CrackpotForeigner Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Assange should go to Sweden and either face justice or clear his name. Even if he clears his name, the swedes will still ship him off to the US.. So why didn't they do that when he was in Sweden 18 months ago? Because he'd already left Sweden when the shit hit the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Assange should go to Sweden and either face justice or clear his name. Even if he clears his name, the swedes will still ship him off to the US.. On what grounds? I've yet to see the US add substance to their claims that he is a threat to national security. He's more likely to wake up with a drone outside his door than finding himself in a US court to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 They could officially apply to any of the countries he's been living in since the story broke if they wanted to. They could have - whilst he was there, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Assange should go to Sweden and either face justice or clear his name. Even if he clears his name, the swedes will still ship him off to the US.. On what grounds? I've yet to see the US add substance to their claims that he is a threat to national security. He's more likely to wake up with a drone outside his door than finding himself in a US court to be honest.C'mon CED, the US are trying to show the world what happens to whistleblowers, as they are doing with Manning right now. If they want to show he's a threat to national security (and they certainly do), they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Assange should go to Sweden and either face justice or clear his name. Even if he clears his name, the swedes will still ship him off to the US.. So why didn't they do that when he was in Sweden 18 months ago? Because he'd already left Sweden when the shit hit the fan. No he was still in Sweden when wikileaks released all the info. Looking at the timeline, they released that Apache video in April and didn't leave Sweden until October 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 It's a really interesting case. There's lots of fascinating stuff about the actual allegations, like the way the first complainant chose to be interviewed by a policewoman who was her friend and political colleague rather than at her local station, the fact this conflict of interest wasn't reported at the time, the way both complainants were interviewed together (legal process avoids this for the obvious reason of people colluding), the way the interviews weren't videorecorded as is normal procedure, and then the issues about whether the events constitute crimes or not. The first prosecutor thought not and dismissed the case, but then another politician involved himself, a colleague of the first accused and coincidentally the man involved in the Swedish rendition to the US which has been much quoted, and the case was given to another prosecutor and reopened. Under the Swedish system, this can be done if there is new evidence. In this case, the new evidence was the (allegedly deliberately) torn condom used by Assange with the first woman, which she handed in a week after the event, and which although having allegedly been used for sex had no dna on it other than mitrochromal dna (I think that's what it's called) which comes from hair and nails and isn't capable of identifying anyone. All that's very interesting, and could be looked at as part of dealing with the case. But that can't really be addressed without acknowledging the wider issue, which is that Assange fears that any return to Sweden (or leaving the embassy) will end up in him being extradited to the US. There's a lot of misinformation circulating about this, including by legal people who should know better, on the lines that there's been no extradition request, that Sweden is legally unable to extradite for offences which could carry the death penalty, and so on. Of course there hasn't been an extradition request. If the US want to get their hands on him, and they certainly do, then they will wait until circumstances are right, and then issue a request for something other than what he might really end up being charged with. They also need to avoid offences which could fall under the US first amendment of free speech, so anything to do with publishing information is probably out. They will look for something like unauthorised access to computers, theft of information or whatever could be presented as a criminal not political charge, and which doesn't carry the death penalty. Once they have their hands on him, it will be a different story. As for those who say this is all fantasy and there's not really such an effort under way to get hold of him, take a look at the Guardian story of a couple of weeks ago about the embassy stand-off, here, which included a photo of a policeman carelessly revealing his operational instructions, including a reference to the counter-terrorism unit. Anyone who previously had some notion that this was only about getting Assange to face questioning on sex charges in Sweden really should be a bit wiser after seeing that. It confirms what many people were saying all along. In the meantime, the US has made some pretty big gains by having Assange tarred with this accusation, which people on the left find particularly hard to discuss, with people either calling others "rape apologists" on one side, or else coming out with some offensive guff like Galloway on the other, and the room for rational discussion shrinking ever smaller. So that has been extremely effective in marginalising Assange, though to be fair, his apparent habit of alienating most people he works with has made the US goal easier than it should have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Assange should go to Sweden and either face justice or clear his name. Even if he clears his name, the swedes will still ship him off to the US.. So why didn't they do that when he was in Sweden 18 months ago? Because he'd already left Sweden when the shit hit the fan. No he was still in Sweden when wikileaks released all the info. Looking at the timeline, they released that Apache video in April and didn't leave Sweden until October 2010.Yes, but he hadn't scorned any women then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 On what grounds? On the grounds of Embarrassing the US Government, They somehow will find a way to prosecute him, they always do. The US government always live by 'The ends justify the Means' So whatever they have to do to get JA, they will do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 If they want him that much and are supposedly above international law, why haven't they got him already? I'm sure there is something else at play here because it doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 If they want him that much and are supposedly above international law, why haven't they got him already? I'm sure there is something else at play here because it doesn't add up.There's plenty at play that doesn't add up, but in the end Assange is a very high profile case, and they need to be seen to be following the proper channels. This isn't some Al Qaida suspect that nobody's heard of and who can be whisked away in the dead of night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 On what grounds? On the grounds of Embarrassing the US Government, They somehow will find a way to prosecute him, they always do. The US government always live by 'The ends justify the Means' So whatever they have to do to get JA, they will do it. I suspect Assange's fate will be similar to that of Litvinenko. The US have set the bar by the measures dealt out to Manning - who could face up to 52 years in prison. To accompany Peter's excellent post above, there was another good article in the guardian on 21st August, linked here. A grand jury in Virginia has been preparing a case against Assange and WikiLeaks for espionage, a leak earlier this year suggested that the US government has already issued a secret sealed indictment against Assange, while Australian diplomats have reported that the WikiLeaks founder is the target of an investigation that is "unprecedented both in its scale and its nature". If I was him, I wouldn't just stay inside that Embassy, I'd stay away from the windows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 something fishy about this from Assange. He has always said this is politically motivated but how many times has he claimed that he is innocent. Thats usually the first thing people claim in a case like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 What do they say if they ARE innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 he would say he was innocent and go to Sweden and clear his name. Their is way too much media presence for US to kidnap him from Sweden and people are being paranoid about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 he would say he was innocent and go to Sweden and clear his name. Their is way too much media presence for US to kidnap him from Sweden and people are being paranoid about itYes, but "people" can afford to take the chance. He can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 something fishy about this from Assange. He has always said this is politically motivated but how many times has he claimed that he is innocent. Thats usually the first thing people claim in a case like this It is often claimed that Assange won't face the accusations. It's worth bearing in mind a couple of things. First, when the accusations first surfaced, he wasn't interviewed for some time, and apparently his legal people had to get the prosecutor to be made to interview him. Since then, he has offered to be interviewed again in the UK, but this has been refused. The prosecutor, Ms Ny, has stated that it is legally impossible, but this is stated to be untrue by a Swedish law professor, reported here. This may be why the Director of Communications for the Swedish Prosecution Authority was utterly unable to give a reason why Assange coiuldn't be interviewed in the UK, apart from Ms Ny having decided so. Here. Second, we know from well before these accusations emerged that the US was working out how to undermine Wikileaks, including by trying to find legal cases to launch, and undermine the trust which they thought was one of Wikileaks' biggest attributes. Here. That doesn't mean that any accusation against Assange is necessarily false. But it does strongly suggest that they should receive rather more critical scrutiny than if the political motivation to smear him weren't quite so apparent and explicit. For anyone with a couple of hours to spare, and who's interested in the detail, there's also this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 If they want him that much and are supposedly above international law, why haven't they got him already? I'm sure there is something else at play here because it doesn't add up.There's plenty at play that doesn't add up, but in the end Assange is a very high profile case, and they need to be seen to be following the proper channels. This isn't some Al Qaida suspect that nobody's heard of and who can be whisked away in the dead of night. Well, they could always just go right ahead and stick an extradition request in to the UK Government. Just as they could have done anytime over the last twelve months or so. When was the last time we refused an extradition request from the USA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 If they want him that much and are supposedly above international law, why haven't they got him already? I'm sure there is something else at play here because it doesn't add up.There's plenty at play that doesn't add up, but in the end Assange is a very high profile case, and they need to be seen to be following the proper channels. This isn't some Al Qaida suspect that nobody's heard of and who can be whisked away in the dead of night. Well, they could always just go right ahead and stick an extradition request in to the UK Government. Just as they could have done anytime over the last twelve months or so. When was the last time we refused an extradition request from the USA? That's a tough one. We've ummed and ahhed over a couple, leaving people like autistic Gary McKinnon in a cruel limbo for years on end. Oh, and we decided not to extradite mass murderer and torturer Pinochet. Possibly his habits of having people thrown out of planes or raped by dogs might have led to charges, but we decided not to extradite. But I suppose that wasn't to the US, so doesn't really answer your question. No, can't think of one. The US, on the other hand, takes quite a firm view. They don't tend to extradite US citizens to other jurisdictions. Possibly they think all other forms of justice are inferior to their own vastly more humane legal code. Touchingly, they extend this concern to chaps who've been helpful to them, such as mass murderer Sanches do Lozada, facing charges for genocide, but safe in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Isn't it that the UK doesn't allow extradition where the death penalty is up for grabs, or is that just Sweden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Isn't it that the UK doesn't allow extradition where the death penalty is up for grabs, or is that just Sweden? Nothing to do with the UK or Sweden, that is an EU decision. Meaning there would be no difference between an extradition request to the UK or to Sweden. Except that with our closer diplomatic relations, we're far more likely to say yes. And for anything that Assange could be charged with, there would no possibility of capital punishment anyway. So I'm not really sure you've thought the logic of this through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts