Assange to go!
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
Your belief that 'it is much easier to extradite him from the uk than Sweden' is not shared by Assange's lawyers who are more qualified than you on this issue. Either way, it is definitely the case that US extradition is less likely from the Embassy than from Sweden or the UK.
You should be asking what excuse the Swedish prosecutor will use next to continue the case. She has already lied about her reasons for not questioning him in the UK (she previously claimed it would be illegal), then claimed it was because the quality of the interview would be worse (a meaningless excuse).
I don't know what will happen if she does decide to charge him, but given that it's a 'he said/she said' case, and given the available evidence, that looks very unlikely.
Last edited:
I see no reason to indulge Assange or try and find excuses why he should not address the allegations of rape made against him openly and honestly. Assange's conduct is far more suspect than anything the swedes government have done.
He has been trying to address the allegations for the last 4 years, the Swedish prosecutor has been blocking this until her u-turn today.
- He (and his lawyers) have continually said, I want to be questioned ASAP, just in London rather than Sweden
- They say 'no, it's illegal' (this is false)
- They say 'no' it's not possible (false)
- They say 'it would degrade the quality of the interview' (pure nonsense)
- After 4 years they agree to do what Assange's lawyers have continually requested and question him in London
Who has acted more suspiciously? Why has the prosecutor refused to question him in London all this time and has instead drawn out the case to the detriment of the alleged victims and the UK and Swedish taxpayers?
Lol Dolph.
Answer the question Dolph. Don't skirt about. Oh and no <insert arbitrary pithy statement designed specifically to load the question in my favour>
Last edited:
His legal team has advised him that he may be extradited to the US after proceedings in Sweden have completed. They also believe this such an extradition request is more likely to succeed in Sweden than the UK. (This last point is obviously open to debate but that is their stated belief and convincing arguments can be, and have been, made either way).
No conspiracy.
Your turn:
Why didn't the prosecutor agree to question him in the UK until now given the exceptional circumstances, the escalating costs, and the detriment to the victims the status quo would bring?
The question about why the swedes want to follow due process and question him in their own country where they can charge him if appropriate, supported by a valid extradition warrant?
The swedes just want to treat Assange the same as any other individual accused of a crime.
So that is my answer. Now my question
Why is Assange so unwilling to be questioned that he has refused to travel and ignored a court order to do so? It cannot be the us extradition idea, because the uk extradition treaty with the US is far more permissive than the one the US have with Sweden, and to undertake a follow on extradition from Sweden requires consent of both the swedes and the uk.
For a bonus point, why are people so willing to defend Assange and not treat him like any other alleged sex offender?
The swedes just want to treat Assange the same as any other individual accused of a crime.
So that is my answer. Now my question
Why is Assange so unwilling to be questioned that he has refused to travel and ignored a court order to do so? It cannot be the us extradition idea, because the uk extradition treaty with the US is far more permissive than the one the US have with Sweden, and to undertake a follow on extradition from Sweden requires consent of both the swedes and the uk.
For a bonus point, why are people so willing to defend Assange and not treat him like any other alleged sex offender?
Why would Sweden ever think it was a good idea to interview somewhere that even if they did decide there is a case wouldn't actually be able to charge him and bring him to court?
Remember this is a guy that dragged this through both the Swedish and UK courts and when his numerous appeals failed, illegally left the country to somewhere they couldn't extradite him from.
No, that was not the question. Stop skirting. Do you honestly believe you have enough information to confidently make the claim that "Assange's conduct is far more suspect than anything the swedes government have done."
You do know he has an extradition order from the UK already? He's not hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy for giggles.
As far as public knowledge goes, it is rather suspicious that there is no yes or no answer to whether he would face (re)extradition to the US from Sweden. We already know the US want him, and he is looking at spending pretty much the rest of his days in a federal prison if he ever steps foot on US soil. That's enough reason for anyone to not want to be shipped out.
e: also the US-UK extradition treaty does not take precedent over the European Arrest Warrant.
You do know he has an extradition order from the UK already? He's not hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy for giggles.
As far as public knowledge goes, it is rather suspicious that there is no yes or no answer to whether he would face (re)extradition to the US from Sweden. We already know the US want him, and he is looking at spending pretty much the rest of his days in a federal prison if he ever steps foot on US soil. That's enough reason for anyone to not want to be shipped out.
e: also the US-UK extradition treaty does not take precedent over the European Arrest Warrant.
Last edited:
Citation for the stupidity of the extradition conspiracy
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange
Few counterpoints to this:
- Swedish prosecutors HAVE travelled abroad to question suspects in the past
- The status quo was detrimental to the alleged victims and costs the taxpayers millions
- The case is clearly exceptional because of the asylum claim and the fact that the suspect is highly wanted by the world's biggest superpower
As I have previously stated, legal opinion on this is mixed but one thing for sure is that his lawyers know a lot more about this than you. Crucially, follow on extradition would not require any consent from UK courts. Back-seat lawyering is not useful.
They are not. People who actually care about the alleged victims want the case to progress, people who didn't care about the victims were happy with the status quo (or 'treating Assange the same as any other suspect' as you put it).
Why are people so happy to stall a case and deprive possible victims of justice because they are too rigid to question a suspect an hour away?
Your last point is hypothetical, Assange has never stated he wouldn't go to Sweden if he was actually charged. It would also be a good idea because it would allow the case to move forward. e.g. if the case was then dropped taxpayers would save a lot of money.
I feel I have enough information to make that judgement. Swedish law and process, while different to the uk, is clear, fair and consistent. Nothing Sweden has done suggests assange is a special case. By contrast, Assange's behaviour has been dodgy from day one (see the link I provided for a much more eloquent breakdown than I could manage).
The link also covers the potential onward extradition, you simply cannot offer a guarantee against something that has not been requested, because any request has to be judged purely on the relevant evidence and not anything else. As no extradition request has been made, no judgement can be made about the success or failure of such a request.
Last edited:
Only on some of the allegations, the rape allegation is valid until 2020, for example. The lesser crimes have a shorter statute.