Assange granted asylum

[mr friendly guy]

[EDIT] One more thing, how much of a self-serving hypocrite is Assange that he's fleeing to a country that has a record of locking up journalists? He was also essentially exploiting the existing diplomatic discord between Ecuador and the USA to help him escape (he didn't choose the Ecuador embassy arbitrarily). Isn't this some of the same sketchy, international politicking that Wikileaks condemns? If you replace Assange with some mining corporation CEO that was wanted for questioning in sex crimes, the Wikileaks people would be popping a massive rage-boner over it.

Beggars can't be choosers as the saying goes. Which other country do you think has a high chance of granting him asylum that he should go to?

[mr friendly guy]

People have been talking in this thread about the setting of precedents, what about the precedent this sets for future bail hearings of politically active people? Some future person facing extradition could conceivably be denied bail in part because the UK might have to worry about the person walking into any embassy and requesting asylum regarding political matters that have nothing to do with the matter related to the extradition!
.

Are you seriously saying that no one has ever sought asylum in an embassy and received it?

Earlier this year Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng sought refuge in a US embassy after escaping from house arrest, who protected him until they could negotiate a face saving agreement with the Chinese authorities.

East Germans stormed the West German embassy in Czeckoslavakia in 1989.

North Koreans entered the Spanish embassy in Beijing during 2002, while North Koreans did the same to the Canadian embassy in 2004. Notice that a lot of these were allowed to travel to South Korea, despite China having a treaty with the DPRK to repatriate such people. And for the record, North Koreans stayed in a SK embassy in Beijing for up to 3 years before China allowed them to go.

So its not like Britain are unaware that asylum has been granted to people entering an embassy. They just never envisaged it would happen to them. As such, your claim about this setting a precedent misses the point, that the precedent has already been set.

[Simon_Jester]

The question remains unanswered: how is any of that of consequence? Or am I allowed to declare taxes illegal, just because I assert I have no internal obligation to pay taxes? Surely not.

It's of consequence because you can't form an analogy like "person is to nation as nation is to international community."

We like to do that, but as a practical matter of fact and under legal precedents, it's not. Citizens of a state have limited rights, and there is a state monopoly on enforcement power. When the state uses legal or physical force on an individual it's 'law.' When individuals try and turn the tables, reverse the relationship and use force on the state, it's 'crime.' Unless they do it within a framework of law that specifies how you can and cannot do these things.

And almost everyone accepts that pattern. We accept that if the state decides in court that you've defrauded it, it can seize your property. But that you cannot create your own court and decide to seize state property as a way of getting your money back.

So it's very asymmetrical, this relation between you and the state. Ultimately it all hinges on the monopoly of force: the state's forces can and should be under constraints, but they are forces and we all know we have to have some way of dealing with them. They're a physical reality.

As long as the 'international community' doesn't have that kind of overwhelming capacity for force, there is no similar reality in international affairs.

And because foreign ministries are well aware of this, "the international community" doesn't even claim that kind of power over individual nations. The international community is more like the ruling council of some sort of commune. Everyone is nominally equal, and the council can at most organize a collective response by which a group of equals can ostracize or punish their equal(s).


So will Britain be punished by other nations if it starts violating embassy grounds because of its own internal laws? Maybe. And it would totally deserve that punishment. But that doesn't mean the British government CAN'T do it anyway, or that some British legal body will declare the action illegal after it happens. There is no absolute, obvious sense in which "the world government" automatically overrides Britain's laws the way that the British government overrides the laws of some town council in England.

[Magis]

Are you seriously saying that no one has ever sought asylum in an embassy and received it?

No I'm not saying that. One indication that I'm not saying that is that I never fucking said it. I didn't say anything even remotely similar to that.

Earlier this year Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng sought refuge in a US embassy after escaping from house arrest, who protected him until they could negotiate a face saving agreement with the Chinese authorities.

The USA did not grant him diplomatic asylum and made no attempt to sneak him out of China using the inviolability of their diplomatic mission.

East Germans stormed the West German embassy in Czeckoslavakia in 1989.

Which, by the way, is not the same as East Germans storming the West German embassy in East Germany. Also, those East Germans were not people who were specifically wanted by a third state and who were in the middle of extradition proceedings.

North Koreans entered the Spanish embassy in Beijing during 2002, while North Koreans did the same to the Canadian embassy in 2004. Notice that a lot of these were allowed to travel to South Korea, despite China having a treaty with the DPRK to repatriate such people. And for the record, North Koreans stayed in a SK embassy in Beijing for up to 3 years before China allowed them to go.

Again, there's a distinction in that those were not people already in the middle of legal proceedings, who were currently on bail, and they didn't seek asylum in an embassy located in the country where they were undergoing those proceedings.

It must also be pointed out that in all of your examples, they were refuges or activists who were escaping from actual tyrannical states - not fucking Sweden.

So its not like Britain are unaware that asylum has been granted to people entering an embassy. They just never envisaged it would happen to them. As such, your claim about this setting a precedent misses the point, that the precedent has already been set.

I don't know if "Britain" was aware of anything, but as to whether the officials that set the conditions of Assange's bail considered that he might flee into an embassy - they probably considered the risk of him fleeing the country in general. That's why he had to put up a sufficiently large amount of money that the authorities were satisfied he wouldn't be enough of a reckless asshole to forfeit that money and convert himself from "man wanted for questions related to a crime" to "a man who definitely committed a crime" by breaking his bail conditions.

[Mange]

especially when Assange isn't even guilty of any crime yet, and isn't even wanted to face charges (only for questioning).

As I've said several times earlier, the term "charge" someone doesn't really exist in the Swedish judicial system (only to prosecute someone) and in the sense it does it works differently and occurs late in the process.

So what? I don't care what the Swedes call it. What is being described would be known as "not being charged" in English. Whether the Swedes have a different term to describe the same thing is really irrelevant.

No, it's certainly not irrelevant and people are ranting and raving that he hasn't been charged. A preliminary investigation cannot be finished without the suspect having been interviewed (a "slutförhör="final interview", with the suspect must also be held before a case can be filed), the case can of course not go to court if the preliminary investigation hasn't been finished and the defendant must then personally appear in the court in order to be charged.

Anyway, I'm glad that there's news coming out that U.K. and Ecuador are working for a friendly solution. Also, at this point, I think the prosecutors really should go to London to interview him (the preliminary investigation is almost certainly going to be closed very soon after the interview anyway).

[Skgoa]

That you don't even seem to care that in one sentence you blatantly lie while pretending to enlighten us about the swedish justice system (hint: they can make the interview abroad, as has been established) snd right after that you openly tell us that the position you pretended to so graciously "correct" was also the one you personally are against... So yeah, you might want to stop undermining your credibility.

The question remains unanswered: how is any of that of consequence? Or am I allowed to declare taxes illegal, just because I assert I have no internal obligation to pay taxes? Surely not.

It's of consequence because you can't form an analogy like "person is to nation as nation is to international community."

We like to do that, but as a practical matter of fact and under legal precedents, it's not. Citizens of a state have limited rights, and there is a state monopoly on enforcement power. When the state uses legal or physical force on an individual it's 'law.' When individuals try and turn the tables, reverse the relationship and use force on the state, it's 'crime.' Unless they do it within a framework of law that specifies how you can and cannot do these things.

And almost everyone accepts that pattern. We accept that if the state decides in court that you've defrauded it, it can seize your property. But that you cannot create your own court and decide to seize state property as a way of getting your money back.

So it's very asymmetrical, this relation between you and the state. Ultimately it all hinges on the monopoly of force: the state's forces can and should be under constraints, but they are forces and we all know we have to have some way of dealing with them. They're a physical reality.

As long as the 'international community' doesn't have that kind of overwhelming capacity for force, there is no similar reality in international affairs.

And because foreign ministries are well aware of this, "the international community" doesn't even claim that kind of power over individual nations. The international community is more like the ruling council of some sort of commune. Everyone is nominally equal, and the council can at most organize a collective response by which a group of equals can ostracize or punish their equal(s).


So will Britain be punished by other nations if it starts violating embassy grounds because of its own internal laws? Maybe. And it would totally deserve that punishment. But that doesn't mean the British government CAN'T do it anyway, or that some British legal body will declare the action illegal after it happens. There is no absolute, obvious sense in which "the world government" automatically overrides Britain's laws the way that the British government overrides the laws of some town council in England.

And once again, you go off on a long-winded tangent explaning something no one had argued against. But to sum it up: Britain would be in breach of the treaties it signed and other nations wouldn't like that. That's why they won't do it. Just as we all knew days ago.
In the spirit of debate (and the board rules) I ask again: how is the legality of this action in Britain of any consequence to the aforementioned fact?

[mr friendly guy]

Are you seriously saying that no one has ever sought asylum in an embassy and received it?

No I'm not saying that. One indication that I'm not saying that is that I never fucking said it. I didn't say anything even remotely similar to that.

No you just implied it

The complaint that the UK is making isn't merely that Assange was granted asylum, but that Ecuador used their embassy in the UK as a mechanism for granting asylum to someone that was on bail, and that the UK had a legal obligation to extradite to another place. The UK recognizes political asylum in principle, but not diplomatic asylum. If Assange had physically managed to get himself to Ecuador and then was granted asylum, I don't think the UK would be raising such a fuss over it.

People have been talking in this thread about the setting of precedents, what about the precedent this sets for future bail hearings of politically active people? Some future person facing extradition could conceivably be denied bail in part because the UK might have to worry about the person walking into any embassy and requesting asylum regarding political matters that have nothing to do with the matter related to the extradition!

Let me hold your hand through this. Your two statements about a) what Ecuador is doing ie granting asylum via an embassy and b) setting of precedents on what Ecuador has done can only mean that its never happened before.
The only way you can get out of this, is to nitpick the difference, like he is on bail or some such, which we shall see later on.

The USA did not grant him diplomatic asylum and made no attempt to sneak him out of China using the inviolability of their diplomatic mission.

