[Closed] Assange.

atlaz - Member

So, given the legal requirement for him to be present in Sweden, how do the people who say he should go to Ecuador suggest the rape charge

What rape charge?

[quote=cynic-al ]
What rape charge?

Okay, the questioning the Swedish would like him for in relation to the two counts of sexual assault, one of rape and one of unlawful coercion if we're going to insist on precision.

I'm not sure exactly what the "'Pro Assange' rhetoric" is, but presumably he trusts neither the British or Swedish systems, hence why he is in Ecuador (or at least, in their embassy).

To clarrify. There has been a lot of posts about the only reason for him to go to Sweden is so that he can be sent to the US more easily and that the US are behind, essentially, 'fake' accusations.

It would appear that it is easier for the US to extradite from the UK than Sweden so why go to the hassle?

The level of proof the US are required to present to a UK judge is quite minimal. If I understand correctly it is significantly less than would be required for a UK criminal prosecution.

rather than asking that perhaps we should ask why the US govt is being silent. Does anyone actually believe they dont want him in the US?
It is possible , given the Swedish have done renditions on their soil, that they dont agree that the UK is the best choice?
The fact they are saying nothing only fuels the suspicion.
What pleader said in reply to Z-11 as well.

I think everyone agrees he should go there and the only way this seems likely is if Sweden and the US state publicly ad legally binding that he he wont be extradited to the US. I would ask why neither has done this as it would remove Assanges worries/excuses as you prefer.

the only way this seems likely is if Sweden and the US state publicly ad legally binding that he he wont be extradited to the US

Really? He can't stay in the embassy forever. The most likely outcome is that he's lifted by the met as soon as he leaves and put on a stockholm-bound plane. Then whatever happens, happens.

The most likely outcome is that he's lifted by the met as soon as he leaves and put on a stockholm-bound plane.

I agree....this seems almost inevetable. Sounds like there is going to be a statement from him "outside of the embassy" - I assume that this will be him giving himself up.

To clarrify. There has been a lot of posts about the only reason for him to go to Sweden is so that he can be sent to the US more easily and that the US are behind, essentially, 'fake' accusations.

It would appear that it is easier for the US to extradite from the UK than Sweden so why go to the hassle?

Oh right. Maybe the Assange supporters think the plan is to charge him for rape in order to discredit him, so there's less public sympathy when he is eventually extradited? I guess if he was found guilty and sat in a Swedish jail for a few years, things might die down a bit as well?

Also, they could argue that having him in custody would probably make things easier? If they'd started US extradition hearings here he would presumably have been off to the Ecuadorian embassy much earlier, whereas perhaps his supporters could argue that the authorities thought he wouldn't feel so threatened by extradition to Sweden, and that they could get him on the charges there, then once he's safely in prison, begin the US extradition proceedings? I don't know, too many conspiracy theories on both sides.

Personally I think that he should get a guarantee from Sweden that he will be extradited, charged and tried on the rape and/or related offences, serve his punishment (if any), and then be allowed to return to Australia/Britain*/country of his choice.

*Not sure if we would typically grant entry to an Australian citizen convicted of rape in Sweden. If we wouldn't normally, then we shouldn't in the case of him being found guilty either.

Is there any particular reason why the States would want him anyway?

Umm, that whole wikileaks thing maybe.

Umm, that whole wikileaks thing maybe.

Yes - and they've got Manning. It's debatable whether Assange did anything illegal in the States (unlike Manning), and it's not like he might have any useful information which they could get by waterboarding him.

Perhaps they might like to have a go at prosecuting him for something eventually, but I can't see why they'd bother leaning on the UK and Sweden as part of some secret plot to get him to the US. Especially when they could just ask us for him and we'd hand him over.

Ben why do the US continue to refuse to comment on what they intend to do then? It is not credible to suggest the US dont want him the only thing worth debating is how they intend to get him.

He can't stay in the embassy forever. The most likely outcome is that he's lifted by the met as soon as he leaves and put on a stockholm-bound plane.

Ah, but the americans are sadistic, bloodthirsty, malevolent b******s you see.

Ah, but the americans are sadistic, bloodthirsty, malevolent b******s you see.

Some of us are, yes - not all of us 🙂

Still, it's got everyone talking about Assange again after it had all gone quiet, so I guess he's happy.

Ah I was mainly referring to the authorities/agencies/organisations, not the people.

You think he's happy to be holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, facing extradition to Sweden to face rape charges and potentially a long prison sentence, with the added possibility of extradition/rendition to the US and a death sentence?

