• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Julian Assange (Wikileaks) loses Supreme Court appeal, will be extradited to Sweden

Status
Not open for further replies.

empty vessel

Member
Apr 20, 2008
11,520
6
800
But plenty here ARE stating those people are all involved in the grand conspiracy to take down an irrelevant egotist.

Plenty of people in power have expressed a desire to eliminate Wikileaks. Why are you acting as though there were no political interest in taking Assange down? An irrelevant egotist? You don't think the US views his proven ability to obtain and release classified US information as a serious political threat to it?
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
Feb 19, 2008
44,007
7
0
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.

welp.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Plenty of people in power have expressed a desire to eliminate Wikileaks. Why are you acting as though there were no political interest in taking Assange down? An irrelevant egotist? You don't think the US views his proven ability to obtain and release classified US information as a serious political threat to it?

I don't think the word plenty is an accurate one, and I think any that have have spoken of prosecution for specific crimes. I never said there wasn't political interest in getting rid of his influence(although I will say it has certainly diminished since people no longer care), but that doesn't offer support to the notion these people are breaking the law and corrupting foreign public officials and/or civilians.
 

empty vessel

Member
Apr 20, 2008
11,520
6
800
I don't think the word plenty is an accurate one, and I think any that have have spoken of prosecution for specific crimes. I never said there wasn't political interest in getting rid of his influence(although I will say it has certainly diminished since people no longer care), but that doesn't offer support to the notion these people are breaking the law and corrupting foreign public officials and/or civilians.

Assange is being formally investigated by the US government, so, I think "plenty" is actually an understatement. The US government itself--nevermind individual players within it--is actively pursuing criminal charges. I think your understanding of global politics and diplomacy is naive. I am not even saying that Assange's treatment is particularly extraordinary (I don't know), but I do think the notion that political influence is not operating in the case of a person who presents such an immense threat to US (and other governments') interests in secrecy is a naive one. This isn't a matter of a group of international individuals gathering in a room, formulating a plot, and executing it. It's a matter of the natural sensitivity and susceptibility people have to the subtle but powerful influence of power. Pressure on supervisors for desired results tends to work its way down.

This is the way, for example, that American intelligence agencies all came to the official conclusion that Iraq had and was pursuing WMD. Not through overt conspiracy, but through the exertion of power downward through the ranks.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Assange is being formally investigated by the US government, so, I think "plenty" is actually an understatement. The US government itself--nevermind individual players within it--is actively pursuing criminal charges. I think your understanding of global politics and diplomacy is naive. I am not even saying that Assange's treatment is particularly extraordinary (I don't know), but I do think the notion that political influence is not operating in the case of a person who presents such an immense threat to US (and other governments') interests in secrecy is a naive one. This isn't a matter of a group of international individuals gathering in a room, formulating a plot, and executing it. It's a matter of the natural sensitivity and susceptibility people have to the subtle but powerful influence of power. Pressure on supervisors for desired results tends to work its way down.

This is the way, for example, that American intelligence agencies all came to the official conclusion that Iraq had and was pursuing WMD. Not through overt conspiracy, but through the exertion of power downward through the ranks.

Criminal investigations are overt and legal; they are not conspiracies. Many in here were implying or outright stating that Assange was a victim of false rape claims made by two women under the influence of US or some other government's agents. That is clearly not the same thing, and is not an act that follows from statements made by and positions held by some in government concerning investigations of Assange.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
Why would UK courts have to approve an extradition from Sweden to the US?

They don't. They'd presumably need approval of the UK government, not the UK courts. So if he is extradited to Sweden he'd be completely in the hands of politicians when deciding if he is to be extradited to the US or not. I'd stay in the UK as well.

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.

I did, and it seems to back my position completely. Drugs and murder (you dont get more serious than this when it comes to crime in Sweden). And to boot, these does not look to be individuals wanted for an interview, they seem to be convicted individuals on the run. And there's about 30 of them in total. And listing them with Interpol just means that he is suspected to be abroad, it's not an extradition request.

Find me an EAW issued by Sweden that backs your position and i'll concede.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
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.

Sweden only use them for major crimes like murder. Poland does not. This would be normal for Poland, but completely outside the norm for Sweden. This is not a normal, business as usual, case at all. It was never handled like a normal case and it's bonkers that people try to pass it off as such.
 

akira28

Member
Aug 31, 2010
43,209
0
715
It wasn't just governments they made to look bad. British Petroleum might want his head on a pike as well.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
I did, and it seems to back my position completely. Drugs and murder (you dont get more serious than this when it comes to crime in Sweden). And to boot, these does not look to be individuals wanted for an interview, they seem to be convicted individuals on the run. And there's about 30 of them in total. And listing them with Interpol just means that he is suspected to be abroad, it's not an extradition request.

Find me an EAW issued by Sweden that backs your position and i'll concede.

In 2009 alone Sweden issued 263 EAW's. All of those were for murderers and other serious criminals? I didn't think Sweden was that dangerous.

More stats from 2005 to 2009. A total of 904 warrants issued in that time.

Assange was not merely wanted for questioning. Again, this specific issue was addressed at lengthy by all three courts in the UK. Please read any of their decisions and review testimony by the Swedish judicial authorities.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
In 2009 alone Sweden issued 263 EAW's. All of those were for murderers and other serious criminals? I didn't think Sweden was that dangerous.

Yeah, this file seems to back my claim more than yours. It's not a common thing to do in Sweden compared to many other countries also abusing the EAW. There are no stats available, but i remember reading that this was the first time ever it had been done in regards to a crime like this.

Assange was not merely wanted for questioning. Again, this specific issue was addressed at lengthy by all three courts in the UK. Please read any of their decisions and review testimony by the Swedish judicial authorities.

Well the facts remain, he is wanted for questioning and is not charged with any crime what so ever. Why do they want him according to you?
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Yeah, this file seems to back my claim more than yours. It's not a common thing to do in Sweden compared to many other countries also abusing the EAW. There are no stats available, but i remember reading that this was the first time ever it had been done in regards to a crime like this.

No the stats don't back you. By what measure is 900 warrants over a few years uncommon or unusual? Please.

Well the facts remain, he is wanted for questioning and is not charged with any crime what so ever. Why do they want him according to you?

For prosecution! And it isn't according to me. Please take me up on my suggestion. They are good, interesting reads.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
No the stats don't back you. By what measure is 900 warrants over a few years uncommon or unusual? Please.

I'm sorry but no, this is not business as usual. Anyone else coming to the police with the same story would never ever get someone extradited from the UK. Please. We know this because of a brutal assault with four identified irishmen where the prosecutor refused to extradite because the crime was not deemed serious enough.

For prosecution! And it isn't according to me. Please take me up on my suggestion. They are good, interesting reads.

That is quite impossible since the decision to prosecute has not yet been made. Post the quotes.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
I'm sorry but no, this is not business as usual. Anyone else coming to the police with the same story would never ever get someone extradited from the UK. Please. We know this because of a brutal assault with four identified irishmen where the prosecutor refused to extradite because the crime was not deemed serious enough.

Over 900 warrants. I don't know anything about that case or the reasons it was not pursued. But I do know there were over 900 warrants issued, and I do know there aren't 900 hardened Swedish killers on the loose in Europe.

That is quite impossible since the decision to prosecute has not yet been made. Post the quotes.

You have to refer to the decisions which I've linked to. Quoting them here with full context is not only largely impossible from my phone but would just be walls of text. There are incongruities between English and Swedish law. This was precisely equal to the formal argument raised in the extradition hearings and all three courts have addressed it and denied the complaint.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
Over 900 warrants. I don't know anything about that case or the reasons it was not pursued. But I do know there were over 900 warrants issued, and I do know there aren't 900 hardened Swedish killers on the loose in Europe.



You have to refer to the decisions which I've linked to. Quoting them here with full context is not only largely impossible from my phone but would just be walls of text. There are incongruities between English and Swedish law. This was precisely equal to the formal argument raised in the extradition hearings and all three courts have addressed it and denied the complaint.

IT would change nothing. The decision to prosecute has not yet been made. I know this because Claes Borgström was in the news yesterday claiming that the decision to prosecute would "probably be made before midsummer" (he is the legal councel for the two girls).
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
IT would change nothing. The decision to prosecute has not yet been made. I know this because Claes Borgström was in the news yesterday claiming that the decision to prosecute would "probably be made before midsummer" (he is the legal councel for the two girls).

You're plugging your ears and stomping your feet. The Swedish authorities do not request his presence merely to address their enquiries, and that is basically a quote straight from the prosecutor herself. I implore you to read the decisions.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
You're plugging your ears and stomping your feet. The Swedish authorities do not request his presence merely to address their enquiries, and that is basically a quote straight from the prosecutor herself. I implore you to read the decisions.

I don't need to read the statements in a UK court to know that the decision to prosecute is not yet made. That decision will be made after the interview. An interview that could have taken place at any time during the five weeks he was waiting in Sweden or at any time he has been in custody in the UK during all of this.
My guess is still that there will never be a rape trial.

Well, I have some other quotes straight from the prosecutor, quotes about pre trial incarceration being a just punishment for sex offenders even if you are later unable to convict. She might not be most unbiased person to ask about these sorts of things, ironically enough.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
I don't need to read the statements in a UK court to know that the decision to prosecute is not yet made. That decision will be made after the interview. An interview that could have taken place at any time during the five weeks he was waiting in Sweden or at any time he has been in custody in the UK during all of this.
My guess is still that there will never be a rape trial.

Well, I have some other quotes straight from the prosecutor, quotes about pre trial incarceration being a just punishment for sex offenders even if you are later unable to convict. She might not be most unbiased person to ask about these sorts of things, ironically enough.

Clearly you do need to read it. It's a UK court decision(decisions really, there are three from a total of 10 judges) based on the unique circumstances of matching up the laws in two separate countries. The judicial protocol is different. Please, please, please take the time to read at least the first decision. It isn't a huge undertaking and it's going to clear up much of what you're failing to understand or acknowledge. Your willful ignorance at this point is becoming rude.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
Clearly you do need to read it. It's a UK court decision(decisions really, there are three from a total of 10 judges) based on the unique circumstances of matching up the laws in two separate countries. The judicial protocol is different. Please, please, please take the time to read at least the first decision. It isn't a huge undertaking and it's going to clear up much of what you're failing to understand or acknowledge. Your willful ignorance at this point us becoming rude.

I'm fairly sure i know that the decision to prosecute has not yet been made since i live in Sweden and know quite a lot about our legal system. If she wanted to, she could have interviewed JA at any point during all of this and then made the decision on whether to prosecute or not. Why are you even arguing this? It's just silly.

So we now know that she absolutely needs to have JA in Swedish custody before making this decision Why do you think that is? We know that the "Swedish juidical protocol" is not the answer. One can only speculate, but it would not make me eager to travel to Sweden and find out if i was in JA's shoes.
 

dojokun

Banned
Feb 6, 2009
5,202
0
0
This is the equivalent of a fox news headline with a question mark. "Just askin questions!"

What evidence does anyone have? The issuance of the red notice doesn't even appear to be out of the ordinary in any way. It's simply stated and everyone assumes it's true. Why?

This started with people implying a conspiracy was afoot. The US wanted Assange in the states, so they conspired to make it happen by orchestrating a smear campaign. I commented on this. Now we have some other people coming by saying how maybe it's just Sweden being weird. Not suggesting any kind of conspiracy, of course!, just askin questions! No one offers anything other than "hmmmmm!" as evidence for why they might think any of this.
So if everyday citizens on the internet can't prove a government conspiracy, which would mean a lot of planning and money spent to specifically make it hard to prove, then we shouldn't even bother asking questions? What is your argument, KHarvey? That there is no such thing as a conspiracy that an everyday citizen on the internet can't prove?
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
I'm fairly sure i know that the decision to prosecute has not yet been made since i live in Sweden and know quite a lot about our legal system. If she wanted to, she could have interviewed JA at any point during all of this and then made the decision on whether to prosecute or not. Why are you even arguing this? It's just silly.

So we now know that she absolutely needs to have JA in Swedish custody before making this decision Why do you think that is? We know that the "Swedish juidical protocol" is not the answer. One can only speculate, but it would not make me eager to travel to Sweden and find out if i was in JA's shoes.

