Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
TallbutBuxomly said:
Two further issues.
1: If one of the charges is rape due to a condom splitting then quite frankly I dont see how he could have any case to answer.
2: If he has been accused of having sex with someone whilst they were asleep I cannot see how anyone could realistically say he did or not. Yes the woman can claim he did so but there is no way to prove he did or didn't or that it wasn't consensual.
I am no expert but to me this sort of situation seems a very murky grounds to me. It seems to me to come down to a he said she said situation which is very shaky ground for putting someone in jail.
Also it occurs to me could anyone be that heavy a sleeper that he was able to have sex with her whilst she was asleep and she didn't wake up??
1. It depends on the precise circumstances, but I'm inclined to agree. If, however, the condom split, they both noticed, the girl asked him to stop and he refused, then that's different. I don't know if that is the case.1: If one of the charges is rape due to a condom splitting then quite frankly I dont see how he could have any case to answer.
2: If he has been accused of having sex with someone whilst they were asleep I cannot see how anyone could realistically say he did or not. Yes the woman can claim he did so but there is no way to prove he did or didn't or that it wasn't consensual.
I am no expert but to me this sort of situation seems a very murky grounds to me. It seems to me to come down to a he said she said situation which is very shaky ground for putting someone in jail.
Also it occurs to me could anyone be that heavy a sleeper that he was able to have sex with her whilst she was asleep and she didn't wake up??
2. You could say that for practically every single rape accusation. Does that mean that nobody should go to jail for rape?
I don't know whether he has done stuff that warrants him going to prison. That is for the swedish judicial system to decide. I firmly believe they should get the chance to.
All this is presumably what would emerge in a court case.
At the moment he has not been charged with anything. He hasn't even been interviewed.
What we do know is that he has broken his bail conditions ( which is in itself a criminal offence), and that he is trying to arrange some kind of spurious diplomatic reason why he should not be deported to face his accusers.
He clearly thinks he is above the law, and is deserving of special treatment.
At the moment he has not been charged with anything. He hasn't even been interviewed.
What we do know is that he has broken his bail conditions ( which is in itself a criminal offence), and that he is trying to arrange some kind of spurious diplomatic reason why he should not be deported to face his accusers.
He clearly thinks he is above the law, and is deserving of special treatment.
XCP said:
All this is presumably what would emerge in a court case.
At the moment he has not been charged with anything. He hasn't even been interviewed.
What we do know is that he has broken his bail conditions ( which is in itself a criminal offence), and that he is trying to arrange some kind of spurious diplomatic reason why he should not be deported to face his accusers.
He clearly thinks he is above the law, and is deserving of special treatment.
I dont think so. I think he is justifiably worried that if he goes to Sweden he will be extradited to the US to face charges.At the moment he has not been charged with anything. He hasn't even been interviewed.
What we do know is that he has broken his bail conditions ( which is in itself a criminal offence), and that he is trying to arrange some kind of spurious diplomatic reason why he should not be deported to face his accusers.
He clearly thinks he is above the law, and is deserving of special treatment.
samwilliams said:
1. It depends on the precise circumstances, but I'm inclined to agree. If, however, the condom split, they both noticed, the girl asked him to stop and he refused, then that's different. I don't know if that is the case.
2. You could say that for practically every single rape accusation. Does that mean that nobody should go to jail for rape?
I don't know whether he has done stuff that warrants him going to prison. That is for the swedish judicial system to decide. I firmly believe they should get the chance to.
All very true. It just concerns me somewhat. I expect that in many rape cases there is plenty of evidence to prove rape in these sorts of cases however it seems there is very little more than a he said she said.2. You could say that for practically every single rape accusation. Does that mean that nobody should go to jail for rape?
I don't know whether he has done stuff that warrants him going to prison. That is for the swedish judicial system to decide. I firmly believe they should get the chance to.
XCP said:
He clearly thinks he is above the law, and is deserving of special treatment.
One would assume the asylum process he is currently engaged in is being operated within the bounds of the UN 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol, of which both the United Kingdom and Ecuador are party to. As such, how can he be above the law?
Edited by Marf on Saturday 7th July 15:58
XCP said:
He clearly thinks he is above the law, and is deserving of special treatment.
One would assume the asylum process he is currently engaged in is being operated within the bounds of the UN 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol which deals with asylum seekers, of which both the United Kingdom and Ecuador are party to. As such, how can he be above the law?
Edited by Marf on Saturday 7th July 15:59
For those who cant be bothered to seriously consider his concerns (sorry about the long cut and paste).....
