Latest Chapter in the Assange saga.

[LaCroix]

Yes, that's the point I was making. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a Common Law formulation that does not exist under Civil Law, whereas instead of a presumption of innocence and an adversarial system of justice, the court's job is to inquire into the Fact of the matter and make a decision based on the facts it establishes, without any prior presumption.

What happens if the fact of the matter is that there's insufficient data? If they cannot say either that Assange committed a crime or that Assange did not commit a crime, are they going to find him innocent?

"Innocent (due to lack of proof)"...

[Mange]

Yes, that's the point I was making. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a Common Law formulation that does not exist under Civil Law, whereas instead of a presumption of innocence and an adversarial system of justice, the court's job is to inquire into the Fact of the matter and make a decision based on the facts it establishes, without any prior presumption.

What happens if the fact of the matter is that there's insufficient data? If they cannot say either that Assange committed a crime or that Assange did not commit a crime, are they going to find him innocent?

If it would come to court and such a situation would occur, then the district court would reject the charges against the defendant (according to the principle in dubio pro reo or "rather acquit than convict"). In such a situation, the prosecutor can of course appeal the verdict to hovrätten (the Royal Court or appeals court) before the verdict gains legal force (which happens three weeks after the verdict is announced by the district court).

[Elfdart]

Nonsense, the two situations aren't remotely similar and the case of the Egyptians isn't relevant here.

Why? Because you say so?

The two Egyptians that were repatriated to Egypt in December 2001 (in the wake of 9/11)

Since when is handing people over to a foreign spy ring "repatriation"?

weren't under suspicion of any crimes in Sweden, the Swedish authorities, including the Foreign Minister Anna Lindh of the Social Democratic government who made the decision, were misinformed (and misled) and, as cosmicalstorm mentioned on the first page of this thread, the repatriations resulted in a scandal.

That doesn't change the fact that the Swedish government handed two innocent people over to the CIA.

Sweden subsequently had to pay damages and the current conservative-liberal government overturned the decision.

That does a lot of good for the people who were tortured thanks to the collaboration of the Swedish government.

The thing Glenzilla "nailed" is showing how conspiracy theories evolves and spreads.

What "conspiracy theories" are you talking about?

(Also, proof of all these other kidnappings, plz?)

Try googling Maher Arar.

[CJvR]

The latest technicalities in the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18636196

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has told the BBC he almost certainly will not attend a police station after being served an extradition notice.

Officers from the Met's extradition unit delivered a note to Mr Assange at Ecuador's London embassy on Thursday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18629911

[Mange]

Nonsense, the two situations aren't remotely similar and the case of the Egyptians isn't relevant here.

Why? Because you say so?

No, because the circumstances aren't similar. The two Egyptians weren't under suspicion for any crimes committed in Sweden, the entire process was extrajudicial (which was remarkable and which also was, as the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman later found, illegal under Swedish law) and besides a few right-wingers, the U.S. hasn't shown any interest in him (and no-one has made a case for what laws he might have broken)

Another thing which have some bearing on this is that this case has garnered a great deal of attention which the Egyptian case didn't have (it didn't become known until three years after the fact). If anything similar happened again (especially in such a high-profile case like this) it would lead to a scandal that would make the case of the Egyptians look like a fart in the wind.

Oh, and it's of course nonsense that it would be easier for the United States to extradite him from Sweden than it would have been from the U.K. Besides what's already been repeated ad naseum (such as that Sweden has something called "dubbel straffbarhet" which means that for a person to be extradited, the act the person is accused of must be criminal in Sweden and that the U.K. must allow the extradition otherwise such an extradition would be illegal), Sweden does not have anything similar to the Extradition Act of 2003 which allows the United States to extradite British nationals and foreigners on British soil on reasonable suspicion alone for crimes against the United States. But let's not allow facts to get in the way, shall we?

The two Egyptians that were repatriated to Egypt in December 2001 (in the wake of 9/11)

Since when is handing people over to a foreign spy ring "repatriation"?

The two men in question were Egyptian citizens and were repatriated to Egypt. The two men were formally handed over to Egypt on Bromma Airport (though of course the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman later found that the Foreign Minister should've had reasons to expect that the CIA would participate during the repatriation process but she was murdered the year before the scandal unfolded).

weren't under suspicion of any crimes in Sweden, the Swedish authorities, including the Foreign Minister Anna Lindh of the Social Democratic government who made the decision, were misinformed (and misled) and, as cosmicalstorm mentioned on the first page of this thread, the repatriations resulted in a scandal.

That doesn't change the fact that the Swedish government handed two innocent people over to the CIA.

The repatriation was a disgrace, regardless if they were innocent or not.

A few notes on what followed the repatriation...

Agiza was found guilty in absentia by an Egyptian military court (which aren't known to have very high standards) in 1999 for his membership in the Tala'a al-Fath organization (a branch of Islamic Jihad. The latter is led by the current leader of al-Qaeda, al-Zawahiri). According to the television show Hard Facts that broke the story on the illegal repatriation in 2004, Agiza has acknowledged that he knew al-Zawahiri but that he had met him the last time in Pakistan in the mid-nineties. In the book Black Hole, which includes details about Agiza's trial, it's claimed that he admitted during the trial to have been a member of the organization but that he left (and that others followed him) because he didn't agree with al-Zawahiri's violent ideology and the use of foreign Jihadists in Egypt. He also testified about the torture he was subject to while in Egyptian prison awaiting trial.

Agiza was sentenced to 25 years in prison but was released last year after ten years in prison.

al-Zery was released in 2003 after two years imprisonment without facing trial. He has also stated that he was subjected to torture.

The two men applied for residence in Sweden again in 2009 but their applications were denied as the Swedish Security Service considered them to be security risks.

Sweden subsequently had to pay damages and the current conservative-liberal government overturned the decision.

That does a lot of good for the people who were tortured thanks to the collaboration of the Swedish government.

The Swedish government demanded assurances from Egypt that the two men wouldn't be tortured and if it can be said that anything good came out of this scandal, it's that Sweden no longer accepts such guarantees and simply won't extradite people if the person in question risks capital punishment and/or cruel and degrading treatment (which sadly doesn't help the two Egyptian men).

The thing Glenzilla "nailed" is showing how conspiracy theories evolves and spreads.

What "conspiracy theories" are you talking about?

While the piece you linked doesn't involve conspiracy theories per se, it does display some traits similar to it: A non sequitur coupled with a complete ignorance of the Swedish judicial system.

Otherwise this case is ripe with full-blown conspiracy theories (the reasoning of which are remarkably similar to the reasoning amongst 9/11 twoofers). The two women are being accused in some circles to be part of a CIA or militant feminist plot, Assange is going to be jailed "indefinitely" in Sweden, Carl Rove is manipulating the Swedish court system or the tripe coming from Assange himself as late as today, that Sweden and the United States are having secret discussions that involves Sweden handing over Assange to the U.S.

[dragon]

Wouldn't the US have to be careful what they tried to extradite him on after all treason and espionage can carry the death penalty and many countries won't extradite if the person might face death.

[Mr Bean]

Wouldn't the US have to be careful what they tried to extradite him on after all treason and espionage can carry the death penalty and many countries won't extradite if the person might face death.

He can be extradited on a lesser charged then have the major charge be added on later. They can't extradite him for treason because again he's not an America and thus unable to commit that crime. They could extradite him on aiding in espionage or distribution of classified material and as an accessory to several other things.

[CJvR]

Wouldn't the US have to be careful what they tried to extradite him on after all treason and espionage can carry the death penalty and many countries won't extradite if the person might face death.

He can be extradited on a lesser charged then have the major charge be added on later. They can't extradite him for treason because again he's not an America and thus unable to commit that crime. They could extradite him on aiding in espionage or distribution of classified material and as an accessory to several other things.

No they couldn't, the actual charge have to be included in the request and additional charges can't be added later. In addition the UK would have to agree to extradition as well since Sweden would only have him on loan from the UK.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Sweden does not use the American system with American standards of evidence. Swedish criminal tribunals are inquiries into Fact; the country is founded on Civil Law, i.e., the basic standards of organisation as the Napoleonic Code (which is most familiar for Americans).

Just a small nitpick for the audience, so not necessarily directed vs you duchess. Although I would like you to elaborate on the 'standards of evidence' thingie which I don't get???

The foundation of the swedish/scandinavian "civil law" was the swedish legal reform of 1734 some 70 years before the creation of the napoleonic code. So swedish/scandinavian law has nothing to do with the napoleonic code. Especially so since the imported king of sweden, the former french revolutionary general Bernadotte, since his turning against napoleon (4th coalition?) was very much anti-napoleon or anything reminding him of napoleon's reign. (Overcompensation to show loyalty to his new country and not a little latent rivalry). So any potential influence after the napoleonic code's creation is slim to nil.
Instead it's common law historians, anglosphere if you will, who have grouped scandinavian law under the rest of civil law (with some caveats). So it's a construct based on how different it is to common law rather than how similar it is to continental/french civil law.

For instance swedish/scandinavian law has the concept of case law /precedence strongly incorporated into it, to make practical/interpret the legislative branch's more generic law. As well as thus there being extensive official motivations and documentations of the verdicts etc.
Swedish courts also includes the representation of the peer or the "common person", in lay judges (elected public officials) who are in majority in the lower courts, minority in appeals court, and non-existant in supreme court. So it's not like swedes can diss the jury system completely, we have our uninformed idiots as well. This concept dates to early medieval ages, viking to you angloshperes, and is by some seen through danelaw as the influence for 'judged by your peers' ideas in common law.

So refering to the napoleonic code in the context of swedish/scandinavian law will give the wrong impression and lead to misunderstandings.
We have similar misses in foreign press regarding the Breivik case in norway.

Thank you for the explanation. I was indeed just trying to use an example US residents would be immediately familiar with.

[Mr Bean]

No they couldn't, the actual charge have to be included in the request and additional charges can't be added later. In addition the UK would have to agree to extradition as well since Sweden would only have him on loan from the UK.

Under the legal principle of "because we said so" it's quite well allowed. It's the one that lets us lock up people for ten years without filling charges, execute Americans abroad without charges and send both Americans and foreign detainees to Turkey to be tortured before returning them to Gitmo or other semi-foreign holding areas for indefinite detention. We just need him in our hands.