I'm in Greece and on my phone do can't find you any evidence at the moment, but the mere fact that the Australian government strenuously defends convicticted drug dealers in south east Asia time and time again yet on the other hand offers assange no diplomatic help in the slightest is slightly inconsistent no?
Julian Assange to issue statement 'in front' of Ecuador embassy
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
I'm in Greece and on my phone do can't find you any evidence at the moment, but the mere fact that the Australian government strenuously defends convicticted drug dealers in south east Asia time and time again yet on the other hand offers assange no diplomatic help in the slightest is slightly inconsistent no?
Kite
Member
Manning's "torture" is called being on Suicide Watch. His own lawyer admits that Manning made a statement about taking his own life. I agree that the suicide watch procedures, especially in prisons, sounds like it borders on torture. But Manning is hardly some special flower being singled out, his level of "torture" goes on in hospitals and prisons across the US every day. You just don't know or care about them because they aren't famous.
source is the wikipedia link above
How many people has Australia not defended and you didn't know a thing about it because they aren't famous?
About Julian Assange. I almost wonder if this is all to build up pressure to the point where he will eventually agree to go to Sweden and if the US did try and get him, it would blow up in their face completely. Making Assange look like the truthworthy one and not them.
Is there an article or something discussing this?
I can't find it now.
There's so much shit about this at the moment searching isn't much help. If I find it, I'll post it.The idea that someone can seek asylum against some future possibility is a bit weird, but the idea that someone can seek asylum only after it's too late and guaranteed to fail is also a bit weird.
The fact that US branded him a terrorist and tends to throw terrorists into deep holes at CIA black sites probably doesn't help.
The fact that US branded him a terrorist and tends to throw terrorists into deep holes at CIA black sites probably doesn't help.
Took a while to find it, but I don't see anything in the treaty that suggests a temporary surrender would not be subject to the same restrictions. Temporary surrenders happen in case the person is currently being prosecuted or serving a sentence in the country to which the request was made, at which point they can temporarily turn him over to the other country for prosecution. Since this is a sub-section of the extradition treaty, and no specific exception was mentioned, there's no reason to assume they could turn him over without the UK's consent.
Most of them aren't famous until Australia defends them. But all the same, I have no access to the relevant statistics. The fact that the prime minister explicitly disowned him is extremely rare though, borderline unprecedented.
Edit: except for all our citizens locked in Guantanamo... Hmmm
There is a middle ground: Be extradited to Sweden for the sexual assault thing and then see what happens. Maybe he gets convicted and goes to Swedish jail, maybe not. Maybe the USA then requests extradition for espionage or something (why they would not ask this of the UK instead, I do not know), maybe they don't.
If the USA does request extradition, be it from Sweden or the UK, then there is still a procedure to be followed, courts to be addressed and there is the possibility for Assange to seek recourse before the EHCR, suspending the procedure.
For the extradition UK->Sweden: This should be upheld and no asylum should be given for this. It's an investigation regarding a non-political issue.
For a hypothetical extradition UK or Sweden->USA: Then a case could be made for political asylum or some other form of human rights violation if he could be sentenced to execution.
My problem is that he's seeking political asylum for a non-political Swedish investigation. Even if the testimonies of those women and such are all fabrications, Assange should go to Sweden and go through the procedure. If there is an extradition request from the USA, then and only then should he bring up the political asylum issue. And it is most definitely not "too late"* if he brings it up at this time.
*Unless the USA has snipers ready for him at the Swedish airport.
What prevents Sweden from just saying "fuck it" and handing him over to the US?
Again, I really don't understand why people argue from the position that governments always follow their own and international laws, especially when terrorism charges are involved. That's just not consistent with how we know for a fact the world works.
What prevents the UK from doing the same? The political consequences in the country would be enormous.
What kind of leverage does the USA have over a "liberal/democratic/left" country like Sweden, for its government to break with democratic procedures and judicial control, potentially losing a big portion of its young voters, to illegal extradite someone like Assange, a big public figure with a lot of goodwill (unlike say some Al-Qaida suspect)?
And I'm genuinely curious here. Are there any huge trade deals between USA and Sweden or something?
And I'm genuinely curious here. Are there any huge trade deals between USA and Sweden or something?
That is not a middle ground at all. Claiming that this is the middle ground is like claiming that if a weird dude with a pedo mustache is offering a kid some candy to get in his van the middle ground is for the kid to jump in and see what happens.
This discounts the possibility that he will be railroaded or the law simply ignored. Which, if he is being extradited to Sweden to facilitate this, is going to happen.
Of course it would be too late. Unless he is some sort of awesome ninja, breaks out of his jail cell, and manages to sneak into some embassy in Sweden. Once he is in Swedish custody who is he going to ask for asylum? Sweden? That makes no sense.