Thats nitpicking. They clearly were protecting him, something the man himself said when speaking to the Washington post. And since we are on nitpicking, Ecuador hasn't tried to sneak Assange out of Britain either.

Which, by the way, is not the same as East Germans storming the West German embassy in East Germany.

So why should the fact that the embassy be in a third country make a difference? When the very crux you are arguing against is, and I paraphrase here, is using an embassy as a mechanism for granting asylum. Answer it shouldn't, so you desperately try to find some detail that is different and blow it out of proportion.

Also, those East Germans were not people who were specifically wanted by a third state and who were in the middle of extradition proceedings.

Ah, so its not about using an embassy as a mechanism for granting asylum in general. Its using an embassy as a mechanism to grant asylum for something I don't like. Nice to see the consistency there.

Again, there's a distinction in that those were not people already in the middle of legal proceedings, who were currently on bail, and they didn't seek asylum in an embassy located in the country where they were undergoing those proceedings.

So what? The embassy has been used to grant asylum, and if North Korean refugees were caught, they would have been deported for entering China illegally, ergo they were committing a crime. Now I am quite happy for the NK refugees to go to a third country, however fact remains, Assange isn't charged with anything, if the NK refugees were committing a crime, albeit one I consider understandable given their circumstances. So why isn't the same standard applied, when the NK are actually violating a country's immigration laws. Bet you you are going to resort to more special pleading right.

It must also be pointed out that in all of your examples, they were refuges or activists who were escaping from actual tyrannical states - not fucking Sweden.

I could of course point out to Sweden rendering suspects to a third country which does engage torture, and the fear that Sweden will render to a country like the US which engages in torture, er I mean pressured interrogation or some such bullshit euphemism, but I have a better idea. So lets try this.

The very fact that you NOW have to argue along the line of the states people were escaping from SUXS (which they do), proves that you are arguing the merits of asylum rather than the mechanism of granting asylum despite the whole song and dance you gave us earlier. So whats the matter? Can't win with the latter so shift the goalposts and start arguing the former?
Why don't you just come out and say Assange doesn't deserve asylum instead of wasting people's time debating the "mechanism of granting asylum via an embassy" when thats not really you main beef? At least those who are interested in debating that (eg Mr Bean) can do so.

I don't know if "Britain" was aware of anything, but as to whether the officials that set the conditions of Assange's bail considered that he might flee into an embassy - they probably considered the risk of him fleeing the country in general. That's why he had to put up a sufficiently large amount of money that the authorities were satisfied he wouldn't be enough of a reckless asshole to forfeit that money and convert himself from "man wanted for questions related to a crime" to "a man who definitely committed a crime" by breaking his bail conditions.

What has this got to do with my point that a precedent for seeking asylum in an embassy has already been set. In fact if they were worried about being a flight risk, then the implications of future bail hearings would be minimal since such people would be considered a flight risk anyway (and were still granted bail).

[mr friendly guy]

No, it's certainly not irrelevant and people are ranting and raving that he hasn't been charged.

I have explained why its irrelevant, that is the situation is the same as not being charged, despite Sweden having a different term for it. The description is the same thing. Its like saying a labrador is not a dog in China, because the Chinese don't call dogs the same thing as we do in English. Its inane.

You by contrast have not explained why its no irrelevantt. Perhaps it is, but your explanation is so piss poor people are just not seeing it.

A preliminary investigation cannot be finished without the suspect having been interviewed (a "slutförhör="final interview", with the suspect must also be held before a case can be filed), the case can of course not go to court if the preliminary investigation hasn't been finished and the defendant must then personally appear in the court in order to be charged.

Hey didn't you say the term charge doesn't exist in the Swedish legal system.

Saying that the preliminary investigation hasn't been finished and his case hasn't been filed means he hasn't been charged. If there is some hidden meaning in how the Swedish legal system works, you aren't explaining it very well.

Anyway, I'm glad that there's news coming out that U.K. and Ecuador are working for a friendly solution. Also, at this point, I think the prosecutors really should go to London to interview him (the preliminary investigation is almost certainly going to be closed very soon after the interview anyway).

But what happen to equality before the law and being extraordinary for Swedish prosecutors to travel abroad to question a suspect for alleged crimes that's occurred in Sweden. Oops.

[Stormin]

So what would the outcome be if he gives up, is sent to Sweden quickly followed by the US trumping up charges and getting ahold of him an extremely short time later? And by short time I mean the wheels of justice were obviously greased by someone to shoot him through, appeals and delays unable to slow anything down.

[K. A. Pital]

Except that Carilles wasn't granted asylum at an American embassy while he was out on bail. The complaint that the UK is making isn't merely that Assange was granted asylum, but that Ecuador used their embassy in the UK as a mechanism for granting asylum to someone that was on bail, and that the UK had a legal obligation to extradite to another place. The UK recognizes political asylum in principle, but not diplomatic asylum. If Assange had physically managed to get himself to Ecuador and then was granted asylum, I don't think the UK would be raising such a fuss over it.

