Assange to go!

Well for political and ideological reasons we wouldn't either (and we haven't) but we still could.

What Swedish law lays down their policy on extradition? I want to read it and see how it relates to the right not to be subjected to the death penalty.
 
J-FRO said:
Well for political and ideological reasons we wouldn't either (and we haven't) but we still could.

What Swedish law lays down their policy on extradition? I want to read it and see how it relates to the right not to be subjected to the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I posted it earlier in the thread, I will repost it when I'm near a pc.

EDIT:

The Extradition for Criminal Offences Act (1957:668) regulates the conditions and procedures for extradition from Sweden. The Act is not applicable if the Act (1959:254) on Extradition for Criminal Offences to Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway or the Act (2003:1156) on surrender from Sweden according to the European arrest warrant is applicable in relation to the other state. The Act was drafted in close connection with the work of the Council of Europe which led to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition and in all essential respects the Act is based on the Convention.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...



So, I am obviously not a lawyer, but even I can see that Sweden is not more likely to extradite to the United States than the UK, so that part of his defence is also moot.

Given our extradition treaty with the United States, it would in all likelihood suit the US better if they could apply for extradition from the UK and not Sweden.

In my opinion, Julian Assange is more concerned with not answering the questions that the Swedish authorities wish to put to him under caution than any perceived threat to his human rights.

What that says about the actually accusations against him is for you to decide.
 
Last edited:
Ok that's all the page ( http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435 ) says but the PDF document on the right hand side of the page doesn't seem to mention anything to do with the death penalty.

There is focus on no extradition for political or military grounds, but there could be a route around that by US law classifying what he has done on a different basis.

And I'm sure the US would be able to concoct some reason for the extradition - that's somewhat obvious anyway and the US authorities are said to have several laws they want to take him down for breaching - and producing the outcome of the crime investigation wouldn't be too taxing either.

And even if I have overlooked where it mentions the death penalty in the actual statute, they could extradite him on some other law and prosecute him for that if they think it's the only way to get Sweden to legitimately hand him over.

I'm prepared to be wrong in my belief that Sweden will be or are being pressurised to hand him over and I'd like to think I am. But this whole rape allegation thing is just waaaaay to coincidental for me to just accept. The timing of it just doesn't feel right.
 
J-FRO said:
Ok that's all the page ( http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435 ) says but the PDF document on the right hand side of the page doesn't seem to mention anything to do with the death penalty.

There is focus on no extradition for political or military grounds, but there could be a route around that by US law classifying what he has done on a different basis.

And I'm sure the US would be able to concoct some reason for the extradition - that's somewhat obvious anyway and the US authorities are said to have several laws they want to take him down for breaching - and producing the outcome of the crime investigation wouldn't be too taxing either.

And even if I have overlooked where it mentions the death penalty in the actual statute, they could extradite him on some other law and prosecute him for that if they think it's the only way to get Sweden to legitimately hand him over.

I'm prepared to be wrong in my belief that Sweden will be or are being pressurised to hand him over and I'd like to think I am. But this whole rape allegation thing is just waaaaay to coincidental for me to just accept. The timing of it just doesn't feel right.
Click to expand...



From the PDF:

s12:3. A person who is extradited may not have the death penalty imposed for the offence.
Click to expand...

The fact is that for the extradition under the EAW, Assange has to show that extradition to another state is likely, he has failed to do this and the fact that Sweden's extradition laws are in regard to the United States more robust than our own, the chance of his gaining a stay based on that is impossible.

If the US wanted him extradited it would be easier for them to extradite him from the UK than Sweden.

I am not convinced that Assange is innocent, his entire demeanour comes across as arrogant and coercive, and from that I do not feel it is a huge leap to think that he may well be the same in his private life.
 
If its to be believed these claims are nothing but fantasy then he should have not messed about with it and gone to face it sooner. It'll be a ****storm for the next few months when the charges are brought against him but if he has nothing to hide he has a lot of support then he can finally put it behind him and continue his work.
 
Cheers for finding it Castiel.

Ugh, so frustrating. I can't get my head around the whole coincidence theory otherwise I could easily accept that yeah it would be easier to extradite from the UK.

But the timing really is crazy. And it makes me think there must be something there we aren't being told, such as the UK have already denied letting the US have him for some reason or some other theory like that, and that that's why someone like Sweden is involved where he's previously had ties to.

If it was just after the release of that helicopter footage I think I could accept it easier. But the leak of all the confidential documents makes it fishy.
 
tbh there's no point in taking him out, because he doesn't get any data himself at all, it's all sent to him (and it's the people sending it taking all the risk, see the American solider who's probably going to spend the rest of his lief in a military prison).

Get rid of him and the other people who work for him can carry on unaffected.
 
J-FRO said:
Cheers for finding it Castiel.

Ugh, so frustrating. I can't get my head around the whole coincidence theory otherwise I could easily accept that yeah it would be easier to extradite from the UK.

But the timing really is crazy. And it makes me think there must be something there we aren't being told, such as the UK have already denied letting the US have him for some reason or some other theory like that, and that that's why someone like Sweden is involved where he's previously had ties to.

