Moderated: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If he had just stayed in contact with his lawyer it'd probably all have been well and truely over by now. Perhaps even if he had been found guilty it might have been.

He clearly feels that he is above any law. I hope the error of that is painfully shown to him.

[Here_to_learn]

Decision on wednesday according to the Guardian:

Originally Posted by Guardian

The high court said the verdict would be issued at 9.45am at the royal courts of justice in what is expected to be another media circus surrounding the hacker turned freedom-of-information activist.

The July extradition appeal hearings were packed with Assange supporters including John Pilger and legal onlookers such as Helena Kennedy QC, as well as a battalion of international journalists and Assange supporters.

If the court finds in Assange's favour he could become a free man after 11 months living under strict bail conditions in the Norfolk home of Frontline Club owner, Vaughan Smith.

Conversely, he could be removed to Sweden within 14 days of the judgement.
[...]
Legal observers believe it is likely that whatever the verdict, either side will seek permission to appeal to the supreme court in London on the grounds that a wider legal principle is at stake. That could see Assange continue on bail into next year, possibly under relaxed conditions, which is the earliest his case is likely to reach the highest court in Britain.

[Here_to_learn]

Assange lost the appeal and unless he seeks permission to appeal to the supreme court, he will be extradited to Sweden within 14 days.

[BenBurch]

His lawyers say an appeal to the SC is forthcoming. That will fail too. This little jerk is wasting a fortune in other people's money to keep from having to take responsibility for his actions.

What he doesn't realize is that the moment he is a free man he is MORE likely to be arrested and brought to the USA. If we want him badly enough, we can intercept an airliner and make it land at a US base. Cooling his heels in a Swedish jail he might be safe long enough to become a non-issue.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

His lawyers say an appeal to the SC is forthcoming. That will fail too.

David Allen Green (Jack of Kent) agrees with you re appeal in the New Statesman blog.

Originally Posted by David Allen Green

It is difficult to see why there is now any good reason for Assange to seek further delay in returning to Sweden, especially if he has scarce resources for funding his legal defence. He would be well-advised to now return to face the allegations, of which he may well be innocent.

But there seems nothing more he can do in England to avoid this next step. The raising of technical objections to escape extradition for questioning about serious allegations has now effectively come to an end.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

He clearly feels that he is above any law.

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If we want him badly enough, we can intercept an airliner and make it land at a US base.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

No irony. Such an arrest would be legal under the right circumstances. I have no doubt that we will create those circumstances if we need to.

[PhantomWolf]

Personally I have always thought that he should go back and fight the charges in court. From his actions over this, and things that have come to light over the past months, I suspect he is actually guilty, but I also think that there is likely not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, so I suspect he'd actually get off. (no pun intended.)

[lionking]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No irony. Such an arrest would be legal under the right circumstances. I have no doubt that we will create those circumstances if we need to.

And you are justifying this Ben? That the US can concoct a case because it is annoyed with Assange? This is unworthy of you.

Now if someone could give evidence of anyone put at risk because, and only because, of Wikileaks, I might change my tune, but so far I've only seen countries (including Australia) embarrassed by their duplicity.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by lionking

And you are justifying this Ben? That the US can concoct a case because it is annoyed with Assange? This is unworthy of you.

Now if someone could give evidence of anyone put at risk because, and only because, of Wikileaks, I might change my tune, but so far I've only seen countries (including Australia) embarrassed by their duplicity.

No, I am saying that we will justify it and it will be technically legal. We've done this before and we found that it was totally legal to force an airliner down or intercept a ship on the high seas to arrest a fugitive from American law. We have sent military into Mexico to arrest fugitives (Poncho Villa) so this does not even begin with the Bush abominations. Other countries might differ with the legality of it, but our courts accept it.

[BenBurch]

The Supreme Court will be asked to certify his appeal on December 5th. In order to win that his lawyer will have to prove that this is a matter of general applicability with respect to the interpretation of the law.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

The Supreme Court will be asked to certify his appeal on December 5th. In order to win that his lawyer will have to prove that this is a matter of general applicability with respect to the interpretation of the law.