I am just saying that being upset over Assange somehow "escaping justice" is a bit ridiculous when you think about all the murderers that were hidden by the West from justice, and sometimes in a very specific fashion. That's like being upset your neighbor sells drugs when you have a pile of corpses in your basement.

Some future person facing extradition could conceivably be denied bail in part because the UK might have to worry about the person walking into any embassy and requesting asylum regarding political matters that have nothing to do with the matter related to the extradition!

Highly unlikely. He should have a legitimate reason to fear in the first place or the embassy won't buy it. And yes, sometimes political persecution is done using unrelated charges. That's a useful "clean tool" to dispose of political opponents and undesireables and it has been used actively in the last decades.

[EDIT] One more thing, how much of a self-serving hypocrite is Assange that he's fleeing to a country that has a record of locking up journalists?

Because any Third World nation would have a record of doing so, I fail to see a big difference.

He was also essentially exploiting the existing diplomatic discord between Ecuador and the USA to help him escape (he didn't choose the Ecuador embassy arbitrarily). Isn't this some of the same sketchy, international politicking that Wikileaks condemns? If you replace Assange with some mining corporation CEO that was wanted for questioning in sex crimes, the Wikileaks people would be popping a massive rage-boner over it.

A mining corporation CEO, especially if he runs operations in the Third World, is far more likely to have real blood on his hands as opposed to just some sex crimes. So of course people would want him to be caught and punished even for unrelated matters. Like mafia bosses who get caught for tax evasion or something like that.

[Mange]

No, it's certainly not irrelevant and people are ranting and raving that he hasn't been charged.

I have explained why its irrelevant, that is the situation is the same as not being charged, despite Sweden having a different term for it. The description is the same thing. Its like saying a labrador is not a dog in China, because the Chinese don't call dogs the same thing as we do in English. Its inane.

You by contrast have not explained why its no irrelevantt. Perhaps it is, but your explanation is so piss poor people are just not seeing it.

I guess it's my piss poor explanation. What I tried to get across was that he can't even be prosecuted (being 'charged') before the preliminary investigation is finished and that's certainly not irrelevant (well, it render the whole "he hasn't even been charged" litany irrelevant).

Anyway, I'm glad that there's news coming out that U.K. and Ecuador are working for a friendly solution. Also, at this point, I think the prosecutors really should go to London to interview him (the preliminary investigation is almost certainly going to be closed very soon after the interview anyway).

But what happen to equality before the law and being extraordinary for Swedish prosecutors to travel abroad to question a suspect for alleged crimes that's occurred in Sweden. Oops.

I'm not sure exactly how far the process has gone, but if it's a follow-up questioning to the ones already held in Sweden, then I think that a team could interview him in London (though I absolutely still think he should come to Sweden and I resent the idea that a person suspected of committing crimes could set the agenda). However, if this is the "slutförhör" (="final interview") with the suspect then it should absolutely be held in Sweden (during which the suspect is confronted with the evidence against him and after which the prosecutor decides whether to prosecute).

[bobalot]

Julian Assange managed to avoid facing allegations of sexual assault in Sweden because of vague claims of a unproven conspiracy involving the independent British and Swedish legal systems, the British and Swedish governments, two women who claim they were raped and the U.S government (that is somehow masterminding this convoluted scheme)?

Seriously? This entire situation has turned into a farce.

The U.S government has done some assholish things in the past and still is doing assholish things. However, I doubt they masterminded this ridiculous situation in order to "get" Assange.

[Mange]

This entire situation has turned into a farce.

Indeed (including his appearance in London where absolutely nothing he said had any relevance to the case in Sweden).

[Stormin]

Julian Assange managed to avoid facing allegations of sexual assault in Sweden because of vague claims of a unproven conspiracy involving the independent British and Swedish legal systems, the British and Swedish governments, two women who claim they were raped and the U.S government (that is somehow masterminding this convoluted scheme)?

Seriously? This entire situation has turned into a farce.

The U.S government has done some assholish things in the past and still is doing assholish things. However, I doubt they masterminded this ridiculous situation in order to "get" Assange.

U.S.: Hey Sweden, you've been pretty good about giving us guys no questions asked before. Mind calling in this Assange guy and shipping him over?

Sweden: Sure, we'll just re-open the case we kicked him out over.

No complex conspiracy needed bobalot. Even if Julian doesn't end up with worse than Manning got once he's in America's hands he will be proof that if you air out America's dirty secrets they WILL get you no matter what you do.

[Todeswind]

Except that Carilles wasn't granted asylum at an American embassy while he was out on bail. The complaint that the UK is making isn't merely that Assange was granted asylum, but that Ecuador used their embassy in the UK as a mechanism for granting asylum to someone that was on bail, and that the UK had a legal obligation to extradite to another place. The UK recognizes political asylum in principle, but not diplomatic asylum. If Assange had physically managed to get himself to Ecuador and then was granted asylum, I don't think the UK would be raising such a fuss over it.

I am just saying that being upset over Assange somehow "escaping justice" is a bit ridiculous when you think about all the murderers that were hidden by the West from justice, and sometimes in a very specific fashion. That's like being upset your neighbor sells drugs when you have a pile of corpses in your basement.

