Thread: What next for Assange and Wikileaks? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023817
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
So now Julian Assange , the founder of Wikileaks, has been granted political asylum by the government of Ecuador, but the British Government say publicly that nevertheless they will have him arrested as soon as he steps outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Presumably they are doing what their foreign-policy masters in Washington want them to do? Or do any shipmates still believe that the US is not preparing a case for extraditing him? Or that the UK will actually pursue a course of action not sanctioned by the USA?

Maybe the UK will quietly drop their guard and discover one morning that Assange left for Ecuador last night?

Despite US denials, Cables from the Australian Dept of Foreign Affairs quoted in some media there (leaked through Wikileaks, I think) strongly indicate that the Americans are just waiting for him to appear in Sweden (or in UK) so they can extradite him. Personally I suspect they would prefer to just grab him and send him directly to Guantanamo Bay without trial.

Ecuador may not be paradise but I'm sure it's nicer than Guantanamo!

And just to further sweeten the discussion,I offer the opinion that the Swedish accusations sound like "rape" only to a female prosecutor notorious for pursuing such cases. So maybe they beaten up on American urging.
 
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :
 
I do hope he likes Pizza (or whatever they deliver in Knitsbridge) and I hope the Ecuadorean Embassy has a shower.
This whole story doesn't reflect well on the British government (that hint that they reserved the right to send Police in) and it certainly doesn't reflect well on the Ecuadorean government (sheltering someone wanted for sexual assualt to score points against Uncle Sam.)The UK is suffering diplomatically in South America because of Argentine pressure on the Falklands so any diplomatic confrontation with Ecuador will make things even worse. As for Assange; I expect he'll try a midnight flit at some point.

[ 19. August 2012, 06:32: Message edited by: Matariki ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Despite US denials, Cables from the Australian Dept of Foreign Affairs quoted in some media there (leaked through Wikileaks, I think) strongly indicate that the Americans are just waiting for him to appear in Sweden (or in UK) so they can extradite him. Personally I suspect they would prefer to just grab him and send him directly to Guantanamo Bay without trial.
The thing that has seemed completely illogical throughout this whole affair is the suggestion that somehow he needs to go to Sweden before he can be taken to the US.

Why not from the UK to US directly? Indeed, I've read at least one article suggesting that a UK to US extradition is actually easier than a Sweden to US one. Yet there hasn't been the slightest sign that the US would ask the UK for extradition.

For that reason alone I'm highly sceptical of arguments that the Swedish are part of a conspiracy.

[ 19. August 2012, 06:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:

Ecuador may not be paradise
Well that's one very restrained way to put it.

Have you checked out their global status on press freedom (which is what the Wikileaks controversy is largely about) recently?
quote:
And just to further sweeten the discussion,I offer the opinion that the Swedish accusations sound like "rape" only to a female prosecutor notorious for pursuing such cases.
Bloody women!

They just ask for it, don't they Tukai?

Good to see that those feminists haven't pulled the wool over your eyes.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
What I find odd, is that given he is wanted for interview only at this stage, that they won't interview him in the UK (possibly at the Ecuadorean embassy) as he has offered.

If their primary concern was justice for the alleged victims surely they would want to interview him as soon as possible, regardless of ongoing legal issues.

[ 19. August 2012, 08:25: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
He's supposed to be giving an interview outside the Ecuadorean embassy today. I'll be interested to see what happens: if he steps outside the embassy he's likely to be arrested.

However, realistically, he can't spend the rest of his life sleeping on a mattress in one of the rooms there, living on takeaways, and I think I read somewhere that it doesn't have a shower. It's a simple sort of building that's pretty much just office rooms.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Despite the best endeavours of the Sydney Morning Herald/Melbourne Age and the ABC, this is really a non-issue here. Mr Assange seems to think he is not subject to the laws which govern most individuals - let him think that if he can.

4 points:

a. If the US govt wanted him, why not apply in the usual way for extradition? The extradition treaty between the US and UK seems much looser than that between the US and Sweden.

b The cables quoted in the SMH/Age really do not support any conclusion that Aust diplomats think that Assange will end up in the US if he goes to Sweden.

c. Assange is probably much safer in Sweden that in Ecuador. If the US wanted to put him up for trial (or even kill him) it would be much easier to get to him in Ecuador than in Sweden.

d. Assange has really abused the trust placed in him by the court which granted him bail.

[ 19. August 2012, 10:20: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I suspect that he is worried that the moment he leaves the Embassy on the way to Sweden the British will suddenly discover an extradition order for the US and put him on the wrong plane.

British extradition treaty with the USA basically says that the British government will hand over anyone the Americans demand without trial or any public process whatsoever, but the Americans don't have to do anything the British ask for at all. Anyone trying to hide from the USA would probably be safer in Sweden than in Britain.

Probably safer than anywhere else on earth to be honest - Sweden is one of the very few countries with even stronger legal protection for free speech than the USA has, it has a tradition of not handing over prisoners to extradition, its enough of an ally to make it embarrassing for the US to send an assassin (as they might in some Latin American countries), and its military is high tech enough to shoot down US drones (as they might use in Pakistan or many Middle Eastern countries)
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
... and further to my post above, the BBC site says:

"the corridors and lifts inside the building, which is shared with Colombia, are communal and not part of the Ecuadorean embassy so police stationed in these areas could arrest Mr Assange before he appears outside."

Statement expected at 2pm. Let's see what happens.
 
Posted by parm (# 9287) on :
 
So, the other interesting part about all this is that diplomatic immunity and all those rules about embassies being foreign soil and that sort of thing are quite complicated and subtle, and aren't some kind of trump card you can play and go "Aha! Diplomatic immunity, you can't touch me!" The presence of an embassy on foreign soil is pretty much entirely at the discretion of the host nation, and should the host nation decide that the embassy and/or the guest nation are taking the piss, they are more than welcome to suspend that embassy's diplomatic priveleges - hence the rather unfortunately blunt "We could send the police in if we wanted" thing in the press recently.

There's a really interesting piece by a former diplomat about the whole thing.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I have a strangely unsettled feeling about all of this. My views are:

1. Wikileaks is a good site, and has done a lot to promote freedom of information, and getting details that should be in the public domain out there. Assange has done a Good Think in setting it up.

2. Assange is, but all reports, an arsehole, and there are accusations (not charges and not proven) that he behaved inappropriately in Sweden. These are serious charges, and he should be made to answer them. Maybe he is innocent, but his behaviour, and the reports about him, suggest not.

3. The US certainly want to extradite Assange, mainly because he is an embarrassment. I would suggest that they actually do not have enough evidence to pursue this currently, and want to build a case against him. They want to be sure he is secure until they can sort him out properly.

4. The British behaviour is reprehensible. You do NOT threaten another countries embassy. Especially not for the purposes of extraditing someone to another country - it is not even that he has broken our laws. We should deal with him on our land, but if the Swedes wish to pick a fight with the Ecuadoreans, they should do it.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I also feel unsettled by all this - and agree with everything Schroedinger's cat says.

Hasn't Assange effectively imprisoned himself?

Seems a weird thing to do. His speech from the balcony was odd in the extreme. He seems a cold fish to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if the British authorities simply sit it out and let him grow old there!
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
4. The British behaviour is reprehensible. You do NOT threaten another countries embassy. Especially not for the purposes of extraditing someone to another country - it is not even that he has broken our laws.
Well, he's certainly breached his bail conditions, hasn't he? That's usually something that can get you arrested.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why not from the UK to US directly? Indeed, I've read at least one article suggesting that a UK to US extradition is actually easier than a Sweden to US one. Yet there hasn't been the slightest sign that the US would ask the UK for extradition.

For that reason alone I'm highly sceptical of arguments that the Swedish are part of a conspiracy.
That's not entirely reasonable. Given that Sweden does have some recent history of cooperating with the U.S. in questionable renditions, why wouldn't one be suspicious? It's rather like taking Egypt's (or the CIA's) word at face value when they assure you they're not going to torture extradited prisoners.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I wonder a lot of things about Assange and Wikileaks. Just to be clear on my stance:

(i) I generally support the concept and actions of Wikileaks. I believe in open source and free access. I run Linux on all computers (most are resurrected windows cast offs). Haven't paid for any software or operating systems in about 7 years and don't plan to any time soon. I believe in free access to information and to all types of media, and consider secrecy of governments-as-corporations one of the largest threats to democracy and equality on the planet. Thus, I support the publication of information in general, with the only caveat that it must not lead to harm or loss of life. I'm not aware that Wikileaks has caused either.

(ii) I am fully on the side of anyone who has been sexually assaulted in any way, shape or form. I do not accept any form of coercion, violence nor force in any human interactions. Those who do such things need to be charged and controlled so they don't do them again. I support long term jail and lifetime monitoring of confirmed sex offenders.

Some questions:

1. Could Assange have not remained anonymous while running wikileaks? Could he not have arranged for some other mechanism for policy statements? I have always been surprised that the IRA could have had an apparently legal political wing in Sinn Féin. If terrorists like the IRA can do it why not a world public news service like Wikileaks?

2. Could the sex investigation be separated from Wikileaks? Could Assange be separated from Wikileaks? My take on that is that Wikileaks must become separate from this one person.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
1. Could Assange have not remained anonymous while running wikileaks? Could he not have arranged for some other mechanism for policy statements? I have always been surprised that the IRA could have had an apparently legal political wing in Sinn Féin. If terrorists like the IRA can do it why not a world public news service like Wikileaks?
Any group which wants to interface with the wider public benefits from having a public face. This isn't just a matter of public relations. It's hard to know if someone truly speaks for an organization or if he's just some lone nut if all members of that organization are anonymous. Given Wikileaks' more recent strategy of working through traditional media sources, the need for verifiability becomes even greater.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
2. Could the sex investigation be separated from Wikileaks? Could Assange be separated from Wikileaks? My take on that is that Wikileaks must become separate from this one person.
Sure, but the larger issue (the U.S. government wanting to punish the leadership of Wikileaks) wouldn't be solved by simply selecting a new public face.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
You've got to hand it to the guy. It's not everyone who can make themselves a topic of discussion for no less than 5 national governments, with an option to add a large slice of Latin America.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I was rather disgusted that he made no mention of the rape allegations but was full of himself in the interview. Let's not forget that there are presently two Swedish complainants who are being denied justice largely IMO because of this individual's desire for self-aggrandisement.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Quite so. Which is why, at some point, Wikileaks stopped being about openness and freedom of information and somehow became all about Julian Assange. The sitation is this:

1. He was accused of two counts of rape. The allegations, if true, would constitute rape under the laws of just about all Western countries.

2. An arrest warrant was issued. Perfectly normal, given the offences alleged.

3. The Swedes sought extradition, as well they might.

4. He was granted bail on condition that he put up a bond. Again, quite normal.

5. Friends and sympathisers put up the bond money. Good for them.

6. Then he bolts to the embassy of a small Latin American state and claims political asylum, this forfeiting said bond.

7. In the meantime the Americans have taken no steps to seek his extradition, probably beause it really isn't clear that he's committed any crime under American law. This is despite the Americans apparently having the benefit of a one-sided extradition treaty with the UK.

And so:

quote:
(by Ken)
I suspect that he is worried that the moment he leaves the Embassy on the way to Sweden the British will suddenly discover an extradition order for the US and put him on the wrong plane.
In which case he is a twit. If he hadn't fought his extradition, he'd be in Sweden by now.

In any event, there are such things as urgent injunctions and whatnot. You phone your lawyer, said lawyer gets the deportation stopped, and then it can be argued in court. I think we can seriously doubt the likelihood of Assange getting spirited out the UK to the US.

quote:
by Schroedinger's Cat 4. The British behaviour is reprehensible. You do NOT threaten another countries embassy. Especially not for the purposes of extraditing someone to another country - it is not even that he has broken our laws. We should deal with him on our land, but if the Swedes wish to pick a fight with the Ecuadoreans, they should do it.
No. You do not abuse the notion of diplomatic immunity by using your embassy as a kind of Alsatia for accused criminals.

If you commit a crime under a country's laws, you can be prosecuted. If you run off, that country can ask for you to be arrested and brought back to stand trial. That is what the Swedes have done.

It obviously upholds the rule of law globally if states assist each other in this respect. By contrast, the Ecuadorian govenment, prefer to use it as a chance to stoke up a diplomatic stoush.

The UK govt's decision to allow his extradition was upheld by the UK Supreme Court. If there had been any indication that it was allowed for an improper motive Assange's lawyers would have crawled all over it and the decision would have been struck out.

It is just possible, you know, that Assange is a rapist. For Pete's sake, what he has been accused of constitutes rape under English law without question.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that Sweden does have some recent history of cooperating with the U.S. in questionable renditions, why wouldn't one be suspicious? It's rather like taking Egypt's (or the CIA's) word at face value when they assure you they're not going to torture extradited prisoners.
Rendition is appalling and, it goes without saying, illegal. It is also done in secret. Can it seriously be suggested that Assange faces secret rendition, perhaps followed by a spot of waterboarding and perhaps a spell in Guantanamo? I doubt it.

This stopped being about freedom of information some time ago. It is now about a vain bloke who doesn't want to face trial for alleged rape.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
For Pete's sake, what he has been accused of constitutes rape under English law without question.
Really?

Quite some time ago, in the early stages of this whole kerfuffle, I saw an explanation of Swedish rape law that indicated it was quite different from common law countries, and a good deal stricter, such that there are many situations which would NOT be rape under English and related law but would be rape under Swedish law.

And the clear indication in this explanation was that Assange probably wouldn't have fallen foul of the law in other countries. His alleged behaviour would have made him a cad, but not a criminal. The purpose of the explanation was to explain why the alleged behaviour would be criminal, when on its face to an English-speaking audience it would not seem to be criminal.

In one sense this is neither here nor there. When in Sweden, one must answer to Swedish law, and Sweden is completely entitled to enforce it, and it's not terribly relevant whether the same actions would be criminal in another country. I just thought it was worth querying this because what you've said is quite contrary to earlier commentary.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
The article parm linked to above is worth a read. I liked this quote about diplomatic bags:
quote:
If, now, a man-shaped diplomatic bag is seen emerging from the Ecuadorian Embassy and we prod it with a pitchfork to confirm that it contains only diplomatic items, a squeak of ‘Streeewth!’ would give us all the legal options we need to insist the Ecuadorian Embassy politely undo it and show us what or who is therein.
JtW
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
One is left feeling very uncomfortable about all this. Wikileaks has been so very inconvenient and without precedent not least to the governments of the UK and US, that one can almost believe any conspiracy theory.

It might even be the case that it is convenient for the US to blacken the name of this unattractive character even more, or even that the Swedish women are a couple of unscrupulous gold diggers either independent, or sponsored by those for whom he is a gross inconvenience. That might indeed be the case.

William Hague was badly advised, and undiplomatic even to give an impression of storming an embassy. It was a threat that has done much damage to resolving this situation.

It would seem that an answer might be allowing a video link between the Swedish prosecutor and Assage in the embassy.

I was surprised to see the otherwise cooly considerate Lord Carlisle using emotive language in his recent newpaper article on the subject. It seemed even more surprising that he chose to do it in the Daily Mail.
 
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by parm:
So, the other interesting part about all this is that diplomatic immunity and all those rules about embassies being foreign soil and that sort of thing are quite complicated and subtle, and aren't some kind of trump card you can play and go "Aha! Diplomatic immunity, you can't touch me!" The presence of an embassy on foreign soil is pretty much entirely at the discretion of the host nation, and should the host nation decide that the embassy and/or the guest nation are taking the piss, they are more than welcome to suspend that embassy's diplomatic priveleges - hence the rather unfortunately blunt "We could send the police in if we wanted" thing in the press recently.
Very true - and also applies to British embassies overseas. Now I'm sure all British embassy staff worldwide, and the Foreign Office's policies and procedures, all conform to the relevant international laws and are squeakly clean. But y'know, things can be invented by unscrupulous types. It might be best not to set a precedent of removing immunity & storming in...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If you commit a crime under a country's laws, you can be prosecuted. If you run off, that country can ask for you to be arrested and brought back to stand trial. That is what the Swedes have done.

It obviously upholds the rule of law globally if states assist each other in this respect. By contrast, the Ecuadorian govenment, prefer to use it as a chance to stoke up a diplomatic stoush.
I'm not sure this is something we'd consider universally applicable, particularly in regards to countries we don't like or consider repressive. For example, there have been a large number of North Koreans who have managed to, or attempted to, gain access to foreign embassies in Beijing (China is one of the few countries North Korea will even consider letting its citizens visit) and using that as step to defect/emmigrate. For obvious reasons the South Korean embassy is the preferred venue for this, but other sympathetic nations have been served this purpose as well.

All of this would seem to fit your description. The people in question are violating their country's laws, at least in regards to immigration and abusing their tourist visas, and using diplomatic immunity to evade justice.

So, was it a blow to "the rule of law globally" when China stopped handing the unsuccessful defectors over to the North Korean "justice" system? Or was it something that could easily be accommodated under a broader understanding of human rights?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I scarcely think that one can compare Sweden with North Korea.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I scarcely think that one can compare Sweden with North Korea.
But part of the problem of appealing to "the rule of law globally" is that for that phrase to have any meaning it has to apply across the board. Otherwise it's just preference or prejudice.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
quote:
Originally posted by parm:
So, the other interesting part about all this is that diplomatic immunity and all those rules about embassies being foreign soil and that sort of thing are quite complicated and subtle, and aren't some kind of trump card you can play and go "Aha! Diplomatic immunity, you can't touch me!" The presence of an embassy on foreign soil is pretty much entirely at the discretion of the host nation, and should the host nation decide that the embassy and/or the guest nation are taking the piss, they are more than welcome to suspend that embassy's diplomatic priveleges - hence the rather unfortunately blunt "We could send the police in if we wanted" thing in the press recently.
Very true - and also applies to British embassies overseas. Now I'm sure all British embassy staff worldwide, and the Foreign Office's policies and procedures, all conform to the relevant international laws and are squeakly clean. But y'know, things can be invented by unscrupulous types. It might be best not to set a precedent of removing immunity & storming in...
When international communication is made so easy the need for foreign embassies becomes less obvious. If, in addition, the privelege of having an embassy in London is going to be abused in the way that the Equadorians are abusing it, then it may make sense to close that embassy. If the Equadorians indulge in a tit for tat then so be it as I doubt having an embassy in Equador is an essential part of the diplomatic portfolio.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
When international communication is made so easy the need for foreign embassies becomes less obvious. If, in addition, the privelege of having an embassy in London is going to be abused in the way that the Equadorians are abusing it, then it may make sense to close that embassy.
It should be noted that seeking assylum for alleged human rights abuses (current or anticipated) is a well-recognized right, not an "abuse".
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Croesos - your analogy makes no sense. Article 13 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that everybody has the right to leave and to return to their country at their will. We have been pressuring China (which is a signatory) for years on this matter, precisely because it is a matter of international rights law. North Korea obviously isn't a signatory.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
There's a very useful summary covering most of the issues brought up above, written by David Allen Green, a lawyer of some repute. It can be found here.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But, Croesos, this is a situation where it is far from made out that it is a human right that is being threatened. That was the conclusion of the court considering the extradition request and also that of one of the commentators in The Times today (I can't give you an online link as one has to have a subscription but I read it in the hardcopy version this morning)
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
When international communication is made so easy the need for foreign embassies becomes less obvious. If, in addition, the privelege of having an embassy in London is going to be abused in the way that the Equadorians are abusing it, then it may make sense to close that embassy.
It should be noted that seeking assylum for alleged human rights abuses (current or anticipated) is a well-recognized right, not an "abuse".
Alleged human rights abuses? I was under the impression he had jumped bail and was avoiding being extradited to Sweden to face trial.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But, Croesos, this is a situation where it is far from made out that it is a human right that is being threatened. That was the conclusion of the court considering the extradition request and also that of one of the commentators in The Times today (I can't give you an online link as one has to have a subscription but I read it in the hardcopy version this morning)
There's another parallel with the North Korean case. Neither the Chinese Government nor the North Koreans consider the defectors in question to be in danger of having their human rights abused by being returned to North Korea. For obvious reasons the embassies to which they had fled did not see this as dispositive, but formed their own judgement of the situation.

For similar reasons, the government of Ecuador is not obligated to agree with the conclusions of a British, Swedish, or American court. I am not privy to their reasoning, but if I had to guess it would go something like this:

Not an airtight case, I'll grant you, but reasonable enough to be convincing to someone operating on a "preponderance of evidence" basis.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Croesos - let me spin you an alternative yarn.

1. Neither the UK nor Sweden has received any approaches about Mr. Assange relating to extradition.

2. Both Sweden and the UK are bound by ECHR rules that forbid them from extraditing anyone to a country where they may face the death penalty.

3. Mysteriously and out of the blue, Ecuador offers Mr. Assange asylum on a human rights basis.

4. This would be the same government of Ecuador of which Human Rights Watch writes
quote:
Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.

Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted.
5. Ecuador is currently extraditing a blogger to whom it offered asylum in 2008 to Belarus, where he may face capital charges. For doing more or less what Julian Assange was doing in regard to whistleblowing.

6. Fill this one in yourself.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Croesos - let me spin you an alternative yarn.

1. Neither the UK nor Sweden has received any approaches about Mr. Assange relating to extradition.
. . . that we know of. Given the Swedish government's penchant for secrecy in these matters this isn't dispositive. It's not even particularly relevant since there's no reason the Ecuadoran government can't consider likely future events.

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
2. Both Sweden and the UK are bound by ECHR rules that forbid them from extraditing anyone to a country where they may face the death penalty.
. . . and yet Sweden was willing to do so in the case of two Egyptian terrorism suspects. Egypt still allows the death penalty for terrorism-related crimes. Sweden is likewise bound to not extradite anyone to a country where there is a good probability that they'll be tortured, but that doesn't seem to have stopped them. Relying on Sweden to follow rules it has demonstrated a willingness to break under the direction of the U.S. seems a foolish thing to do in this case.

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
3. Mysteriously and out of the blue, Ecuador offers Mr. Assange asylum on a human rights basis.
Yes, I agree it was surprising to anyone not privy to the Ecuadoran diplomatic corps or the inner circle of Wikileaks. I'm not sure what's proved by the fact that it was surprising.

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
4. This would be the same government of Ecuador of which Human Rights Watch writes
quote:
Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.

Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted.
Yes, Ecuador has, at best, a mixed record on human rights. I'm not getting the sinister connection to this particular case though. Could you expand?

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
5. Ecuador is currently extraditing a blogger to whom it offered asylum in 2008 to Belarus, where he may face capital charges. For doing more or less what Julian Assange was doing in regard to whistleblowing.
Which shows that the Ecuadoran government is fickle in its grants of asylum. Again, so what? It may mean that it's unwise for Mr. Assange to put all his eggs in that particular basket, but it doesn't mean the whole idea of diplomatic asylum is therefore invalid.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Croesos -

I think the point of 4 & 5 together is that Ecuador is run on the basis that if Wikileaks had breathed a word against their government, JA would be languishing in some rat-infested hell-hole by now. It is a crime to even criticise any government institution or official, and the current government have passed a law enabling them to fire any non-compliant juror. Their press is heavily censored.

So any fond beliefs that Ecuador is run by a kind-hearted democracy ready to offer asylum to a warrior for the truth in the interests of fair play should ask themselves which planet they have been on these last few years.

I do not know what game Ecuador is playing, but playing one they certainly must be. Probably some S. American game is my guess. But on the evidence so far, Julian Assange must surely be expendable to them. In the medium term, the worst thing that could happen to him is that he be offered free passage to Ecuador.

(FWIW I thought Wikileaks a great idea. Their exposure of various scandals like Trafigura, the US military shootings of civilians in Iraq, etc etc, was a valuable corrective to governmental secrecy. But publishing what amounts to a blizzard of mundane diplomatic exchanges was just petty. Everybody can sympathise with the person who has had their mail intercepted and read.

Meanwhile there are two women who assert they have been either raped or sexually assaulted, and I think they deserve to have their case against JA heard.)
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Croesos -

I think the point of 4 & 5 together is that Ecuador is run on the basis that if Wikileaks had breathed a word against their government, JA would be languishing in some rat-infested hell-hole by now. It is a crime to even criticise any government institution or official, and the current government have passed a law enabling them to fire any non-compliant juror. Their press is heavily censored.

So any fond beliefs that Ecuador is run by a kind-hearted democracy ready to offer asylum to a warrior for the truth in the interests of fair play should ask themselves which planet they have been on these last few years.

I do not know what game Ecuador is playing, but playing one they certainly must be. Probably some S. American game is my guess. But on the evidence so far, Julian Assange must surely be expendable to them. In the medium term, the worst thing that could happen to him is that he be offered free passage to Ecuador.
Since when is purity of motive a requisite to either request or grant asylum? History indicates otherwise. If it offends your sense of narrative that this story doesn't have truly pure heroes battling against utterly blackhearted villains, I'd say the problem is more with your expectation of a scorecard to know who to root for than with reality for failing to provide one.

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
(FWIW I thought Wikileaks a great idea. Their exposure of various scandals like Trafigura, the US military shootings of civilians in Iraq, etc etc, was a valuable corrective to governmental secrecy. But publishing what amounts to a blizzard of mundane diplomatic exchanges was just petty. Everybody can sympathise with the person who has had their mail intercepted and read.
I think you're making a category error when you characterize the United States government as "a person". Large, powerful governments should not have the same expectations to keep their dealings secret as private individuals, especially if they claim to be democratic in nature.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I think the biggest flaw in the 'the Swedes might illegally render him' theory is the utterly MASSIVE uproar that would accompany such a move in a case that is so high profile.

Think about it. If Julian Assange's whereabouts become unknown for even a brief period, and if he ever turns up in the USA without having been through official, court-approved legal channels, the political hell would be enormous. Probably not in the USA, I grant you, but in Sweden, the UK and probably Australia as well.
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
A few things to note:
1. This article from the New Statesman offers some clear and objective facts. If we strip away the emotion, hearsay and ‘zombie facts’ we’ll see the real story; A suspected sex criminal attempting to evade due legal process by using lots of smoke and big mirrors, tapping in to the current meme for distrusting leadership and authority, and everyone laps it up.
2. Anybody who has ever worked with or for the government will know very well that they struggle to manage normal business. They are not organised enough to run so called ‘conspiracies’. There is, and always has been and always will be, a need to keep some state owned information away from public distribution for the wider benefit of the state. Don’t confuse control of information with oppression, limiting free speech or a Police state. If you do think we live in an oppressive state, Google the 13 year old Pakistani girl with learning disabilities currently in prison for burning some Koran pages.
3. Julian Assange is picking and choosing which laws he wishes to abide by for his own interests. Eg: He is keen to remind the world about the laws of diplomatic protection, but not so keen on the terms of his bail or the legal process followed by Sweden.
4. Does he really have a persecution complex or is he just manipulating people. Either way, I guess 2 months living in a basement has made him the self absorbed, self important worm that we saw displayed on Sunday.
5. Maybe the Police should set the fire alarms off…………………….
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Most of what you stay Stoker is correct, but not the bit where you say : I guess 2 months living in a basement has made him the self absorbed, self important worm that we saw displayed on Sunday . He's really always been like that. Nothing new there.

I'm not going to argue against more open government, but ultimately I prefer that the decisions about what should and should not be kept secret are primarily those of the governments we elect and the courts those governments they establish and support. They should not be those of the self-appointed such as Assange, who are answerable to no-one but their own interests and pockets.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
no prophet: 2. Could the sex investigation be separated from Wikileaks?
This is the crucial issue for me. Yes, he should be tried for the rape accusations in Sweden. But this shouldn't automatically lead to his extradiction to the US, especially if he could face the death penalty for espionage.

Whether he's self-absorbed, self-important ... is juridically irrelevant.
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
His self absorbtion is judicially irrelevant yes. But not totally irrevelant to the dicussion - it's the front he presents that is confusing and distracting from the real issues.

He's interesting really, a public microcosm of the human condition. Wanting truth and justice, but on his own terms, with himself as the arbiter. A pick 'n mix morality.

Incidently, does anyone else see the unintended irony of the guy on the right in this picture? What a tool!
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But, Croesos, this is a situation where it is far from made out that it is a human right that is being threatened. That was the conclusion of the court considering the extradition request and also that of one of the commentators in The Times today (I can't give you an online link as one has to have a subscription but I read it in the hardcopy version this morning)
There's another parallel with the North Korean case. Neither the Chinese Government nor the North Koreans consider the defectors in question to be in danger of having their human rights abused by being returned to North Korea.
Well, more fool them, then...
quote:
For similar reasons, the government of Ecuador is not obligated to agree with the conclusions of a British, Swedish, or American court. I am not privy to their reasoning, but if I had to guess it would go something like this:

Not an airtight case, I'll grant you, but reasonable enough to be convincing to someone operating on a "preponderance of evidence" basis. [/QB]
Except your list above smacks far more of paranoid conspiracy theories than the facts of the case.

What is a fact is that Wikileaks thumbed their nose at the US re the comments of the American ambassador to Ecuador, and were thus 'nice' to Ecuador at the US' expense. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the present offer of asylum to Assange by Ecuador.... [Two face]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:

5. Maybe the Police should set the fire alarms off…………………….
This thought crossed my mind. Fire, serious illness, broken bones etc could cause him to have to leave.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the biggest flaw in the 'the Swedes might illegally render him' theory is the utterly MASSIVE uproar that would accompany such a move in a case that is so high profile.

Think about it. If Julian Assange's whereabouts become unknown for even a brief period, and if he ever turns up in the USA without having been through official, court-approved legal channels, the political hell would be enormous. Probably not in the USA, I grant you, but in Sweden, the UK and probably Australia as well.
Orfeo, I've no time for Assange. I think he's a self obsessed, self appointed idiot, and the sooner he's sent to Sweden the better. But that's a silly argument.

Who cares that there's a "MASSIVE uproar" which has a "high profile". It's never made any difference with a lot more deserving causes. What different does any "MASSIVE uproar" make to those who are at the receiving end of the boot? It's 'who has power' and 'what they do with it' that matters. The "MASSIVE uproar" didn't inhibit Tony Blair and his chums sending our troops into Iraq.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Presumably they are doing what their foreign-policy masters in Washington want them to do? Or do any shipmates still believe that the US is not preparing a case for extraditing him? Or that the UK will actually pursue a course of action not sanctioned by the USA?
I have read more anti American diatribes, but not recently.

Mind you, you were equally as dismissive of the UK.

I gave some thought to calling you to Hell for this, but decided doing so would not help you understand how offensive you words are.

I will say this: If you want to make such accusations, why don't you find some fact, or facts, to back up your suspicions? Or, is it more fun to pull crap out of thin air?
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
quote:
I will say this: If you want to make such accusations, why don't you find some fact, or facts, to back up your suspicions? Or, is it more fun to pull crap out of thin air? [/QB]
This is true for much of what is said on these boards! However, it reminds me of a quote from Homer Simpson: "It's a widely believed fact that....."
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
It's really the entanglement of the rape case with a possible Wikileaks extradiction that I don't like.

I'm a development worker not a lawyer, but I think that it's a juridical principle (or at least it should be) that when you're accused of a crime, you go to trial and the judge declares you innocent, that you shouldn't have any negative consequences of this trial.

Suppose that Assange is extradicted to Sweden, tried and the judge finds him innocent, but because of this trial he's extradicted to the US. That would violate this principle a bit, at least it would leave a foul taste in my mouth.

I can also imagine scenario's in which this could be abused. Suppose, there's a country A with strict laws against homosexuality, foreseeing a 20 year prison term for them. A citizen of country A who's a homosexual flees to Holland. Holland won't extradict him, because it doesn't agree with this law.

But the government of A found a loophole: there's also a country B that doesn't have strict laws about homosexuals, but doesn't have any qualms about extradicting them either. The government of A persuades a citizen of country B to falsely accuse this person of some other crime (e.g. rape).

Voilá. Holland extradicts him to country B. The judge of B declares him innocent, but he's extradicted to country A where he's put in jail for 20 years.

I don't know if there's a good way of disentangling both cases, but I believe there should be.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Presumably they are doing what their foreign-policy masters in Washington want them to do? Or do any shipmates still believe that the US is not preparing a case for extraditing him? Or that the UK will actually pursue a course of action not sanctioned by the USA?
I have read more anti American diatribes, but not recently.