If it was just after the release of that helicopter footage I think I could accept it easier. But the leak of all the confidential documents makes it fishy.
Click to expand...



The problem I have is that if Sweden were being pressured by the US then why did they refuse Assange's application for residence, which came after the release of the publications of the wikileaks documents, he would then have stayed in Sweden and we wouldn't be discussing this.

From a pragmatic perspective, it seems more likely to me that Assange had sex with both these women and that it all got out of hand, they then go to the Police in an attempt to trace him due to fears over STDs, the Police explain to the Women that he may have broken the law, the prosecutor decides to charge him, which the chief Prosecutor overules (due to the high profile of Assange) this was then overturned on appeal and the arrest warrant issued. All reasonably common place.

I think it is that straight forward. Now whether he is guilty of the charges against him I cannot say, but given the extraordinary lengths Assange will seemingly go to avoid talking to the Swedish Police under Caution I find it highly suspicious and (to me at least) hints that he may well be guilty of those charges, or at least he knows he may have crossed the line in the moment.

I do not think there is a CIA honey trap conspiracy. If there was there is ample opportunity to do it in conditions better suited to the US to gain extradition and what does silencing Assange really accomplish? Wikileaks will continue regardless, it will only make him a martyr to his cause.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
The problem I have is that if Sweden were being pressured by the US then why did they refuse Assange's application for residence, which came after the release of the publications of the wikileaks documents, he would then have stayed in Sweden and we wouldn't be discussing this.

From a pragmatic perspective, it seems more likely to me that Assange had sex with both these women and that it all got out of hand, they then go to the Police in an attempt to trace him due to fears over STDs, the Police explain to the Women that he may have broken the law, the prosecutor decides to charge him, which the chief Prosecutor overules (due to the high profile of Assange) this was then overturned on appeal and the arrest warrant issued.

I think it is that straight forward. Now whether he is guilty of the charges against him I cannot say, but given the extraordinary lengths Assange will seemingly go to avoid talking to the Swedish Police under Caution I find it highly suspicious and (to me at least) hints that he may well be guilty of those charges, or at least he knows he may have crossed the line in the moment.

I do not think there is a CIA honey trap conspiracy. If there was there is ample opportunity to do it in conditions better suited to the US to gain extradition and what does silencing Assange really accomplish? Wikileaks will continue regardless, it will only make him a martyr to his cause.
Click to expand...

It does strike a bit odd this whole affair. There is little more damaging than a rape charge from a publicity point of view, and truth be told Assange would have done well just to have gotten on the first plane over to Sweden (or maybe not run in the first place :p) and faced justice. If he is innocent then it would be over and done with. If he was found guilty then people can speculate about what happened.

For him to be curtailing in such a manner for so long seems like he is using wikileaks fame for his own benefit.

No sympathy with the guy.
 
I will be interesting to see how this one pans out now as it is all so unclear. The timing of the allegations are suspicious but then the chap would have been under a great deal of pressure at that time and that may have led to him committing the alleged crimes. Also, it has been clear for some time now the US has pressured the Swedish government more and more over certain issues. However, Assange is a complete muppet - he knew full well information absolutely damning would be released effectively in his name against the most powerful superpower the world has ever seen. Did he really think it was going to go ok? Why didn't he make sure he protected himself (no pun intended :) ) from any false allegations. Personally, I suspect he overstepped the mark with the women but normally nothing would have come from it but because of events something was always going to be done about and the US is pressuring Sweden to make sure it is done. A the end of the day he can be guilty of the charges and the US can be doing everything in it's power to get him charged. I also don't think it would suit the USA to have him over there with everything being dragged up again and again - from their view best to get him sent down in Sweden and the endnote on the sage being about the rapist and not the criminal actions of US helicopter pilots.
 
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...

Capital punishment in Sweden (Swedish: Dödsstraff - literally "Death punishment") was practiced up until 1910. It is now outlawed by the Swedish Constitution which clearly states that capital punishment, corporal punishment, and torture is strictly prohibited.

source :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Sweden

so I see no problem in the Swedes getting him back to face trial by Jury. Its not like he is being sent to some backwater barbaric country where he will have the soles of his feet beaten and have his anal canal befriended by a gang of screaming homo rapists.

If the charges are cooked up then the case will literally get thrown out of the courts. If he is that scared of going back to Sweden to face trial by Jury, which lets face it is going to be more public than the foxy knoxy trial, then he really must be hiding something.
 
simulatorman said:
Seven months down the line and Assange has lost his extradition appeal but his lawyers say they will appeal at the Supreme Court:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15549985

So it drags on. Shame they can't just stick him on a plane and put an end to this.
Click to expand...

Yes, real shame to live on a democracy, on this side of the Atlantic ... missing Guantanamo approach much?
 
wildman said:
Its not like he is being sent to some backwater barbaric country where he will have the soles of his feet beaten and have his anal canal befriended by a gang of screaming homo rapists.
Click to expand...

Maybe we have that to look forward to when America get their hands on him... :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom