dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


lordpuffer
RIP lil
Premium
join:2004-09-19
Rio Rancho, NM
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CableOne

3 recommendations

reply to The Snowman

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

IMO, Assange is the biggest baby (I can think of a better word, but I'll skip it for now) in the world. He does certain acts, then hides from the consequences of his actions with this asylum bull.
--
Obama in 2012 - There's No Tea Left In The Bag.


Frodo

join:2006-05-05

said by lordpuffer:

IMO, Assange is the biggest baby (I can think of a better word, but I'll skip it for now) in the world. He does certain acts, then hides from the consequences of his actions with this asylum bull.

»in.news.yahoo.com/ecuador-seeks-···408.html

Ecuador is quite willing to allow Assange to answer for the allegations in Sweden. However, Ecuador wants guarantees from Sweden and Great Britain that Assange won't subsequently be extradited to some third country.

I think Sweden and Great Britain should issue those guarantees, and then the matter in Sweden can be straightened out.


lordpuffer
RIP lil
Premium
join:2004-09-19
Rio Rancho, NM
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CableOne

The third country would be the U.S., if he is indicted. If he is, there shouldn't be anything to prevent Assange from being extradited to the U.S. to face the music.

I hope that no deal is made that prevents his extradition if indicted.
--
Obama in 2012 - There's No Tea Left In The Bag.


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

Equador is misguided.
They can provide asylum to protect someone who is being sent to a country where the individual would not survive or would be tortured. It is Equador's right to protect a refugee against those types of human rights abuses. The same right Sweden has.
That is not the case when the extradition is for a sexual assault case, a charge that would be handled the same way in Sweden, the UK, and most of the developed world. No one is saying Sweden would torture or kill Assange, so the extradition should be allowed as all levels of the UK courts have already ruled.
Assange is not a political prisoner in the UK, he is a person accused of a crime in a third country that was detained in the UK.
If Assange wants to hide in the Equador embassy in Sweden after justice is done, so be it.


Frodo

join:2006-05-05
reply to lordpuffer

said by lordpuffer:

The third country would be the U.S., if he is indicted. If he is, there shouldn't be anything to prevent Assange from being extradited to the U.S. to face the music.

I hope that no deal is made that prevents his extradition if indicted.

I hope otherwise. I think Assange can deal with the matter in Sweden, and then subsequently be returned to the Ecuador embassy in London, whereupon, if a new matter has arisen in the meantime, it can be negotiated.

According the the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, which Ecuador is a party to:
"It is not lawful to grant asylum to persons who, at the time of requesting it, are under Indictment or on trial for common offenses or have been convicted by competent regular courts and have not served the respective sentence, nor to deserters from land, sea, and air forces, save when the acts giving rise to the request for asylum, whatever the case may be, are clearly of a political nature."

Ecuador's concern is with any political related prosecution in the US. The case is clearly tainted. Currently there is no warrant for arrest or indictment of Assange in the US. However, the banking system, acting as the extrajudicial arm of the law crippled the financing of Wikileaks. The US may have tried to coerce the leaker, Manning to incriminate Assange by stating that Wikileaks actively participated in stealing the leaked material, and not simply acting as a drop box, which is essential to avoiding comparison to the Pentagon Papers case. There has been calls by US politicians for Assange's assassination. Without the assurances that the extradition to Sweden not include the possibility of extradition to the US for a political prosecution, Ecuador is entirely within the guidelines of the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum.


lordpuffer
RIP lil
Premium
join:2004-09-19
Rio Rancho, NM
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CableOne

1 recommendation

If Assange is indicted under U.S. Espionage statutes, then I do not believe that his asylum in Ecuador is "of a political nature." He would be facing criminal charges here in the U.S., like any other person charged with a crime.

When the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum speaks of "a political nature," I do not believe that they are talking about this type of matter.
--
Obama in 2012 - There's No Tea Left In The Bag.


Frodo

join:2006-05-05

It's exactly this matter. If I leaked classified Iranian material, should I be extradited to Iran? If not, then why should this Australian be extradited to the US? If he was an American, it might be a different story.

I just don't see the duty of an Australian to not publish the classified information of a country he is not a citizen of. And I don't think he actively participated in the theft of the information, that is allegedly Manning.



lordpuffer
RIP lil
Premium
join:2004-09-19
Rio Rancho, NM
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CableOne

said by Frodo:

It's exactly this matter. If I leaked classified Iranian material, should I be extradited to Iran? If not, then why should this Australian be extradited to the US? If he was an American, it might be a different story.

I just don't see the duty of an Australian to not publish the classified information of a country he is not a citizen of. And I don't think he actively participated in the theft of the information, that is allegedly Manning.

I agree with your Iranian hypothetical, for you would probably be tortured and killed in Iran for doing so. Most if not all developed nations would and should allow asylum for that.

However, if Assange is indicted and extradited to the U.S., he's just going to serve time if found guilty. No political reason not to extradite or to grant asylum. I haven't researched the penalties for Espionage, however even if death is one of them, I'm sure the U.S. would give assurances to Ecuador that they would not seek death as a penalty.
--
Obama in 2012 - There's No Tea Left In The Bag.

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
reply to PrntRhd

said by PrntRhd:

Equador is misguided.

Ecuador agrees that Assange should answer for the allegations in Sweden. However Ecuador wants assurance that in allowing Assange to be extradited to Sweden, he is not subsequently extradited to a 3rd country with a kangaroo government, a country that fancies themselves as the world's policeman for a political prosecution.

So, if one truly wants these sexual assualt allegations to be resolved, then one would hope Sweden and Great Britian issue the guarantees.

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

1 recommendation

Equador is asking for conditions on an extradition that is not to be decided by Equador.
Have we reached the point where every country in the world has veto power over court decisions in every other countries' courts? The UK has every right to be pissed at the interference.

As to Assaunge bringing a case to the World Court, he is not a country.. under what jurisdiction is he?


Frodo

join:2006-05-05

said by PrntRhd:

The UK has every right to be pissed at the interference.

The UK can be pissed all they want to. But Assange is not an ordinary defendant. He is a person that politicians in a 3rd country, a corporate controlled and run banana republic that fancies themselves as the world policeman have called for his assassination. Therefore Ecuador is within its rights to requests guarantees that Assange not be extradited to such a banana republic.

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.


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

3 recommendations

reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

It's exactly this matter. If I leaked classified Iranian material, should I be extradited to Iran? If not, then why should this Australian be extradited to the US? If he was an American, it might be a different story.

I just don't see the duty of an Australian to not publish the classified information of a country he is not a citizen of. And I don't think he actively participated in the theft of the information, that is allegedly Manning.

Extradition treaties exist among nation-states with regard to treaty-specified kinds of crimes committed within or against those nations or their citizens. If you leaked classified Iranian materials and if an extradition treaty between the US and Iran existed that applied to that crime, Iran could indeed apply to have you extradited. Depending on the terms of the treaty and a variety of interpretations/rulings by a US court, you might or might not be actually extradited to face such charges. The citizenship of an accused matters little in an extradition determination unless other, conflicting treaty constraints exist (such as a different treaty with the accused's own nation regarding how extradition of their citizens might be handled, regardless of where/why such extradition was proposed).

I'll leave it to others to determine whether or not Assange committed a crime against the US by publishing. 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.
--
"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

Frodo

join:2006-05-05

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.

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.

I'd like to see the guarantees issued so that the Swedish matter could be resolved.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to Frodo

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:3
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.

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

4 edits

1 recommendation

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:3
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:

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.


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



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

1 edit

1 recommendation

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.

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.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

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

Frodo

join:2006-05-05

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:3

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