Assange granted asylum

[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.

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.

Are you serious? What you described there is a fucking conspiracy.

Why the hell would the U.S need SWEDEN of all places (apparently now a totalitarian hellhole) to extradite him to the U.S? The U.S can simply extradite him from directly from the U.K, which recently extradited a guy for the relatively trivial offense of facilitating internet piracy.

Where is your evidence that the U.S even wants him? You do realize that Julian Assange is isn't as important as he makes himself out to be? He uploaded information that other people risked their careers (and possibly freedom) for. Wikileaks has done just fine without Julian "the Saint" Assange.

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

They kicked him out of the country? I'm pretty sure that is not true. Please provide evidence for this claim.

[Grumman]

They kicked him out of the country? I'm pretty sure that is not true. Please provide evidence for this claim.

He applied for a work visa. They declined the application. He left the country.

[mr friendly guy]

Why the hell would the U.S need SWEDEN of all places (apparently now a totalitarian hellhole) to extradite him to the U.S? The U.S can simply extradite him from directly from the U.K, which recently extradited a guy for the relatively trivial offense of facilitating internet piracy.

As Stas pointed out, maybe not. Essentially an Irish American who actually has sex offender convictions, and who is wanted to be charged for further sex offenses (ie much worse than Assange's status), was refused extradition to the US on the grounds that American may detain him indefinitely. Its not inconceivable that going via a third country which doesn't have the similar indefinite detention thing going for it might work, if he is then extradited from that third country.

Where is your evidence that the U.S even wants him? You do realize that Julian Assange is isn't as important as he makes himself out to be? He uploaded information that other people risked their careers (and possibly freedom) for. Wikileaks has done just fine without Julian "the Saint" Assange.

Earlier in the thread.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-inten ... 24e1l.html

Four Corners also did an expose on it.

I believe this is the program in question (however since I haven't viewed it online to see if its the same on I saw on tv, it might not be the right one).

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 549280.htm

I am not sure if the US is conspiring, or simply taking advantage of a situation, however to say the US don't want him is too early to call especially when they are investigating wikileaks and Obama has a hard on for whistle blowers, and they have tortured Bradley Manning (oh sorry, it wasn't torture). So frankly Assange isn't paranoid to be worried about the US getting him whether by conspiracy or simply taking advantage of the situation.

They kicked him out of the country? I'm pretty sure that is not true. Please provide evidence for this claim.

This is common knowledge dude.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden.
18 October 2010 - The Wikileaks founder is denied residency in Sweden. No reason is given, although an official on Sweden's Migration Board tells the AFP news agency "he did not fulfil the requirements".
Assange was cleared to leave the country in between these two dates after he had been questioned by the Swedish authorities, and he did. While describing his denial for residency as kicking out of the country is a bit harsh, if he wasn't approved for a work and residence permit he would have to leave.

[Knife]

You guys keep saying that but all that article said was

the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year

in the US as told to the Aussies by the US, reportedly from the Aussies. That and Australia asked for a heads up before they do ask, if they do. Sorry but that equates to Jack Shit, furthering this paranoia and fear mongering. OMG America is investigating him, surely they'll snatch him in the middle of the night and torture him..... Fucking A peeps.

[mr friendly guy]

I don't think anyone here has subscribed to that level of paranoia about snatching him in the middle of the night. However the US has tried to destroy his organisation by starving it of funds. They condemned his organisation. They tortured Bradley Manning even before being charged. I think its clear they hate Assange (and anyone who denies it is smoking crack), and has demonstrated a willingness to torture people who help leak things embarrassing to the US.

Based on that, you don't need to be paranoid to have a legitimate fear of the US.

I do have a simple suggestion. The US simply declare that they don't want him in relation to things wiki leaks has already leaked out. Declare it multiple times. His lawyer has already stated Assange would go to Sweden if he receives that guarantee from the US.

What I am afraid of though is that we get this type of bullshit situation where
Right wing dude - we don't want Assange, we already got Manning.

Assange gets taken

Right wing dude - is that so bad we got Assange.

I mean its not like we haven't seen people behave that way with the resolutions on Iraq right?

[Knife]

Why would America state that, he is being investigated after all. You guys, though, seem to want to make the automatic jump from: America investigating and perhaps, though not stated, may want to level charges, to big conspiracy with two other nations to illegally snatch the guy in some James Bond villain way, thus the guy should dodge charges of rape in Sweden. The answer? The US should state publicly they don't want him? Ridiculous, since it's clear some people in the US government do want him, but that doesn't equate to an automatic assumption that they'll go all ninja on it.

