Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK 377
concertina226 writes "Lawyers representing Julian Assange have demanded that he be questioned in London over rape and sexual molestation allegations. 'Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion. Assuming that the prosecutor does not have a prejudiced opinion regarding the question of guilt, and is prepared to treat the different versions objectively, it is obvious that an interrogation with Julian Assange would benefit everybody, including the injured parties,' the lawyers wrote."
Internal politics? (Score:5, Interesting)
One reason is that the prosecutor in charge of the case may have found herself a useful tool that she can use to further her own ambitions in something completely unrelated: she is known to be a feminist and has stated in at least one interview that it must be possible to punish men even after a court has found them to be innocent. She is also a member of the same political party as one of the (possible) victims. Which just happens to be the same political party to which the defense attorney belongs! My conclusion is that the suspicion of internal politics cannot be put to rest until more evidence appears.
-----------
Just to point out a few strange facts in this sordid case:
- JA found out he was wanted for questioning not by being told be the authorities, but by being told be the media. I cannot remember another case where this has happened.
- the prosecutors office called a press conference to announce JA was wanted for questioning. I have never heard of them doing anything similar in any other case.
- the two (possible) victims of rape have the same lawyer. Also this is a first: it does not matter how many victims are involved in a court case, they get their own lawyer and do not share this lawyer with anybody else involved in the same case.
-----------
Full disclosure: I live in Sweden and it is my personal opinion that the prosecutor handling this case at the moment is doing so for personal reasons and should be removed from her position.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Then argue for mistrial.
Argue for undue process.
Argue for an unfair trial.
Argue against the law that says you can't have one lawyer represent two people in a case (sorry, "class action lawsuit"? Why wouldn't you allow this unless there was a specific conflict of interest? And in this case, the "interest" is in bringing the same guy in both cases for the same crime. "Sorry, your honour, but my opponent can't have that lawyer as he once represented someone in a similar case?", no not unless there's a speci
Re: (Score:2)
"Assange is avoiding ARREST"
Well, technically, he's avoiding a hearing on Swedish soil, which really isn't a criminal offense.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah no, he's avoiding extradition to the United States where he would most assuredly be tortured, put through a sham military trial and then never heard from again. I wont even argue if he's guilty of the allegations in Sweden. He certainly should face the authorities on that, but not at the risk of his own life. Secret courts and secret rulings have a tendency to screw up "Justice"
He will (Score:3, Insightful)
He'll stand in a British court.
To answer the charge of skipping bail, contempt of court, etc. Then he can - LIKE HE ALWAYS COULD HAVE - argue that he should be legitimately put on trial in a "friendly" country. And he'll go through the legal system, same as anyone else. And then the legal system will decide if the law allows him to or not (I imagine it would be hard to argue UK jurisdiction over Swedish charges performed by an Australian, but it's not infeasible if enough prejudice could be proven).
Problem is, you didn't want to argue that several years ago. And you skipped bail, so we have no reason to believe it's not a delaying / avoidance tactic. So now you'll stand in a British court, probably be imprisoned by us for skipping bail for so long and so deliberately, and then WILL NOT ESCAPE our custody if they are required to hand you over to the Swedish anyway. Which they probably are, given the way EU law works.
Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly. We would have all kept an eye on it to make sure suspicious things didn't happen, and at no point would you have broken the law.
But he didn't. He went through the courts and when he didn't get the answer he wanted, he skipped bail deliberately. So go rot in jail for a year or two FIRST and then you can come back to the original rape-charge issue and we'll think about it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly.
Why? I don't find stupidity to be wothy of respect.
He followed through the legal system as far as it went and his extradition to Sweden was imminent.
The thing is, Sweden have a proven history of being active in extraordinary renditions---sending people to be tortured by the CIA---and the Swedish authorities refused to confirm that he wouldn't be bundled straight off to the US. C
Re: (Score:2)
Except when he'll rot in jail for a year or two and THEN get tortured by the CIA.
