EPTOf course no. That's not what i think either. But if some "concrete" exists, don't worry you'll find it in wikileaks
WikiLeaks founder arrested in U.K. - Page 79
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
Of course no. That's not what i think either. But if some "concrete" exists, don't worry you'll find it in wikileaks | ||
|
Maddog117
United States14 Posts
On August 20 2012 08:57 one-one-one wrote: I have to agree with the person quoted before who said that it is humiliating to even have to argue against bizarre assertions like these. We have gone over all of this several times and now you have to come here and state even more crazy ramblings than anyone before ever did. I'll humiliate myself on this one, but for the love of god, can someone who is blessed with a report button please report this guy for gross ignorance. Or maybe he is just trolling hard, I can't tell. Anyways, it is starting to get really really ridiculous by now. Sweden can not extradite Assange anywhere without the UK's approval. Thus it is not even up to Sweden to decide in this matter. Assange has been in the UK for 2 years. Why hasn't the US tried to get him extradited? If your crazy theories were true it should have been really easy for the US to get him if they wanted him. Furthermore, an extradition from the UK is very unlikely because the European Convention has to be followed. Keep in mind that the UK has refused to hand over a sentenced pedophile with the argument that he is, as a part of his sentence, supposed to go to a clinic for some kind of treatment. The UK judges argued that the methods of the clinic were highly controversial and wouldn't be legal in the UK. Request denied ... It is very easy to argue that a US trial against Assange runs the risk of being political or unfair by British standards. For this very reason alone, an extradition from the UK is very unlikely. Assange going to Sweden adds one more layer of complexity for the US as the Swedish courts has to try if the Swedish law allows for it. It would certainly be a case for the supreme court, and even if they decide to extradite him there is a final possibility to appeal to the Swedish government. The Swedish government does NOT consist of US puppets and given the political shitstorm that would ensue if they decided to send him to the US they will not allow for it to happen. I'm not messing around here. A decision to send Assange to the US would make them lose the next election. Swedish people do not like USA all that much ... You saying that "Sweden can and likely will send him to the US" is so fucking ignorant that I lack the words in my vocabulary to even begin to comprehend how I would describe it. edit: This comes to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot edit2: You guys are just confirming each others misconceptions. In a recent poll 20% of the asked US citizens thinks Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now I have found two examples of what could happen when disinformation is spread among social groups. _Now_ I am out for tonight. I have been reading about the issue with the extradition on reddit and stubled across this post. The idea being that Assange could be extradited to the US by Sweden because of this. The problem arises that Sweden is presented with two legal obligations that conflict with one another and there is no way to determine which one holds up, so it could easily go either way. The poster links to this site as the source that brings up the legal priority of the two obligations. Is the poster and website full of shit? Or now that you are presented with more information, is there reason for Assange to be concerned? | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway476 Posts
...it be nearly impossible for a judge to accept any US guarantee considering the treatment of manning (and how that prolly constitutes "more as torture" in sweden than in the US i reckon)? ed: considering the obvious link between Manning / Wikileaks that is, wouldn't he serve almost as a direct precedent in this case or something? At least from a Norwegian stand point (as far as I know), the judge - by law - cannot send someone to a place where its likely he will suffer inhumane (torture) conditions, and again - in this case - the treatment of Manning crosses the Scandinavian line of inhumane treatment by far so.. (I'm counting on Sweden having similar laws as Norway do, for the best example I can think of: Mullah Krekar) Since February 2003 he has an expulsion order against him, which is suspended pending Iraqi government guarantees that he will not face torture or execution. Norway is committed to international treaties which prohibit the expulsion of an individual without such a guarantee.