[Mange]

They kicked him out of the country? I'm pretty sure that is not true. Please provide evidence for this claim.

He applied for a work visa. They declined the application. He left the country.

He applied for residency and work permit which was declined. The Migration Board can't comment on any specific case due to confidentiality, but it seems pretty clear, even for someone without any insight, that he didn't fulfill the requirements and it's difficult to obtain residency if you for example not seeking asylum or don't have close family members living in the country. If a person isn't an asylum seeker, the application must be made before entering the country (I believe he applied while in the country) and eligible persons to seek residency are:
* people with close family members (such as spouse and/or children under the age of 18) living in Sweden (as mentioned above)
* students
* visiting researches
* people who are self-employed and who plan to run or start a business (there are some conditions tied to this, such as that you must be able to show that you're able to support yourself financially for the first two years).

Employers may also employ people living outside the EU/EES if for example the employer offers the equivalent insurances as in a collective agreement.

[mr friendly guy]

Why would America state that, he is being investigated after all. You guys, though, seem to want to make the automatic jump from: America investigating and perhaps, though not stated, may want to level charges, to big conspiracy with two other nations to illegally snatch the guy in some James Bond villain way, thus the guy should dodge charges of rape in Sweden. The answer? The US should state publicly they don't want him? Ridiculous, since it's clear some people in the US government do want him, but that doesn't equate to an automatic assumption that they'll go all ninja on it.

I can't speak for the others, but I will speak for myself. Firstly, lets make it clear. Assange isn't dodging "charges of rape" in Sweden because he hasn't been charged with anything. He is wanted for questioning (the second time) after they let him go the first time because they didn't have sufficient cause then. They might find sufficient cause the second time, they might not. However it looks to boil down to a "he said, she said" type thing. Now thats out the way....

It seems we agree that the US does want him (unlike some other posters in this thread) so lets skip that part.

Do you disagree that if in US custody, there is a risk to Assange's well being? When I say risk, I am not just using any philosophical bullshit which says anything is possible, I am talking about a reasonable possibility of expecting it. If you want details of what risk to his well being, lets start with the same treatment Manning got.

If you do, all thats left is this conspiracy theory, going ninja on him business. Presumably you mean the US will use some form of renditioning on him or at the very least, extradite him into their care? If not, just clarify it for me so I don't accidentally strawman you. Presumably also certain people (in this thread, or at least Assange definitely) argue that the 3 countries are in cahoots with each other for the purpose of rendering him into US custody. Personally for me, the crux lies on a) does Assange have a legitimate fear of the US - which is hell yes since they do want him, has engaged in torture of Manning for leaking stuff out and b) is it easier to transfer to the US from Sweden than the UK? This is irregardless of whether there is a conspiracy or not. I only care that Assange has a reasonable ground to fear for his well being, hence he is entitled to seek asylum.

As has been pointed out, Sweden has sent people to other countries where they were tortured. Despite of course torture being illegal in Sweden. Of course people in this thread has said Sweden did make some changes (which they didn't actually provide a link for) but I don't think its unreasonable for Assange to be suspicious.

[Knife]

Do you disagree that if in US custody, there is a risk to Assange's well being? When I say risk, I am not just using any philosophical bullshit which says anything is possible, I am talking about a reasonable possibility of expecting it. If you want details of what risk to his well being, lets start with the same treatment Manning got.

Manning was part of the military and intelligence organization, his treatment was regulated by military UCMJ, Assange isn't. Assange would be in Federal court and in Federal detention, if the US charged him and got him extradited. That being said, while I agree there are probably plenty of people in the halls of power that would 'want to get him', I've seen little movement of the actual government, and those departments that would be responsible, to get him. One country asking for a heads up when and if the US goes for him is not proof of anything. Come back when the DOJ or State Department start making claims on his ass. There is a difference between individual politicians or bureaucrats wanting him as a private or even professional opinion, and the actual Government wanting him.

If you do, all thats left is this conspiracy theory, going ninja on him business. Presumably you mean the US will use some form of renditioning on him or at the very least, extradite him into their care? If not, just clarify it for me so I don't accidentally strawman you. Presumably also certain people (in this thread, or at least Assange definitely) argue that the 3 countries are in cahoots with each other for the purpose of rendering him into US custody. Personally for me, the crux lies on a) does Assange have a legitimate fear of the US - which is hell yes since they do want him, has engaged in torture of Manning for leaking stuff out and b) is it easier to transfer to the US from Sweden than the UK? This is irregardless of whether there is a conspiracy or not. I only care that Assange has a reasonable ground to fear for his well being, hence he is entitled to seek asylum.