So after this is it the Privy Council, or the European Court? Either way, total waste of time and money. If he'd stayed in the first place it'd all be over by now.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

So after this is it the Privy Council, or the European Court? Either way, total waste of time and money. If he'd stayed in the first place it'd all be over by now.

Not sure. This is spoken of as a final appeal.

[BenBurch]

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-11-15-j...chauvinist-pig

Quote:

The Swedish view of Julian Assange, who lost his appeal against extradition to face sex allegations on November 2, has changed in a year from the James Bond of the internet to a paranoid chauvinist pig. The man who has been holed up in an English country house instead of allowing himself to be questioned here in Sweden about an alleged rape cuts an increasingly pitiable figure.

His attempts to depict Sweden as a banana republic that would ship him on to the United States is another sign of how desperate Assange has become. You can blame Sweden for lots of things -- filthy weather, overrated crime novels, Ikea furniture -- but to claim this country is the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA's) accomplice, with an extremist law on sex crimes, irritates even his most loyal fans, of whom there are still a few.

<SNIP>

[BenBurch]

His permission to appeal was granted;

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...supreme-court/

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

His permission to appeal was granted;

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...supreme-court/

From what I understand, it was a little more complicated than that:

Originally Posted by guardian

The two judges refused to grant Assange right of appeal to the supreme court, but "certified" that on one specific point of law – of whether a prosecutor can be an impartial judicial authority – his case did raise a question of "general public importance" which the supreme court might wish to consider.

The ruling permits Assange to petition the supreme court directly within 14 days, to ask it to hear his appeal. There is no guarantee it will do so, but if the court agrees, a further appeal could see Assange's legal battle extend well into next year.

[BenBurch]

Interesting. It's a very technical point and one which will not change anything if I understand that. If it points out a fault in the original proceedings, they just get re-done.

[BenBurch]

Assange should know if the SC will hear him by Christmas;

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-...e1-779463.aspx

[Here_to_learn]

The Supreme court will hear the appeal:

Originally Posted by The Guardian

A panel of seven supreme court justices will hear Julian Assange's appeal against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of rape and sexual assault.[...]The central issue to be examined, the court said, is "whether a prosecutor is a judicial authority."

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Interesting. It's a very technical point and one which will not change anything if I understand that. If it points out a fault in the original proceedings, they just get re-done.

I must admin I can't really grasp the possible results of the supreme court decision when it comes.

Ok, if they say everything is correct, then there still seems to be some possibility for JA to appeal to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, but without that he will be extradited to Sweden.

But if SC says that the Swedish prosecutor does not have the right to issue a EAW, if I understand correctly they are saying that Swedish law is incorrect. I'm not sure how this can work that a court in one country can have an opinion of a law in another country?

Also, the decision was made in a court, it's only the prosecutor that has issued the EAW after the court made the decision. Since this is how Swedish law stipulates that it should be handled, I'm not so sure that it can just be re-done.

Oh well, I guess we just have to wait and see...

[BenBurch]

Looks like a sealed indictment for Assange has been issued in the US;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02...for_wikileaks/

I look forward to his extradition once he has been tried in Sweden.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Looks like a sealed indictment for Assange has been issued in the US;

According to Stratfor?

Let me know when a reliable source becomes available.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Looks like a sealed indictment for Assange has been issued in the US;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02...for_wikileaks/

I look forward to his extradition once he has been tried in Sweden.

You'll be waiting a long time, it would be a breach of Sweden's Laws.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

You'll be waiting a long time, it would be a breach of Sweden's Laws.

Depends on how long he serves when convicted in Sweden. If he is let go after the hearing (possible, not likely) he will have to go somewhere. I am betting Sweden will not let him be a permanent resident. So, he will eventually be in an airport or some similar place where he will be simply taken.

If he serves significant time, the matter may have cooled down, at which time he better never set foot in a country from which we can extradite.

Or, if he keeps being a thorn in the side of major world powers, he just might not wake up some morning.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Depends on how long he serves when convicted in Sweden. If he is let go after the hearing (possible, not likely) he will have to go somewhere. I am betting Sweden will not let him be a permanent resident. So, he will eventually be in an airport or some similar place where he will be simply taken.
If he serves significant time, the matter may have cooled down, at which time he better never set foot in a country from which we can extradite.

Or, if he keeps being a thorn in the side of major world powers, he just might not wake up some morning.

If the US kidnapped a citizen of a friendly nation for breaching a law that only exists in the US I would suspect that they'd be in for some serious diplomatic issues. I seriously doubt that anyone in the US considers their economy to be strong enough to P.O. the rest of the world by doing something so fundamentally stupid.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If the US kidnapped a citizen of a friendly nation for breaching a law that only exists in the US I would suspect that they'd be in for some serious diplomatic issues. I seriously doubt that anyone in the US considers their economy to be strong enough to P.O. the rest of the world by doing something so fundamentally stupid.

Kidnapping foreign nationals and handing them off to be tortured was business as usual during the Bush regime. Unfortunately it seems likely most of the criminals involved will never face prosecution, but they are criminals and accomplices to torture nonetheless.

Since there have been no consequences even for egregious cases like that of Khalid El-Masri I'm not sure what diplomatic issues you're worried about.

Granted Assange is a higher-profile target, but the rhetoric of national security has already been invoked in his case and calls for his kidnapping and/or assassination have already been made by the usual blowhards. I'd like to think that Obama wouldn't sanction Assange's kidnapping, but if Obama lost the election to someone like Santorum nothing of the sort would surprise me.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Kidnapping foreign nationals and handing them off to be tortured was business as usual during the Bush regime. Unfortunately it seems likely most of the criminals involved will never face prosecution, but they are criminals and accomplices to torture nonetheless.

Since there have been no consequences even for egregious cases like that of Khalid El-Masri I'm not sure what diplomatic issues you're worried about.

Granted Assange is a higher-profile target, but the rhetoric of national security has already been invoked in his case and calls for his kidnapping and/or assassination have already been made by the usual blowhards. I'd like to think that Obama wouldn't sanction Assange's kidnapping, but if Obama lost the election to someone like Santorum nothing of the sort would surprise me.

Sadly people haven't been that caring when it comes to those deemed to be terrorists, but now that the US is starting to throw it's weight about against normal citizens that they start dubbing as criminals for anything they like (or don't as the case might be) there is more of a backlash starting to swell. So far they are going via legal channels so there isn't as much, if they start kidnapping these people, I think thay will change. The Aust Parliment has already had questions about the charges given in it, if the US was to go stupid I could see a lot of trouble from friendly nations rebelling.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Sadly people haven't been that caring when it comes to those deemed to be terrorists, but now that the US is starting to throw it's weight about against normal citizens that they start dubbing as criminals for anything they like (or don't as the case might be) there is more of a backlash starting to swell.

The thing is, in Assange's case they have already set themselves up to position him as "a threat to national security" or something similar, which is very close to the justification used for previous kidnappings. People who regularly obtain and publish huge swathes of material the US government has tried to keep secret aren't "normal citizens", and I think that's the angle they would argue.

Of course Assange should rightly be seen as a modern investigative journalist, but people will do their damnedest to find some form of sophistry that will enable them to declare him an enemy spy instead.

Quote:

So far they are going via legal channels so there isn't as much, if they start kidnapping these people, I think thay will change. The Aust Parliment has already had questions about the charges given in it, if the US was to go stupid I could see a lot of trouble from friendly nations rebelling.

I guess I have less faith in politicians than you do. If the US kidnapped Assange from an airport I suspect there would be inquiries and feigned concern but absolutely nothing concrete would ever be done to punish either the USA or the criminals involved in the actual kidnapping.

As I said, given what the USA got up to under the previous Republican administration I wouldn't be surprised if a subsequent ideologically similar administration kidnapped someone like Assange.

[WildCat]

Man, you people sure have a lot of faith in Stratfor.

Does anyone have any evidence at all that Assange is wanted in the US? Or are the claims of a shady company trying to drum up business good enough?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If the US kidnapped a citizen of a friendly nation for breaching a law that only exists in the US I would suspect that they'd be in for some serious diplomatic issues. I seriously doubt that anyone in the US considers their economy to be strong enough to P.O. the rest of the world by doing something so fundamentally stupid.

Sure there will be some noise and ill-feeling, but ultimately, are you going to break off relations with the USA over one rapist jerk? Nope.

When they attempt to use extortion to keep the Swedes from extraditing him and trying him, he lost any tiny shred on sympathy I had for him. He is evil. His organization is evil. And were it up to me they would be CIA target #2.

It is still my belief that he and Manning killed people and are still killing people with the stuff they stole and then sold.

Yes, sold.

They traded that for an expected flood of donations that would have made Assange quite wealthy drawing a salary from Wikileaks. It didn't work out that way, however.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The thing is, in Assange's case they have already set themselves up to position him as "a threat to national security" or something similar, which is very close to the justification used for previous kidnappings. People who regularly obtain and publish huge swathes of material the US government has tried to keep secret aren't "normal citizens", and I think that's the angle they would argue.

That line might work on Republicans in the US, but we're not talking about them. Terrorists are a threat to everyone, they have shown that they go after anyone you can, mostly ordinary people, thus ordinary people don't care about them. Start grabbing people for making the US Government look bad, and that's a whole different story.

Quote:

Of course Assange should rightly be seen as a modern investigative journalist, but people will do their damnedest to find some form of sophistry that will enable them to declare him an enemy spy instead.

Just like they try and use money laundering and fraud charges to do things, however it's transparent to anyone that looks, and more people are starting to look and go, "hey that isn't right."

Quote:

I guess I have less faith in politicians than you do. If the US kidnapped Assange from an airport I suspect there would be inquiries and feigned concern but absolutely nothing concrete would ever be done to punish either the USA or the criminals involved in the actual kidnapping.

Actually I have very little faith in Politicians, but I also know that they like to keep their jobs which means that on occasion they end up having to listen to their populations when they get p.o.ed, take South Africa for example.

Quote:

As I said, given what the USA got up to under the previous Republican administration I wouldn't be surprised if a subsequent ideologically similar administration kidnapped someone like Assange.

And I wouldn't be surprised if there was a backlash if it did happen. There is already a huge anti-American sentiment bubbling under the surface in America's Ally countries caused by their repeatedly arrogant actions over the past 10-15 years. Obama has helped a little bit, but with a lot of the things the DoJ have been doing recently, trying to extend their reach and laws worldwide, it's stirring up that anti-Americanism again, even amongst politicians. All it needs is the right trigger, and parties across the board who have the stance that they don't like what the US is doing and will blacklist them for their actions could gain significant support, enough to allow them some control in policies.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Sure there will be some noise and ill-feeling, but ultimately, are you going to break off relations with the USA over one rapist jerk? Nope.

The problem is that it isn't just "one rapist jerk", whom I'd note hasn't been convicted of rape and so at best currently is "one alleged rapist jerk." It would be the last of a long line of cases were the US has arrogantly ignored national boundaries and the laws of other countries, running rough shod over everyone else on the planet to get it's own way. That sort of action has created a huge under current of dislike, and it just needs the right spark to set it off. Kidnapping Assange could certainly be that spark to the house filled with gas.

Quote:

When they attempt to use extortion to keep the Swedes from extraditing him and trying him, he lost any tiny shred on sympathy I had for him. He is evil. His organization is evil. And were it up to me they would be CIA target #2.

Just as well you aren't using rhetoric and hyperbole in your argument isn't it.

Quote:

It is still my belief that he and Manning killed people and are still killing people with the stuff they stole and then sold.

And that belief and $2 will buy you a Mars Bar. Evidence? Oh, that's right, you don't actually have any evidence for the claim, it just "must have happened."

[Here_to_learn]

So today the supreme court decided (votes 5-2) for Sweden and against JA.

However, JAs legal team flagged that they might ask the court to reconsider, since they claimed that the decision was based on something that wasn't argued in court (if I understood it correctly). The court gave the team 14 days, so this isn't over yet...

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

So today the supreme court decided (votes 5-2) for Sweden and against JA.

However, JAs legal team flagged that they might ask the court to reconsider, since they claimed that the decision was based on something that wasn't argued in court (if I understood it correctly). The court gave the team 14 days, so this isn't over yet...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-7803769.html

Legal experts on the radio this morning say this is a delaying tactic, one was suggesting that Assange be actually watched over this interval as he is a flight risk.

Now we finally will get to see Justice be done.

What will happen? Well, that's up to the Swedish legal process! It might just be, after all this whinging and pewling, that they will listen to testimony, look at evidence and decide there isn't enough for a trial, or they could decide that a trial is warranted and he might be acquitted.

What isn't going to happen (In spite of my twitting the truthers with it) is that he will get shipped straight to America, but I hope he fears kidnap and trial in the USA every moment of his pathetic life.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No irony. Such an arrest would be legal under the right circumstances. I have no doubt that we will create those circumstances if we need to.

At least you could admit your double standard.

We are executing people on Obama's orders, no trial. We have people in prison in Gitmo, no due process. Apparently Sweden allowed people to be kidnapped and extradited without trial or due process in the past.

Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't. The evidence suggests the latter.


And no matter what your prejudgement is of Assange, he is only being extradited to be interviewed. He hasn't been charged and clearly Sweden would have spent less had they just sent the prosecutor to the UK to interview him. If then there were charges, the extradition wouldn't have had grounds for appeal.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

....

Now we finally will get to see Justice be done.

What will happen? Well, that's up to the Swedish legal process! ...

And if the US simply kidnaps Assange with the tacit permission of the Swedish government but well outside their legal process, will you still believe we are a nation of laws?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

So today the supreme court decided (votes 5-2) for Sweden and against JA.

However, JAs legal team flagged that they might ask the court to reconsider, since they claimed that the decision was based on something that wasn't argued in court (if I understood it correctly). The court gave the team 14 days, so this isn't over yet...

Yes, that is correct.

The case was explained on Democracy Now this morning. The extradition treaty says "on judicial order" which in the UK means a court or judge, not a prosecutor. Even in the US a prosecutor must get a court ordered summons. The SCOTUK ruled the definition of judicial order in French included a prosecutor's order and the treaty was signed in both English and French.

Assange's legal team claimed this linguistic argument was never made by the court and the team had no chance to address the argument.

DN coverage starts at 9 min 30 sec in (05-30-12) and covers the topic in depth.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If then there were charges, the extradition wouldn't have had grounds for appeal.

Why not? The latest part of the appeal was on if a Swedish prosecutor is a judicial authority, and I can't see how charging instead of issuing a "domestic detention order in absentia" would have changed that?

Some of the other points of appeals might very well be gone if he had been charged, I just don't have a full list of them in front of me now.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yes, that is correct.

The case was explained on Democracy Now this morning. The extradition treaty says "on judicial order" which in the UK means a court or judge, not a prosecutor. Even in the US a prosecutor must get a court ordered summons. The SCOTUK ruled the definition of judicial order in French included a prosecutor's order and the treaty was signed in both English and French.

Assange's legal team claimed this linguistic argument was never made by the court and the team had no chance to address the argument.

That is not what I have understood - that it was the "full" translation issue that they complained about - rather just the part of the arguments that is based in the Vienna Convention:

Originally Posted by Supreme court

Ms Rose suggested that the majority of the Court appear to have based their decision on the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, on which no argument was heard.

But I haven't read all of the decision yet, (and probably won't understand it anyway...) so I might have this the wrong way around...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Why not? The latest part of the appeal was on if a Swedish prosecutor is a judicial authority, and I can't see how charging instead of issuing a "domestic detention order in absentia" would have changed that?

Some of the other points of appeals might very well be gone if he had been charged, I just don't have a full list of them in front of me now.

I don't know how the Swedish court works. In the US a prosecutor must still get a court order to demand a person's deposition. Going by the UK court ruling, if the Swedish extradition order was signed by a judge or court, Assange's legal team's argument would have been moot.