[2] So. ed: that is, thus, considering manning, such a guarantee should (?) be impossible in this case | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On August 20 2012 10:49 blomsterjohn wrote: Lets hold hands and do another circle: At least from a Norwegian stand point (as far as I know), the judge - by law - cannot send someone to a place where its likely he will suffer inhumane (torture) conditions, and again - in this case - the treatment of Manning crosses the Scandinavian line of inhumane treatment by far so.. (I'm counting on Sweden having similar laws as Norway do, for the best example I can think of: Mullah Krekar) So. ed: that is, thus, considering manning, such a guarantee should (?) be impossible in this case They'll give the promise, but with most governments lately it is all about pussyfooting around the promise the best they can or the subject. No longer enemies of war, unlawful combatants so it's cool to torture... Things like that, I would do exactly what he's doing right now. Spending a few months in a embassy > getting fucked up in America (which may be an unlikely turn of events, but I wouldn't play those odds) EDIT: Deciding to edit this, I didn't want it to come off like I think Sweden would actually extradite him. Sweden is one of the freest nations on earth that is leading the charge against anti-piracy laws (SOPA etc) and really looking out for the people so I guess personally I think he'd be fine getting sent to Sweden. THAT BEING SAID, I believe it is a string of odd occurences seeing as the case was practically dropped but then "randomly" picked up again right after the big 2010 bomb of files. Coincidence is one thing but it seemed a bit scripted. Any who, it's all rather interesting anyway. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On August 20 2012 10:33 Maddog117 wrote: I have been reading about the issue with the extradition on reddit and stubled across this post. The idea being that Assange could be extradited to the US by Sweden because of this. The problem arises that Sweden is presented with two legal obligations that conflict with one another and there is no way to determine which one holds up, so it could easily go either way. The poster links to this site as the source that brings up the legal priority of the two obligations. Is the poster and website full of shit? Or now that you are presented with more information, is there reason for Assange to be concerned? Please, all of this a long with every single question you could possibly ask about the Assange case apart from his favourite colour has already been posted in this thread, if you actually cared to read through the last 5 pages or so. He can't be extradited to the USA, as Swedish law and EU conventions declare that he cannot be extradited to a country where he risks torture or the death penalty (both of which is the case in the US). Any extradition is a court decision, and for a politician to come in, he would have to break the Swedish constitution, meaning he's fucking toast. This is also why Assange cannot be guaranteed not being sent to the US, because it would have to go through the independent justice system. Ecuador, being one of the most corrupt countries in the world, probably just doesn't understand the concept. The link "justice4assange" can hardly be considered an unbiased source. I'm going to list off the usual list of misconceptions that reappear every second page: The reason to why there's no charges yet, is because charges in Sweden are only brought up when he's found guilty of the allegations basically. Saying that 'there are no charges' doesn't mean anything whatsoever. The reason to why he's not accepted the phone conference from the Ecuadorian embassy is because 1. It's not how things are done on principle. If you are faced with serious allegations, you can't tell the police to gtfo and say that they're welcome to phone you next Wednesday. 2. This is not something that's unique for the Assange case. When a tax evader moved to the United Arab Emirates, they would rather drop the allegations than have him questioned over the phone, as the suspect wasn't considered likely to respect the court's decision, making it all a big waste of time and tax money. Here's the link to the case (in Swedish obviously) as the situation is very much alike the one Assange is in, apart from that they didn't have the option to have him handed over, as there's no such treaty with the United Arab Emirates. https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337 They decided upon not dropping the case however, so the man still has a warrant for his arrest while he's living happily in Dubai. Kind of the same as Assange would if he got to Ecuador. The only way Sweden could send Assange to the USA, would be if the US put up a warrant for his arrest. (which they could've done when he was in the UK, which would be smart considering the UK and the US are allies in the wars and the UK are almost as threatened by wikileaks as the US. Instead they want to go through Sweden, which has condemned the Iraq war, is hosting the wikileaks servers and has a judicial system that was praised by Assange until two girls came and said that he raped them, after which the whole justice system a long with the politicians were all rotten to the core, of course). The warrant would lead to Sweden having a choice if they want to have it go through court, or just send him on his merry way. The court can't accept the extradition if they consider him to be in risk of being tortured or killed once extradited. Mind you also that Assange could just apply for asylum, as he'd be up against a war trial for espionage. The difference between an espionage allegation and a rape allegation is that the espionage is considered to be political, which means that you can seek asylum for it. Ecuador is the first country (afaik) to take in men only wanted for rape. The only possible way he'd be sent to the USA would be if the US promised that he wouldn't get tortured or killed. The thing is that the last time that happened, they actually did get tortured, so I doubt that there's much trust there. I think those are the most common ones. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote: Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it. Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden. Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land. Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations. On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote: You can't just declare that you don't acknowledge the system of law. Sure you can. If I was visiting China and the police there wanted me for questioning, you can be sure that I will escape to a US embassy the second I get the chance. On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote: If Assange was refusing to appear in an Ecuadorian court, he might have a point. Right now he's just riding on the waves of believers that would worship him even if he was guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. He's doing everything he can to avoid what he believes will be a justice system stacked against him. Maybe it would or maybe it wouldn't, but surely you can understand that line of reasoning even if you don't fully agree? On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote: Seriously, one guy in this topic said that maybe the sex just got "non-consensual," but at least he didn't forcefully drag them into an alley and rape them, so it's oke... And this has what exactly to do with the topic at hand? As far as we know Assange is innocent is proven guilty. | ||
|
tjosan
Sweden120 Posts
1. go up against USA 2. have sex, rape or otherwise 3... 4. USA profits | ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote: Show nested quote + Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it. Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden. Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land. Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations. This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such. And yes, there are investigations confirming this. They have been linked over and over in this thread. Assange could appeal the decision multiple times. The likelihood of every court instance would be unfair to him is small. The trials would be under massive scrutiny and even the smallest detail would lead to a retrial. People seem to be quite interested in this and I guarantee you that the large majority of Swedes do not want to see him handed over to the US. The last instance he could appeal to, should everything else fail, is the Swedish government. Handing over people to the US is very unpopular, why would they sacrifice a lot of credibility and ultimately voters because of this? Two law professors and one expert on human rights expert has over the last few days stated that such an extradition is extremely unlikely. Also a representative of the Swedish government has explicitly repeated that Sweden does not hand over people to countries where they risk unfair trials , military trials , political trials or capital punishment Hint much? And even in the event that he is decided to be extradited it still has to go through the British system ... That there are conflicting laws is not unusual but in this case I am sure that the European Convention supersedes any other law. This is only brought up by desperate cult members trying to shed doubt. | ||
|
Kalles
Sweden83 Posts
Lay judges are in Sweden politically nominated[2]. While I certainly have some confidence in the Swedish legal system for normal stuff, since then there really is not any politics involved, we dont have many famous cases where possible political pressure might affect the outcome. IE it will be very interesting to see what happens, since this is in my opinion the first case of it's kind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden (See Swedish Television "Kalla Fakta" for the real source) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judge#Sweden (Rather common knowledge among well-read Swedes to be honest) | ||
|
Guanyin
Sweden38 Posts
So UK must admit extradition, and if it did, nothing would have stopped the USA from getting him the last 2 years. Swedish law must admit it (and it doesnt). Union law, more specifically, the European Convention on Human Rights, prohibits such an extradition, and Union law supersedes national law in every case. A more reasonable idea of why JA doesnt want to go to court is the fear of being found guilty (and I dont blame him, I wouldnt want to face a sex crime allegation in ANY country, Sweden making no exception) that the silly idea of a giant conspiracy. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On August 20 2012 22:08 Kalles wrote: Sweden have previously apprehended people for the US (breaking Swedish laws should be noted)[1]. Lay judges are in Sweden politically nominated[2]. While I certainly have some confidence in the Swedish legal system for normal stuff, since then there really is not any politics involved, we dont have many famous cases where possible political pressure might affect the outcome. IE it will be very interesting to see what happens, since this is in my opinion the first case of it's kind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden (See Swedish Television "Kalla Fakta" for the real source) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judge#Sweden (Rather common knowledge among well-read Swedes to be honest) The first case is extraordinary in the sense that it was two months after 9/11, and the terrorist hunt was just catching wind, and there was the 'everyone who's not with us is against us' stuff. This matter was purely between the secret police (the Swedish version of FBI and CIA combined), our foreign minister and the CIA. The foreign minister was threatened with a trade embargo, and caved for the pressure. According to some she was promised by the US that they wouldn't be tortured or receive a death penalty, but I've not seen sources on that. The thing is that that was all under the table. No one knew about this until about 3 years later. The foreign minister went against the constitution, but she was never faced by any of this, as she was murdered in an unrelated event before this was even discovered. The scenario is not really relevant to the Assange case, as this is about a high profile person where he can't just disappear in thin air and reappear 3 years later in the US. It has to go through the judicial system. The legal system is called 'civil law' and is not something special for Sweden really. Well it has it's own things, but lay judges are used (instead of juries) by most of the world really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
| ||
|
Kalles
Sweden83 Posts
I still tend to think the lay judge situation is different between countries and that this is something that can be greatly improved in Sweden, since generally most lay judges are recruited from political parties. (usually I tend to think that this is not a great problem, however this is still something I would like to see improved, at least for more politcal court cases) | ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On August 21 2012 02:02 plogamer wrote: And wikileaks isn't an extraordinary case? Julian Assange isn't wanted for anything ordinary (theft, assault, etc.) in the US - he leaked highly classified state-secrets. it wasn't highly classified, rather the lowest classified stuff, but that won't make much difference. However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”. The embassy identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html#ixzz2477u8Coa | ||
|
Denzil
United Kingdom4193 Posts
| ||
|
Dundron2000
Sweden1140 Posts
On August 21 2012 03:20 Kalles wrote: @Euronyme: point regarding 9/11. I still tend to think the lay judge situation is different between countries and that this is something that can be greatly improved in Sweden, since generally most lay judges are recruited from political parties. (usually I tend to think that this is not a great problem, however this is still something I would like to see improved, at least for more politcal court cases) lay judges isn't really an issue since higher appeal court instances have majority professional judges rather than lay judges. so you have both in the process. but on a separate note its not optimal the way recruitments are made. not because it makes the process susceptible to political pressure, rather because nämndemän are mostly uniformly old and therefore might not be good representations of the average citizens values. | ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote: Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. Can someone give me a link to a an article, debate or something else by someone with a respectable track record containing arguments for Assange's side of the case by people not obviously biased (like his lawyers or fellow Wikileakers)? I have showed you multiple articles and blog entries by professors and experts on human rights where it is argued with facts that Assange's fears are not justified. Why do you expect me to believe in Assange's story when it contains blatant errors and serious disinformation? You can believe whatever you want, but as longs as there is nothing substantial backing it up it will be nothing but a belief. As a very recent example I present a debate article published yesterday in Stockholm's biggest newspaper and also a second article written as a response that was published today. This is the first article written by two journalists who support Assange's case: http://www.dn.se/debatt/fallet-assange-ett-hot-mot-den-svenska-rattsstaten It translates to English really well with Google translate, but in the last paragraph the word "rule" should be interpreted as the concept of a Rechtsstaat. The second article is written by the accused women's lawyer Claes Borgström. http://www.dn.se/debatt/manga-felaktigheter-i-artikeln-om-assange Notice that, while he is obviously not unbiased, he still is trying to back his claims up by facts that are easy to verify. | ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote: That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. Can someone give me a link to a an article, debate or something else by someone with a respectable track record containing arguments for Assange's side of the case by people not obviously biased (like his lawyers or fellow Wikileakers)? I have showed you multiple articles and blog entries by professors and experts on human rights where it is argued with facts that Assange's fears are not justified. Why do you expect me to believe in Assange's story when it contains blatant errors and serious disinformation? You can believe whatever you want, but as longs as there is nothing substantial backing it up it will be nothing but a belief. As a very recent example I present a debate article published yesterday in Stockholm's biggest newspaper and also a second article written as a response that was published today. This is the first article written by two journalists who support Assange's case: http://www.dn.se/debatt/fallet-assange-ett-hot-mot-den-svenska-rattsstaten It translates to English really well with Google translate, but in the last paragraph the word "rule" should be interpreted as the concept of a Rechtsstaat. The second article is written by the accused women's lawyer Claes Borgström. http://www.dn.se/debatt/manga-felaktigheter-i-artikeln-om-assange Notice that, while he is obviously not unbiased, he still is trying to back his claims up by facts that are easy to verify. my point was actually simpler if my life was at stake, I wouldn't glamble on USA being a democracy and not an empire, even if most publications are saying Sweden wouldn't do anything that could make his life at risky. In my personal belief it's too much of a gamble to let UK send him to Sweden when he can simply chill over the Ecuador embassy .... | ||
