Assange.

it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK

I see this every day at work – the Americans (rightly it seems) are begining to believe that the laws it passes are global.

Does Assange get to be a special case because he cocks a snoot at Uncle Sam?

No but US does not get to be a special case because they are the US

He is not a US citizen, was not on their territory when he committed any crime so really WTF has it got to do with them what he did?

If I had to scale them I’d put Sweden pretty near the top (if not at the very top), and Iran dead last. Wouldnt you?

Quick Google on Sweden and supporting the US with rendition- which is interestingly illegal in Sweden

Ahmed Agiza was rendered from Sweden to Egypt by U.S. agents through Bromma airport. However the U.S. agents were assisted by the Swedish secret service. He was tortured in Egypt and sentenced to 25 years later reduced to 15. His lawyers sued in Sweden for damages and won. He was awarded 330,000 Euros–but is still in jail

http://www.thelocal.se/tag/Mohammed_Alzery
Links to numerous stories of them “assisting or colluding with US authorities over rendition and the UN, amongst others, criticising them

Add tot his the fact The US has a special committee on him and it has not ruled and you have the suspicion [ does anyone think the US do not want to get him on to their soil and charge him?] that the US is playing game to get him.
Ie there are no charges at present so it is safe

he has not been charged with an offence with the death penalty so let him go, change charges once he is there etc.

Its no use us criticising other countries if we wont protect a whistle blower here.

The grubby part of this is the allogations that the Swedish justice system is being manipulated by America, so that he can eventually end up there to be prosecuted under terrorism charges (which can carry a death penalty).

Evidence for this?

Although I don’t agree with what wikileaks did…. it certainly isn’t “terrorism” and I don’t think we should be facilitating his extradition to the US (eventually) in any way.

The US have not lodged an application for extradition, and in any case no-one has yet explained why the conspiracy theorists feel extradition to Sweden is more likely to result in extradition to the US than being in the UK, given the lax nature of the US-UK extradition treaty.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion he really doesn’t want to face his accusers; the questioning that has been talked about above is not questioning as we’d see it in the UK, but is part of the formal charging process – I can entirely see why the Swedish Police aren’t keen to do this in UK.

As an aside, if the Americans are determined to get him, I dare say it’d probably be easier for the CIA to lift him in Ecuador than for the USG to go through proper legal channels in Europe. It may well be the safest place he could be is in a Swedish clink.

Andy

I’m guessing that Assange must believe extradition to the US is a high probability as it must be better to go to jail in Sweden for a few years (if found guilty) over having to look over your shoulder for the rest of your life.

I’m also guessing that the US aren’t extraditing him from Britain as it would be deeply unpopular move until he’s had his character fully dragged through the mud.

What y’all think

I think Assange looks at the treatment Bradley Manning,his main source of the leaks,is getting whilst he awaits trial on treason and terrorism
charges,and quite justifiably doesn’t fancy it at all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/bradley-manning-military-code-lawyer?newsfeed=true

I’m also guessing that the US aren’t extraditing him from Britain as it would be deeply unpopular move until he’s had his character fully dragged through the mud.

I honestly can’t beleive that bothers them. If they really wanted him, then an extradition request would have been lodged. It hasn’t.

I’ve heard a few people say there is no crime he can actually be prosecuted for due to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution; the publicity is keeping him, and Wikileaks, in the public eye and perhaps the Americans would rather he went away quietly?

Andy

He is not a US citizen, was not on their territory when he committed any crime so really WTF has it got to do with them what he did?

Exactly! My understanding is that he didn’t even do the illegal hacking… he just published the papers that were leaked to him by this guy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/bradley-manning-military-code-lawyer?newsfeed=true

I view Assange as a journalist – I don’t agree with what he did, but are we classifying irresponsible journalism as terrorism now?

Evidence for this?

yes because they would be that stupid.

The US have not lodged an application for extradition,

Are you claiming they have absolutely no interest in him whatsoever?
We all know why they have not done this and it is not lack of interest simply timing

It’s hard to escape the conclusion he really doesn’t want to face his accusers

I think we all realise he wants to avoid American justice- the rest is just your view re the “swedish charges” which were dropped then re instated

It may well be the safest place he could be is in a Swedish clink.

But you just suggested they have no interest in him which is it?
ee links above i posted re Sweden

The grubby part of this is the allogations that the Swedish justice system is being manipulated by America, so that he can eventually end up there to be prosecuted under terrorism charges (which can carry a death penalty).

Evidence for this?

Evidence of the allogations? Google it dude. If there were evidence that the allogations were true – this would be a different discussion

If there were evidence that the allogations were true – this woiuld be a different discussion

Because evidence for allegations of sexual assault is often in the public domain?…

Dude.