Mind you, you were equally as dismissive of the UK.

I gave some thought to calling you to Hell for this, but decided doing so would not help you understand how offensive you words are.

I will say this: If you want to make such accusations, why don't you find some fact, or facts, to back up your suspicions? Or, is it more fun to pull crap out of thin air?
Tukai's comment concerns governments. They hate and fear Wikileaks and similar organisations that reveal what is done in our name. Governments have privileged access to the facts, so the duty should be on them to refute statements they do not agree with, rather than penalise citizens who do not have the same access to information.

If you ask almost anyone in Britain the nature of the 'Special Relationship' they will you that it is "'When the White House says 'jump', No 10 asks 'How high?'".
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
LeRoc,

Starting a post with:

"I'm a X, not a Y, but I think....."

Is generally not going to help to make your point very strongly. You have then set out some absurd hypothetical case.

May I suggest that you read the New Stateman article I linked to a few posts ago. It sets out very clearly the facts around extradition, with the conclusion that it would be in fact harder to extradite him from Sweden to US as it would require UK agreement anyway.

While we're on the subject, can the conspiracy theorists outline, using facts if neccessery,why JA is more at risk from being extradited from Sweden to the US than from the UK.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Stoker:Starting a post with:

"I'm a X, not a Y, but I think....."

Is generally not going to help to make your point very strongly.
I can see that you're not familiar with this one.

quote:
Stoker: You have then set out some absurd hypothetical case.
I believe that laws should be such that the possibility of abuse is as small as possible. Therefore it is handy to pose hypothetical cases, to see what the law will do.

Working with refugees, I've seen that countries will interpret international law in strange ways sometimes, so to me it isn't completely absurd.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I do not know the terms of the relevant UK/Sweden; US/UK; and US/Sweden extradition treaties but imagine that they include some fairly standard terms. The first is that if a person may only be extradited in relation to a particular offence, which must have been an offence at the time of the acts. There must be precise specification of the charge and that and that alone is the charge upon which the receiving country can proceed. If a further charge comes to light in the course of the proceedings, consent of the extraditing country must be obtained, and that request is considered by a court. The next is that the receiving country may not further extradite an accused, except in fairly precise circumstances. Again, the consent of the extraditing country must be sought, and again, that is by a court. A person cannot be extradited unless the matter complained of is a crime in both the extraditing and receiving countries, and that deals very effectively with many of the red herrings raised earlier.

A public outcry were Assange somehow to be kidnapped from Sweden to the US probably would achieve little – as Orfeo’s post suggests. What would be very effective would be the quiet words the Swedish and UK – and probably Aust – governments would have with US officials. They would carry much greater weight than the chants of the anonymous people outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Gee D: and that deals very effectively with many of the red herrings raised earlier.
No red herrings from me, just concerns from a layman. If there would be sufficient guarantees that the rape case would be 'detangled' from a possible Wikileaks extradiction, then I would be in favour of his extradiction to Sweden to stand trial (for whatever my opinion's worth).

In your post, you're saying that there are guarantees for that. I'm not well-versed enough in legal matters to evaluate if they're sufficient, but if I were Assange I'd probably want these guarantees to be rock-hard.

I'm not sure they are. Yes, maybe a British court will decide about whether he'll be extradicted to the US or not. But I guess they'll decide about this while he's in custody, and I can see that from his point of view this would definitely be a disadvantage.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Who cares that there's a "MASSIVE uproar" which has a "high profile". It's never made any difference with a lot more deserving causes. What different does any "MASSIVE uproar" make to those who are at the receiving end of the boot? It's 'who has power' and 'what they do with it' that matters. The "MASSIVE uproar" didn't inhibit Tony Blair and his chums sending our troops into Iraq.
The US government probably doesn;t care a fuck about it, and the British as well, but the Swedish government will want to get re-elected. (At the moment they have a minority conservative government in coalition with some smaller parties and very vulnerable to losing votes to the left... sounds strangely familiar)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Who cares that there's a "MASSIVE uproar" which has a "high profile".
Politicians, usually. Sensible people might ignore it, I grant you. But politicians...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: and that deals very effectively with many of the red herrings raised earlier.
No red herrings from me, just concerns from a layman. If there would be sufficient guarantees that the rape case would be 'detangled' from a possible Wikileaks extradiction, then I would be in favour of his extradiction to Sweden to stand trial (for whatever my opinion's worth).
The only reason it was ever 'tangled' in the first place was because Assange 'tangled' it.

With no actual evidence that the Swedes wanted to do anything other than question him about Swedish matters.

I grant you, the Swedes could probably have solved things by saying "alright, we'll ask you questions in the UK". But their initial reaction was probably one of being mystified why they should deviate from usual procedure. Assange might think he's special, but I imagine that whoever in Sweden was originally pursuing this, as a not especially exceptional case (if you can have such a thing as an 'ordinary' rape claim), was simply doing things by the book. I would think that saying to a person they are expected to come to Sweden to deal with Swedish allegations is utterly routine, and that they didn't anticipate the "Help! Help! They're trying to take me to America by the most circuitous route imaginable!" response.

PS Also, can we please stop talking about a trial in Sweden until he's actually been charged with something?

[ 21. August 2012, 13:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you ask almost anyone in Britain the nature of the 'Special Relationship' they will you that it is "'When the White House says 'jump', No 10 asks 'How high?'".
Since you say it, I believe you.

Damned shame if it is true.

As to the remaining subject of your post, I agree that a lot of government needs to let the sunshine in. That being said, every government occasionally needs to have secrets. I would rather have someone other than Assange make those decisions.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Don't anyone have a heart attack her, but . . .

I completely agree with orfeo.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
orfeo: The only reason it was ever 'tangled' in the first place was because Assange 'tangled' it.
I'm not sure whether it matters who started the tanglement, but if I were in hiding because I were charged with a law I don't agree with, I'd be very careful if I was charged for another crime as well. I'd want a fair trial for this other crime without it having negative effects with regards to the first charges.

Maybe there are guarantees in place to prevent that, but I'd want to be damn sure about them.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
As to the remaining subject of your post, I agree that a lot of government needs to let the sunshine in. That being said, every government occasionally needs to have secrets. I would rather have someone other than Assange make those decisions.
This is getting a bit off topic, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with what looks like a tacit endorsement of a lapdog press. Why is it the duty of Julian Assange, or The New York Times, or any other non-government entity to preserve the secrets of the U.S. government? I'd take the contrary position; it's the job of reporters to report, and choosing to do otherwise should require a set of unusual circumstances.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
That the NWT reported on what Assange found doesn't bother me in the least and I do not want a lap dog press.

Neither do I want a egomaniac ding dong deciding what should, and should not, be a legitimate secret. That being said, Governments that wish to preserve secrets have that duty to do so, not anyone else.

Here, Assange could not have gotten the information without someone leaking it to him. Since people who have access to secrets are supposed to not reveal those secrets, the governments in question ought to look at what caused the leaks to take place. If it was for profit, they should be punished.

If it was to shine light on what is silly and only possible because it is secret, the government ought to take the opportunity to figure out if they want to continue doing whatever it is.

If it was a legitimate secret, the government ought to punish the person leaking the information and figure out what went wrong and fix it.

None of this has anything to do with Sweden's legitimate right to uphold its laws.

Can any of you conspiracy types show me where the US is seeking to extradite Assange? Is that just a secret until the next hero shows up?

Or, is it difficult to deal with the fact that a hero has feet of clay and you'd rather take it out on governments?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Can any of you conspiracy types show me where the US is seeking to extradite Assange?
The U.S. has an active grand jury investigating WikiLeaks and Assange. According to a memo from one of the U.S. government's security contractors (obtained via leak, ironically enough) there is already a sealed indictment against Assange. It would seem like an even bigger conspiracy to go through all that trouble and not intend to prosecute Assange, or to simply wait for him to voluntarily show up in the U.S. Given that the U.S. has been very proactive in getting hold of foreign nationals it considers a threat to its national security, I think a more reasonable person would ask why Assange should be considered the exception to this pattern?
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Point taken. We are going after him.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: The only reason it was ever 'tangled' in the first place was because Assange 'tangled' it.
I'm not sure whether it matters who started the tanglement, but if I were in hiding because I were charged with a law I don't agree with, I'd be very careful if I was charged for another crime as well. I'd want a fair trial for this other crime without it having negative effects with regards to the first charges.
Wait, what?

I don't even know which law is which here. Not least because he hasn't been charged under EITHER Swedish or American law.

There's been a remarkable amount of frothing around the mouth on all sides of this whole thing, dealing with possibilities as if they're hard facts. Starting with our PM in Australia who, when the Wikileaks story first hit the headlines, managed to insinuate that Assange had broken Australian law before the cool sober heads in the police force concluded that actually no, he hadn't.

I honestly can't tell which law you are asserting he's hiding from, and how whether or not he's charged in Sweden/USA has ANY relevance to whether or not he's charged in USA/Sweden. I certainly can't think of anything in extradition law that would make it relevant.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Can any of you conspiracy types show me where the US is seeking to extradite Assange?
The U.S. has an active grand jury investigating WikiLeaks and Assange. According to a memo from one of the U.S. government's security contractors (obtained via leak, ironically enough) there is already a sealed indictment against Assange. It would seem like an even bigger conspiracy to go through all that trouble and not intend to prosecute Assange, or to simply wait for him to voluntarily show up in the U.S. Given that the U.S. has been very proactive in getting hold of foreign nationals it considers a threat to its national security, I think a more reasonable person would ask why Assange should be considered the exception to this pattern?
An even more reasonable person would ask, why has the US not made an extradition request to the UK then?

Which would be an awfully logical move. I cannot see any evidence that a US request to Sweden has better prospects than a US request to the UK.

And don't start talking about Swedish renditions. If you're going down the rendition path, you don't really need to bother with doing all those formal things with grand juries and indictments beforehand! You just go ahead and render!

[ 21. August 2012, 15:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
By the way (and yes, sorry for the multiple posts, it's late, I'll head to bed right after this), there's precedent for staying stuck in an embassy for an awfully long time.

Cardinal Mindszenty. US embassy in Budapest.

15 years.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
An even more reasonable person would ask, why has the US not made an extradition request to the UK then?
Perhaps it's a simple matter of not wanting to unseal the alleged indictment yet.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which would be an awfully logical move. I cannot see any evidence that a US request to Sweden has better prospects than a US request to the UK.

And don't start talking about Swedish renditions.
Why not? It's good evidence of the pliability of the Swedish state to American requests in this regard. If you want to make the case that the UK government is equally, if not more, pliable in regard to prisoner transfers and that the American government would have reason to believe so, I'd be interested to hear the case made.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going down the rendition path, you don't really need to bother with doing all those formal things with grand juries and indictments beforehand! You just go ahead and render!
Not necessarily. The world's most infamous renderee was indicted, tried, and executed through a very scrupulous legal proceding, despite the extra-legal way he ended up in custody.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you ask almost anyone in Britain the nature of the 'Special Relationship' they will you that it is "'When the White House says 'jump', No 10 asks 'How high?'".
Since you say it, I believe you.

Damned shame if it is true.
There is a perception - already alluded to - that the UK is more willing to extradite people to the US than vice versa.

Some discussion here from Channel 4 suggests the situation is rather less clear-cut.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
.... Why is it the duty of Julian Assange, or The New York Times, or any other non-government entity to preserve the secrets of the U.S. government?...
In Assange's case, it isn't because he isn't a US citizen. Such duty he owes to Australia, or to a lesser extent to any state he happens to be in at the time. The NY Times and any non-government entity domiciled in the US do owe certain duties to their own state. Being a journalist or being 'investigative' has nothing to do with this.

This is something the US government either doesn't understand or only believes in when it is applied to other states. It seems to imagine that just because it sees itself as leader of the free world, the rest of the world owes it something.

But none of this makes Assange a hero or entitles him to escape answering questions about the accusation that he has molested a Swedish women.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
accusation that he has molested a Swedish women.
The sanctified and omniscient George Galloway has decreed that it was merely a gauche lack of bedroom etiquette (we all know how uncouth Australians are), so it is difficult to see what the continuing fuss is about.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
An even more reasonable person would ask, why has the US not made an extradition request to the UK then?
Perhaps it's a simple matter of not wanting to unseal the alleged indictment yet.
Why not?

And how is moving him to Sweden going to magically improve the indictment?
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I would imagine that the US will stay out of this one.

I remember when Ginsberg published the Pentagon Papers. He was tried for espionage and was acquitted. Our espionage laws are very loose. You can drive a truck through them.

If it can be proven Assauge is guilty of a sexual crime in Sweden, he will probably spend more time in jail there than if he were ever found guilty of espionage in the US--which is very unlikely (see above).

Assauge is just throwing out a smoke screen. We are willing to let Sweden have at him.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I remember when Ginsberg published the Pentagon Papers. He was tried for espionage and was acquitted. Our espionage laws are very loose. You can drive a truck through them.
You remember that, do you? Most people who recall the events remember that Daniel Ellsberg wasn't acquitted, the charges were dismissed by the judge due to the prosecution's complicity in the Fielding break-in, the illegal wiretapping, and suspiciously disappearing evidence relating to them. I don't think having a case dismissed because of blatant prosecutorial misconduct by a bunch of Watergate conspirators is dispositive one way or the other on the strength of the 1917 Espionage Act.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
It seems as if the US government are trying to punish Bradley Manning before they try him - if he ever even gets a trial. How long have they been holding him now ?

[ 22. August 2012, 06:02: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Can any of you conspiracy types show me where the US is seeking to extradite Assange?
The U.S. has an active grand jury investigating WikiLeaks and Assange. According to a memo from one of the U.S. government's security contractors (obtained via leak, ironically enough) there is already a sealed indictment against Assange.
ISTM there are two possibilities here.

1. The source is inaccurate and there is no grand jury.

2. The US government is scraping the barrel. It is rather hard to see how Assange could be convicted of accessing a computer system, espionage or theft of US government secrets given that he was handed the whole lot by Manning.

I might suggest charging him with copyright infringement, but I doubt it would have quite the effect Washington would want.

If I were Assange I might suggest as a compromise that I be investigated and if necessarily tried for rape under Swedish law in Ecuador. But then again, if I were really Assange, perhaps I would prefer not to stand trial at all.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Quite some time ago, in the early stages of this whole kerfuffle, I saw an explanation of Swedish rape law that indicated it was quite different from common law countries, and a good deal stricter, such that there are many situations which would NOT be rape under English and related law but would be rape under Swedish law.
I gather that Swedish law in relation to sexual assault has wider scope than English law. But this is not relevant. The specific acts Assange is accused of (e.g. penetrating a sleeping woman) constitute rape under English law.

Proving rape in such a scenario might be difficult, but that is what investigations and trials are for.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If you commit a crime under a country's laws, you can be prosecuted. If you run off, that country can ask for you to be arrested and brought back to stand trial. That is what the Swedes have done.

It obviously upholds the rule of law globally if states assist each other in this respect. By contrast, the Ecuadorian govenment, prefer to use it as a chance to stoke up a diplomatic stoush.
I'm not sure this is something we'd consider universally applicable, particularly in regards to countries we don't like or consider repressive.
You raise a point that has no application here. Assange has not been accused of insulting el presidente. He has been accused of acts which constitute a crime under Swedish law, and specifically the crime of rape under English law.

The Ecuadorians are being absurd. Perhaps someone should sneak into their embassy and set off the fire alarm. That would solve the problem.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
accusation that he has molested a Swedish women.
The sanctified and omniscient George Galloway has decreed that it was merely a gauche lack of bedroom etiquette (we all know how uncouth Australians are), so it is difficult to see what the continuing fuss is about.
One self-important little narcissist supports another [Snore]

On that logic, it would just be a case of bad manners if I went and rogered my ex-wife without a new by-your-leave from her; after all, she consented 15 years ago.
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
Is there not also a charge that he in this (or perhaps both cases) had unprotected sex, against the expressed wishes of the women concerned? That too seems to me to amount to rape, since they presumably would not have given their consent to sex in those circumstances.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I have no wish to defend the actions of Assange, who seems a thoroughly objectionable kind of bloke.

But it seems to me that the easiest solution to this impasse is for Swedish and US governments to issue a simple statement confirming that they have no intention of seeking to extradite Assange to the US, should he return to Sweden.

