16th Aug 12, 21:33 #21
All this has been well established. that's one thing good about the obsessive/compulsive nature of the people there, some reporters just keep digging.
16th Aug 12, 22:26 #22
16th Aug 12, 22:43 #23
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
It does not matter whether the person has been arrested, the US can request the British to arrest the person on their behalf. It does not matter whether the charges the US wants them to face are legal in the UK nor if the UK has already found them innocent of the same charges. The defendant does not need to be informed of the charges. The evidence only has to be presented to the home secretary and does not require a judicial review. It also does not matter whether the punishment the person may receive at the hands of the US judicial system are way in excess of that considered fair here, which is a consideration for extradition to other countries.
Which is why I raised several examples, Babar Ahmed, the Natwest executives and several computer hackers, all of whom have been extradited to the US or are facing extradition.
Extradition Act 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You raise the case of two Egyptians extradited by Sweden via the US to Egypt who were tortured. So what? Do you think Britain hasn't done worse? Haven't you heard of the case of the Libyan rebel leader who it turns out MI6 captured and extradited to Libya so Gaddafi's forces could torture him? Britain went in fully for extraordinary rendition, both in terms of capturing and handling/extraditing prisoners.
The idea that it would be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden rather than the UK is laughable. Please don't persist in this myth.
16th Aug 12, 23:03 #24
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
I fully agree that Sweden's record in extradition is by no means perfect but that ignores the rather incredible arrangements our country has with the US which beggar belief in its one sidedness and lack of transparency.
16th Aug 12, 23:09 #25
16th Aug 12, 23:15 #26
16th Aug 12, 23:28 #27
Clouding the discussion still further, of course, are the views of those in the eyes of whom Assange can do no wrong — David Icke-style conspiracy theorists in training, almost.
16th Aug 12, 23:34 #28
I suspect that Assange wouldn't even see a court in Sweden anyway. He'd be arrested and simply dumped in Gitmo, maybe to be tortured and because Assange is an Australian citizen, the Australian Govt. would continue to say nothing about it as they had done with David Hicks.
That little message on the inside front cover of Australian passports about the Australian Govt rendering assistance to people in distress and danger is pretty well much completely useless.Horse! You have failed in your mission! We are lost with no sign of Sweetville. Do you have any final words before your summary execution?
17th Aug 12, 00:07 #29
17th Aug 12, 04:29 #30
If anybody is interested, hereäs a link to detailed accounting of the whole mess.
Anna Ardin, Ms W, Julian Assange och Åklagarmyndigheten « Aktivarum
It's in Swedish but there are online translators...
The link provided points out that the warrant for arrest was issued by a "watch" or "duty" procecutor after getting a phone call from a cop, and the same day releae to the press broke the Grundlag ÅM --Åklagarmyndighet ---Prosecutor authority is supposed to enforce regarding protecting the identity of the accused.
Good first move: -brake the law.
17th Aug 12, 09:25 #31
i would like to remind you that when the charges first came in.
Assange did cooperate with the first prosecutor and willingly met her for questioning.
However she closed the case since >>no crime had been committed.<<
Shortly after Marianne Ny (prosecutor) re-opened the case despite that the only new evidence that
had come in, is a broken unused condom (no DNA was found on it so it could not have been used).
Assange was still in Sweden and again made himself available to questioning by the prosecution.
However they were not interested in question him. For one month the prosecution
did not do anything. There was one interrogation scheduled by it was cancelled by the
prosecution side. NO more efforts were made from the prosecution side to interrogate Assange.
After that month Assange got tired of waiting and asked if they needed to question him any more.
The prosecutor said no they did not need that. Assange then asked if he could leave the country
which the the prosecutor granted him the right to do.
Now this is where things start to get suspicious. As i said the prosecutor granted Assange to leave
the country. However as soon as he does that he is put up on interpol's red notice list over wanted persons,
Assange was wanted for questioning.
The prosecutors only comment so far is that its important that as soon as possible,
Assange must get to Sweden so that she can question him.
The questions are then.
- Why did the prosecutor question him during the extra month that he stayed in Sweden?
- Why did she not prosecute Assange while he was in Sweden?
- Why did she say that he could leave the country if she wanted to question him?
- Why re-open a case when no new evidence, expect an unused condom, have come in?
- Why is the prosecution side not interested in questioning him?
Also don't forget that the Swedish prime himself committed a crime live on public when saying
that Assange should come here and take his punishment.
In Sweden the prime minister has in no way the right to make such a statement about an individual case,
especially not when the suspect is not convicted and not even prosecuted. Its called ministerstyre.
And what happened with the whole thing of the Presumption of innocence?
17th Aug 12, 10:01 #32
One more thing. in Sweden we have two degrees os suspicion. Skäligen and Sannolika.
JA was first considered Skäligen (the lower degree) but this was later changed to "på Sannolika skäl (higher degree)."
just so that Martianne Ny could put out a EAW. Despite that there still were no crime that had been committed.
For the second higher degree, a witness or a technical evidence is required. In this case neither exists.
17th Aug 12, 15:47 #33
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
A letter was written to the Ecuadorian embassy which the recipient chose to publicise. We do not know at what level the decision was made to write that letter but it stated two clear facts, that Britain has the right to suspend the diplomatic immunity of their embassy and also that Britain has a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden. It was not an ultimatum nor was a specific action ever threatened if the Ecuadorians didn't comply, therefore it was not a statement of policy. I don't see why such a letter would necessarily require political approval. The failure of either DC or William Hague to escalate this problem despite the media's best attempts to stir up a crisis back up that threatening to raid the embassy is not part of British government policy.
One has to wonder though why noone has questioned whether it is right for Assange to claim asylum or for Ecuador to give it. Assange is not facing prosecution for his beliefs, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. He's being asked to face criminal charges (regardless of whether one agrees with the Swedish definition of rape). Since when has it become the norm for people to claim asylum to escape inconvenient criminal charges?
17th Aug 12, 15:52 #34
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
Sadly history shows that Britain is more than willing to hand over its own citizens to the US or transfer them to a third state such as Pakistan where attitudes towards things like torture are more relaxed so that interrogation can be outsourced. The British have even sent their own MI5/6 staff to those torture sessions so they could get the information first hand, although of course they wouldn't actually lay their own hands on the prisoners.
If Britain has decided to make an exception for Assange, a non-British national, then it would be extending him a courtesy it doesn't give to its own nationals....
17th Aug 12, 16:00 #35
17th Aug 12, 16:27 #36
And none of the above warrant the writing and sending of that letter.
This is something which is done only in extreme cases like war between two countries!
Don't even try to play it down, because from a diplomatic point of view that letter is an enormous faux pas!
17th Aug 12, 16:30 #37
17th Aug 12, 16:31 #38
17th Aug 12, 16:33 #39
How is it possible that a European country, UK or Sweden, can even think about turning over a person to the USA where the death penalty can be pronounced or even worse torture by government agents is not illegal?!
17th Aug 12, 16:35 #40