Latest Chapter in the Assange saga.

[Blayne]

He explained the reasoning in the post you quoted; there are some countries the United States will not simply screw with for a variety of reasons. You don't see the CIA kidnapping people from Beijing right? There are consequences to these actions where doing them in places like Sweden means nothing.

[Zaune]

Because he's in the United Kingdom one of our key three allies we don't screw with (The other two are Japan and South Korea), we've kidnapped people off the streets of Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico and only sometimes did we bother asking the host country for permission. We are currently bombing the shit out of people in six countries we've not officially declare war on. We are preforming "signature strikes" in both Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

The British government has a long history of difficulty saying no to Washington. I think it's more that Assange is enough of a celebrity that any retribution against him has to appear at least superficially legal, otherwise he becomes a martyr.

[Ziggy Stardust]

He explained the reasoning in the post you quoted; there are some countries the United States will not simply screw with for a variety of reasons. You don't see the CIA kidnapping people from Beijing right? There are consequences to these actions where doing them in places like Sweden means nothing.

I am just disputing his original claim that the US doesn't care about the law at all. If they US really truly didn't give a flying fuck, they would just take him. The fact that they haven't can demonstrate any number of things, depending on your point of view. I am not a huge defender of the US, and I am aware of many of the stupid/bad things the government has done, but I also hate stupid conspiracy theorist bullshit like this, with absolutely no evidence.

EDIT: Essentially, hold us accountable for what we actually do wrong, instead of going out of your way to try and blame other things on us. It is counterproductive.

[Mr Bean]

The British government has a long history of difficulty saying no to Washington. I think it's more that Assange is enough of a celebrity that any retribution against him has to appear at least superficially legal, otherwise he becomes a martyr.

The British government has no problem about wars with the United States, they will not hand over someone in their country who has yet to be charged. That they will not do, and further if you recall the hacker they will fight to defend those in their country.

[Mange]

The British government has a long history of difficulty saying no to Washington. I think it's more that Assange is enough of a celebrity that any retribution against him has to appear at least superficially legal, otherwise he becomes a martyr.

The British government has no problem about wars with the United States, they will not hand over someone in their country who has yet to be charged. That they will not do, and further if you recall the hacker they will fight to defend those in their country.

As I explained on the previous page, the judicial systems works differently (and he hasn't been charged in Sweden either, yet the Brits ruled to extradite him to Sweden).

[Elfdart]

As usual, Glennzilla nails it:

Assange’s resolve to avoid extradition to Sweden has nothing to do with a reluctance to face possible sex assault charges there. His concern all along has been that once he’s in Swedish custody, he will far more easily be extradited to the U.S.

In general, small countries are more easily coerced and bullied by the U.S., and Sweden in particular has a demonstrated history of aceeding to U.S. demands when it comes to individuals accused of harming American national security. In December, 2001, Sweden handed over two asylum-seekers to the CIA, which then rendered them to be tortured in Egypt. A ruling from the U.N. Human Rights Committee found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for its role in that rendition (the two individuals later received a substantial settlement from the Swedish government). The fact that Sweden has unusually oppressive pre-trial procedures — allowing for extreme levels of secrecy in its judicial proceedings — only heightens Assange’s concern about what will happen to him vis-a-vis the U.S. if he ends up in Swedish custody.

Can anyone claim that Assange’s fear of ending up in American custody is anything other than supremely reasonable and rational? Just look at what has happened to people — especially foreign nationals — over the last decade who have been accused of harming the national security of the United States.

They’re imprisoned — still — without a whiff of due process, and President Obama just last year signed a new indefinite detention bill into law. Moreover, Assange need merely look at what the U.S. has done to Bradley Manning, accused of leaking documents and other materials to WikiLeaks: the Army Private was held for almost a year in solitary confinement conditions which a formal U.N. investigation found were “cruel, inhuman and degrading,” and he now faces life in prison, charged with a capital offense of aiding Al Qaeda.

Beyond that, the Obama administration has been uniquely obsessed with punishing whistleblowers and stopping leaks. Worse still, the American federal judiciary has been staggeringly subservient to the U.S. Government when it comes to national security cases, rendering defendants accused of harming national security with almost no chance for acquittal. Would you have any confidence in obtaining justice if you were accused of harming U.S. national security and came into the clutches of the American justice system?

