well there would be more impetus to get him sent to sweden and quite possibly less people would complain about that, on the other hand what if they said "fine ok after that we've no more interest in you" big headache (for lots of people) gone.What if they want to arrest him as a result of the interview?
of course it might be setting a bad precedent
Only to the overly sensitive.Why use 3 words when you can use 6
What about when you can't use 3 words because it doesn't provide a fair and accurate account of the case? 🙂
Seriously though, I'm sure you see the point. Its an extremely complex case, which, like so many others, is rather oversimplified in many debates on here and elsewhere. Many of his supporters would say the exact opposite, that he is "fleeing from [b]in[/b]justice".
I personally think he should stand trial on the allegations in Sweden, and would hope that it would be a fair trial, but I do not think he should be extradited to the US, and certainly should not face the death penalty or treason/terrorism charges, and therefore I can understand his current reluctance to hand himself in to the British and therefore, Swedish authorities.
Have we concluded that the Swedish women in question are CIA stooges yet ?
What if they want to arrest him as a result of the interview?
Apply for extradition ? Hardly seems worth extraditing him if they might not even want to arrest him. Specially when you consider all the problems it appears to be causing - a lot of fuss and waste of time if it were all to come to nothing 🙂
[quote=mcboo ]Here is Owen Jones in the Indy, poster boy of the young left. We've already had a link to that posted on this thread - and I've no idea what the "indy left" is. Am I supposed to have some sort of prejudiced view according to the politics of the author of an article in a newspaper?
[quote=ernie_lynch ]
> What if they want to arrest him as a result of the interview?
Apply for extradition ? Hardly seems worth extraditing him if they might not even want to arrest him. Specially when you consider all the problems it appears to be causing - a lot of fuss and waste of time if it were all to come to nothing +1
Given the state of current video-conferencing technology, this is either (a) the Swedish authorities trying to save face by not backing down or (b) a pretence to lure him to Sweden for other nefarious purposes.
mcboo - we've had that linked above. It's a long way from exhaustive and appears pretty one-sided (for example, the only quote from Assange's lawyer is one describing the allegations; I'm assuming they then went on to state Assange's case and/or attempt to refute this account)
I don't know but I believe that virtually nobody on here is against him standing trial for the rape charge - in Sweden.
WHether you consider him a hero or a pariah, guilty or innocent of these charges, it's preferable to see them heard in court. The only issue as I see it is ASSURANCES of his treatment following that process.
Seriously though, I'm sure you see the point. Its an extremely complex case, which, like so many others, is rather oversimplified in many debates on here and elsewhere. Many of his supporters would say the exact opposite, that he is "fleeing from injustice".
No, he's really not - if he was fleeing from a biased or unfair British Justice System, then he had more than ample opportunity to do so during the two years that he had on bail, in which he was given the opportunity to exhaust every legal avenue to have the European arrest warrant declared invalid - the fact that he [b]only[/b] fled from the 'unjust system' after losing his case at the highest court in the land undermines in any way the allegation that he thought he was being treated unfairly.
The Swedish authorities could interview him by email or video link perhaps?
That's not the way the system works in Sweden.
He would need to be present (in Sweden) for the interview to take place.
(this has been posted a couple of times already in the thread.)
That's not the way the system works in Sweden.
Further to that it sounds more like they are going to arrest him, which can only take place in Sweden.
With all the assumption that this is a smoke screen to get him into the US it seems a bit odd that the US don't just instigate extradition. It would appear that they have a very low threshold of proof required, they don't care about human rights so it makes no odds what their 'Grand Jury' finds and they'll happily drop in a seal team to handle to the job.
No, he's really not - if he was fleeing from a biased or unfair British Justice System, then he had more than ample opportunity to do so during the two years that he had on bail, in which he was given the opportunity to exhaust every legal avenue to have the European arrest warrant declared invalid - the fact that he only fled from the 'unjust system' after losing his case at the highest court in the land undermines in any way the allegation that he thought he was being treated unfairly.
Sorry, you'll have to explain this to me again. Why does waiting for the final decision before acting undermine that allegation? The fact that he took it to the 'highest court in the land' suggests that he was challenging the system at every point?
I also (personally) believe that the justice system here is relatively fair (and probably is in Sweden too), but, given the USA's recent track record with political prisoners, and those accused of terrorism, do not fully trust the USA not to manipulate our's or Sweden's political and/or justice systems to get hold of him. I can see why he is wary.
The thing is though, they don't need to manipulate either the UK or Sweden. They can just phone up the UK Government (I assume it would be the Foreign Office first??) say 'he's a person of interest' and he'd be on a plane to the US.
Using the 'Pro Assange' retoric the US wouldn't want him going to Sweden.
Further to that it sounds more like they are going to arrest him, which can only take place in Sweden.
Wether they plan to arrest him or not. He has to be in Sweden for the interview. It's not something that can be done over the phone within their legal system.
People can make guesses as to what may or not happen after the interview. But that has no relevance to the fact he is legally required to be present in Sweden for it to take place. (the same applies to anyone)
The thing is though, they don't need to manipulate either the UK or Sweden. They can just phone up the UK Government (I assume it would be the Foreign Office first??) say 'he's a person of interest' and he'd be on a plane to the US.Using the 'Pro Assange' retoric the US wouldn't want him going to Sweden.
Well, I believe a british judge would have to decide that he was, in their opinion, a person of interest.
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).
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 is dealt with under the existing legal frameworks?
atlaz - MemberSo, 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.
well he will die one day but why not ?
Pretty sure it was clear i was referring to the clauses required to get him to freely go to Sweden
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.
Well a high profile politician [url=Is there any particular reason why the States would want him anyway?.../ /...It's debatable whether Assange did anything illegal in the States
him a terrorist[/url] and the USA seem to have novel approaches to dealing with them, so yeah in his shoes I'd be worried.
(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=
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.
Mainly because it is preposterous.
Is that why they have a special commission on him that wont say what they intend to do? They say they wont be drawn on what they intend to do, they have high profile politicians calling for his death and trial as a terrorist or for treason- he is not even American
Because the USA has not said anything one way or the other we just look at how they have treated others and draw a conclusion.
If you think they dont want him and have no interest you will be in a very small group of people perhaps measurable in single figures
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?
1.BP.BLOGSPOT.COM 
2.BP.BLOGSPOT.COM 
CHELSEAWOLFE.NET [img]
