Swedish Investigators Attempt Assange Interview; Wikileaks Makes Major Release 154
cold fjord writes: It seems Julian Assange rates his own section (The Assange Matter) on a Swedish government website related to the investigation. It contains some FAQs on points that seem to keep coming up in Slashdot discussions. The website isn't completely up to date at the moment since it doesn't discuss the recent attempt by Swedish investigators to interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Unfortunately that attempt failed since the government of Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy. That is quite odd given the years of demands for this. Concurrent with this, Wikileaks has started releasing what is reported to be more than 500,000 leaked Saudi Arabian diplomatic documents that are sure to stir up some controversies. Most are in Arabic so it may take some time for their contents to filter out.
Run out the Clock (Score:5, Informative)
Not odd at all.
The Statue of Limitations on some of the charges against Assange run out this August.
Re: (Score:1)
Not odd at all.
The Statue of Limitations on some of the charges against Assange run out this August.
Errr, no. From wikipedia, Statue of Limitations means "the maximum time after an event when legal proceedings may be initiated". They have been initiated long ago, so Statue of Limitations does not apply.
Re: (Score:1)
No legal proceedings have ever been initiated because Assange was never present for them. If you have not been sentenced, then the statute of limitations applies.
Re:Run out the Clock (Score:5, Insightful)
The statute of limitations, so far as I understand it, is a limitation on how long prosecutors can wait to press charges. Maybe that's different in Sweden, but in general, I don't think it has anything to do with sentencing. Once you've been sentenced, even in absentia, there is no limit on the amount of time that the jurisdiction that convicted can take in trying to get you to carry out your sentence (ie. there are only two ways Roman Polanski can no longer be at least theoretically held to account; either he serves his sentence, or he dies).
It's absurd to say there's a statute of limitations on how long it takes to bring somebody into court. If that were the case, then someone charged with a crime who flees would be able to return to the jurisdiction that originally charged him when the limitation was up.
Re: (Score:2)
It might seem absurd (or antiquated) today, but in the past evidence was primarily organic, and so evidence would decompose at a high rate, particularly if the weather was hot or humid. This would effect the ability to conduct a fair trial, and so there was a duty to bring the matter speedily before the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the reason for speedy trials. Guarantees of a speedy trial were so that the accused couldn't sit for an arbitrarily long time in prison, or if let out, then an arbitrarily long time with travel restrictions over their head. Also, memories fade, some people move, others may die, and this affects the ability to conduct a fair trial. It was far less about physical evidence (which in the case of organic material could putrefy long before even a very rapid trial could be brought about) than
Re: (Score:2)
Apples to Jupiter comparison (Score:3)
Roman Polanski fled the sentence after entering a guilty plea to raping a 13 year old. There was no question of his guilt, he told the court that he drugged the young teen and raped her
There is no limit on Polanski serving time he was sentenced to _after_ guilt was established. If you want a better comparison to the statute of limitations for Assange, try Bill Cosby.
Re: (Score:3)
Its not quite so simple. Polanski pled guilty only to a lesser charge, and fled when there was the threat of a very long sentence, despite the plea bargain.
Unfortunately the case became political, and the judge was later removed from it, after he fled.
Even the victim was , and remains, sympathetic to his plight. The guilt is not in question though. Nothing like the Assange case in that way.
Re: (Score:2)
He fucked a child, barely a teenager. I could forgive it if she's been 16, but not a 13 year old. The victim in this case just wants everyone to leave her alone about it. But Polanski should be in jail. The plea agreement was a get out of jail card for a connected, well respected film maker. The plea was not justice. Drugging and raping a 13 year old will get anyone else sent to jail for 20 years and put on the sex offender list for the rest of their life. He should be in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
> He fucked a child, barely a teenager.
Your puritanism is showing. Do you want to lock up her boyfriend at the time, also?
The real crime is non-consensual sex, and I wouldn't forgive that easily at 16 or 26 either.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying you think objecting to an adult having sexual relations with a 13 year old girl is puritanical?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying you think objecting to an adult having sexual relations with a 13 year old girl is puritanical?
I'm saying it is a lesser issue than rape, an aggravating factor, but mostly objecting to the emotional language that equates it with child abuse. Puritans tend to see things in black and white, and accuse anyone else of condoning the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Run out the Clock (Score:4, Interesting)
It's absurd to say there's a statute of limitations on how long it takes to bring somebody into court. If that were the case, then someone charged with a crime who flees would be able to return to the jurisdiction that originally charged him when the limitation was up.