In case you think that Sweden would not give in to U.S. pressure consider Sweden's record. Sweden not only approved renditions through Sweden but also from Sweden. Eventually it was the Swedish military who put an end to the flights when the government thought the U.S. was breaking the understood rules that Sweden had agreed to. The Swedish military actually boarded a plane in transition and found that prisoners were being transferred against agreed upon rules.This can all be found at many places but here is a good summary.
Ahmed Agiza was rendered from Sweden to Egypt by U.S. agents through Bromma airport. However the U.S. agents were assisted by the Swedish secret service. He was tortured in Egypt and sentenced to 25 years later reduced to 15. His lawyers sued in Sweden for damages and won. He was awarded 330,000 Euros--but is still in jail!
The Swedish government was also directly involved. The rendition was approved by Anna Lindh who was at the time the Minister of Foreign affairs but also the minister of Justice. Lindh was later assassinated. No doubt the moral of that is that those who live by extra-judicial punishment may also die by it.
Other countries have also had people in effect kidnapped from their soil and rendered. These countries have reacted by filing charges against the CIA people involved in the renderings. Both Italy and Germany have done so. But the U.S. has dutifully protected its agents. In fact it gets very angry when a country has the temerity to suggest that a kidnapping that sends residents to torture ought to be punished. But Sweden does not seem to have done that.
A recent Wikileaks cable actually reveals that Swedish officials put a stop to the rendition flights through Sweden:""-An acute diplomatic crisis broke out between the United States and Sweden in 2006 when Swedish authorities put a stop to CIA rendition flights, according to the latest revelation from Wikileaks."" This is from the site referenced above. Swedish Military Intelligence posed as airport personnel and boarded one of the two controversial extraordinary rendition flights during a stopover at Stockholm's Arlanda International Airport. The suspected prisoner transfers were confirmed. The Swedes were furious that the rules agreed to by the U.S. had been violated. There were no more rendition flights through Sweden.
However these events show that the Swedish government can give in to pressure by the U.S. first by allowing transiting flights and then by allowing and cooperating with the USA in rendering Agiza. As mentioned there is no sign that Sweden has the stomach to actually charge CIA operatives. They did not want us to know either that they had stopped the flights because of disagreement with the U.S. Only Assange revealed that. Bad boy. No doubt the Swedes will do their part to help bring him to JUSTICE.
In case you think that Sweden would not give in to U.S. pressure consider Sweden's record. Sweden not only approved renditions through Sweden but also from Sweden. Eventually it was the Swedish military who put an end to the flights when the government thought the U.S. was breaking the understood rules that Sweden had agreed to. The Swedish military actually boarded a plane in transition and found that prisoners were being transferred against agreed upon rules.This can all be found at many places but here is a good summary.
Ahmed Agiza was rendered from Sweden to Egypt by U.S. agents through Bromma airport. However the U.S. agents were assisted by the Swedish secret service. He was tortured in Egypt and sentenced to 25 years later reduced to 15. His lawyers sued in Sweden for damages and won. He was awarded 330,000 Euros--but is still in jail!
The Swedish government was also directly involved. The rendition was approved by Anna Lindh who was at the time the Minister of Foreign affairs but also the minister of Justice. Lindh was later assassinated. No doubt the moral of that is that those who live by extra-judicial punishment may also die by it.
Other countries have also had people in effect kidnapped from their soil and rendered. These countries have reacted by filing charges against the CIA people involved in the renderings. Both Italy and Germany have done so. But the U.S. has dutifully protected its agents. In fact it gets very angry when a country has the temerity to suggest that a kidnapping that sends residents to torture ought to be punished. But Sweden does not seem to have done that.
A recent Wikileaks cable actually reveals that Swedish officials put a stop to the rendition flights through Sweden:""-An acute diplomatic crisis broke out between the United States and Sweden in 2006 when Swedish authorities put a stop to CIA rendition flights, according to the latest revelation from Wikileaks."" This is from the site referenced above. Swedish Military Intelligence posed as airport personnel and boarded one of the two controversial extraordinary rendition flights during a stopover at Stockholm's Arlanda International Airport. The suspected prisoner transfers were confirmed. The Swedes were furious that the rules agreed to by the U.S. had been violated. There were no more rendition flights through Sweden.
However these events show that the Swedish government can give in to pressure by the U.S. first by allowing transiting flights and then by allowing and cooperating with the USA in rendering Agiza. As mentioned there is no sign that Sweden has the stomach to actually charge CIA operatives. They did not want us to know either that they had stopped the flights because of disagreement with the U.S. Only Assange revealed that. Bad boy. No doubt the Swedes will do their part to help bring him to JUSTICE.
Marf said:
One would assume the asylum process he is currently engaged in is being operated within the bounds of the UN 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol which deals with asylum seekers, of which both the United Kingdom and Ecuador are party to.
As such, how can he be above the law?
Quite.As such, how can he be above the law?
You'd have to ask him that! But I'd guess he doesn't feel that the Bail Act applies to him for a start.
Well there's nothing to ask is there? Whether or not it is deemed morally correct, he's using a valid legal route in an to attempt to avoid extradition. The choice he made was to risk breach of bail in exchange for attempting to get asylum.
If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
Marf said:
Well there's nothing to ask is there? Whether or not it is deemed morally correct, he's using a valid legal route in an to attempt to avoid extradition.
If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
At which point he will be shipped straight off to the US. Even if that wasn't the case if he is charged in sweden he will never get a fair trial.If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
Marf said:
Well there's nothing to ask is there? Whether or not it is deemed morally correct, he's using a valid legal route in an to attempt to avoid extradition. The choice he made was to risk breach of bail in exchange for attempting to get asylum.
If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
Exactly right.If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
But by either lying to or misleading the court which granted bail, he is demonstrating that he thinks only certain parts of the law in this country should apply to him. A rather arrogant stance, in my opinion.
XCP said:
Marf said:
Well there's nothing to ask is there? Whether or not it is deemed morally correct, he's using a valid legal route in an to attempt to avoid extradition. The choice he made was to risk breach of bail in exchange for attempting to get asylum.
If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
Exactly right.If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
But by either lying to or misleading the court which granted bail, he is demonstrating that he thinks only certain parts of the law in this country should apply to him. A rather arrogant stance, in my opinion.
I am amazed that he has lasted this long frankly, but I guess that probably has something to do with the stuff he hasn't released rather than any lack of desire from USGov that he be disappeared.
It would be a lot easier to get on one's high horse about Assange feeling above the law had various governments not themselves abused and outright broken the laws of extradition over the past decade. Extraordinary rendition is no more than a cynical euphemism for kidnap. Tony Blair and Jack Straw were at it too, dont forget.
rohrl said:
It would be a lot easier to get on one's high horse about Assange feeling above the law had various governments not themselves abused and outright broken the laws of extradition over the past decade. Extraordinary rendition is no more than a cynical euphemism for kidnap. Tony Blair and Jack Straw were at it too, dont forget.
Rules & morality is determined by those in charge. logic etc merely gets in the way.XCP said:
Marf said:
Well there's nothing to ask is there? Whether or not it is deemed morally correct, he's using a valid legal route in an to attempt to avoid extradition. The choice he made was to risk breach of bail in exchange for attempting to get asylum.
If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
Exactly right.If it fails he's not really got anywhere else to go and doubtless will end up being collected by UK Police and shipped off to Sweden.
But by either lying to or misleading the court which granted bail, he is demonstrating that he thinks only certain parts of the law in this country should apply to him. A rather arrogant stance, in my opinion.
samwilliams said:
If, as you say (and it sounds like you have a point), Sweden has an increasing problem with rape
During the last three days, 21 rapes or attempted rapes reported, all of the violent sort (including two serial rapists and two gang rapes), so the problem is real and it is increasing.If Glaxo Smith-Kline can stroll away from those serious rape allegations in New york I'm sure Mr Assange should have no difficulty at all. However, it would be courteous for him to go and have a nice chat with the Swedish police rather than scuttling away to hide in an embassy. Doesn't look good.
Mind you, the US military aren't being very nice to his mate Bradley Wiggins.
Edit: Dominic Strauss-Kahn
Edit: Bradley Manning
Mind you, the US military aren't being very nice to his mate Bradley Wiggins.
Edit: Dominic Strauss-Kahn
Edit: Bradley Manning
TallbutBuxomly said:
I dont think so. I think he is justifiably worried that if he goes to Sweden he will be extradited to the US to face charges.
Perhaps. Maybe he's also worried about being found guilty of rape. Maybe he's *more* worried about that? Only he really knows and I'm not sure he's likely to be telling the whole truth either way.The c&p on Swedish extradition you gave seems to indicate their govt have stopped the practice (6yrs ago) and are less than impressed with the way the US were handling related incidents?
Regardless, he's broken bail conditions and is wanted for questioning on a potentially serious matter. He's also not a British national. Assuming he fails to become an Ecuadorian diplomat, I don't really see what the big issue is on getting him on the next SAS flight to Stockholm.
Murph7355 said:
...Assuming he fails to become an Ecuadorian diplomat, I don't really see what the big issue is on getting him on the next SAS flight to Stockholm.
Even with that, there's practically no way he could get out of the country. He seems to have two options: live in the Ecuadorian embassy forever, or go to Sweden.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff