[Closed] Assange

Yet something that the lefties reacted in horror to when it happens at a Trump speech..

Lefties reacting in horror!!!! Are you a tabloid journo?

Iirc the offending person at the trump rally was standing in silence

I also seem to remember the righties frothing with righteous outrage when an old anti war vet got removed from a labour rally

Yet something that the lefties reacted in horror to when it happens at a Trump speech..

FWIW i thought everyone but RW nut jobs disliked Trump..OH hold on a minute i see why you are so upset 😛

My belief is that the ruling must have precedence over the warrant, although the ruling having words to the effect of 'assange must be released' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'the warrant is quashed', the warrant would surely be contested on this basis if it isn't quashed.

If the 'binding' decision of a non judicial UN panel is classed as 'authoritative' by the ECHR as they claim, then the natural outcome would be for Assange to apply to the ECHR which [u]does[/u] have a judicial role to challenge the decision of the (UK) Supreme Court.

One could suggest that this channel would have been the correct natural route of appeal against a decision of the UKSC anyway, and you can only wonder why on earth Assange has chosen to avoid judicial challenge and opted for this 'quasi-official non statutory bollocks' channel?

Fair point and I really don't know the answer. I can only presume the only way (or more successful, perhaps) is, for some reason, for him to challenge the UKSC finding in the ECHR having [i]first[/i] gained the support - for want of a better word - of the UN panel, rather than the other way around.

Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

Article 10:

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established:

"To investigate cases of deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily or otherwise inconsistently with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the relevant international legal instruments accepted by the States concerned"

So detention without trial would clearly be something they would consider. When the detention (or being a fugitive from justice in an embassy) is the result of a legal process which complies with Article 10, then it's difficult to see how can it be arbitrary, given that the unusual features of the 'detention' such as the duration are the result of Assange's own actions in exhausting all legal options in the UK courts and then fleeing justice to hide in an embassy.

The Working Group has stated that their ruling does not undermine or overrule the criminal charges Assange faces (the vice chair said their ruling "doesn't mean anything against the criminal prosecution he was facing").

So the UK police supposedly must comply with this 'binding' ruling to stop arbitrarily detaining Assange, which can only happen if the threat of arrest once he leaves the embassy is removed, but the Working Group have not ruled on the criminal charges he is facing, which require the police and UK government to arrest him and deport him in order to comply with their legal responsibilities under UK and international law.

It looks like the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are doing their best to uphold the maxim that "the law is an ass".

Schnor I think your link actually says the working groups findings are not legally binding in a conclusive or enforceable way , they are not a court . The findings are authoritative as in would be persuasive to a court making a decision rather than compelling a decision . The group express an opinion not pass a judgement.

Sweden's refusal to promise not to extradite Assange is perfectly correct Sweden has a separation of justice and politics so the Swedish government can't pre bind a a judge dealing with a hypothetical extradition case. No could any one sensibly promise never to extradite someone at a time when no extradition application has been made the charges have not been specified the evidence is unknown and the grounds of the on which the hypothetical extradition is sought have not been specified.

Junky you are right my earlier post was lazy you are wrong I don't dislike Assange I actually admire wikileaks , I do not agree with him running away from these accusations and avoiding any tribunal that can actually make a binding decision based on evidence. He instead seeks to win his case without exposing himself to challenge or sanction if he is judged culpable.

Rape allegations are serious and should be properly investigated and tried . Sweden has a modern and thourgh liberal justice system and a robust and protective system for assessing extradition requests . I doubt The Americans would ever render a prominent media friendly rich white man by putting a bag over his head and spiriting him off to a black site for torture. So if the Rule of Law means anything Assage should submit to it and fight his case in court .

It's an amazing situation when hiding to evade the established legal process can be defined as some form of state detention.

The only one who is not fulfilling his responsibilities under international law is Mr Assange, whose extradition to face serious charges has been ruled correct at a high level in the UK courts.

Assange could have faced (and most likely defeated, given the lack of evidence) the rape charges in Sweden in a fraction of the time he has chosen to spend cooped up.

There is no mechanism for the arbitrary cancellation of a valid UK arrest warrant, so the stand-off will continue.

The Ecuadorians must be getting pretty sick of this now. Perhaps they'll temporarily relocate their embassy to Birmingham to get shot of him.

I do not agree with him running away from these accusations and avoiding any tribunal that can actually make a binding decision based on evidence. He instead seeks to win his case without exposing himself to challenge or sanction if he is judged culpable.

