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.

 

Julian Assange could be handed over to US, supporters claim

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
What charges? I'm not seeing any.




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
What charges? I'm not seeing any.


That happens when you reject anything that you don't agree with.

Open your eyes and your mind, do research and ask questions. Quit doing what you accuse others of - taking one side of an argument at face value simply because you don't like the other half of that equation.

Assange needs to decide -
Face the accusations, which should be easy since he and his legal team know the females are lying and have announced that time and again..

or

Don't face the charges and lose whats left of his credibility and integrity, which is saying something since he never had much to begin with.

His mindset and argument to date is no one is above the law. Apparently he forgot to add in a mark to let people know he was exempt from it. He potentially broke the law in Sweden, and to date the UK courts have consistently maintained the legal system in Sweden allows for due process and appeals (and other remedies), access to legal counsel

His latest move - Hiring a PR firm in Stockholm.

PR firms get pricey, especially when its high profile so you guys make sure you donate more money to wikileaks so Assange can use the money for his personal life instead of what he claims they need it for - the continued day to day operations of wikileaks.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Yeah but what charges? He is wanted for questioning. Kind of difference
Details



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by arbiture
 


Actually Congress is allowed to make changes to the court system of the US, except for the Supreme court. That is in the Constitution as well, in the section marked Legislative Branch.


OK. Don't tell me, tell Newt! I swear he thinks he's running for dictator-and-chief.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yeah but what charges? He is wanted for questioning. Kind of difference
Details


I agree with you there.. The closest thing we would have in the US would be whats called a material witness warrant, an even then its not issued to people who would be considered a suspect.

Regardless though - Its Swedish, not US or UK law, we are dealing with.

Just because people dont agree with their law doesn't mean its invalid.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by arbiture
 


Actually Congress is allowed to make changes to the court system of the US, except for the Supreme court. That is in the Constitution as well, in the section marked Legislative Branch.


OK. Don't tell me, tell Newt! I swear he thinks he's running for dictator-and-chief.


Dictator in Chief assumes newt knows something about government, which gives him to much credit frankly.

Newt and Romney missed the deadlines to get their names on the ballot in Virginia if I remember right....
edit on 24-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


By law Sweden could question JA in UK if that's what they want. They're signatories in that treaty. Also it's soon 2012 they might as well do it through a video confrence.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


By law Sweden could question JA in UK if that's what they want. They're signatories in that treaty. Also it's soon 2012 they might as well do it through a video confrence.


And this has already been addressed by one of their senior lawyers who stated a Swedish Supreme Court decision would not allow the information gathered in that manner to be used in court. It is also the same reason they could not interview the people at the Swedish Embassy in London.

The treaty is irrelevant when domestic case law affects the treaty. As far as the year goes, thats up to Assange, as he has every right to challenge the request for extradition. Cant blame the prosecution for the amount of time that has lapsed when its a direct result of the defendant.
edit on 25-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Which supreme court decision that would be? I cant remember such. Thing is that if they had done that then the treaty itself would be null and void. Dont remember Sweden backing off from it.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Which supreme court decision that would be? I cant remember such. Thing is that if they had done that then the treaty itself would be null and void. Dont remember Sweden backing off from it.


To clarify some things -
Assanges dealings with the British Courts are to challenge the validity of the EAW.

On that note and coming from the British High Court - Wikipedia Source

Current status of proceedings

On 2 March 2011, Assange's lawyers lodged papers at the High Court in London, to challenge the decision to extradite him to Sweden.[42] Assange remains on conditional bail.[42][43] The appeal hearing took place on 12-13 July 2011 at the High Court in London. The judges' decision was reserved and a written judgment was delivered on 2 November 2011, dismissing the appeal.[44][45][46][47]


On the note of the final ruling prior to high court denial of appeal - sme source

The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld.[27][38][39] Senior District Judge Howard Riddle found against Assange on each of the main arguments against his extradition.[40] The judge said "as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution."[40] Judge Riddle concluded: "I am satisfied that the specified offences are extradition offences."[40]


On Swedish Law -
Comment about Swedish Law not allowing the interview Assanghe has suggested

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."

Read more: www.time.com...


The counter argument to that claim by Sweden verses Assange.com

Ny: misleading statements about legality of questioning abroad

The prosecutor Marianne Ny has misled the public stating that Swedish and UK law do not permit her to question Julian Assange in the UK. Three days after (05 December 2010) she had issued the EAW for Julian Assange, Ny commented:


"Both British and Swedish law prevent me from questioning Assange in London."

Ny also claimed that questioning in the UK was illegal in a Time interview on 3 December 2010. This has been forcefully rebutted by several experts, and is clearly permitted by law (see below). There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA [2007] 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute.

Incidentally, Ny’s comments to the Swedish press stating that she is not permitted to question Assange in the UK have subsequently been redacted: compare the original to the redacted version. (If these links are broken click here.)


The second half is an interpretation to counter the claim by Ms. Ny. The legal term they dont use and outright ignore is called precedent. If a Swedish court has made a ruling of law based on the actions of either the defense or the governments actions in a case, under Swedish Law its a precedent, and in this case was appropriately cited and used by Ms. Ny.

The case Ms. Ny cited occurred after the ruling in 2007, which is whats being used to challenge her position. They are using a court case that occurred before the recent ruling to not allow interviews via telephone. By arguing the 2007 law allows it, while ignoring the ruling in the more recent case, they are attempting to remove the conflict created and argue he can be questioned - which he cannot be.

As with Swedish law as well as other European countries and legal standards, including the US, if an interrogation is done improperly, and evidence is obtained of criminal wrongdoing during that improper interrogation, the evidence becomes non useful in court, resulting in a compromised prosecution due to tainted evidence = dismissal of charges.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
On Swedish Law -
Comment about Swedish Law not allowing the interview Assanghe has suggested

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."


Heavily criticized but was there an actual ruling? Didn't see any. Also there's no need for the questioning to happen on swedish territory. Not to mention if they did they themselves admid that they would only need a permission from British authorities. So what gives?



The case Ms. Ny cited occurred after the ruling in 2007, which is whats being used to challenge her position. They are using a court case that occurred before the recent ruling to not allow interviews via telephone. By arguing the 2007 law allows it, while ignoring the ruling in the more recent case, they are attempting to remove the conflict created and argue he can be questioned - which he cannot be.


Is there an actual ruling or some only some officials opinion? I'd like to see what it says. For one this was through telephone and also within Sweden.
edit on 30/12/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


There was a ruling that came from the ombudsmen of the town in question. As for looking the ruling up head over to the Swedish governments website and click on judicial and go from there.

As far as telephone goes with Assange no, it was not in Sweden. Assange and his lawyer have made several attempts now for Sweden to interrogate him at any Swedish Embassy or by phone. The case Ms. Ny cited prohibits those possibilities.

It does not matter if we think Swedish laws are idiotic or not, they are Swedish laws and this incident occurred in Sweden. The criminal complaint was filed in Sweden, and its up to Assange and Sweden to resolve the issue.

If you really wish to make the argument, or of others do (and some are) do you really thinks its wise to advocate a policy of ignoring the laws of one nation because people simply dont agree with them? Dont you think that would undermine Assanges position, because then the US could simply state they dont like the Swedish, British or EU laws, and simply take action against Assange in that manner.

If that occurred I would wager Assange would find yet another excuse as to why some laws should be followed, regardless of what some people think , while other laws can be ignored, depending on who they affect.

It comes back to what ive been saying all along with Assange - From Animal Farm
All Animals are equal... but some are more equal than others...
edit on 30-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Whether or not Sweden has idiotic laws well of course they do. All countries do. I dont think they are in this case thought. They are being interprited by idiots thought.
Also about the phone thing the presedent was in Helsinborg so that's what I meant that it was in Sweden. Now we're talking about a foreign national abroad.

[Edit to add] Also now looking more into this I'm not sure there is any formal decision by the ombudsman. If the system is at all like it is in Finland they do not make rulings. They may give out warnings and in extreme cases press charges.
edit on 30/12/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Its more complicated than a foreign national abroad. Its an Austrailian citizen affected by Swedish internal law, European Union Law, British domestic as well as EU agreement laws, and bilateral agreements with Sweden / the UK and Australian over how their nationals are treated.

If UK and AUS agreement prohibit extradition when a person is not charged with an official crime, and in this case Assange has not been formally charged, does that agreement warrant consideration when the UK is caught in the middle?

Also, if you read up on Assanges legal strategy, there are suggestions as to why he chose the UK to make his fight from. And yes, it comes down to politics and popularity in the polls.

Here is my question though - Since Sweden is also a part of the EU, including the EU court system, then his claims of being unfairly prosecuted are mute since he has legal recourse that extends outside the borders of Sweden. He is considering a challenge to the EU court system now, so my question is why is it acceptable to use it now, but completely leave it our of your argument for dealing with Sweden?