I work in the judiciary in Brazil and can't tell how things work in Sweden, but many of these things are similar in most countries, maybe people can discuss the differences here.
Here in Brazil there are three limitations, one to accept the charges, one to give a sentence and one to execute the sentence.
The first limitation is on how long before the charges are accepted on court. The prosecutors have to press the charges and they have to be accepted. That is slightly different from the time to press the charges because the accused have to be officially informed of the charges, as he has the right to a preliminary defense before the charges are accepted. Pressing the charges by official news extends this limitation.
After the charges are received (that's the term in Portuguese), the limitation for sentencing is equal to the one to receive the charges. That is: 1. to have a judgment were all the proofs are presented and the informed defendant has the opportunity to be interrogated and defend himself or be defended by a public attorney if he flees, 2. for the judge to give a sentence and 3. for all the possible appeals until reaching a final sentence ("trânsito em julgado" - Google translates it to "res judicata").
The third limitation is on how long after the final sentence the government has to execute the sentence.
So the first limitation is about informing the person about the accusation and the third limitation is about making the person fulfill the sentence. (basically like "bringing somebody to court").
If the criminal flees (or is not found) for enough time, he can return/stay in the jurisdiction.
To give a clear and very common example I get here: the limitation for drug possession for personal use is 2 years, 1 year if he/she is under 21. When the guy was found with drugs he was living in a district with one cop doing everything. The police report takes 4-6 months to arrive at the judiciary. We have to check if he can make deals with the prosecutor by checking his criminal records, he has something on another city, we have to ask them exactly what it is (maybe he was found innocent) -> another 3-8 months depending on how many records and where they are. Then he has the right to make a deal (different deals for charged or not charged people), we set a deal hearing ->1 - 4 months (depending on the judge and world soccer schedule), and can't find him (moved away). Try to find him -> 3 to 8 months (the cop at that district only replied to our third reiteration). If he moved to São Paulo, we have to ask them to do the deal hearing, six months latter they reply that the address we gave was wrong or that he moved back. Over and it doesn't matter if he was/wasn't fleeing.
On the other hand, crimes against children have to limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they haven't done that yet, either.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been in absentia convictions in the US as well, Ira Einhorn's [wikipedia.org] being a notable instance. He was retried, however, as part of an extradition deal between prosecutors and the French government.
Re: (Score:1)
No legal proceedings have been initiated. So far this whole charade has been a horrible abuse of legal process to keep someone illegally imprisoned. This effort now looks like a panicked attempt to try and draw out his suffering even further, and all while dispensing zero justice with zero application of any real law.
Unfortunately even if the statute expires and Julian walks free (even *with* the universal blessing of the paying public) that's no guarantee "Justice" won't be served. It can still be served f
Re:Run out the Clock (Score:5, Informative)
TFA mentions that they were unable to compete the necessary paperwork, but that they fully intend to and have simply pushed the interview date back a little. The Swedish don't seem particularly alarmed about this. The request was not refused, they just didn't submit the necessary paperwork.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Is that what you got out of the article? It looks different to me, actually pretty much the reverse of what you think it is. Let's look at the section in question. If you look at the section in bold below you see that the Swedes say they submitted a request to interview Assange at the embassy. Then we see this weighty statement from Ecuador that they will consider it in light of this and that. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry statement comes after years of posturing about questioning Assange in the embassy w
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I was on a neo-Nazi email list for several years (I never did figure out how I got on). At some point, the neo-Nazis started saying things I agreed with, and I found that a bit disturbing. Just because cold fjord says something doesn't mean it's false, or even slanted.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is what Ecuador's Foreign Ministry said, and noted in the article: "Ecuador is evaluating the request “in the spirit of judicial cooperation” and will make a decision based on international law and “Ecuadorian jurisdiction in the area of asylum rights,” the foreign ministry said in a statement."
Does that sound like they have received a request? Yes. Do the Swedes say they submitted a request? Yes. So why the holdup? What is the weighty decision to be made here? If Ecuador
Re: (Score:2)
In many countries there is no statutory limitation for certain crimes such as murder or rape. Although there is for all other crimes.
In the US it depends on the state.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr... [findlaw.com]
In sweden I have no idea. In the UK it is generally 7 years but some crime can never be absolved
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
The term is tolling [nolo.com]. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
trolling or no, I'm not making this up [theguardian.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
The term is tolling [nolo.com]. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.
Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law. (you can go back to lecturing the television now)
The reason the prosecutor now decides to request permission to interview Julian Assange in London is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to statute of limitation in August 2015 i.e. in less than six months’ time.
Source: [aklagare.se](Swedish) Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny
Re: (Score:2)
Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law.
Personally, I think your ego needs a check. I responded to the person about how statute of limitations stops when a person flees the jurisdiction by citing the term ("tolling") to help explain what he said. Since you obviously haven't looked it up, Swedish law also tolls the statute of limitations, just like US law, but with a few differences. The issue here is that since Assange hasn't yet been charged, he technically hasn't fled the jurisdiction under Swedish law (this is a difference with US law which
Re: (Score:2)
Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law.
Personally, I think your ego needs a check.[blah blah fap fap]
legal illiteracy ... (you can go back to lecturing the television now)
I have [fap fap]
So you know more about Swedish law than Marianne Ny? I doubt it. [yawn]
You win another FIGJAM award. But nothing for reading and comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
So you know more about Swedish law than Marianne Ny? I doubt it. [yawn]
I highly doubt I know more than she about Swedish law, and never said I did, but then nothing I have said conflicts with what she has said either. She wants Assange to be interviewed before the pending expiration of the statute of limitations for some of the crimes of which he is suspected (note, only some of the statue of limitations expire soon) to better determine if he should be charged. She can have him charged even without an interview, but wants to get as many facts in hand as possible first. My
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I couldn't parse your statement. By the way, your didn't answer my question. I studied at Bolt Hall. Where did you study law?
Stupid auto-correct. That should be Boalt Hall.
Re: Run out the Clock (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
I think you mean what Assange is accused of having done by people who have changed their story at least once.
Re: (Score:1)
The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.
Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?
By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.
Legal myths about the Assange extradition [newstatesman.com]
[Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange [newstatesman.com]; also do see this excellent post [storify.com] by barrister Anya Palmer.]
Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court [bailii.org], High Court [bailii.org], and Supreme Court [bailii.org].
One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
(See my post at Jack of Kent [jackofkent.com] for further detail on this.)
Re: (Score:2)
Although I may have gotten a detail wrong, you've got an even bigger one wrong. Go back and read your link. There aren't two prosecutors involved here, there are at least three. (Hmm, do you think all three prosecutors were women?) Two of those three prosecutors wanted to change Assange. Doesn't that seem to indicate that isn't an unreasonable position? Speaking of bias, why do you think that third prosecutor wanted to drop changes that the other two wanted to pursue? "Who got to her" should be your
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't contest that there were three prosecutors, two of which thought that the charges should be investigated, and now the attempt is actually being made? That's a start.
Many people will jettison logic and equality before the law to defend Assange.
Sweden has a long history of independence with regard to the US and the Soviet Union (and now Russia). Calling Sweden a "lapdog" of the United States is ludicrous. Sweden declined US requests to extradite deserters during and after Vietnam, for example.
Re: Run out the Clock (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
Probably something to brush up on before commenting. I'm not Swedish and don't know their laws but refuse to comment on this type of detail without knowledge. What's that old saying about "ass"uming?
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
I seriously doubt you know what Assange did with this claim. Thing are not always cut and dry. What we have in fact is that his then girlfriend accused him of rape after being in a sexually active relationship. Then we get into inconsistent stories and a long delay between the time that charges were filed and the alleged "rape" happened. I have plenty of personal anecdotes where people claimed "rape" and were not raped but frightened/guilty, etc... If the Duke Lacrosse team or UNVA fakery taught us anything, it should be that these claims are not always truthful, but sure harm the alleged perpetrators. Cui Bono and all that...
To be more clear than that, US law requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for good reason. Fabricated claims are not some new novel concept any more than crimes are new and novel. Both have been around for thousands of years.
Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.
This is a pretty wild speculation without any substance. You started below ground and kept driving until you hit the bottom of fantasy land...
Re: (Score:1)
I seriously doubt you know what Assange did with this claim. Thing are not always cut and dry. What we have in fact is that his then girlfriend accused him of rape after being in a sexually active relationship. Then we get into inconsistent stories and a long delay between the time that charges were filed and the alleged "rape" happened.
