dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23089
share rss forum feed


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Frodo

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

said by Frodo:

Great Britain and Sweden maintain that the extradition is for the sexual assault allegations. Why not simply issue the guarantees that the extradition will be confined to dealing with these allegations, and then the matter can be resolved in Sweden.

Because that's not the way the legal systems, of ANY nation, actually work. Assange is not charged with any crime in the US, nor has the US asked for him to be extradited, from anywhere. They have been reported as "considering" charges. So what? Until there's an extraditable charge, and a request for extradition made, the UK or Sweden, have absolutely nothing to decide. Nobody is going to give anyone carte blanche immunity from extradition over some entirely hypothetical charge. Sorry, but for now, this looks like a guy trying to skip out on his rape charges, whatever else he may or may not have done aren't the current questions of the day...
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 recommendations

reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

Currently there is no warrant for arrest or indictment of Assange in the US.

I'm no expert on international law, but I'd opine that Sweden therefore cannot reasonably issue a "no extradition" guarantee.

Extradition to face charges cannot occur prior to charges being made, and (it seems to this amateur) Sweden cannot reasonably refuse extradition prior to it having considered those charges.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 recommendation

reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

said by Blackbird:

But if one is persuasively alleged to have committed a crime against a citizen or agency of another nation, they are indeed subject to extradition for trial in that nation, if an applicable treaty exists and if courts in the sending nation agree.

True. However he is under Ecuadorian jurisdiction at the moment. So, Ecuador does have a say. People may not like that Ecuador has a say, but that's tough luck. Now Britain and Sweden say that the matter involves allegations in Sweden. Confine the extradition of Assange to that matter only, and that resolves Ecuador's concern.
...
I'd like to see the guarantees issued so that the Swedish matter could be resolved.

Yes, Ecuador indeed does have a say. But that say ends at the property line of the Ecuadorian embassy, since their sovereignty ends at that point in the UK. And Ecuador may not like that the UK has the ultimate say, but that's also tough luck... it's the UK's sovereign territory that Assange has to traverse if he ever leaves the embassy, and its the UK's extradition treaty with Sweden that the UK feels obligated to honor. Likewise, Sweden believes it has a sovereign obligation to honor whatever extradition treaty it may have with the US (or other nations), so it is unwilling to carte-blanche renounce those obligations to satisfy Ecuador or Assange. Now, whether Assange would ever be successfully extradited to the US by Sweden under terms of such a treaty is another issue entirely... most such treaties involve critical review by courts in the nation sending the accused - things like trial fairness, valid charges, political persecution, etc all can and generally are considered. But simply demanding the carte-blanch abbrogation of any extradition treaty between the US and Sweden is not normally considered an acceptable diplomatic solution to the kind of problem that now exists with Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

What I don't like hearing is that Assange is chicken to answer to the Swedish allegations when the real issue is that Assange doesn't want to answer for the Wikileaks publishing of the State Department papers.

Exactly!

Assange figured he could publish secret documents that embarrassed the US and some of it allies without consequences. He wanted to tour the world and show what a great guy he was after doing so. Now some of those allies want him for unrelated charges (trumped up or not). The bottom line is that, as you said, Assange doesn't want to face the music for the original act. I don't know whether the US can make a case against him stick or not but Assange is a chicken. He wanted to play with the big boys and now that he's under threat he wants to run and hide. He is, what is known in some parts, as a gutless wonder.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!

Frodo

join:2006-05-05

said by StuartMW:

He is, what is known in some parts, as a gutless wonder.

I don't think he's a gutless wonder. Why should he face US justice? If I published Iranian, Russian, Chinese, or Saudi Arabia classified information, I wouldn't want to extradited there either.

I don't think he committed a crime by publishing under the Pentagon Papers precident. It is treasonous like conduct however if he was an American. But he's not.

I think we're looking at this too much through an American lens. I wonder how this looks through the Ecuadorian lens?


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by Frodo:

I don't think he's a gutless wonder.

Fair enough but I, for one, am not going to give Assange respect I don't think he's earned.

If an individual or group perceives a wrong they can fight for their cause (whether I agree with it or not) but they have to accept the consequences. In some cases that might mean losing their freedom. In others it may mean losing their lives. In either case they have the courage of their convictions and deserve (some) respect.

Who do you admire more Assange or a "freedom fighter" in Syria? Or an American Revolutionary?
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:2
reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

said by StuartMW:

He is, what is known in some parts, as a gutless wonder.

I don't think he's a gutless wonder. Why should he face US justice? If I published Iranian, Russian, Chinese, or Saudi Arabia classified information, I wouldn't want to extradited there either.

Assange is charged with raping a couple women in Sweden, and is not currently on the run from US justice, rather Swedish justice. See the distinction?
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

Frodo

join:2006-05-05

said by Ian:

Assange is charged with raping a couple women in Sweden, and is not currently on the run from US justice, rather Swedish justice. See the distinction?

I'm aware of the distinction. Have you been following the thread? Or read the position of the Ecuadorian president?

Nobody has a problem with Assange facing Swedish authorities, so long as it isn't a ruse to put Assange in a jurisdiction with a favorable extradition arrangement with the US.


Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to ZZZZZZZ

said by ZZZZZZZ:

Does anyone really believe that Sweden isn't kissing Yankee ass?

Think for just one brief moment, who is a closer American ally, UK or Sweden, and then ask yourself this, did the Brits sneak him off to the US, so why would the Swedes?

Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool

PrntRhd
Premium
join:2004-11-03
Fairfield, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast

4 edits

1 recommendation

reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

said by Ian:

Assange is charged with raping a couple women in Sweden, and is not currently on the run from US justice, rather Swedish justice. See the distinction?

I'm aware of the distinction. Have you been following the thread? Or read the position of the Ecuadorian president?

Nobody has a problem with Assange facing Swedish authorities, so long as it isn't a ruse to put Assange in a jurisdiction with a favorable extradition arrangement with the US.

If he did not commit a crime in Sweden, where extradition is possible, he would not be at risk now, so it is his own fault if he is in legal jeopardy now.
Again, as several already posted, he has not been charged with any offense in the US. If he is charged he would face extradition just like anyone else would and it would be up to the courts in the country where he was located after a trial (Sweden) to decide if the extradition would go forward or if he would be deported to his own country (Australia).

Assange would not face treason charges in the US in any case because he is a citizen of Australia.
Possession of stolen diplomatic cables, maybe espionage, but not treason. Australia would only consider treason if he published Australian military or diplomatic secrets.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:2
reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

Nobody has a problem with Assange facing Swedish authorities, so long as it isn't a ruse to put Assange in a jurisdiction with a favorable extradition arrangement with the US.

Actually it sounds like Julian Assange has a problem with facing Swedish authorities on his rape charges. So much so, that he screwed his friends and supporters over, causing them to lose half a million US$ in bail money.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

Do you have any evidence of US involvement in the Sweden sex crime charges? Or that these charges were, in any way, a set-up? If so, perhaps the Swedish justice system would like a word with you. Or you might have submitted such things to the various courts in the UK that considered whether or not to extradite him. Neither you nor anyone else presented any such evidence.

Me thinks you need to read up more on the story, but in Daniel Ellserg's words.

This link has already been posted here in the original discussion, that seems to be second hand news now we have a fresh topic.
»truth-out.org/opinion/item/10959···-assange

It’s outrageous that Bradley Manning’s trial has again been postponed by the action of the government 'til next spring. He will have spent—he's already spent more than 800 days in confinement, 10 months of it and more in conditions that Amnesty International called torture. The idea that President Obama ended torture is simply not true. He didn’t end it even in this country, in terms of isolated commitment, incommunicado, basically, and conditions of nudity, in some cases, intended to humiliate him—all intended to press him to cop a plea and reduce his sentence from the life sentence they’re asking to a much lower sentence, if he will only implicate Julian Assange in ways that would allow them to bring a trial without great embarrassment.

Now, let me enlarge on that for a moment. They don’t have to extradite anyone to bring someone under these charges under the WikiLeaks disclosures. Everything Julian Assange could possibly be charged with under our law was committed as an act by Bill Keller, the president—sorry, the managing editor of—the executive editor of the New York Times. I don’t mean the New York Times should be indicted or that Keller should be indicted. That would be an outrage, just as it is an outrage to think of indicting Julian Assange for exactly the same thing. But meanwhile, Bradley Manning is facing charges that he aided the enemy, absurd charges that amount virtually to treason. And many people have even called for execution of either of them. Well, obviously, the same charges then could lead to Julian Assange being tried under the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which has just been found unconstitutional by a courageous and right-thinking judge in the first—in the district of Manhattan—

It's all hearsay, but to detain a man for 800 days with no trial....you have to love the new "terrorist reactive" govt of the US. Even David Hicks is backing this play. People are not to be detained without due trail or process, and to hold people on a whim and no trial!

Also, a little review of the nature of the beast:

AMY GOODMAN: The record of President Obama on whistleblowers: six whistleblowers charged under the Obama administration, more than in all—under the administrations of all past presidents combined, Dan Ellsberg?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Twice as many. Twice as many as all past presidents. There was a total of three under past presidents, one each. I was the first ever charged with those charges. Obama has brought six such charges. And apparently his grand jury in Virginia is seeking at least a seventh, and perhaps more, against Assange and others. Twice as many as all previous.

I'm not sure what you pass for proof, facts or other, but it is plain and simple to me.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

Assange is charged with raping a couple women in Sweden, and is not currently on the run from US justice, rather Swedish justice. See the distinction?

Again, there is no charges at present, and it is only 1 case of rape. Please read up.


siljaline
I'm lovin' that double wide
Premium
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC
kudos:17
reply to The Snowman

Assange addresses public from Ecuador's U.K. embassy balcony



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

Actually it sounds like Julian Assange has a problem with facing Swedish authorities on his rape charges. So much so, that he screwed his friends and supporters over, causing them to lose half a million US$ in bail money.

Also, there has been requests for the Swedish Govt to sit in a room and discuss the needs of the case with Julian, which is normal and standard procedure when it tracks across 2 countries territories.

To date they have refused to deal with standard process. They (all) want him in the open, it makes an easier target. Thumbs up for the president of Ecuador for doing this. His govt is splitting on how to deal with this due to the US wanting to place an Embargo (reads: they don't pay taxes for their exports and now there is a timed notion that this tax free policy be changed) on his country to pressure them into releasing him.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

Expand your moderator at work


goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to Frodo

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

said by Frodo:

Nobody has a problem with Assange facing Swedish authorities, so long as it isn't a ruse to put Assange in a jurisdiction with a favorable extradition arrangement with the US.

That's hair-splitting and ridiculous.

The charges he's avoiding are from Sweden. No third country can demand assurances for what "might" happen beyond those charges and no third country can give them just in case, but for sure he is under indictment for a specific crime and needs to answer it.

It seems to me you're buying into his effort to throw up a smokescreen and avoid a legal proceeding by throwing out a complete red herring. If the US brings charges and files for extradition you can debate the legality of that, but until they do this is a case of one guy thumbing his nose at the law. And that's pure and utter bs.

You don't get an out-of-jail-free card on rape just because you also leaked some documents. Rape is not a victimless crime. The one doesn't absolve responsibility for the other.

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

Actually it sounds like Julian Assange has a problem with facing Swedish authorities on his rape charges.

If that's the problem, then Assange is out of luck. According to Ecuador's president, Ecuador agrees that Assange should answer to the Swedish allegations. All they want is guarantees that if Assange is extradited to Sweden, that there won't be a subsequent extradition to a 3rd country.

So, if one supports having the Swedish allegations resolved, then one would have to support the guarantees.