I agree this point is a valid opinion and he may be doing this

However i also think its valid for him to fear extradition if he does go there.

The only way to end this and know for sure whether he is an court dodging scumbag is for the US to openly say they wont try to "get him" when/if he goes there.

I do worry when folk just say the process happened he should go though. Its nit like states never abuse their powers and its obvious why he would be a high profile targeted individual. There is clearly more to this than a "bery serious rape allegation". A reasonable case can be made for them being stage managed, trumped up and an abuse of the process.

FWIW the admire is interesting Wikkileaks is admirable but he seems like an arse.

If you read the report there is a fairly clear summery of Swedish extradition law in the Swedish submissions that Assange does not dispute if it is accurate it seems he would have a fair argument to run in Sweden to fight extradition if the US sought it. It is noteworthy that he did not leave Sweden to avoid a US extradition application but at the time he was to be arrested for Rape.

What ever you think about the Swedish rape charges and indeed law it is illogical to link them to the US if the US wanted him why not just apply to extradite him when he was found in Sweden or render him if you go for the supper baddie view. If the rape charges are fabricated to blacken his name why such vague consent boundaries issue rather than an easier and clearer non consent date rape type accusation.

The group express an opinion not pass a judgement.

Fine. If you want to split hairs the OCHCR's conclusions aren't [i]themselves[/i] enforceable, but their findings are based on international and local laws, with all the parties having agreed to adhere to the panels findings. How's that?

It's analogous to an employment tribunal telling an unfairly sacked worker that "We find Company X terminated your employment illegally, and that under laws Y and Z you should be reinstated immediately". Yes, the employment tribunal themselves have no legal powers under laws Y and Z to compel Company X to reinstate the worker, but they tell Company Y "these laws here say you have to".

That's the whole point of the UN working group and the basic underlying concept of tribunals. I'm really struggling to see why some people aren't getting this 😕

it is illogical to link them to the US

Again your view is not without merit but, without US action, we cannot be certain if he has a point or if he is a rape avoiding shit bag

then the US will have no issue pointing this out openly in a legally binding way and say dont worry we wont do anything

You think the USofA should jump up and down through Julian Assanges hoops just to make his life easier?

ing his responsibilities under international law is Mr Assange, whose extradition to face serious charges has been ruled correct at a high level in the UK courts.

On past behaviour for Assange to fulfil his responsibilities on the assumption that the US would do the same would be naive beyond belief

You think the USofA should jump up and down through Julian Assanges hoops just to make his life easier?

No. Just stop torturing people.

Ah, right - so Julian is hidden in the Ecuador embassy not because he's a rapist trying to avoid responsibility for his crime, but because after being extradited to Sweden, he is going to be extradited and now [u]tortured[/u] as well...

Though clearly if that was the case (even though the US gave not applied for extradition) his extradition to the US from Sweden would be prohibited by ECHR (either in Sweden OR in the UK, despite the notoriously lax agreement on extradition between Uk and US, Eg. Long battle to keep autistic hacker from being sent there) .

your right ninfan

I'd add that in the two years he was on bail the US did not seek his extradition nor have they now.

You think the USofA should jump up and down through Julian Assanges hoops just to make his life easier?

Bradley Manning, held on similar charges, was tortured, and Denmark was prepared to extradite Edward Snowden in contravention of their own laws, so the scenario is not exactly far fetched.

Regardless of him being an abrasive character surely anyone who values transparency and democracy should celebrate people like him existing?

Has the UN ruling explicitly said there is no merit at all in the Swedish accusations? If not, how can the UK possibly not fulfil the extradition?

What's to stop the ecuadorians employing him as a diplomat and affording him immunity to fly out?

What's to stop the ecuadorians employing him as a diplomat and affording him immunity to fly out?

I believe the uk does not allow foreign governments to nominate people already resident in the uk as diplomats to stop actions such as this.

In fairness, there [i]was[/i] a legal obligation for the UK to extradite him to Sweden. However, re. [url= http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx ]Point 78[/url] [.doc]: -

The corrective UK legislation addressed the court’s inability to conduct a proportionality assessment of the Swedish prosecutor’s international arrest warrant (corrected by s. 157 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, in force since July this year). [b]The corrective legislation also barred extradition where no decision to bring a person to trial had been made (s. 156)[/b]. The prosecutor in Sweden does not dispute that she had not yet made a decision to bring the case to trial, let alone charge Mr. Assange.

Ouch. It appears therefore the extradition warrant is fatally flawed insofar that he can't be extradited until Sweden say he'll be prosecuted. Which they themselves admit hasn't been decided yet. Which then is why the panel said in it's concluding point 100: -

... the Working Group requests ... the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner

Clearly it's beyond the panels remit to say "release him" but words to the effect of "in accordance with laws X, Y and Z his right to a freedom of movement must be reinstated".

One could suggest that this channel would have been the correct natural route of appeal against a decision of the UKSC anyway, and you can only wonder why on earth Assange has chosen to avoid judicial challenge and opted for this 'quasi-official non statutory bollocks' channel?

The 95%+ likelihood of getting a favourable ruling based on previous hearings

Onto the matter of a breach of bail conditions: -

64. Mr. Assange continues to face arrest and detention for breaching his house arrest conditions (“bail conditions”) as a result of successfully exercising his right to seek asylum. [b]However the conditions of his house arrest arise directly out of Sweden’s issuance of the EAW.[/b]

Now, would a flawed warrant negate any consequences of breaching his bail conditions? At the very least if it doesn't, it must be counted against 'time served' whilst under house arrest for some 550 days (point 87).

I think the panel thinks so, otherwise it would surely have been mentioned in their findings with a finishing caveat along the lines of "freedom of movement must be reinstated notwithstanding the issue of his breach of bail conditions".

Anyone got anything better?

Wow, thanks for clarifying schnor. It really does appear that the extradition warrant isn't worth the paper it's written on. And that the UK is beginning to look complicit in a very dodgy affair. why have the Swedish refused to interview him in situ, so as to make a decision on charging or not?

strange not many seem to be bothered at the huge cost and manpower used, 2 security guards SIA registered of course could have done the guarding on minimum wage and free tea bags for a lot les, they should have privatised the guarding.

Ouch. It appears therefore the extradition warrant is fatally flawed insofar that he can't be extradited until Sweden say he'll be prosecuted. Which they themselves admit hasn't been decided yet.

2014 act was not retrospective, so the act in force at the time retains primacy.

If Assange wanted to challenge this then he could have done so at any time - fact is that, like the appeal to ECHR, he has not done so.

Everything regards Assange has been transparent, he has been able to appeal to the highest court in the land, with everything documented and open to public scrutiny, and lost.

Does anyone have any stats on how many other criminals have skipped bail for similarly serious charges?
And, if so, do those stats also reveal the average cost of investigating the perpetrator and bringing them to justice?
And does anyone else have stats to reveal how many similar cases were dropped by the CPS as not worthy of persuing due to lack of evidence or resources?

Whatever you think of Assange, this is political retribution, no more, no less and the UK government has got caught up in the middle of it and tax payers are footing a huge bill for Swedens intransigence. The Swedish prosecutors dropped the ball by letting him leave the country AND should have interviewed Assange in the UK when they had the chance. If nothing else, it would have been an opportunity to strengthen their position and maybe more of the public would be on their side and maybe the Ecuadorian would not have offered him asylum...

I'm assuming Assange has much better legal advice than is being spouted on these pages, and has a fuller picture of what his options are. And he chooses to remain "detained"

In the same circumstances, I'd probably do the same to avoid any (theoretical or otherwise) jail time in the US...

Checkmate

The [b]corrective legislation also barred extradition[/b] where no decision to bring a person to trial had been made (s. 156).

(a) The OHCHR clearly interprets S156 differently to you ninfan (see below),
(b) There's more to the refusal of the EAW than just an interpretation of S156, and
(c) UK government lawyers at the time should have corrected this point.

(3) In a case where the Part 1 warrant (within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003) [b]has been issued before the time when the amendments made by this section come into force[/b] *, those amendments apply to the extradition concerned only if, at that time, the judge has not yet decided all of the questions in section 11(1) of that Act.

* This could [i]easily[/i] be interpreted as entirely retrospective (e.g. if someone's been sitting on an EAW for months, tough, or reapply for one). Or it could just as easily be interpreted as applicable only if the law was enacted between the time a warrant was issued and it appearing before a judge.

However, I agree it should have gone to the ECHR first.

markgraylish. This must be the first case (am happy to be proven wrong) - I think it's particularly unusual as Assange specifically chose political asylum which can only be done, AFAIK, in person in an Embassy. I can't imagine many people running into an Embassy chased by the police * and [i]not[/i] be thrown out / shot within 10 seconds (other than in films / etc)

* probably didn't happen

http://m.firstpost.com/world/sweden-never-filed-any-charges-against-assange-top-un-human-rights-high-commission-official-2615300.html

Shared from Wikileaks Facebook

Has
He
Left
The
Building
Yet
?
😐

No but Elvis has.....

Good link pie monster. The more I read the less I understand why he hasn't simply left and gone to Sweden. There seems zero threat from US. Maybe the publicity is what he wants or he's seeking asylum in another country. Speculation on my part.

The more I read the less I understand why he hasn't simply left and gone to Sweden.

You mean apart from the obvious conclusion?

He's guilty of the rape charge?

He's guilty of the rape charge?

Obviously he's innocent until found guilty in a court of law, but...

And it's also hard to banish the thought that if he really thought the Septics want to extradite him, he'd be far better off being in neutral Sweden, than, say the US's closest NATO ally.

There seems zero threat from US

This is true, the US is a lovely fluffy bunny.

and Guantanamo Bay is a sort of Disneyland for Muslims.

Yes, but they're keen on phasing it out for just blowing them up with drone missiles.

It's a cost thing, no pesky costs of checking they're "bad guys"

Yup I'd have thought if the US wanted to extradite him they would have done it in the UK. Agree can't think it would be easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden. Besides he was trying to live and work there before he left. So if it was ok then it should still be ok now? Don't see what's changed.

JULY 25, 2010
The Afghan War Diary
WikiLeaks published a six-year archive of classified military documents about the war in Afghanistan.

JULY 30, 2010
U.S. Investigates WikiLeaks
Army investigators suspected that the source of the leaks was Pfc. Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley.

SEPTEMBER 2010
Sweden Pursues Rape Investigation
Mr. Assange was investigated on charges of rape and molestation after separate complaints from two women.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/04/world/europe/julian-assange-timeline.html

As to why Sweden. Maybe that's where a plot was set in motion and it was considered a reasonable route to punish him. Accomplices could be found.

All that said, he genuinely could also be guilty. Maybe they should charge him? I've no idea whether he's guilty, or others are guilty of plotting against him. I know the whole thing stinks tho!

Hmm....

1. Unlawful coercion
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange , by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2. Sexual molestation
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange , who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consomethinged unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3. Sexual molestation
On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consomethinged sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange . who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consomethinged unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity.

If they were going to make up a rape allegation to discredit Assange, don't you think that they could have come up with something less complex and convoluted that would, without any shadow of a doubt, leave prosecution an absolute certainty?

#ConspiracyTheoryFail

A plot. Hmmm. Sceptical. The women should be listened to. Think we've had enough examples of ignoring such claims.

They should be listened to yes.

Then he should be charged.

The more I read the less I understand why [s]he[/s] Eva Finne hasn't simply telephoned [s]Sweden[/s] the Ecuadorian Embassy to follow up on Assange's agreement to conduct a telephone interview - enough to qualify for the purposes of the Preliminary Investigation and getting the ball rolling (or not).

Which I genuinely hope they do as he might very well be guilty, but the way they've gone about it is just absurd. [i]"Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done"[/i]. As Shakespear / Churchill / Mark Twain or the other guy said.

Plus, I really don't buy into the conspiratorial side of things. Would the US use a rape allegation to their advantage to nefariously get their mitts on him? Absolutely. Did they somehow engineer the whole thing? Nah, I don't buy it. As ninfan said there are far easier / believable / less screw-up-able ways to do it.

My rant, you were all asking? But of course: -

So the UK continues to blatantly refuse to abide by the decision because they don’t agree with its content; in essence they are essentially saying they are willing to tear up the ICCPR – a major international treaty – to get their way. That’s a repercussion of serious legal significance. Buy hey, lets not worry about that, we've got enough [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses ]Bread and circuses[/url] for everyone!

To top it off, Hammond [url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-accuses-philip-hammond-insulting-united-nations ]lied[/url] about the panels members stating that they're 'lay people' and the media, as usual, eagerly nodded their heads in agreement. Yeah, what do [url= http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/Members.aspx ]these chumps[/url] know, eh? 🙂

don't you think that they could have come up with something less complex and convoluted that would, without any shadow of a doubt, leave prosecution an absolute certainty?.

You then need the charges to be so flimsy they fall apart in court so there is no sentence - remember you dont want them to to jail him- so that you can then extradite him when he is set free.