The US have not lodged an application for extradition, and in any case no-one has yet explained why the conspiracy theorists feel extradition to Sweden is more likely to result in extradition to the US than being in the UK, given the lax nature of the US-UK extradition treaty.

At the moment, he’s not in the UK. I also note that the Swedes have said they’ll remand him in prison without charge.

I dare say it’d probably be easier for the CIA to lift him in Ecuador than for the USG to go through proper legal channels in Europe.

Haven’t you read mcboo’s posts alleging human rights abuses in Ecuador ?

Ecuador like other Latin American countries which are now no longer prepared to dance to the US’s tune and insist on asserting their own sovereignty, has in place stringent measures to protect itself from covert US government activities. Times have changed, the freedoms that the US enjoyed under military dictatorships no longer exist.

I also note that the Swedes have said they’ll remand him in prison without charge.

Given his history of fleeing from justice, thats entirely to be expected, surely.

I also note that the Swedes have said they’ll remand him in prison without charge.

Given that he has committed a crime in the UK by skipping bail, that’s not really a surprise, is it?

As before, the Swedish charging process is different to the UK. He needs another interview; the way this was explained on R4 this morning is that he is interviewed, what he says is presented to the alleged victims, what they then say is presented to Assange etc. until the Swedish equivalent of the CPS feel they are in a position to proceed (at which point he will be formally charged) or drop the case.

Andy

ratherbeintobago
…no-one has yet explained why the conspiracy theorists feel extradition to Sweden is more likely to result in extradition to the US than being in the UK

There was applause as the foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, made the declaration that Mr Assange had been given “diplomatic asylum” at a press conference in the capital, Quito.
“We believe that his fears are legitimate and there are the threats that he could face political persecution.
“We trust that the UK will offer as soon as possible the guarantee for the safe passage of asylum for Mr Assange and they will respect those international agreements they have signed in the past.”

In your opinion, the foreign minister of a sovereign state acting within agreed international law is a “conspiracy theorist”?
Too much X-Files?

I appreciate that the time for compromise has probably passed, but couldn’t we simply guarantee safe passage for Assange to travel to the Ecuador embassy in Stockholm – where he would have the same privileges he now has but could be interviewed by the Swedish authorities?

In your opinion, the foreign minister of a sovereign state acting within agreed international law is a “conspiracy theorist”?

No, but I believe the foreign minister of a sovereign state is taking the perceived opportunity to stick two fingers up at a) the US, and b) the UK (following poorly timed threats to storm their embassy, which apparently derailed a perfectly cordial negotiation process).

I appreciate that the time for compromise has probably passed, but couldn’t we simply guarantee safe passage for Assange to travel to the Ecuador embassy in Stockholm – where he would have the same privileges he now has but could be interviewed by the Swedish authorities?

Ah, but that is a sensible suggestion 😛

Andy

It all smacks of a tatic to disable an opponent (Assagne) by distracting his resources away from attacking.

You see it all over the place, the legal system is used to distract and drain rather than provide justice.. whether that be the local council, tech companies or governments.

Wikileaks has no money now (when did they last release something that hit the headlines) and Assagne has spent all his trying to defend himself.

There is a high degree of uncertainty for Assagne
– He can’t for sure say that he’s not guilty as its very difficult to prove one way or the other (consent is usually a verbal agreement)
– Sweden, the US and the UK won’t give him any certatinty as to their actions

So he’s forced on the defensive. Seems like quite a good way to take out an opponent.

No wonder lawyers are so rich

No, but I believe the foreign minister of a sovereign state is taking the perceived opportunity to stick two fingers up at a) the US, and b) the UK

Who’s the conspiracy theorist now then? 😉

The Swedish system:

“Mr Assange will be arrested on his arrival in Sweden and taken to a Swedish police station. Within 96 hours of being detained he will be brought to court, for a decision as to whether he should be remanded in custody until trial … This hearing is normally in private, unlike in many other countries, including the UK, where such hearings are normally in open court. As soon as the investigation is over, a decision will be taken about whether to formally charge him. Swedish law requires a person to be physically present before charges can be laid, so this can only happen once Mr Assange is on Swedish territory. Alternatively, prosecutors may decide not to charge Mr Assange and to release him.”

How dare they stick two fingers at the US ! Don’t they know who’s in charge !

The grubby part of this is the allogations that the Swedish justice system is being manipulated by America,

Evidence for this?