From what I understand the political consequences would be much worse in the UK. Furthermore Sweden has already co-operated with the US to send people to CIA black sites with little political consequence.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
That's a whole shit load of "what ifs?"... Is Assange free from reproach since he's behind wikileaks?
Well sure, if he's in the custody of the Swedish police, they could illegally take away his access to a lawyer and contact with the outside world.
But... This would not go unnoticed.
You seem pretty damn cynical about this thing, Margalis. You really think that a modern west-European country like Sweden would do such a gross violation of human rights?
Unlike some fishy extraditions or transfer of terrorist suspects that nobody ever heard of, such an extradition of Assange would be a media spectacle, in Sweden and abroad.
But... This would not go unnoticed.
You seem pretty damn cynical about this thing, Margalis. You really think that a modern west-European country like Sweden would do such a gross violation of human rights?
Unlike some fishy extraditions or transfer of terrorist suspects that nobody ever heard of, such an extradition of Assange would be a media spectacle, in Sweden and abroad.
According to wikipedia "The United States is currently the third largest Swedish export trade partner,[7] and US companies are the most represented foreign companies in Sweden."
Australia has not waded in because in South Asia its citizens are at risk of being given the death penalty and having their human rights breached in awful jails with terrible conditions. So Australia will protect its citizens in that area of the world via diplomatic and legal means.
In this case we're talking about an EAW that has found to be valid in several different courts in England. Both Britian and Sweden have robust leal systems and both respect the human rights of prisoners and treat them well, especially when compared to South Asia. What exactly could Australia possibly do?
What has this got to do with the rape case anyway? This is just part of the shifting of the goal posts by the rape apologists in this thread. We have already established that he is not just wanted for questioning, that the EAW is valid, that he is indeed being charged with rape, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of unlawful coercion, that he cannot just be extradited to the US without going through the courts in Sweden/UK (and potentially the ECHR), that political asylum does not offer him immunity, that he has breached his bail conditions in England, that Sweden/UK cannot make guarantees based on possible future events (what is this, Minority Report?). The list goes on and on.
The bottom line is that he has to and will be extradited to Sweden where he will stand trial, and the theory that he will be extradited to the US is completely baseless.
In this case we're talking about an EAW that has found to be valid in several different courts in England. Both Britian and Sweden have robust leal systems and both respect the human rights of prisoners and treat them well, especially when compared to South Asia. What exactly could Australia possibly do?
What has this got to do with the rape case anyway? This is just part of the shifting of the goal posts by the rape apologists in this thread. We have already established that he is not just wanted for questioning, that the EAW is valid, that he is indeed being charged with rape, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of unlawful coercion, that he cannot just be extradited to the US without going through the courts in Sweden/UK (and potentially the ECHR), that political asylum does not offer him immunity, that he has breached his bail conditions in England, that Sweden/UK cannot make guarantees based on possible future events (what is this, Minority Report?). The list goes on and on.
The bottom line is that he has to and will be extradited to Sweden where he will stand trial, and the theory that he will be extradited to the US is completely baseless.
Why would it be worse in the UK? Also, that case you're referring to went far from unnoticed, and people would likely take it worse if something similar happened again. This case would also be worse as the illegality of it would be immediately more obvious.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Exactly, this isn't the case of some random terrorism suspect that no one knew or cared about until they got to GitMo. This is one of the most widely known world figures at this point. All eyes would be on his rape case and any extradition case that would be sought.
Yes, there are many in the US Government and Military who would probably love to see this guy dead, hell there are people in quite a few governments who would love to see this guy dead. He's so huge at this point and polarizing that the US couldn't just toss him in a cell without charges for years and not have huge political issues on their hands.
What is happening with Manning has no bearing on Assange. Totally different cases.
Partial Gamification
Banned
No, it is not.
Swedish human rights activist Marcello Ferrada de Noli, left, was a torture victim in his native Chile and later a longtime epidemiology professor in Sweden. He has published extensive reports documenting on his Professors Blogg Swedens performance record on human rights issues. This gist, he writes, is that Sweden is justifiably proud of a human rights track record that is far better than most nations -- but that any serious observer should recognize also a record of embarrassing exceptions made through the decades with scant public discussion.
His surveys have shown also that the mainstream media in Sweden have been very supportive of government actions against Assange, not surprisingly because WikiLeaks threatens the traditional information gatekeeper role of established media in reporting on government actions. He has decried as a "duck pond" a comfortable Swedish culture of media, government, public relations firms and U.S.-style think tanks. The emails are hacked, or stolen, and thus violate basic norms of privacy and private property in the rule of law. But the raw emails allow the public to see not just actions of officials making life and death decisions in private, but at times shocking examples of what appears to be lawbreaking by officials and cozy relations with members of the media.
Is it just paranoia? Offical Line from State Department (DOJ/FBI/etc will have their own positions):
QUESTION: Any contact with Ecuador since Julian Assanges arrival at the Embassy in London requesting asylum and perhaps a request that he be extradited to the United States on the WikiLeaks (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: No. No.
QUESTION: On that subject, does the Administration care where Julian Assange decides he wants to spend the night? Is this a subject that keeps people up in Washington? I dont is it something that you have any interest in at all?
MS. NULAND: This is a UK-Ecuador-Sweden issue.
QUESTION: Well, people who his people around him seem to think that the U.S. is some puppeteer here thats controlling all the strings. And I just I mean, does anyone give a second thought about Julian Assange? And maybe you cant answer that for anyone but I mean, are you aware of anyone who gives a fig where Julian Assange is?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we are not involved in any of these discussions.
QUESTION: Yeah, but do you care? Does anyone --
MS. NULAND: Again, youre asking me to speak for the great mass of America.
QUESTION: Well, I mean but in terms of no, in terms of the in terms of this building.
MS. NULAND: We want to see justice served. Lets leave it at that.
QUESTION: Yeah. But that would be justice Swedish justice.
MS. NULAND: We are obviously not involved in the process, as far as I know.
..and the icing on the cake:
AUSTRALIAN diplomats believe the US is targeting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for possible prosecution.
The Australian embassy in Washington is taking seriously the possibility Assange could eventually be extradited to the US on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to the release of classified information by WikiLeaks, Fairfax newspapers report.
The embassy has been keeping tabs on a US investigation into WikiLeaks and Assange for more than 18 months and cites media reports about the secret empanelment of a grand jury to pursue the WikiLeaks case, according to declassified cables released under Freedom of Information.
How does any of that support your statement?
Monty Mole
Member
So, is he digging a tunnel under the embassy as we speak?
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Of course.
That's not cynical, that's being awake for the past decade. Pointing out that "modern" countries violate human rights is like pointing out that lions eat meat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery
In this case Sweden, at the behest of the US, sent these guys to Egypt, which was ok because Egypt was all "we will treat these guys humanely - totes!" A lot of places around the world co-operated with the CIA on extraordinary rendition - AKA shipping people off to places where they can be tortured and railroaded.
Partial Gamification
Banned
I think it shows that the possiblity of extradiciton is real, i.e. it, as a claim, is based in "reality."
You take a statement by the US denying involvement to mean they're actually involved? Not that the other ones are much better, because they do not support what you're saying, but that one's particularly perplexing.
But it doesn't. All those do is establish that the US's public position is they are not involved in the extradition between the UK and Sweden and that they are still investigating Assange's involvement in the Manning situation. Of course there is the possibility the investigation will conclude with an indictment but the claim that he will be indicted and then extradited to the US is baseless.
That's true. The procedure between rendition and extradition is different though, the latter having more safeguards in place. Or rather, immediately shipping Assange off to the USA would be a blatant violation of the law and there would be no spinning this in the media. A rendition of an asylum seeker back to his or her home country has more room for "fuzzy" interpretations or bending of the rules.
But alright, point taken. Sweden can be an asshole country. I personally don't think they'd illegally extradite someone so public as Assange, and you disagree. It's hard to say who is right or wrong until it actually plays out. For the sake of Assange, I hope I'm right and you're wrong.
Partial Gamification
Banned
I find it interesting the Deptarment of State has no commment on the matter, and not a no-comment like "there is an active investigation and it is not appropriate to commen on the matter." So, State isn't wise to international law enforcement/intel-activities or they are lying. I would consider this the over-reaching long-arm of the security state that was allowed through legislation like the USAPATRIOT Act. It is a diplomatic matter and to think State would be left-out of these internal discussions upsets me. Maybe you could highlight where you have trouble understanding extradition as a possibliity. Do you think it impossible, that is to say that extradition from Sweden to the US, has "baseless" claims?
[EDIT:]
Yeah well nothing is 100% certain. If your point is that the future is an unknown, I agree. If you deny the possiblity of extradition, there is evidence otherwise.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Honestly speaking, I am sure the US would love for someone else to prosecute the guy. It's such a touchy situation for them as there is quite a few supporters of him in the US. Also, those people tend to lean far to the left and a sitting Democratic president in an election year wouldn't want to touch the Assange issue at all until after the election was done.
Elvin Atombender
Member
I still don't understand how Sweden went from a country that Assange spent quite some time in and he even wanted to become a Swedish citizen to a country that would immediately send him to the US?
Why did he go to Sweden in the first place if he would be extradited as soon as the US asked for it?
Why did he go to Sweden in the first place if he would be extradited as soon as the US asked for it?
I have already stated as much previously. There has been no evidence so far for the US being involved in the matter, therefore I do not see why I should believe such.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Documents received by the Australian Embassy, through the Freedom of Information Act, say otherwise.