The fact you continue to spend time responding without reading the decisions suggests to me you feel doing so endangers your argument. I know it does but the possibility you recognize this as well is a good first step. Please read it. Until you do there is nothing to discuss about the specific issue of a warrant merely to ask questions. I reiterate again that the warrant was not granted to simply ask questions.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
The fact you continue to spend time responding without reading the decisions suggests to me you feel doing so endangers your argument. I know it does but the possibility you recognize this as well is a good first step. Please read it. Until you do there is nothing to discuss about the specific issue of a warrant merely to ask questions. I reiterate again that the warrant was not granted to simply ask questions.

But the argument "read any of the court decisions" does very little for me. I know how the Swedish legal system works, and the fact is that she could have made this decision a long time ago if she really wanted to. No amount of reading the UK courts decision changes this fact. She could have made all this spectacle go away in an instant if she had been so inclined. The fact that she refuses to do so speaks volumes, don't you think?

And when asked why she refused to conduct the interview during the five weeks he was waiting in Sweden she answered "because the officer assigned to do the interview was sick". Is that a satisfactory reply in your opinion?
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
But the argument "read any of the court decisions" does very little for me. I know how the Swedish legal system works, and the fact is that she could have made this decision a long time ago if she really wanted to. No amount of reading the UK courts decision changes this fact. She could have made all this spectacle go away in an instant if she had been so inclined. The fact that she refuses to do so speaks volumes, don't you think?

And when asked why she refused to conduct the interview during the five weeks he was waiting in Sweden she answered "because the officer assigned to do the interview was sick". Is that a satisfactory reply in your opinion?

All addressed in the documents you refuse to look at.
 

dojokun

Banned
Feb 6, 2009
5,202
0
0
The implicit assertion made in the question is wrong. The sick officer being a reason for what you claim isn't accurate.

Read the document(s).
People that are honestly interested in discussion quote and cite documents to make their points. They don't have the arrogance to order others to do the legwork to help them make their arguments.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
People that are honestly interested in discussion quote and cite documents to make their points. They don't have the arrogance to order others to do the legwork to help them make their arguments.

I linked to them! You keep trotting out this nonsense that's all addressed, specifically, in work already done by three separate courts yet refuse to acknowledge even the possibility it could tell you anything useful. I'm not gonna quote a wall of text on my phone. I already read them all. Click the links and read.
 

dojokun

Banned
Feb 6, 2009
5,202
0
0
I linked to them! You keep trotting out this nonsense that's all addressed, specifically, in work already done by three separate courts yet refuse to acknowledge even the possibility it could tell you anything useful. I'm not gonna quote a wall of text on my phone. Click the links and read.
Quote the specific passages and make your point. You don't have any authority to order other people to do the legwork for YOUR argument. Your argument, you do the work.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Quote the specific passages and make your point. You don't have any authority to order other people to do the legwork for YOUR argument. Your argument, you do the work.

No, you're making the arguments in contradiction of the facts. I'm pointing you to the facts. The section I'm citing is the entire damn document. It's a complete work that addresses the various points raised by the defense that you share. I have read it and I'm telling you what it says. The warrant was not issued to ask questions. You can confirm this by looking at the documents. Or not. But don't keep repeating the same nonsense and expect it to slide by everyone.
 

dojokun

Banned
Feb 6, 2009
5,202
0
0
No, you're making the arguments in contradiction of the facts. I'm pointing you to the facts. The section I'm citing is the entire damn document. It's a complete work that addresses the various points raised by the defense that you share. I have read it and I'm telling you what it says. The warrant was not issued to ask questions. You can confirm this by looking at the documents. Or not. But don't keep repeating the same nonsense and expect it to slide by everyone.
What argument did I make contradictory to the facts?

What nonsense am I repeating, exactly?
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
What argument did I make contradictory to the facts?

What nonsense am I repeating, exactly?

