It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks' Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Lol I think this is something you can research on your own man. I do enough research and posting as it is, and usually have it ignored. I am not Swedish Law Enforcement, so I dont have an answer for you. Chances are though its on the books in Sweden, since England allowed the extradition to take place.


I have searched and found nothing...
No evidence that Sweden has EVER pursued anyone like this..

BTW, that post wasn't even addressed to you..


My bad man.. I missed that one. I have actually tried to find that info before, but Sweden is goofy when it comes to whats a matter of public record on court cases, and who can access those cases. I did find their website for their court system, but it asks for a user ID and login.

Aside from that all I could find is the basic prelim on Assange, which is to say he has an entry, but no other info attached to it.

and again sorry about the reply.




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Bank of America, while compling with Federal Law because its banking, is in fact a private business. As is FoxNews, and Rupert Murdoch is a private citizen.


Semantics, they are not privately owned in the true sense..
Here in Australia they are considered publicly listed companies...



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I don't expect Assange has 'clean hands' because of where he has got his information from and only he knows whether he has released this information for the so-called good of everyone or purely for fame and fortune etc.

I see Assange as a 'whistle-blower' and I think it takes a lot of courage to take that role on when dealing with a powerful Government. I couldn't do it but feel that if he has exposed information of public interest such as war casualties, then I would do my best to support him. I watched a Government Committee a week or so ago about letting other countries extradite people and the politicians seemed surprised that people objected.

I certainly haven't time to read through the documents he has released although I expect there are interested parties who have. I do find that Governments are so secretive that although one lives in a democracy - that only exists when politicians want your vote after that - they do what benefits them.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by Xcathdra



Yes, I see the corruption, both from the Government and from Assange. Its one thing to say you are going to do something, but following through is the indicator if the person is genuine or not. In this case, Assange has not been honest with his motives.


No, you only see your version of what corruption is. You only see what your beliefs allow you to see.



Then you dont have the information. All you have is Assanges files, which amounts to nothing since you have no idea what those files contain. For all you know, it could be his grandmothers recipe for chocolate pudding and rice kabobs.

Well, then I will be eating good won't I? I will share with you once everything is cooked and ready to eat.




lolololol - Thats funny.. so you refuse to listen to the Government, because someone else demands you listen to them. Guess what, it makes you exactly what you accuse me of. Assange told you to not believe the US Government, but himself. Talk about your chickens coming home to roost.


HAHAH
yeah it is kind of funny that you didn't understand what I was saying isn't it? (oh wait, I am lowering myself to your standards – for a purpose)
Communication is possible only between equals etc etc blah blah blah. I can not lower myself, so hence forth I will try to explain things for you instead of trying to let you figure things out on your own – because it doesn't seem to be working now... does it?



I will take my chances with the US Government, knowing I can participate in the process and hold people aco#ible. Something that cannot be said about Mr. Assange, who is accountible to no one. Have fun following that, buyt keep in mind when you run out of money to donate to him, you will be tossed aside.

That is good that you are so willing to take chances. So, go out there and start yelling and screaming and making those people accountable for their actions that supposedly represent you. Go participate in the process, I dare you. Let me be the first to make a prediction that you won't.


Originally posted by kroms33
What is it that you focus on for your survival? List? Really? Come on. “Corroborating” information is in the eyes of the beholder of that information. What information could I wager against you to pull you out of the illusion you solidify? Wizards is a play on words... if you actually believe them to exist – well, I might have a bit of hope for you.



Ok, I will take that as you made a statement but cannot back it up. If you dont know, then dont say it.. Its all I am asking.

Okay. You can't see what I am talking about – you can't seem to grasp it. These wizards are all around you – they are your government and your banks, they are the people you grant power because you are the majority and they are the minority but yet you obey their false illusion of rule over your life. Presidents past and present – the controllers of how much money you make on any given day – the system itself being an illusion is all about controlling your perception of who is actually in power. Let me ask you this O' Grand Citizen of a country “By the People for the People,” when was the last time your voice actually mattered? Go ahead – use your voice. Tell people how you feel, tell your government what you think is right and what you think is wrong. Do it. Illusion.
Go vote, try to get your guy or gal in – if they get in, look at the changes they have made... illusion.
You seem to be so focused on the magic show you can't take your eyes off of their tricks. What I mean by that is look away – think for a moment and see.


Originally posted by kroms33
I find it also interesting in that everything that you have listed is not any type of “Corroborating” information but yet opinion based on a current and ongoing issue that has not played out yet.



It might help you to read the info posted, where Assange says the things I am talking about.


I went through all of it, and all of it was completely your opinion of the matters not completing itself full circle in your ideas about how quickly it should have happened.



Actually he has made millions, being he just signed a 1.3 million dollar book deal, which if you do some research, namely going to almost any news site, you can find the article. You can also find articles talking about Assange asking for donations, and where that money has gone (wall street journal has a good article about this issue).

Key word: Just. I am not propping him up on a pedestal, but I think he has done more to discourage the destruction of war and government corruption then anyone else. Anyhow – good for him. At least he can have some sort of freedom by gaining wealth in this current society we live.



So I guess that is your way of actually avoiding answering any questions or making an argument in support of Assange.

I dont live in a dictatorship, nor do I live in a Democracy. I live in the United States of America, which is a Representative Republic. Why dont you go ahead and look that up and get back to me.


No not at all – I am trying to let you see things from another perspective of which you deny yourself of.

“With our concept-making apparatus called “the brain” we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled 'reality' and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see 'reality' differently.”

NO. You live in the illusion of a Representative Republic, of which your voice is mute. At least you know what illusion you live under... I will give you that.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
So would you care to show me where,in the past, Sweden has gone to this extent to bring someone in for questioning???
No one seems to answer that and it's VERY telling of Sweden's agenda in this case..


Oh, for Heaven's sake. People are constantly being moved from one country to another under the European Arrest Warrant or other instruments. The fact that Assange is a celebrity gives this event a high profile. Assange is hiding behind his celebrity and manipulating the situation. The more he protests his innocence and does not face his accusers, the more I think he has something to hide. After all, in Sweden he’ll have access to the best legal advice, the press and everything will be in his favour – except the evidence and the consequences of guilt.

If this was a “normal” person no one would bat an eyelid and there would be no problems. Assange is a wanted man. Wanted for rape and other sexual offenses. That’s the agenda.

You can fantasise to your heart’s content, but those are the facts. If there is any evidence (proper evidence) then where is it?

Regards



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


So your answer is no..

You can't show where sweden has done this before..??
That was my only question..



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I've had a little search about Blacky and I can't find any records of any international arrest warrants from Sweden at all. (of course with the exception of the JA/WL one)
edit on 26/2/11 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by backinblack
 


I've had a little search about Blacky and I can't find any records of any international arrest warrants from Sweden at all. (of course with the exception of the JA/WL one)
edit on 26/2/11 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)


Me either..But this was Sweden getting interpol to arrest someone merely for questioning..
He hasn't been charged with anything..Now that's odd..
BTW, check this..



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


A publicly listed company is a private company. As an example, you wont find a Nasdaq liusting for Darpa



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by paraphi
 


So your answer is no..

You can't show where sweden has done this before..??
That was my only question..


In his defense, you cannot show where it has not happened. As I said before those records are not available to the public. If we can find someone who is spart of the Swedish judicial system with appropriate access I am sure we can get the info. Or, someone could ask wikileaks to hack in and snag the info.

The question that we should be asking is, is the request for extradition legal? Britain says it is as does Sweden. Whether Assange is the first person, or the 100k person is pretty much irrelevant dont you think?

The extradition process is there. Britain and Sweden are part of the EU, making the request valid. Britain ruled based on the information at hand as to whether assange would get a fiar trial or not. Assange and his defense team have skewed info in an attempt to stop the process (refering to another member a few posts up about the trial being held in secret).