Assange is accused of rape. "Other people do worse things" isn't an acceptable defense for him to not face the legal repercussions of a rape investigation. People shouldn't be able to avoid legitimate police scrutiny based upon specious claims of CIA intervention.

Some future person facing extradition could conceivably be denied bail in part because the UK might have to worry about the person walking into any embassy and requesting asylum regarding political matters that have nothing to do with the matter related to the extradition!

Highly unlikely. He should have a legitimate reason to fear in the first place or the embassy won't buy it. And yes, sometimes political persecution is done using unrelated charges. That's a useful "clean tool" to dispose of political opponents and undesireables and it has been used actively in the last decades.

I am unaware of a case where a nation created a false rape accusation to get a man extradited from a first nation so that he could subsequently be extradited to a third nation on unrelated charges. However perhaps I'm mistaken. Do you know of such a situation?

Ecuador benefits politically from the perception that they are standing up to the USA if his claims are founded and doubly so if they are unfounded and they can grant him asylum without risking any actual reprisal from the USA. The current government of Ecuador only stands to benefit from this.

However the presumption that the USA engineered fake rape charges against Assange requires the USA to have decided to take the most circuitous and impractical route to extradition. It would be substantially easier and entirely legal for them to just request Assange be given to them by either the UK or Austraila because of treaties the US government has with both of them. I can't imagine they decided to add in an additional step for no reason. The CIA is not stupid.

[EDIT] One more thing, how much of a self-serving hypocrite is Assange that he's fleeing to a country that has a record of locking up journalists?

Because any Third World nation would have a record of doing so, I fail to see a big difference.

The absurdity of hiding from human rights abuses in a country that regularly abuses human rights for the reasons he asserts that he is fleeing doesn't strike you as hypocritical? It would be like fleeing to the USSR to avoid communist persecution.

He was also essentially exploiting the existing diplomatic discord between Ecuador and the USA to help him escape (he didn't choose the Ecuador embassy arbitrarily). Isn't this some of the same sketchy, international politicking that Wikileaks condemns? If you replace Assange with some mining corporation CEO that was wanted for questioning in sex crimes, the Wikileaks people would be popping a massive rage-boner over it.

A mining corporation CEO, especially if he runs operations in the Third World, is far more likely to have real blood on his hands as opposed to just some sex crimes. So of course people would want him to be caught and punished even for unrelated matters. Like mafia bosses who get caught for tax evasion or something like that.

Please clarify the portion I have underlined. Are you genuinely asserting that we shouldn't extradite persons accused of rape because haven't murdered entire villages for mineral rights? Or is it just that rape is something that should be ignored because worse crimes exist?

Because I'm having difficulty imagining a way for "just some sex crimes" to not come off as a deeply patronizing, sexist, and frankly horrible persecutive for a human being to have.

[K. A. Pital]

Assange is accused of rape. "Other people do worse things" isn't an acceptable defense for him to not face the legal repercussions of a rape investigation. People shouldn't be able to avoid legitimate police scrutiny based upon specious claims of CIA intervention.

Actually they should be able to get some way of being questioned in a safe environment without aerial relocation, if there is a legitimate reason to fear the intervention of a murderous secret service that has assassinations, experimentation on humans, kidnapping, torture, illegal rendition, sponsoring and controlling coup d'etats and massacres on its list of activities.

I am unaware of a case where a nation created a false rape accusation to get a man extradited from a first nation so that he could subsequently be extradited to a third nation on unrelated charges. However perhaps I'm mistaken. Do you know of such a situation?

No, not really. On the other hand, I know of a real story where the UK didn't extradite a person. Maybe you should read that one. So there was a "threat" to the suspect = no extradition. The fact that this is the United Kingdom itself doing this is just icing on the fucking cake.

However the presumption that the USA engineered fake rape charges against Assange requires the USA to have decided to take the most circuitous and impractical route to extradition. It would be substantially easier and entirely legal for them to just request Assange be given to them by either the UK or Austraila because of treaties the US government has with both of them. I can't imagine they decided to add in an additional step for no reason. The CIA is not stupid.

Well good that I never said the US "engineered fake rape charges", right? So you can shove your strawman back where it belongs. However, there is absolutely nothing which prevents the US taking advantage of this opportunity, as one might guess. I haven't said the charges are "fake", but who the fuck cares? In this situation requesting asylum is logical and granting it is likewise logical.

The absurdity of hiding from human rights abuses in a country that regularly abuses human rights for the reasons he asserts that he is fleeing doesn't strike you as hypocritical? It would be like fleeing to the USSR to avoid communist persecution.

You're really an idiot, right? European and Asian communists often had to flee to the USSR from human rights abuses, despite the USSR itself commiting human rights abuses. America regularly abused human rights and tortured people and yet people flee to America and ask for asylum. At the same time as Britain was torturing Palestinians, Kenyans, Greeks, Hindus, Pushtuns, Bengalis, Chinese, et cetera I bet many of the aforementioned nationalities would love to somehow get into the metropole and hide. Which is even more ironic.

Please clarify the portion I have underlined. Are you genuinely asserting that we shouldn't extradite persons accused of rape because haven't murdered entire villages for mineral rights? Or is it just that rape is something that should be ignored because worse crimes exist?

I am explaining why a mining CEO, quite likely a mass murderer or a mass torturer, isn't just an ordinary rapist. I am not saying we should just "ignore it because worse crimes exist", but apparently you fail to understand the concept of hypocrisy. It is hypocritic to get on a moral high horse when you have been covering pedophile rapists from extradition, hiding mass murderers in the past and having torturers serve in your special service or military formations. Am I perfectly clear? I hope so.

[Mange]

Julian Assange managed to avoid facing allegations of sexual assault in Sweden because of vague claims of a unproven conspiracy involving the independent British and Swedish legal systems, the British and Swedish governments, two women who claim they were raped and the U.S government (that is somehow masterminding this convoluted scheme)?

Seriously? This entire situation has turned into a farce.

The U.S government has done some assholish things in the past and still is doing assholish things. However, I doubt they masterminded this ridiculous situation in order to "get" Assange.

U.S.: Hey Sweden, you've been pretty good about giving us guys no questions asked before. Mind calling in this Assange guy and shipping him over?

Sweden: Sure, we'll just re-open the case we kicked him out over.

No complex conspiracy needed bobalot. Even if Julian doesn't end up with worse than Manning got once he's in America's hands he will be proof that if you air out America's dirty secrets they WILL get you no matter what you do.

Do you really believe in such nonsense yourself? Sweden has one of the most independent legal systems in the world. Transparency International ranks the judicial independence (ie free from external influences) of Sweden at #3 (out of 142). The judicial independence in the U.K. is ranked at #11, the United States at #36 and Ecuador at #130. Also, the United States hasn't even asked for his extradition and there's no legal way to extradite him there either.

And no, Sweden is not in the habit of giving anyone people "with no questions asked". I find such garbage offensive. Sweden, like any other country, has made mistakes (particularly with the case of the Egyptians) but it's still a country which is known to be committed to human rights issues.

[mr friendly guy]

I guess it's my piss poor explanation. What I tried to get across was that he can't even be prosecuted (being 'charged') before the preliminary investigation is finished and that's certainly not irrelevant (well, it render the whole "he hasn't even been charged" litany irrelevant).
.

No, I got that explanation. I just fail to see how it changes anything anyone has said. There is no guarantee he will be charged after the preliminary investigation (see the first time round). In other countries with the rule of law, the terms "has not been charged" is also used to describe people being investigated, where the result may or may not lead to charges being pressed.

[Grumman]

Assange is accused of rape.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.

In a brief statement Eva Finne said: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

[Mange]

I guess it's my piss poor explanation. What I tried to get across was that he can't even be prosecuted (being 'charged') before the preliminary investigation is finished and that's certainly not irrelevant (well, it render the whole "he hasn't even been charged" litany irrelevant).
.

No, I got that explanation. I just fail to see how it changes anything anyone has said. There is no guarantee he will be charged after the preliminary investigation (see the first time round). In other countries with the rule of law, the terms "has not been charged" is also used to describe people being investigated, where the result may or may not lead to charges being pressed.

Alright, I see your point.

On a side note, a journalist covering JA's statement in London today in a live text feed for the Aftonbladet tabloid, also pointed out that "being charged" doesn't exist in the Swedish legal system (at 16:02, it's in Swedish though). According to the journalist, a suspect in the UK would be charged at about the same time a suspect in Sweden would be remanded on probable cause (I really don't know if that's accurate or not though).

EDIT: Sorry about the double-post. I edited the first post and thought something went wrong when I tried to post.

[Knife]

Actually they should be able to get some way of being questioned in a safe environment without aerial relocation, if there is a legitimate reason to fear the intervention of a murderous secret service that has assassinations, experimentation on humans, kidnapping, torture, illegal rendition, sponsoring and controlling coup d'etats and massacres on its list of activities.

Can you be more specific? That description covers about 180 countries... oh wait yeah, gotta be eval Amerikka.

[K. A. Pital]

Can you be more specific? That description covers about 180 countries... oh wait yeah, gotta be eval Amerikka.

Not all 180 countries have a secret service capable of the thing. For example, I doubt the special services of Southern Sudan or say, Luxembourg could accomplish much of the above-listed actions, especially illegal rendition and kidnapping anywhere in the world.

Russia, US, Britain, Israel and France have special services which are up to the task.

[Elfdart]

I'm old enough to remember how America: Fuck Yeah! went nuts when the Iranians seized the US embassy in Tehran.

You and others keep asserting that with zero evidence of the sort. You assume that the UK and Sweden are going through all this just to turn the guy over to the US. Ridiculous. Fear mongering. Conspiracy Bull Shit.

Really?

The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today.

In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001. The committee decided that Sweden’s involvement in the US transfer of Mohammed al-Zari to Egypt breached the absolute ban on torture, despite assurances of humane treatment provided by Egyptian authorities prior to the rendition.

Human Rights Watch today released a detailed briefing paper answering questions about such “diplomatic assurances.”