In fact, I can't think why this hasn't already been done - unless they DO have such a plan.....
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I have no wish to defend the actions of Assange, who seems a thoroughly objectionable kind of bloke.

But it seems to me that the easiest solution to this impasse is for Swedish and US governments to issue a simple statement confirming that they have no intention of seeking to extradite Assange to the US, should he return to Sweden.

In fact, I can't think why this hasn't already been done - unless they DO have such a plan.....
Two reasons, I think. One is that it would be giving in to a melodramatic drama queen and feeding his monstrous ego with assurances which should be entirely unnecessary. It's a strong tendency in diplomatic and governmental circles not to negotiate with terrorists. Assange isn't a terrorist (AFAIK [Biased] ), but the same principle applies. Once you start negotiating, you're making a repeat of his bail-jumping, asylum-claiming antics more likely.

The other, rather more important reason is that what he's asking for is not confirmation that they have no plans, but a guarantee that they will not extradite him. Given that no one can tell what the future holds, any such guarantee would of necessity be hollow and baseless.

In fact, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if such a statement were to be made, Assange would claim it as further evidence that he was at risk. "They say they have no intention, but that is nothing more than weasel words. As soon as they can, they'll have me on the first plane to the US, and all they'll have to say is that they changed their minds!"
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The latest Swedish response to the request for a guarantee is slightly odd, though.

They said that only USA can give the guarantee that it won't seek the death penalty.

Well yes, but half the point, I think, is that he wants a guarantee that Sweden won't agree to extradite him if the death penalty is sought.

Which they probably don't think they need to explicitly guarantee in this particular case, because it's Swedish law anyway. And in fact, the Australian Foreign Minister has reported that Sweden has told him that exact thing: Sweden won't, in ANY case, extradite someone to face the death penalty, or extradite someone to face a military court.

It does rather seem that there's an element of people talking in circles.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also, Sweden has pointed out that it still has residents from America who dodged the draft for the Vietnam War. Hasn't extradited them to face military justice.

[ 23. August 2012, 07:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Still don't understand why the Swedish won't at least just conduct the initial interview in the Ecuadorean embassy. The chance of a secure conviction, if he is guilty, is just being pissed away as everybody's memory fades.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Happily I've never been raped, but had I been I think my memory wouldn't fade that quickly.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
This article makes the point that it is illegal for the Swedish government to make the guarantee that Assange seeks.

From the article:
quote:
It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.

 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, Sweden has pointed out that it still has residents from America who dodged the draft for the Vietnam War. Hasn't extradited them to face military justice.
Given that all draft dodgers (except those who participated in anti-draft violence) were pardoned by President Carter in 1977, Sweden claiming that it's still protecting these men from extradition seems a bit disingenuous.

[ 23. August 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Happily I've never been raped, but had I been I think my memory wouldn't fade that quickly.
No, but at least you could take comfort in knowing that, if it was a legitimate rape, you wouldn't get pregnant...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, Sweden has pointed out that it still has residents from America who dodged the draft for the Vietnam War. Hasn't extradited them to face military justice.
Suspect that's a red herring. Draft dodger amnesties, level of importance currently to governments etc. If military court is possible, it is obviously understandable to avoid at all costs given the notorious nature of USA military justice in recent times, with rights violations, designation of some people as worthy of less rights and their use of torture. I don't like the idea of avoidance of justice for sexual assault, but who could support the possibility of 'enhanced interrogation' and all that means?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, Sweden has pointed out that it still has residents from America who dodged the draft for the Vietnam War. Hasn't extradited them to face military justice.
Given that all draft dodgers (except those who participated in anti-draft violence) were pardoned by President Carter in 1977, Sweden claiming that it's still protecting these men from extradition seems a bit disingenuous.
I suspect this is confusing two issues.

1. It may well not now be possible under Swedish law for Sweden to throw people out if they have been in Sweden legitimately since the 1960s.

2. A request for extradition has to be made by the country requesting it. A state doesn't extradite people in its territory on its own initiative. If the US has pardoned somebody, it presumably is not going to seek to extradite them. if it starts extradition proceedings, it can't have pardoned them.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Anyway, there's no compelling reason why Sweden and the US should give any undertaking even if they could give it. They are, after all, in pole position.

While the Ecuadorean government is gratuitously abusing the notion of diplomatic immunity by shielding a suspected rapist, it's not as if the suspected rapist can actually go anywhere. The police just need to sit and wait until Assange gets bored, or until he becomes a burden to Ecuador rather than an asset.

The British government were entirely correct to point out that the Ecuadorian government were considerably overstepping diplomatic bounds (a private conversation that the Ecuadoreans then got all excited about. The truth is that they didn't need to say anything at all. They just needed to wait.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
There is just the slightest hint, a faint but noticeable whiff, in the previous post of a familiar trait that pops up in such cases: any possible offence with sexual overtones must mean the person is guilty until proven innocent.

That is more of a worry. It is also very British.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
As you are British, I daresay the smell comes from within your own nostrils.

Furthermore I'm sure that you didn't mean to suggest that "innocent until proven guilty" equals "not having to face due process of law".
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
You make an judgement about my nationality that may not be entirely correct.

The non sequitur in your next paragraph is based on an assumption entirely your own.
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
There is just the slightest hint, a faint but noticeable whiff, in the previous post of a familiar trait that pops up in such cases: any possible offence with sexual overtones must mean the person is guilty until proven innocent.

That is more of a worry. It is also very British.
Funnily enough, I didn't pick that up, although I AM British. The point to me seemed to be that Ecuador is allowing Assange to claim diplomatic privileges to evade the process of law in a criminal matter, not a political one. That's certainly not the sort of thing that diplomatic privilege is supposed to be used for.

I suppose the point the Foreign Office wanted to make in their note to Ecuador was that it is possible, if a mission is being used for purposes which are incompatible with diplomacy, to revoke the diplomatic status of that building and if that did happen the domestic police would have full jurisdiction there. But that would only ever be likely to be done if the diplomatic function of an embassy building had been subverted completely, not if the embassy staff had been bending the rules a bit now and again.

So even in a private note that might have been an injudicious thing to say. It has allowed Ecuador to adopt the image of a plucky little David facing down a bullying Goliath rather than (as Britain might otherwise have tried to portray them) a shady and disreputable figure offering save haven to common criminals.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
You make an judgement about my nationality that may not be entirely correct.
Actually, said judgement originated from you. But I do approve of your retraction.

quote:
The non sequitur in your next paragraph is based on an assumption entirely your own.
So apart from the rather feeble attempt at an ad hominem is there anything you want to say?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
For Pete's sake, what he has been accused of constitutes rape under English law without question.
Really?

Quite some time ago, in the early stages of this whole kerfuffle, I saw an explanation of Swedish rape law that indicated it was quite different from common law countries, and a good deal stricter, such that there are many situations which would NOT be rape under English and related law but would be rape under Swedish law.

And the clear indication in this explanation was that Assange probably wouldn't have fallen foul of the law in other countries. His alleged behaviour would have made him a cad, but not a criminal. The purpose of the explanation was to explain why the alleged behaviour would be criminal, when on its face to an English-speaking audience it would not seem to be criminal.

In one sense this is neither here nor there. When in Sweden, one must answer to Swedish law, and Sweden is completely entitled to enforce it, and it's not terribly relevant whether the same actions would be criminal in another country. I just thought it was worth querying this because what you've said is quite contrary to earlier commentary.
Are we still hung up on hoary old common law definitions of rape? You do know how ridiculous the common law is on rape?

All criminal law in Canada is federal and the original Criminal Code definition of rape in 1892 said in the statute that marital rape did not exist.

That and other legal nonsense that Rape jurisprudence was notorious for led Parliament to dump Rape completely from the Criminal Code and institute Sexual Assault, which is any assault with a sexual element, no penetration required.

Canada expunged the common-law concept of Rape from the Criminal Code in 1983.

I will wager that Sweden's legal concept of rape is very close to Canada's concept of Sexual Assault.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Are we still hung up on hoary old common law definitions of rape? You do know how ridiculous the common law is on rape?
Depends whether or not YOUR version of the common law evolved. If you got rid of it by statute no doubt the answer is no. Meanwhile, over here the High Court has not only said that a man can rape his wife, they've gone on to say that was already true in the 1960s even if people acted as if there was nothing wrong with the practice.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Y'see up here ALL criminal offences are statutory and have been officially since 1954, in practice since 1892.

Canadian courts do not create offences or modify them to delete or create things like marital rape. That's what the Parliament of Canada does. If it's not in the Criminal Code, the Narcotics Trafficking Act, or has the word "offence" with a fine or jail (less than two years) it's not a crime.

So this little common-law rape kick about Sweden is just a straw-man to indulge prejudices about "continental" law.

New York Times article about Swedish laws against rape. Sounds very much like Sexual Assault in Canada.

Canadian law relating to Sexual Assault.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
So this little common-law rape kick about Sweden is just a straw-man to indulge prejudices about "continental" law.
No wait, HANG ON A MINUTE.

What 'kick'? What prejudice? Where on earth did you get the idea that I thought Swedish law was 'wrong' and common law was 'right'?

I never said any such thing. I said they were different, and I said that some people had puzzled reactions when the initial claims about what Assange had done in Sweden were given in detail.

At no stage did I say that this made Swedish law 'wrong' or that Assange didn't have to follow Swedish law while in Sweden. He did.

But Swedish law has a range of different categories of sexual offences that don't all fit simply and neatly into the boxes that an English-speaking audience is familiar with. Simple as that. It's not an assertion that any law that doesn't look like mine is incorrect.

I mean, just look at the FIRST SENTENCE of the New York Times article you linked to! That's exactly the point of what I'm saying! If the New York Times says that the law in Sweden is different, how on earth is it 'prejudice' when I say it?

[ 26. August 2012, 04:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
But Swedish law has a range of different categories of sexual offences that don't all fit simply and neatly into the boxes that an English-speaking audience is familiar with. Simple as that. It's not an assertion that any law that doesn't look like mine is incorrect.
Assange is charged with an ordinary, garden-variety case of sexual assault. "English Speaking audience" does not include Canada, thank-you, rape is a colloquial term here, not a legal one.

Your descended into the common-law lawyers tunnel vision of [icky] continental law, orfeo. Nice trope, but it is a trope and I'm calling you on it.

Pressing an erect penis against a woman without her consent is a classic case of sexual assault in these parts.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]

Fine. I hope you also wrote an angry letter to the New York Times telling them off for writing an entire article on Swedish law to explain it for their audience on the grounds it was different and unfamiliar.

[Roll Eyes] Again. Not least because it was you who provided the link to my best defense against your peculiar little attack.

[ 26. August 2012, 05:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Assange is charged with an ordinary, garden-variety case of sexual assault.
Bzzt. First off, he isn't charged with anything.

Secondly, the offences he's been investigated for are (1) the lowest, third category of rape and (2) molestation.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
You make an judgement about my nationality that may not be entirely correct.
Actually, said judgement originated from you. But I do approve of your retraction.

quote:
The non sequitur in your next paragraph is based on an assumption entirely your own.
So apart from the rather feeble attempt at an ad hominem is there anything you want to say?
Yawn
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
You make an judgement about my nationality that may not be entirely correct.
Actually, said judgement originated from you. But I do approve of your retraction.

quote:
The non sequitur in your next paragraph is based on an assumption entirely your own.
So apart from the rather feeble attempt at an ad hominem is there anything you want to say?
Yawn
No, you made an assumption about MY nationality. I merely made a comment about the British.

Without wishing to get hellish - silly little rejoiners such as yours really shouldn't be attempted by people with half a GCSE (a British qualification under scrutiny).
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Also from the article -

quote:
The prosecutors seeking Mr. Assange’s extradition suspect that he may have engaged in this last category, which is punishable by as much as four years in prison.
I reckon his self-incarceration will almost have covered this by the time he gets to Sweden.

The lawyer Claes Borgstrom, who is representing the two women said “If he claims that truth and transparency is behind WikiLeaks, he needs to accept the same standards of transparency for himself and come testify,”

Exactly!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I reckon his self-incarceration will almost have covered this by the time he gets to Sweden.
I would hope that even in liberal Sweden, one is not entitled to have the time one spends skulking in a foreign embassy evading answering police questions, credited against any eventual sentence!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I reckon his self-incarceration will almost have covered this by the time he gets to Sweden.
I would hope that even in liberal Sweden, one is not entitled to have the time one spends skulking in a foreign embassy evading answering police questions, credited against any eventual sentence!
That's not what I meant. I meant he seems to be punishing himself at the moment, he'll have spent so much time imprisoned before he even gets to trial.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
You make an judgement about my nationality that may not be entirely correct.
Actually, said judgement originated from you. But I do approve of your retraction.

quote:
The non sequitur in your next paragraph is based on an assumption entirely your own.
So apart from the rather feeble attempt at an ad hominem is there anything you want to say?
Yawn
No, you made an assumption about MY nationality. I merely made a comment about the British.

Without wishing to get hellish - silly little rejoiners such as yours really shouldn't be attempted by people with half a GCSE (a British qualification under scrutiny).
Thank you for your two efforts to respond.

There is a clear difference between a) assuming that a person is guilty of a crime until proven innocent and b) disapproving of said person's evasion of attempts to try him for the alleged crime.

You haven't deigned to share with us your qualifications (or indeed the nationality you identify with) but they haven't taught you to grasp this rather basic point.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Also from the article -

quote:
The prosecutors seeking Mr. Assange’s extradition suspect that he may have engaged in this last category, which is punishable by as much as four years in prison.
I reckon his self-incarceration will almost have covered this by the time he gets to Sweden.

The lawyer Claes Borgstrom, who is representing the two women said “If he claims that truth and transparency is behind WikiLeaks, he needs to accept the same standards of transparency for himself and come testify,”

Exactly!
Or, as Private Eye put it this week, Assange on Hague trying to bust into the embassy: "He tried to force an entry without consent"; bystander: "You're the expert, Julian!"
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
I see that Naomi Wolf's article supporting Mr Assange back in February has been deconstructed by someone who speaks Swedish on the same blog. Worth a read if you are following this saga.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
You make an judgement about my nationality that may not be entirely correct.
Actually, said judgement originated from you. But I do approve of your retraction.

quote:
The non sequitur in your next paragraph is based on an assumption entirely your own.
So apart from the rather feeble attempt at an ad hominem is there anything you want to say?
Yawn
No, you made an assumption about MY nationality. I merely made a comment about the British.

Without wishing to get hellish - silly little rejoiners such as yours really shouldn't be attempted by people with half a GCSE (a British qualification under scrutiny).
Thank you for your two efforts to respond.

There is a clear difference between a) assuming that a person is guilty of a crime until proven innocent and b) disapproving of said person's evasion of attempts to try him for the alleged crime.

You haven't deigned to share with us your qualifications (or indeed the nationality you identify with) but they haven't taught you to grasp this rather basic point.

 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
You make an judgement about my nationality that may not be entirely correct.
Actually, said judgement originated from you. But I do approve of your retraction.

quote:
The non sequitur in your next paragraph is based on an assumption entirely your own.
So apart from the rather feeble attempt at an ad hominem is there anything you want to say?
Yawn
No, you made an assumption about MY nationality. I merely made a comment about the British.

Without wishing to get hellish - silly little rejoiners such as yours really shouldn't be attempted by people with half a GCSE (a British qualification under scrutiny).
Thank you for your two efforts to respond.

There is a clear difference between a) assuming that a person is guilty of a crime until proven innocent and b) disapproving of said person's evasion of attempts to try him for the alleged crime.

You haven't deigned to share with us your qualifications (or indeed the nationality you identify with) but they haven't taught you to grasp this rather basic point.
My nationality is irrelevant to this discussion but I note your continued interest, and the distiction you rightly draw is so basic as hardly to need mentioning: (1) a person is innocent until proven guilty (2) evasion of justice is not to be encouraged.

My original point, and I detected just a hint of this in a few posts, is that the moment something sexual appears in an accusation there is often a subliminal feeling in some people frequently detectable in the nuance of their text, that the person must be guilty until proven innocent. This seems a particuarly British or American vice, although not by any means restricted to them. I would add even evasion of justice (to repeat: 'not to be encouraged') is not necessarily an admission of guilt, nor should it be seen as such.

Qualifications: barrister.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
And there's more in the New Statesman from David Allen Green about the details of the Assange case.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0