Mistook you for the other poster. Replace his name in there. I'm responding to his arguments with the facts that clarify what he's talking about. I don't need anyone to make my arguments.
 

dojokun

Banned
Feb 6, 2009
5,202
0
0
Mistook you for the other poster. Replace his name in there. I'm responding to his arguments with the facts that clarify what he's talking about. I don't need anyone to make my arguments.
Because you don't have an argument. If you did, you wouldn't point to entire government documents. Go read some more threads on serious topics and see how it's done. You break up the other poster's posts into separate claims, quote each claim separately, and follow each one with the quote from the document that disproves it. That's making an argument. You aren't making an argument because you have none and are simply frothing at the mouth whenever you sense a chance to start shit with anyone posting a suspicion by acting like their suspicion needs to be a fully blown, point by point investigation in order to be worthy of posting. If you weren't such an antagonistic waste of space, you wouldn't have so many people smacking their foreheads whenever they see your username in every thread you're in. If you want a link to read for proof of that, click on your own tag.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Because you don't have an argument. If you did, you wouldn't point to entire government documents. Go read some more threads on serious topics and see how it's done. You break up the other poster's posts into separate claims, quote each claim separately, and follow each one with the quote from the document that disproves it. That's making an argument. You aren't making an argument because you have none and are simply frothing at the mouth whenever you sense a chance to start shit with anyone posting a suspicion by acting like their suspicion needs to be a fully blown, point by point investigation in order to be worthy of posting. If you weren't such an antagonistic waste of space, you wouldn't have so many people smacking their foreheads whenever they see your username in every thread you're in. If you want a link to read for proof of that, click on your own tag.

Haha, yeah I'm the one frothing. My argument is that his assumptions are wrong, and the arguments built on those assumptions are wrong. My support consists of the decisions reached by three courts and the testimony and facts used to reach those decisions, all summarized neatly and completely in the documents I've linked to. I've told both of you what they say because I read them. Removing sections from context does not serve the discussion.

Get over it.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
The implicit assertion made in the question is wrong. The sick officer being a reason for what you claim isn't accurate.

Read the document(s).

So i read the decision. The court decided it was not any of their business as to why the swedish prosecutor refused to interview him in the UK. They found it odd and worthy of critique, but not grounds to deny the extradition. There was no mention of why she refused to do so while he was waiting in Sweden. Jesus, you asked me to read a bazillion pages for this? It was the very last page too :X

goddamnit
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
So i read the decision. The court decided it was not any of their business as to why the swedish prosecutor refused to interview him in the UK. They found it odd and worthy of critique, but not grounds to deny the extradition. There was no mention of why she refused to do so while he was waiting in Sweden. Jesus, you asked me to read a bazillion pages for this? It was the very last page too :X

goddamnit

Her reason given was the investigation was at such an advanced stage and involved serious charges that it could not effectively be handled in the UK. This satisfied the court. Another witness, either a prosecutor or Swedish lawyer, stated Sweden likely wanted him back in the country because once the legally required interrogation was completed he would be arrested. This would still require the EAW and the extradition if they did it in the UK.

Based on testimony and expert opinion the UK court ruled that Assange was being accused of serious crimes. The process in Sweden differs to a degree such that a formal indictment is not the same as or necessary to be accused. The courts also ruled that the requirement that EAWs only be issued for people who are being prosecuted was met by Swedish judicial officials.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
Her reason given was the investigation was at such an advanced stage and involved serious charges that it could not effectively be handled in the UK. This satisfied the court. Another witness, either a prosecutor or Swedish lawyer, stated Sweden likely wanted him back in the country because once the legally required interrogation was completed he would be arrested. This would still require the EAW and the extradition if they did it in the UK.
.

Well that was vauge. The court was satisified that the Swedish prosecutor is entitled to run the case as she sees fit and that their critique of her actions did not constitute a reason to deny extradition, not that she handled it correctly.

It does not change the fact that she could have chosen to conduct this investigation in a completely different manner if a speedy trial was her main concern. She seems to be a lot more concerned with having him in Sweden than actually prosecuting him. Now, i don't think that this is because we intend to hand him over to the US rather than charging him, but i'm not prepared to bet my life on it like JA has to.
 

JonnyBrad

Member
Nov 27, 2007
2,253
0
0
Latest stupid twist

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political asylum at Ecuador's London embassy, the country's foreign minister has said.

