The Assange/Wikileaks/Manning Thread

[AVFCforever1991]

I would stay in that Ecuadorian embassy for as long as possible.

[peterms]

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.

I think it would be quite possible for them to find charges which are extraditable but which don't attract the death penalty, eg some sort of computer offence, and save the real charges for later.

I'm not clear about the attraction of extraditing from Sweden, except perhaps trying to extradite while he's in jail on a sex charge is attractive in terms of denigrating him and undermining his support. I think both the UK and Sweden would be equally compliant in doing whatever the US officials tell them to.

[CrackpotForeigner]

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.

That's a bit harsh. Why don't you just help me understand why Assange himself is determined to avoid extradition to Sweden?

Compared to what he would face in the US, even if he's found guilty of this horseshit charge in Sweden, his punishment would be a slap on the wrist with a feather.

I admit that I'm temporarily at a loss to explain categorically why extradition from the UK wasn't done before he went to ground in the Equadorean embassy, however there is absolutely no doubt that Assange feels Sweden = bad news. If you've checked the facts you will know that the Swedish charges are nonsensical to the point of being sinister.

[snowychap]

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.

ECtHR decision, wasn't it?

[peterms]

I'm temporarily at a loss to explain categorically why extradition from the UK wasn't done before he went to ground in the Equadorean embassy,

I thought I heard he was told the UK were moving to hold him for extradition. Sorry, can't reference that.

The policemen's instructions in the link I gave earlier would certainly support that idea.

[CrackpotForeigner]

For anyone with the interest, the time and the bandwidth, Here is that documentary about the Swedish case against him.

[Awol]

Seeking asylum from Sweden is like hiding in terror from a kitten. It’s not exactly a place renowned for torture and injustice....

He's a classic narcissist imo, doesn't care about the allegations against him in Sweden, doesn't care about his supporters who stumped up his substantial bail money, it's the Julian show and he really thinks that he's a modern day hero for leaking government secrets - however titillating they may be for the press.

Anyone who thinks diplomacy can function without secrets between states is naive in the extreme. Do you think we'd have managed to get the peace process in NI if all information was in the public domain? Extend that to the sphere of global politics and the self-indulgent idiocy of this man's actions becomes clear.

To take a human example, I was particularly impressed with the way he released un-redacted documents containing the names of interpreters who had worked for ISAF in Afghanistan. This was clearly a courageous act that will ensure such awful people (and their families) enjoy an interview without coffee with the Taliban.

Should he be granted asylum by the journalist bashing/jailing President of Ecuador (or champion of freedom as Julian calls him) and acquire a magic carpet to fly there from SW1, he may want to consider the following: Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the US and is also full of CIA types who can operate there in a way they couldn’t dream of in Europe. One suspects he'll probably end up with a knife in his guts and shit in his pants down some filthy Quito back alley - similar to the end I suspect many of his victims in Afghan have met.

Anyway, bottom line the guy is accused of rape in Sweden under Swedish law. Not wanting to go and clear his name makes him look as guilty as a puppy sat next to a pile of poo.

[bickster]

Anyway, bottom line the guy is accused of rape in Sweden under Swedish law. Not wanting to go and clear his name makes him look as guilty as a puppy sat next to a pile of poo.

He isn't accused of rape

[Awol]

Anyway, bottom line the guy is accused of rape in Sweden under Swedish law. Not wanting to go and clear his name makes him look as guilty as a puppy sat next to a pile of poo.

He isn't accused of rape

He is wanted for questioning in relation to an allegation of rape, he is not charged with rape. He is also wanted by UK for jumping bail, an obvious criminal offence.

[Ads]

Yes he is accused of rape he cannot be charged in Sweden with it until he is there and arrested. The allegations are Sexual molestation, unlawful coercion and rape.

Read paragraph 124 of the High Court judgment.

We do not consider that the offence was not fairly and accurately described. It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. "Consummated" refers to having intercourse, not to ejaculation. In our judgement it was not necessary to go further than was set out in the description of the conduct. as it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.

