EPTyea, that means putting yourself at the disposal of the justice system as well so he's kind of making it hard for that process to take its course if you follow my point
WikiLeaks founder arrested in U.K. - Page 56
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dundron2000
Sweden1140 Posts
yea, that means putting yourself at the disposal of the justice system as well so he's kind of making it hard for that process to take its course if you follow my point | ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On August 17 2012 07:35 Jalle wrote: Swedish media seems more interested in attacking straw men than mentioning the actual issue, it's a disgrace. Assange is basically called a coward who hides behind an asylum to escape his rape charges. Oh, extradition is also out of the picture. Apparently there's no way Sweden would ever deport anyone risking torture or the death penalty.  I promised to not write in this thread for today, but I lied  As you know, the extradition of those Egyptians was a scandal of enormous proportions over here. It is pretty much accepted by anyone here that we shouldn't have trusted the guarantees for a fair trial and against the use of torture given by the Egypt government. You probably also remember that the reason why the minister responsible for the extradition decision didn't resign was the fact that she was murdered before the story was uncovered. I would be careful with drawing any conclusions from that one single case. It was caused by poor judgement and will serve as a reminder to be more careful in the future. Besides, there is a completely different government running the country today, a government that puts human rights very high on the agenda. As a positive and more recent example an american citizen who deserted from the US Army back in 1984 recently stepped forward and revealed his true identity. Of course the US wants him extradited, but Sweden refuses to do so as the law prohibits extraditions based on political or military reasons. If JA came to Sweden we would be unable to hand him to the US both by these laws and the fact that the UK must authorize an extradition. Sweden is likely on of the safer countries for JA, that was why he sought a residence permit here in the first place. Funny how his supporters always dodges this fact. | ||
|
Dundron2000
Sweden1140 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:08 Kukaracha wrote: Just a note : the US is a federation, and most of the time 90% of the criminal laws are up to the state. In this case, well... many states don't have the death penalty! The extradition can be done between, say, New-York and Sweden, and in that case it's perfectly fine. But then Assange could run through a military trial. Really, the laws are very complex, and I came to understand that federations like the US are even more complex cases than usual. There's a good reason there are rich lawyers around! :p There is no rape! Sexual molestation at worst. The first and main "crime" that was charged against Assange was... not putting a condom. Both women admitted a consensual sexual relationship - one of them even saying that she "admired" Assange at the time, thinking that everything was fine until she found out that another woman had had condom-less sex with him. Also, I don't see what christianity has to do with this. Jesus was an exceptional man without a doubt. whether or not there is rape is a question for the Swedish justice system to determine, not internet mobs. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On August 17 2012 07:02 oBlade wrote: This is fallacious. My friend might buy the statistically safest car in the world, but it doesn't mean he won't wreck it if he's the worst driver there is. Similarly, the Swedish justice system is no doubt great for laymen, but in the case of a highly controversial political figure, it could easily get SNAFUed. Do you really think that the US can control what a swedish prosecutor does? Well they can't. Prosecutors are independent bureaucrats (not elected like in the US) who guard their independence pretty zealously. The idea that the prosecution is politically motivated is just a silly conspiracy theory. The claim that the accusers are politically motivated is certainly possible. But that's not an excuse to take off from the country and try to evade lawful authorities. If Assange is innocent he should go to court and get acquitted -- not run away and do everything he can to avoid a trial. | ||
|
hayata2.0
Canada655 Posts
If they just wanted to question him (after they already did question him and dropped charges), why must he leave the embassy and return to Sweden for it? Why does he suddenly need to be questioned again after charges were dropped? That's just what doesn't add up. I'm not supporting him or anything, but I can totally see where JA's stance is. He's scared as fuck, possibly to the point of paranoia, and those issues sure as hell aren't helping. It may very well be that he returns to Sweden and gets his fair trial and is never thrown to the U.S., but the fact that nobody's willing to assure him of that isn't making it easier for him when he can just, well, keep hiding in the embassy until it gets stormed...if it ever does. It's not the "right thing to do", but when the right thing to do is also rather scary because of aforementioned little things off about it, then I can see his motivation for well, doing what he is. | ||
|
LunaSea
Luxembourg369 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:18 one-one-one wrote: I promised to not write in this thread for today, but I lied As you know, the extradition of those Egyptians was a scandal of enormous proportions over here. It is pretty much accepted by anyone here that we shouldn't have trusted the guarantees for a fair trial and against the use of torture given by the Egypt government. You probably also remember that the reason why the minister responsible for the extradition decision didn't resign was the fact that she was murdered before the story was uncovered. I would be careful with drawing any conclusions from that one single case. It was caused by poor judgement and will serve as a reminder to be more careful in the future. Besides, there is a completely different government running the country today, a government that puts human rights very high on the agenda. As a positive and more recent example an american citizen who deserted from the US Army back in 1984 recently stepped forward and revealed his true identity. Of course the US wants him extradited, but Sweden refuses to do so as the law prohibits extraditions based on political or military reasons. If JA came to Sweden we would be unable to hand him to the US both by these laws and the fact that the UK must authorize an extradition. Sweden is likely on of the safer countries for JA, that was why he sought a residence permit here in the first place. Funny how his supporters always dodges this fact. If it's a different matter, why isn't Sweden just giving Assange the guaranty that he isn't going to be extradited to the US ? I mean, in your words he isn't going to be extradited anyway so why is Sweden still refusing to give him this guaranty ? | ||
|
Dundron2000
Sweden1140 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:24 hayata2.0 wrote: If Sweden really would never extradite JA, then why do they refuse to promise it? If they just wanted to question him (after they already did question him and dropped charges), why must he leave the embassy and return to Sweden for it? Why does he suddenly need to be questioned again after charges were dropped? That's just what doesn't add up. I'm not supporting him or anything, but I can totally see where JA's stance is. He's scared as fuck, possibly to the point of paranoia, and those issues sure as hell aren't helping. It may very well be that he returns to Sweden and gets his fair trial and is never thrown to the U.S., but the fact that nobody's willing to assure him of that isn't making it easier for him when he can just, well, keep hiding in the embassy until it gets stormed...if it ever does. 1. my take is because they don't have to promise anything. the issue here is regarding his extradition for questioning surrounding separate accusations against him. an american extradition request would be processed through the justice system and its legality would be determined at that time. if Sweden did give Assange such a guarantee then i would be slightly more worried about the fairness of the courts since it would circumvent proper procedure. | ||
|
O.P.
Sweden109 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:21 ziggurat wrote: Do you really think that the US can control what a swedish prosecutor does? Well they can't. Prosecutors are independent bureaucrats (not elected like in the US) who guard their independence pretty zealously. The idea that the prosecution is politically motivated is just a silly conspiracy theory. The claim that the accusers are politically motivated is certainly possible. But that's not an excuse to take off from the country and try to evade lawful authorities. If Assange is innocent he should go to court and get acquitted -- not run away and do everything he can to avoid a trial. Some might disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_bay_trial#Bias_allegations http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-trial-peter-sundes-plea-in-his-own-words/ | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:27 LunaSea wrote: If it's a different matter, why isn't Sweden just giving Assange the guaranty that he isn't going to be extradited to the US ? I mean, in your words he isn't going to be extradited anyway so why is Sweden still refusing to give him this guaranty ? I'm pretty sure that only a Swedish judge can decide if someone is extradited from Sweden or not. All a Swedish politician can really say is that if there is an extradition request it will be considered by our court system and decided on its merits. Which by the way is exactly what happened with the Swedish request to extradite Assange from Britain. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:18 one-one-one wrote: Sweden is likely on of the safer countries for JA, that was why he sought a residence permit here in the first place. Funny how his supporters always dodges this fact. It was safe for Wikileaks, but here what matters are extradition conventions, which are different in every country. Not only that, but Assange's status has changed since then, because his demands for a job and a residency permit were rejected and because he might become a convicted felon. I'm not a lawyer, but it is very possible that under those circumstances an extradition is possible and completely legal as long as you're not using a political reason. Now for the question you've been dodging : why do you think that a full team of top-notch lawyers and several world-renowned celebrities like Ken Loach are fighting for? Do you really think that it's... so that Assange can avoid that 1000€ bill? Is he that powerful? :p | ||
|
Dundron2000
Sweden1140 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:27 LunaSea wrote: If it's a different matter, why isn't Sweden just giving Assange the guaranty that he isn't going to be extradited to the US ? I mean, in your words he isn't going to be extradited anyway so why is Sweden still refusing to give him this guaranty ? because no american extradition request has been made thus it has not been processed, therefore there is no ruling whether such an extradition request is legal or not. | ||
|
LunaSea