Of course Assange has a reasonable fear the US and it's not because he is worried we'll rip his toenails out, more like he'll be charged and a probable chance of spending a large chunk of time in US prisons. That's reasonable, but people concocting these conspiracy issues about UK to Sweden to US Guantanamo for fingernail removal is ridiculous. Assange would be an instant rock star, high profile lawyers, riots in the street, people with ridiculous ribbons on their car, the whole shabang. Acting like Mr White is just waiting for him in the dungeon is ridiculous. And even then, I assume Assange is more worried about a Swedish prison than a US one at the moment.

As has been pointed out, Sweden has sent people to other countries where they were tortured. Despite of course torture being illegal in Sweden. Of course people in this thread has said Sweden did make some changes (which they didn't actually provide a link for) but I don't think its unreasonable for Assange to be suspicious.

Hmm, if you want to go that route, I demand proof that the Egyptian incident is common enough to actually be a reasonable fear. How many people get extradited from Sweden in a reasonable time frame and how many of those where sent off to be tortured?

[Mange]

I can't speak for the others, but I will speak for myself. Firstly, lets make it clear. Assange isn't dodging "charges of rape" in Sweden because he hasn't been charged with anything. He is wanted for questioning (the second time) after they let him go the first time because they didn't have sufficient cause then. They might find sufficient cause the second time, they might not. However it looks to boil down to a "he said, she said" type thing. Now thats out the way....

Well, for someone who claims that "the truth is important" it sure seems strange that it doesn't seem to apply to himself. If I could tell him something it would be to come here, tell the truth about what happened and clear your name.

As has been pointed out, Sweden has sent people to other countries where they were tortured. Despite of course torture being illegal in Sweden. Of course people in this thread has said Sweden did make some changes (which they didn't actually provide a link for) but I don't think its unreasonable for Assange to be suspicious.

I must clear a few things up a little. The case in question was an asylum case, it wasn't a criminal case. The laws are different for the repatriation of asylum seekers (Utlänningslag, Alien Act), whose application has been denied and the extradition of persons suspected of committing crimes (Lag om utlämning för brott, Act on Extradition of Offenders).

Following the criticism of Sweden, a new Alien Act, Utlänningslag (2005:716) (which among other things forbids the repatriation of asylum seekers to countries where they risk the death penalty, torture and/or inhuman or degrading treatment) was passed by the Riksdag (=parliament) and the current government wrote a new anti-terrorism strategy that among other things state:

"Sveriges förpliktelse att inte bli en fristad för terroristverksamhet får självklart aldrig innebära att det absoluta förbudet mot att avvisa eller utvisa personer som riskerar tortyr eller omänsklig eller förnedrande behandling eller bestraffning överträds."

(My translation) "Sweden's obligations not to become a haven for terrorist activities must of course not mean that the absolute prohibition to reject or deport people who are at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is violated."

Source: Riksdagen (in Swedish)

[Parallax]

I believe his lawyers have made several offers to be fully interviewed so he can tell his side of the story; just not in Sweden (the fear of extradition thing comes into play on that one). Either the Swedish send someone to England or they do it by video conferencing, which they have done plenty of times before.

And that's where it does start to get rather questionable; Sweden has a means to get what they want (question Assange) and have done so with others before yet are refusing to. What makes this case different to the other occurrences where video conference interviews have been carried out?

Edit: I don't think being well known would be much protection either, should Assange find himself in the US. Manning is relatively well known now but it hasn't helped him one little bit.

[bobalot]

All over the websites I visit, I keep reading the same arguments from Julian Assange's supporters. Luckily I found an article that lay outs the legal myths surrounding his extradition.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition
A brief critical and source-based guide to some common misconceptions.

By David Allen Green [1] Published 20 August 2012 13:49

Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.

Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote [2].

[Add: also now see this excellent post [3] by barrister Anya Palmer.]

(Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court [4], High Court [5], and Supreme Court [6].)

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent [7] for further detail on this.)

Two: “Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdom”

This is similarly untrue. Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.

(See Francis FitzGibbon QC’s Nothing Like the Sun [8] for further detail on this.)

One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three.

In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom.

Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”

It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.

(See extradition and criminal lawyer Niall McCluskey [9] for further detail on this.)

Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.

(See Mark Klamberg’s blog [10] for further information on this.)

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.

Here the best guide is the High Court judgment [5]. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor’s position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:

140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:

"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.

"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.

"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.

"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not “disproportionate” as submitted by Assange’s lawyers:

160. We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea, that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr Assange's surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge.

The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution.

Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.

Five: “By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press”

This is perhaps the strangest proposition.

Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. It is 104th in the index of world press freedom [11], and even the quickest glance at the examples of press abuse in Ecuador accumulated by Reporters Without Borders [12] and Index on Censorship [13] indicate a regime with a starkly dreadful and illiberal record on freedom of expression.

It has even recently been reported that a blogger called Alexander Barankov is to be extradited by Ecuador to Belarus [14], of all places, where he may face the death penalty.

Whatever the reason for Ecuador granting political asylum to Assange, there is no basis for seeing it as based on any sincere concern for media freedom either in Ecuador or elsewhere.

The way forward

Due process is important. It is the formal means by which competing demands and seperate interests can be accommodated and reconciled in any overall litigation process. This is why due process is an important liberal principle.

Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in Sweden. It was upheld.

He then repeatedly challenged the European Arrest Warrant in the United Kingdom. He lost at every stage, but each of his many legal arguments were heard and considered in extensive detail.

And in doing this, Assange had the assistance of first rate legal advice and advocacy from some of the UK's leading human rights lawyers, and he also had the benefit of having been granted bail in England in the meantime. The extradition was fought by him all the way to the Supreme Court.

Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly "persecution" or a "witch-hunt".

The English side of the process is now almost over: there is a valid European Arrest Warrant which has to be enforced as a matter of international law.

If Assange is extradited to Sweden, it may well be that the serious allegations of rape and sexual assault cannot be substantiated. But that is entirely a matter for the Swedish investigators and for any Swedish court. It is not an issue which can be dealt with by proxy in English litigation, and still less by heated internet exchanges. In the event of an extradition request by the USA then Assange has the same rights under EU and ECHR law as he has in the United Kingdom, together with an additional safeguard of consent being required from both UK and Sweden. It is difficult to see a sensible and well-based reason why Assange should not now go to Sweden.

Even taking the worries of Assange and his supporters at face value and at their highest, there is nothing which actually means the due process of a current rape and sexual assault investigation should be delayed any further or abandoned.

It is important to remember that complainants of rape and sexual assault have rights too [15], even when the suspect is Julian Assange.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

Source

I suggest people read this before commenting further on the legal aspects of this case.

[Mr Bean]

That article is lacking in two areas bobalot specifically in arguments Two and argument Three

Two-Because of the nature of the British government it is the opinion of some including myself that the government of Britain has told the US no they will not extradite Assange to the United States as the government believes it to be enough of a negative that they will face large scale internal defections over it or possibly out and out lose power. Something that they don't have to worry about if Assange is in Swedish hands which is why they are eager to get him there

Three-Is half true, Assange has been asking for promises not to be extradited to the United States but he's not been asking just Sweden he's been asking the United States who CAN give a definitive offer on the subject which is "hell no" even when Assange has said if the US promises not to extradite him from Sweden he will turn himself over the next day. Obviously our reason for refusal is simple, we either plan on or wish to hold the option open on extradition.

To be blunt if Assange is convicted (Something which I won't say yay or nay on not being an experienced legal expert on Swedish law and standards of evidence and the evidence in the case itself) then he will at that point be extradited by the United States who will face little opposition because he will be identified as a rapist and no media personality will defend him when the US snatches him up and starts pushing him for information. He faces at most five years in Sweden, in our care he faces a literal eternal imprisonment without charge. So if he goes and stands trial he is going to end up in the US either way.

[K. A. Pital]

“Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdom”

Like I said before, the UK did not actually extradite a pedo rapist to the US, so there's nothing which would indicate it is "easier" or "more likely". Just below he states:

Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.

And yet, the UK failed to extradite a pedo rapist just because his "civil rights" might be injured. Besides, this goes against what has been said above - if the UK and Sweden actually abide by ECHR rulings (not "laws"!) then none of the nations should extradite Assange. However, if none of them do, then any could. And it is quite easy to circumvent the rulings and other guidelines when it comes to FIGHTING TERRORISM.

In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.

Even if they were, isn't the safety of the suspect an important matter?

[mr friendly guy]

Manning was part of the military and intelligence organization, his treatment was regulated by military UCMJ, Assange isn't. Assange would be in Federal court and in Federal detention, if the US charged him and got him extradited.

Essentially the boils down to - Manning was tortured, held under detention for ages without charge, but he is military. Assange is a civillian so he won't be treated in such a manner. Despite of course enemy combatants being treated in such a manner and released after the US found out that they were just civvies and they got the wrong people. Forgive me for saying so, but I dare say if any other geopolitical rival, say NK, China, Russia, Iran wanted an equivalent of Assange and someone used the same type of argument, no one would find it convincing.

That being said, while I agree there are probably plenty of people in the halls of power that would 'want to get him', I've seen little movement of the actual government, and those departments that would be responsible, to get him. One country asking for a heads up when and if the US goes for him is not proof of anything. Come back when the DOJ or State Department start making claims on his ass. There is a difference between individual politicians or bureaucrats wanting him as a private or even professional opinion, and the actual Government wanting him.

Two points here.

1. You essentially want to have a bet each way. The US does not have to guarantee it won't want to extradite Assange, because it might at a future date, but Assange is not allowed to respond to this threat, by calling for US guarantees / seeking asylum etc. Or rather he is not allowed to respond to this threat until its formally made, by which point arguable it will be too late to call for US guarantees, and most probably too late to seek asylum.


2. Such a high standard of "proof" is not required nor applied to any of America's geopolitical rivals. Keep in mind of course leaked diplomatic documents already show "informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody"

Lets do some word substitutions here.

US=> Iran
DOJ => Ayatolla
State departmnet => Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
wanting Assange => wants the bomb
investigations into Assange => work on a nuclear reactor

Frankly if we applied the same standards, no one could say Iran wants the bomb unless the Ayatolla or the President OFFICIALLY says it. We both know that isn't the case. So why is such a high standard of proof required for Assange?

Now I am not saying Iran should or should get the bomb, but I am asking for the same standards to be applied to Assange. If the US can act on Iran without them officially admitting wanting a nuke based on the evidence, then Assange is frankly entitled to act on fears the US wants him when the US has investigated him, informal talks have occurred about extraditing him (see above link) etc, and when you yourself admit its a very real possibility in the future.

Of course Assange has a reasonable fear the US and it's not because he is worried we'll rip his toenails out, more like he'll be charged and a probable chance of spending a large chunk of time in US prisons. That's reasonable, but people concocting these conspiracy issues about UK to Sweden to US Guantanamo for fingernail removal is ridiculous. Assange would be an instant rock star, high profile lawyers, riots in the street, people with ridiculous ribbons on their car, the whole shabang. Acting like Mr White is just waiting for him in the dungeon is ridiculous. And even then, I assume Assange is more worried about a Swedish prison than a US one at the moment.

The first part I think I addressed above. The second point about Assange's celebrity status protecting him - I do agree it will afford some protection. However would you take that chance? Or would you prefer extra precautions like not ending up in US custody in the first place. Apparently even Assange is not arrogant enough to think it will.

Hmm, if you want to go that route, I demand proof that the Egyptian incident is common enough to actually be a reasonable fear. How many people get extradited from Sweden in a reasonable time frame and how many of those where sent off to be tortured?

Thats a bit hard, when you don't say how common it must be to be proof that its a reasonable fear. If you want more than one times, then I can't provide it. I can however point out a few things.

1. I am sure you can come up with Country A who did a bad thing and has been put on shit list B, and people expect them to repeat the action, even though they have not done so for years even in a similar situation. Now what they did was pre 2006, yet we still expect them to do it. Yet Sweden only did this in 2006 and we are automatically expected to test the waters so to speak.

Now people like Magis would say, this is fucking Sweden, not some totalitarian shithole. Ok fair enough. Then they can submit to the same standard, and they should come out with flying colours.

BTW, if you can't think of a country that fits this criteria, then I will give you one next post.

2. Chances of a fair trial are already suspect when the Swedish prime minister has stirred up public animosity
a. Assange has been charged, when he hasn't
b. Other prejudicial stuff against Assange when he hasn't been convicted yet

3. Extraditions from Sweden to the US have a high success rate. The only times they failed to extradite, was when Sweden failed to locate the person of interest, otherwise it always went to the US. Which by the way, would help Assange's contention that it is harder to extradite from the UK.
Linky

[mr friendly guy]

Well, for someone who claims that "the truth is important" it sure seems strange that it doesn't seem to apply to himself. If I could tell him something it would be to come here, tell the truth about what happened and clear your name.

You know, you can accuse Assange of paranoia and misjudging the Swedish legal system, but you can't do that and say he doesn't want to face questioning in the same breath, when
a) he did, and was told he could go
b) he is willing to face them a second time, but under a compromise solution which would ALSO satisfy his fears for his own safety due to what he thinks about the Swedish legal system, ie for the Swedish to question him outside of Sweden. A solution which you yourself seem happy with.

As such, this is just a pot shot at Assange.

[Thanas]

Regarding the celebrity guarantee - Manning has become such a celebrity, had all the civil liberties groups on his side, lawyers etc. and look at all the good that did him.

[mr friendly guy]

@Bobalot

Point one I am not going to contest, because it sounds like rape. It doesn't mean of course he did it, but its bad that Assange used this tactic.

