WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Asks UK Judge to Drop His Arrest Warrant (theguardian.com) 229
An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has asked a UK court to drop the arrest warrant that prevents him from leaving the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been living for five and a half years. Assange, 46, skipped bail to enter the embassy in 2012 in order to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault and rape, which he denies... Mark Summers QC told senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot at Westminster magistrates court on Friday that now that the Swedish case had been dropped the warrant had "lost its purpose and its function". He said because Swedish extradition proceedings against Assange had come to an end, so had the life of the arrest warrant... Arbuthnot said she would give her judgment about the arrest warrant on 6 February.
Judge Arbuthnot said she'd rule only on the legal issue, though the court had also received evidence about medical problems which included "a terrible bad tooth, frozen shoulder and depression."
Representing the Crown Prosecution Service, Aaron Watkins it would be absurd for defendants to be "rewarded with effective immunity" simply for having evaded proceedings for long enough.
Judge Arbuthnot said she'd rule only on the legal issue, though the court had also received evidence about medical problems which included "a terrible bad tooth, frozen shoulder and depression."
Representing the Crown Prosecution Service, Aaron Watkins it would be absurd for defendants to be "rewarded with effective immunity" simply for having evaded proceedings for long enough.
The UK arrest warrant is still valid. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Julian is quite right not to leave the Ecuadoran Embassy while the UK arrest warrant is active.
That's because he promised to come to the USA if Chelsea Manning got clemency.
Chelsea was granted clemency, is out of jail, and is now running for Congress.
Julian Assange wants nothing more than to keep his promise to the USA, and it would make him feel very sad if he could not keep his promise because he was in a British jail. And he probably feels like it would not count as keeping his promise if he came to the
Re: (Score:2)
Governments ignore procedural crimes like that left and right if it suits their agendas. That's how Putin's government works and that's how May's government works and that's how Bushobamatrump's government works.
Re:The UK arrest warrant is still valid. (Score:5, Informative)
Skipping bail
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
It's right there in the comment you were responding to. Skipping bail is itself an offense. Are you suggesting he's not guilty of that? It's similar to how, if the police lawfully try to arrest you for, say, a burglary you had nothing to do with, you resist arrest, and the police then find you weren't guilty of burglary and don't attempt to charge you with that, you can still be charged and convicted for resisting arrest.
Re:The UK arrest warrant is still valid. (Score:4, Interesting)
Precisely correct.
But at the same time it is a bit ridiculous. Legally the magnitude of his crime is skipping bail for an arrest for a crime in another country that has been dropped.
Why are they still maintaining a round the clock covert monitoring of his actions so they can arrest him the moment he steps out of the embassy? Lots of people skip bail. Their's a whole industry of 'bounty hunters' to round them up. And the vast majority of THOSE bail jumpers have been convicted or are still wanted for actual crimes against citizens in the country in question. Where is the multi-year multi-million dollar operation to find them and bring them in?
Yes, Assange is guilty of skipping bail. But he is clearly still being singled out in a way that defies all proportion and sense. If the Ecuadorian embassy wanted to transport 50 other bail jumpers out of the country on a diplomatic flight, the UK government wouldn't even so much as bat an eye... good riddance they'd say.
Years under effective house arrest, and then effective deportation, with an automatic arrest if he ever comes back... isn't that 'good enough' justice for the harm to Britain and British citizens by his skipping bail for an international warrant for a crime that was dropped?
Re: (Score:2)
He also caused the people who stood bail for him to lose a lot of money. If you were robbed of £140,000 wouldn't you want the perpetrator to go to prison?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not even slightly relevant.
First, at best the bail bond losses in relation to someone skipping bail would be a civil suit between the parties that posted bail and Assange; its simply not a criminal matter.
Further, if this actually even an issue, the parties that posted bail, could be paid off by Wikileaks, or Ecuador. Both of whom are paying far more than that for his legal representation, or for his accomodations (respectively).