For all we know Assange could arrive in Sweden, be interviewed, and all the hoopla could be dropped once they get his side of the story.

Also, just in case people forgot, Assange actually has used the Swedish legal system prior to the extradition issue. He unsuccesfully argued why the case should be dropped, appealing the Swedish court decision to their highest court, where they ruled against him.

Too many what ifs for us to know for sure how many times this has occured, to whom and for what.
edit on 26-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kroms33
 


meh nvm...

When you decide to actually discuss the matter at hand and offer information to refute the info I provided let me know. Absent that, have fun with your games.
edit on 26-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



For all we know Assange could arrive in Sweden, be interviewed, and all the hoopla could be dropped once they get his side of the story.

Too many what ifs for us to know for sure how many times this has occured, to whom and for what.


Or they could simply ask him the questions in the UK..
And please don't pull that "it isn't swedish land" stuff..

It's mere questioning when he hasn't been charged..

BTW, the media is usually all over it when someone is extradited from country to country..
Searches show nothing for Sweden/UK....Kinda odd huh..



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Some resources for us.

European Convention on Information on Foreign Law
European Arrest Warrant Info
Crime in Sweden - Wikipedia 2009 stats
Laws of Sweden - Sex Crimes
Sweden Ministry of Justice - Penal Code


2005 Addition to Swedish Penal Code - Sexual Crimes

* - This is where the non understanding issue of non swedes is coming into play. The Swedes have expanded the definition of rape to include acts less than physical force.


The crime of rape is expanded

The provision on rape has been broadened by lowering the requirement of force. In order to be convicted for rape it is sufficient under the new legislation if the offender has forced the victim to engage in a sexual act through assault, violence or the threat of a criminal act. This means that with regard to the requirement of violence, less grievous forms of violence will be sufficient. As to the degree of threat, it is no longer required that the threat be of the kind that constitutes a threat of imminent violence endangering life or health or some other more significant interest. Instead, a lesser degree of threat can suffice for liability for rape.


This next part is how Sweden can say the investigation is for Rape


Under the new legislation, the crime of rape is broadened to include cases of “sexual exploitation”. This refers to cases in which a person engages in sexual intercourse or some other comparable act with a person by inappropriately exploiting that this person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance – or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general – is in a helpless state. This means that acts previously defined as sexual exploitation will now be considered as rape.



Extradition system of Sweden

Some useful info to help us at least understand the Swedish mindset.

The first paragraph answers our first question -


The question of extradition arises when a state requests that a person who is suspected of an offence, is under prosecution or has been convicted, and who is outside the territory of that state, be extradited to it. Traditionally Sweden has not made extradition conditional on the existence of an agreement with the other state involved. Some states, however, will not allow extradition without the existence of a formal agreement.


suspected of an offense, which assange is, prosecuted for or convicted of, which assange has not.


So now we know how Sweden determined that "rape" occured, based on the 2005 Swedish Penal Code change.
We understand how the Swedish Penal Code change allows for the extradition of people for this area.
We also know understand why Britain upheld the extradition request based on the info provided by Sweden.

As far as stats on how many people have been extradited, wikipedia has some stats on that, and there are 2009 stats linked above, but I could not find anything specific for 2010/2011 or a breakdown of why people were extradited.

After looking for this info, I found where Sweden has agreements with other Nordic countries. Assange is lucky he went to England and not another nrodic country. The treaty between nordics pretty much allows for the police to load you up in their car, drive you across the border, and drop you off at the other countries police station with no ability to object to it.







edit on 26-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



For all we know Assange could arrive in Sweden, be interviewed, and all the hoopla could be dropped once they get his side of the story.

Too many what ifs for us to know for sure how many times this has occured, to whom and for what.


Or they could simply ask him the questions in the UK..
And please don't pull that "it isn't swedish land" stuff..

It's mere questioning when he hasn't been charged..

BTW, the media is usually all over it when someone is extradited from country to country..
Searches show nothing for Sweden/UK....Kinda odd huh..