Point two - If Sweden does decide to extradite, and they have a high rate of extraditing to the US*, what can the UK do? Its not like they are going to declare war or some such.

* - see my link earlier, the only times Sweden failed to do so was when they failed to locate the person of interest. The source btw smacks of anti Assange, so no one can claim bias here.

Point three - I would need links before I can comment. The reason is that in the four corners video I linked to at time frame after 40 minutes, his own lawyer is calling on the US (not Sweden) to guarantee lack of extradition. Which is a totally different kettle of fish to the "impossible" demand for Sweden to guarantee no extradition.

Point four - this is frankly a bit misleading, in the sense it talks past what Assange supporters are saying, rather than addressing their point. This is even if we accept his premises that Assange cannot be charged without being arrested (which I will accept). The reason its deceptive is even according to his own evidence, there is no guarantee that Assange will be charged even after being arrested and having the formal questioning done. See his own article.

"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.

So again there is no guarantee that Assange will be charged, so his supporters are right in saying that he hasn't been charged. The article's words implied that the reason he hasn't been charged, is because he first needs to be arrested (under Swedish law, making it sound like a formality issue), and doesn't draw attention to that the investigation may simply not find sufficient evidence (like the first time he was questioned).

Point five - this is a pathetic ad hominem tu quoque. Does it really need to be addressed? Whats next? When the US gives asylum to someone, its not protecting human rights because the US has done some shitty human rights things as well. The moment I read that I just

[Hillary]

Two-Because of the nature of the British government it is the opinion of some including myself that the government of Britain has told the US no they will not extradite Assange to the United States as the government believes it to be enough of a negative that they will face large scale internal defections over it or possibly out and out lose power. Something that they don't have to worry about if Assange is in Swedish hands which is why they are eager to get him there

Do you have a source for this? Frankly, the average Tory voter over here will not defect over a matter like this - most of them would actually support his deportation. Also, the size of the crowd outside the embassy to hear Assange speaks does not suggest that this is a hot topic for Britain, despite the media's attempts to sell this as a major news story. Simply put, nobody really cares and those that support Assange are highly unlikely to vote Conservative.

In any case, whether he is extradicted to Sweden, the USA or wherever is surely a matter for the UK courts, not the British Govt.

[K. A. Pital]

Frankly, the average Tory voter over here will not defect over a matter like this - most of them would actually support his deportation.

Even though that's quite probable, deportation is decided by courts, too. I'm sure many politicans wouldn't object to the deportation of the aforementioned sex offender, and yet he wasn't extradited for reasons which lie far away from political sympathies and other whatnots.

It is more of a question of whether politicans can subdue or simply circumvent the judicial system to somehow extradite a person to the US, not a matter of whether they want to or not. A nation that actively supports extradition but cannot perform it is worthless. One which is a bit less compliant but which could theoretically shit on judicial procedures is more useful.

[Hillary]

Frankly, the average Tory voter over here will not defect over a matter like this - most of them would actually support his deportation.

Even though that's quite probable, deportation is decided by courts, too. I'm sure many politicans wouldn't object to the deportation of the aforementioned sex offender, and yet he wasn't extradited for reasons which lie far away from political sympathies and other whatnots.

It is more of a question of whether politicans can subdue or simply circumvent the judicial system to somehow extradite a person to the US, not a matter of whether they want to or not. A nation that actively supports extradition but cannot perform it is worthless. One which is a bit less compliant but which could theoretically shit on judicial procedures is more useful.

I agree entirely. Which is why I said later in my post

In any case, whether he is extradicted to Sweden, the USA or wherever is surely a matter for the UK courts, not the British Govt.

The part you quoted related to Bean assertion that the Govt would want to interefere in the first place, which is highly unlikely - especially for the reasons he put forward.

[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.

No you just implied it

What I implied is that any time someone is on an honour system and doesn't follow through, it makes life harder for everyone else on that honour system. Somewhere down the line, someone in a similar situation as Assange might now face harsher bail conditions because it's clear that Assange's conditions were not harsh enough. Your examples did not show that what happened in the Assange situation had 1) ever happened before in the UK and 2) happened anywhere to someone that was currently wanted for arrest for a legitimate crime in a developed country with a strong record of human rights and an independent judiciary. I do not think that the idea of Assange running into an embassy was something that his bail officials considered, and even given your examples, it wouldn't not surprising that they didn't consider that.

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.

By granting him asylum, they'll either be using the inviolability of their embassy to shield him there indefinitely, or they will use the inviolability of their diplomatic vehicles to get him out of the country (just like people in this thread and elsewhere have been saying they could do) - otherwise the asylum they are offering is worthless. The point is that the asylum would be meaningless unless Ecuador has decided to shield him indefinitely. The USA didn't do that in China, and never announced that it was their intention. They allowed him entry into their embassy, and did not grant him asylum - meaning that he wasn't going to stay there forever.

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.

That is very important because the responsibilities and limitations of an embassy are issues that involve only the sending state and the receiving state. By granting asylum to 3rd state nationals, the embassy is not interfering with the internal affairs of the receiving state, unless, say, those nationals are wanted by the authorities of the receiving state, for example. Maybe you can imagine the difference between an embassy granting asylum to a wanted person in the receiving state vs. an embassy granting asylum to a temporary visitor for whom the asylum would have no impact whatsoever on the receiving state.

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.

I was merely pointing out, in addition that there is no reasonable human rights argument in Assange's case that would conceivably justify the misuse of their embassy. It's reasonable to say that in some extreme situations the ethical argument could be made that an embassy should break the rules. Of course, they should still expect that perhaps their diplomatic status be revoked afterwards.

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?

For the reasons I have provided.

and if North Korean refugees were caught, they would have been deported for entering China illegally, ergo they were committing a crime.

Yes, perhaps they committed a crime by entering China illegally. But since all China would have wanted to do in response is to kick them out of their country, an embassy granting them asylum and removing them is not adversely affecting China in any way, and is also not interfering in their internal affairs.

however fact remains, Assange isn't charged with anything, if the NK refugees were committing a crime,

Were the NK refugees changed with anything?

So why isn't the same standard applied

Good question - why aren't you applying the same standards? If the NKs weren't charged, then what's the problem? Feel free to neglect the fact that Assange is a man actually wanted for arrest.

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

But nobody has been able to establish (or even attempted to establish) that it is more likely that he would be extradited to the USA from Sweden than from the UK, because from all evidence available it would be actually harder for that to happen. You can also ignore that the one case of rendition from Sweden that everyone refers to happened 11 years ago and caused a domestic uproar in Sweden.

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.

I was actually making two distinct points, not realizing that your feeble mine can only handle one per post. So let me hold your hand through this. Diplomatic asylum is an inappropriate use of an embassy. But even if you think that some extreme instances exist where it's okay to use a diplomatic mission in an inappropriate way, that couldn't conceivably apply to the Assange case.

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

I have said that, you imbecile.

instead of wasting people's time debating the "mechanism of granting asylum via an embassy" when thats not really you main beef?

This might be a surprise to you, but something can simultaneously be wrong and illegal. Assange's supporters have no problem simultaneously arguing that Assange's leaks were both right and legal - which are arguments they are free to make if that's what they think. Likewise, it's not unreasonable for me to argue that the granting of diplomatic asylum was both wrong and illegal. You simply made the mistake of thinking that I was only knowingly arguing only one issue when in fact I was knowingly arguing two. You made that mistake because you're dumb.

What has this got to do with my point that a precedent for seeking asylum in an embassy has already been set.

And has it ever happened before in the UK? And has it ever happened before in the UK in a case where the person in question wasn't actually facing any reasonable threat of political persecution or cruel punishment? I'm sure your response will consist of more examples such as North Korean refugees being granted asylum by the French embassy in Belarus or something.

[K. A. Pital]

because from all evidence available it would be actually harder for that to happen.

UK did not extradite an actual sex offender to the US, and not even because he could face death penalty but because his civil rights might be injured, so how is the evidence showing it would be "harder", praytell?

I'm sure your response will consist of more examples such as North Korean refugees being granted asylum by the French embassy in Belarus or something.

And he'll be right cause that's citizens of a third party nation who are granted asylum in yet another third party nation. Granting asylum to an Australian in Britain doesn't look much worse.

Instances of using embassies to grant asylum to people are quite common.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468917.stm

[Ziggy Stardust]

EDIT: Bah, nevermind. I don't have the energy to wade into this debate. Too many people on both sides are being unreasonable and moronic. So suffice to say I am just going to remind people not to beg the question one way or the other. You can't look at facts with a preconceived notion of what's going on and come out with a reasonable conclusion, whether your notion is of some US ninja conspiracy or that Assange is a rapist, or whatever your stance is. Seriously, almost nobody in this thread has provided a shred of proof for their claims, instead relying on bizarre strawmen and ridiculous assumptions based on anecdotal, or non existent, evidence.

[Mange]

Well, for someone who claims that "the truth is important" it sure seems strange that it doesn't seem to apply to himself. If I could tell him something it would be to come here, tell the truth about what happened and clear your name.

You know, you can accuse Assange of paranoia and misjudging the Swedish legal system, but you can't do that and say he doesn't want to face questioning in the same breath, when
a) he did, and was told he could go

Indeed he was, but then the prosecutor's decision to close the preliminary investigation was appealed by the two plaintiffs legal counsel. The chief prosecutor at the Utvecklingscentrum (=the Prosecution Development Center, the unit within the Swedish Prosecution Authority which among other things tries appeals related to closed preliminary investigations) in Göteborg reopened and reevaluated the preliminary investigation. As I said earlier, there's hardly anything remarkable about that.

b) he is willing to face them a second time, but under a compromise solution which would ALSO satisfy his fears for his own safety due to what he thinks about the Swedish legal system, ie for the Swedish to question him outside of Sweden. A solution which you yourself seem happy with.

Yes, because Sweden is known internationally to be a hell hole without due process and fair trials, right?

And no, I'm not happy with such a solution as a person because I, generally speaking, don't like the idea that persons suspected of committing serious crimes should be able to set the agenda (at least not when it comes to countries that fulfills the requirements of due process). In this specific case it would also make any further questioning more difficult. And what if the prosecutor finds that the case should be taken to court? However, I personally think it would be acceptable as long as it's not the final hearing.

As such, this is just a pot shot at Assange.

No, it's something that has struck me as odd. Look at his speech at the embassy in London. Instead of addressing the reason why he is being sought for extradition, he tried to make it out to be a question about free speech. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this case and his activities with WikiLeaks isn't illegal in Sweden and are completely irrelevant for the case at hand.

2. Such a high standard of "proof" is not required nor applied to any of America's geopolitical rivals. Keep in mind of course leaked diplomatic documents already show "informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody"

Unsubstantiated claims (read nonsense) by "diplomatic sources" and not from any leaks. The Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has denied the claims (and such contacts would in all likelihood be unconstitutional).

2. Chances of a fair trial are already suspect when the Swedish prime minister has stirred up public animosity
a. Assange has been charged, when he hasn't
b. Other prejudicial stuff against Assange when he hasn't been convicted yet

First of all, the second article you linked to under b. is wrong. The comments were made in the same interview as the blog post which is linked to under b. refers to and wasn't made during a "parliamentary address".

Also, The Prime Minister obviously wasn't privy to the particulars of the case (as he really shouldn't be and he has refused to comment any further on the issue which, again, he shouldn't) and his comments hasn't stirred up any animosity against Assange. Assange has his supporters and detractors here just as anywhere else (and Swedes are pretty good to think for themselves without anyone telling what to think). His comments was more directed at the caricature his defense team drew of the Swedish legal system during the hearings in London than the suspect himself.

The defense team also made a really grotesque claim when they said that Assange is perceived as an 'enemy of the people'. However, the Prime Minister shouldn't have said anything at all. It's not in his place to speak on the matter though it must be stressed that he naturally didn't say anything about whether he's guilty or innocent or the handling of the case. If he had, it would've amounted to ministerstyre (=ministerial rule) which is unconstitutional in Sweden (that's also the reason why Sweden can't offer any guarantees).

3. Extraditions from Sweden to the US have a high success rate. The only times they failed to extradite, was when Sweden failed to locate the person of interest, otherwise it always went to the US. Which by the way, would help Assange's contention that it is harder to extradite from the UK.
Linky

The article in SvD doesn't mention how many extraditions that have taken place or any specifics of the cases. Also, the legal principles I mentioned earlier still applies (such as for example "dubbel straffbarhet" or "dual criminality". The United States (or whatever country it might be) must also provide evidence which Sweden of course doesn't accept without careful review.

In a case in 2003, the United States gave evidence to Sweden that a Swedish citizen, Oussama Kassir, had helped to set up a terrorist camp in Oregon in 1999. A Swedish prosecutor reviewed the evidence but found that they were insufficient and that the U.S. couldn't prove that any crimes had been committed. Kassir was however convicted of the possession of an illegal firearm and assault and battery of a police officer and was sentenced to ten months in prison. The United States also tried to have him extradited but it was denied since Sweden doesn't extradite its citizens and because of the weak evidence.

In 2005, Kassir was en route to a visit in Lebanon, his country of birth, when he was detained by Czech police in Prague as the plane made a stopover on a warrant made by an American judge. The United States requested his extradition and he was extradited to the U.S. in 2007. In 2009, Kassir was tried and found guilty of all charges by a U.S. federal jury. The Swedish terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp commented that "I am not that impressed by the evidential requirements of the American judicial system." Source: Dagens Nyheter via Wikipedia

I couldn't find a good overview, but the aforementioned Wikipedia article was decent.