|
|
|
On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system.
Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well.
This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements.
It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country.
I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor.
It should clear up a few things.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden
|
The swedish law professor, Mårten Schultz, is well known in media in Sweden, and is also (in my own humble opinion) one of the most objective and reasonable persons working with or around the law system here in Sweden. And as a law student, I read many of them. He has a fantastic blog, that he is sadly not posting on alot anymore, but any posts I've seen him make has been clearminded and made with reason.
|
Ok, so I read the article which was really good by the way and those are my conclusions.:
When you see that about everybody in this thread and also the law professor Mårten Schultz are Swedish, I just think that people just can't imagine such a crazy scene in their own country.
Which is completely normal, especially if you like your country. I would think the same of my own country (Luxembourg).
People living in most of the west-north European countries wouldn't expect that of their justice system.
That's why drama is drama. Things that happen and that people didn't expect from their officials.
In my opinion that's exactly what's happening and why for most of the people here it is really hard to believe that such a thing could actually happen.
" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all "
As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US.
So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation.
|
On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden
He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it.
Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system).
On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again.
On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation.
This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case).
|
On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case).
Lol, random guy on TL calls respected law professor "confused".
Pretty predictable that you would hook yourself up on the last passage in his text. I think he could have left that passage out as he opens up for the possibility of politicians influencing courts.
He forgot to mention that the supreme court has no such politically appointed jurors.
As for the argument that this case is so unusual that it is hard to predict its outcome I refer back to my posts about
wanted US citizens enjoying complete safety against US extraditions. Those cases would obviously relate to a potential extradition request for Assange.
Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely.
Given what we already know about the US handling of this issue and quotes from a multitude of politicians and intelligence people calling Assange a terrorist who should be executed there are obvious concerns about handing him over.
Even Ecuador saw this and were right about it. I completely trust that this will be seen by the Swedish legal system as well.
Ultimately these are the kind of things that would make it illegal for Sweden to hand him over by our own laws.
|
On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case).
As far as I've understood it, Assange was questioned while out of the country through a phone conference or something. He left the country the same day as the issue arose afaik.
Legal systems do deserve a lot of leeway based on reputation. For instance: if you were unjustly charged with murder, would you rather be in Mali or in Sweden? Reputation is everything.
Swedes know that the legal system isn't perfect, and every now and again there are loud complaints. However, most would consider it one of the better ones in the world (which statistics show). To not hand him over on the basis of a corrupt justice system would've been a very strange move, which is the essence of his introduction.
I don't know why they can't do the interview remotely. This is one of the points that are bugging me, along with what would happen if the US comes with an interpol arrest warrant while Assange is in Sweden and promises not to torture or kill him. This could still mean a lifetime in prison in the US.
I just hope that they do the right thing. I do believe that Assange sooner or later will end up in Sweden, and when he does I hope and believe he'll get a fair trial and either be sent to a prison or set free to do whatever he pleases.
|
On August 19 2012 10:11 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case). Lol, random guy on TL calls respected law professor "confused". Pretty predictable that you would hook yourself up on the last passage in his text. I think he could have left that passage out as he opens up for the possibility of politicians influencing courts. He forgot to mention that the supreme court has no such politically appointed jurors. As for the argument that this case is so unusual that it is hard to predict its outcome I refer back to my posts about wanted US citizens enjoying complete safety against US extraditions. Those cases would obviously relate to a potential extradition request for Assange. Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely. Given what we already know about the US handling of this issue and quotes from a multitude of politicians and intelligence people calling Assange a terrorist who should be executed there are obvious concerns about handing him over. Even Ecuador saw this and were right about it. I completely trust that this will be seen by the Swedish legal system as well. Ultimately these are the kind of things that would make it illegal for Sweden to hand him over by our own laws.
I didn't say that because the case is unusual you couldn't predict the outcome.
The fact that this case is really special makes it so that you can't take your arguments from those sources.
What I meant is that the experience that "experts" in those fields like the law professor and the government official have can't be considered as anything more than just an opinion.
Their own experience is probably a long list of cases that were resolved in a very good way with maybe 10 to 20 cases that were "special".
With this sample of 10 - 20 cases, where say 2 to 4 went wrong (80% have a positive conclusion) you can't make a conclusion.
Because it is not enough data to statistically approach the topic.
I'm not event talking of the difference in the time frame of those particular 10 to 20 cases that would actually dismiss 50% of those cases because they would have been too old.
My main 2 points here are the following :
- Experts opinions are opinions and can't be treated differently because of the limited data those people have in these type of cases.
- It is normal for inhabitants of a well working democratic country to believe that every case will be treated in a fair and legal way. In particular situations like this it is just not always the case. And that's why drama exists in every country on the world.
Edit for Euronyme : Nobody cares about reputation. I wouldn't bet my life on the reputation of anything.
|
On August 19 2012 10:34 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:11 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case). Lol, random guy on TL calls respected law professor "confused". Pretty predictable that you would hook yourself up on the last passage in his text. I think he could have left that passage out as he opens up for the possibility of politicians influencing courts. He forgot to mention that the supreme court has no such politically appointed jurors. As for the argument that this case is so unusual that it is hard to predict its outcome I refer back to my posts about wanted US citizens enjoying complete safety against US extraditions. Those cases would obviously relate to a potential extradition request for Assange. Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely. Given what we already know about the US handling of this issue and quotes from a multitude of politicians and intelligence people calling Assange a terrorist who should be executed there are obvious concerns about handing him over. Even Ecuador saw this and were right about it. I completely trust that this will be seen by the Swedish legal system as well. Ultimately these are the kind of things that would make it illegal for Sweden to hand him over by our own laws. I didn't say that because the case is unusual you couldn't predict the outcome. The fact that this case is really special makes it so that you can't take your arguments from those sources. What I meant is that the experience that "experts" in those fields like the law professor and the government official have can't be considered as anything more than just an opinion. Their own experience is probably a long list of cases that were resolved in a very good way with maybe 10 to 20 cases that were "special". With this sample of 10 - 20 cases, where say 2 to 4 went wrong (80% have a positive conclusion) you can't make a conclusion. Because it is not enough data to statistically approach the topic. I'm not event talking of the difference in the time frame of those particular 10 to 20 cases that would actually dismiss 50% of those cases because they would have been too old. My main 2 points here are the following : - Experts opinions are opinions and can't be treated differently because of the limited data those people have in these type of cases. - It is normal for inhabitants of a well working democratic country to believe that every case will be treated in a fair and legal way. In particular situations like this it is just not always the case. And that's why drama exists in every country on the world. Edit for Euronyme : Nobody cares about reputation. I wouldn't bet my life on the reputation of anything.
So you're 50/50 on going to court in Mali or Sweden? Yeah, right.
|
On August 19 2012 10:11 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case). Lol, random guy on TL calls respected law professor "confused". Pretty predictable that you would hook yourself up on the last passage in his text. I think he could have left that passage out as he opens up for the possibility of politicians influencing courts. He forgot to mention that the supreme court has no such politically appointed jurors. As for the argument that this case is so unusual that it is hard to predict its outcome I refer back to my posts about wanted US citizens enjoying complete safety against US extraditions. Those cases would obviously relate to a potential extradition request for Assange. Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely. Given what we already know about the US handling of this issue and quotes from a multitude of politicians and intelligence people calling Assange a terrorist who should be executed there are obvious concerns about handing him over. Even Ecuador saw this and were right about it. I completely trust that this will be seen by the Swedish legal system as well. Ultimately these are the kind of things that would make it illegal for Sweden to hand him over by our own laws.
Firstly, you're just as random a person as I am, if not moreso. But I won't hold it against you because I don't believe in discrediting people, I'm interested in reasoning itself.
I didn't even read as far as his last passage. I was too hung up laughing at how he got the basic facts wrong. The nature of layjudges in Sweden is common knowledge, similar to the fact that Julian Assange was questioned with respect to the accusations before he left the country. The difference is your favorite professor seems to actually know about layjudges.
If you're talking about your observation of expat Vietnam dodgers, I don't see the connection. Unless Sweden is harboring Daniel Ellsberg, it's not relevant: the country doesn't give two shits about people who abandoned the war 40 years ago. A guy in charge of an organization leaking stuff about today's wars is orders of magnitude more threatening to the US.
Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely.
I said squat about about him being handed over to the US, I mainly criticized the nature of due process in situations like this. Okay, some people said he won't be sent to the US, so it's true. Forget any dissenters, forget coming to an actual conclusion based on a rational investigation of the facts, let's just go with whatever your favorite commentator has to say.
