You're being willfully obtuse. They could state there is enough evidence to charge him based on the questioning and only then would we know his reaction.
Last edited:
Assange to go!
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
You're being willfully obtuse. They could state there is enough evidence to charge him based on the questioning and only then would we know his reaction.
I agree Assange is a complete worm, fyi. I'm was just questioning your seemingly unequivocal stance of seeing no reason to resist because the Swedes are squeaky clean. The Swedes have an interesting history with the US. We know today about the housing of US nuclear EW sites that were "off the record" and so on. He has reason and that is the fear that he will be sent to the US where he will likely rot in prison. He may have other reasons, such as guilt, of course, but don't be so certain that the Swedes aren't at least somewhat in a shady relationship with the US.
It's a pretty fair assumption that if/when he heads to Sweden that the request to extradite him to the US will land there before he does. In fact, IIRC that if the request is already made, it would add complications for us to send him anyway. Something to do with the death penalty complicating it - even if he doesn't face the death penalty himself but because the US are a nation with the death penalty.
Last edited:
I'm being willfully obtuse? He's refused point blank to travel to Sweden. This is a fact. If he was quite happy to be charged there, if there was sufficient evidence, do you think we would even be having this discussion?
He has not stated his actions in the case that a decision was made to charge him. He wants the case to proceed and has offered to be questioned for the last 4 years. You are talking about a hypothetical situation.
If he didn't wanted the case to proceed why have he and his legal team been fighting so hard in Sweden to get them to question him?
Last edited:
It's not hypothetical. He's refused to travel to Sweden, knowing full well that if they think there is a case against him, they can charge and prevent him leaving the country again. As long as he isn't in Sweden they can't touch him.
It is hypothetical, he has not been charged, he does not yet know if they will charge him. He presumably believes/hopes that after questioning, he is unlikely to be charged.
We do not know what will happen if they do decide there is enough evidence to charge him. This scenario has not existed and he has not stated his position on it. Hence hypothetical.
I repeat: If he didn't wanted the case to proceed why have he and his legal team been fighting so hard in Sweden to get them to question him?
Last edited:
Why didn't he stay in Sweden to be questioned at the second stage as requested?
I have posted a link with a concise timeline and clear, referenced reasoning around the nonsense surrounding this case. How about, instead of repeating already discredited positions over and over, you present some actual evidence to refute the information I have provided from a reputable source (ie, not a random blog and not wikileaks).
Then we can have a serious, reasoned debate.
Because he is of course worried that he won't be charged if he goes to Sweden? It isn't a hypothetical question at all. He's been on the run for years, why after that time would he suddenly decide that facing actual charges would he say actually, fair cop governor, lets do it by the book again?
If he wants the case to proceed, why has he done this? He used every legal means he could to avoid it and when they failed, he used illegal means to escape. So why would they fight for him to be interviewed anywhere but Sweden? Because it stops him having to go to Sweden, the only place where Swedish police can actually charge him!
Dolph, you talk about facts and evidence but your link to legal analysis in the New Statesman has been heavily criticised and is alleged to be seriously flawed.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition
You seem unable to see that the legal opinion in this case is not totally one-sided.
If the U.S. Wanted him extradited, what stops them from applying to the UK courts for extradition...we have a treaty.
Facts are though, that Assange essentially did a runner from answering the allegations in the first place, tried to use the UK legal system to stop being extradited under warrant back to Sweden, when that failed he did a runner again into a foreign embassy.
Anyone else and there would be no question over his motives.
And the allegations that Sweden are using this as a smokescreen to extradite him to the U.S is conspiracy nutjob territory. For starters Sweden extradition laws are pretty clear cut and are there even any charges in the U.S. against Assange?
http://www.government.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435
Facts are though, that Assange essentially did a runner from answering the allegations in the first place, tried to use the UK legal system to stop being extradited under warrant back to Sweden, when that failed he did a runner again into a foreign embassy.
Anyone else and there would be no question over his motives.
And the allegations that Sweden are using this as a smokescreen to extradite him to the U.S is conspiracy nutjob territory. For starters Sweden extradition laws are pretty clear cut and are there even any charges in the U.S. against Assange?
http://www.government.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435
Last edited:
You are correct, but most suspects aren't one of the most wanted people in the world.
It's really not complicated, his legal advisers believe extradition is more likely to be successful from Sweden. Hence wanting to avoid going there. There is no conspiracy.
Given that he would face 30+ years in a US prison if extradited, you can understand him listening very carefully to his legal advice on this.
As I've said, if he didn't want the case to move forward, he would have refused all questioning and wouldn't have fought so hard for questioning to take place. Crucially, the prosecutor has to decide whether to continue of drop the case but only after the questioning takes place.
Edit: No one is here suggesting the Swedish are doing this as a smokescreen. There is no extradition request yet, but we know for a fact that there is a 5 year long grand jury investigation against wikileaks in the US which is under seal. To believe they wouldn't seek extradition doesn't seem very credible to me.
Last edited:
Sounds like a crock when you actually look at the extradition laws in Sweden...they are stricter than we have.
There are not even any US charges against him, let alone any application for extradition. Assange is the only source of this and he is hardly reliable.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-wikileaks-assange-usa-idUSBRE87L12W20120822
Last edited:
So many amateur lawyers in this thread. That is his legal opinion from professionals. There is no overwhelming consensus on this opinion as it is a complex area.
The investigation is sealed at the moment. Why would the US play their hand before necessary, and why would they have investigated this for 5 years and have it under seal if they didn't plan to act on their investigation? Maybe nothing will happen, but why would Assange risk it when again, his legal advice is that an extradition request is likely?
He is a well respected lawyer and journalist. No one is impartial. I have only been arguing that the legal opinion on this is mixed which is not a controversial position. You have been suggesting that this is an open shut case which to me seems rather simplistic and naive.
Last edited:
It's opinion from Assange's lawyers...others have an opposite opinion. It doesn't address the issue of why he cannot be extradited from the UK either or that the U.S. government have stated there is no plans to do so...the issues are for the British, Swedish and Ecuadorian authorities to deal with as far as they are concerned....there isn't even any real stomach for charging Assange in the UScanymore, if there ever was...and it's highly questionable whether they even could in the first place.
Again, we only have Assange's word for this. Assange is his own worst enemy.
Fact is that no one has charged him, sought his extradition or even indicated that this would happen or is likely. The facts are that Assange is running from rape allegations...and is using a secret conspiracy story to deflect attention from what are clearly very serious criminal allegations.
Last edited:
Not true. The evidence for the grand jury investigation does not come only from Assange but from multiple sources.
Given the recent history of the US with leakers I really think it is naive to believe the US won't do everything they can to get their hands on Assange.
