Assange to go!

[Castiel]

Not true. The evidence for the grand jury investigation does not come only from Assange but from multiple sources.

Yet all the ones that actually have any authority say that there are no plans to extradite or even charge him. In fact the likelihood seems very remote. Even if they were not, the likelihood that Sweden would extradite on political grounds are not supported by their stated laws, which are there for everyone to see.

Like I said, Assange is using this to avoid allegations of a serious sexual offence. One which he should answer...

And if the U.S. Will do anything in there power to "get" Assange like you claim...where is the extradition order to the UK Govt, or the charges against him?

Pfft...sounds like a crock to me.

 

[Dolph]

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.

You have presented conspiracy theories, demanded answers to loaded questions and ignored questions you don't like (such as why assange didn't go for the interrogation when requested while still in Sweden).

You have presented nothing but the excuses assange gives as to why he has deliberately ignored his legal responsibilities on every occasion, while trying to pass the blame onto everyone but the accused rapist.

Assange's behaviour suggests either guilt or irrational paranoia, there is nothing noble about circumventing the process of justice.

 

[AGD]

You have presented conspiracy theories

Go on? A single example of a conspiracy theory I have presented?

You have presented conspiracy theories, demanded answers to loaded questions and ignored questions you don't like

You have done these things but I rather keep this debate away from ad hominem and stick to the facts.

With regard to your question why Assange left Sweden, he had already been questioned by police there and asked if it was ok for him to leave Sweden. They said yes so he did. He was perfectly entitled to do so and given that it was a very busy time for Wikileaks, he may have felt he needed to be in London near the Guardian for work reasons. Or he may have then received legal opinion about Swedish extradition who knows?

You have ignored multiple points of mine such as: if Assange did not want the case to proceed why did he spend so much time (and money) trying to force the prosecutor to question him? And why is he accepting the request now?

 

[Dolph]

Go on?

Your continued presentation of the secret hearings and onward extradition plan is the most obvious one...

 

[Castiel]

It does seem like Assange is milking it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382

The main concern expressed by Mr Assange and his supporters is that once extradited to Sweden, he would be in danger of being sent to the US, where he fears he could face the death penalty.

Many of Wikileaks' most prominent revelations came from massive releases of classified US military documents on the Afghan and Iraq wars, in July and October 2010. In April 2010, the site released footage showing US soldiers shooting dead 18 civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.

Despite the US not having made an extradition request, US Attorney General Eric Holder has previously said American officials were pursuing a "very serious criminal investigation" into the matter.

Mr Assange has also pointed to the case of Chelsea Manning, an ex American soldier formerly known as Private Bradley Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison in the US for leaking classified material to Wikileaks.

However, legal experts have pointed out several obstacles any extradition and subsequent prosecution in the US would have to overcome.

Correspondents say that Sweden could apply a more stringent test than that used when an extradition is sought from the United Kingdom.

Also, even though the extradition would be according to Swedish law, the UK's approval would be needed.

Mr Assange's supporters have asked Sweden to guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, which Swedish officials say they cannot legally do.

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has however insisted that his country would not extradite a suspect to a country where they would face the death penalty.

No one is extraditing Assange to the U.S... It's not even clear whether the U.S. Could charge him with a crime.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

But even getting Mr Assange to the US would prove troublesome, according to Jacques Semmelman, a New York lawyer and authority on extradition law.

Espionage is seen as a political crime, and political offences are not subject to extradition under the US-UK, US-Sweden and UK-Sweden treaties, Mr Semmelman said.

"No US extradition treaty currently in force lists espionage as an extraditable offence," wrote Ms Elsea, the legal researcher for Congress.

 

[Dolph]

Go on? A single example of a conspiracy theory I have presented?

With regard to your question why Assange left Sweden, he had already been questioned by police there and asked if it was ok for him to leave Sweden. They said yes so he did. He was perfectly entitled to do so and given that it was a very busy time for Wikileaks, he may have felt he needed to be in London near the Guardian for work reasons.

You have ignored multiple points of mine such as: if Assange did not want the case to proceed why did he spend so much time (and money) trying to force the prosecutor to question him? And why is he accepting the request now?

The timeline I posted earlier refutes your version of events, source needed.

Also, I haven't ignored the question, I have answered it twice, but I will present another answer for you. What alleged rapist gets to dictate the terms of their interview with the authorities?

Why has assange spent so much time and effort hiding from due process and trying to dictate the terms of his cooperation in a rape investigation?

 

[Xordium]

I am wondering whether this is the same Assange that discovered the US was rendering anyone who they felt was a problem or taking them out with a drone strike including their own citizens. The same US that we now know did such actions without compulsion. The same US that does not court or care about world opinion when it wants something. If they wanted him they could have got him. Before all this kerfuffle he was walking around in a city even the bungling Russian secret services have killed people with impunity in. For that matter we don't even care that Russia kills people in London what makes us think we would do anything if the US rendered him. Leads me to think if they had wanted him they could have had he'd have had a military trial anyway so they could have done what they wanted. And they didn't. He did hide though from a rape charge.

 

[AGD]

Your continued presentation of the secret hearings and onward extradition plan is the most obvious one...

So you don't think there is a chance at all that the US will request his extradition or is creating a case against Wikileaks? And you don't believe it is reasonable for Assange to fear these things?

You think that Assange's lawyer is just making up things when he says he "heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly empanelled grand jury in Alexandria" meeting to consider criminal charges for the WikiLeaks case?

 

[Dolph]

So you don't think there is a chance at all that the US will request his extradition or is creating a case against Wikileaks? And you don't believe it is reasonable for Assange to fear these things?

You think that Assange's lawyer is just making up things when he says he "heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly empanelled grand jury in Alexandria" meeting to consider criminal charges for the WikiLeaks case?

I think assange will say or do anything to avoid having to face the judicial process with regards to allegations of sexual violence.

I also believe that there are sufficient protections in place to ensure that, if the USA is preparing a case and requests extradition, he will be treated fairly and without prejudice by both the uk and Swedish legal systems to the point where I have strong doubts that either country would extradite him, at least for the wikileaks related issues (if evidence came to light of sexual violence in other countries, that is a different discussion).

Do you believe that assange should not have to answer sexual misconduct allegations based on unsubstantiated rumours of third party activity already under protection from treaties?

Do you believe, if the US really wanted him gone, it wouldn't have happened already?

 

[AGD]

I am wondering whether this is the same Assange that discovered the US was rendering anyone who they felt was a problem or taking them out with a drone strike including their own citizens. The same US that we now know did such actions without compulsion. The same US that does not court or care about world opinion when it wants something. If they wanted him they could have got him. Before all this kerfuffle he was walking around in a city even the bungling Russian secret services have killed people with impunity in. For that matter we don't even care that Russia kills people in London what makes us think we would do anything if the US rendered him. Leads me to think if they had wanted him they could have had he'd have had a military trial anyway so they could have done what they wanted. And they didn't. He did hide though from a rape charge.

You're right that the US has rendered/tortured with impunity in the past but they generally get away with it because the people rendered are not white and have Islamic sounding names. Assange is a very high profile person, and assassination/rendition would not have been possible without severe repercussions. It would be much easier and safer to discredit him and/or extradite him. (I'm not saying these have/will definitely happen).

 

[AGD]

The timeline I posted earlier refutes your version of events, source needed.

In what way does it refute it?

I think assange will say or do anything to avoid having to face the judicial process with regards to allegations of sexual violence.

You are avoiding the question. You accuse me of conspiracy theories but haven't disagreed with my statement.

 

[Dolph]

In what way does it refute it?

On 31 August 2010, Assange was questioned about the allegations, which he denied. This interview is important, as it meant that from this stage he knew of the allegations against him.

Following this interview, the Swedish prosecutor decided to proceed with the investigation. On 22 September 2010, messages were left with Assange’s lawyer saying that Assange was now required for “interrogation”, the second stage interview before a prosecution.

(Assange’s Swedish lawyer was later to falsely maintain that the prosecutor had not tried to contact him. When this was exposed as incorrect, he then claimed that he was not able to pass the messages on to his client.)

On or about 27 September 2010, Assange left Sweden for England. It is not clear whether Assange was aware of the request for interrogation. However, his Swedish lawyer confirmed that Assange could return in October 2010. This offer is declined by the prosecutor, as Assange was then required sooner.

So the request to attend was made on 22nd September, Assange left on 27th. The only potential out here is that assange's lawyer was incompetent and did not pass the message on, but surely you would want to get it cleared up promptly if that was the case?

 

[AGD]

So the request to attend was made on 22nd September, Assange left on 27th. The only potential out here is that assange's lawyer was incompetent and did not pass the message on, but surely you would want to get it cleared up promptly if that was the case?

