ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Julian Assange

Reply
Old 7th February 2016, 11:46 AM   #201
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Elind View Post
I guess I misunderstood you. Perhaps you mean only the time he spent under house arrest until he absconded.
If you go back to posts #154-157, you'll see I asked the question about both periods, in a way that two different answers were possible.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Perhaps that would be the case if he was convicted of something in the UK, however in this case he was under house arrest because he was fighting extradition for charges in Sweden, as I understand it. Had he gone to face those charges he would not have had any UK house arrest, so that was his choice, as well as time in the embassy.

So, no I don't think that time applies to anything in this case.
You have a point that fighting extradition was of his own volition. However, pre-trial detention can also be lengthened due to voluntary lawyering lengthening the pre-trial period and I never heard of that being taken into account as "that was your own choice".
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2016, 08:12 PM   #202
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Him not using a consom was what lead to the allegation of molestation, that recently dropped due to statute of limitations. The allegation of rape was him having sex with a woman who was, at best, half-conscious.
Also in a way that she had previously stated she was not willing to do.

I think that a lot of the issue is that most people seem to think that the Swedish Justice System is just like their own, it isn't.

For instance. If an Investigation is dropped, in Sweden the alleged victims can ask for that decision to be reviewed by a higher office. We often heard that the charges were dropped (investigation really) but then they were mysteriously reopened for political reasons. In actual fact they were reopened when the Girl's lawyer requested a review.

A second big one is "He hasn't been Charged." While true, bringing Charges in Sweden is different to other countries. Charges in Sweden are only laid after a final interview with the suspect and when those charges will lead to a court case. In other countries Charges can be laid, but then dropped later as new information comes in. Sweden avoids this by not charging until they are ready to prosecute. In most countries he would have been charged under their systems, and is at a similar position in Sweden to that of which a charged person elsewhere would currently be, and both the Swedish High Court and Court of Appeal, and the UK Courts have accepted this as fact.

Thirdly. There are claims that the victim didn't believe it was rape and never gave an official complaint. Both of these are a smoke screen and relevant. Once the police and prosecution became aware of a crime via the girl's statements, they were required to act on it and to continue to act on it. While it was also true that the victim was unaware initially that the actions equated to rape, she has more recently spoken out and is backing the prosecution continuing. More so, it is irrelevant where the victim understand that they have be victimized, nor whether they wish to proceed. Similarly if a 15 year old has sex with a 20 year entirely willingly and doesn't think that the 20 year old broke the law, it is irrelevant to charges brought against the 20 year old.

Finally there are the claims or demands of "Why don't they just interview him in London." In all cases where this has been offered, the Swedish police /prosecution would not be in a position to control or direct the interview. In the UK only UK police Officers may undertake an interrogation. Foreign party's may be allowed to watch the interview, but may not interfere or ask questions themselves. The Officer doing the interview will work on a list of predetermined questions sent to them prior to the interview. Ecuador has offered a similar system, both of which have been found as unacceptable to Swedish authorities who want to conduct the Interview themselves. Assange also offer to do a phone interview, but this method was invalidated by the Swedish courts about 6 months before Assange's troubles began when such an interview was thrown out as invalid because they interviewer and suspect were not in the same room.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2016, 08:17 PM   #203
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
If you go back to posts #154-157, you'll see I asked the question about both periods, in a way that two different answers were possible.


You have a point that fighting extradition was of his own volition. However, pre-trial detention can also be lengthened due to voluntary lawyering lengthening the pre-trial period and I never heard of that being taken into account as "that was your own choice".
While the Bail he was on might resemble Home Detention, in this case, Home detention is a weakened sentencing, that then approaches bail, not the other way around. Only time physically in jail should be counted.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2016, 08:20 PM   #204
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,475
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post


