Jump to content

The Assange/Wikileaks/Manning Thread


Ads

Recommended Posts

CPF,

IMO there is a gaping hole in your assertion that he is refusing to face his accusers because he fears the US. Before jumping bail he was at the same risk of being subject to a US extradition request in the UK as he potentially is in Sweden, or indeed in any other EU country. Mr Assange is as a bright man and will know this very well, but is using the US government (and their non-existent extradition request) as a useful distraction from the real issue of his conduct in Sweden. As evidenced by your determined defence of him this is enabling him to maintain his core supporters who, let's be honest, think he's a bit of a hero and simply don't want to believe that he could also be a rapist.

Given the FACT he is no more at risk from extradition to the US in Sweden than in the UK, one would assume then that his reasoning is to avoid being questioned and charged in relation to the rape allegations against him.

My question then is on what basis you think that going to Sweden to face the accusations against him makes him more vulnerable to the Americans? "He believes that to be the case" isn't really an answer by the way because as above you can be damn sure he KNOWS that is not true, as does everyone reading this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man believes himself to be innocent then he should defend himself in Court.

That's the wrong way around, surely?

If the authorities believe someone to be guilty then they should prosecute him in court.

I know that in this case his flight makes that rather difficult for them to do but when things are a matter of criminal law then the emphasis should be on prosecutions proving their case, shouldn't it?

The Swedes want to charge him, he knows this. It isn't for the accussed to choose where and when to defend himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Swedes want to charge him, he knows this. It isn't for the accussed to choose where and when to defend himself.

I think you rather miss my point, i.e. that there is too much of this 'if the accused believes himself to be innocent he must do x' and 'the accused must clear his name' in general when it comes to criminal cases.

Are you suggesting that anyone anywhere has an obligation to submit themselves to any authority that may wish to prosecute them for something even if they are not within that authority's jurisdiction? This is a general point not something specifically related to the Assange business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Swedes want to charge him, he knows this. It isn't for the accussed to choose where and when to defend himself.

I think you rather miss my point, i.e. that there is too much of this 'if the accused believes himself to be innocent he must do x' and 'the accused must clear his name' in general when it comes to criminal cases.

Are you suggesting that anyone anywhere has an obligation to submit themselves to any authority that may wish to prosecute them for something even if they are not within that authority's jurisdiction? This is a general point not something specifically related to the Assange business.

I don't think he is saying that Snowy. I think what Ads is trying to say is that the "authority" whilst not having jurisdiction to question Assange in the UK, is well within its rights to issue a European Arrest Warrant and ask that the UK arrange for Assange's transfer to Sweden so they can question him.

It is absolutely appropriate for the prosecuting authority to have the evidence to support the charge, rather than merely stating it and expecting Assange to prove otherwise, but the fact that they have a European Arrest Warrant and a High Court judgement supporting it implies they have sufficeint evidence to require Assange's presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the FACT he is no more at risk from extradition to the US in Sweden than in the UK...

I don't agree that is a 'FACT'.

The fact is that the same rules would apply to extradition requests regarding the ECtHR ruling whether it be from Sweden or the UK.

On the face of it, he would have been more at risk of extradition to the US on a legal basis from the UK* than from Sweden but, in my view, he's probably, in practice, more at risk elsewhere (due to the history of extraditions to the US under the current treaty, the huge unease about them and the potential for fatal damage to that treaty of having an extraditee (is that a word?) possibly treated in the way that Manning is being).

*Though it would appear that the Swedish/US extradition treaty (link) allows for the requested state to temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution even whilst that person is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the requested state. I don't know whether that would also apply to our treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he is saying that Snowy. I think what Ads is trying to say is...

I'll wait and see what he says as I don't agree that is what he has been saying (with the generalisms, mention of 'spending 20 years in a Colorado Supermax' and so on).

But, as I said at the end of my post to which you replied, the point about which I was asking the question is a general point not something specifically related to the Assange business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has the US got to do with it?

It must be clear to everyone that for the UK to have 30 police outside the embassy, with written instructions to seize Assange at all costs, with (photographed) reference to the involvement of the ant-terrorist squad, and with the Foreign Secretary making a written a threat to breach the Vienna Convention on embassies and diplomatic protection, means the real issue is absolutely not about the Swedes wanting to question him, or him jumping bail. It is not even remotely imaginable that such a level of response would ever be mounted for either of those two things.

What then is it?

Is there some extremely serious crime in Sweden or the UK which has been kept from us?

Or is it part of the US' campaign to hunt down people involved with Wikileaks, undermine their support, cut of their funding by instructing banks not to process payments to them, imprison them with or without trial in conditions which amount to torture, and so on?

Or is there some other explanation? Because it's certainly not about the warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...due to the history of extraditions to the US under the current treaty, the huge unease about them and the potential for fatal damage to that treaty of having an extraditee (is that a word?) possibly treated in the way that Manning is being...

Manning is being held pending courts martial under military rather than civil law and the rules differ substantially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has the US got to do with it?

It must be clear to everyone that for the UK to have 30 police outside the embassy, with written instructions to seize Assange at all costs, with (photographed) reference to the involvement of the ant-terrorist squad, and with the Foreign Secretary making a written a threat to breach the Vienna Convention on embassies and diplomatic protection, means the real issue is absolutely not about the Swedes wanting to question him, or him jumping bail. It is not even remotely imaginable that such a level of response would ever be mounted for either of those two things.

Why? he has, in the most high profile way imaginable, made the UK authorities look utterly ridiculous for granting him bail.

Government's generally don't like to be humiliated internationally and individuals that do so can expect to be on the wrong end of their displeasure. Fool me once, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they actually want to interview him, and are not prepared to take the simple step of coming here to do that, then this would be a way of removing a current obstacle.

But I guess we all know that.

Two points, firstly even if they just wanted to question him I think it sets a pretty shocking precedent when suspects in a criminal investigation are permitted to decide on the terms and conditions of any questioning.

Does he want to determine the terms and conditions of questioning, or does he rather want an assurance that the questioning is not a pretext to have him seized and deported to a third country? He previously sought through his legal team to agree a date to be questioned in Sweden - it's not unknown for people to be interviewed and even arrested by appointment, in fact it seems to be a common occurrence with News International staff.

Early on in the case, Assange's legal team found it necessary to ask the police to interview him, as they seemed content to leak news of the allegations against him without making any attempt to ask him about them. This doesn't seem to be the conduct of someone who is simply trying to avoid being questioned.

Secondly they don't just want to question him, they want to arrest him. Unless you think it will work that they arrest him and then just leave him in London, I expect they are still going to want him to go back to Sweden with them even if they do ask him some questions in London.

Well, Swedish law allows for people to be arrested when they're not there. I understand they did this previously. It is also entirely possible for them to question him in the embassy, and the prosecutor's earlier claim that this is legally impossible has been shown to be untrue. The advantage of doing so would be that it would allow them to assess whether there is a case strong enough to warrant charging him.

From the point of view of people who think it is important both for the complainants and for Assange that the evidence is assessed and the case either taken to prosecution or else dropped, it surely seems reasonable to find the best way for that to happen. If Assange has a belief (well-founded, given the actions of the UK police and Foreign Secretary) that it is a pretext for handing him to the US, and has asked for a guarantee that this won't happen, then they should call his bluff and give that guarantee. If they won't do that, then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the reason they won't do so is exactly because this is their intention.

As for the line that "no-one else gets guarantees about not being extradited, and there's no extradition request on the table anyway", the simple answer is that, as above, the actions of the UK police and government clearly show that there is more to this than they are admitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awol, why do you believe in the Divine Right of Governments?

What do you mean?

I mean why do you think that a government is necessarily right just because it is a government?

And don't you think that living in a country where the ruler allegedly trawls the streets at night looking for young boys should make one innately suspicious of governments :) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has the US got to do with it?

It must be clear to everyone that for the UK to have 30 police outside the embassy, with written instructions to seize Assange at all costs, with (photographed) reference to the involvement of the ant-terrorist squad, and with the Foreign Secretary making a written a threat to breach the Vienna Convention on embassies and diplomatic protection, means the real issue is absolutely not about the Swedes wanting to question him, or him jumping bail. It is not even remotely imaginable that such a level of response would ever be mounted for either of those two things.

Why? he has, in the most high profile way imaginable, made the UK authorities look utterly ridiculous for granting him bail.

Government's generally don't like to be humiliated internationally and individuals that do so can expect to be on the wrong end of their displeasure. Fool me once, etc..

Bail conditions are breached every day, in every court in the land. The normal response is not generally to call out the anti-terrorist squad and involve the Foreign Secretary. It is blindingly obvious that this is not about the warrant, or the breach of bail, neither of which would come remotely close to requiring this level of response.

If anyone has been made to look foolish, it's the people who stood bail. Why do you think the government looks foolish, if a court makes a bail decision on conditions which someone later breaks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awol, why do you believe in the Divine Right of Governments?

What do you mean?

I mean why do you think that a government is necessarily right just because it is a government?

I don't believe anything of the sort. I do believe that we have the rule of law for a reason and it is not for Mr Assange to pick and choose which of those laws he obeys.

The Swedish authorities believe he broke the law of the land while in that country and he has certainly broken the law and abused the hospitality granted him while in the UK.

You seem to think that's alright because a) your personal definition of rape is different to Swedish law, B) because George Bush is a bad man, c) 'cos wikileaks is 'great' and the world would be a poorer place if Julian was convicted of being a sex offender, and d) the USA is baaaad and out to get him - the lack of evidence for that notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has the US got to do with it?

It must be clear to everyone that for the UK to have 30 police outside the embassy, with written instructions to seize Assange at all costs, with (photographed) reference to the involvement of the ant-terrorist squad, and with the Foreign Secretary making a written a threat to breach the Vienna Convention on embassies and diplomatic protection, means the real issue is absolutely not about the Swedes wanting to question him, or him jumping bail. It is not even remotely imaginable that such a level of response would ever be mounted for either of those two things.