"Ecuador is studying and analysing the request," Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters in Quito.

On 14 June, Britain's Supreme Court dismissed Mr Assange's bid to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes.

He has denied the allegations, saying they are politically motivated.

The Supreme Court has given him until 28 June before extradition proceedings can start.

Swedish prosecutors want to question him over allegations of rape and sexual assault made by two female former Wikileaks volunteers in mid-2010 but have not filed any charges.

Mr Assange, whose Wikileaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, claims the sex was consensual.

'Minimum guarantees'
In a statement, Ecuador's embassy said he had arrived there on Tuesday afternoon to seek asylum.

"As a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights, with an obligation to review all applications for asylum, we have immediately passed his application on to the relevant department in Quito," it said.

"While the department assesses Mr Assange's application, Mr Assange will remain at the embassy, under the protection of the Ecuadorean government."

It said the decision to consider the bid for asylum "should in no way be interpreted as the government of Ecuador interfering in the judicial processes of either the United Kingdom or Sweden."


Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said Mr Assange had claimed he was being persecuted
Mr Assange issued a statement, saying he was "grateful to the Ecuadorean ambassador and the government of Ecuador for considering my application".

Associated Press quoted Mr Patino as telling reporters Mr Assange had written to Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa saying he was being persecuted.

Mr Patino said that the Australian had claimed "the authorities in his country will not defend his minimum guarantees in front of any government".

Mr Assange said he would not be protected from being extradited to "a foreign country that applies the death penalty for the crime of espionage and sedition," Mr Patino said.

The anti-secrecy campaigner fears extradition to Sweden may lead to him being sent to the US to face separate charges relating to Wikileaks, for which he could face the death penalty.

Swedish assurance
But Swedish authorities have said the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) would intervene if Mr Assange was to face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial" in the US.

Mr Assange could still take his case against extradition to the ECHR and has until 28 June to make the move.

Vaughan Smith, a friend who put Mr Assange up at his Norfolk home until December 2011, told the BBC he understood why he was seeking asylum.

"There's been an organised campaign to undermine him in recent months in Britain," Mr Smith said. "And he believed he would not get justice in Sweden."

Wikileaks has posted an alert on its Twitter feed: "ALERT: Julian Assange has requested political asylum and is under the protection of the Ecuadorian embassy in London."

It said Ecuador had offered asylum as early as November 2010.

Ecuador's deputy foreign minister said in 2010 his country was offering Mr Assange residency because it wanted to give him the opportunity to freely present the information he had.

However, President Rafael Correa subsequently dismissed the idea, which he said neither he nor Mr Patino had approved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

I'd imagine all the people who put up his bail must be pretty pissed.
 

theBishop

Banned
Nov 26, 2006
17,207
0
0
Latest stupid twist



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

I'd imagine all the people who put up his bail must be pretty pissed.

Doesn't every signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture have a responsibility not to extradite Assange?

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
Feb 19, 2008
44,007
7
0
I'm sorry, what makes you think he's being extradited to Sweden in order to be tortured?
 

brianmcdoogle

Member
Jun 5, 2010
7,052
1
0
I keep forgetting Wikileaks and Assange are still around since they haven't released/done anything substantial in a while.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
I keep forgetting Wikileaks and Assange are still around since they haven't released/done anything substantial in a while.

You and everyone else. All the more reason it's a little bizarre people still think powerful governments see a need to do away with him through nefarious means.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Aug 7, 2010
12,906
0
0
Latest stupid twist



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

I'd imagine all the people who put up his bail must be pretty pissed.

The guy is clearly paranoid about what is going to happen once he reaches Sweden. He has got the US government after him and he fears this whole thing is a set up.

A case where the charges were dropped due to there being no evidence. A case where the women didn't say they had been raped. The lawyer of the women pushed forward with the case and it was reopened from a different prosecutor in another city who just so happened to have connections with the lawyer. The lawyer, Claes Borgström, supported proposals in the Swedish Parliament for a 'man tax' in response to violence against women. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, is also head of the crime 'Development Unit' where she is tasked with reforming current rape laws. I'm not entirely convinced there was impartiality in this trial.

Assange at least feels he won't get a fair trial in Sweden.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.