Finally there are the claims or demands of "Why don't they just interview him in London." In all cases where this has been offered, the Swedish police /prosecution would not be in a position to control or direct the interview. In the UK only UK police Officers may undertake an interrogation. Foreign party's may be allowed to watch the interview, but may not interfere or ask questions themselves. The Officer doing the interview will work on a list of predetermined questions sent to them prior to the interview. Ecuador has offered a similar system, both of which have been found as unacceptable to Swedish authorities who want to conduct the Interview themselves. Assange also offer to do a phone interview, but this method was invalidated by the Swedish courts about 6 months before Assange's troubles began when such an interview was thrown out as invalid because they interviewer and suspect were not in the same room.
Why not do the interview in the Swedish Embassy?
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2016, 08:29 PM   #205
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,791
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Why not do the interview in the Swedish Embassy?
Because the Embassy is the country. While in the Swedish Embassy, he would be in Sweden, and they wouldn't have to let him out, if the interview turned into actual charges.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 01:25 AM   #206
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
While the Bail he was on might resemble Home Detention, in this case, Home detention is a weakened sentencing, that then approaches bail, not the other way around. Only time physically in jail should be counted.
Arcade22, who is Swedish, previously said that Swedish law used the term "deprivation of liberty", which the bail, with all its restrictions, amounts to. As another poster remarked, in their submissions to the UN commission, neither the UK nor the Swedish authorities objected to the characterization as "house arrest".
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 02:39 AM   #207
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Also in a way that she had previously stated she was not willing to do.

I think that a lot of the issue is that most people seem to think that the Swedish Justice System is just like their own, it isn't.

For instance. If an Investigation is dropped, in Sweden the alleged victims can ask for that decision to be reviewed by a higher office. We often heard that the charges were dropped (investigation really) but then they were mysteriously reopened for political reasons. In actual fact they were reopened when the Girl's lawyer requested a review.
Which is actually a Good Thing, that as a victim/complainant, you have some recourse against a decision by the prosecutor not to prosecute.

I did a bit of re-reading the old thread and came across this Guardian article from 17 Dec 2010, which outlines what the Guardian knew at that point about the Swedish investigation. There's one thing that puzzles me about that.

Miss A. was the organizer of Assange's speaking engagement on Sat 14 Aug, at whose flat he stayed (initially) and with whom he had sex on the night of 13/14 Aug which gave resulted in (at least) two of the lesser charges (pinning her down, the torn condom). Miss W. was the audience member with whom he went to the cinema 14 Aug afternon and had sex at her flat in the night/morning of 16/17 Aug which resulted in the rape charge (unprotected sex while she was (half) asleep). Then it was Miss W.'s worry about STD and Assange's unwillingness to test for it that led her to contact Miss A., and on Fri 20 Aug they went together to the police. Later that month - date not mentioned, but while still under the purview of the initial prosecution office - Assange is interviewed by the police (i.e., the police interview which precedes an interview by the prosecutor which precedes formal charges).

And about that interview, the Guardian writes:
Quote:
The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A.
It was, however, Miss W. who had most reason to the police and who had the most serious charge. And from other reports from that time, we get the impression that Miss A. merely went along to the police as moral support.

So, why nothing in the police record about the complaint by Miss W.? Oversight by the police, or did the Guardian have incomplete data at that point, or something else?
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 04:01 AM   #208
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,415
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
It was, however, Miss W. who had most reason to the police and who had the most serious charge. And from other reports from that time, we get the impression that Miss A. merely went along to the police as moral support.

So, why nothing in the police record about the complaint by Miss W.? Oversight by the police, or did the Guardian have incomplete data at that point, or something else?

Something else. The interview was conducted on August 30 and ends with:

Originally Posted by Transcript of only police interview
MG: OK so we hereby conclude the interrogation.

JA: We can always continue if it's needed? But the main thing is that I and others got to hear a lot of unbelievable lies. And got to hear I was to meet Sonja on Saturday afternoon to discuss the matter. Anna had no accusations and no one had any intention of going to the police and so forth. That's how I expected things to remain until I heard the news in Expressen.

MG: Hmmm... OK then. The interrogation is concluded. The time is 18:37.

From wikipedia we learn:

Originally Posted by wikipedia
The preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape was discontinued by Finné on 25 August,[7] but two days later Claes Borgström, the attorney representing the two women, requested a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate part of the investigation.[7][10]

On 30 August, Assange was questioned by the Stockholm police regarding the allegations of sexual molestation.[11][12] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[9][13][14]

On 1 September 2010, Överåklagare (Director of Public Prosecution) Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations.

So at the time of the interview the rape investigation was discontinued. The original interview with Miss W. on August 20 was never properly finished, apparently because she learned about the arrest warrant against Assange while it was going on. There have been some shenanigans with that interview - compare the timeline and protagonists with the wikipedia snippet.

Should you intent to dive deeper into this farce, you can find Assange's side of it here.
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
...progress updates [1] [2] ...
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 04:52 AM   #209
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
granted that it lands in the date rape category, it seems the woman could have kicked him in the butt and thrown him out at some point. She was aware she was having sex.
Unless it's true that she was asleep when he started having sex with her.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 06:53 AM   #210
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,664
As I keep saying, there does seem to be a prosecution case to be answered. Been through the Swedish appeal court and it was held to be enough to prosecute. The defence case is still to be fully heard and the right place for that is a court of law.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 07:33 AM   #211
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Something else. The interview was conducted on August 30 and ends with:

From wikipedia we learn:

So at the time of the interview the rape investigation was discontinued. The original interview with Miss W. on August 20 was never properly finished, apparently because she learned about the arrest warrant against Assange while it was going on. There have been some shenanigans with that interview - compare the timeline and protagonists with the wikipedia snippet.

Should you intent to dive deeper into this farce, you can find Assange's side of it here.
Thank you. That gives as amended time line:

Fri 20 Aug, 16;21-18:40: interrogation of Miss W. at the police station, with officer Krans. The statement is not read back or signed by W., because they hear the prosecutor-on-duty has issued an arrest warrant.

That evening, the paper Expressen publishes that Assange is wanted for rape by the police.

Sat 21 Aug,, 11:31-12;20: interrogation of Miss A. by telephone, with officer Wennerblom.

Stockholm Head Prosecutor Eva Finné cancels the arrest warrant.

Wed 25 Aug: Finné discontinues investigation on rape against Miss W.

Thu 26 Aug: according to the site Rixstep, officer Krans enters anew a sexed-up version of the original statement of Miss W. into the police document system.

Fri 27 Aug: attorney Claes Borgström requests a review of Finné's decision to drop the rape investigation.

Mon 30 Aug, 17:43-18:37: interrogation of Assange at the police station, with officer Gehlin, the superior of Krans. The interrogation is only about Miss A.'s claims.

Wed 1 Sep: Prosecutor Marianne Ny of the special sex crimes unit in Göteborg decides to reopen the investigation of rape against Miss W.

OK. That way it makes sense. At the time the police interviewed Assange, the suspicion of rape against Miss W. was dropped.

The re-entering of the same statement by officer Krans certainly seems like a breach of procedure, and especially the sexing-up of the statement. But I don't readily see how the added parts materially change the story. None of it applies to what happened in the morning, when Assange purportedly had sex with Miss W. while she was (half) asleep.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 02:31 PM   #212
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,415
ddt, I don't feel like going into the details of this again, so from my part read the posts I'm sure I made in the old thread.
----
Wow, now even Human Rights Watch finds clear words: On Assange, Following the Rules or Flouting Them?

Originally Posted by Dinah PoKempner, General Counsel
It should not have been terribly surprising to Sweden or the United Kingdom that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that the various forms of confinement suffered by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violate his human rights. The Working Group has many times warned that it is unlawful to force someone to choose between liberty and a fundamental right, such as asylum, which Assange now enjoys only so long as he stays inside the walls of the Ecuadorean embassy.

What is news are the deplorable rhetorical parries from the UK and Swedish governments, who both stated not just disagreement, but that the Working Group opinion would have absolutely no effect on their actions. This is not what one expects from democratic governments who usually support the UN mechanisms and international law.

[... detailed explanation ...]
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
...progress updates [1] [2] ...

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 8th February 2016 at 02:32 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 04:23 PM   #213
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,664
The UN WGAD comes under the UNHRC which just appointed Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia that is flogging bloggers to death. Forgive me if I suggest that the UNHRC has lost all credibility.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 04:33 PM   #214
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,415
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
The UN WGAD comes under the UNHRC which just appointed Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia that is flogging bloggers to death. Forgive me if I suggest that the UNHRC has lost all credibility.

You know who helped the dark age penguins get the appointment in a "secret deal", don't you? That's right, the same regime that's boasting about not caring about the UN WGAD findings. Does that hurt their credibility in your eyes? Didn't think so.
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
...progress updates [1] [2] ...

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 8th February 2016 at 04:35 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 04:48 PM   #215
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,664
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
You know who helped the dark age penguins get the appointment in a "secret deal", don't you? That's right, the same regime that's boasting about not caring about the UN WGAD findings. Does that hurt their credibility in your eyes? Didn't think so.
No it absolutely does, the UK government fell down a cess pit with Blair and subsequent governments*. But I've read the WGAD opinion and the high court judgement in detail and analyses of both. I am not a lawyer but I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than that Assange has a case to answer. And I have equal impatience with people who say he's guilty.

