Julian Assange - Right or Wrong?

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by palo5

From what I've read, he is wanted for questioning, and has not been charged. Who says he has been charged?

On the BBC this morning when it was being discussed, the word "charged" was used. I'm not a lawyer, so can't comment on the specific legal terms. However, I believe the extradition treaty is relevant in this case.

As Mal says, the British authorities aren't going to storm the Ecuadorian embassy. As you rightly point out it would legitimise past events, and open the way to any country entering an embassy for whatever reason they wanted.

[spitalhouse]

As far as I am aware, Assange has agreed to subnit himself for questioning by the Swedish authorities on the condition that any interview takes place on 'neutral' territory - ie, not in Sweden. It is not unprecedented for such conditions to be imposed - in fact, this is normal practice, especially when no formal charges have actually been brought against a suspect (which in Assange's case, they haven't).

At this stage in the investigation Assange is still merely 'helping the police with their enquiries'. It would therefore be considered as quite normal for the investigating officers to travel to the country of residence of the person they wish to interview. Only when there is sufficient evidence (which I presume must satisfiy certain minimum standards set by the host country) to formally charge the 'suspect' is it usual for an application for extradition to made.

This begs the question, why are the Swedish authorities so hell bent on flouting established convention by having him removed from his country of residence merely so they can interview him?

Regards.

[spitalhouse]

Originally Posted by rakhoi

Not a hero but a spineless coward. If he had faced the consequences of his actions one could argue he is a hero but when he doesn't face the consequences, he is a coward.

Would an innocent person knowlingly and willingly hand themselves over to face the consequences of their actions if they did not have faith in the process that was being used to judge them?

[MaxJoker]

Originally Posted by palo5

From what I've read, he is wanted for questioning, and has not been charged. Who says he has been charged?

Very well said comrade veteran Pal.

There have been no charges brought, and for nearly two years Mr Assange has been trying to get the Swedish authorities to agree to have a members of the legal Ambassadorial representative come and put questions to him, something that is common practice in such regards.
They have refused to do.
Why ?.
Logic surely dictates purely to get him deported to them and then exported to Guantanamo
What is he meant to have personally done.
Raped two women ?
If anyone thinks that they`ve obviously not looked into the complaint.
By all accounts All he did was have unprotected sex with two different women on the same day, both of whom maybe thought he was their one and only. Or even both of whom were sent to do the deed and set him up ?
Me i think the complaint is bullshit, and all they could find to throw at him.

Let`s not forget the manner in which he lost his appeal against deportation was spurious at best, and at worst cynically unlawful

Also why does the man keep being called a leaker of secrets

All he did was publish information that`d been passed onto him

You know what really annoys me ?.
It`s people full on having a go at him due to his left wing anti right wing bias.
Because of course it`s left wing , as i believe you seldom find liberals machine gunning civilians or raping entire populations of their wealth then leaving them to starve

[NIN]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

If the British Government didn't storm the Libyan Embassy after a Libyan diplomat shot and killed PC Yvonne Fletcher,They're hardly going to do it now to arrest a suspected pervert....

Which is possibly why in this day, age & state of the political situation.., they might just want access to those kind of powers successive British Governments have eroded many other liberties in the name of Democracy.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

If the British Government didn't storm the Libyan Embassy...

The US Embassy in Hungary held a cleric for 15 years or so after 1956, and nothing happened to him or them

The only opportunity here is to show you're worse. Best not to do it, imho

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by spitalhouse

At this stage in the investigation Assange is still merely 'helping the police with their enquiries'. It would therefore be considered as quite normal for the investigating officers to travel to the country of residence of the person they wish to interview. Only when there is sufficient evidence (which I presume must satisfiy certain minimum standards set by the host country) to formally charge the 'suspect' is it usual for an application for extradition to made.

This begs the question, why are the Swedish authorities so hell bent on flouting established convention by having him removed from his country of residence merely so they can interview him?

My understanding from BBC reports, and a BBC interview with the Swedish Director of Prosecution, is that the inquiry continued in Sweden and it determined that "there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that Assange had committed these crimes". An International Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange on the 20th November 2010. In accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges would be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. The High Court in London found that the Swedish process has reached the stage of criminal proceedings which would be equivalent to having been charged under English process. As such, there was a legally binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, and I certainly don't profess to understand the complexities of Swedish Law. However, the High Court in this country has acknowledged that the Swedish process calls for extradition, and the EU extradition process requires us to hand him over.

As I mentioned, I've no idea if Assange is being set up or not. The simple fact is that none of us do. However, the due process of the law must be followed in all cases, and if Swedish law requires him to be questioned in Sweden, surely that's how it's got to be.

What I find slightly worrying (and I'm speaking in general terms, not aiming my comments at any members) is that there's often a tendency to prejudge a case, or question International Law, based on whether or not we like the individual in question.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by palo5
From what I've read, he is wanted for questioning, and has not been charged. Who says he has been charged?

Correct !!

I think this is going back on US authorities, who are setting in rude manners other governments under pressure (like the cabels to the Spanish government in an other case [Wikileaks]).
But I'm thinking too, the British government will follow those pressures only too willing.

In this logic it must everyone clearly recognisable, what might happen in Sweden. I've to ask what makes it really impossible for a Swedish court of questioning Mr. Assange in GB?

I think we have a "smoking gun" here.

The Swedish justice never said, it wouldn't him extradite to the US .

[spitalhouse]

Originally Posted by squigg58

An International Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange on the 20th November 2010. In accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges would be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. The High Court in London found that the Swedish process has reached the stage of criminal proceedings which would be equivalent to having been charged under English process. As such, there was a legally binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden.

I stand corrected, squigg58 and am obliged to you for taking the time to shed some light on the situation - rather than just a lot of blinding heat, like some of our more reactionary conributors.

It does not, however, make the sour taste this whole episode is leaving in my mouth any more palatable.

Best regards.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by MaxJoker

Logic surely dictates purely to get him deported to them and then exported to Guantanamo

More likely the lethal injection room.

Ecuador was correct that he is qualified for political asylum. Because if the U.S. Feds ever get their hands on him, he's a dead man.