|
Scheme
United Kingdom210 Posts
http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_government_extradie_julian/c5vn3ue?context=1 Contains comments from (supposedly) Constitutional Law prof. I copied the text below. Note: Obviously one-one-one and Euronyme are never wrong about the law =P but he does summarize some of the points that people have been trying to make it here. The person above seems to be arguing that some of the stances by the Swedish prosecution violates Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the ECHR. Anyway, the text is below. + Show Spoiler + That's a red herring. I'll try to explain why, but it's going to be long. (And if you wonder, I'm a Constitutional Law prof.) This is what happens when the US wants France to extradite someone who eventually could be sentenced to death: The French courts states that the extradition is impossible because the death penalty could be sought. The relevant US DA (or their boss at a high enough level) writes down that they will not seek the death penalty, and the French lawyers representing the US in front of the French extradition court produce this paper and enter it in the court's records. The French extradition court then validates the extradition. The US DAs keep their promise, because if they don't, the French courts won't ever again extradite anyone towards the US. What Assange wants is not a decision from Sweden's government, but a promise from Sweden's prosecutors. I'm perfectly familiar with ministertyre (as a cynic, I consider it to be just one of the many ways the Swedes use to feel superior to the others; whenever it matters, ministerstyre is conveniently forgotten, see e.g. the Pirate Bay case...) but it doesn't apply here. Another interesting tidbit is that Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has not been formally charged. While the British High Court has decided that the current advancement of the Swedish procedure is equivalent to being charged in the UK, I consider this ruling to be an aberration; the common-law steeped High Court failed to understand a finer point of the civil-law influenced Swedish penal procedure. Being wanted for questioning is the Swedish equivalent of the French penal status of protected witness. This means that someone is sufficiently suspect of a crime that they whould be afforded extra care so that the case against them does not become contaminated by self-incrimination issues, but not sufficiently thought guilty that they would be charged at the moment. The distinction between both cases is simple: charging someone can only be done by a judge; giving someone protected witness status is a decision commonly taken by the senior detective in charge of the case. The official next step in the Swedish penal procedure would be to question Assange, and, depending on his answers and other elements, then either formally charge him or officially decide not to charge him. Assange and his lawyers have offered to the Swedish prosecutors to produce Assange for questioning either in person in the UK or through Skype-like videoconference in the Swedish prosecutor's office. The Swedish prosecutors refused. It has happened that judges and prosecutors would move abroad to be able to question someone, but it is uncommon and inconvenient, so there is not much meaning attached to the Swedish prosecutor refusal to go to the UK. But the refusal to question Assange through videoconference is much more difficult to accept. Not only does it seem to be petty and obstructive, it is also a clear violation of Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the ECHR. The French penal procedure used to demand similarly that a suspect should surrender and go to prison on the eve of his criminal trial. The European Court consistently found this a violation of 6§1 in a string of cases (Omar, Guerin, Khalfoui, Goth, Papon, Coste, Morel, Walser, etc.) that eventually managed to have the French law amended. There is not much wiggle room here: Assange has a fundamental right to be questioned by the prosecutors without having to surrender to Swedish police. This is cristal clear jurisprudence from the ECHR, and the Swedish prosecutors know it. Let me recap (aka TLDR): Assange is not charged (yet) and the High Court is wrong on that point Assange has a fundamental right clearly recognized by the ECHR not to surrender to Swedish police before appearing in front of the Swedish prosecutor The Swedish Prosecution Service has consistently refused to promise that Assange wouldn't be extradited to the US once in Swedish custody; this type of promise is common in extradition cases and within the power of the Swedish prosecution service The Swedish Prosecution Service has refused the opportunity to question Assange through videoconference, while insisting on Assange's surrender to Swedish custody; this is a clear and known violation of the ECHR that the Swedish prosecutors can't ignore. There's only one possible conclusion: the Swedish prosecutors are acting in bad faith here. Their penal-fu is bad and they should feel bad. Edit: Feel free to challenge his points on reddit. The post is barely a day old. | ||
| ||