*I turned 18 in 1977 and voted labour ever since. Then Labour adopted Tory policies. I expected better from Labour
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 06:09 PM   #216
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,977
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
The re-entering of the same statement by officer Krans certainly seems like a breach of procedure, and especially the sexing-up of the statement.
The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure states:


Quote:
Section 21

During the preliminary investigation a record shall be kept of matters of importance to the investigation.

After the statement of the suspect or any other person is recorded, and before the conclusion of the examination, the statement shall be read out or another means provided to verify its accuracy, and the examined person shall be asked whether he has any objection to its content. Any objection not resulting in correction shall be recorded. The account may not be amended thereafter. If an account of a statement is not transcribed into the record until after the notes of the account have been checked, the original notes shall be included in the document file.
The most important thing in Swedish criminal prosecutions is what's contained within the final "preliminary investigation protocol" (Förundersöknings protocol) as it should contain everything that the judges would need to convict or acquit someone. By contrast to some other countries the actual court proceedings basically just entail going through the most important pieces of evidence and having the witnesses/accused/victims/experts/etc reiterate said statements under oath. Nothing new or exiting would normally be revealed in the courtroom if the prosecution and defense have done a good job.

To try and make a big deal of an informal victim statement compared to the one that would be included in the FUP is nothing short of Assange grasping at straws. It's for all intents and purposes inconsequential. Moreover, by insisting on remaining a fugitive rather than presenting his defense to the prosecutors and judges any actual complaints on the criminal investigation from him is utterly bizarre.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
ddt, I don't feel like going into the details of this again, so from my part read the posts I'm sure I made in the old thread.
----
Wow, now even Human Rights Watch finds clear words: On Assange, Following the Rules or Flouting Them?
Yeah it sure is strange that the Swedish and British state agencies don't dispense with the rule of law so they can obey the flawed opinions of 3 individuals from the UN despite the fact that there's absolutely no good reason to do so at all.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 8th February 2016 at 06:10 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 07:14 PM   #217
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
So what happens next in the extraordinary, seemingly irresolveable drama of Julian Assange? At a press conference earlier in the day, one of his lawyers, Melinda Taylor, said that if Sweden and Britain were not prepared to act, Assange might consider applying again to the Swedish courts, “to see how they will enforce or apply the findings of the working group”.

The European court of human rights was another option, she said, although the Strasbourg court confirmed on Friday that an application lodged by Assange in November against the UK and Sweden had been declared inadmissible the following month.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...dish-rejection

It should be noted that when he tried to make a complaint to peoples which opinions actually do matter he fails completely. The reason is obvious: his arguments don't stand up to closer scrutiny. It's incredibly far-fetched to claim he's being "arbitrarily detained" inside the Embassy since he purposefully and voluntarily sought to avoid being arrested by British law enforcement by hiding in there. He's free to leave at any moment and although he would obviously be arrested that's completely irrelevant as said arrest is completely legal.

Note: the Swedish courts wont "enforce or apply the findings of the working group" as said findings have no legal standing whatsoever, much like Assange's futile and impotent demands.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 08:08 PM   #218
alex04
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I read the document, but I'm not going to guess at your argument. If you cite a passage about detention, I'm going to discuss detention.

If you want to discuss due process, cite a passage about due process.


And? The Swedish law enforcement and judiciary agencies followed due process. The UK agencies did the same.

This has been covered in the thread repeatedly. Have you read the thread? Are you prepared to defend the due process arguments in this document, in the context of the due process discussion that has already taken place here?

If not, then I don't see how the document is relevant.


I don't have to concede something I never disputed in the first place.

I just happen to disagree with Assange's legal representatives on this point, for the reasons belabored in this thread. I note that the judiciaries and governments of at least two sovereign European nations have reached similar conclusions.



It seems to me that a lack of due process is probably an important part of any definition of arbitrary.

But so what? There is no lack of due process in Assange's detention. So why even bring it up?

For the sake of argument (and time), let's say that I agree with your views, the views in this thread, and also of the U.K's and Sweden's regarding due process. It doesn't change anything because now the question of due process has been tested, and regardless of intent or error on the part of UK and Sweden, the U.N. have looked at it from an international and human rights perspective, and the answer is no.

