homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » What next for Assange and Wikileaks? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: What next for Assange and Wikileaks?
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't anyone have a heart attack her, but . . .

I completely agree with orfeo.

Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Point taken. We are going after him.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285

 - Posted      Profile for Inger     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.....

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!"

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Happily I've never been raped, but had I been I think my memory wouldn't fade that quickly.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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'.



--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147

 - Posted      Profile for sebby   Email sebby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
sebhyatt

Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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".

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147

 - Posted      Profile for sebby   Email sebby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
sebhyatt

Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529

 - Posted      Profile for Pottage   Email Pottage   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools