he'll never be proven innocent if he keeps running away
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Julian Assange (Wikileaks) loses Supreme Court appeal, will be extradited to Sweden
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
he'll never be proven innocent if he keeps running away
Oh Snap.
Stop giving me a reason to!
Assange was wanted for arrest. That is what red notices are issued for: people wanted by a specific country for a specific crime who they would like to arrest. Such is the case here. Assange is being accused of a crime and the UK High Court ruled on this matter specifically as it was challenged by Assange's legal defense.
I'm all ears. Tell me exactly what you think is happening. Don't go on about how everything is unprecedented and weird and out of the ordinary. Tell me why you think it's happening. Tell me what you actually imagine is going on in Sweden and Australia and the UK.
Mister Wilhelm
Member
It is fascinating how transparent this whole thing is.
TwiztidElf
Member
Lol. Assange and Wikileaks are funded by George Soros.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Well for starters, I don't know whether he did it or not. We do know the timing of the complainants going to the police, and know that each talked with the other before bringing the complaint, and we know that they threatened Assange with going to the police before doing so. We also know that one of them continued to socialise with Assange beyond the day when the first incident is said to have occurred, sang his praises on Twitter, and removed said Tweets. There is no doubt that Assange has a case to answer, but his defence attorney's assertions that blackmail and duplicity may have been involved are also certainly worth looking into. That is all besides the point. If the Swedish justice system is fair, the truth will out and everyone will accept the findings.
With regards to state-led events leading to his arrest:
I know that the case was started and dropped. I know that authorities did not, or were not able, to secure Assange's account of events before seeking his arrest. Sven-Erik Alhem, former Swedish prosecutor described this as "peculiar". The Swedes say they made repeated attempts to contact him, but having denied him residency in Sweden and living as a nomad at the discretion of his friends and sympathisers - that obviously proved quite difficult.
The case was subsequently started again in a manner that the prosecutor herself admitted was, I quote "unusual", and the warrants were then issued. Assange turned himself into UK police immediately, and I do believe that he earnestly believes he will not receive a fair trial. He also believes that he may be extradited to the United States on completely unrelated charges, if any charges are filed at all. I think Assange might even genuinely believe that the Swedish prosecutor has a bit of a hard-on for him and wants to see him suffer. He has already been under what is essentially house arrest, as part of his bail conditions, for over 500 days. Such conditions are not likely to end now that he is to be transferred to Sweden, if anything, they are likely to worsen.
The countries involved have done nothing to allay his fears, so it is only natural that he has appealed his extradition. The Swedish representation in UK court said that he would only be extradited to the US in the case of an "exception" that he was "not aware of and could not comment on". The UK have completely withheld all of their correspondence with Sweden, the US and Australia regarding possible extradition, and the Australians have heavily redacted their correspondence to the point that it is near illegible. The stratfor leak, whether people put credence in it or not, states that they know the US has a sealed indictment for his arrest and extradition in certain countries. Is it really a surprise that following the media storm and all of this, that he thinks people are gunning for him? Is it really a surprise that whistleblower enthusiasts and free-press enthusiasts are perturbed by the possibility of a politically motivated case and the ambivalence of the UK as to what happens to him?
He may have lost his appeals, but he was absolutely entitled to them, just as he is entitled to a fair trial. I'll only restate what I said before: I do hope he gets one.
Source on these quotes?
The case was started and stopped, and then continued on an appeal from the women's attorney.
Again though, the entire position hinges on "hmmmmm!" The basis seems to rest solely on personal incredulity. Of course something may be happening, but the evidence for believing it is is scant at best. I hope he gets a fair trial too, but I suspect the results of the trial in either direction will alone determine how some judge its fairness.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Former prosecutor's quote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12392781
Prosecutor, Marianne Ny's quote (1 September 2010): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
Some context and followup from the initial extradition hearing:
Given all of the information he agreed that issuing the warrant was proper. He seems to suggest that an interview in England should have satisfied this but is clear that issuing the warrant was correct in his view.
And an additional bit of his testimony:
Her quote reads:
I'd look at the evidence at the time. If the CFO of British Petroleum just came off a wave of flipping off every world government, you'd have to be deliberately dense to not think that wouldn't fuel multiple people's desires to have him taken down.
sneakypete
Member
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-usa-crime-boy-idUSBRE84T1JR20120530
You're disregarding people's tendency to avoid unwanted attention and hassle. Take this story for example: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-usa-crime-boy-idUSBRE84T1JR20120530
The case of the first child to be placed on those "Have you seen me?" pictures on the back of a milk carton was solved. Turns out this guy killed him and then confessed to a church prayer group that he did so; and yet he was not caught. Do you consider those folks who heard and did nothing to be keeping a secret or just pushing it from their minds and going on with their lives? Is it a completely conscious thing? One person, his sister, claims she reported it to the police. Whether or not she's telling the truth or trying to save her reputation is irrelevant.