I have to say you will make a shit black ops operative
#makesyouthink

Though clearly if that was the case (even though the US gave not applied for extradition) his extradition to the US from Sweden would be prohibited by ECHR (either in Sweden OR in the UK, despite the notoriously lax agreement on extradition between Uk and US, Eg. Long battle to keep autistic hacker from being sent there) .

It was ever thus with you Zulu.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK–US_extradition_treaty_of_2003

Feel free to link either the part of this that suggests the process is fair to the detainee,or doesn't favour any US effort to extradite a foreign national for anything they want.

In an attempt to understand why Sweden is more likely to extrodite to the US than the UK I took a look at Assanges version (below).

https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#UKEASIER

Plus, I really don't buy into the conspiratorial side of things. Would the US use a rape allegation to their advantage to nefariously get their mitts on him? Absolutely. Did they somehow engineer the whole thing? Nah, I don't buy it. As ninfan said there are far easier / believable / less screw-up-able ways to do it.

To be clear, and repeat myself. I don't actually "buy" any of the versions I've seen.

The US is certainly capable, as is Assange, and a bunch of other possibilities. But if he's guilty, charge him.

Pie is correct

None of use really know whether he has or has not done it and all views have degrees of credibility and plausibilty

1) He is a rapist avoiding justice
2) he was set up with a wea and nefarious charge
3) Its all a ruse to discredit him - no longer the hero now a justice avoiding sex pest
4) its all part of a trick to get him to the US

The fact remains that the only way to end this is for the US /Sweden To categorically state they wont extradite him. Even then you would need to believe them

The other point that seems to have been overlooked is that it's quite a convenient place that the US is currently in. They know where Assange is, he can't cause trouble and the best bit is they never had to try him or spend a dollar getting him to the US.

Trying him would be messy, on one hand they have people wanting him brought to book for spilling the beans and on the other they have people saying he has really done nothing wrong in the grand scheme of things besides the small matter of him not being a US citizen and therefore not really liable for a treason charge. Extraordinary rendition? No chance, not on such a high profile target, would be political suicide.

So yeah, right now the US is in a good place, being seen to be doing something without actually having to do anything, you have to wonder just how much the UK and Swedish governments are being encouraged to make sure he just stays in that embassy.

Of course that doesn't take away from the fact that I think he's being deliberately evasive and should face his accusers.

[img] [/img]

The bit that I don't get is the US don't want Assenge. What are they going to do with him. He did not steal the information - he published it. In the same way that the New York Times and the Boston Globe published it. To send Assenge to prison would require the US to do the same to the editor/publisher of those papers. Perhaps they would have to extradite the Graunids publisher/editor.

Bradley/Chelsea Manning stole data (having signed their official secrets act) and is serving time for that.

Ironically Assenge has committed a crime in the UK, he has skipped bail, which is a crime. If he comes out he should be shipped of to Sweden immediately (he has had four sessions in court to prove that this should not happen). If he waits until the statue of limitations runs out in Sweden, then she should be shipped back to Oz and banned from the UK.

The bit that I don't get is the US don't want Assenge. What are they going to do with him. He did not steal the information - he published it. In the same way that the New York Times and the Boston Globe published it. To send Assenge to prison would require the US to do the same to the editor/publisher of those papers. Perhaps they would have to extradite the Graunids publisher/editor.

Exactly what I was getting at.

https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#UKEASIER
/p>

One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States;

This is false, since Julian Assange is in the protective custody of the government of Ecuador, and is therefore safer from extradition to the United States than he would be if he were in Sweden or the United Kingdom. It is false to suggest that Julian Assange, without guarantees, would be safer in Swedish custody than he is in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

This seems a little evasive, but if we take it at face value then Assange's fear is extradition to the US from either the UK *or* Sweden and he's only safe because he's technically in Ecuador and therefore cannot leave until the USA promise not to request his extradition - which they will never have any reason to do.

If we take him at his word - Sweden is a red-herring - which begs questions about his timing in taking flight.

which they will never have any reason to do

The main reason to do this it means that the views being discussed here can be tested. if they say go we wont do anything and he does not then the view of all would have to be justice avoiding probable rapist

Secondly, if they wont try to do this anyway[extradite him], then what is stopping them saying this? I can see no reason why they wont say this if they wont do it not least because it means a potential rapist will face trial - assuming they ever charge him.

If we take him at his word - Sweden is a red-herring - which begs questions about his timing in taking flight.