Ecuador has called the Swedish and British bluff. There is absolutely no reason to not issue the guarantees if the Swedish allegations are the true reason for extraditing Assange to Sweden. Once the Swedish allegations are resolved, and if applicable, Assange has served his sentence, then he could be returned to the Ecuadorian embassy. At least that way one of the issues would be resolved as opposed to zero issues resolved.

And as far as the alleged Swedish crime victims are concerned, they don't need to have their justice coupled to a Wikileaks case in the US. That's not fair to them. The guarantees need to be issued and the Swedish case needs to be decoupled with any other prosecution in a 3rd country.
Expand your moderator at work


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:2
reply to norwegian

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

said by norwegian:

Me thinks you need to read up more on the story, but in Daniel Ellserg's words.

I'm familiar with Ellsberg's statements. They contain allegations, unsupported by any actual facts. And they have no bearing on Assange's rape investigation.

"DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, everything that we’ve seen supports the position of his defense team, that this is not about sexual charges in Sweden, essentially, that that’s a cover story—whatever substance there may be to that story."

- No. There's been no evidence presented anywhere, by Mr. Ellsberg, Assange's defense team, or anyone else that says this is anything but.....a rape investigation. Elaborate fantasies strewn about? Sure. Lots of those.

It's also worth noting, that Ellsberg turned himself in to US police and faced his accusers at trial, rather than cowardly holing himself up in some dip-shit Third World embassy...
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:2
reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

All they want is guarantees that if Assange is extradited to Sweden, that there won't be a subsequent extradition to a 3rd country.

So, if one supports having the Swedish allegations resolved, then one would have to support the guarantees.

No, you're still missing the point. It would be extraordinary (I'm no lawyer, but possibly even unprecedented) for any nation to promise not to extradite somebody about hypothetical charges made by some other hypothetical nation. That's just not how it works.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

No. There's been no evidence presented anywhere, by Mr. Ellsberg, Assange's defense team, or anyone else that says this is anything but.....a rape investigation. Elaborate fantasies strewn about? Sure. Lots of those.

It's also worth noting, that Ellsberg turned himself in to US police and faced his accusers at trial, rather than cowardly holing himself up in some dip-shit Third World embassy...

Maybe then, while you are being straight forward and asking for facts, when then hasn't the govt of the ladies in question sat down to hear Julian's story, as there are no charges yet to be answered for there. They have heard 1 story and it has been offered to them to sit in a room and hear his story. You do not extradite people on discussions, I believe there are in fact no charges against him as yet for the night in question with 2 ladies at once.....I could add a little more here in personal comment, but it would be unfair to due process.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

1 edit

said by norwegian:

...as yet for the night in question with 2 ladies at once...

You are very generous calling them "ladies" but I digress

My personal opinion is that Assange doesn't have enough, um, "manhood" to rape anything let alone a woman.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

No, you're still missing the point. It would be extraordinary (I'm no lawyer, but possibly even unprecedented) for any nation to promise not to extradite somebody about hypothetical charges made by some other hypothetical nation. That's just not how it works.

I'm no lawyer either. But if it didn't work this way, take the following scenario. Saudi Arabia charges me with murder, and they have an extradition treaty with the US. I'm delivered to Saudi Arabia, whereupon the murder charge is dropped and I'm off to Yemen on a blasphemy charge.

Something has to prevent scenarios like that or extradition treaties would be a joke. But, to be sure, I am interested in reading a legal analysis on Ecuador's proposal. But, my inkling is that Ecuador is within its rights.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to norwegian

said by norwegian:

Maybe then, while you are being straight forward and asking for facts, when then hasn't the govt of the ladies in question sat down to hear Julian's story, as there are no charges yet to be answered for there.

I am unfamiliar with Swedish law, but I would imagine the course of any investigation would be to investigate....then charge (or not). Certainly interviewing the suspect would be normal procedure, right? They talked to him once. Perhaps maybe they later found evidence that pokes holes in Assange's prior interview testimony? I don't know. Not privy to the details of Assange's criminal investigation. Perhaps their evidence is such that depending on his answers, there could well be an immediate arrest. Under those circumstances, I could understand why they might wish to do so in their own jurisdiction.

And from a simple taxpayer perspective, it makes no sense to expensively fly a whole investigative team from Sweden to wherever, instead of flying one person (the suspect) in. Especially considering you'd need to fly the team back, but not necessarily the rape suspect.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:2
reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

I'm no lawyer either. But if it didn't work this way, take the following scenario. Saudi Arabia charges me with murder, and they have an extradition treaty with the US. I'm delivered to Saudi Arabia, whereupon the murder charge is dropped and I'm off to Yemen on a blasphemy charge.

So you foresee your government backing you up and only agreeing to extradite you on murder charges to a foreign country that they have an extradition treaty with, if, and only if, that country promises to NEVER extradite you elsewhere, regardless of whatever those hypothetical charges might be?

Hope you're never in that situation, because I assure you, you'll be disappointed. Because, again, that's simply not how these things work.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
reply to The Snowman

I think I found something. Rule of Specialty.

»www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_···mcrm.htm
and
»www.frankrubino.com/CM/FSDP/Prac···pic&id=3

“Additionally, most extradition treaties contain a provision known as the "rule of specialty." This rule provides that a person who has been extradited may be prosecuted only for the offense listed in the extradition request. The rule is to ensure that a person is not extradited on a pretext, only to be prosecuted for an offense for which extradition may not be allowed. The rule of specialty may be waived by the nation¹ from which a person is extradited.”

This is a little bit different in that the secondary prosecution would be handled by a different jurisdiction (US) versus the primary jurisdiction (Sweden). However this doctrine of the Rule of Specialty increase the chances that Ecuador is within its rights in demanding assurances that Assange will only be prosecuted for what is alleged in the extradition request. The Rule of Specialty seems to be very similar to what Ecuador is demanding.

¹ Now the nation is Ecuador since Assange is under their jurisdiction. Ecuador is not allowing the Wikileaks publishing prosecution on the grounds that it is a politically motivated prosecution.


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Ian

We are still on the same page then.

So all I can offer to your reply:

So why then can't the country of the nationality of the ladies in question give a signed document releasing his back to Equator after the trial?

I believe if he is found guilty, if, then as long as he spends due time according to the judge, it doesn't matter which country he does the time in.

I'm having a hard time understanding the lack of commitment from the Swedish in filing the request of the country, Equator, to one of it's citizen's....which is what this is all bout. Anything after that for the US will have to wait. It seems very simple, but I digress, I'm no lawyer either.

But to hear the English were rumored to take by force is not due process, that is certain. It seems to be quite a human rights fiasco, and the outcome may affect the way we are all processed going forward.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:2

said by norwegian:

We are still on the same page then.
So why then can't the country of the nationality of the ladies in question give a signed document releasing his back to Equator after the trial?

Because to do so is to squash an extradition order that has not yet even been filed, let alone requested. No Country is going to do that.

Nefarious CIA fantasies aside, nobody, including the US has asked for Mr. Assange's presence in their Country.

Do you honestly think Ecuador? wants him in their Country? Let's be honest here. Why is Ecuador doing this? Because Ecuador has some sort of long-standing tradition of freedom of the press? Heh. No. They want to thumb their noses at a first world nation, and to use him as a bargaining chip, if possible. Maybe for an oil deal. Who knows? They couldn't give a rat's ass about Assange.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
reply to norwegian

said by norwegian:

But to hear the English were rumored to take by force is not due process, that is certain.

From what I heard, the English wouldn't proceed with an assault on Ecuador's embassy without British Court approval. In other words, they would have made their intentions known, so that it could be challenged in their courts. I think they have pretty much backed down now. It was a pretty stupid idea anyhow, an idea that could have repercussions on British missions abroad.