Point is, he's achieved nothing that puts people on his side, especially not the Brits who are paying to supervise the embassy, in trade negotiations with the embassy, and who'll have to charge him when he comes out, and then inevitably jail him BEFORE doing exactly what we were doing anyway (which, I'd like to point out, we followed through as much as legally possible, even refusing several extradition orders on the basis that
Re: (Score:3)
Assange strikes me as someone that's lost in his own self importance. He's become more important than Wikileaks. This often happens to people placed in the spotlight. The reports of his actions in Sweden don't paint him in a very good light.
All that said is doesn't make any sense, other than flexing of muscles, for the Swedish Prosecutor not to call his bluff and interrogate him in the UK (or Ecuador as he is at the moment). Its just posturing and dick waving on behalf of the Prosecutor not to do it. If the
Re:He will (Score:4, Informative)
Point is, he's achieved nothing that puts people on his side, especially not the Brits who are paying to supervise the embassy
Speak for yourself. I'm a Brit and if I had any real say in our so-called democracy, my tax money would be being used to send Assange on a flight to Ecuador and tell Sweden and the US to fuck off and stop wasting everybody's time.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the rules are in the UK, in the US there are legal actions an other citizen might file to try and force a prosecutor or district attorney's office take some action they are ostensibly legally required to do such as charging someone who is widely suspected to be violating the law.
These are rarely successful though for reasons of standing. Is there really anything standing in the way of UK executive agencies for just saying "you know Assange just isn't a threat to the population and therefo
Re: (Score:3)
And the UK has also been implicated in the extraordinary rendition stuff. And there was a big scandal about it in Sweden (over the 2 people who were subject to it), and a big international investigation, and chances are that some people in Sweden would have got in a lot of trouble
Re:He will (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly. We would have all kept an eye on it to make sure suspicious things didn't happen, and at no point would you have broken the law.
Suspicious things already did happen. Interpol invovlemnt in this kind of charges is unheard of. The constant monitoring of his residence by several UK policemens is also unheard of. The whole sequence of events after the "sexual assault" case his highly suspicious (he was questioned, than he was released and told he can travel off the country, after he did it, suddenly, both of the "victims" changed their minds and he is wanted for another questioning again). All of this makes me believe that this is indeed political case and mr. Assange is right to be afraid to travel to sweeden.
Re: (Score:3)
Interpol invovlemnt in this kind of charges is unheard of.
Any state can report a suspect to Interpol if the suspect is believed to have gone to another country or is on the run. And in any case, it's not like Interpol has SWAT teams flying all over the world with automatic weapons in black helicopters-it's a liason organization that facilitates cooperation between the law enforcement of other states. Their agents do not make arrests or even conduct investigations: they provide data, logistics, reporting, and coordination services. Any member state can report a
Re: (Score:3)
Sweden can't make any such promise because Extradition is a court matter and any politician bypassing the court in such a matter would be performing a major breach of the separation of powers.
Extradition from Sweden is easier (Score:5, Informative)
I'm really surprised how many highly rated comments claim extradition from the UK would be easier. Extradition from Sweden to the US would almost certainly happen. Take for example this fact: [justice4assange.com]
How could anyone reasonably expect him to willfully submit to that? It seems highly likely he would end up rotting in a US jail for life, unheard and unseen.
Re: (Score:2)
So, a pro-Assange website asserts this. Is there any REAL evidence that this is true?
Re: (Score:3)
You are obviously not from the US so let me explain this to you. Our Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial. If JA wants a speedy trial, he'll get one, and will not "rot in a US jail for life" unless he was convicted and given a life sentence (Which in the US translates to roughly 10 years depending on your age and the leniency of your
Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't get mentioned enough:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]
Treat him like everyone else (Score:2, Insightful)
Refusing to return to the country with jurisdiction and demanding to be interrogated in a third country is special treatment.
If this argument had any legal standing (Score:2)
If this argument had any legal standing it would present it in court not in the media. IMHO it is just another example of the Assange's egotism and narcissism
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden. A compaint has been filed and he was wanted for interrogation over the filed complaint. Considering the deeper implications of travelling into Sweeden, I can understand his reluctance to do so, especially if he believes the complaint as no bases.
Under the circumstances, en interrogation in England is the best solution for every parties. If, following the interrogation, formal charges are layed and is is accused of rape, his situation will change anyway and probably won't have the choice to face the charges there, regardless where he is.
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:4, Insightful)
What deeper implications of travelling into Sweden, exactly? You mean escaping the UK's we'll-give-you-anyone-you-ask-for extradition treaty with the USA? I can see how that would be a problem for him, yes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how long it took the UK courts to decide that he really should be extradited to Sweden. That too me shows that the UK system kind of works. When he gets over here to Sweden the question of extradition to the US would not be a court matter but a matter for the Foreign Minister and thus could happen in seconds. At least in the UK he has some protection against that.
As far as I know you have some amount of protection when extradited. You can only be taken to court for the crime in the extradition request and if guilty, put to jail for that crime, not for anything else. And you have the right to be returned to where you came from afterwards. So worst case: Be sent to Sweden, go to jail, leave jail, demand to be brought back to the UK, go to court there for skipping bail.
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Informative)
Turns out that, as he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, he's already escaped the UK ...
Swedish police have visited other countries to 'interview' suspects in the past - including murderers - and presumably will do so in the future, so it does seem a little odd that they're so reluctant to pop over to the UK to interview a suspected 'rapist' who has offered to assist countless times.
The whole issuing of the European Arrest Warrant in the first place is decidedly odd too ... and brings into question the general use of such warrants.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not sure the UK would have extradited him to the US, and if they agreed to do so it would have been _years_ of court battles before it happened "
If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad. The fact that he found a bolt hole almost immediately doesn't exactly convince me of his innocence OR that he has much moral fibre. As with a lot of political noise makers like hi
Re: (Score:3)
If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.
You do know that the British courts have already decided to extradite him to Sweden, don't you? He didn't run off to the embassy until his appeal of the extradition failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where as the people making a case against him appear to have pulled the wool over the eyes of another extremely gullible demographic: you. If comparing people who don't share your position to naive teens in a painfully obvious attempt to play the man instead of the ball is the best you've got then debating on the internet is probably about the right level for you.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Oh please, just go back to your student debating society where people might take your argument seriously :o)
Re: (Score:2)
As for character assassination - judging people by their actions is entirely legitimate and nothing that man has done has convinced me that the way I see him is wrong.
Except your not. You're inventing actions then judging him for them.
He went to the embassy because the UK had already agreed to extradite him to Sweden.
That's a fact, you can look it up.
He doesn't want to go to Sweden because they have a history of handing people to the US to be tortured without even a trial.
That's also a fact, you can look it
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
I've seen that asserted a lot, never seen any evidence offered.
Re: (Score:2)
Try dangling this in front of your nose. After a day or two, you might see it.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/1... [hrw.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.
This is almost exactly what happened, but thanks for your uninformed reckon.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden.
Under the Swedish legal system he has to be interviewed by the prosecutors before he can be charged. There are other nations in the EU that have similar legal systems.
Re: (Score:2)
And that requires being inside there borders? At this point he has effectively sought and been granted political asylum by Ecuador, that intentionally trumps any other nations claim on him or there would be no point to political asylum.
Re: (Score:2)
Under the circumstances, en interrogation in England is the best solution for every parties. If, following the interrogation, formal charges are layed and is is accused of rape, his situation will change anyway and probably won't have the choice to face the charges there, regardless where he is.
I think for some parties it is best when he stays locked into that embassy. So they are not gonna change anything and Assange must stay there until he is willing to risk to go to Sweden.
Re: (Score:3)
or, how about stop hiding like a baby
... said the anonymous coward.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden is bound by different extradition agreements. It is not meant to grant onwards extradition to a third country without agreement from the extraditing country. But at the same level of the legal hierarchy there is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests. This is the temporary surrender/conditional release regime - automatic extradition on a loan basis.
Re: (Score:3)
What those quote are saying is that if the Swedish courts say he can be extradited, the Government can say he can't be.
However, that decision still has to be made legally; i.e. in accordance with the law. So the Government couldn't (I hope) refuse an extradition because it was one of their ministers and they liked him. They would need a reasonable ground (or whatever their legal equivalent is - I don't know much about Swedish extradition procedures, but I do about English ones). While I disagree with this a [wordpress.com]
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange's resistance to extradition to Sweden is I think because he believes he is more vulnerable to extradition lock away in a Swedish Jail, not because the extradition process is easier from there to the US than the UK, just that he won't be able to skip bail and the country locked away in a jail. EAW extradition proceedings from the UK to Sweden were in motion, he was out on bail when he skipped off into the Ecudorian embassy. If he had been charged in Sweden for rape, combined with the obvious flight risk someone like Assange represents, bail would have been very very high or not available. Assange's thinking is it would be at that point that the US would start extradition proceedings.
An interesting point here is it is implicit that Assange will not stand and fight any extradition proceedings if he can skip the country. It is a strategy that has left him imprisoned in an embassy in London. Also it has effectively accomplished what the authorities of many countries wanted to achieve, he is trapped, with a progressively smaller political voice.
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the reason he's there is that the UK seemed to be about to extradite him to Sweden. He was quite happy living in the UK so long as it didn't mean going to Sweden.
It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....
What that other reason is is hard to tell, exactly. It might be that he is genuinely guilty-as-not-yet-charged in Sweden. Or it could just as easily be that he has an enormous ego, a superiority complex and a highly-developed paranoia that makes him see persecution in everything, whether it looks plausible to a sane person or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't he on Ecuadorian soil, that happens to be located in the UK?
Yes
Actually no. Not that this adds anything to the discussion since the practical situation is effectively the same, and it's a useful colloquial phrase, but an embassy in the UK is still technically "UK soil."
So Assange is in no way "in Ecuador," but the Vienna Convention means the UK has no right of access to him while he's inside the embassy.
I had heard that the only bit of true foreign soil within England is the JFK memorial at Runnymede, but it's also said to have been "gifted back" to the UK, so I don't
Re: (Score:2)
I had heard that the only bit of true foreign soil within England is the JFK memorial at Runnymede
Actually, the Rothschilds have their own Vatican; I believe it's known as the City of London.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....
In the pirate bay case history has shown us that sweden and it's authorities easily succumb to the pressure from U.S. I think that Assange's fear of return to the sweeden is very well justified.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dok... [riksdagen.se]
http://translate.google.se/tra... [google.se]
Re: (Score:2)
What utter bullshit, and the usual pro-Assange smears when this shit comes up.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
Re: (Score:2)
I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
If you think the US government only cares about this because of Hillary and the current administration, you are very naive. It doesn't matter who the next administration is, they don't want people leaking state secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Ny has any control over the situation you are very naive.
I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
Yes, a sane, balanced view of the situation. Almost as sane and balanced as Julian's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're trying to impose a naive view of "hope" onto Assange? No, that sounds stupid. If you accuse somebody else of being naive, don't get upset when it gets thrown back in your face when you act naive. It's nothing about "shooting the messenger".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's obviously nothing other than a failed attempt to insult me because you recognised my handle from an earlier discussion.
Sorry, I've debated many people here and did not recognize you. What I picked up on was you calling somebody naive and then making your own naive statement.
we both know you are just ineptly playing a very childish game here.
I think you are, in that you can't admit when you are wrong. Not a single thing in your most recent post addresses anything I said, as in how would it make sense to describe a naive hope to Assange? It goes even further than that, because to sum up the releases by Wikileaks as "leaks that embarrassed Hillary" would no doubt piss of Assange.
So what you've
Re: (Score:2)
As for whether or not Assange believes himself when he claims he fears extradition to the US - He only faced two years in a cushy Swedish prison. He has now lived trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy for four.
Try 18 months, not four years.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... So that BS went on for almost two years before Assange holed up in London? Funny how fast the wheels of justice turn, sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind : http://www.thelocal.se/2014011... [thelocal.se]
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Informative)
No, he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is on British soil. Britain does not regard foreign embassies as foreign soil (neither do most countries). The Geneva Convention prohibits forced entry into embassies and grants diplomatic immunity to anyone within them. This means that people in an embassy are still covered by the laws of the host country, but the only redress that the host nation has is to deport them as soon as they leave the embassy.
Re: (Score:2)
The Geneva Convention
For some reason, probably related to lack of coffee, I typed Geneva when I meant Vienna.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most "everybody else" is not being hunted by the United States. Frankly, if they want to call this an exception to the rule then yes, make an exception for Julain Assange and get of your ass and question him in the UK. This is indeed a special case.
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying his request to be treated like everybody else is actually a request to be treated different from everybody else?
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well he's not requesting to be treated like everybody else; he's requesting to be interrogated on Ecuadorian soil, which seems reasonable in this case. Why would a Swedish justice system prioritize a technicality over actually trying to move a rape case forward if they really gave a damn about the supposed rape victims?
Re: (Score:2)
Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion.
It's in the summary, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you could try responding to things I actually said, if you're going to the effort to click "Reply" on my post.
And perhaps you could explain why the Swedish government would while the British wouldn't, since he was quite happy to stay with them for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have conveniently forgetting him happily saying in the UK for quite some time before running to the embassy, without apparently a single fear he would be extradited anywhere.
Or, of course, that he went to Sweden of his own free will in the first place. No fear he'd be extradited then.
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that every time Assange comes up I have to paste this, so here goes. From the English High Court judgment [bailii.org], he is accused of 4 offences, as follows:
So what he is is alleged to have done (whether or not he did so) is definitely rape under both Swedish and English law.
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Insightful)
No
It isn't.
And why should Sweden be more likely to hand his as over to the US when the UK has much tighter bonds across the pond??
I call bullshit. /C
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Pirate Bay trial showed that the Swedish courts are easily controlled by the US entertainment industry, so just imagine how much more the US justice system can control the Swedish courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the law in Spain, which is bound by the same arguments in Sweden.
Sweden was basically singled out, and forcibly coerced by US.
Re: (Score:2)
If convicted, he would likely serve some time in Sweden, then be extradited to his native Australia on release. Australia does have a history of being a US puppet, so perhaps he is more worried about being extradited from Australia than anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, extradited was not the right word, he would be deported on release from prison.
Re: (Score:2)
If convicted, he would likely serve some time in Sweden, then be extradited to his native Australia on release. Australia does have a history of being a US puppet, so perhaps he is more worried about being extradited from Australia than anywhere.
Exactly. I have a feeling that the problem here is that Assange knows he is actually guilty as hell in regard to being a shit in exactly the way these women allege. He has been warned by his lawyer that if he returns to Sweden and pleads guilty he will be given a trivial punishment, but then also deported as an undesirable back to Oz. Even if the US did not want him when he got there chances us in the UK would not allow him back into the country, we can do that for any non European we want if they are "not
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest looking up the allegations against him before going on with your claims in some detail. Even in worst case scenario where judge also happens to be extremist feminist and actually agrees with insanity that is the case, he's extremely unlikely to get jail simply due to legal constraints on punishments.
Re: (Score:3)
Nor does Sweden. The suggestion that Sweden had such an agreement came from a misreading of their extradition treaty; the same term appears in the UK law and is about extraditing people temporarily after the extradition has been approved.
Re:or stop hiding... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You don't think that the US can make up some espionage or terrorist charges so that Assange can be extradited to the US from Sweden? Don't be so gullible man.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think they can do that for Sweden, but couldn't do it for the UK during the long time he was staying there?
Re: (Score:3)
UK is more powerful , and more nationalistic. The Conservatives may be just as deferential to the US in private as Sweden's ruling party, but they would pay a big price with their constituents if they acted like lapdogs in public.
Re: (Score:2)
It does, because he isn't ... as is pointed out every time this pointless story comes back to /.
"Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
If he is in Sweden, having been surrendered, then the UK's permission will be needed to extradite him further. That's in Article 28(4) of the Framework Decision [europa.eu] on the European Arrest Warrant:
Re: (Score:3)
"It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden." -- except he isn't in the UK. He's in Ecuador. And when Whitehall floated the idea that they could violate the integrity of the Ecuadorian embassy to arrested him, it blew up in their faces. Doing so would effectively open up their embassies to similar retaliation by every other country in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, he spent YEARS in the UK while the Swedes' extradition request worked its way through the courts. If the USA wanted him, why didn't the USA try to extradite him from the UK during that time?