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot IANAL.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they weren't robbed. They gave their money/support voluntarily. I simply would want my money back.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a lot of money to you and me, but to the people who put up the money, it's pocket change.
Re:The UK arrest warrant is still valid. (Score:4, Interesting)
The UK government basically has three options
1) Close the embassy, expel the diplomats and arrest Assange as his diplomatically protected bubble evaporates.
2) The status quo where they keep a watch on the embassy and arrest him if he leaves
3) Allow him to leave unmolested.
I think 1) is dangerous because it would allow foreign governments to do the same to arrest a fugitive who took refuge in a UK embassy and claim this case as a precedent, so they've decided not to do it. Also 1) implies the UK will probably lose diplomatic relations with Ecuador. British personnel would be expelled from the British embassy there [www.gov.uk]. Some might be arrested or otherwise harassed. The Foreign Office is a cautious place and would probably advise the government this is opening a can of worms. The UK did close one embassy and expel the diplomats but that was in a very extreme situation where Libyan diplomats literally murdered a UK policewoman [wikipedia.org]. Merely shielding Assange doesn't justify such extreme measures.
If the UK allows Assange to avoid justice by spending a couple of years in the Ecuadorian embassy then it would be setting a precedent that anyone (in)famous enough to get in there would be literally above the law which rules out 3)
So they've decided on 2) by a process of elimination. Sure there are costs to it in police time but it's better than the other two. Assange is locked up, just in better conditions than he probably deserves. And if he doesn't like that he's free to come out, get prosecuted for skipping bail, serve his time and get deported.
Re: (Score:3)
agreed on '1)'
"If the UK allows Assange to avoid justice by spending a couple of years in the Ecuadorian embassy then it would be setting a precedent that anyone (in)famous enough to get in there would be literally above the law which rules out 3)"
No, not really. If he'd fled the country instead of to the embassy. (which in many respects is the same thing), then he'd simply be beyond the reach of arrest unless and until he came back. This is pretty elementary; thousands of people have outstanding warrants w
Re: (Score:3)
Considering he has been effectively incarcerated longer than any possible sentence he might face, and that it's cost the country many millions of Pounds, there does seem to be little purpose in pursuing any prosecution.
Even if convicted he likely wouldn't serve any time. There is no public interest in keeping him at the embassy.
Re: (Score:2)
Many millions of pounds is chalked up to the deterrent factor. Not the Assange factor. They can't be seen to have been waited out.
And they're right.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and so we're now seeing the UK Government being tested. If they conclude as you did, then all is well. However, if they continue to seek Assange, then it becomes considerably more likely that there is an ulterior motive.
We know the US would love to 'nab' him, which they can do the moment he's in UK Police custody - I'd bet he wouldn't spend more than an hour in a UK police cell before he was spirited away to the US. He wouldn't get anywhere near a trial in the UK, so whatever he has or hasn't done,
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. If he'd fled the country instead of to the embassy. (which in many respects is the same thing), then he'd simply be beyond the reach of arrest unless and until he came back. This is pretty elementary; thousands of people have outstanding warrants who have fled the country; and unless the crime rises to a level where its worth pursuing international warrants; and he happens to hide in an extradition treaty country -- then fleeing a country and living in exile has always been something one can get away with for small crimes. The police don't normally spend a lot of time worrying about it.
He fled Sweden and the Swedes issued an european arrest warrant. I'm sure if he'd fled the UK they'd have issued one for him. And if he was outside Europe they could issue an Interpol notice.
And actually Interpol have confirmed the existing Interpol red notice is still outstanding, so all the paperwork is in place.
https://www.interpol.int/News-... [interpol.int]
LYON, France - INTERPOL confirms that its Red Notice, or international wanted persons alert, issued for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at Sweden's request in November 2010 remains valid.
Confirmation that Mr Assange's Red Notice status remains in force follows Thursday's decision by authorities in Ecuador to grant asylum to Mr Assange, two months after he took refuge in its London embassy while fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden where authorities want to question him in connection with alleged sexual offences.
A Red Notice status is a request for any country to identify or locate an individual with a view to their provisional arrest and extradition in accordance with the country's national laws.
Many of INTERPOL's member countries consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty. In cases where arrests are made based on a Red Notice, these are made by national police officials in INTERPOL member countries.
INTERPOL cannot compel any of its 190 member countries to arrest the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I.e. even if he left the EU he'd still be wanted man. Basically he'd need to flee to a country which would ignore the Interpol notice and refuse to extradite.
Ronn [wikipedia.org]
Serious rape, and Assange let go? (Score:2)
Must have been an odd sort of rape if the Swedes did not press charges once they questioned Assange. Maybe the fact that the women involved did not want to press charges had something to do with it. Or that they socialized with Assange *after* the alleged "Rape", and just wanted Assange to have an STD check, which he belatedly did.
Were the Swedes puppets of the USA? Probably not. The case just got taken on by a belligerent SJW prosecutor, who is now probably very relieved that the case has expired and s
Re: (Score:2)
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source, that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21stâ" 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable
Re: (Score:2)
And if he doesn't like that he's free to come out, get prosecuted for skipping bail, serve his time and get deported.
See? You missed two words which mean a LOT. Here is the quote again, but "fixed": And if he doesn't like that he's free to come out, get prosecuted for skipping bail, serve his time and get deported to America.
It changes the equations a LOT. Regardless of how I feel about any of this, it is clear that he is trying to avoid getting sent to Guantanamo Bay and the UK is going to ensure that he ends up in Guantanamo Bay.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence the US is even going to seek to extradite him. If they were going to they'd have done it in the seven years they've had since the rape accusations were made against him.
The whole 'US seeking extradition' thing is just a conspiracy theory Assange has come up with as an excuse to avoid having to face his accusers.
Re: (Score:2)
So what crime did he commit in the UK, for which he should have been arrested?!?
Contempt of court. Something that is a crime in most countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the crime of skipping bail, it should be remembered that, in order to get bail in the first place, Assange had to promise to give the authorities money if he broke his bail conditions. A lot of the money was guaranteed by some of his supporters who were all totally shafted by his decision to flee to the Ecuador Embassy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
So, he's a rapist (must be, otherwise, why did he flee) and he defrauded his friends of a lot of money. I really don't know why anybody thinks of h
Re: (Score:2)
In my country we say: a dog is trying to bite its tail. In this case Julian escaped an extradition to Sweden for a crime in Sweden which was not committed. So the order for extradition shoudn't exist anymore, as the basis for it has volatized.
Re: (Score:2)
In my country we say: a dog is trying to bite its tail. In this case Julian escaped an extradition to Sweden for a crime in Sweden which was not committed. So the order for extradition shoudn't exist anymore, as the basis for it has volatized.
Yes. If it was Julian Assange before he became a big problem for the U.S. government, he would be a free man now. It's funny, he was a darling of the American Left until Wikileaks became a problem for Hillary. The multiple comments repeating the "rape" charge and "bail" problem is very disturbing. It seems that Slashdotters are unable to use a search engine and are speaking power to truth.
We live in interesting times.
Re: (Score:2)
A problem for the U.S is something like Pearl Harbor, 9/11, or a nutjob with nukes in North Korea,
Assange is merely a pasty faced Aussie with a delusion of grandeur,
If he actually was a problem for the U.S. he would no longer be around for us to giggle at.
Unless he has nukes. But I don't think he has nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
His friends knew exactly what they were getting in to. He fled because he feared rendition. You can argue and how realistic that fear is.
Re: (Score:3)
You fucking moron. The U.K. had him in custody and allowed him to remain in the U.K. under restricted terms until the legal issues played out. They could've handed him over to the U.S. right there. But they didn't.
The U.S. does not give a shit about this smelly little Aussie, However, Assange has not exactly endeared himself with the Brits.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. doesn't want him. If we did, he'd be here. He was in custody in Sweden, and again with the Brits.