“This UN ruling shows that we are slowly but surely getting to the truth about European complicity in illegal US renditions,” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “European parliaments and prosecutors must continue their inquiries into these matters.”

Swedish officials handed over al-Zari and another Egyptian, Ahmed Agiza, to CIA operatives on December 18, 2001 for transfer from Stockholm to Cairo. Both men were asylum seekers in Sweden, and suspected of terrorist activities in Egypt, where torture of such suspects is commonplace. Returns to risk of torture are illegal under international law.

To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt.

The Human Rights Committee decision stated that Sweden “has not shown that the diplomatic assurances procured were in fact sufficient in the present case to eliminate the risk of ill-treatment to a level consistent” with the ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

“The committee found that diplomatic promises did nothing to protect al-Zari from torture,” said Cartner. “Western governments need to wake up to the fact that they can’t trust promises of humane treatment from countries that routinely practice torture.”

In a separate May 2005 ruling on Agiza’s case, the UN Committee Against Torture concluded that Sweden violated the Convention against Torture by illegally expelling him to Egypt, and stated that “procurement of diplomatic assurances [from Egypt], which, moreover, provided no mechanism for their enforcement, did not suffice to protect against this manifest risk.”

The al-Zari and Agiza cases illustrate why diplomatic assurances against torture from governments with a well-documented record of such abuse are worthless. The fact that such governments routinely violate their legal obligations to treat all people in their custody humanely makes it highly unlikely they would safeguard an isolated individual from abuse. Moreover, governments that employ torture regularly deny that they practice this abuse and refuse to investigate claims of it.

The cases also demonstrate that the monitoring of detainees after they are sent back does not add a measure of protection. Torture is a criminal activity of the most serious kind, practiced in secret using techniques that often defy detection – for example, mock drowning, sexual assault, and electricity applied to bodies internally. In many countries, medical personnel in detention facilities monitor the abuse to ensure that the torture is not easily detected.

Detainees subjected to torture are often afraid to complain to anyone about the abuse for fear of reprisals against them or their family members. Even in the unlikely event that torture is confirmed, neither the sending nor receiving government has any incentive to investigate or acknowledge a breach of the assurances as that would amount to admitting involvement in torture.

Sweden has recently been singled out by two significant European bodies investigating illegal CIA rendition and detention activities. In June, Dick Marty, a Swiss senator tasked by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with investigating European states’ involvement in “extraordinary renditions” and possible secret detention sites, highlighted the al-Zari and Agiza cases in his report. Marty concluded that: “Relying on the principle of trust and on diplomatic assurances given by undemocratic states known not to respect human rights is simply cowardly and hypocritical.”

A special European Parliament committee established to investigate European complicity in extraordinary rendition and the unlawful detention of terrorism suspects by the US government also targeted Sweden as directly complicit in the men’s transfers to torture. In June, this committee called on “Member States [of the EU] to reject altogether reliance on diplomatic assurances against torture.”

The Swedish government must now comply with the Human Rights Committee’s decision in the al-Zari case. The committee has indicated that monetary compensation for the petitioner is one appropriate remedy. Following the Agiza decision, Human Rights Watch communicated to the authorities in Sweden a detailed list of measures that would indicate compliance with that decision, including: granting monetary compensation; permitting a new application for asylum in Sweden; and legislative changes prohibiting the use of diplomatic assurances. To date, Sweden has failed to implement any of these recommendations.

The CIA cannot 'dissappear' him at this point. That would be too obvious. And the US media wouldn't tolerate a show trial. Send him to Sweeden because not having consequences to your actions and being above the law because you have the balls to stand up to a superpower is no better than being above the law because you are a superpower.

The US media are fluffers for the National Security State lock, stock and waterboard. I'm sure the usual human rights/civil liberties groups will raise a fuss, and Glennzilla will write another outraged column, but the renditions, kidnappings, torture and lynchings will continue as usual. For fuck's sake, the Taguba Report mentions the CIA/NSA torturing a teenage boy in front of his father to get the man to talk, and there's circumstantial evidence that Zarqawi's six and eight-year-old sons were tortured in front of him. Anyone who thinks killing or torturing or "disappearing" Assange is out of the question is a gullible rube.

To be brutally blunt, for what purpose. Sure, the US has the capacity to do that, but lacks a reason. Petty revenge is not worth it.

To make an example of and intimidate not only whistleblowers, but anyone who might hear the whistle. The Obama regime had its heart set on militarily occupying Iraq forever and was trying to get the new Iraqi government to agree to it (Bush had already agreed with Iraq for the phased withdrawal Obama claims credit for) when Collateral Murder was released and when that happened the deal was off. You think the National Security State doesn't want some payback? doesn't want to discourage future Mannings or Assanges? If so, then you're a gullible rube, too.

Heads would roll if anyone, and I mean anyone, found out about it. Anyone with the power to 'authorize' this would be one of the ones who would be shit canned and brought up on charges, if not here then around the world. We already have his 'source', there is no reason do go off the deep end for the USA.

