosecutor looked at the accusations again and decided that he did indeed have a case to answer.

No conspiracy or global effort to discredit him, simply two girls who he abused who want him tom answer for what he did.

And if he is innocent then a Swedish Court and Jury can and will find him so.

Everything else is hyperbole invented by Assange and the Press to confuse and complicate the issue.

Either way, the charges against him are irrelevant to the extradition case as long as they conform to the Extradition Act 2003, which as I pointed out before, they do.

What part of consensual sex without a condom is abuse?

 

[Dabbles]

What part of consensual sex without a condom is abuse?

Probably only the bit about proving it was him in this case.

 

[deko]

Misread, sorry.

 

[Castiel]

What part of consensual sex without a condom is abuse?

The minute she say no, and he continued anyway. He also had sex with her when she was asleep again without protection.

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.

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


Now whether the claims are true or not is irrelevant to the extradition case.

Sweden has the right to request his extradition to answer questions in relation to serious allegations made against him.

 

[Castiel]

Given the Americans' recent record I suspect Mr Assange is going to be made an 'example' of. They really do believe Hollywood when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.

Source: Guantanamo and the CIA 'secret interrogation camps around the world'.

It all fits 'too well' with the release of secret US info and it stinks.

How are the Americans going to make an "example" of Julian Assange in a Swedish Court?

 

[Dabbles]

Sweden has the right to request his extradition to answer questions in relation to serious allegations made against him.

They do. The UK has the right to deny that request if they believe he will be mistreated as a result of that extradition. Including if he is to be sent on by the Swedish authorities to the US and killed under their laws.

I hope justice is served in Sweden, guilty or not.

 

[Dabbles]

How are the Americans going to make an "example" of Julian Assange in a Swedish Court?

By getting him to Sweden, extraditing them to their shores and trying and executing him.

 

[Castiel]

They do. The UK has the right to deny that request if they believe he will be mistreated as a result of that extradition. Including if he is to be sent on by the Swedish authorities to the US and killed under their laws.

I hope justice is served in Sweden, guilty or not.

They only have the right to deny extradition if Assange can offer proof that he will be treated in such a way that contravenes the ECHR, as Sweden is a signatory to ECHR that is extremely unlikely and he could not offer proof to the British Court.

Or he would have to prove that the charges were politically motivated and again as Sweden is a signatory to the ECHR he would have protect from charges in Sweden if that were the case, so again he could not prove that Sweden would give him an unfair trial.

By getting him to Sweden, extraditing them to their shores and trying and executing him.

The United States could just as easily (in fact it would be easier) to request extradition from the UK, so that point is moot.

 

[Dabbles]

They only have the right to deny extradition if Assange can offer proof that he will be treated in such a way that contravenes the ECHR, as Sweden is a signatory to ECHR that is extremely unlikely and he could not offer proof to the British Court.

Or he would have to prove that the charges were politically motivated and again as Sweden is a signatory to the ECHR he would have protect from charges in Sweden if that were the case, so again he could not prove that Sweden would give him an unfair trial.

The United States could just as easily (in fact it would be easier) to request extradition from the UK, so that point is moot.

Sweden is seen as a 'soft target'. I hope if he is extradited from Sweden he is done so on the grounds that he will recieve a fair trial and spared execution. I fear this won't be the case.

 

[Castiel]

Sweden is seen as a 'soft target'. I hope if he is extradited from Sweden he is done so on the grounds that he will recieve a fair trial and spared execution. I fear this won't be the case.

A "soft target" for what?

What leads you think that Assange will not get a fair trial in a country with one of the fairest legal systems in the world?

And even if there is some question as to the legality or fairness of the trial, as Sweden is a signatory to the ECHR he would have the protections in law that offers.

The exact same as if he was accused of rape and sexual assault in this Country.

Sweden have no capital or corporal punishment and their extradition treaty with the United States is robust enough that he is at no real risk of being treated unfairly.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435

Conditions for extradition to a state outside the EU

The Extradition for Criminal Offences Act prohibits the extradition of Swedish nationals.

Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year. If sentence has been passed in the state applying for extradition, the penalty must be imprisonment for at least four months or other institutional detention for an equivalent period. Thus, extradition requires an offence punishable under the law of both countries ("dual criminality") that, in principle, is of a certain degree of seriousness.

Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences.Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. Nor, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgement has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law.

The state requesting for extradition must show that there is reason for extradition in the specific case. The outcome of the crime investigation in the requesting state - generally a conviction or a detention order - must be enclosed with the request for extradition. When extradition is granted, certain conditions may be laid down. For example, without the consent of the Government in the particular case, the person who is extradited may not be prosecuted or punished in the other state for any other offence committed prior to extradition (the "principle of speciality"). Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

 

[trilobite]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case even Assange's lawyers did not maintain the argument that he could be extradited to the US. This is because he has no been extradited to Sweden from the UK, but surrendered to Sweden under a EAW.

Therefore in order to extradite him to a non EU country the Swedish Government would need the consent of the British Government, a decision that could be reviewed by the British Courts.

So to clarify: should the US seek to extradite him they would now have to satisfy both the UK AND Swedish Governments that it would be lawful. Both are signatories to the ECHR, neither would therefore extradite him if there were a risk of torture, or a risk of the death penalty.

link

Different rules apply within the EU (surrender) and outside the EU (extradition).

Due to general agreements in the European Arrest Warrant Act, Sweden cannot extradite a person who has been surrendered to Sweden from another country without certain considerations.

Concerning surrender to another country within the European Union, the Act states that the executing country under certain circumstances must approve a further surrender.

On the other hand, if the extradition concerns a country outside the European Union the authorities in the executing country (the country that surrendered the person) must consent such extradition. Sweden cannot, without such consent, extradite a person, for example to the USA.

The DJ's judgement appears here: Link

Notably he says:

If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued.

I just hope that he goes quietly, faces the charges in an appropriate court and is tried fairly for these allegations.

I also hope that he has had to pay the prosecution costs.

 

[fini]

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

It's not found the points to be irrelevant, it's simply found them to not be of compelling enough value to allow for extradition to be denied. In any case, a very wise old judge once said (something that I'm sure I'm about to horribly misquote) that it is the purpose of the courts of first instance to be wrong, the court of appeal to be right and the House of Lords (as it then was) to redefine what is wrong and right.

Sweden is not Iran, Assange will receive a fair trial.

Assertion.

the accusations of state influence on the outcome of a trial are unfounded.

Again, an assertion. Just because you do not believe the accusations does not mean that they are incorrect.

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.

They're only arguing this on the basis of no case to answer. For that purpose it is entirely relevant. Just because Sweden are a signatory to the ECHR does not mean that there cannot be political interference in the judicial system.

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 really can. His offence is only rape within the Swedish definition of rape. It is not what other states within Europe understand rape to be. An argument can thus be made that they fall outside of the meaning of rape for the purpose of extradition.

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.

It is, of course, under sub-section (b) that the arguments fall.

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.

Just because Sweden is a signatory to the ECHR does not automatically mean that his human rights will be protected. How many times has the UK lost cases at the ECHR? The answer is quite a few.

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.

They can also show, and argue, as they have, that the EAW is malformed in the first place.

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.

UK police do accept video interview as do the UK courts. I have, for obvious reasons, less understanding of the Swedish legal system though understand that there is no rule against Swedish police interviewing by videolink.

He is accused of rape, he should be extradited.

He's not accused of rape within the UK meaning of it, nor within the meaning of it in the mind of the legislators when the EAW was being crafted.