Assange admits that he had sex. I don't think Assange's accusers are accurately described as "girlfriends" as it was a transient relationship. It was more of a "hook up" with a couple of his supporters. (Perhaps that is what emboldened him to abuse them (allegedly).) The long delay between the alleged assault and the investigation is due to the change in prosecutors. The first one wasn't interested in pursuing the case, the second one was. There is no mystery there.
I have plenty of personal anecdotes where people claimed "rape" and were not raped but frightened/guilty, etc... If the Duke Lacrosse team or UNVA fakery taught us anything, it should be that these claims are not always truthful, but sure harm the alleged perpetrators. Cui Bono and all that...
The circumstances are a bit differen
Re: Run out the Clock (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
Really? Let me introduce you to the United Kingdom [dailytelegraph.com.au]. It is a fairly small country, but it does have its charms.
I think it would be fairer to say that what Assange is alleged to have done would not qualify as rape in any first world country except Sweden
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Really? Let me introduce you to the United Kingdom [dailytelegraph.com.au]. It is a fairly small country, but it does have its charms.
I think it would be fairer to say that what Assange is alleged to have done would not qualify as rape in any first world country except Sweden
Your story is dated 2011, and I regret to inform you that the facts seem to have changed under your feet. There have been three court cases in the UK, going all the way to the UK Supreme Court, that have upheld the charges against him as rape even in the UK.
I also think it is a bit of a mistake to rely solely upon the views of Assange's barristers/lawyers even if the story was up to date.
Legal myths about the Assange extradition [newstatesman.com]
Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.
Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote [blogspot.co.uk].
One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this. [jackofkent.com])
Those two English court decisions have been backed by the UK Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the judgements handed down by the extradition court judges in their rulings - they assert that all the allegations against Assange in the European Arrest Warrant and extradition request does indeed qualify as rape under UK law. That Telegraph story is based on what Assanges lawyers said, not what is actual fact.
Read the original ruling here: http://www.theguardian.com/media/interactive/2011/nov/02/julian-assange-extradition-full-judgment [theguardian.com]
In all the challenges made under "dual criminality" (i
Re: (Score:3)
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
How many countries do you know of?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
What Assange is alleged to have done. Please name the countries where the alleged actions qualify as rape.
Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.
All that says is you have already formed an opinion which you now need far-fetched "what ifs" to justify. Sounds like you may have made an emotional over-investment.
I can't find any reliable source of information for the reasoning behind Ecuador's refusal of admission to the Swedish prosecution team - or any source of information that indicates Assange in any way influenced the Ecuadorian decision to re
Re: (Score:2)
The alleged actions qualify as rape in Sweden and the UK, at the very least. Assange fled Sweden, and the UK courts have ruled up and down that the alleged actions are rape. It seem likely that there are many countries and jurisdictions (US rape laws are at the state level) where the alleged actions would be rape.
Re: (Score:2)
Lest I be mistaken for someone "who knows the truth", I don't have an opinion as to whether Assange did or did not commit the alleged offenses.
The alleged actions qualify as rape in Sweden
Agreed (one of the alleged actions, the others are "molestation".). I don't think the Swedish laws are wrong (nor do I buy into the "Sweden is run by feminazis" line).
To be clear - he's alleged to have committed one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange left Sweden knowing that there was an ongoing investigation, and did not return when asked. I believe this is sufficient cause to call it flight. I should note that this flight was not illegal, but it sure does look like an attempt to get out of an investigation.
Assange may or may not have committed some form of criminal sexual acts. The allegations look very plausible to me, and they're sufficient to have established that if true. I do not consider "very plausible" enough to say Assange is g
Re: (Score:2)
Assange left Sweden knowing that there was an ongoing investigation,
Which conveniently contradicts the "up and down" court finding you refer to - who did not find evidence Assange "fled".
I believe this is sufficient cause to call it flight.
Fortunately, courts don't rely on "confirmation bias" - they use "evidence".
I should note that this flight was not illegal, but it sure does look like an attempt to get out of an investigation.
Which is "evidence" acceptable only in a kangaroo court. You don't have evidence he even took a plane flight (and yet I don't claim that's evidence he didn't fly).
Assange is guilty of fleeing from the UK courts and justice system. This is illegal flight. I don't see how his actions can be interpreted in any other way, and have no compunction about describing him as guilty.
No doubt you imagine you are fair, open-minded, impartial and noble. But really you are a sad fucker.
If Assange was afraid of being extradited to the US
He'd have to be insane not to be. If the US can't get
On your knees, Mr. President!! (Score:1)
more than 500,000 leaked Saudi Arabian diplomatic documents that are sure to stir up some controversies. Most are in Arabic so it may take some time for their contents to filter out.
90% of the documents consist of erotic novels where George W. Bush and Barack Obama are made to do some very kinky things for their Saudi masters. "70 Shades of Oil Dependence" is the best of the lot.
Re: (Score:1)
After the Anna Nicole Smith thing in Bermuda, don't be surprised if that's all we get.
Re: (Score:2)
So they walk up to the fence and talk (Score:5, Insightful)
Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy.
Fine. Assange stands on embassy grounds while the investigators stand outside embassy grounds and they talk.
Hasn't Assange done so with journalists?
Re: (Score:1)
Soap opera... Nobody wants to resolve this as long as the story keeps the ad rates up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's help Dice... a little. Try not to take that too seriously, okay? Even if not the entertainment industry, somebody is making money from this.. What reason does Ecuador have for playing along?
Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
If I had the option, I wouldn't talk to people who are trying to ship me off to a Kangaroo court in America either.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't the evil Americans pick him up when he was walking around the streets of London for a year and a half?
Re: (Score:2)
So why did Assange go to Sweden in the first place?
Re: (Score:1)
I watched a video on YouTube where a guy was firmly refusing to let the cops in his house to search it for someone they had a warrant for. He was well within his rights to do so and the cops were continuing to try to cajole him into allowing them to enter to search. Anyhow, this kid had a thick southern accent and was acting rather nervously. The cops asked him why he was nervous and that is when I heard one of the best lines ever...
"Y'all got a toolbelt designed to kill me. Of course I am nervous!"
I am not
Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk (Score:5, Informative)
The summary makes it sound like they refused to give permission, but actually TFA says that the Swedish simply didn't submit the right paperwork yet due to some delay and have merely pushed the interview date back a little. No refusal has been given, they simply have not applied yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, submitter is obviously biased.
Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk (Score:4, Insightful)
You (the submitter) are a fucking idiot who has been foaming about Assange for years. I can't understand why your submissions are accepted.
Let it go already.
Re: (Score:3)
So in your view my advocating that Julian Assange be treated like anyone else and that he face the allegations of sexual assault against him is "foaming at the mouth"? If that is the case you are probably coming from a fringe perspective, and I would like to know why you think that Assange shouldn't face his accusers like anyone else in a Western nation (including Japan)?
I'm also happy to bring some facts to the discussion that are often overlooked, or denied. Up thread here AmiMoJo is engaging in distort
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting from your link:
To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.
Where do you think that is going on?
Re: (Score:1)
That isn't really correct, is it? Sweden informed both Ecuador and the UK that it would like to interview Assange at the embassy. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry issued this weighty statement that it would consider the request in light of this and that, but didn't give permission. Really, what is this "paperwork" difficulty that is stopping things if Ecuador truly wished to cooperate with Sweden?
This is clearly a manufactured delay by Ecuador on behalf of Assange to help run out the clock on the statute of li
Re: (Score:2)
Paperwork? What fucking paperwork? Are the Ecuadorans Volgons?
Jesus christ, it's pretty simple. Your ambassador asks their ambassador for permission. Do you honestly think Ecuador has a form for "Interview a someone hiding in our embassy"? You people will believe anything. "they didn't fill out the right paperwork" as if that's a real excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Baloney. I do not believe such paper work exists. It would completely halt all diplomacy if an ambassador had to sign a fucking contract every single time they talked to another ambassador. What do you think the paperwork would do anyway? You think they could sue the other country for breaking it? What you are suggesting is beyond silly.
There is no paperwork, it's an excuse and a really poor one. And this is leaving aside that Ecuador is an extremely small nation with an extremely small embassy staff.
Re: (Score:3)
Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy.
Fine. Assange stands on embassy grounds while the investigators stand outside embassy grounds and they talk.
Hasn't Assange done so with journalists?
That's not really going to work.
Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London” [newstatesman.com]
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested. ...... read the rest [newstatesman.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go:
Sweden rejects Assange appeal to drop arrest warrant [bbc.com]
A Swedish court has rejected an appeal by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange against his arrest warrant for alleged sex offences.
The warrant was issued by Sweden in 2010 on two allegations of sexual assault.
Mr Assange denies the assault claims and has been living at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since June 2012.
Swedish investigators are now likely to proceed with plans to travel to London to question Mr Assange.
The Supreme Court said it saw "no reason to lift the arrest warrant", since moves to question Mr Assange in London were already in place. ......
Re: (Score:2)
They must want to arrest him since there is an arrest warrant out for him. How can they arrest him if they can't take control of him? That is nonsense. Questioning following arrest is typical, not unusual. Assange had a chance for questioning without arrest, but that is gone now. If Assange is surrendered for arrest he will probably be in custody until this is cleared up, which probably means a trial and maybe prison. Now he is a bail jumper and nobody will take a chance on him doing it again. And on
Re: (Score:2)
Courts in the UK looked at many questions, including would the allegation against Assange constitute rape in the UK, and did the prosecutor have the authority to issue the EAW. Here are extracts from the magistrate's ruling:
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court
(Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons [bailii.org]
I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard: ...
2. In Sweden, a person interrogated for rape is normally detained and held incommunicado during the process. These decisions are taken by a court.
....I heard live evidence from a recently retired Swedish prosecutor. Mr Alhem told me in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case. Similarly Brita Sundberg-Weitman said that Ms Ny is entitled to issue an EAW, although not on the facts as she understood them to be. Mr Hurtig is a Swedish lawyer. He may not be an expert on extradition but nevertheless he must have been well placed to discover whether Ms Ny had the appropriate authority, and he has not suggested otherwise. Ms Ny herself has made a statement saying she has the appropriate authority. .... I was also taken to original documents, including the Swedish Code of Statutes. Section 3 says, with reference to the EAW: “A Swedish arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is issued by a prosecutor. ... Ms Ny’s details are provided and she signed the warrant. Even without the SOCA certification I have no doubt that Marianne Ny issued the warrant and is a “judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants”. ...
Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law? [jackofkent.com]
The Magistrates’ Court ruled (emphasis added):
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.
----------
No, this doesn't work for you since you want him to be guilty before he's even moved.
No, I don't. I just think the
Re: (Score:2)
Because if the statute of limitations runs out, then Assange can leave. Apparently, under Swedish law, even a fugitive's statute clock still ticks. Not all of the potential charges expire this August, but some do, and I think the others will as well.
Of course, Assange still has to deal with the bail-jumping charge in the UK which involves up to a year in prison and quite likely deportation after that. In addition, if he's ever picked up on any offense in any country for the rest of his life, he'll sit in
Site. (Score:5, Insightful)
Could we not link to the sort of site which also carries "The miracle that cured my son’s autism was in our kitchen" and "Elin Nordegren has Sex on the Beach in the Hamptons" on the front page?
NoScript (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NYPost link was basically an afterthought, and that is important information. Also, I would not have clicked on the afterthought had you not brought it to my attention. Turns out, it was the beverage.
Are you a shill for the Post, trying to get more clicks?
Jeopardy History for $400: "June 19th, 2015" (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Further back than that. Europe was fighting the Muslims during Charlemagne's reign (about 800AD)....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when did the World Islamic War start?
Around 610 A.D. I'm not certain of the official numbering system, but from memory it was World Religious End-Times War Number 114.2. It was a long time ago, forget about it - there are more modern End-Times Wars now. We've moved on from fighting over ownership of Judaism (won't someone tell the Baptists?).
Google Translate (Score:3)
It works just fine on the docs. Copy and paste the text from most of them and happy reading!
Re: (Score:3)
If you trust Google translate for diplomacy, you'd better be ready for war.
Re:Google Translate (Score:4, Interesting)
If you trust Google translate for diplomacy, you'd better be ready for war.
Oh come on. Who goes to war over "yarn lightly extra nowhere fnord"?
Google is fine with the so-called Romance languages, but it fails hard when trying to translate Asian languages to Romance languages and vice versa.
Sometimes I think there was a concerted effort by Asian users to poison Google translate's database back when it was accepting user corrections. Especially of Japanese. It never seemed to get any better, and is still awful.
Re: (Score:2)
Intergalactic pot healer. P.K. Dick
I got a sales pitch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is all ridiculous (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
"Most are in Arabic so it may take some time for their contents to filter out."
Almost a billion people speak Arabic, so where's the problem?
The farce is claiming US handover likely (Score:1, Insightful)
Except for the few remaining Assange-is-a-rapist trolls, the world+dog has known for a long time that this is just the long hand of the US. Give up, already.
Sorry, to describe your beliefs as tin-foiled hat is generous. The turning over of Assange by Sweden to the US is a ludicrous and desperate notion. Plus it is a massive diversion from the fact of whether a "rape" occurred (according to the Swedish definition) and the female victim of this incident is being treated unfairly by Assange's defenders, effectively saying he deserves a pass due to his work elsewhere.
Not a pass... (Score:2)
I have yet to see anyone claim he gets a pass because of his work. What I have seen are skeptics that a rape occurred given the facts that have been released by Swedish Officials and knowing the surrounding information. Surrounding information on both the alleged victims and the US wanting him for espionage to be clear, because you should really understand both.
From day one of Sweden wanting to "question" him there was discussion of deportation to the US. Given that the UK has no problem arresting journa
The farce is pretending emperor has clothes (Score:2)
Then Sweden should have let it be about the rape charges and told Assange he wouldn't be deported faster than Agiza and Zery.
They haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't, and the idea that Sweden should have to make a guarantee to a fugitive from justice is silly. Assange isn't a head of state, he is a fugitive from allegations of rape that should be answered in the criminal justice system like any other.
Can Assange be extradited from Sweden to the USA? [aklagare.se]
The Swedish government exclusively makes decisions in extradition cases to countries outside the EU. In short, the country that wants a person extradited needs to hand in a formal request to the Ministry of Justice.
Every extradition case is to be judged on its own individual merits. For that reason the Swedish government cannot provide a guarantee in advance that Julian Assange would not be subject to further extradition to the USA.
Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country.
Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA” [newstatesman.com]
It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.
By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.
(See extradition and criminal lawyer Niall McCluskey [firmmagazine.com] for further detail on this.)
Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.
(See Mark Klamberg’s blog [blogspot.se] for further information on this.)
You've fallen for a line of nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
This is correct, however it's the law in many places that you can't be deported to another country if there's a risk of that country doing something that is abhorrent. I don't know what the law is in Sweden, but it is likely that he could not be extradited to a country where he may face execution.
Yes, the large number of US politicians calling for Assange to be executed is probably bluster. However, the
Re: (Score:2)
Third rate propaganda repeated by a fifth rate sophist. Deporting Assange to the U.S. is not a method of punishment open to Sweden's courts, when he's accused of rape in Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
The post you are replying to isn't mine, and your facts aren't in order. Is that a habit of yours?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let's assume that Assange thought himself in danger of being picked up by the CIA if he entered Sweden, and follow the chain of reasoning.
Earlier:
Fanboi: Julian, you do realize that, if you go to Sweden, the CIA is going to kidnap you, don't you?
Assange: Sure, that sounds great. I'll move there and file for permanent residence.
Meanwhile:
Evil CIA Guy: Hey, that Assange guy is going to Sweden. Let's kidnap him there and bring him back here.
US official: Meh, let's get to that sometime later
Re: (Score:2)
[...], he's moved the goal posts - suddenly there's some OTHER reason he can't be interviewed[...]
Do you have any credible supporting information for the claim that the Ecuadorean refusal of admission to the Swedish prosecutors is in any way the result of the wishes of Assange?
Note: wishful thinking is not credible evidence. Witch burning is bad m'kay.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately you've got some things wrong there. I suggest you read this, and follow the link to read the rest of that item.
Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London” [newstatesman.com]
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange. .... More [newstatesman.com]
Same tired propaganda (Score:5, Informative)
Assange offered to return to Sweden years ago if the government promised not to hand him over to the United States for "intelligence crimes", which even propagandist Rei admits they aren't supposed to do.
Sweden has never made such a promise, which is why Assange was granted asylum, and why you're an authoritarian bootlicker.
Re: (Score:2)
Who in Sweden was supposed to do this? Who in Sweden actually has the legal power to make such a promise?
Generally legal systems with a sense of the rule of law don't like it when someone from the government tries to pre-empt a potential court ruling. In some it may even be illegal, never mind ineffective.