I know he's hardly the beacon of truth that some make him out to be, but I think even his desire for self publicising must have a limit, and its probably someway short of that.

perhaps he does not want to go back to Sweden because they could send back to Australia (for whatever reason). Then he nay be venerable to be got hold of by the US.

Is there any particular reason why the States would want him anyway?.../ /...It's debatable whether Assange did anything illegal in the States

(I've heard of her so must be reasonably high profile, joe biden who I haven't heard of but is "in the obama administration" also [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden ]likened assange to a high tech terrorist[/url])

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden? If that's the best evidence there is that the States wants to get their hands on him, I think he's safe 🙂

What amuses me is the logic, which seems to go like this:

The States is nasty and likes putting people in secret prisons etc.
The States hasn't said that they want Assange.
So they must be saying it in secret to Sweden.
Aren't the States nasty for leaning on Sweden?

No-one seems to seriously consider the possibility that the States finds Assange annoying, but not worth getting really worked up over. Probably not a good idea for him to transit through La Guardia, but too much effort and hassle to actually try to get hold of him.

some of this has worked in assanges favour and theres no doubt hes a **** with a massive ego

but without the publicity that surrounds him its harder to have him renditioned off to some dodgy prison of questionable legality, paranoid? possibly but i think assange probably is and after all your not paranoid if they really are after you...

personally i think it would be better if he went to sweden and faced the charges he
ecuador shouldnt have granted him assylum but its done and britain arresting him makes a mockery of teh assylum system

wikileaks has been a force for good, exposing corruption and hypocrasy on all sides of the war on terror, the assange saga seems to be just as fuct up

No-one seems to seriously consider the possibility that the States finds Assange annoying, but not worth getting really worked up over.

I didn't say they don't want him - but if they do then why lean on Sweden to get him instead of just asking us for him? Much easier to extradite from the UK to the US than from Sweden to the US.

They seem to disagree despite many saying this

The States is nasty and likes putting people in secret prisons etc.

Yeah.... I think that you have highlighted (in a slightly cavalier way)exactly the problem - as a previous post did: The US government has been kidnapping and torturing foreign nationals as it sees fit for the past 10 years. Aided (it seems) by the UK and Swedish governments.

Is it any surprise that people may be edging towards paranoid?

I like America. And Americans.

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden? If that's the best evidence there is that the States wants to get their hands on him, I think he's safe

Joe Biden - the Vice President of the country Joe Biden?

I like America. And Americans.

Yes, we know. Your prejudice clouds your judgement on these matters. 😉

Much easier to extradite from the UK to the US than from Sweden to the US.

Maybe they want to avoid this due to the recent negative publicity of the UK-US extradition arrangement?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

It is possible , given the Swedish have done renditions on their soil, that they dont agree that the UK is the best choice?

Why make it complicated? Regardless of whether Sweden have previously extradited or not it's a lot easier for the US to do it from the UK. They've had plenty of time (over two years?) to say 'first dibs' and haven't. If they had, I suspect that he would be there already.

If you're going to do wet work, you do it the simplest, quickest method. Multilayered conspiracies are for the movies.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

So why have the US not done it?
Again to repeat it no one actually thinks they dont want him so there has to be a reason hence the suspicion they think it will be easier to do it from Sweden than here.
you can repeat that it would be easier here but they dont agree or they would have tried.

mk1fan - Member
If you're going to do wet work, you do it the simplest, quickest method. Multilayered conspiracies are for the movies.

Unless you're incompetent and/or desperate:

[url= http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/08/15/operation-flex-the-most-incompetent-fbi-sting-in-history/ ]Operation Flex[/url]

The FBI refused to comment on This American Life’s story: it is currently being sued by members of the mosque, with Craig Monteilh as the star witness against his former employers. But with extensive interviews with members of the mosque and a fascinatingly candid Craig Monteilh himself, the programme pieces together the sordid tale of the risible Operation Flex.

Last year, the Associated Press won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, after uncovering a massive secret NYPD spying operation covering virtually all of the city’s Muslim communities, despite having no evidence of terrorist activity.

Whether it’s through infiltration of mosques by the FBI or police spies in cafes or meeting spaces, it’s no wonder that so many American Muslim leaders are warning that US law enforcement’s approach is sowing a corrosive fear and distrust amongst their communities.

Yeah, this [url= http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/a/bidenisms.htm ]Joe Biden[/url] - he's not regarded as a big thinker, really.

Maybe they want to avoid this due to the recent negative publicity of the UK-US extradition arrangement?

That is a possibility.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

dp

Operation Flex

Not really wet work.

The question is probably more does the Vice - president of the USA speak for the USA - can you prove that?

Joe Biden? If that's the best evidence there is that the States wants to get their hands on him, I think he's safe

So why have the US not done it?

Because they haven't decided if they want him yet, don't know what he could be charged with even if they get him, and probably don't want to give him the oxygen of yet more publicity.

They have Manning, a US citizen on US soil who has committed a crime under US jurisdiction - maybe they'd just prefer Assange went away.

The Vice-Resident quite often doesn't even speak for the Vice-President 🙂

maybe they'd just prefer Assange went away.

No more preposterous than assuming that their [u]must[/u] be a conspiracy.

Perhaps we are all being manipulated by someone with personality issues?

As he is not a US citizen, and whatever crimes the US think he committed we're not done on US soil, then surely the only thing they could charge him with is terrorism ?

If that's the case, he would face the death penalty, so could not be extradited from the UK ?

Could he be extradited from Sweden to the USA to face terrorism charges/death penalty ?

No more preposterous than assuming that their must be a conspirac

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden? If that's the best evidence there is that the States wants to get their hands on him, I think he's safe

Joe Biden - the Vice President of the country Joe Biden?

SO fair to say influential sections of US politics want him extradited tried and killed for treason(!)

So what could the US charge him with that would mean he could legally be extradited from the UK or Sweden ?

My point is AGAIN that the US do want him - you keep saying they dont

I'm not saying they don't want him - I'm saying they don't want him enough to bother leaning on a prosecutor and setting up false accusations in a different country. It's a lot of effort to go to, isn't it?

you keep saying they dont

No I haven't.

I keep saying that if they want him in the US then it's alot easier for them to get him from the UK than out of Sweden. Further to that, it's a lot easier for the US to get him out of the UK than it is for the Swedes to get him out.

It's a hugely conveluted way of doing it.

I keep saying that if they want him in the US then it's alot easier for them to get him from the UK than out of Sweden

Why is it ?

As has been repeatidly posted on this thread the UK has a lop-sided extradition agreement. The 'pan-european' agreement is alot more stringent.

Neal the swedes have signed the same treaty as all EU members so canot send him to a country where the death sentence can be delivered for the charge made.

Is that the treaty that is supposed to stop us (and Sweden) sending people to countries where they might get tortured?

The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today.

In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001. The committee decided that Sweden’s involvement in the US transfer of Mohammed al-Zari to Egypt breached the absolute ban on torture, despite assurances of humane treatment provided by Egyptian authorities prior to the rendition.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

Oh......

As has been repeatidly posted on this thread the UK has a lop-sided extradition agreement. The 'pan-european' agreement is alot more stringent.

The UK is under greater scrutiny due to exactly that reason.
Making Sweden a more attractive proposition.

Plus neither countries are going to extradite to USA if assange faces the deaths penalty.

As has been repeatidly posted on this thread the UK has a lop-sided extradition agreement. The 'pan-european' agreement is alot more stringent.

nealglover,

Fair point, but were they two years ago?

That aside and moving the conversation on, then at worst that makes extradition from either country equally easy/hard does it not?

So it's back to the point of why bother with complicating matters with 'false' accusations from Sweden which were always going to be problematic and drawn out?

I'm just applying logic, as I see it, to the situation.

Terrible Law & Order SVU / CSI NY quote 'When you hear hoofs don't think zebra.' Although, clearly this is influenced by location.

it would seem clear,

Not at all, it's a possibility yes, but not a fact.

From reading it appears that the US and Sweden have a bilateral agreement which would allow Sweden to send Assange to the US through something called "temporary surrender". No wonder he doesn't want to go to Sweden. http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

"As he is not a US citizen, and whatever crimes the US think he committed we're not done on US soil, "

His Internet packets have passed through US routers. If they contain messages that incite a crime They consider that a crime on their soil. That is why we extradited those british Muslim chaps earlier in the year to be prosecuted and banged up in a supermax prison. Their uk website happened to hosted on a US server though they probably did not know it.

US and Sweden have a bilateral agreement

Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?

His Internet packets have passed through US routers. [b]If they contain messages that incite a crime [/b]They consider that a crime on their soil.

Did they incite crime ?

Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?

Did they incite crime

[i]'Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?[/i]

It would seem the Americans think so.

Again why? You've not given any genuine, proof.

Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?

It's the same, I think. However the "temporary surrender" clause only seems to apply when someone has been charged/is being prosecuted/is serving a sentence in one country, and is also wanted in another country. Since Assange is not being charged with anything in this country then temporary surrender would seem not to apply, whereas it could in Sweden because of the rape charges.

Lots of people seem to think that the "temporary surrender" procedure may be less rigorous than the full extradition procedure, but you'd have to ask a legal expert for the real picture I guess.

Is that any easier than the US agreement with the UK?

It's the same agreement, I think. However the "temporary surrender" clause only seems to apply when someone has been charged/is being prosecuted/is serving a sentence in one country, and is also wanted in another country. Since Assange is not being charged with anything in this country then temporary surrender would seem not to apply, whereas it could in Sweden because of the rape charges.

Lots of people seem to think that the "temporary surrender" procedure may be less rigorous than the full extradition procedure, but you'd have to ask a legal expert for the real picture I guess.

Well that's a QI point - although not enough to say it twice 😀

So, that would lend weight to the THEORY of a US set up. So why set him up in Sweden? Why not the UK?

SO why set him up in Sweden? Why not the UK?

Seems logical that when "they" were hunting around for dirt on Assange, they discovered 2 previous allegations of sexual assault. Just so happens that these were in a country that had previously cooperated with the US in extraordinary rendition..... seems ideal.

I'm not sure most people are claiming the entire thing was fabricated as a US conspiracy - its hardly inconceivable though that they would opportunistically take advantage of events.

Read up on some of the documented cases the CIA/US has been involved in in the past - I don't think exaggerating or fabricating some dodgy sexual behaviour, then possibly incentivising/pressuring witnesses, politicians and prosecutors to eventually get an extradition would rank as anywhere near the most outrageous thing they have ever done. And where 'terrorists' are concerned pretty much anything goes it seems.

I'm not saying that's definitely what's happened here, but its not wildly unrealistic either.

Again why? You've not given any genuine, proof.

You then have to look at what they are doing now which is nothing.
If it is easier to get him from here - which people keep claiming [unevidenced] then you have to ask why America has not tried there seem to be only two answers
1. they are not interested in him which seems to me to be prima facie bobbins- they refuse to answer when asked what they will do eve after asylum.
2. They think it will be easier in Sweden

I have no proof of this but it seems a reasonable deduction

Of course the USA may not care as Ben seems to suggest or it really is easier here than in Sweden but they really have not made up their mind
what to do. Again that seems to be prima facie bobbins.
Whilst the USA says nothing the debate will continue.

I cannot see why anyone would think they are just going to ignore him and not try and get him. Given their recent and ignoble history of unlawful rendition, torture, maltreatment and "unlawful combatants".

If you have a credible argument [ which also wont have proof] I am happy to listen but this seems perfectly reasonable and not a tin foil hat they did 9/11 and faked the moon landing type view.

I dont think they created the Sweden situation [ though they may have as Grum notes] but it is unlikely they wont know how to exploit it to achieve their aims which means getting Assange

I have no proof of this but it seems a reasonable deduction

I have no proof he raped anyone, but given two girls claim he has, and he's spent two years doing everything he can to avoid the Swedish judicial process, it seems a reasonable deduction

in much the same way that Lord Lucan disappearing to avoid being prosecuted for killing his nanny tends to lead me to the conclusion that he was probably guilty.

Next Stw poll ...

Assagne
1. Will be Escape to Ecuador
2. Will Be extradited to Sweden
3. Will be extradited to the us
4. Will betaken by aliens...
5. Rides a 650b bamboo belted rigid

I have no proof he raped anyone, but given two girls claim he has, and he's spent two years doing everything he can to avoid the Swedish judicial process, it seems a reasonable deduction)

As a declaration of innocence, it's on a par with taking one's national anti-doping agency to court to argue they don't have jurisdiction, rather than taking the (widespread) allegations to CAS. Not that anyone would do that...

Andy

It would be more on par with a national anti-doping agency releasing a statement entailing how they would falsify allegations against an innocent athlete because they don't like him, then 6 months later following that plan to the letter.

It would be more on par with a national anti-doping agency releasing a statement entailing how they would falsify allegations against an innocent athlete because they don't like him, then 6 months later following that plan to the letter.

Now that's interesting; do you have a link to such a statement (in either case)?

Andy

When the allegations were first made, the "6 part plan for revenge" was still up on her blogsite, she then quickly removed it, but it was still in google cache, probably still is but I wouldn't have a clue how to access it.

Unfortunately googling for it, like for most of the facts in the case, just returns a swamp of quotes from the stupid.

When the allegations were first made, the "6 part plan for revenge" was still up on her blogsite, she then quickly removed it, but it was still in google cache, probably still is but I wouldn't have a clue how to access it.

Ah yes - I saw that (or rather references to it). I was hoping you were going to have something on USADA and everyone's favourite Texan 7-times TdF winner...

Andy