Nonsense. (Score:2)
Assange believes that the USA thought it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden then the UK, probably correctly. His move to Equador's embassy was unexpected.
The bail charges are trivial. Unlike the USA, the UK does not hand out long sentences for minor crimes. In Assange's case, a suspended sentence or at worst a few month in what, by USA standards, would be a very comfortable jail.
That is obviously not Assange is worried about. He is worried about the USA, and the sealed (secret) grand jury case
Re: (Score:2)
Assange believes that the USA thought it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden then the UK, probably correctly. His move to Equador's embassy was unexpected.
Unexpected and hilarious. He imprisoned himself. Now he's whining about it.
Statute of Limitations (Score:4, Informative)
Representing the Crown Prosecution Service, Aaron Watkins it would be absurd for defendants to be "rewarded with effective immunity" simply for having evaded proceedings for long enough.
Isn't that the way things normally happen, except for crimes like murder? In the United States it is called the Statute of Limitations [wikipedia.org].
Re:Statute of Limitations (Score:4, Informative)
Notice from your own link that the limitations apply to when a claim can be filed. To be clear the claim was filed against him a long time ago. Statute of Limitations no longer applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that when you flee from justice the clock doesn't run out on the statue of limitations. Otherwise Roman Polanski would be able to come back to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Polanski had also pled guilty and was awaiting sentencing before he jumped bail which is another separate reason for there being no applicable statue of limitations for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Boo-Hoo (Score:2)
Julian Assange, if he is innocent, should have no problem appearing before a judge and jury.
Assange still ... (Score:2)
... has a lot of followers and massive, embarrassing leaks could surface if someone pisses him off.
What's the status of the Insurance Torrent [reddit.com] that was so dominant in 2013?
Wikileaks insurance files, just in case the worst happens
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently this doesn't count as the worst happening. Or, that was all smoke.
Snowflake (Score:2)
He wants to move out of his Ecuadorian mom's basement because she wants him to get a job and doesn't believe his "really bad tooth" story any more.
Meanwhile, ... (Score:2)
... the UK is flooded with other requests to drop arrest warrants because, "... and I broke a nail ..."
Charges are bullshit. Always have been. (Score:2)
The rape allegation is nothing but a pretext to get him into custody so he may be interrogated by or outright handed over to the United States. If it wasn't, the government of Sweden would have taken up Assange years ago on his offers to be interviewed by investigators remotely or in person at the embassy. Or to return to Sweden outright if they promised not to hand him over to U.S. custody.
The response to this inconvenient fact is generally a pithy "since when do wanted suspects get to negotiate terms".
Re: (Score:2)
The rape allegation is nothing but a pretext to get him into custody so he may be interrogated by or outright handed over to the United States.
He *was* in custody and he *wasn't* interrogated by or handed over to the U.S. He'd be the first one to say that he was.
the moment he leaves all will be restarted (Score:2)
from the Sweedish note about invastigation dropping:
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
– If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately, says Marianne Ny.
So the moment he steps out all will be restarted. Pretty sure the extradition papers are ready to be filed immediately (first Sweden then US).
And likely the UK charges of breaking the bail and avoiding arrest will never be dropped.
If it was me I would decide to step out and let the lega
For gods sake, just get rid of him (Score:5, Interesting)
It's costing us, the UK tax payer, about £10k per day [bbc.co.uk] for the policing. Quite frankly, it's a colossal waste of money at a time where the amount of public spending available cannot be pissed up the wall on something like this.
Part of that daily money would be better spent purchasing him a one way ticket to Ecuador, escorting him to Heathrow, onto the aeroplane and then waving him goodbye.
And then we can go back to spending that kind of money on far far more important things.
Re: (Score:3)
Prisoners are found guilty, he's had all the charges against him dropped. A subtle, but rather important, difference.
In fact, the only thing he's guilty of now is skipping bail and, right now, we're spending £10k a day for a bunch of policemen/women to hang around on the street waiting for him to leave the embassy.
If you don't think he should be let go then we could, at least, drop the costs of policing and just arrest him the moment he's spotted in public. It's not like we don't have CCTV camer
Fuck THEM (Score:2)
Fuck THEM. It’s them who are at fault for not being able to secure the arrest of Assange. So why should they be “rewarded” by punishing Assange?
Re: (Score:2)
Because he fucked them first by agreeing to terms and then fleeing to the embassy.
Re:Breaking the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be extradited from the UK for a crime that isn't also a crime in the US. So "thinly veiled" in this case means: determined to be a crime in 2 separate sovereign states.
The only thing thinly veiled is is the excuses people make for him effectively not standing trial for any crime committed in many countries just because that country may have extradition treaties with the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so all laws should be ignored.
Re:Breaking the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, so all laws should be ignored.
What the fuck are you talking about? Is this the level you people have sunk to? Don't put words on other people's mouths.
Follow the laws of the region you're in. Period.
If you live in country A performing an activity that's legal where you live, don't expect country B to come after you because such activity is illegal in B's legal system. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Kim Dotcom, a naturalized New Zealand citizen who has never set foot on the USA, and who was running a business based in NZ, 100% compliant with NZ's laws, is targetted by the US because they didn't like what his business did. Not only that: they destroy his business, seize his assets, and now drag him in a legal battle that's taking him years and millions of dollars to fight.
How is this fair? The US is the world's biggest fucking bully. Just another corrupt regime. A big one.
Re: (Score:3)
But what's the solution? Encourage the government to do a better job, or elect better leaders, or start protesting the megacorps that are pushing tough IP enforcement, or just start breaking the law when convenient?
Since the people who would have to pass the solution have an interest in not listening to it and not passing it, the only solution is a violent revolution. Voting is irrelevant because voters are not represented. There are no better leaders because they are chosen ahead of time. How many politicians have to be bribed to get what you want? Both of them.
Re: (Score:2)
to be fair the charges against him were a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him to the US. It has very little to do about breaking the law.
That was certainly his position, and perhaps even his belief.
But the only evidence that this plan existed seems to be the fact news leaked about the US considering charges around the same time that Sweden did file charges.
Re: (Score:2)
to be fair the charges against him were a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him to the US. It has very little to do about breaking the law.
To be fair, the charges against him were a completely unveiled attempt to get a a rapist into court. It was all about breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Charges? What charges? There never were any charges from Sweden.
Why do people keep repeating this lie?
There was an investigation, but no evidence to bring charges.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't run away. He was told he could leave Sweden. It was only after he had left that they decided they wanted him back. Even though they routinely question people in other countries, for some reason they wanted him back in Sweden to talk to investigators. No to stand trial, to talk to him.
It's extremely suspicious. Assange believed it was an attempt to extradite or render him into US custody. He was willing to answer questions in the UK.
If the Swedish were interested in justice they would have take the
Re: (Score:2)
Assange was allowed to leave Sweden, true, the rest is all lies and half truths.
Assange refused to talk to the Swedish investigators until after the extradition proceedings had finished, broke his pledge to respect the UK's sovereignty (a condition of his being released from custody until the end of the extradition hearings), skipped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy and then imposed unacceptable preconditions on the investigators (all questions to be submitted before the meeting and Assange gets to c
Re: (Score:2)
Saying he was 'allowed to leave Sweden' is overstating things. He skipped the country on an unknown date with dozens of missed calls from the prosecutor saying they wanted to haul him in for arrest
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4946... [scribd.com]
13. I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source,that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21st - 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) thatMr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable.
14. I am sure that constant attempts were made by the prosecuting authorities to arrange interrogation in the period 21 st - 30 th September, but those attempts failed. It appears likely(transcript p.107) that enquiries were made by the authorities independent of his lawyer. The authorities believed Mr Assange would be in Sweden to give a lecture in early October. They asked Mr Hurtig to be available on the evening of 6 th October. It appears that either the rumours were false, or Mr Assange changed his mind. In any event he was not apprehended or interrogated then.
15. Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97).However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. Ido not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.
The fact that know one knows what date he left means he didn't go through a passport check at immigration - because if he had have done that he'd almost certainly been arrested given that the police had a warrant out for him. I.e. he used ignored all the calls telling him was want
Re: (Score:2)
So what they arrest him for nothing because they didn't arrest him for charges that have now been dropped. So what would they lock him up for, for failing to be arrested for nothing. No charges placed, just an extradition and if they wanted they could have tried extraditing him from Ecuador. So he breached bail as is bound to the penalty for breaching bail, ie the fiscal penalty http://www.infolaw.co.uk/partn... [infolaw.co.uk]. So they can arrest you for failing to appear but only to make sure you appear but if you don't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Breaking the law. (Score:4, Informative)
He was in the UK until he stepped over the threshold to the Ecuadorian embassy.
Re: (Score:3)
Julian Assange is still in the UK. The Equadorian embassy and its grounds are still British territory but the British government has limited powers under assorted diplomatic agreements codified in law to enter and otherwise interfere with what went on there.
It's a subtle distinction but important. When the US missiled the Chinese embassy in Belgrade its wasn't treated as the starting of a war between the US and China like the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, it was an attack on Belgrade territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Have no illusions, an attack on an embassy is an act of war. But not all acts of war lead to war. The US didn't attack the Chinese embassy, they accidentally bombed it. There is a difference.
Legally, the embassy is foreign soil. Attacks on it are considered acts of war. The foreign soil is by treaty, so it can be unmade, but for all legal
Re: Breaking the law. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh I agree. My point is that people saying he 'was in Ecuador' are wrong. He was in the UK. I actually thought embassies were the territory of the country who run them but it turns out that is not the case [pathtoforeignservice.com]
The UK can't easily[1] arrest him in the Ecuadorian embassy but he's still in the UK.
And he skipped bail, which is illegal. So if he came out he'd be immediately arrested.
[1] There are various ways it could arrest him, but they probably mean severing diplomatic relations with Ecuador which the UK government in unwilling to do. In practice unless the embassy is closed and all the diplomats expelled he's probably safe from arrest. However accepting that is not the same as accepting that he can leave without being arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't have to sever diplomatic relations, it is just that the current system is that countries agree not to interfere with embassies on a mutual, largely informal basis. Nobody wants their own embassies searched, so they don't bring in lawyers and try to press what they're allowed to do; because actually they can do most normal law enforcement things, if they're willing to accept the diplomatic consequences.
In short, deference to embassies is not based on law or treaty, even though there are related
Re: (Score:3)
Look it doesn't matter if the Ecuadorian embassy is Ecuadorian territory or not. Assange broke UK law, in the UK, when he broke his bail conditions.
Re: Breaking the law. (Score:4, Interesting)
And its absurd to say just because someone broke UK law they should be held to account. I break Chinese law all the time when I criticize the Chinese government. I've never been to China though so why should I be held to account for unconscionable laws or under an unconscionable state such as the UK where you can't possibly get a fair trial?
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Criticizing China outside of China is not the same as going to Sweden and raping someone.
Assange committed offences in Sweden that met the dual criminality test they needed to meet for him to be extradited.
If Assange didn't think he could get a fair trial in Sweden or the UK then he shouldn't have visited them and broke the law.
And any state that prosecutes someone where there is no victim of actual violence is not a conscionable state.
SW and AA were victims of violence, and the Swedish and British legal systems are doing the right thing in prosecuting Assange.
The state is violence and the only justification for violence is when acted upon from a reasonable self defense position. ie government attacks you then fighting back is reasonable.
Well if you think like that then you're going to spend a lot time either in court or in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
the Swedish and British legal systems are doing the right thing in prosecuting Assange.
Sweden has routinely traveled to foreign countries to interview those they were unable to to get to come locally. They refused to do so with Assange. Sweden has less regularly held interviews over phone or video conference, but has still done so. They refused to do so with Assange.
If they are doing "the right thing", then why aren't they following their own policies and practices? Assange "fled" Sweden when cleared of all charges. Then, after US pressure, they reinstated the charges, and started the p
Re: (Score:2)
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Criticizing China outside of China is not the same as going to Sweden and raping someone.
This is the "rape" account according to the victim:
“The complainant ‘AA’ said in her statement that Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange’ s part against using a condom.”
Basically he is investigated because he allegedly made resistance when asked to use a condom, even though he actually used it.
SW and AA were victims of violence, and the Swedish and British legal systems are doing the right thing in prosecuting Assange.
So right that the UN ruled that JA is under arbitrary detention by Sweden and UK. [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
We say "X allegedly committed the offense" if X is on trial because of the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. I see no reason to say when X is a fugitive from justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's not merely wanted for interview. He's wanted for a final interrogation prior to arrest.
https://www.newstatesman.com/d... [newstatesman.com]
Four: "The Swedes should interview Assange in London"
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.
Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor's position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:
140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:
"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.
"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.
"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.
"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not "disproportionate" as submitted by Assange's lawyers:
160. We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea, that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr Assange's surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge.
The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution.
Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is the rape
https://www.theguardian.com/me... [theguardian.com]
The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
He knew she didn't want sex without a condom and yet he woke her up by having sex with her without a condom. Which the UK courts ruled would be rape had he done it in the UK and was hence an extraditable offence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was self defense. The papers and badges are bullshit. He was running from kidnappers with guns.
Re: (Score:2)
It was self defense. The papers and badges are bullshit. He was running from kidnappers with guns.
That's pretty much my thought of it. Assange was fleeing from State-sponsored kidnappers acting on behalf of the corrupt US Oligarchy. I would even be OK with it if Assange had used deadly force in the course of fleeing from his criminal abductors.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Lordie, that's twisted.
Re: (Score:2)
Lordie, that's twisted.
"Twisted"? Really?
Then please explain:
If the New York Times and their reporters, who are US corporations and citizens respectively, on US soil, can't be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, by what right does the US have to seek out and prosecute Assange, who was never in the US, was a citizen of a different nation, received the classified data from another person who was the one that had actually stolen the data from the US?
What if it were a US journalist trapped similarly on a foreign visit som
Re: (Score:2)
So you've dropped the kidnapping oligarchy angle? Now we're talking journalism?
Okay, actually, journalists in the U.S. *can* be prosecuted for things they might do. But they're really good at knowing what they can and can't do.
Still, many of them do, on occasion, spend time in jail.
But if the U.S. actually wanted Assange, they'd have him already. The Brits had him but let him stay under some restrictions while some legal matters were resolved.
When those weren't resolved to his liking, Assange bolted to t
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they do that?
Re: (Score:3)
I believe AC above was attempting to point out the absurdity of infinite criminal jurisdiction. If Assange, a citizen of another nation, having never taken any actions either within or without the US, to obtain classified materials but were uploaded to WL by another US individual, if regardless of all that he is under the jurisdiction of and punishable under US domestic law, that such covers citizens of another n
Re: (Score:2)
Please do. It promotes my reply as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaching bail conditions and contempt of court include leaving the country while there's an active case against you.
Re:Breaking the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Individuals don't get to decide what is unconscionable. Societies will decide that.
If he had given himself up in the first place he'd be home by now.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a retard to see someone hiding in a a foreign embassy and call it a government ruse.
If the U.S. wanted Assange they would have had him when he was first interviewed by the Brits and before he bolted for the Ecuadoran Embassy.
Re: (Score:2)
How is a warrant for arrest for not showing up in court unconscionable?
Re: (Score:2)
what does 'evading arrest' really mean? in this context?,=
Being told by the court to show up in the UK. Not showing up. Having a warrant issued for his arrest. Running away from that warrant.
It really is quite simple. If you think this has anything to do with rogue nations, then you're over thinking it. The case that you mention against him was dropped last year already. But speaking of...
assange did not feel that the law was correct and I agree
To be clear the law we are talking about is the law of two independent sovereign states (UK and Sweden) who both examined the case against him and both concluded he has a case to
Re: (Score:2)
*Citation needed
Re: (Score:2)
Let;'s be clear about this. Assange was arrested for allegedly having sex with a woman who was asleep without her consent. Here in the civilised world, we call that rape.
So you are saying that you feel the law against rape is not correct.
You are a fuckwit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Clinical depression has a biologic basis. It seems like you think it is based on his circumstances. His bad tooth is particularly unfortunate since he is in the UK where they haven't yet discovered dentistry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Assange's position is absurd (Score:5, Informative)
Of course there is that part where the so called "rape charges" where absolute bullshit.
Not true
https://www.newstatesman.com/d... [newstatesman.com]
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.)
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/... [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.
Just for the record, be very careful with women if you visit Sweden. Pressing false rape-charges is apparently a thing these days, even if you're not famous.
Bullshit. I've been to Sweden and dated women there. So long as you don't rape anyone you'll won't be charged with rape. What got Assange on trouble was that he was dating someone who consented to sex with a condom. They slept in the same bed. He woke her up having sex without a condom. She wanted him to get an aids test. He refused. She went to the police. He got charged with rape. And the UK courts ruled that since what he did in Sweden would count as rape if he had done it in the UK, he could be extradited. Then he skipped bail.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/me... [theguardian.com]
The allegations centre on a 10-day period after Assange flew into Stockholm on Wednesday 11 August. One of the women, named in court as Miss A, told police that she had arranged Assange's trip to Sweden, and let him stay in her flat because she was due to be away. She returned early, on Friday 13 August, after which the pair went for a meal and then returned to her flat.
Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.
According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.
On the following morning, Saturday 14 August, Assange spoke at a seminar organised by Miss A. A second woman, Miss W, had contacted Miss A to ask if she could attend. Both women joined Assange, the co-ordinator of the Swedish WikiLeaks group, whom we will call "Harold", and a few others for lunch.
Assange left the lunch with Miss W. She told the police she and Assange had visited the place where she worked and had then gone to a cinema where they had moved to the back row. He had kissed her and put his hands inside her clothing, she said.
That evening, Miss A held a party at her flat. One of her friends, "Monica", later told police that during the party Miss A had told her about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."
Assange's supporters point out that, despite her complaints against him, Miss A held a party for him on that evening and continued to allow him to stay in her flat.
On Sunday 15 August, Monica told police, Miss A told her that she thought Assange had torn the condom on purpose. According to Monica, Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept" and she did not feel safe.
The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A. However, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly stressed that he denies any kind of wrongdoing in relation to Miss W.
In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".
Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her. Miss W told police she went to a chemist to buy a morning-after pill and also went to hospital to be tested for STDs. Police statements record her contacting Assange to ask him to get a test and his refusing on the grounds that he did not have the time.
If you behave like Assange behaved you're going to have legal problems in the UK or Sweden. And you deserve it. Fucking scumbag.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did he flee justice if the rape charges were bullshit? His actions were those of somebody who believes themselves to be guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be throwing out terms without understanding their meaning.
Could you please indicate where corruption occurred and which civil rights were abused?
Re: (Score:2)
Realms?
Re: (Score:2)
He should be assassinated!
Nobody's suggesting this, except for idiots who fail miserably at trolling.
But there is absolutely no reason that he should not be held accountable for his actions.
Re: He stopped the coronation of Queen Hillary (Score:2)
Sarah Palin suggested it and the reactions of Hillary supporters to him now are nearly as hysterical. It was fine when he was doing it to the other "team" but now he's persona non grata because he made their "team" look bad.