Over the past two years, I’ve spoken with numerous individuals who were once associated with WikiLeaks or who still are. Of those who no longer are, many have said that they stopped even though they believe as much as ever in WikiLeaks’ transparency cause, and did so out of fear: not fear that they would be charged with a crime by their own government (they trust the judicial system of their government and are confident they would not be convicted), but out of fear that they would be turned over to the United States. That’s the fear people have: ending up in the warped travesty known as the judicial system of the Land of the Free. That is what has motivated Assange to resist extradition to Sweden, and it’s what has undoubtedly motivated him to seek asylum from Ecuador.

I don't think anyone wants to be raped and tortured by Uncle Sam's willing executioners (like in Abu Ghraib), nor does anyone fancy the idea of being found hanged in a Guantanamo kennel.

[evilsoup]

Well I'm pretty sure the UK has laxer extradition arrangements with the US than Sweden does... but I can understand Assange feeling paranoid about this stuff.

[Solauren]

Quite frankly, I think Assange has nothing to worry about from the United States.

Anything the United States does against Assange at this point will make him a martyr. They will just encourage Wikileak style stuff.

However, if the US leaves him alone, and Assange gets convicted cleanly of sexual assault charges, his reputation amongst rational people will be severly damaged, which can only hurt Wikileaks, no matter how limited that hurt is.

Once that happens, anything that happens against Wikileaks can be associated to action against something that has been supported, and supports a convicted rapist. The US gets to play the high morale card in that case.

And if anything happens to Assange in prison, hey, he's not in the US. People might scream conspiracy and assaination, but like anything else, prove it.

[Grumman]

[If] Assange gets convicted cleanly of sexual assault charges...

Even if he did commit sexual assault as accused, how are you going to prove it to the level of certainty required by the law?

[Mange]

As usual, Glennzilla nails it:

Assange’s resolve to avoid extradition to Sweden has nothing to do with a reluctance to face possible sex assault charges there. His concern all along has been that once he’s in Swedish custody, he will far more easily be extradited to the U.S.

In general, small countries are more easily coerced and bullied by the U.S., and Sweden in particular has a demonstrated history of aceeding to U.S. demands when it comes to individuals accused of harming American national security. In December, 2001, Sweden handed over two asylum-seekers to the CIA, which then rendered them to be tortured in Egypt. A ruling from the U.N. Human Rights Committee found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for its role in that rendition (the two individuals later received a substantial settlement from the Swedish government). The fact that Sweden has unusually oppressive pre-trial procedures — allowing for extreme levels of secrecy in its judicial proceedings — only heightens Assange’s concern about what will happen to him vis-a-vis the U.S. if he ends up in Swedish custody.

Can anyone claim that Assange’s fear of ending up in American custody is anything other than supremely reasonable and rational? Just look at what has happened to people — especially foreign nationals — over the last decade who have been accused of harming the national security of the United States.

They’re imprisoned — still — without a whiff of due process, and President Obama just last year signed a new indefinite detention bill into law. Moreover, Assange need merely look at what the U.S. has done to Bradley Manning, accused of leaking documents and other materials to WikiLeaks: the Army Private was held for almost a year in solitary confinement conditions which a formal U.N. investigation found were “cruel, inhuman and degrading,” and he now faces life in prison, charged with a capital offense of aiding Al Qaeda.

Beyond that, the Obama administration has been uniquely obsessed with punishing whistleblowers and stopping leaks. Worse still, the American federal judiciary has been staggeringly subservient to the U.S. Government when it comes to national security cases, rendering defendants accused of harming national security with almost no chance for acquittal. Would you have any confidence in obtaining justice if you were accused of harming U.S. national security and came into the clutches of the American justice system?

Over the past two years, I’ve spoken with numerous individuals who were once associated with WikiLeaks or who still are. Of those who no longer are, many have said that they stopped even though they believe as much as ever in WikiLeaks’ transparency cause, and did so out of fear: not fear that they would be charged with a crime by their own government (they trust the judicial system of their government and are confident they would not be convicted), but out of fear that they would be turned over to the United States. That’s the fear people have: ending up in the warped travesty known as the judicial system of the Land of the Free. That is what has motivated Assange to resist extradition to Sweden, and it’s what has undoubtedly motivated him to seek asylum from Ecuador.

I don't think anyone wants to be raped and tortured by Uncle Sam's willing executioners (like in Abu Ghraib), nor does anyone fancy the idea of being found hanged in a Guantanamo kennel.

