On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote: So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation.
Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
That truly would be the ultimate irony -__- Doesnt even seem too unlikely.
Then why didn't Sweden tell the Ecuadorean embassy that? I mean the Ecaduorean embassy only have assange its protection because they explicitely asked both Sweden and Great Britain about a guarantee where Assange cannot be handed over to the US.
On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote: So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation.
Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
That truly would be the ultimate irony -__- Doesnt even seem too unlikely.
Then why didn't Sweden tell the Ecuadorean embassy that? I mean the Ecaduorean embassy only have assange its protection because they explicitely asked both Sweden and Great Britain about a guarantee where Assange cannot be handed over to the US.
This is what 'one-one-one' said a couple of pages back:
"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."
Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote: So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation.
Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
Its not strange, since sweden has never refused extradition requests from the US. And dont you think its a little suspicious that our government refuses to promise that he wont be extradited to the US, after they talk to him in sweden again? Because thats the part which makes it pretty obvious whats going to happen after.
Sorry have there been a lot of these? The only one I'm aware of is with Anna Lindh, where she was murdered before it was known what happened. Have there been more than that one?
Two noname egyptians are handed over to the U.S. on suspicion of terrorism 3 months after 9/11 and it was a massive political scandal.
Now imagine the political fallout of handing over Assange.
But yeah I'm sure the centre-right government thats been struggling in the polls lately will gladly hand him over to the U.S.
On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote: Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
Do you have a source on this? A bunch of his lawyers, plus himself, are afraid of extradition to the US. I don't think it's logically relevant to say that one of them dissents (although I'd love to read it). That fact doesn't make anyone right. If there are 10 skydivers and one of them says he doesn't need a parachute, he's still probably not going to walk away afterwards.
On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote: So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation.
Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
That truly would be the ultimate irony -__- Doesnt even seem too unlikely.
Then why didn't Sweden tell the Ecuadorean embassy that? I mean the Ecaduorean embassy only have assange its protection because they explicitely asked both Sweden and Great Britain about a guarantee where Assange cannot be handed over to the US.
This is what 'one-one-one' said a couple of pages back:
"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."
Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
Can you sound more like Sven who believes everything the Swedish government tells him?
On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote:And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes.
Not really. Like ppl have been pointing out, because of the european union, the UK must do what they can to obtain him and send him to Sweden. If they had refused this, they would get a lot of crap from EU, which they signed a treaty for. They have no such treaty with USA. The UK are just trying to carry out a standard procedure, and it's unfortunate that they got caught up in it.
On August 17 2012 12:36 ninini wrote: According to what source have the Obama administration put on pressure? According to some guy. Did he get that info directly from the government? Highly unlikely. He either made it up completely to sell a story, or he made the assumption that USA had put on pressure. Although it may be true, it's far from being confirmed, and one shouldn't assume that it's true.
I mean no offense, but taking this with your other posts, I find this highly ironic.
What is? That I said it may be true? Of course it may be true that they orchestrated this behind our (Sweden's) back. I don't have all the answers, although I'm positive that the swedish government is in no way involved. And, the chance that USA is in any way behind this is incredibly slim. If they are, I'm positive that it's an attempt to defame him, rather than trying to catch him, and if that's what's going on, it's working. There's no way that the US citizens would allow their government to torture, nonetheless kill this guy. The US citizens may not care about what happens to some middle eastern terrorist, but the thought of them allowing their own government to abuse a well-known australian so called "freedom-fighter" is just pulled out of the fairytales. The government knows that if he gets dealt with, they will take a huge hit domestically and globally, and someone else will just take his place. You guys are acting like USA is China, 30 years ago. All these theories about them being out to get Assange is nonsense. At best, they might try to ruin his reputation, but they are probably busy dealing with other, bigger threats.
On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote: So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation.
Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
That truly would be the ultimate irony -__- Doesnt even seem too unlikely.
Then why didn't Sweden tell the Ecuadorean embassy that? I mean the Ecaduorean embassy only have assange its protection because they explicitely asked both Sweden and Great Britain about a guarantee where Assange cannot be handed over to the US.
This is what 'one-one-one' said a couple of pages back:
"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."
Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
Can you sound more like Sven who believes everything the Swedish government tells him?
When the government wants to do shady stuff they will avoid the justice system.
The justice system is already involved in this which severely limits the ability of the government to intervene which is what Euronyme has been arguing.
On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote: So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation.
Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
That truly would be the ultimate irony -__- Doesnt even seem too unlikely.
Then why didn't Sweden tell the Ecuadorean embassy that? I mean the Ecaduorean embassy only have assange its protection because they explicitely asked both Sweden and Great Britain about a guarantee where Assange cannot be handed over to the US.
This is what 'one-one-one' said a couple of pages back:
"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."
Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
Can you sound more like Sven who believes everything the Swedish government tells him?
By all means, please go ahead and explain to me how the world really looks, oh great one who has seen the matrix. I've never liked wearing foil hats. They chafe.
On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote: Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
Do you have a source on this? A bunch of his lawyers, plus himself, are afraid of extradition to the US. I don't think it's logically relevant to say that one of them dissents (although I'd love to read it). That fact doesn't make anyone right. If there are 10 skydivers and one of them says he doesn't need a parachute, he's still probably not going to walk away afterwards.
I actually can't find it right now, but it was his lawyer in the rape case. The UK is allied with the US in all of their wars, while Sweden is condemning them. I don't see why everyone seems to think that Sweden has no autonomy and will just hand him over, whereas Ecuador, the bottom of the barrel when it comes to transparency and corruption is acting out of noble justice principles. I just have a hard time believing in such a far fetched conspiracy theory.
Edit. Additionally. Why wouldn't the US have issued a warrant over interpol (the same kind that Sweden issued) instead of staging a fake rape where two payed off women have to witness and go in a court process (where everyone is US puppets) and then have the Swedish government (which of course also is a US puppet) throw every international and national law overboard and hand him over to the US... When the US doesn't even have any charges against him in the first place, so they have no way of holding him there -_-'
Personally I think the rape charges are real, and if the US has done all this just to make Sweden deport JA to the US... wow.... That's just really stupid.
Mods: EtherealDeath reanimated this thread. It might make sense to cut it at page 38, from where the new drama of yesterday started and call it "Assange Ecuador Asylum" and lock the old thread. Just to make it a little bit easier tor read.
btw. here is Assange in an interview with Correa from 5/22. I haven't watched the whole thing, but the part I watched was a lot of America bashing.
On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote: Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
Do you have a source on this? A bunch of his lawyers, plus himself, are afraid of extradition to the US. I don't think it's logically relevant to say that one of them dissents (although I'd love to read it). That fact doesn't make anyone right. If there are 10 skydivers and one of them says he doesn't need a parachute, he's still probably not going to walk away afterwards.
I actually can't find it right now, but it was his lawyer in the rape case. The UK is allied with the US in all of their wars, while Sweden is condemning them. I don't see why everyone seems to think that Sweden has no autonomy and will just hand him over, whereas Ecuador, the bottom of the barrel when it comes to transparency and corruption is acting out of noble justice principles. I just have a hard time believing in such a far fetched conspiracy theory.
Sweden has denied that it has any such intentions. A lawyer for the women who have accused Assange of sexually assaulting them told Reuters that the idea was "absurd," and that Assange needed to be "brought to justice."
This is what the lawyer representing the two women accusers said.
It's fine to make note of general things like Sweden's record with liberalism and the rule of law, Ecuador's record with the same things, etc. But they're not the only evidence we have in this particular instance. Suppose my friend buys the safest car in the world, does that mean he won't crash it? No, because he happens to be a really bad driver.