Try weighing the risk of extradition to the US against the deliverance of justice in a flimsy revenge case that had to be reopened. Like me, it's a no-brainer.
|
On August 19 2012 10:34 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:11 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case). Lol, random guy on TL calls respected law professor "confused". Pretty predictable that you would hook yourself up on the last passage in his text. I think he could have left that passage out as he opens up for the possibility of politicians influencing courts. He forgot to mention that the supreme court has no such politically appointed jurors. As for the argument that this case is so unusual that it is hard to predict its outcome I refer back to my posts about wanted US citizens enjoying complete safety against US extraditions. Those cases would obviously relate to a potential extradition request for Assange. Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely. Given what we already know about the US handling of this issue and quotes from a multitude of politicians and intelligence people calling Assange a terrorist who should be executed there are obvious concerns about handing him over. Even Ecuador saw this and were right about it. I completely trust that this will be seen by the Swedish legal system as well. Ultimately these are the kind of things that would make it illegal for Sweden to hand him over by our own laws. I didn't say that because the case is unusual you couldn't predict the outcome. The fact that this case is really special makes it so that you can't take your arguments from those sources. What I meant is that the experience that "experts" in those fields like the law professor and the government official have can't be considered as anything more than just an opinion. Their own experience is probably a long list of cases that were resolved in a very good way with maybe 10 to 20 cases that were "special". With this sample of 10 - 20 cases, where say 2 to 4 went wrong (80% have a positive conclusion) you can't make a conclusion. Because it is not enough data to statistically approach the topic. I'm not event talking of the difference in the time frame of those particular 10 to 20 cases that would actually dismiss 50% of those cases because they would have been too old. My main 2 points here are the following : - Experts opinions are opinions and can't be treated differently because of the limited data those people have in these type of cases. - It is normal for inhabitants of a well working democratic country to believe that every case will be treated in a fair and legal way. In particular situations like this it is just not always the case. And that's why drama exists in every country on the world. Edit for Euronyme : Nobody cares about reputation. I wouldn't bet my life on reputation of anything.
No, no and no.
It has very little to do with sample sizes and statistical significance. A law professor is a law professor because he has an extremely good understanding of the legal system. Both regarding history and how the law would be applied in hypothetical scenarios. It is an experts opinion which I hold 1000000000000x times more credible than your constant attempts to dissect and discredit every single detail and person in this.
If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit. Where would you prefer to be trialed - Sweden or Mali?
Reputation is everything.
I am getting pretty annoyed by the focus of this debate. I hold it likely that Assange claims that Sweden will hand him over to the US because he doesn't want to go to Sweden. His actions are way out of proportions and it has made him less significant because of all this. His and his lawyers depiction of Sweden is utterly ridiculous to the degree that one wonders how he even dared to set his foot here in the first place.
His extreme paranoia about Sweden extraditing him to the US seems unwarranted.
Why isn't this the center of the discussion?
|
On August 19 2012 10:44 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 10:34 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:11 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case). Lol, random guy on TL calls respected law professor "confused". Pretty predictable that you would hook yourself up on the last passage in his text. I think he could have left that passage out as he opens up for the possibility of politicians influencing courts. He forgot to mention that the supreme court has no such politically appointed jurors. As for the argument that this case is so unusual that it is hard to predict its outcome I refer back to my posts about wanted US citizens enjoying complete safety against US extraditions. Those cases would obviously relate to a potential extradition request for Assange. Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely. Given what we already know about the US handling of this issue and quotes from a multitude of politicians and intelligence people calling Assange a terrorist who should be executed there are obvious concerns about handing him over. Even Ecuador saw this and were right about it. I completely trust that this will be seen by the Swedish legal system as well. Ultimately these are the kind of things that would make it illegal for Sweden to hand him over by our own laws. I didn't say that because the case is unusual you couldn't predict the outcome. The fact that this case is really special makes it so that you can't take your arguments from those sources. What I meant is that the experience that "experts" in those fields like the law professor and the government official have can't be considered as anything more than just an opinion. Their own experience is probably a long list of cases that were resolved in a very good way with maybe 10 to 20 cases that were "special". With this sample of 10 - 20 cases, where say 2 to 4 went wrong (80% have a positive conclusion) you can't make a conclusion. Because it is not enough data to statistically approach the topic. I'm not event talking of the difference in the time frame of those particular 10 to 20 cases that would actually dismiss 50% of those cases because they would have been too old. My main 2 points here are the following : - Experts opinions are opinions and can't be treated differently because of the limited data those people have in these type of cases. - It is normal for inhabitants of a well working democratic country to believe that every case will be treated in a fair and legal way. In particular situations like this it is just not always the case. And that's why drama exists in every country on the world. Edit for Euronyme : Nobody cares about reputation. I wouldn't bet my life on the reputation of anything. So you're 50/50 on going to court in Mali or Sweden? Yeah, right.
You invented the situation. There is no choice to be made.
Everything is relative, look at both questions :
Q - Do you want to have a trial in Mali or Sweden ?
A - In Sweden of course because their justice system has a better reputation.
See here I'm using reputation as something useful. Now the other question :
Q - Do you want to bet your life on the fact that Sweden is not going to extradite you ?
A - Although Sweden's justice system has a good reputation I do not want to bet my life on it.
The situation changes the answer every time. That's why reputation doesn't matter in THIS particular case.
|
On August 19 2012 10:52 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 10:34 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:11 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case). Lol, random guy on TL calls respected law professor "confused". Pretty predictable that you would hook yourself up on the last passage in his text. I think he could have left that passage out as he opens up for the possibility of politicians influencing courts. He forgot to mention that the supreme court has no such politically appointed jurors. As for the argument that this case is so unusual that it is hard to predict its outcome I refer back to my posts about wanted US citizens enjoying complete safety against US extraditions. Those cases would obviously relate to a potential extradition request for Assange. Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely. Given what we already know about the US handling of this issue and quotes from a multitude of politicians and intelligence people calling Assange a terrorist who should be executed there are obvious concerns about handing him over. Even Ecuador saw this and were right about it. I completely trust that this will be seen by the Swedish legal system as well. Ultimately these are the kind of things that would make it illegal for Sweden to hand him over by our own laws. I didn't say that because the case is unusual you couldn't predict the outcome. The fact that this case is really special makes it so that you can't take your arguments from those sources. What I meant is that the experience that "experts" in those fields like the law professor and the government official have can't be considered as anything more than just an opinion. Their own experience is probably a long list of cases that were resolved in a very good way with maybe 10 to 20 cases that were "special". With this sample of 10 - 20 cases, where say 2 to 4 went wrong (80% have a positive conclusion) you can't make a conclusion. Because it is not enough data to statistically approach the topic. I'm not event talking of the difference in the time frame of those particular 10 to 20 cases that would actually dismiss 50% of those cases because they would have been too old. My main 2 points here are the following : - Experts opinions are opinions and can't be treated differently because of the limited data those people have in these type of cases. - It is normal for inhabitants of a well working democratic country to believe that every case will be treated in a fair and legal way. In particular situations like this it is just not always the case. And that's why drama exists in every country on the world. Edit for Euronyme : Nobody cares about reputation. I wouldn't bet my life on reputation of anything. No, no and no. It has very little to do with sample sizes and statistical significance. A law professor is a law professor because he has an extremely good understanding of the legal system. Both regarding history and how the law would be applied in hypothetical scenarios. It is an experts opinion which I hold 1000000000000x times more credible than your constant attempts to dissect and discredit every single detail and person in this. If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit. Where would you prefer to be trialed - Sweden or Mali? Reputation is everything. I am getting pretty annoyed by the focus of this debate. I hold it likely that Assange claims that Sweden will hand him over to the US because he doesn't want to go to Sweden. His actions are way out of proportions and it has made him less significant because of all this. His and his lawyers depiction of Sweden is utterly ridiculous to the degree that one wonders how he even dared to set his foot here in the first place. His extreme paranoia about Sweden extraditing him to the US seems unwarranted. Why isn't this the center of the discussion?
Did your law professor predict with 100% accuracy the situation that happened in your country after prisoners got extradited to the CIA ?
If not, than you can't trust it as a reliable enough source for this case either.
|
Hypothetical situation :
Assange flies to Sweden and sadly gets extradited to the US.
Now here's my question :
Would that hypothetical situation change your mind on the matter for other cases like this that would happen in the future ?