Nonsense, the two situations aren't remotely similar and the case of the Egyptians isn't relevant here. The two Egyptians that were repatriated to Egypt in December 2001 (in the wake of 9/11) 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. Sweden subsequently had to pay damages and the current conservative-liberal government overturned the decision.

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

[loomer]

The thing to remember with Assange is that he spent most of his adolescence running from a cult. For him to flee when things look bad is pretty much an instinct for him at this point, and so is believing that whatever he's fleeing from is all-powerful and able to damn him to horrifying fates.

If any of our Aussie members remember The Family (the Santineketan Park Association), that was the one his mother got mixed up in. Odd thing: They had all the kids dye their hair platinum blonde, and Assange kept doing it. Maybe he realized he liked the look?

[bobalot]

The U.S can easily extradite Assange from the United Kingdom if they wanted to. Hell, the USextradited this guy for the fairly trivial offence of piracy.

But, oh no! Apparently the UK is one of those allies the US would never screw with... for reasons unprovided with no actual proof offered.

These same people have not provided any proof that:

• the US will ultimately try to extradite Assange.
• Sweden and the UK will agree to this (they both must) and the Swedes "trumped up" some charges to do so.
• the US would employ such a convoluted scheme to get Assange

[Solauren]

[If] Assange gets convicted cleanly of sexual assault charges...

Even if he did commit sexual assault as accused, how are you going to prove it to the level of certainty required by the law?

Since I'm not a swedish legal expert or prosecutor, have not spoken to the witnesses at length, at, I have no idea.

I'm just saying, the US's best course of action in this case is to take a totally hands off approach. That stops all the conspiracy bullshit, and demonizes Assanage at the same time.

Now, if Assange is not tried/convicted in Sweden, I fully expect the US to sweep him up at that point. HOwever, in the meantime, there is every reason not to.

[Grumman]

Even if he did commit sexual assault as accused, how are you going to prove it to the level of certainty required by the law?

Since I'm not a swedish legal expert or prosecutor, have not spoken to the witnesses at length, at, I have no idea.

But even in the absolute best case for the prosecution, can you think of anything that would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these women did not consent to having unprotected sex with Assange (or prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Assange deliberately broke a condom two years ago)? And that's just if Assange was Joe Nobody, and not someone with powerful enemies who have also accused him of other crimes he is physically incapable of committing.

Now, if Assange is not tried/convicted in Sweden, I fully expect the US to sweep him up at that point. HOwever, in the meantime, there is every reason not to.

How is that any better? Unless the Swedes are completely clueless about how the burden of proof works, you're saying the only purpose of this extradition is to set Assange up for an ambush.

[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). Anyway, we must make sure for the sake of women's rights that Assange is extradited to Sweden and stands trial under the laws of Sweden, which are universally recognized to be examples of a free and fair democracy. He has no special rights and should not be a special person. The idea that Sweden would break its own laws after the enormous political scandal of 2002 -- which was a much grayer case! -- is absurd, as is the idea he cannot get a fair trial.

Honestly there are just a lot of fanboys of Assange who fantasize about being in his position "standing up to the world". Wikileaks was a collaborative effort, with many other people involved in it, and Assange just seized the position of being the publicist and promoter. He is a glory hound, a common criminal since his childhood who stole the hard work of many other people at Wikileaks and made it out to be his own. Look at the testimony of Daniel Domscheit-Berg and more pertinently Birgitta Jónsdóttir.

[Simon_Jester]

Look on the bright side; if he's stealing all the credit, he's also acting as a decoy...

[Zaune]

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). Anyway, we must make sure for the sake of women's rights that Assange is extradited to Sweden and stands trial under the laws of Sweden, which are universally recognized to be examples of a free and fair democracy. He has no special rights and should not be a special person.

The problem, however, is that Asange's chances of actually being convicted are fairly low; I don't know much about the details of the Swedish system, but I do know that rape or other sex offences frequently come down to one person's word against another's, which means they're nigh-impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

With that in mind, do you think the Swedish government would be spending a rather significant sum of public money to petition to extradite him if he wasn't a celebrity?

[eyl]

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). Anyway, we must make sure for the sake of women's rights that Assange is extradited to Sweden and stands trial under the laws of Sweden, which are universally recognized to be examples of a free and fair democracy. He has no special rights and should not be a special person.

The problem, however, is that Asange's chances of actually being convicted are fairly low; I don't know much about the details of the Swedish system, but I do know that rape or other sex offences frequently come down to one person's word against another's, which means they're nigh-impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

With that in mind, do you think the Swedish government would be spending a rather significant sum of public money to petition to extradite him if he wasn't a celebrity?

Conversely, however, they might be going to those lengths to avoid giving the impression they're avoiding prosecuting celebrities accused of sexual crimes. What's the public perception of this case in Sweden.

[Stofsk]

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). Anyway, we must make sure for the sake of women's rights that Assange is extradited to Sweden and stands trial under the laws of Sweden, which are universally recognized to be examples of a free and fair democracy. He has no special rights and should not be a special person.

The problem, however, is that Asange's chances of actually being convicted are fairly low; I don't know much about the details of the Swedish system, but I do know that rape or other sex offences frequently come down to one person's word against another's, which means they're nigh-impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case there are two people's word against his. Someone earlier in the thread also mentioned that he had made admissions about what had happened, so there's that. I don't know whether that's true or not or the nature of said admissions. But if Swedish justice is more about inquiries into fact, as Duchess says, rather than this adversarial bullshit system that our anglo-western countries use, then that may not matter.

With that in mind, do you think the Swedish government would be spending a rather significant sum of public money to petition to extradite him if he wasn't a celebrity?

Actually, I think if it had been anyone other than Julian Assange, they would have been extradited without any issue. The courts ultimately ruled against Assange, but he exhausted every legal appeal he could, and fought every step of the way. Other people potentially wouldn't have the kind of public profile or support he has enjoyed.

[Simon_Jester]

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). Anyway, we must make sure for the sake of women's rights that Assange is extradited to Sweden and stands trial under the laws of Sweden, which are universally recognized to be examples of a free and fair democracy. He has no special rights and should not be a special person.

The problem, however, is that Asange's chances of actually being convicted are fairly low; I don't know much about the details of the Swedish system, but I do know that rape or other sex offences frequently come down to one person's word against another's, which means they're nigh-impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

With that in mind, do you think the Swedish government would be spending a rather significant sum of public money to petition to extradite him if he wasn't a celebrity?

You partly missed her point- which is that in Sweden the standard of guilt in a conviction is not "prove to a jury that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." It's "a panel of judges decides that you did it."

So in and of itself, the fact that someone could put together a plausible explanation for Assange being innocent doesn't mean a Swedish court has to find him innocent.

On the other hand, the argument that it comes down to "he said, she said" is an issue- the court is basically forced to make a decision based on whose story holds together better. The point being that they can actually do that, and aren't automatically forced to find Assange innocent.

Does that make the Swedish system better? I don't know; I've gotten into enough arguments about that for one year, thank you very much.

[Eleas]

Does that make the Swedish system better? I don't know; I've gotten into enough arguments about that for one year, thank you very much.

It's a contentious issue, I admit. I will however contend that the stories I've heard about jury systems (from the US and other countries) makes me inclined to trust a panel of judges. In fact, in some cases I suspect a tribe of bonobo chimps would give me a fairer hearing than a group of people who generally do not care about the issue and in some cases aren't even awake during the proceedings.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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.

[Grumman]

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?

[Todeswind]

The U.S can easily extradite Assange from the United Kingdom if they wanted to. Hell, the USextradited this guy for the fairly trivial offence of piracy.

But, oh no! Apparently the UK is one of those allies the US would never screw with... for reasons unprovided with no actual proof offered.

These same people have not provided any proof that:

• the US will ultimately try to extradite Assange.
• Sweden and the UK will agree to this (they both must) and the Swedes "trumped up" some charges to do so.
• the US would employ such a convoluted scheme to get Assange

^This. Seriously this.

Considering that the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003 allows the US government to extradite anyone in the UK, including citizens, provided that we have "reasonable suspicion" that they are an individual connected to terrorist or treasonous acts for any crimes where the US government is not seeking the death penalty, with substantially less in the way of "providing proof" than the USA requires for either their treaties with Sweden or Australia the presumption that it is a CIA plot seems highly suspect.

It would require the CIA to be both wildly obtuse, blitheringly incompetent, and bewilderingly eager to avoid the simple fix for no damn good reason.

[Spoonist]

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.