Assange.

Don’t get me wrong, I broadly agree with the sentiment expressed in the Independent article, however, it’s hardly a detailed, factual and balanced view of the case from the beginning, and is not presenting the many sides of the debate. It’s an opinion piece.

Thanks ratherbeintobago.

Lifer – Good job in representing his clients and not looking like a US stooge. Made it seem like there was a case to answer. Hey but what do I really know hence the question. Am trying to keep an open mind even though I distrust anything governments do.

Interesting to hear that Sweden would not be able to extradite him to the US without our permission, and that they would not be able to extradite where there is the potential of a death penalty.

If this was indeed the case…. then I would be all in favour of him being packed-off to sweden to answer for the rape allogations.

However – I can’t help feeling that if he goes to Sweden, the Americans will find a way to get hold of him.

That doesn’t quite fit with portraying him as fleeing from justice.

He was bailed from a UK Court, undertaking a UK judical process, under terms that he then broke to seek ‘political’ refuge – I’d say it is reasonable to describe that as fleeing justice.

Personally, the fact that UK law and Swedish differ is irrelevant. The accusations against him allegedly occured in Sweden and it is their law that takes precedent.

Saying he was “fleeing from justice” is rather inflammatory, and without doubt a matter of opinion. “Fleeing from the British justice system” is probably a more accurate accusation.

mt – Member
Lifer – Good job in representing his clients and not looking like a US stooge. Made it seem like there was a case to answer. Hey but what do I really know hence the question. Am trying to keep an open mind even though I distrust anything governments do.

Gotcha.

From a moral point of view (if the info in the indy article are fact) then I believe that there is a case to answer. I cannot comment on the integrity of the “ladies”, but the scenario described fits my definition of rape.

Why couldn’t the Swedes make some sort of formal commitment – maybe to UN or euro court of human rights or somebody – that Assange will be returned to the embassy of Ecuador in Sweden once they’ve completed the rape “issue” ?
Of course that may include a period of imprisonment but I don’t see why they couldn’t undertake to do so.

For a laugh, they could ask the US to countersign it

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

For the first part I’d suggest both he and the ladies in question know what happened. Proof is clearly not easy but given the article I read earlier suggested most cases like this are eventually dropped because of the burden of proof, it doesn’t seem like a good reason to avoid Sweden

For the second I think you’ll find both the UK and Sweden have given certainty (UK says “Off to Sweden with you” and Sweden says “We just want to talk about this a bit”). The US have made no comment and I’m sure even if they HAD made an on the record comment it could easily be reversed and most people would not take it as gospel.

Fair enough andy.
Assange is due to make a statement on Sunday “in front of the embassy”.
Don’t know how far outside, but maybe that will be the compromise to end this, effectively giving himself up.
He’ll probably be arrested, extradited and questioned in Sweden on the charges he faces, whilst gaining a level of protection from political persecution now that he’s had his asylum granted.

Bit of info about the victims..

http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml

Arre you saying this because the Swedes are nice and cuddly or would you also agree if it was some 3rd world country ruled by a despot?

LOL. That looks like a reputable source…..

Political prisoners and those of conscious are often fleeing justice.
perhaps we should discuss what we mean by justice?

I am sure that if the US and Sweden gave a categorical statement[legally binding] that he would never be extradited from there and that he would only face those charges and not be extradited he would be more mindful to go.
If he continued to refuse then we should be discussing him fleeing justice. I rather think he is fleeing from the fear of US extradition which the US could easily clear up. I shall not hold my breath for a comment from them

RE the Independent article it raises some good points but it barely touched on Assanges defence or the fact the charges were dropped and then restarted- this helps fuels views there was a political /other motive to the charges

Saying he was “fleeing from justice” is rather inflammatory,

Only to the overly sensitive.

Why use 3 words when you can use 6 😀

If there is truth to the arguments outlined in the Indy article Assange has to go back to Sweden, it’s a big risk (maybe) given the arguments around what the US may or may not do. If he does not then he’ll always have the rapist tag brought up with the Wikileaks. It would a bold thing to doo.

Arre you saying this because the Swedes are nice and cuddly or would you also agree if it was some 3rd world country ruled by a despot?

Assuming that sentence for the alledged offence would not carry the death penalty or that the accused would not be facing torture.

If you travel to a country then you have to abide by their laws, whether you agree with them or not. Alcohol and the ‘Middle East’ would seem to be a simple example. If you then break the law – by choice or out of ignorance – then you still have to bear the responsibility/consequences for breaking it.

The arguement of ‘We have different laws back home’ is stupid arogance.

Well I hope he does give himself up and goes to sweden to answer questions and face any charges hopefully then he’ll be allowed (after any legal punishment) to go about his business. Trouble is if they do pull a fast one and he ends up in the USA who’s going to tell them to give him back? Pretty sure they have a reputation of ignoring the UN when it suits.

I doubt anyone thinks he should not go to Sweden but the way of getting him there is simple or the stumbling block.
US and Sweden say they wont extradite and he can then face the charges and then go home to Ecuador to await the US outcome – the committee has yet to rule after 18 mths as to what they want to do…of course that is not suspicious.

The US cannot sit on the fence and pretend that its [lack of] decision has no impact in his actions.

This is the situation that occurs when you get a track record of kidnapping people, hiding them in secret prisons and torturing them. If the US and UK had not done those things I’m sure Assange would be quite happy to go back to Sweden. I suspect that a Swedish prison (even assuming he was sent there) is nicer than a bedsit in the Ecuadoran embassy.

The Swedish authorities could interview him by email or video link perhaps?

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

Yes of course, a democratic society should freely allowed the US government to subvert and overthrow its government and if necessary establish a military dictatorship which does the US government’s bidding.

Disgraceful stuff mcboo.

Fortunately throughout Latin American there is popular support in never returning to the days of Washington backed murderous dictatorships, and therefore the US now resorts to denouncing as totalitarian, democratically elected governments which are determined to defend themselves from US interference/imperialism.

The world has changed mcboo……all good stuff 🙂

+1

The Swedish authorities could interview him by email or video link perhaps?

What if they want to arrest him as a result of the interview?

Here is Owen Jones in the Indy, poster boy of the young left.

People who do otherwise commendable work are capable of rape and other crimes. If presented with rape allegations, they must face them like anybody else, however otherwise worthy their past contributions. Now, these statements should be so self-evidently obvious, it is ludicrous that they need to be said. But the furore over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sadly makes it necessary. Although now granted political asylum by Ecuador, Assange is a rape suspect who skipped bail. Yet some of his supporters have ended up making arguments that they would never dream of making about anybody else.

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m a strong supporter of WikiLeaks, an organisation that has exposed some of the dark crevices of Western power. Great Powers have always dominated other peoples without their consent, but high levels of secrecy are needed to maintain acquiescence from their own citizens. The leaking of 400,000 documents about the Iraq war in October 2010, for example, exposed widespread torture and the deaths of thousands of civilians.

That Western governments preferably want WikiLeaks crushed is indisputable. Former US soldier Bradley Manning languished in solitary confinement for 11 months on suspicion of passing classified documents to WikiLeaks, leading to the UN’s special rapporteur on torture to accuse the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. A US grand jury is currently examining evidence that might link Assange to Manning, though it is yet to report. Fears that Assange could end up extradited to the US – and what might happen to him there – are not without foundation.

But that does not mean Assange should be immune from very serious allegations in Sweden. Two women have both accused Assange of rape, and there have been repeated attempts by some of his supporters to discredit them. There have been suggestions that they are part of some kind of CIA honeytrap. The campaigning journalist John Pilger has described them as “concocted charges”. But Assange’s own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, does not dispute the sincerity of the accusers, arguing in court: “Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange’s conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with.”

But what has been particularly disturbing is the attempt by some supporters of Assange to claim that the allegations do not constitute rape. It is reminiscent of the campaign mounted by certain celebrities in defence of Roman Polanski, who was finally held in 2009 after fleeing arrest in the US more than 30 years previously over the alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl. We’ve heard this perverse argument that some rapes aren’t really rape in Britain, too. Last year, Ken Clarke tried to distinguish between “date rape” and what he described as “serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman”.

Let’s be clear: rape is rape. Rape is having sex with someone without their consent. And Assange is clearly accused of rape. The allegation of one woman is that Assange had sex with her while she slept, without a condom. Assange’s legal team claims that, while she immediately asked if he was wearing a condom and he answered not, she consented to continuing the encounter. But both women allegedly made their consent to sex contingent on Assange’s use of a condom: unsurprisingly, given the huge potential risk to their health if he did not.

Assange’s lawyer described the allegations of the other woman in graphic detail in court. As he tried to penetrate her without a condom, she alleges, she repeatedly attempted to avoid penetration: her claim is that she tried “several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and try to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom”.

Many of his supporters argued that this would not constitute rape according to English law, which is simply untrue. Our High Court ruled that: “It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.”

Again, his supporters query why Sweden has not charged Assange. But that is not how the Swedish legal system works. Defendants are not charged until very late into proceedings, and just before prosecution. He cannot be charged until he is arrested, which can only take place in Sweden. The country is a democracy with an independent legal system, and it is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights. But Assange’s supporters argue that, if he is sent to Sweden to face his allegations, he will be extradited to the US. This is particularly puzzling. As leading QC Francis FitzGibbon has pointed out, under Section 58 of Britain’s Extradition Act, Sweden would have to gain the consent of the British Home Secretary first. As signatories of the ECHR, neither country can extradite a suspect to a country where they will face the death penalty or “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

In any case, why not simply extradite him from Britain? As the American Civil Liberties Union points out, our extradition treaty with the US is “lopsided”, because a suspect can be deported if “probable cause” is established, which is not the case the other way round. As a result, the organisation says, UK residents are at risk of “ill-founded” extradition requests to the US. That’s why Gary McKinnon, an autistic Scotsman wanted over claims of hacking, and Richard O’Dwyer, a 24-year-old wanted for alleged copyright infringement, face extradition. Christopher Tappin, a 47-year-old businessman accused of selling batteries to Iran that could be used to manufacture missiles, has already been extradited.

As legal expert David Allen Green put it to me: “The USA’s best opportunity to extradite Assange is actually whilst he remains in the United Kingdom, a country very ready to grant extradition requests.”

Ecuador’s government has a great record of challenging the disastrous record of Western neo-liberalism, but its Foreign Secretary is wrong to describe the charges as “laughable” and “hilarious”. Though its UK Embassy must be protected from any British Government attempt to attack its sovereignty, it is wrong to offer Assange political asylum. Assange should go to Sweden to face the allegations. That doesn’t mean abandoning the struggle to hold Western governments to account, and to force them to be open about how they act in our name. But this is a struggle that has become tragically compromised by Assange.

What if they want to arrest him as a result of the interview?

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.

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 injustice”.

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 🙂

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?

+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 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.

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?