Why? he has, in the most high profile way imaginable, made the UK authorities look utterly ridiculous for granting him bail.

Government's generally don't like to be humiliated internationally and individuals that do so can expect to be on the wrong end of their displeasure. Fool me once, etc..

Bail conditions are breached every day, in every court in the land. The normal response is not generally to call out the anti-terrorist squad and involve the Foreign Secretary. It is blindingly obvious that this is not about the warrant, or the breach of bail, neither of which would come remotely close to requiring this level of response.

If anyone has been made to look foolish, it's the people who stood bail. Why do you think the government looks foolish, if a court makes a bail decision on conditions which someone later breaks?

Given the publicity around Assange it is a bit of a stretch to pretend that his is a 'normal', run of the mill case and expecting it to be treated as such.

The UK authorities look foolish because his bail was opposed on the basis he was a flight risk but it was granted anyway. As soon as it became clear that he would have to face the music for his "poor sexual etiquette" he did a runner - and then gobbed off to the world's press from the embassy window, just to rub it in. That the Government are now gunning for him is no surprise at all and it would be strange were they not.

However none of this indicates a dastardly plot to hand him over to the Americans, a theory for which there is no evidence at all either in the UK or Sweden, although I suspect that were the man at home his Government would serve him up to Uncle Sam on a silver platter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the publicity around Assange it is a bit of a stretch to pretend that his is a 'normal', run of the mill case and expecting it to be treated as such.

So which is it to be? Is it a case in which he should expect just the same treatment as everyone else, because it's no different? Or is it a wholly exceptional case which can't be treated exactly like others? I seem to be hearing both. If you think it's unlike others, is it simply "publicity" that makes it so, or is it things like the reinstatement of the prosecution on political direction, the intervention of the Swedish PM in a manner which would constitute contempt of court in this country, the involvement of the terror unit, and so on? A little more than just publicity, I think.

The UK authorities look foolish because his bail was opposed on the basis he was a flight risk but it was granted anyway. As soon as it became clear that he would have to face the music for his "poor sexual etiquette" he did a runner - and then gobbed off to the world's press from the embassy window, just to rub it in. That the Government are now gunning for him is no surprise at all and it would be strange were they not.

No, it's not the case that he did a runner as soon as it appeared he might face a charge. This had been the case for a long time. What prompted the runner was learning that the UK were about to pick him up, he claims. The subsequent charade outside the embassy appears to me to bear this out.

However none of this indicates a dastardly plot to hand him over to the Americans, a theory for which there is no evidence at all either in the UK or Sweden, although I suspect that were the man at home his Government would serve him up to Uncle Sam on a silver platter.

There's been evidence of this for some time, eg here and here. Of course the US isn't keen to say so publicly, but then you'd hardly imagine they would be. It could only be counterproductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Swedish authorities believe he broke the law of the land while in that country
The Swedish authorities say they believe he MAY have broken the law of the land and would therefore like to give him a TRIAL, which will establish whether he did or not.
and he has certainly broken the law and abused the hospitality granted him while in the UK.
What do you base this on? Do you actually think people are weeping in the streets because their hospitality has been abused by someone not wanting to be arrested? Or has he committed some other grievous act that only you know about?

You seem to think he should be in jail because a) The law is the law, and should never be questioned by anyone, and once accused of something, we should automatically assume guilt. Wishing to avoid arrest is clear proof of guilt, no matter what the circumstances B) because no matter what higher crimes are committed by people in power, he is clearly a lawbreaker and our priority should be to pursue lawbreakers who are NOT people in power, because they lack the god-given right to get away with things on the basis of being or having been in power, c) 'cos wikileaks is nothing more than a baaaad organisation run by a sex offender, and d) the USA have nothing against Assange and just want to let him live his life in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Swedish authorities believe he broke the law of the land while in that country
The Swedish authorities say they believe he MAY have broken the law of the land and would therefore like to give him a TRIAL, which will establish whether he did or not.

Quite. Do you now agree that he should go through that process?

and he has certainly broken the law and abused the hospitality granted him while in the UK.
What do you base this on? Do you actually think people are weeping in the streets because their hospitality has been abused by someone not wanting to be arrested? Or has he committed some other grievous act that only you know about?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? He has jumped bail, a criminal offence. He was granted bail and allowed to remain here on the understanding that he didn't try and bugger off. He's now done exactly that by fleeing of the Ecuadorian embassy and claiming asylum. Do you actually comprehend that his actions are illegal, or are you back into "it doesn't really matter" mode again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has jumped bail, a criminal offence. He was granted bail and allowed to remain here on the understanding that he didn't try and bugger off. He's now done exactly that by fleeing of the Ecuadorian embassy and claiming asylum. Do you actually comprehend that his actions are illegal, or are you back into "it doesn't really matter" mode again?

You're the guy who watches The Fugitive and hopes the police catch the bastard, aren't you? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â