Luxembourg369 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:31 Dundron2000 wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 17 2012 08:24 hayata2.0 wrote: If Sweden really would never extradite JA, then why do they refuse to promise it? If they just wanted to question him (after they already did question him and dropped charges), why must he leave the embassy and return to Sweden for it? Why does he suddenly need to be questioned again after charges were dropped? That's just what doesn't add up. I'm not supporting him or anything, but I can totally see where JA's stance is. He's scared as fuck, possibly to the point of paranoia, and those issues sure as hell aren't helping. It may very well be that he returns to Sweden and gets his fair trial and is never thrown to the U.S., but the fact that nobody's willing to assure him of that isn't making it easier for him when he can just, well, keep hiding in the embassy until it gets stormed...if it ever does. 1. my take is because they don't have to promise anything. the issue here is regarding his extradition for questioning surrounding separate accusations against him. an american extradition request would be processed through the justice system and its legality would be determined at that time. if Sweden did give Assange such a guarantee then i would be slightly more worried about the fairness of the courts since it would circumvent proper procedure. So in your words, Assange should play Russian roulette with his life. - If the Swedish justice system works well, he lives, if not he dies. Right ? I mean, for sure in that situation I would be f*cking scared to be extradited too. Wouldn't you ? | ||
|
Dundron2000
Sweden1140 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:36 LunaSea wrote: So in your word, Assange should play Russian roulette with his life. - If the Swedish justice system works well, he lives, if not he dies. Right ? I mean, for sure in that situation I would be f*cking scared to be extradited too. Wouldn't you ? if he has Swedish lawyer that can read it shouldn't be a problem. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:33 O.P. wrote: Some might disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_bay_trial#Bias_allegations http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-trial-peter-sundes-plea-in-his-own-words/ I said that the US can't control Swedish prosecutors. Are you saying that there's something at these links that is somehow responsive to that? | ||
|
Dundron2000
Sweden1140 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:33 O.P. wrote: Some might disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_bay_trial#Bias_allegations http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-trial-peter-sundes-plea-in-his-own-words/ just because you disagree with a ruling doesn't mean they weren't convicted in accordance with the intent of the law. lets not mix subjects. | ||
|
LunaSea
Luxembourg369 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:37 Dundron2000 wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 17 2012 08:36 LunaSea wrote: So in your word, Assange should play Russian roulette with his life. - If the Swedish justice system works well, he lives, if not he dies. Right ? I mean, for sure in that situation I would be f*cking scared to be extradited too. Wouldn't you ? if he has Swedish lawyer that can read it shouldn't be a problem. Well, reading one of posters higher up in this thread, it seems that a SNAFU already happened in Sweden, one-one-one I think said that it was a scandal, but it still didn't change what was done right ? "Oh yeah we are sorry guys, we extradited someone and he's dead now. We're really sorry that we made a big mistake." Kewl, still happened. | ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:27 LunaSea wrote: If it's a different matter, why isn't Sweden just giving Assange the guaranty that he isn't going to be extradited to the US ? I mean, in your words he isn't going to be extradited anyway so why is Sweden still refusing to give him this guaranty ? Firstly, you don't get to negotiate or condition things if you are wanted in a criminal investigation. Sweden gives no such guarantee as that is not how they play. Secondly, who would make such a promise anyways? I don't know if a politician can decide that or that it would be considered an attempt to interfere with the justice system. We are _very_ strict about not allowing politics and politicians to affect the legal systems over here. Neither can a judge make such a promise as such an extradition request would have to be handled by an independent court. Thirdly, as long as JA is in Sweden under the issued arrest warrant it is not even up to Sweden to make such a call. There are very strict regulations controlling what we can and can't do in such a case. We are definitely not allowed to extradite him to the US without the consent of the UK. Thus it is effectively the UK calling the shots meaning that the US has to get them and NOT Sweden to extradite Julian Assange. The most likely thing that would happen is that Mr Assange would be told to leave Sweden after a trial and potential punishment since he doesn't have a residence permit to stay here. | ||
|
Dundron2000
Sweden1140 Posts
On August 17 2012 08:43 LunaSea wrote: Well, reading one of posters higher up in this thread, it seems that a SNAFU already happened in Sweden, one-one-one I think said that it was a scandal, but it still didn't change what was done right ? "Oh yeah we are sorry guys, we extradited someone and he's dead now. We're really sorry that we made a big mistake." Kewl, still happened. yea there was a situation, it was a scandal, which is of benefit to Assange by the way because it means there is a greater awareness in Sweden generally of avoiding political meddling in judicial cases. also the Egyptians weren't killed. they were tortured really badly though. i don't know if that helps my point or yours. | ||
|
shizzz
Australia127 Posts
| ||
|
Deshkar
Singapore1244 Posts
| ||
| ||
