WikiLeaks' Assange fights extradition to Sweden

Originally posted by Xcathdra
This is my point. He spends his time calling people and entities out, demanding they be held accountible while in the very same breath proclaims he is above the law by pushing conpsiracy theories that he will be illegaly taken to the US, charged with treason, placed in gitmo and executed, which is BS.

Actually you do have a very valid point there.

If he demands others to be accountable for their actions then he should be willing to be held accountable for his own actions as well.

If not, then hypocrisy has hit a new high or er umm low....

reply to post by backinblack


Actually he was questioned, and the charges were dropped by the previous, prosecutor, another prosecutor in another district took the case up. That is why Assange says it is politically motivated.

As Assange's defence team have pointed out, Assangeis famous around the world, being vilivied as a rapist, without being charged. Bad Justice in my opinion. The judge will be leant on that is for sure before he gives his verdict.

But it willtake a couple of years even before any of them gets thier hands on him anyways. Assange can go all the way to the European Court of Human rights, if any verdicts go against him.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I understand your point. You think that because there are no payslips from the Pentagon to the alleged victim(s) of this alleged incident, that the connection has no baring on the case. I think that you are drasticaly mistaken in this veiw, and that in all reality , you arent as naive as that veiw point would have one believe either.
ANY connection to a body which would wish Assange taken out of the way for a bit on any pretext involving political matters is relavent to this particular legal wrangle, no matter how strange and tenuous that link may be. After all, an organisation of that scale and power gets by very well on tenuous , shadowy and unprovable links. Thats how they always do business.

reply to post by Laurauk


The second prosecutor that took up the case is not from another district, but division of the judicial system. Apparently the second prosecutor heads up the division that deals with rape / sex claims etc. She is a specialized Prosecutoir from what I read.

We have something close here in the States depending on charge and severity of crime = municipal court or State Court or Federal Court.

As far as extradition to Sweden and then to the US, a British spokesperson actually had that question asked. Her answer was Assange actually stood a better chance of being extradited to the US by remaining in Britain because of the extradition treaty the 2 countries have which allow for expedited requests.

The reason Assange and his lawyer keep invoking the death penalty BS argument is because European countries prohibit the extradition of any individual to a country for a crime that could result in a death penalty, and again if he faces charges in the US, it doesnt even come close to meeting that criteria.

Also if people actually go back and look Sweden is not the one who keeps bringing up rape charges. They have stated numerous times now about the other possibilities. Assange and his team are the ones who keep invoking the rape charge.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Assange is not a head of State, and therefore does not fall under the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity as a sitting President does. He is not an ambassador or diplomatic staff and therefore does not fall under diplomatic immunity.

Bush isn’t a head of state nor he is a diplomat, so why is what you have described relevant in respect to Bush?

Care to explain how Assange being accused of sexual misconduct though has anything to do with Bush and what he did? Since they are citizens of 2 different countriues, they are not subject to the same laws.

If Bush was accused of what Sweden is accusing Assange of wouldn’t they want to question Bush? And if Bush was convicted wouldn’t he be subject to swedish laws? So what does citizenship have to do with it?

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Not to mention Assange DID hang around Sweden waiting to be questioned..
Even if charged and convicted it's considered a minor offence with a fine..

Not that I believe he did what Sweden is accusing him of but, when did Rape become a "minor offense with a fine"
That kinda downplays the seriousness of the crime does it not?

edit on 7-2-2011 by vkey08 because: fixing tags

Well considering what he is being investigated for is NOT considered a crime in most countries including the US,UK and Australia, then I'd consider it minor..
The word "Rape" does not describe the accusations..
The sex was consensual..

Indeed, and as another poster recommended, the questioning could be done over a video web conference.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Not to mention Assange DID hang around Sweden waiting to be questioned..
Even if charged and convicted it's considered a minor offence with a fine..

Not that I believe he did what Sweden is accusing him of but, when did Rape become a "minor offense with a fine"
That kinda downplays the seriousness of the crime does it not?

edit on 7-2-2011 by vkey08 because: fixing tags

Well considering what he is being investigated for is NOT considered a crime in most countries including the US,UK and Australia, then I'd consider it minor..
The word "Rape" does not describe the accusations..
The sex was consensual..

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I understand your point. You think that because there are no payslips from the Pentagon to the alleged victim(s) of this alleged incident, that the connection has no baring on the case. I think that you are drasticaly mistaken in this veiw, and that in all reality , you arent as naive as that veiw point would have one believe either.
ANY connection to a body which would wish Assange taken out of the way for a bit on any pretext involving political matters is relavent to this particular legal wrangle, no matter how strange and tenuous that link may be. After all, an organisation of that scale and power gets by very well on tenuous , shadowy and unprovable links. Thats how they always do business.

I understand what you are saying, I just think people look too much for the conspiracy aspect instead of applying the KISS principle. In addition to funding by the CIA, I provided a link and list of other countries who also donate, yet for some reason people ignore their connections.

For instance Russia is on that list, and Assange had threatened to release classified Russian info. Coulnt an argument be made that it makes sense to stir up trouble while using another country as the reason, as has been done in the past?

Maybe Cuba in an effort to discredit this group by dragging its members through the mud in a high profile case?

I dont discount the CIA theory, I am just saying that people are so quick to lay blame on the US Government, that other possible avenues are completely discounted for the sole purpose it has nothing to do with the US. People are so determined to lay this mess at the doorsteps of the US, that any objective thought process, alternate possibilites are thrown out the window with the baby and bathwater.

Evidence of this is in your response. I provide additional information, and instead of entertaining it, I get a response talking about the CIA and people on its payroll. Unless the theory deals directly with the US, its discounted out of hand. That argument / stance is the reason this gets more absurd everytime Assange opens his mouth.

Originally posted by aptness
Bush isn’t a head of state nor he is a diplomat, so why is what you have described relevant in respect to Bush?

Actually at the time of the actions Bush was a sitting President, as well as the decisions he is being accused of were made while he was President and occured within the boundaries of the United States,.

Julian Assange is not a Diplomat, or head of State, and his supposed crime took place within the political boundaries of Sweden, who is exercising that jurisdiciton.

As far as relevance goes Bush is nowhere near relevent to this conversation. BackinBlack was trying to compare apples to cows in an effort to draw a paralell about criminal behavior and why the 2 are not treated the same. I responded to his question by saying they arent the same, involve 2 completely different areas of law, etc etc etc.
Which is contained in the quotes just below this.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Care to explain how Assange being accused of sexual misconduct though has anything to do with Bush and what he did? Since they are citizens of 2 different countriues, they are not subject to the same laws.

Originally posted by aptness
If Bush was accused of what Sweden is accusing Assange of wouldn’t they want to question Bush? And if Bush was convicted wouldn’t he be subject to swedish laws? So what does citizenship have to do with it?

Bush has nothing to do with this conversation at all, Blackcat decided to compare apples to cows. Your argument actually supports my argument.

If Bush went to Sweden as a private citizen as Assange did, and did the exact same thing, he would fall into the exact same category and would be subject to the same process sweden is using on Assange.

Since Bush didnt go to sweden as a private, and is not accused of sexual misconduct, the hypothetical debate here makes no sense and only serves as a distraction to the origional debate, which is Assange and his above the law mentality.

Citizenship came into the argument when I compared the status of Bush to Assange. If Assange wants the same treatment as Bush, then he needs to go back to Austrailia and run for PM or donate money to get an Ambassadorship somewhere. That way he can have Diplomatic Immunity, which would then place Assange and Bush into the same conversation.

Absent that, they have nothing to do with each other, or this thread. So again, I am not the one who brought Bush into this, BackinBlack did.

Originally posted by backinblack
Well considering what he is being investigated for is NOT considered a crime in most countries including the US,UK and Australia, then I'd consider it minor..

And this is part of the problem. Just because the countries you listed dont consider his actions a crime, its ok to dismiss Swedish Law? That argument actually runs contrary to Assange and wikileaks, who preach about respecting laws of other countries, and the people within it. To act in a responsbile, ethical and moral manner.

Apparently Assange is once again the exception to this rule?

Just because you disagree with a law, does not mean the law is invalid or null. Assage was in Sweden, and is accused of breaking their laws during his stay.

Originally posted by backinblack
The word "Rape" does not describe the accusations..

Correct - Rape, Sexual Molestation and unprotected sex are the 3 terms being used for the possibility of charges.

Originally posted by backinblack
The sex was consensual..

And this is where part of the issue came in. One of the ladies is saying she was asleep when it started.

Either or we dont have all the facts in this case, so its all speculation anyways. It will continue to be speculation until he is sent back, the Swedes drop the case, or the complaints are withdrawn.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


The videolink has been addressed by Sweden. They maintain it has to be done in person to be admissable in their courts. That apparently is based on previous Swedish case law.

EDIT - In the intrest of fairness though I just came across this piece that raises some intresting questions on both sides of the court issue. Its put together by one of the former judges in Sweden.

Former Swedish Judge talks about Assange case

Should just accept being sent to Sweden and defend himself. Otherwise hes starting to look guilty.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Should just accept being sent to Sweden and defend himself. Otherwise hes starting to look guilty.

As much as Assange pisses me off, he is innocent until proven guilty. His actions to me appear designed to take advantage of the media attention in order to push his agenda and profit from this whole mess, but that my opinion.

Personally speaking I think he should answer the questions and get it overwith, because all thats being done is dragging this out to extremes, even more so when its a conversation and not an interrogation.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually at the time of the actions Bush was a sitting President, as well as the decisions he is being accused of were made while he was President and occured within the boundaries of the United States

While immunity from prosecution usually shields current and former heads of state, it may not shield one from prosecution for a particular set of crimes. Ask Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet was stripped of his immunity mainly because he was guilty of... ordering torture.

As far as relevance goes Bush is nowhere near relevent to this conversation. BackinBlack was trying to compare apples to cows in an effort to draw a paralell about criminal behavior and why the 2 are not treated the same.

I don’t see it. He asked you for your opinion on Bush canceling his trip to Switzerland. Maybe he was implying some comparison, I personally didn’t read it that way, but I will concede that he might have been. In any event I’m sure backinblack can elaborate on it further.

If Assange wants the same treatment as Bush, then he needs to go back to Austrailia and run for PM or donate money to get an Ambassadorship somewhere. That way he can have Diplomatic Immunity, which would then place Assange and Bush into the same conversation.

That is not correct. Under that hypothetical, even if Assange were to be appointed as head of state or to some diplomatic capacity, immunity from prosecution wouldn’t apply because the alleged actions Assange is accused of happened before he was elected/appointed.

reply to post by aptness


Which is exactly why I said the comparison BackinBlack was attempting to make had nothing to do with the situation or even the current conversation.

As far as Augusto Pinochet goes there is some info you are missing. Pinochet was not arrested by the Chilean Government, and they did not strp him of immunity. The British Government arrested him under the legal framework of Universal Jurisdiction. He was neverr charged in England and was returned to Chile in 2000 for health reasons.

Pinochet was had immunity from prosecution under Chilean law, and as a Senator for life also had immunity. A law was passed that extended immunity to all ex presidents, and this applied to pinochet. up until 2006 the Chilean legal system had a series of rulings dismissing lawsuits, reinstating them, dismissing them, reinstating them. In 2006 He accepted responsbility for all that occured while he was President, but died before ever being brought to trial or convicted of any crimes.

Bringing up Pinochet though you did hit one nail on the head - The Chilean Government had to strip him of his immunity from prosecution.

Switzerland cannot strip Former President Bush of Immunity as a head of State no more than Pakistan can strip the US Diplomat accused of shooting 2 people of his diplomatic immunity, and just as the US could not strip the former Georgian Diplomat of Diploomatic immunity when he got drunk and drove, killing an American citizen in the process.

Bush and his actions have absolutely nothing to do with Assange and his situation. The question BackinBlack asked me was an extension to a prior post he made in response to my answer. Essentially he wanted to know why Assange and Bush were any different in terms of being prosecuted.

I answered him.

EDIT to add - The case im refering to is Mississippi vs. Johnson - 1867 - Presidential immunity

reply to post by Xcathdra

And this is part of the problem. Just because the countries you listed dont consider his actions a crime, its ok to dismiss Swedish Law? That argument actually runs contrary to Assange and wikileaks, who preach about respecting laws of other countries, and the people within it. To act in a responsbile, ethical and moral manner.

Who said dismiss it??
It just seems considering it is no crime in most countries and even considered a MINOR crime in Sweden, is it right that Sweden has pursued him so hard??
Why did they argue against bail and force him to spend days in a cell ??
Why not interview him there or even send a lit of questions or use the phone?

Sorry, but it's Sweden who are not acting ethicaly or morally..
I don't believe another person under the same conditions would be pursued so vigorously..

If you can show me proof of instances in the past where Sweden have sort extradition for minor crimes I will review my stance..

Originally posted by backinblack
Who said dismiss it??

You insinuated that since its a "minor issue" that he should just pay the fine and move on because in other countries its not even a crime. You are dismissing Swedish law because you dont agree with it.

Originally posted by backinblack
It just seems considering it is no crime in most countries and even considered a MINOR crime in Sweden, is it right that Sweden has pursued him so hard??

See above answer - and Yes, any crime that has some merrit should be investigated to determine if a crime took place or not. Simply dismissing it out of hand because of affiliation, or because its not even considered a crime in other countries, or because the mildest punishment of the lesser charge possible is a fine, and then demanding other be held accountible for their "crimes" or moral / ethical slips is hypocritical and again reinforces the view assange feels he is above the law.

Also you seem to be stuck on this minor crime thing even though he has not been charged.

He faces the possible charges of -
Rape
Molestation
Sex without a condom

Which range from Prison time down to a fine... So until he is offically charged, your assumptions are jsut that.

Originally posted by backinblack
Why did they argue against bail and force him to spend days in a cell ??

Because its an extradition hearing and Assange had made it clear he would not be returning to Sweden. He wanted bail, Sweden said he is a flight risk, and based on his comments he is. Britain allowed him out after getting more info, but he has to check in daily and is required to wear a gps tracking device.

Originally posted by backinblack
Why not interview him there or even send a lit of questions or use the phone?

I will once again refer you to the other threads / comments / articles that state under Swedish Law they cannot do that. Take that up with the Swedish Government if you dont like it. It is what it is until its changed or challeneged.

Originally posted by backinblack
Sorry, but it's Sweden who are not acting ethicaly or morally..

Based on whose ethical or moral beliefs? This again goes back to my argument how easy Assange supporters will make a claim that what Assange is doing is moral and ethical because he is supposedly exposing criminal wrongdoing, while in the very same argument, ignore Swedish law and Assanges accountability because their actiosn are not moral or ethical?

Care to explain that one to the rest of us?

Originally posted by backinblack
I don't believe another person under the same conditions would be pursued so vigorously..

I disagree.. The only thing that makes this differnce is Assanges love affair with the media spotlight.

Originally posted by backinblack
If you can show me proof of instances in the past where Sweden have sort extradition for minor crimes I will review my stance..

Swedish Government Site for Criminal Extradition

Swedish Judical rules for telephone interviews
** The other issue people seem to ignore, or forget, is the fact Assange is a citizen of Austrailia, not Sweden or the UK, so some of the laws Assange is trying to invoke do not apply to him because he is not a Swedish Citizen, like telehphone interviews** There are also exemptions to Civil and Criminal cases, which again do not apply to Assange because he is not charged.


Source

Lead Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny says the latest arrest warrant was issued because Swedish law prohibits formal legal interviews over a telephone or video link. "We had a case in the southern Swedish city of Helsingborg where a suspect was heard via telephone, and it was heavily criticized by the Ombudsmen for Justice as not being in accordance with existing law," she tells TIME. "The Swedish embassy in London is not Swedish territory in the sense that we can hold interrogations there without formal approval of British authorities."

Asked why she did not request that Assange voluntarily submit to questioning rather than face arrest, Ny replies, "I am not at liberty to disclose all the details regarding different actions we took in order to hold a hearing with him. But since we are unaware of his whereabouts, and we are by law prohibited from conducting hearings via telephone or video link, this was the only legal action left."

UN Overview of Swedish Legal system, Jurisdiction and Extradition requests to and from

As far as an actual list gimme some time to look. I am not sure if criminal proceedings are a matter of public record in Sweden or not. However based on the above info there is no set minimum for extradition on Swedish Charges (An example is in my State, in order for us to have an arrest warrant issued for NationWide / adjoining State extradition its going to have to be a serious felony, where the State to my South has no set mins).

reply to post by Xcathdra

Originally posted by backinblack
Why did they argue against bail and force him to spend days in a cell ??

Because its an extradition hearing and Assange had made it clear he would not be returning to Sweden. He wanted bail, Sweden said he is a flight risk, and based on his comments he is. Britain allowed him out after getting more info, but he has to check in daily and is required to wear a gps tracking device.

Wrong..The first case was NOT an extradition hearing..
Assange was ALWAY contactable and the police in the UK had NO trouble contacting him..

So again..Why did Sweden force the issue and make Assange spend days in jail merely because they wish to question him??

Sorry, but I call that heavy handed, imoral and unethical...

reply to post by Xcathdra

As far as an actual list gimme some time to look.

Great, I cant wait to see the list..

Originally posted by backinblack
Wrong..The first case was NOT an extradition hearing..

Do you do any research on your own, or are we taking lazy to a whole new level? By the way, you are the one who is wrong, not me.

Sweden Issues arrest warrant
Sweden reissues arrest warrant with corrected info to satisfy UK law
Julian Assange Arrested on Swedish Warrant

LONDON — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested and jailed without bail Tuesday in a sex-crimes investigation, but his organization scarcely missed a beat, releasing a new batch of the secret cables that U.S. officials say are damaging America's security and relations worldwide.

A month after dropping out of public view, the 39-year-old Australian surrendered to Scotland Yard to answer a warrant issued for his arrest by Sweden. He is wanted for questioning after two women accused him of having sex with them without a condom and without their consent.

Source

Assange was placed into custody at a hearing a week ago after surrendering to Scotland Yard to answer a Swedish arrest warrant.

Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said his client would offer to be electronically tagged and stay at an address known to the police.

So uhm yeah, you would be wrong. He was placed into detention on the extradition request.

Assange refused Bail - Flight risk

The founder of whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been refused bail by a court in London but vowed to fight extradition to Sweden.

Mr Assange denies sexually assaulting two women in Sweden. He was remanded in custody pending a hearing next week.

A judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court refused bail because of the risk of the 39-year-old fleeing.

Originally posted by backinblack
Assange was ALWAY contactable and the police in the UK had NO trouble contacting him..

ooook....
Interview with David Frost - Advised Assange not to return to Sweden

Assange seeks asylum in Switzerland
Assange refuses extradition request to Sweden

oh.. and he has not made himself available. You keep missing the point. Just because he says he can talk on the phone does not make him available under Swedish Law. Britain is NOT the country prosecuting him, Sweden is, and as such Swedish authorities are the ones he needs to talk to, not British. What part of this are you not understanding?

Source

Lead Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny says the latest arrest warrant was issued because Swedish law prohibits formal legal interviews over a telephone or video link. "We had a case in the southern Swedish city of Helsingborg where a suspect was heard via telephone, and it was heavily criticized by the Ombudsmen for Justice as not being in accordance with existing law," she tells TIME. "The Swedish embassy in London is not Swedish territory in the sense that we can hold interrogations there without formal approval of British authorities."

Asked why she did not request that Assange voluntarily submit to questioning rather than face arrest, Ny replies, "I am not at liberty to disclose all the details regarding different actions we took in order to hold a hearing with him. But since we are unaware of his whereabouts, and we are by law prohibited from conducting hearings via telephone or video link, this was the only legal action left."

Originally posted by backinblack
So again..Why did Sweden force the issue and make Assange spend days in jail merely because they wish to question him??

Sweden did not force the issue. He was jailed because he was a flight risk. The British judge stated as much, and the source is a few paragraphs up. Assange has said he will not return to Sweden voluntarily, demanding he be interviewed by phone, video or in the Swedish Embassy, and again I ahve provided you with sources as to why Sweden cannot do that.

Assange appealed the British decision to not grant him bail while he fights extradition, and Britain finally granted it, over the objections of Swedish authorities because they still felt he was a flgiht risk. As part of the compromise Assange got out on bail, but has to wear a GPS tracking bracelt and report in to Police everyday at the same time.

All you need to do is read and you will understand it.

Originally posted by backinblack
Sorry, but I call that heavy handed, imoral and unethical...

Actually you would be ignorant in terms of the workings and requirements of the Swedish Criminal Justice System, the manner in which arrest warrants can be made and the process there of, the manner in which extradition proceedings are conducted, lack of understanding of what a flight risk is, what bail is and why it can be denied when someone is a flight risk, the fact that Assange has refused to voluntarily comply with Swedish requests for interviews unless its done in his terms, which again is not admissible in their legal system.

Sweden has done a lot to accomodate Assange, and only resorted to the arrest warrant when he refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Their actions are within Swedish Law, UN treaties, EU Criminal Law and Justice, as well as established laws between Sweden, Austrailia and England.

We have now had this round robin conversation multiple times, and the only response you seem to have is to ignore the answers given and to reask the same questions. I am not sure if this is your method of trying to kill a conversation by playing, or not, stupid in hopes I go away. Its not gonna happen.

I have provided you with links to sources from the Government of Sweden, the UN and other sources that disucss all of this in great deal.

Also, I will point out again the absurdity of using the terms ethical and immoral in any sentence that defends Assanges actions. Its hypocritical at best, and again makes my argument that Assange, as well as some of his supporters apparently, feel Assange is special and above the law.

You reject the moral and ethical charges the US, Austrailia and Sweden levels against Assange, but suck it down hook line and sinker when its the reverse.

What country do you reside in? The reason I ask is maybe its a communication barrier. I can translate this mess into your native language if it will help you understand how this works in the real world, and not the land of make believe with Assange as the one eyed king in the land of blind people.