Please. More equivocating. Stop insulting GAFs intelligence.
I suspect we will fall into an endless game of burden-of-proof here, where you suggest I prove its out of the ordinary -- I would ask you to prove that it is ordinary. Find me another case like this one, where a high profile public figure - not yet charged - was denied residency in a country, and then the highest kind of international arrest warrant filed for his non-availability for questioning. In any way, shape or form - find me another case such as this one.
Do you know any other way to enter discussion with people other than deciding on their behalf what their views are and what they're trying to say? Or without resorting to false equivalences? I suspect not, but I'd really like to know.
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.
Sven-Erik Alhem, former Swedish prosecutor described this as "peculiar".
The case was subsequently started again in a manner that the prosecutor herself admitted was, I quote "unusual", and the warrants were then issued.
In cross-examination he said his understanding of the steps taken to interview Mr Assange comes from what he was told by Mr Hurtig, the Swedish defence lawyer, and what he has read.
He had not read the documentation put before the Stockholm District Court and the Court of Appeal. He had not seen the statements of Mr Hurtig or Ms Ny. The account given by Ms Ny as to the factual steps taken to interview Mr Assange were put to him. “I make no judgement between Mr Hurtig and Ms Ny.” He added that he saw his role as giving a judgement on the ECHR, the legal issues and fairness. There is nothing wrong with the EAW issued for Mr Assange. If it was the case that it was not possible to hold the interrogation hearing with the suspect earlier then he too, when he was a prosecutor, would have issued the EAW. However he would have first tried to arrange the interrogation hearing in another way. He agreed that the evidential question as to the steps taken to interview Mr Assange is relevant and that he should have seen the relevant documentation before expressing his view. However even if Ms Ny’s account, which he heard in court today for the first time, is correct then that does not change his view that an interrogation should have taken place in England. He made it clear that the statement of Ms Ny does not correspond with the information he had been given by Mr Hurtig. Ms Ny “is allowed to seek an EAW – there is no doubt about that”. On the account given by Ms Ny it would have been a reasonable reaction to apply for an EAW. “Certainly, I would have done the same myself”.
He was then asked about extradition from Sweden to the United States. He is not an expert on what happens but had brought a Guide and had considered the specialty principle. His reading was that normally there could not be a further surrender to a country outside the European Union but there are exceptions. It would be “completely impossible to extradite Mr Assange to the USA without a media storm”. It is quite right to say that he would not be extradited to the USA.
She tells AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure), but not so out of the ordinary either".
I wonder if you'd feel the same if it were, say, a wealthy businessman charged with rape in another country. Say, like, the CFO of British Petroleum or something.
People are not forced to obtain a clearance and having a clearance doesn't grant you access to every secret. Do you not recognize the difference between a CIA group keeping secrets and disparate civilians from various agencies being forced to keep a secret? Really?
The soldiers on the ground aren't forced to keep some grand secret.
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.
He might have been bailed, but he has been held for nearly 500 days, electronically tagged and effectively under house arrest while this all plays out... if only interpol members treated all accusations this seriously! He has not been charged with anything by the way, the Swedes want him for questioning. Put aside what we know about Anna Ardin's behaviour (online and off) leading up to the allegations, and the prosecutors hard-on for him -- imagine being held that long without being formally charged with anything.
he'll never be proven innocent if he keeps running away
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.
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.
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)?
The case was started and stopped, and then continued on an appeal from the women's attorney.
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.
But there will be no rape trial.
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.
Between 2000 and 2007, Borgström was appointed by the Swedish government as the Equality Ombudsman (JämO).
In 2007 he quit to start a law firm with former Social Democratic Minister for Justice Thomas Bodström as partner.
Since 2008 he is also the Swedish Social Democratic Party's spokesperson on gender equality issues.
Borgström has often attracted attention with a series of controversial proposals and moves. He claims that all men carry a collective guilt for violence against women, and has in this context supported Gudrun Schyman's "Tax on Men".
He also attracted attention in March 2006 when he demanded that Sweden boycott the 2006 World Cup in Germany "in protest against the increase in the trafficking in women that the event is expected to result in".
In 2010 Borgström successfully appealed the decision to close the sexual assault case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and became the legal representative for the two Swedish women.
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?
extradition outside the EU was only possible in special cases
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dude, JA has plenty of reasons to suspect that the US administration hates him a lot more than they hated these Egyptians.
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.
Seems like conspiracy gaf is louder than women's rights gaf. I thought it would be the opposite.
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.
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.Seems like conspiracy gaf is louder than women's rights gaf. I thought it would be the opposite.
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.
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.
Not on their own, but they surely count for something.
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?
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.
Claes Borgström is not due for election, but he is a known radical feminist and a power player in the Swedish social democratic party.
The prosecutor he approached was Marianne Ny, head of a special unit on ''crime development'' based in Gothenburg, a unit explicitly tasked with exploring and extending sex crime laws in areas of social behaviour.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-man-who-played-with-fire-20100925-15rof.html#ixzz1wSoNTvR5
I can confirm that Ms. Ny is not the Director of Public Prosecutions, as she is incorrectly described in the English version of the EAW (see page 5). The Swedish word to denote her title is överåklagare and in fact means ’Senior Prosecutor’ and she is one of a number of senior prosecutors. The Director of Public Prosecution in Sweden (i.e. the most senior Prosecutor in Sweden and the equivalent of the DPP in England, Keir Starmer) is the Riksåklagaren - the Prosecutor General - Mr. Anders Perklev."
Why would UK courts have to approve an extradition from Sweden to the US?