The Assange/Wikileaks/Manning Thread

[peterms]

7 hours ago, bickster said:

I would imagine this is UK Govts prefered conclusion to this if the truth be known. The extradition is fairly easy in comparison to the US one. Extradition to the US is going to take up years of UK court time in appeals and technical legal arguments

I disagree.

We have spent many years, and many millions, preventing him leaving the UK, cutting police around the country while throwing vast police resources at this while knife attacks increase (is it £13m, or £17m, or another figure for the guards round the embassy?).  Why do we regard seizing him as a higher priority than protecting our citizens from violence?  I don't.  Does anyone, outside our current regime?

In 2013, the Swedes reportedly decided to discontinue the extradition request, and our government argued that they shouldn't.

So an Australian allegedly commits an offence in Sweden, and we argue that the Swedes should ask for him to be deported to Sweden, though the Swedes aren't asking for this?  When we could simply let him go, it being clear that the Swedes regard tnis as inconsequential, and it being their responsibility, not ours, to decide if the case should be pursued?  Why would our government do such a thing?  You may ask what dog we have in this fight.

The answer would be the lapdog.  Again, we play the lapdog to the interests of the far right ideologues who currently run the US.

The aim is to get him back to the US, where additional charges will suddenly appear.

That has always been the game.  He has embarassed ths US by revealing some of their war crimes, and he must therefore be made an example of.  And so our government will do whatever is required to render him to the US.  That's all it's about, that's all it ever was about.

 

[VILLAMARV]

I obviously agree with you @peterms, that the game is and always has been to get him to the US.

I think what bicks is getting at though, is that it would be easier from a public perception standpoint if our government could hand over the responsibility to the Swedes. Leaving us to shoulder the 'burden' of getting an alleged sex offender to face justice. That would play really easily in the press. They can play on the misconception of Sweden being all peaceful and that.

I thought when he was dragged out the Embassy that we'll just stick him in a crate and pack him off to the US. After watching Javid and Abbott in the commons the other day though I'm not so sure. Handing over a Commonwealth citizen to the US wont play out well here or in Aus. If Sweden do it, they can bear the brunt of any backlash.

Going off 2017 figures, after Norway, the US is the second largest customer for Swedish Arms. Their neutral peace loving status in peoples minds has been questioned in recent years...

Quote

..........critics charge that Sweden has become more inclined to arm regimes accused of human rights abuses, including Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan, as demand from Western nations has declined since the Cold War ended.

"Swedes see themselves as very ethical and restrictive when it comes to giving human rights violators or dictators things that help them stay in power. But the reality is that has happened," said Siemon Wezeman, an arms expert at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

"In the last decade or so they've been more open to it, because those are the markets," he added. "In the past they wouldn't have done business with Saudi Arabia due to human rights concerns -- it's obviously a place that rings all kinds of alarm bells -- but that has changed... They've sold them Eriye (radar tracking systems) and anti-tank missiles and marketed other weapons there."

Other sales have been clandestine. In 2012, Swedish public radio revealed that the national defence research agency has provided Saudi Arabia with covert technical support for a missile factory, leading to the resignation of a defence minister and the launch of an inquiry into new ethical criteria for weapons sales. One of the most controversial Swedish exports, the Saab-made Carl Gustav rocket launcher -- used by US armed forces and other armies around the world -- has reportedly fallen into the hands of groups that Sweden would not normally trade with, including Myanmar's military and al-Shebab Islamists in Somalia.

Peace activist Martin Smedjeback said Sweden's original reason for developing a large weapons industry -- the desire to be self sufficient and independent -- has vanished, along with the country's policy of neutrality as it develops closer ties to NATO.

(Gunnar Hult, deputy head of military studies at the National Defence College)........... believes at times Swedish foreign policy becomes entwined with commercial arms export interests, citing the example of Sweden's participation in enforcing a NATO no-fly zone over Libya in 2011. "Our participation in the Libya campaign was quite beneficial to the Gripen. This is something no politician would ever admit, but it's true. People saw it participating in air campaigns. It's good for business."

https://www.businessinsider.com/swedens-dirty-secret-they-arm-dictators-2014-5?r=US&IR=T

Quote

Sweden's arms exports rose in value by 45 percent to $1.21 billion in 2016. About 88 percent of total exports were sold to European Union and Western "partner" countries, according to data from the Inspectorate of Strategic Products, the state-run agency responsible for export-related control and compliance of defense material and dual-use products. 

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2017/04/07/swedish-defense-industry-uneasy-over-proposed-export-controls/

Good at missiles, good at planes, good at subs. And happy with tech transfer. In 2017 Saab suggested that they may need to move some operations abroad after the coalition government threatened to implement new laws to stop the sale of arms to 'non-democratic' countries (VT, especially our lovely Swedes - what came of that?).