[ml1dch]

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.

That's a bit harsh. Why don't you just help me understand why Assange himself is determined to avoid extradition to Sweden?

Maybe it was bit harsh, but there's quite a few times this thread where you've taken the "if you just did more research then you'd understand that I'm right" approach. When it's quite clear that your own view is at best unsure and at worst, clouded by biased sources.

As for why he is determined to avoid to go to Sweden I see there as being two options. Firstly that he he incorrectly believes all the stuff about Sweden only wanting him so they can pop him on the first flight to Guantanamo even though logic and international law doesn't point to that; and that under European law he is no more or less safe in the UK than in Sweden.

The other possibility is that Ads is correct and he is just using it as an excuse because he doesn't want to have to face the consequences of questions that he should still answer, in spite of your trivialising of them.

Personally, I think it's a bit of both.

[LondonLax]

I agree, I think it is a bit of both as well. He doesn't give a **** about his supporters or the two girls and at the same time is extremely paranoid, his fans spread misinformation and untruth to muddy the case.

Awol sums the guy up pretty well there I think.

Also, it is rape if a girl tells you the conditions under which she will not partake in sex and you decide to go ahead and do it anyway whilst she is asleep.

He has not been charged as the Swedish legal system requires you to be present to have your charges read but he has been summonsed to be charged and has now ducked into the embassy.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Yes he is accused of rape he cannot be charged in Sweden with it until he is there and arrested. The allegations are Sexual molestation, unlawful coercion and rape.

Read paragraph 124 of the High Court judgment.

We do not consider that the offence was not fairly and accurately described. It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. "Consummated" refers to having intercourse, not to ejaculation. In our judgement it was not necessary to go further than was set out in the description of the conduct. as it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.

Please just watch the documentary. It isn't some shaky camera job done by twelve year olds, it's a prime time ABC (Australian) doco presented by Kerry O'Brian, a very well-respected interviewer and journalist.

The point is that the women were fine about what went on until they found out about each other: That makes him an arsehole, not a rapist. Can you imagine the UK pressing charges in a case like this? If so, I'd love to see evidence that that has ever happened.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Maybe it was bit harsh, but there's quite a few times this thread where you've taken the "if you just did more research then you'd understand that I'm right" approach. When it's quite clear that your own view is at best unsure and at worst, clouded by biased sources.

As for why he is determined to avoid to go to Sweden I see there as being two options. Firstly that he he incorrectly believes all the stuff about Sweden only wanting him so they can pop him on the first flight to Guantanamo even though logic and international law doesn't point to that; and that under European law he is no more or less safe in the UK than in Sweden.

The other possibility is that Ads is correct and he is just using it as an excuse because he doesn't want to have to face the consequences of questions that he should still answer, in spite of your trivialising of them.

Personally, I think it's a bit of both.

I have said from page 1 of this thread that I'm not 100% sure of the extradition legalities, I am not pretending to be an expert, I am encouraging discussion on the subject, but finding that people can't see past the dodgy Swedish case against him.

Not really sure what these "biased sources" my views are "clouded by" are. If you like, I could write down a framework of undeniable facts that support the same argument.

I'm interested to know whether you doubt that the US security machine can be brutal and unjust, because in the end that is what this whole thread comes down to. Whether Assange is technically guilty of this strange charge or not isn't even the ultimate point. He is a flawed individual, like all of us, who happens to have done some work which I personally feel is important to all of us. We should be very careful before we let him be sold down the river.

[Pelle]

It's not a dodgy case. It's a clear rape case, like LondonLax says. I can't tell if he's guilty or not, obviously, but if the swedish police thinks there's enough evidence to bring him in for quetioning, then there's a case.

[AVFCforever1991]

Think about this all could have been avoided if he just used his hand instead

[CrackpotForeigner]

Seeking asylum from Sweden is like hiding in terror from a kitten. It’s not exactly a place renowned for torture and injustice....

Nobody's saying he'll be tortured in SWEDEN. And I agree, it isn't USUALLY a place renowned for injustice.

He's a classic narcissist imo, doesn't care about the allegations against him in Sweden, doesn't care about his supporters who stumped up his substantial bail money, it's the Julian show and he really thinks that he's a modern day hero for leaking government secrets - however titillating they may be for the press.

No particular argument with that, but I don't think that's the point. It's about whether you believe Wikileaks to be a force for good or not. Obviously you don't.

Anyone who thinks diplomacy can function without secrets between states is naive in the extreme. Do you think we'd have managed to get the peace process in NI if all information was in the public domain? Extend that to the sphere of global politics and the self-indulgent idiocy of this man's actions becomes clear.

A counter argument to that would be that WWI is considered to have been caused by exactly the kind of secrecy you mention: Secret deals behind the scenes, which resulted in people taking actions that they wouldn't have if there had been more transparency about exactly what diplomatic deals had been struck.

To take a human example, I was particularly impressed with the way he released un-redacted documents containing the names of interpreters who had worked for ISAF in Afghanistan. This was clearly a courageous act that will ensure such awful people (and their families) enjoy an interview without coffee with the Taliban.

I'm not sure about this. Wikileaks certainly claim that they haven't released anything without reading it first. Your concern for the Afghan interpreters is all well and good, but I think you have far too much faith in the institutions of the state. Unlike journalists, they have vested interests and are by no means above doing far worse, by accident or deliberately.

Should he be granted asylum by the journalist bashing/jailing President of Ecuador (or champion of freedom as Julian calls him) and acquire a magic carpet to fly there from SW1, he may want to consider the following: Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the US and is also full of CIA types who can operate there in a way they couldn’t dream of in Europe. One suspects he'll probably end up with a knife in his guts and shit in his pants down some filthy Quito back alley - similar to the end I suspect many of his victims in Afghan have met.

So far all we know for sure is he'd be behind bars if he weren't in the Equadorean embassy.

Anyway, bottom line the guy is accused of rape in Sweden under Swedish law. Not wanting to go and clear his name makes him look as guilty as a puppy sat next to a pile of poo.

The bottom line is he isn't accused of rape, but on a matter of "sexual etiquette" which would not be persued in normal circumstances, and certainly not in a country other than Sweden. If you can show that I'm wrong about this, I'll be all ears.

[Pelle]

No, again, he's accused of rape. What they say he did is definitely seen as raoing at least here in Sweden.

And WWI was the outcome of more than hundreds of years of conflicts in Europe. Have you heard about an expression called "the long 19th century"? It began in 1789 and ended in 1945. But that's a whole other topic.

[CrackpotForeigner]

It's not a dodgy case. It's a clear rape case, like LondonLax says. I can't tell if he's guilty or not, obviously, but if the swedish police thinks there's enough evidence to bring him in for quetioning, then there's a case.

Maybe it's what you want to believe.

Personally I think it stinks to high heaven. It appears that the woman was perfectly happy to have sex with a condom. He had sex with her, without spilling his seed (as it were). He did not have any diseases. The next day the woman sent text messages all aglow about her supposed relationship with JA.

The woman did not make any complaint until she learned that JA had been having sex with someone else the following night.

If you were in that position, don't you think you'd be aghast at finding yourself accused of rape?

Yes, he treated the women rather shabbily. Does he deserve to be called an arsehole and treated with caution by women in future? Probably. Does he deserve to be extradited and put through a trial? I really don't think so.

Be honest, do you really think US interests are irrelevant to the Swedish case against him?

[Eames]

Ultimately, he will end up in Sweden the UK government are bound by EU law to send him whether they agree with that particular Swedish law or not.

What the Swedes decide to do with him is their problem, if the US want him, they can have him, although AFIK they haven't requested that he be extradited.