It's not about conspiracy theories, but for sure there are political motivations here we can't see. It's obvious some smart people in Ecuador would love to have Assange and wouldn't intentionally fuck him over. This is the same as say when Bobby Fischer got citizenship in Iceland. US officials and commentators love to posture around Wikileaks. Maybe it's just posturing, but if I were in Assange's position, I wouldn't sleep easy.
When he says he fears extradition to the US, it doesn't have to mean there is a beautiful master plan conspiracy behind everything. It just means that should he end up in Sweden, there are forces in the US that could exploit that.
On August 17 2012 16:30 Euronyme wrote: Edit. Additionally. Why wouldn't the US have issued a warrant over interpol (the same kind that Sweden issued) instead of staging a fake rape where two payed off women have to witness and go in a court process (where everyone is US puppets) and then have the Swedish government (which of course also is a US puppet) throw every international and national law overboard and hand him over to the US... When the US doesn't even have any charges against him in the first place, so they have no way of holding him there -_-'
Personally I think the rape charges are real, and if the US has done all this just to make Sweden deport JA to the US... wow.... That's just really stupid.
Okay, this is fair. Ignore the ideas of a conspiracy for a second and suppose he happily let himself be arrested and taken to Sweden for questioning before being charged with a crime. Despite that he cooperated with questioning once already and a prosecutor had already said there was no reason to suspect him of rape (before another prosecutor brought this back and issued an arrest warrant that involves interrupting his life and transplanting him into a different country solely so he can be questioned again, whereas they could just use a videophone or go to London to talk to him). Suppose he did that and ended up in Sweden. Say what you want about US foreign policy, but we have lots of trained people who are very good at holding people without ever filing charges against them.
On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote: "Firstly, you don't get to negotiate or condition things if you are wanted in a criminal investigation.
Well that's demonstrably false. I can't think of a country off of the top of my head where local law prevents prosecutors from negotiating deals with people under criminal investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain
On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote: "Firstly, you don't get to negotiate or condition things if you are wanted in a criminal investigation.
Well that's demonstrably false. I can't think of a country off of the top of my head where local law prevents prosecutors from negotiating deals with people under criminal investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain
On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote: So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation.
Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
That truly would be the ultimate irony -__- Doesnt even seem too unlikely.
Then why didn't Sweden tell the Ecuadorean embassy that? I mean the Ecaduorean embassy only have assange its protection because they explicitely asked both Sweden and Great Britain about a guarantee where Assange cannot be handed over to the US.
This is what 'one-one-one' said a couple of pages back:
"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."
Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
Can you sound more like Sven who believes everything the Swedish government tells him?
When the government wants to do shady stuff they will avoid the justice system.
The justice system is already involved in this which severely limits the ability of the government to intervene which is what Euronyme has been arguing.
You do realize the second Assange is arrested that the US will bring up charges of espionage to have him extradited?
Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
That truly would be the ultimate irony -__- Doesnt even seem too unlikely.
Then why didn't Sweden tell the Ecuadorean embassy that? I mean the Ecaduorean embassy only have assange its protection because they explicitely asked both Sweden and Great Britain about a guarantee where Assange cannot be handed over to the US.
This is what 'one-one-one' said a couple of pages back:
"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."
Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
Can you sound more like Sven who believes everything the Swedish government tells him?
When the government wants to do shady stuff they will avoid the justice system.
The justice system is already involved in this which severely limits the ability of the government to intervene which is what Euronyme has been arguing.
You do realize the second Assange is arrested that the US will bring up charges of espionage to have him extradited?
Which would have to go through the justice system, either way politics will not influence this.
Death penalty – Many countries, such as Australia, Canada, Macao,[2] and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out.
Sweden couldn't send Julian to the USA due to europeans agreements.
On August 17 2012 16:56 mdb wrote: Where is the Australian goverment in all this?
Another disaster by the Gillard Administration, it's easily the most inept government in Aus history.