No, they'd just sic the feds on the news outlet that published the story, then try to find out who leaked, then subject them to the same abuse Manning got.

[Mange]

I'm old enough to remember how America: Fuck Yeah! went nuts when the Iranians seized the US embassy in Tehran.

You and others keep asserting that with zero evidence of the sort. You assume that the UK and Sweden are going through all this just to turn the guy over to the US. Ridiculous. Fear mongering. Conspiracy Bull Shit.

Really?

The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today.

In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001. The committee decided that Sweden’s involvement in the US transfer of Mohammed al-Zari to Egypt breached the absolute ban on torture, despite assurances of humane treatment provided by Egyptian authorities prior to the rendition.

Human Rights Watch today released a detailed briefing paper answering questions about such “diplomatic assurances.”

“This UN ruling shows that we are slowly but surely getting to the truth about European complicity in illegal US renditions,” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “European parliaments and prosecutors must continue their inquiries into these matters.”

Swedish officials handed over al-Zari and another Egyptian, Ahmed Agiza, to CIA operatives on December 18, 2001 for transfer from Stockholm to Cairo. Both men were asylum seekers in Sweden, and suspected of terrorist activities in Egypt, where torture of such suspects is commonplace. Returns to risk of torture are illegal under international law.

To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt.

The Human Rights Committee decision stated that Sweden “has not shown that the diplomatic assurances procured were in fact sufficient in the present case to eliminate the risk of ill-treatment to a level consistent” with the ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

“The committee found that diplomatic promises did nothing to protect al-Zari from torture,” said Cartner. “Western governments need to wake up to the fact that they can’t trust promises of humane treatment from countries that routinely practice torture.”

In a separate May 2005 ruling on Agiza’s case, the UN Committee Against Torture concluded that Sweden violated the Convention against Torture by illegally expelling him to Egypt, and stated that “procurement of diplomatic assurances [from Egypt], which, moreover, provided no mechanism for their enforcement, did not suffice to protect against this manifest risk.”

The al-Zari and Agiza cases illustrate why diplomatic assurances against torture from governments with a well-documented record of such abuse are worthless. The fact that such governments routinely violate their legal obligations to treat all people in their custody humanely makes it highly unlikely they would safeguard an isolated individual from abuse. Moreover, governments that employ torture regularly deny that they practice this abuse and refuse to investigate claims of it.

The cases also demonstrate that the monitoring of detainees after they are sent back does not add a measure of protection. Torture is a criminal activity of the most serious kind, practiced in secret using techniques that often defy detection – for example, mock drowning, sexual assault, and electricity applied to bodies internally. In many countries, medical personnel in detention facilities monitor the abuse to ensure that the torture is not easily detected.

Detainees subjected to torture are often afraid to complain to anyone about the abuse for fear of reprisals against them or their family members. Even in the unlikely event that torture is confirmed, neither the sending nor receiving government has any incentive to investigate or acknowledge a breach of the assurances as that would amount to admitting involvement in torture.

Sweden has recently been singled out by two significant European bodies investigating illegal CIA rendition and detention activities. In June, Dick Marty, a Swiss senator tasked by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with investigating European states’ involvement in “extraordinary renditions” and possible secret detention sites, highlighted the al-Zari and Agiza cases in his report. Marty concluded that: “Relying on the principle of trust and on diplomatic assurances given by undemocratic states known not to respect human rights is simply cowardly and hypocritical.”

A special European Parliament committee established to investigate European complicity in extraordinary rendition and the unlawful detention of terrorism suspects by the US government also targeted Sweden as directly complicit in the men’s transfers to torture. In June, this committee called on “Member States [of the EU] to reject altogether reliance on diplomatic assurances against torture.”

The Swedish government must now comply with the Human Rights Committee’s decision in the al-Zari case. The committee has indicated that monetary compensation for the petitioner is one appropriate remedy. Following the Agiza decision, Human Rights Watch communicated to the authorities in Sweden a detailed list of measures that would indicate compliance with that decision, including: granting monetary compensation; permitting a new application for asylum in Sweden; and legislative changes prohibiting the use of diplomatic assurances. To date, Sweden has failed to implement any of these recommendations.

This has been discussed at length and the part you've bolded is old (the article does date from 2006). Both Agiza and al-Zari were granted monetary compensation, (3 million Swedish kronor or $500,000), Sweden no longer accepts diplomatic assurances and as I mentioned in an earlier post, Agiza has been granted asylum in Sweden (where his family also lives).

[Todeswind]

I am explaining why a mining CEO, quite likely a mass murderer or a mass torturer, isn't just an ordinary rapist. I am not saying we should just "ignore it because worse crimes exist", but apparently you fail to understand the concept of hypocrisy. It is hypocritic to get on a moral high horse when you have been covering pedophile rapists from extradition, hiding mass murderers in the past and having torturers serve in your special service or military formations. Am I perfectly clear? I hope so.

You seem to have mistaken me for an apologist or advocate of the US government's decisions to misbehave. I'm not saying the USA shouldn't face scrutiny and legal repercussions for harboring people who've done morally reprehensible things. I'm saying neither should be able to avoid them.