Face it, the evidence is that the USA has no real interest in Assange.
Obama has been willing to assassinate US citizens (twice, at least, and they're debating how to go about doing it again, I se
Re: (Score:2)
"Face it, the evidence is that the USA has no real interest in Assange." - that's bullshit. Even while denying that he's under indictment, the official who said it was only half-hearted in his denial: "Nothing has occurred so far," ( -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com] )
"So far" being the operative word. And that sounds like a lot more interest than none at all.
Re: (Score:3)
He's in the UK, in the Ecuadoran embassy. Embassies are not extraterritorial soil, but are protected under the Vienna Convention. Under the Convention, the UK can't enter without approval from Ecuador, which makes it similar in practical effect, but it's not the same as being on Ecuadorian soil.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure you know UK, but you don't know Sweden. The ruling party has close ties to the US. They've used Karl Rove as a consultant, and the foreign minister has admitted to passing on highly confidential information to the US embassy in the 70s - inter-party negotiation positions, stuff he wasn't even allowed to share with his own party.
They would pay a political price for just turning over Assange. But they would do it. They would need only the flimsiest of excuses. To be seen as US' puppets in their own c
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden has a long history dating all the way back to WW2 on selling out people to foreign powers in exchange for better relations, technology licenses and so on.
That's a reason, for example, why Sweden has the biggest military industrial complex in relation to population in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Sweden has the biggest military industrial complex in relation to population in the world
Israel and Switzerland have pretty big military industrial complexes as well. In Sweden's and Switzerland case its because of their policy of neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Like, you know, "everybody else" would have to do?
Unless they're Amanda Knox?
Re: (Score:2)
There has been no extradition request for Knox yet, and even if one is issued there's every chance the US would not extradite because of double jeopardy. You can't be tried twice for the same crime under US law, and that is reflected in our extradition treaties.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I'm concerned Knox is either guilty or she knows a lot more than she's saying ... ... HOWEVER , any legal system that can convict someone , then drop the conviction after an appeal and release them THEN reinstate the conviction after a couple of judges get together over a capucino and decide to bow to public opinion, frankly doesn't deserve much respect for its ability to carry out fair trials.
Re: (Score:2)
My government? You should stop assuming everyone who posts here is from the USA. I doubt my government gives a damn about Amanda Knox one way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm ... most legal systems have appeal processes, and the ability to lodge counter appeals with a higher court. I understand it happens in the US all the time. Why should there be a problem with the Italian justice system because following the conviction one court overturns it on appeal, but later another higher court rules that it shouldn't have been overturned? Isn't that the way the law should work, it gets tested in court until a final judgement is found?
If Knox was innocent then she would have nothin
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that's not what happened. First Appeal ruled that the conviction was invalid and ordered a new trial. Second conviction was as a result of the new trial.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been no extradition request from Italy.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you stop hiding away and come out to answer the charges against you? You can stay there for as long as you like, but don't expect us to listen to any terms you dictate.
So tell us, Anonymous Coward - why should be listen to you?
Re: (Score:2)
A common fallacy. He's on UK soil.
We just have an internationally-recognised agreement that we do not enter it without permission. It belongs to the UK. We even considered forcing the embassy out of OUR building so that he was no longer in "the embassy". It was legal, but it's dubious and probably immoral and we didn't do it.
But an embassy is the soil of the host nation. There's just an agreement that we won't enter without permission unless there are extraordinary circumstances (e.g. a fire).
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. "Ireland" isn't part of the UK. It's not British either.
UK = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE THING!)
GB = England, Wales, Scotland.
Ireland is Irish, uses Euros, has its own government, and is independent of the UK. That's part of what the whole historical Irish/UK problems were about - an independent Ireland free of UK interference and "giving back" Northern Ireland (AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE THING) to Ireland (Eire).
The Garda are Irish. It's the UK spyin
Re: (Score:2)
For future reference:
http://howbritishareyou.com/wp... [howbritishareyou.com]