As far as the no info for extradition, no idea how they log that, assuming they log it at all. I did find some stats for people who have been extradited, but it ewas from Sweden to toher countries. We really need someone familiar with Swedish Law to explain why the info is not listed, or why Sweden doesnt track it, or to tell us its protected information (In sex cases the info is behind close doors, while the arguments are in public - maybe they treat the extradition as part of the restricted info).


Acutally after putting the info together for the psot above this, I see what Sweden is saying in terms of how their law works for sex crimes and extradition requests, in addition to how those people are questioned and charged. As much as Swedish Law is now annoying me, they appear to be within their own laws for doing what they are doing.

I know you dont care for the cant do it argument. That argument is from their Ministry of Justice, and they have cited other court cases (non assange) as to why they cannot interview him in the UK.

Also, apparently under swedish law, an accusation of rape that results in a person being wanted for questioning, can be arrested for that, even though hes not being charged with a crime. All that stuff is above..

Its an intresting read to say the least.


edit on 26-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


And as you pointed out..
They basically changed the definition of what is RAPE and are using that against Assange,

BTW, although the UK judge agreed with the law, he also questioned it's use by Sweden..
But his hands were tied..
It's not the same with a higher court..I don't see extradition being approved..



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


And as you pointed out..
They basically changed the definition of what is RAPE and are using that against Assange,

BTW, although the UK judge agreed with the law, he also questioned it's use by Sweden..
But his hands were tied..
It's not the same with a higher court..I don't see extradition being approved..


The definition of rape was changed in Sweden in 2005, so the change was not to target Assange. As gfar as the British courts go, the EU system apparently removed a countries ability to deny extradition based solely on law. It must meet the criteria (death penalty or some other process where the rights of the person would be removed, creating an injustice).

Assange can appeal if he wants, but since Britain is a signatory to the EU Arrest Warrant EU Commission, their high court supposedly cannot rule on the evidence at all, but must stick strictly to the question of if this person is sent back, will he receive a fair shot or no.

In this case, with Swedish Law, I think he will be going back.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I didn't mean to suggest they changed the rape laws just for Assange..
Just that they did and that they are inconsistent with most other countries..


Assange can appeal if he wants, but since Britain is a signatory to the EU Arrest Warrant EU Commission, their high court supposedly cannot rule on the evidence at all, but must stick strictly to the question of if this person is sent back, will he receive a fair shot or no.


No, the court can not rule on evidence but the higher courts can rule on other matters..
The lower courts are restricted in just going by the laws..

Higher courts may bring into question other aspects of the case..
The initial dropping of the case..Witnesses leaving the country..Motive etc..

Lets face it..If it got to a jury, what 12 people would call for extradition??



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Not if he takes his case to the ECHR.and shows that the case is politically motivated. You just have to read te statement given out by the Prosecutor invovled. Too see there is political involvement in this.

It will take months if not years before this goes infront of a Judge in sweden.

If enough of assanges supporters posts his bail that is.

Remember he cannot be extradited while his appeals are launched against the judges ruling.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 


Im not versed at all with the EU setup. How exactly does it work? From what I am seeing the national courts are used first (in this case Sweden and Britain). If Assange appeals it goes through the BRitish court all the way up to their top level, then onto the EU court system?

Kind of like what we have in the States - State courts do their thing up to the State Supreme Court, then it goes Federal.

I have looked at the appeals process and was under the impression the EU stuff was for criminal / civil issues and not extradition requests (which doesnt fit either in this case because of the goofy Swedish system.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


This is where my confusion is coming in though. There is no "case" to speak of. Under Swedish Law they are seeking extradition because of the claims and how their goofy sex laws work. There is nothign really for the UK to decide other than if he is sent back, will he get a fiar trial.

The Judge agrees that he will and approved extradition. I know Assange is going to appeal, but my question is appeal what? All the higher courts can do is review the lower court ruling to look for errors in the decision.




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join