I'm confused. Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

 

[Dolph]

You are avoiding the question. You accuse me of conspiracy theories but haven't disagreed with my statement.

I have neither agreed nor disagreed with your statement. Your determination to ask loaded questions and criticise people for not answering is not becoming for a serious debate.

The issue of the US activities is irrelevant to the investigation of the allegations of sexual violence. It is a separate matter with a different set of laws and treaties that remains irrelevant while no extradition request from the USA exists.

The only issue that has relevance to the current debate is assange's refusal to meet his responsibilities, tested in both Swedish and uk courts, to comply with investigations into allegations around sexual misconduct. The rest is just either a huge straw man or the paranoia of a narcissist.

 

[Dolph]

I'm confused. Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

So you think he was OK to leave when he had been requested for interrogation? The arrest warrant subsequently issued disagrees.

Why didn't he return to ensure there were no problems when he realised his lawyer had screwed up?

 

[AGD]

I have neither agreed nor disagreed with your statement. Your determination to ask loaded questions and criticise people for not answering is not becoming for a serious debate.

You accused me of conspiracy and then don't debate the point because you realise it was just an ad hominen attack which you hadn't thought through fully. That is what is not becoming for serious debate.

The issue of the US activities is irrelevant to the investigation of the allegations of sexual violence. It is a separate matter with a different set of laws and treaties that remains irrelevant while no extradition request from the USA exists.

How is it irrelevant? He claims that the sole reason for not returning to Sweden is because of it. It is not irrelevant while no request exists because Assange has to judge these things in advance.

You are seeing this issue completely in black and white and refusing to accept there is any possibility of grey. On the legal issue, on what Assange believes, on the US actions. Everything really.

So you think he was OK to leave when he had been requested for interrogation?

It doesn't matter what I think was ok. Assange's lawyers say at the time he was given permission to leave Sweden. This has not been refuted by Sweden. I repeat, what did I say that is contradicted by your timeline?

 

[Castiel]

What does AGD stand for?

the Assange Guild of Defenders?

 

[Dolph]

You accused me of conspiracy and then don't debate the point because you realise it was just an ad hominen attack which you hadn't thought through fully. That is what is not becoming for serious debate.

You don't think a secret unprovable and convoluted position being presented as fact is a conspiracy theory? It has all the required components. I am agnostic to the idea, until I can test it, it can and will be ignored. Furthermore, it should be ignored even if you could prove it true because it is a completely independent issue to the sexual misconduct charges.

How is it irrelevant? He claims that the sole reason for not returning to Sweden is because of it. It is not irrelevant while no request exists because Assange has to judge these things in advance.

You are seeing this issue completely in black and white and refusing to accept there is any possibility of grey. On the legal issue, on what Assange believes, on the US actions. Everything really.

Assange's beliefs are not relevant to the case at hand. He could just as easily claim he can't go to Sweden because the gnomes will get him, it has the same evidential basis. In fact, you could argue the gnomes would be a better defence, because extradition is covered by treaties and a fair and liberal court system, and the gnomes aren't.

Would you be reacting the same if it was someone else being extradited? Or do you consider assange to be a special case?

 

[Dolph]

It doesn't matter what I think was ok. Assange's lawyers say at the time he was given permission to leave Sweden. This has not been refuted by Sweden. I repeat, what did I say that is contradicted by your timeline?

Assange's lawyers as a source again. These would be the same ones caught lying about the interrogation invite presumably?

You have provided no evidence to refute the claim that assange left after being informed he was needed for the second stage. Remember how the relationship between client and counsel works

 

[AGD]

Again you refuse to state your opinion, presumably because you realise that Assange fearing extradition to the US is a perfectly rational position rather than a mad conspiracy.

Assange's beliefs are not relevant to the case at hand. He could just as easily claim he can't go to Sweden because the gnomes will get him, it has the same evidential basis. In fact, you could argue the gnomes would be a better defence, because extradition is covered by treaties and a fair and liberal court system, and the gnomes aren't.

You are very naive if you think that extradition cases from the US involving figures such as Assange are decided solely by judicial process and not politics.

You are also deliberately ignoring my repeated point, that this is advice from his lawyers. You may not believe this but to discount it completely shows a certain deliberate close-mindedness.

You have provided no evidence to refute the claim that assange left after being informed he was needed for the second stage.

I am not trying to refute that claim though. I am simply saying his lawyers asked whether he could leave, and they were told he was legally allowed to do so. The prosecutor would have surely contradicted them if this was false as it would be a direct lie about her.