Evidence of the allogations? Google it dude. If there were evidence that the allogations were true – this would be a different discussion

We were talking about your request for evidence that there were allogations that the Swedish justice system was being manipulated by the americans. Those allogations are being made pretty loudly. I’m not saying that she shouldn’t answer the Swedish charges – I’m just saying that in light of these allogations (the ones about the US manipulating the Swedish Justuce system), the UK should think twice about storming an embassy in order to extradite him to Sweden

Wikileaks has no money now (when did they last release something that hit the headlines) and Assagne has spent all his trying to defend himself.

They/he never had much money. He’s spent a lot of other people’s money, not least of which was the £20k bail bonds form Jemima Khan and others that are now presumably forfeit.

Wo’s the conspiracy theorist now then?

Eh?

How dare they stick two fingers at the US ! Don’t they know who’s in charge !

Well, quite. HMG would do well to remember this, and to tell the USD where to go once in a while too.

Andy

An Ecuadorian government spokesperson commenting on the threats by the British Government to enter the Embassy said:
“We are deeply shocked by British government’s threats against the sovereignty of the Ecuadorian Embassy and their suggestion that they may forcibly enter the embassy.
This is a clear breach of international law and the protocols set out in the Vienna Convention.
Throughout out the last 56 days Mr. Julian Assange has been in the Embassy, the Ecuadorian Government has acted honourably in all our attempts to seek a resolution to the situation. This stands in stark contrast to the escalation of the British Government today with their threats to breakdown the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Instead of threatening violence against the Ecuadorian Embassy the British Government should use its energy to find a peaceful resolution to this situation which we are aiming to achieve. “

Is it time for Hague’s resignation?

Given his history of fleeing from justice, thats entirely to be expected, surely.

He left Sweden with their permission. How is that “fleeing from justice”?

He left Sweden with their permission. How is that “fleeing from justice”?

I think fleeing from justice refers to jumping bail in the UK.

Andy

He did skip bail in the UK though.

I appreciate that the time for compromise has probably passed, but couldn’t we simply guarantee safe passage for Assange to travel to the Ecuador embassy in Stockholm – where he would have the same privileges he now has but could be interviewed by the Swedish authorities?

It wouldn’t make any difference – the embassy in Stockholm is part of Ecuador, not Sweden.

He did skip bail in the UK though.

Indeed, but the point is that he has never refused to answer the Swedish authority’s questions about the allegations. That doesn’t quite fit with portraying him as fleeing from justice.

Heard the interview with the Swedish lawyer acting for the women this morning on Radio 4. For a guy who is suposed to be part of a US attempt to pervert Swedish law he was doing a good job. Made me think perhaps he should answering some questions. Is there a report anywhere that explains what is going on without taking a side, I mean from the start?

edit – spelling.

Ecuador like other Latin American countries which are now no longer prepared to dance to the US’s tune and insist on asserting their own sovereignty, has in place stringent measures to protect itself from covert US government activities.

The eternal totalitarian excuse for locking up journalists. Always in the pay of external enemies. Disgraceful stuff ernie.

Is that meant to be ironic?

mt – Member
Heard the interview with the Swedish lawyer acting for the women this morning on Radio 4. For a guy who is suposed to be part of a US attempt to pervert Swedish law he was doing a good job. Made me think perhaps he should answering some questions. Is there a report anywhere that explains what is going on without taking a side, I mean from the start?

edit – spelling.

Confused as to who you think is doing a good job and who should answer questions?

mcboo says “are you capable of forming an argument”

Heard the interview with the Swedish lawyer acting for the women this morning on Radio 4. For a guy who is suposed to be part of a US attempt to pervert Swedish law he was doing a good job. Made me think perhaps he should answering some questions. Is there a report anywhere that explains what is going on without taking a side, I mean from the start?

This seems very balance (from today’s Independent)

Andy

The Extradition Act 2003 is a one-sided scandal and we should all be writing to our elective representatives to ask when it will be reviewed.

There has been an independent review and it broadly gave the current arrangements a clean bill of health and found the UK/US treaty balanced. Report is here

This seems very balance (from today’s Independent)

Seriously?

(following poorly timed threats to storm their embassy, which apparently derailed a perfectly cordial negotiation process)

When would have been good for a “well timed” threat to storm their embassy?

That indy article reads pretty balanced to me.

When would have been good for a “well timed” threat to storm their embassy?

Never. I should have said ‘poorly considered’. Apart from upsetting the Ecuadoreans, it’s something we could never actually do for fear of rendering our own embassies overseas unsafe; furthermore, the legislation (IIRC) applies to crimes committed on embassy premesis rather than fugitives taking refuge on them, and as such doesn’t apply here.

Andy