As I have stated, this is political to him and he is not above using the same tactics he accuses everyone else of using against him, unfairly I might add.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Yeah it's complicated and doesn't need to be so. They could just do the questioning. Then decide wheter or not to press charges. I'm still not seeing the part thought where the questioning has to be done in Sweden. There's one person saying that and I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her. Eu courts would come into play if there was actual charges? If he is just wanted for a chat then Swedish law applies? Is it truly so that if a suspect in Sweden is in South America, in hospital, unable to travel that he would be forced to go to Sweden for interrogation? I don't buy that.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Since all of this is coming from Sweden, it falls under their laws and jurisdiction. The part about questioning people outside of sweden by phone is the case MS. Ny was referring to where the ombudsmen -


An ombudsman (conventional English plural: ombudsmen) is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between either the state (or elements of it) or an organization, and some internal or external constituency, while representing not only but mostly the broad scope of constituent interests. An indigenous Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish term, Ombudsman is etymologically rooted in the Old Norse word umboðsmaðr, essentially meaning "representative". In its most frequent modern usage, an ombudsman is an official, usually appointed by the government or by parliament but with a significant degree of independence, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individuals. Modern variations of this term include "ombud", "ombuds", "ombudsperson", or "ombudswoman".


stated that action is a no no and in Sweden we can see from the above their position in their legal system.

If it were to be easy then shouldn't Assange just go back and do the interview? Thats where the accusations originated, all the witnesses / evidence are in Sweden, the courts / judges are in Sweden.

Everyone is there except for Assange.

IF the UK sends him back ,and he rolls the dice with the EU courts and loses, then he will be forced with either being quiet and accepting their verdict as fair, or lash out and criticize it. That forces him to use the same system again if he loses in the Swedish system.

Contrary to popular belief, cooperation doesn't mean on exactly his terms. Its an official investigation, and because f that some procedure is required.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I know what an ombudsman is
I cannot really comment untill I can read that decision by them. To equate phone interview with video confrence or even worse face to face questioning is pretty big leap.
Also the ease of the matter or not was never JA's reason for using his legal options to not to be forced to go to Sweden. It was always about the risk such an action would present to him. Ironically enough after the "pre-trial" of Manning it's starting to look like he could be snatched from Uk also. That farce is still ungoing thought but the obvious bias against Manning and JA has already shown itself and I don't even follow that case that closely.
edit on 30/12/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I thought I did as well until I looked it up for Sweden. Its entirely different than what we use here, so I thought Id share on the off chance others didn't know either.

As for the risk involved yes, I can see how the plane / boar or car ride could be dangerous, even more so for everyone else out there as well.

The continued idiotic claim he will be spirited off in the night to face execution in gitmo is as dumb as it is a propaganda ploy on his part. We have been over that time and again and yet you cling to it....

This is about the charges / claims against him in Sweden for sex issues, not his convoluted pansy ass manner in which he released hundreds of thousands of classified military / government documents that didn't belong to him.

In for a penny in for a pound... unless your Assange, in which case its all are equal, but he is more equal than others. He needs to shut up, go to Sweden, throw the evidence he has at the Swedish prosecutor that clears him of any wrong doing, tell them to shove it and move on.

All he is doing now is using the Sweden issue mixed with international intrigue in an effort to subsidize his life of all play and no work.


edit on 30-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
So you still argue that they cant haul him to US?
Fyi people have magically wondered into US planes from places like italy without any process and ended up in custody in US. Their track record of known extraditions is not very flattering. Doesn't really matter what you believe and what you preach online. The reality and facts speak for themselves.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


If the US decides to go forward with charges and seeks extradition sure he could end up in the US. However, that has nothing a tall to do with Sweden and what he has going on there. The US has better extradition agreements with the UK than we do with Sweden as well as the EU as a whole.

UK, Sweden, we can request extradition from either.

The reason we have not is its looking more and more likely he won't be charged with a crime under US law for his actions.

So, again, he is using the US angle, along with his lies about Gitmo, the death penalty and treason, to obfuscate the issue. You and others continually, and blindly, follow him right along without doing any research of your own. Coincidentally what he and you accuse people who don't agree with Assange of doing. Buying into a "US lie" hook line and sinker.

Sadly, you don't see you are on the same line, being fished from the other side. Do your own research, and stop being lazy about needing to be spoon fed info you dont agree with. You are more than intelligent and capable enough to go dig around to find court cases, the claims, the laws in question being violated etc.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join