Why does it even have to be illegal?
Sweden can't extradite for political crimes? Ok, the US says that cyber-terrorism or fraud or whatever is not a political crime. There is tons of wiggle room there.
Sweden actually can extradite someone facing the death penalty, as long as there is sufficient assurance it won't be applied. Which means the US could say "we won't ask for the death penalty" then later say "yeah, we changed our minds." The same is true of restriction against military courts. The US could say we'll try him in civilian court, then once he arrives discover he has super secret info too sensitive for a normal court and has to be tried in some kangaroo court for national safety reasons.
All of that would be perfectly legal. The US would get what it wanted and Sweden could just say "we wuz had!"
Nervous said:
It would certainly make things a lot easier if he could be found guilty of rape, either honestly or by being railroaded into it. I don't see what prevents the US from seeing how the trial goes then maybe asking for extradition if it looks like he may win.
Just to be clear, I do believe that a guy faced with accusations of rape should be tried, and could be in a way that is just and satisfies all parties involved to some degree with a little creativity. FFS, just sign some dumb treaty making the kitchen of the embassy part of Sweden for 2 minutes, officially charge him there, then try him over skype or something. It's no more ridiculous than this political posturing with guys threatening to invade embassies.
"Possible prosecution" does not equal "extradition request", much less "conspiracy to bring him to Sweden to thereafter be extradited to the US illegally".
One thing they cannot extradite somebody for is crimes that are not punishable by law in Sweden, which what he did likely isn't.
Partial Gamification
Banned
"Declassified diplomatic cables from Australias embassy in Washington D.C., obtained through freedom of information requests filed by The Sydney Morning Herald, reveal that Australian officials have already begun laying the groundwork for the U.S. to pursue charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
The cables show that diplomats in Assanges home country anticipate receipt of an extradition request for Assange once a secret U.S. grand jury wraps up its investigation. They expect it so fully that embassy staff even reached out to U.S. officials for early advice on the potential indictment and extradition request.
The American response was redacted, the paper noted, on the grounds that disclosure could cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth. Other material blacked out of the cables pertains to the prosecution of Pvt. Bradley Manning, who U.S. military prosecutors say participated in a conspiracy with WikiLeaks to steal and publish classified information."
This is recently released information. I think it is always wise to remain open-minded. I am not saying what will happen, but here is evidence that extradition could happen (nothing more). You can deny it, accept it, or just consider what it might mean.
That still does not support that an extradition request has been made; merely that one is possible in the future. Even less does it show that the extradition from the UK to Sweden is due to pressure from the US in order to then extradite him there, which is the claim you originally supported.
Partial Gamification
Banned
He is an Australian citizen. Australia gives the right to the US to detain one if its citizens. Sweden can look at this, let's imagine Assange in in their care, and decide what they want to do. Regardless of whether or not the rape claims have been trumped up, they serve to discredit the guy (I do think he is a meglomanic). If the US was to extradite an Australian citizen from Sweden without Australia's approval or notice, there could be political backlash. There is a procedure and I am not qualified nor do I have the professional experience to detail an extradition process involving upwards of what, five Countries (USA, UK, Australia, Sweden, Equador)? I don't think it matters where and when he is put on a plane and flown to an undisclosed tribunal on the Eastern Seaboard. I do not doubt the extent to which the prosecutors will go to see him put on trial. Saying that the possiblity of extradition is unlikely, regardless of location, ignores evidence to the contrary. I feel like you are just trying to nit-pick the argument.
No, my argument is that there is no conspiracy involving the US behind the extradition request by Sweden to the UK, or the circumstances surrounding it.
Partial Gamification
Banned
There are conspiracies; but no proven collusion. I personally think it is very likely this matter has been discussed on an informal level between State actors, but there is no evidence of that. If I spoke to an absolute certainty in this matter, please allow this as my correction and clarification.
reptilescorpio
Member
I thought there was a presumption of innocence before being proven guilty?
What does that have to do with the quoted post?
Liberty4all
Banned
I dOnt blame Julian really. Would you go to Sweden if there was ANY chance at all of being extradited to a country that may send you to another country where you may face the death penalty?
Why can't sweden just offer a public and formal guarantee he won't be extradited to the us?
Why can't sweden just offer a public and formal guarantee he won't be extradited to the us?
Because they cannot legally do so. Also, he is in no greater danger of extradition in Sweden than he would be in the UK (and quite possibly safer).
Elvin Atombender
Member
Because in civilized democracies, the government can't just bypass the laws.
If a request for extradition comes along it will be handled by a court. If the court decides that someone should be extradited, the government can in extreme cases intervene and stop this. The government can't intervene and say that someone should be extradited if the court decided they shouldn't be.
There has been no extradition request.
- Status