I think the church group did exactly what the police did and simply didn't believe him. They weren't keeping a secret. And on top of that this is a bad analog anyway since those people had no involvement at all in the act itself.
Yeah, no offense but when we're talking Wikileaks and violation of human rights we're talking of private Manning.
Not the other guy who use his influence to get a cosy house in England and host shows in Russia.
Basically this :
There will never be a trial. He will be extradited to Sweden, interviewed and then either released or jailed awaiting extradition to the US. There is no case here, unless JA admits to rape in the upcoming interview, something i consider extremly unlikely.
Do you have a similar case to base this off or is it just your natural hate for the US speaking?
wtf?
I think it's pretty clear,
is there a precedent of an activist (or not) being extraded from Sweden to the US without the US pressing charges against the activist (or not)?
Are you on drugs? JA does not want to be extradited to Sweden from the UK because he fears being extradited to the US from Sweden. A fair assumption seeing as we've done it before (just never to white people). I have no clue whether this is in the workings or not, and if it is not he will be released shortly after the interview. As i already stated.
But there will be no rape trial.
Now please tell me how this indicates "natural hatred for the US".
Yeah. You're missing out the details of the women's lawyer. Claes Borgstrom, a social-democratic politician, who was also on a election campaign at the time of the allegations, intervened in the case. The new prosecutor Marianne Ny is apparently a friend of Claes Borgstrom and had previously worked together to amend the rape laws in Sweden.
A bit of a conflict of interest don't you think?
Not to say it actually proves any sort of conspiracy only that it is does seem a conflict of interest to me, and very relevant to the case.
The bold (and in the specific case of Sweden -> USA), is what I want to know, the rest is really fluff.
This is just more "hmmmm!" but at least you identify it as such. What office was he running for? It seems he is just a spokesman.
Ms. Nye was the more senior prosecutor and simply over ruled her subordinate's decision.
Nothing at this point suggests that will be the case. Assange has been accused and will likely be charged after he is interrogated.
Did you read the testimony of the former prosecutor from Sweden? He stated extradition outside the EU was only possible in special cases and he believed there was no chance this would happen to Assange. What reason do we have to doubt his statements?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claes_Borgström
Interesting. Do you have a source for this information?
The reason I ask is because Eva Finné was the chief prosecutor who overruled her subordinate. She dismissed the case.
shanshan310
Member
Are you going to explain what "hmmm" means or are you going to just keep saying it as though it somehow make everyone's argument null?
Well we can't know for sure, but as it stands nothing indicates that
And yet it DID happen. And these people were not named public enemy number one by the us administration as JA was. Our government is one of the most spineless in europe when it comes to US demands and threats.
Did you also see the quote from a prosecutor who stated that Sweden only extradites people for really serious crimes like murder. This was in response to a brutal assault by four (identfied) irish blokes who pretty much kicked a mans head in and then left for Ireland?
This is not a normal case and it never was. Sweden has never ever demanded extradition on a case like this before.
[QUOT=wiki]Sweden alleges that the two men had been involved in acts of terrorism[/QUOTE]
You may not be aware of this but terrorism is kinda treated differently.
I know that for another country that is usually rather lenient in some cases, when terrorism enter the field the prosecution has more power than anything in the judiciary system in the US.
So this case might be special but I didn't know that Sweden did that, thanks for the info.
And as for your question, it was more in jest than any allegation (although there's a category of people who actually would side with any cause as long as its against the USA, I'm not accusing you of that, it's way too common).
such as terrorism which is what the example jorma provided was.
That doesn't say he was running for anything unless I'm missing it.
The source for that information was the initial extradition hearing I linked to last night.
It's a non argument. It's citing "interesting" or "intriguing" bits of information and using it as a substitute for evidence or a proper argument. So far it is the only type of support people can muster for the idea that this is all a ruse. It isn't enough.
Nonsense. An Interpol red notice acts very much like an international arrest warrant among member countries. Sweden issues these for crimes including theft and drug offenses. Given this the idea they don't request extradition doesn't make sense, since extradition is usually necessary to get the person back to Sweden following arrest abroad. Perhaps you could offer a source on that claim.