With Trump's Foreign Policy seemingly centering around selling more arms everywhere (Same as Obama and Hillary and Bush et al) fresh in the mind along with his amazingly blatant attacks on the media. And, I think I'm right in saying, Sweden never having turned down an extradition request from the US, it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to assume it would be a done deal. Whether he has any more protection here in the UK is arguable of course.

But regardless of what Sweden and the US may do, surely it would be preferable for our beleaguered government to avoid the flak from the international community that is bound to follow if it can? Or mitigate it at least. The more I think about it the 'ticking clock' on the rape charges would probably add more weight to that particular argument. As we can see in this thread it would also get a fair bit of approval. (And on one level, rightly so). Legally the validity of the EAW has already been tested and upheld. It all seems rather smooth. Of course it needs to come back into play yet.

[VILLAMARV]

 

[VILLAMARV]

fish in a barrel

[bickster]

20 hours ago, peterms said:

Why do we regard seizing him as a higher priority than protecting our citizens from violence?

Are there any other people guilty of crimes in England, that the authorities know where they are and can arrest but don't. He's currently serving a 12 month sentence in the UK.

20 hours ago, peterms said:

So an Australian allegedly commits an offence in Sweden,

His nationality is irrelevant, as is the country the crime is committed in (to a lesser degree). Do you not think, he's wanted to stand trial for a crime is enough, allegedly always seems to put the emphasis on his potential lack of guilt, which is irrelevant 

20 hours ago, peterms said:

we argue that the Swedes should ask for him to be deported to Sweden, though the Swedes aren't asking for this?

Yet. They will soon. The victim has confirmed she wishes this to happen through her lawyer too, so I don't see that the Swedes have many options.

20 hours ago, peterms said:

When we could simply let him go, it being clear that the Swedes regard tnis as inconsequential, and it being their responsibility, not ours, to decide if the case should be pursued?

You really have just made that up, are you suggesting we commute his sentence of 12 months that he's currently serving for a crime he committed here? Why do the Swedes consider his crime "inconsequential"? They just paused it because he was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. There is literally no evidence for what you claim

20 hours ago, peterms said:

The aim is to get him back to the US, where additional charges will suddenly appear.

Do you really think we'll agree to the additional charges? It wouldn't make any sense to do so. It also wouldn't make any sense currently given how the US AG Barr is behaving that these additional charges will actually appear, given who it would implicate further and the risk of Assange saying something in court that would embarrass Trump (and the AG)

20 hours ago, peterms said:

That has always been the game.  He has embarassed ths US by revealing some of their war crimes, and he must therefore be made an example of.

This I agree with the rest of your ideas however are rather fanciful

20 hours ago, peterms said:

And so our government will do whatever is required to render him to the US

Render? Really? You can't be serious.

Like I said. Making him Sweden's problem is the easy out for the UK for us not to take that easy out should it present itself would be baffling

[villakram]

"The glimpse of Julian Assange being dragged from the Ecuadorean embassy in London is an emblem of the times. Might against right. Muscle against the law. Indecency against courage. Six policemen manhandled a sick journalist, his eyes wincing against his first natural light in almost seven years.

That this outrage happened in the heart of London, in the land of Magna Carta, ought to shame and anger all who fear for “democratic” societies. Assange is a political refugee protected by international law, the recipient of asylum under a strict covenant to which Britain is a signatory. The United Nations made this clear in the legal ruling of its Working Party on Arbitrary Detention."

 

From John Pilger (https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/12/assange-arrest-a-warning-from-history/).

 

[peterms]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

Are there any other people guilty of crimes in England, that the authorities know where they are and can arrest but don't.

The City of London, for starters.  But apart from crimes which they decide not to prosecute, there is always a decision to be made about the level of resource to be devoted to a case.  I can't think of any case where someone has breached bail and a decision is taken to put anything like this level of resource into arresting them - can you?

3 hours ago, bickster said:

Do you not think, he's wanted to stand trial for a crime is enough

Spending millions on a breach of bail case, which doesn't even carry a mandatory custodial sentence?  No.

3 hours ago, bickster said:

Yet. They will soon. The victim has confirmed she wishes this to happen through her lawyer too, so I don't see that the Swedes have many options.

and

3 hours ago, bickster said:

You really have just made that up, are you suggesting we commute his sentence of 12 months that he's currently serving for a crime he committed here? Why do the Swedes consider his crime "inconsequential"? They just paused it because he was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. There is literally no evidence for what you claim

The Swedes decided some time ago to drop the extradition request, taking the view that pursuing the case further would be disproportionate.  This was 2012, some years before it became known.  Interestingly, the UK tried to persuade the Swedes not to drop the request, which is a very strange thing to do.  It's very obviously a matter for Sweden and not us to decide if an alleged offence on Swedish territory should be pursued.  (This is literally evidence for what I claim).

Quote

The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so.

The same article also shows that something else we were told at the time, that Sweden refused to interview him in the embassy, was a lie.  He was willing to be interviewed, they wanted to interview him, the UK argued they shouldn't.  But we were told something very different, and untrue.  I think we were also told it wasn't legally possible, iirc, but we were definitely told they had refused to do so.  Why on earth would we insist that they didn't interview him here?  In case they decided to drop the case altogether?

Quote

At the beginning of the legal battle over Assange in 2011, the CPS advised Swedish prosecutors not to interview him in Britain, but they eventually did.

That article also links to another piece which reveals that some of the email exchanges about this continuing, unresolved, extremely expensive case have been destroyed, and that when surviving emails were released under FoI, lines were redacted in an attempt to conceal that it was the UK arguing that Seweden should continue to press for extradition - this was discovered via a Swedish FoI.  So the UK authorities not only lied about this, but also destroyed evidence and then tried to conceal surviving evidence.  Those are quite some lengths to go to, I'd say.

 

4 hours ago, bickster said:

Do you really think we'll agree to the additional charges?

Of course.  Possibly if somewhere like Burundi or the Faroes made such a request, we might think about refusing, but the US?  And this case?  Having spent what is plainly a vast amount of time and money on securing Assange, wholly disproportionate to either the Swedish allegations or breach of bail?  You'd have to be very naive to doubt it.

[VILLAMARV]

31 minutes ago, villakram said:

From John Pilger (https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/12/assange-arrest-a-warning-from-history/).

“A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves” - Bertrand de Jouvenel

[sne]

Already leaked security films from the embassy of him skateboarding and what not in El Pais.

So can we expect a full on smear campaign against him now to dehumanize some more before the additional charges?

"Look at this goofy guy, he must be guilty"

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, sne said:

him skateboarding

If that's 'skateboarding' then I'm Tony Hawk.

[VILLAMARV]

2 hours ago, sne said:

Already leaked security films from the embassy of him skateboarding and what not in El Pais.

So can we expect a full on smear campaign against him now to dehumanize some more before the additional charges?

"Look at this goofy guy, he must be guilty"

Right leading clearances. Lock 'em all up.

[peterms]

12 hours ago, sne said:

a full on smear campaign

In more than just the usual sense, it seems...

[Xann]

** Swearing **

[snowychap]

50 weeks for Assange for the bail breach.

[villakram]

ahhh... good old law/justice/freedom/democracy. Nothing like it.

[ml1dch]

1 minute ago, villakram said:

ahhh... good old law/justice/freedom/democracy. Nothing like it.

Are you suggesting that skipping bail shouldn't be a criminal offence? Or that the penalty is harsh in comparison to other comparable cases?

[Chindie]

I dunno, I'd expect a judge to be sympathetic to someone skipping bail for years in an embassy to avoid a sexual assault charge.

[bickster]

Sweden reopens rape case against Assange (I'm surprised it took this long)

EDIT:

 

 

 

 

3

Quote

Swedish prosecutors have announced they are reopening an investigation into a rape allegation against Julian Assange.

Prosecutors dropped the investigation in 2017 because they were unable to proceed while Assange remained in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. They said at the time that the investigation could be reopened if the situation changed.

Assange, 47, was removed from the embassy last month after seven years inside, after the Ecuadorian government abruptly withdrew his asylum. He was arrested for breach of bail.

A lawyer for one of the women involved in the Swedish allegations subsequently asked for the investigation to be resumed. Assange had also faced investigation for a second sex-related allegation, which was dropped in 2015 because time had run out. He denied both allegations.

Immediately after his arrest in April, US authorities made a request for his extradition in a case relating to a WikiLeaks release of sensitive military and diplomatic documents. He faces allegations in the US that he conspired with a former intelligence analyst, Chelsea Manning, to download classified databases. The charge against him carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.

Assange is being held in Belmarsh high-security prison in south London after being sentenced to 50 weeks for a bail violation.

He appeared by videolink at Westminster magistrates court on 2 May to say he did not consent to be extradited to the US . The court heard that the extradition process would take “many months”. The case was adjourned until 30 May.

The Swedish allegations date back to 2010. Assange unsuccessfully fought through the British courts to get the extradition order and preliminary investigation dropped. His lawyers said he feared that should he go to Sweden, authorities could hand him over to the US to face prosecution over the WikiLeaks case.

Grauniad

[bickster]

So here's the question. If the original sexual assault/rape case was just a ploy to get Assange extradited to the US as Assange originally claimed, why has the victim now asked for it to be re-opened even though the US has already applied for his extradition from the UK?

I'm presuming that as he was originally arrested on a European Arrest Warrant that this will take precedence and that Assange will prefer to go to Sweden as the US will have to start the extradition proceedings all over again. Or am I wrong?

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

I'm presuming that as he was originally arrested on a European Arrest Warrant that this will take precedence and that Assange will prefer to go to Sweden as the US will have to start the extradition proceedings all over again. Or am I wrong?

And would also then need both Swedish and British consent for further extradition. As was the case back in 2010.