There you have 2 possible answers :
- If yes, why didn't the first case (the scandal everyone mentioned some pages before) change your opinion already ?
- If no, it means that you have a bias in favor of your country. Which is fine but then again you have to admit it.
|
On August 19 2012 10:52 one-one-one wrote:
It has very little to do with sample sizes and statistical significance. A law professor is a law professor because he has an extremely good understanding of the legal system. Both regarding history and how the law would be applied in hypothetical scenarios. It is an experts opinion which I hold 1000000000000x times more credible than your constant attempts to dissect and discredit every single detail and person in this.
That's quite a few orders of magnitude to put in the hands of a fallible human being. But I guess it gives you reason enough to disdain people actually scrutinizing what's going on.
I am getting pretty annoyed by the focus of this debate. I hold it likely that Assange claims that Sweden will hand him over to the US because he doesn't want to go to Sweden. His actions are way out of proportions and it has made him less significant because of all this. His and his lawyers depiction of Sweden is utterly ridiculous to the degree that one wonders how he even dared to set his foot here in the first place.
...He went to Sweden before this fiasco happened... obviously it has affected his opinions...
|
so what happens next?
are the british going to go in and drag him out?
should i send a letter to the prime minister?
what?
|
On August 19 2012 11:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:52 one-one-one wrote:
It has very little to do with sample sizes and statistical significance. A law professor is a law professor because he has an extremely good understanding of the legal system. Both regarding history and how the law would be applied in hypothetical scenarios. It is an experts opinion which I hold 1000000000000x times more credible than your constant attempts to dissect and discredit every single detail and person in this. That's quite a few orders of magnitude to put in the hands of a fallible human being. But I guess it gives you reason enough to disdain people actually scrutinizing what's going on.
It is a relative number. It says nothing about my absolute level of trust in the law professor, only how little I trust your theories relative to his.
You guys are also fallible human beings.
I'll address the other stuff tomorrow. I'm too drunk now.
|
On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden
This is really true. I personally consider myself to the right of the Swedish political spectrum and I'm fairly distrustful of the state by our standards.
Which essentially makes me a naive communist by American standards.
Really different worlds in that regard.
|
On August 19 2012 11:13 LunaSea wrote:
Hypothetical situation :
Assange flies to Sweden and sadly gets extradited to the US.
Now here's my question :
Would that hypothetical situation change your mind on the matter for other cases like this that would happen in the future ?
There you have 2 possible answers :
- If yes, why didn't the first case (the scandal everyone mentioned some pages before) change your opinion already ?
- If no, it means that you have a bias in favor of your country. Which is fine but then again you have to admit it.
The first case is irrelevant. It was the minister of foreign affairs committing a felony and going against the constitution. She was very popular during her career, and was very likely to become the next prime minister. She was stabbed to death by a crazy person while shopping at a mall and was basically proclaimed saintlike, as murdered people often are.
Later the deportation was discovered, and there was a huge public uproar.
Just the fact that the Egypt deal was the 18 december of 2001 right after 9/11 and the fact that the Egyptians deported were kept a secret and incognito for two and a half years should be enough to make it irrelevant to this.
This has been mentioned countless times in this thread, and the facts are easy to get through a google search, yet you among others seem to think this is a great argument and bring up some uneducated 'Sweden tortures Egyptians in USA herp derp'.
If he's deported to the US without an agreement that he won't be tortured or killed, I'll change my mind. The Egypt deportations are completely irrelevant in every way, and don't swing my opinions in either direction.