Anyway if the UK does move into the embassy to arrest this man then Ecuador should move into all UK embassies on it's own territory and arrest the UK diplomats inside then demand Assange be released in exchange for the diplomats release.
On August 17 2012 15:39 Euronyme wrote: Assange's own lawyer says it's out of this world that he'd get deported to the US. I just don't see it happening.
Do you have a source on this? A bunch of his lawyers, plus himself, are afraid of extradition to the US. I don't think it's logically relevant to say that one of them dissents (although I'd love to read it). That fact doesn't make anyone right. If there are 10 skydivers and one of them says he doesn't need a parachute, he's still probably not going to walk away afterwards.
I actually can't find it right now, but it was his lawyer in the rape case. The UK is allied with the US in all of their wars, while Sweden is condemning them. I don't see why everyone seems to think that Sweden has no autonomy and will just hand him over, whereas Ecuador, the bottom of the barrel when it comes to transparency and corruption is acting out of noble justice principles. I just have a hard time believing in such a far fetched conspiracy theory.
Sweden has denied that it has any such intentions. A lawyer for the women who have accused Assange of sexually assaulting them told Reuters that the idea was "absurd," and that Assange needed to be "brought to justice."
This is what the lawyer representing the two women accusers said.
It's fine to make note of general things like Sweden's record with liberalism and the rule of law, Ecuador's record with the same things, etc. But they're not the only evidence we have in this particular instance. Suppose my friend buys the safest car in the world, does that mean he won't crash it? No, because he happens to be a really bad driver.
It's not about conspiracy theories, but for sure there are political motivations here we can't see. It's obvious some smart people in Ecuador would love to have Assange and wouldn't intentionally fuck him over. This is the same as say when Bobby Fischer got citizenship in Iceland. US officials and commentators love to posture around Wikileaks. Maybe it's just posturing, but if I were in Assange's position, I wouldn't sleep easy.
When he says he fears extradition to the US, it doesn't have to mean there is a beautiful master plan conspiracy behind everything. It just means that should he end up in Sweden, there are forces in the US that could exploit that.
On August 17 2012 16:30 Euronyme wrote: Edit. Additionally. Why wouldn't the US have issued a warrant over interpol (the same kind that Sweden issued) instead of staging a fake rape where two payed off women have to witness and go in a court process (where everyone is US puppets) and then have the Swedish government (which of course also is a US puppet) throw every international and national law overboard and hand him over to the US... When the US doesn't even have any charges against him in the first place, so they have no way of holding him there -_-'
Personally I think the rape charges are real, and if the US has done all this just to make Sweden deport JA to the US... wow.... That's just really stupid.
Okay, this is fair. Ignore the ideas of a conspiracy for a second and suppose he happily let himself be arrested and taken to Sweden for questioning before being charged with a crime. Despite that he cooperated with questioning once already and a prosecutor had already said there was no reason to suspect him of rape (before another prosecutor brought this back and issued an arrest warrant that involves interrupting his life and transplanting him into a different country solely so he can be questioned again, whereas they could just use a videophone or go to London to talk to him). Suppose he did that and ended up in Sweden. Say what you want about US foreign policy, but we have lots of trained people who are very good at holding people without ever filing charges against them.
No, it came from a Swedish news paper. It's a Swedish lawyer obviously. The second quote isn't from me I think, is it?
Your third statement is just plain wrong afaik. As far as I know he was never questioned in Sweden, but was arrested in his absence. The charges have gone from rape to harassment and back to rape, but that's about it. The case was dropped for a few days when it went from molestation back to rape, as the attorney of the women appealed and a new prosecutor was brought in. Assange had already managed to get to England, where he's been since. He offered to be represented by web cam in the Swedish court room which was denied. The English court decided to turn him over, which was appealed to in several instances by Assange, but always denied. He paid his bail for 200k pounds and escaped to the Ecuador embassy.
I think if the US wanted him they could've asked for him.
EPT