Quote:
89. In view of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that, in violation of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Mr. Assange has not been guaranteed the international norms of due process and the guarantees to a fair trial during these three different moments: the detention in isolation in Wandsworth Prison, the 550 days under house arrest, and the continuation of the deprivation of liberty in the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London, United Kingdom.

The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Assange is arbitrary and in contravention of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It falls within category III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.
(from link in previous post)

So feel free to assert that due process was followed all you like, but the latest findings don't agree with you. That is a fact and as it's a matter of public record from a qualified authority on the matter, I'm not obliged to defend that. I'm not even saying I necessarily agree with it - for example, I think the claim of extradition from Sweden to the U.S. is a bit of a stretch.



I believe the UK and Sweden have 60 days from the date of the decision to appeal, so we'll see what happens.


Originally Posted by icerat View Post
I'm just really curious about exactly how Sweden or the UK can "release" Assange? Let's say hypothetically they agree to abide by the UN panel decision.

What do they do?
That is a really good question. I haven't the slightest idea, and from what I read in the UN decision it appears to be largely "conform to x,y,z human rights articles, and figure out your own way of sorting this out."
alex04 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 10:42 PM   #219
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
For the sake of argument (and time), let's say that I agree with your views, the views in this thread, and also of the U.K's and Sweden's regarding due process. It doesn't change anything because now the question of due process has been tested, and regardless of intent or error on the part of UK and Sweden, the U.N. have looked at it from an international and human rights perspective, and the answer is no.
Yes the Working Group seems to have an astounding lack of knowledge of the Law. The ruling read more like that they formulated the response about the answer they wanted without any regard for the laws involved.

One of the sticking points seems to be the UK and Swedish Governments refusal to say if they would extradite him to the US. What the working group seems to forget or not understand is that they can't. Firstly they need to have a request to even know if it would be valid to do so. Second, it's not the Government's decision even if there was a request, it is the Court's decision, so they don't even have a right to say they wouldn't, because that right belongs to the court and the court alone. This all seems to have totally passed over the head of Working Committee. They also seem to somehow have come to the conclusion that a case that has already been through 4 courts (The Swedish High Court, the Swedish Appeals Court, The UK High Court, and the UK Appeals Court) is not being done by Due process.... I'd love for them to go a step further, and actually consider how this ruling would effect the detention and apprehension of criminals on a day to day basis if it was applied to them. They might then realise how dumb it is.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 10:50 PM   #220
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,804
Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
For the sake of argument (and time), let's say that I agree with your views, the views in this thread, and also of the U.K's and Sweden's regarding due process. It doesn't change anything because now the question of due process has been tested, and regardless of intent or error on the part of UK and Sweden, the U.N. have looked at it from an international and human rights perspective, and the answer is no.
Correction: Five people from the UN looked at it, one recused herself and one disagreed with the other three in a non-binding opinion.

In short, the opinion is crap. Sweden is doing the right thing in disregarding it. A Swedish citizen has allegedly been raped, and the Swedish justice system is obliged to follow this through.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2016, 11:25 PM   #221
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,531
I hope he dies of old age living in that tiny place.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2016, 03:51 AM   #222
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,236
The swedish prosecutor has released a statement (only in Swedish from what I've seen so far) where she says:

* She's working on a new application to be allowed to interview JA at the embassy, since the previous one was denied by Ecuador.
* The UN report did not make her change any previous decisions.
Here_to_learn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2016, 06:13 AM   #223
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,492
It seems to me that Assange actually has a real opportunity here to prove what he's claiming about the US, that we're so rabid to charge him with something that we'd completely ignore any illegalities in our acquisition of him, a fact that would fry us in the court of public opinion and possibly raise such an outcry that we'd lose what little credibility we have left in the world. In one fell swoop, Julian Assange could literally bring about the potential downfall of the most powerful country on Earth, and yet he chooses not to risk it. I think that's because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on with his claims and he doesn't want his horde of rabid followers to realize that he's been lying his head off ever since he got embroiled in this mess to begin with. His whole public worldview is predicated on the idea that the US is so corrupt that we'd ignore international law to pursue a man whom we can't legally charge with any wrongdoing, and he can't risk having that worldview be shown as completely and utterly wrong because then he'd lose what he so desperately wants; the attention and adulation of his followers.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Assange has a form of Munchausen Syndrome. He's so desperate for attention that he fabricates things that can't possibly be true in order to get sympathy from the people who are stupid enough to believe him, and if some negative attention is thrown in there, so much the better; it's still enough to feed his need for being "important". If it weren't for the fact that my sympathies firmly lie with the women in this instance who were violated by this man and if it weren't for the likely fact that he'd probably pull crap like that again if he were let go, I'd say it would be better to drop the investigation and just ignore Assange entirely. His mind might implode from the lack of attention and he'd probably do something desperate to regain it that he couldn't run away from finally and then we'd be able to do something about it.

I'm by no means diagnosing him; I'm not a trained therapist and I've never actually met the man (nor would I wish to, considering how slimy I consider him to be).
__________________
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2016, 07:29 AM   #224
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,977
It should be noted that in the 1,325 cases that UNWGAD have taken up over 99,7% agreed with the plaintiff that they had suffered "arbitrary detention" which seems to imply that they are extremely biased towards agreeing with the plaintiff.

Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
I believe the UK and Sweden have 60 days from the date of the decision to appeal, so we'll see what happens.
Nothing is going to happen because there's nothing giving their findings any legal weight at all. The fact that Assange continues to make megalomaniacal threats and demands based on such a pitiful basis just goes to show how utterly narcissistic he is.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 9th February 2016 at 07:30 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2016, 08:14 AM   #225
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,740
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Nothing is going to happen because there's nothing giving their findings any legal weight at all. The fact that Assange continues to make megalomaniacal threats and demands based on such a pitiful basis just goes to show how utterly narcissistic he is.
I'm not a lawyer but you are certainly an amateur lawyer.

It has been reported on TV that there has been a secret Grand Jury and indictment of Assange in America, which puts him in grave peril under the terms of the US and UK extradition treaty. The Swedish rape charges are a red herring so that MI6 can fool the public into thinking Assange is a fugitive from justice. Assange woud be safer in Russia, but that isn't going to happen as it did with Edward Snowden. There is no extradition treaty with Russia.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2016, 08:19 AM   #226
Camillus
Critical Thinker
 
Camillus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Why not do the interview in the Swedish Embassy?
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Because the Embassy is the country. While in the Swedish Embassy, he would be in Sweden, and they wouldn't have to let him out, if the interview turned into actual charges.
This isn't true (unless Sweden has unusual arrangements with the UK). Embassies are not usually sovereign territory but are offered special privileges under the terms of the Vienna Convention.

I suspect Assange would simply refuse to go because once he was outside the Ecuadorean Embassy he would be fair game for arrest by the British.
__________________
Live long and prosper.
Camillus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2016, 08:21 AM   #227
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,338
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

It has been reported on TV that there has been a secret Grand Jury and indictment of Assange in America, which puts him in grave peril under the terms of the US and UK extradition treaty.
Not very secret if it's being reported on TV. Got a reference for that?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2016, 08:53 AM   #228
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,492
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Not very secret if it's being reported on TV. Got a reference for that?
It's Henri. He never posts anything that can be construed as actual evidence.

Many many things are reported on TV that later turn out to be wrong. I suspect that most conspiracy theorists have trouble with that little fact. I also wouldn't be the least surprised if it turned out that the agency reporting there was a secret grand jury that indicted Assange turned out to be Russia Today.

ETA: Here's some evidence against it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2e1_story.html

Quote:
Federal prosecutors have not filed a sealed indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, despite persistent rumors that a nearly three-year-old grand jury investigation of him and his organization had secretly led to charges, according to senior law enforcement sources.
Here's another: http://www.mintpressnews.com/assange...or-now/173103/

Quote:
The Washington Post revealed that after three years of a federal grand jury investigation examining alleged contacts between Wikileaks operatives, including Assange, and Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army private currently serving a 35-year sentence for the unauthorized disclosure of thousands of U.S. government documents; the U.S. has not filed charges against Assange.
__________________
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.

Last edited by Sabrina; 9th February 2016 at 08:59 AM.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2016, 04:35 AM   #229
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,236
In an opinion piece in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter, Göran Rudling argues that UNWGAD not only came to the wrong conclusion, but actually acted wrongly when they handled the case. (In Swedish only)

According to him, their method of working is "adversarial character", meaning that the panels decision is based on what the parts submit, they do not do any fact seeking outside of that.

In the submission from JA, several things where brought up, including the claim that "UK law and
procedure has now been altered so that he would no longer, if facing
arrest today, be liable to extradition under the European Arrest Warrant" (3 iv).

According to Rudling, this statement from JA was not included in the text sent to Sweden, since the panel rewrote JAs submission, so Sweden never adressed the issue in their answer.

For that reason the panel went on what JA claimed, and actually included that text in their opinion. (69).

According to Rudling, the claim is incorrect, and he cites a case about Mr Kandola where the High court approved the extradition, even under the new laws.

His conclusion is that the panel acted incorrectly when they kept JAs submission secret from Sweden.
Here_to_learn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 06:39 PM   #230
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,260
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It has been reported on TV that there has been a secret Grand Jury and indictment of Assange in America, which puts him in grave peril under the terms of the US and UK extradition treaty.
When you want to offer something other than vaporware, or making things up, please do. What you posted there is worthless.

(If that assertion can be supported, I am interested because I am not keen on this whole "secret grand jury" concept if it even exists).
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 03:39 AM   #231
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,236
Stockholm district court:

Quote:
Stockholm district court has today ruled that Julian Assange will remain detained in absentia

JA has been detained in absentia since 18 November 2010. The detention order has not been executed. Since 19 June 2012 JA has been staying at the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he has applied for and been granted political asylum.

The district court finds that there is still probable cause for the suspicion against JA for rape, less serious incident, and that there is still a risk that he will depart or in some other way evade prosecution or penalty.

Whereas JA would not appear at a hearing and no new circumstances has been presented in the case the district court has not considered it necessary to hold a new hearing.

Unlike the UN Worging Group on Arbitrary Detention the district court does not consider JA’s stay att the Embassy of Ecuador in London a form of detention. The prosecutors have applied for the aid of Ecuador to carry out questioning of JA at the embassy and the district court has no reason to doubt that such questionings will take place. The district court finds that the interest of enabling investigation of the crime JA is suspected of by way of questioning him outweighs the intrusion or harm the detention order causes JA. There are therefore grounds for JA to remain detained in absentia.
Here_to_learn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 05:50 AM   #232
Roofgardener
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
How can the statute of limitations apply when the suspect is a fugitive? That's the kind of crap you see in Mexico, I wouldn't think Sweden did that too.
...
Sorry if this is re-treading older posts, but... the answer is simple.

The statute of limitations can apply because the Swedish police have NEVER actually CHARGED Assange with a crime.

That's right... they got a European Arrest Warrent on him, which the UK complied with.. even though he has never been charged with a crime !

Ask yourself this; the Swedish prosecutors merely wanted to interview Assange. They could have done this at ANY time from a UK police station via telephone or videoconference.

But no... they INSISTED on trying to get him physically back to Sweden. But not insistent enough to go to the trouble of actually CHARGING him with a crime.

Is it just me, or does that seem... odd ? Doesn't it kinda suggest that the prime motivation was NOT to ask him questions, but to get him in their physical jurisdiction ?

As for the USA not being able to press charges; I'm afraid that since the inception of 'extraordinary rendition' and the Guantanamo Bay holding facility, trust in the US justice system is at a VERY low ebb in Europe (and beyond).
Roofgardener is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 06:00 AM   #233
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by Roofgardener View Post
Sorry if this is re-treading older posts, but... the answer is simple.

The statute of limitations can apply because the Swedish police have NEVER actually CHARGED Assange with a crime.

That's right... they got a European Arrest Warrent on him, which the UK complied with.. even though he has never been charged with a crime !
They need to conduct this interview before they can charge him. The Swedish system works in a different manner to most western ones. He basically skipped out on doing the interview at the end of which they would have either closed the complaint or arrested and charged him.

Quote:
Ask yourself this; the Swedish prosecutors merely wanted to interview Assange. They could have done this at ANY time from a UK police station via telephone or videoconference.

But no... they INSISTED on trying to get him physically back to Sweden. But not insistent enough to go to the trouble of actually CHARGING him with a crime.
Legally they can't interview him by phone or teleconference. They can't interview him in London either, as UK law states that only UK Police can conduct criminal interviews. As noted above, they can't charge him yet, legally they must conduct this interview first. The fact that they have gone to the trouble they have indicates that they believe they have enough to do so once the interview is conducted.

Quote:
Is it just me, or does that seem... odd ? Doesn't it kinda suggest that the prime motivation was NOT to ask him questions, but to get him in their physical jurisdiction ?
It's not just you, but it's only odd when you assume that their system works the same way as the western systems we are familiar with. It doesn't, so it seems odd to us.

Quote:
As for the USA not being able to press charges; I'm afraid that since the inception of 'extraordinary rendition' and the Guantanamo Bay holding facility, trust in the US justice system is at a VERY low ebb in Europe (and beyond).
The fact that the US could have asked the UK to extradite him at the time he was under arrest there, and didn't, speaks volumes. It would have been easier to do it that way since to try and extradite him from Sweden requires the Swedish to break its own laws, and the UK to agree with the extradition. Had the US asked for extradition from the UK, it would just have required permission from the UK.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 25th May 2016 at 06:10 AM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 06:02 AM   #234
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
Swedish Police couldn't have questioned him in a British Police Station.
They could have given a list of questions that could have been put to him.

Why can't they arrest, detain and question a suspect before charging him?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 06:03 AM   #235
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,236
Originally Posted by Roofgardener View Post
Sorry if this is re-treading older posts, but... the answer is simple.

The statute of limitations can apply because the Swedish police have NEVER actually CHARGED Assange with a crime.
As you start by saying - this is re-threading. How about if you also check out the answers.

The laws and system in Sweden is not the same as in the US or in the UK. So you cannot compare the two, and expect to see the same thing happening.

JAs legal team tried that arguments in the courts, but where not successful.

You can find this information in many places, here's just one:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382

Originally Posted by BBC
What is his legal situation in Sweden?
Mr Assange has not been formally charged with any offence. Sweden has requested his extradition so he may be questioned.
In Sweden, charging comes much later in the process of a criminal investigation than it does in many other countries.
In a letter given to Mr Assange's extradition hearing in the UK and quoted in the High Court's subsequent judgement, Swedish Director of Prosecutions Marianne Ny stated: "A formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at.
"Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of 'preliminary investigation'."
His lawyers had asked the UK Supreme Court to block his extradition, arguing that a European arrest warrant issued against him was "invalid and unenforceable".
The key legal question was whether the Swedish prosecutor who issued it had the "judicial authority" to do so under the 2003 Extradition Act - or whether the words gave that power only to a court or a judge.
Despite the lack of formal charges, in its judgement in May 2012, the UK Supreme Court found that the Swedish public prosecutor was a judicial authority capable of issuing the warrant, in the same way as a judge or a court would be.
ETA: already answered...
Here_to_learn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 07:20 AM   #236
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,664
How many times have I posted this now I wonder?

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...julian-assange
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 08:32 AM   #237
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,215
Well, that brings Roofgardener just about up to speed. The only thing left is point out that Sweden has a tradition of harboring American political criminals and defectors, and has strong legal protections against extraordinary rendition.

The UK, on the other hand, has consistently been much more cooperative in such matters. If Assange were more afraid of the CIA than of the rape charges, then he fled in exactly the wrong direction: from Sweden to the UK. That's the itinerary of a man who is wanted for rape in Sweden, and knows the US isn't out to get him.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 08:54 AM   #238
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,522
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The UK, on the other hand, has consistently been much more cooperative in such matters. If Assange were more afraid of the CIA than of the rape charges, then he fled in exactly the wrong direction: from Sweden to the UK. That's the itinerary of a man who is wanted for rape in Sweden, and knows the US isn't out to get him.
This^^
So much this.
It's the crux of it, and only ever gets some dodging and dancing from his supporters.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 01:20 PM   #239
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,664
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, that brings Roofgardener just about up to speed. The only thing left is point out that Sweden has a tradition of harboring American political criminals and defectors, and has strong legal protections against extraordinary rendition.

The UK, on the other hand, has consistently been much more cooperative in such matters. If Assange were more afraid of the CIA than of the rape charges, then he fled in exactly the wrong direction: from Sweden to the UK. That's the itinerary of a man who is wanted for rape in Sweden, and knows the US isn't out to get him.
Speaking as a Brit: yep whether Labour or Tory we seem to be the USA's bitch and any PM would happily rim the White House appointments secretary for a photo opp with the POTUS.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 04:42 PM   #240
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,215
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
Speaking as a Brit: yep whether Labour or Tory we seem to be the USA's bitch and any PM would happily rim the White House appointments secretary for a photo opp with the POTUS.
To be fair, the UK has been pretty willing to cooperate with Sweden too.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.