|
On August 19 2012 10:57 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:52 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 10:34 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:11 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 09:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:03 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system. Yeah, I have been trying to make these points as well. This whole tinfoil hat kind of thinking stems from the United States I think. Over there the FBI , NSA , CIA and whatnot have a lot of shady stuff going on and a lot of secret stuff going on with spies and covert missions. This has inspired a certain kind of rhetoric used by hackers, activists and other underground movements. It is funny but also a bit provocative to many Swedes when this reasoning and rhetoric is applied to our country. I found a very interesting article in English written by a Swedish law professor. It should clear up a few things. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden He strikes me as a confused person, since he for some reason he claimed J.A. left the country before being questioned. In fact, he was questioned, then the original prosecutor said there was no suspicion of rape and closed it. Further, he says it would be unfair to reject Sweden's use of the European arrest warrant. This is a misplaced appeal to pathos. Legal systems don't have feelings, you can't be unfair to them. Legal systems don't deserve any benefit of the doubt based on their reputation (and anyway, even in the same link, there are statistics that throw doubt on Swedes' confidence in their own system). On the other hand, it strikes me as wild to arrest and extradite someone on the whims of a prosecutor (not even a judge, a prosecutor, and anyways, lay judges apparently have political ties) from another country in a case that was already closed. If he wants to say people are being "unfair" to Sweden then I would say Sweden is being "selfish," but I won't stoop to such emotion. If it's so damned important, they can talk to him remotely, or they can go to the UK as guests of Scotland Yard and talk to him again. Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 09:43 LunaSea wrote:" [...] studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all " As for the study quoted in the end of the article, you can't take it in consideration because this is a very unconventional and important case in the international scene, especially for the US. So, since situations like this happen say in 1 out of 10 000 cases, there wouldn't be enough data for that study to be conclusive in this particular situation. This is a salient point of logic. It's all well and good to hype up Sweden's record, but it doesn't take all the information we have into account (specifically the facts of this unusual case). Lol, random guy on TL calls respected law professor "confused". Pretty predictable that you would hook yourself up on the last passage in his text. I think he could have left that passage out as he opens up for the possibility of politicians influencing courts. He forgot to mention that the supreme court has no such politically appointed jurors. As for the argument that this case is so unusual that it is hard to predict its outcome I refer back to my posts about wanted US citizens enjoying complete safety against US extraditions. Those cases would obviously relate to a potential extradition request for Assange. Moreover, another law professor and a government official stated that Sweden handing over Assange to the US is highly unlikely. Given what we already know about the US handling of this issue and quotes from a multitude of politicians and intelligence people calling Assange a terrorist who should be executed there are obvious concerns about handing him over. Even Ecuador saw this and were right about it. I completely trust that this will be seen by the Swedish legal system as well. Ultimately these are the kind of things that would make it illegal for Sweden to hand him over by our own laws. I didn't say that because the case is unusual you couldn't predict the outcome. The fact that this case is really special makes it so that you can't take your arguments from those sources. What I meant is that the experience that "experts" in those fields like the law professor and the government official have can't be considered as anything more than just an opinion. Their own experience is probably a long list of cases that were resolved in a very good way with maybe 10 to 20 cases that were "special". With this sample of 10 - 20 cases, where say 2 to 4 went wrong (80% have a positive conclusion) you can't make a conclusion. Because it is not enough data to statistically approach the topic. I'm not event talking of the difference in the time frame of those particular 10 to 20 cases that would actually dismiss 50% of those cases because they would have been too old. My main 2 points here are the following : - Experts opinions are opinions and can't be treated differently because of the limited data those people have in these type of cases. - It is normal for inhabitants of a well working democratic country to believe that every case will be treated in a fair and legal way. In particular situations like this it is just not always the case. And that's why drama exists in every country on the world. Edit for Euronyme : Nobody cares about reputation. I wouldn't bet my life on reputation of anything. No, no and no. It has very little to do with sample sizes and statistical significance. A law professor is a law professor because he has an extremely good understanding of the legal system. Both regarding history and how the law would be applied in hypothetical scenarios. It is an experts opinion which I hold 1000000000000x times more credible than your constant attempts to dissect and discredit every single detail and person in this. If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit. Where would you prefer to be trialed - Sweden or Mali? Reputation is everything. I am getting pretty annoyed by the focus of this debate. I hold it likely that Assange claims that Sweden will hand him over to the US because he doesn't want to go to Sweden. His actions are way out of proportions and it has made him less significant because of all this. His and his lawyers depiction of Sweden is utterly ridiculous to the degree that one wonders how he even dared to set his foot here in the first place. His extreme paranoia about Sweden extraditing him to the US seems unwarranted. Why isn't this the center of the discussion? Did your law professor predict with 100% accuracy the situation that happened in your country after prisoners got extradited to the CIA ? If not, than you can't trust it as a reliable enough source for this case either.
I find that case to be a good argument against Assange being handed to the U.S. since:
1. That case was extrajudicial
2. It caused a political shitstorm
while with Assange:
1. The justice system is already involved
2. He's higher profile, i.e. expect an even greater political shitstorm
I'm sure the government just wants this entire mess to go away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