Lazy Jones
Member
Least scary country to be deported to?
I'm sorry no. Some countries like Poland issue them for any crime, including bicycle theft. Sweden does not. No english source sorry.
I might add that i don't think there is any risk of extradition to the US as the political climate stands today. But would i bank my life on it, like JA has to? No.
I personally think that he will be a free man a few days after the extradition to Sweden is executed. There is obviously a lot of prestige involved and the prosecutor is doing it with a political radical feminist agenda (pushing forward what constitutes rape in sweden), but i think she is doomed to fail and Sweden will be ridiculed all over the world when this is done and over with, and rightly so.
Please note that there was never anything stopping the prosecutor from travelling to the UK and interviewing him there. But the prosecutor is on record saying that she feels that the pre trial jail time is part of the fitting punishment for perpertrators of sex offenses even if you can't score a conviction. Yeah.
I'm not sure if he was or wasn't only that I have read that he was. Standing for election doesn't necessarily mean he is running for a cabinet position though, it could be simply standing to a win a seat in parliament. The government appoints its cabinet ministers.
Could you link me to the exact part you are referring me to. I'm not sure what it is you are referring to. The pdf shows up as blank pages.
Dude, JA has plenty of reasons to suspect that the US administration hates him a lot more than they hated these Egyptians.
Actually pretty much any allies in the middle east have more reason to hate him than the US.
Heck what would that achieve as it is Assange is discredited, they got Manning and everyone could care less about wikileaks.
Seriously they don't need him.
shanshan310
Member
I agree, but none of us has our lifes on the line. I'd fight tooth and nail too if i thought i was potentially risking the Bradley Manning treatment.
When certain Senators and Congressmen of the United States government and their allies have publicly called for the alleged perpetrator's blood on their hands for unrelated "crimes"? Of course it is, don't be ridiculous. It couldn't be any other way.
I have no opinion either way, though. If he is guilty, screw him, but if he isn't, and/or gets fitted up anyway by the USA/CIA/Saudis/Interpol/Koch Brothers/Swedish feminist movement/whoever, well...happens all the time, innit?
He really risk nothing because he's no longer seen as a threat since he's shown signs of being close the Russian powers.
Really if anything he risk more if Manning gets his hands on him.
You should call him and tell him that, i'm sure he will feel a lot safer then.
el retorno
Member
Prisons in Sweden.
No joke. I'm paying for a room that's worse than that.
Government-man
Member
Lots of speculating in this thread. There is nothing out of the ordinary with issuing an interpol red notice, and usually the person is extradited in 14-18 days. Due to Assange's pursuit of every possible instance of the UK justice system, he has now been under house arrest longer than any possible jail time he would have received in Sweden.
Also, Sweden will not extradite him to the US. To do so, UK courts would first have to approve.
Also, Sweden will not extradite him to the US. To do so, UK courts would first have to approve.
So your position is that Sweden either does not issue European Search Warrants, red notices and/or requests for extradition? You can look at the Interpol website yourself! If those people are arrested how do you think they get to Sweden? I don't think you have an authoritative source for this at all.
Can't look through it now, but a search for subordinate in the PDF will find it. It's a good read just in general if you can get it to load.
Not on their own is exactly right. The problem is that it is on its own.
I'm not saying it can't be some kinda ruse, I was commenting that the tone of the thread was different than I expected
Government-man
Member
There were 54689 notices of extradition handed out in the EU between 2005-09. 11630 were approved. There is nothing out of the ordinary with extradition between EU countries. And it is not only used for major crimes.
Why would UK courts have to approve an extradition from Sweden to the US?
Okay. It was actually Assange himself that claimed he was running for election at the time. I'm not sure exactly what he was referring to. That would have been September 2010. Obviously he does have some connection with the social democratic party though.
Marianne Ny is stated as being the Director of Public Prosecutions. Her wikipedia page however has her as, "chief prosecutor at the Prosecutor's development center in Gothenburg". She is also the head of a special unit on crime development in Gothenburg.
from an article I was reading:
A witness statement by Björn Hurtig.
What exactly is her position?
Edit: I'll just add that Eva Finné was chief prosecutor in Stockholm. The case was moved to Gothenburg(?).
Government-man
Member
If a state requests an extradition which is based on a specific case, that state can't suddenly extradite the same subject to another state without the consent of the government which first extradited the subject (in this case the UK).
Here is a swedish source, where Christoffer Wong (an academic specialising in EU- criminal law) specifically states that Assange cannot be extradited to the US without the consent of the UK.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked