Assange to Surrender

[EternalOptimist]

I think he was wrong.

Giving up secrets that will cause embarrasment or discomfort the establishment is not so wrong, but giving up secrets that may aid a foreign power is definately wrong. If I was in charge, I would want to see him hung drawn and quartered

[NickFitz]

He was arrested in absentia the first time around. He can be charged without being present. It's not even illegal in the EU to be put in trial in absentia. I don't think it's particularly important though - if you read the testimonies of the women it's clear that the idea of it being rape is ridiculous.
Otherwise we'd all be guilty of raping our wives. I guess that's besides the point though (that's what trials are for).



The Swedish executive has the authority to block any extradition process that he believes to be politically or militarily motivated. So he can promise never to extradite Assange for charges related to wikileaks if he wants to.




And what makes you say that? Sweden has a history of complicity with exporting prisoners to third party countries, where torture is not illegal - such as Egypt, for such purposes.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make any of it correct.

[Spartacus]

If the Guardian is to be believed, then the rape allegations do sound fairly weak. However, that is the purpose of courts, right? You face your accusers and the jury decides whether you are guilty or not based on the evidence. Running away and blaming a global conspiracy doesn't do your case any good.

10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange | Media | The Guardian

[TheFaQQer]

He was arrested in absentia the first time around. He can be charged without being present. It's not even illegal in the EU to be put in trial in absentia.

As I understand it, at the end of the investigation (which comes after arrest and before charge), the result may be that there is no charge to answer. If there is a charge, then the correct place to argue that is in the Swedish courts, not an English extradition hearing.

I don't think it's particularly important though - if you read the testimonies of the women it's clear that the idea of it being rape is ridiculous.
Otherwise we'd all be guilty of raping our wives. I guess that's besides the point though (that's what trials are for).

Assange's lawyers have twice tried to argue that the allegations do not amount to rape under UK or Swedish law. Twice, the English courts have found otherwise (first at the hearing before the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales on 7 and 8 February 2011 and then at appeal at the High Court on 12 and 13 July 2011).

Allegation one: "The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting."

Allegation two: "Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge."

Allegation three: "Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state."

Which of those do you think happens in every marriage?

The Swedish executive has the authority to block any extradition process that he believes to be politically or militarily motivated. So he can promise never to extradite Assange for charges related to wikileaks if he wants to.

Unfortunately, that only considers the responsibility of the government under national law, rather than international law. As Mark Klamberg says:

if there is an extradition treaty the Government is bound by an international obligation to extradite and it is only for legally sound reasons that it may refuse. An extradition treaty limits in a considerable way the discretion of the Government to deviate from the ruling of the Supreme Court.

That view is further supported by Pål Wrange:

As Klamberg has explained in his blog post on the Swedish extradition procedure, the Government always makes the final decision. However – and this is a very important caveat – even if the Government has leeway under national law, it is bound by international law. Both the Swedish and the UK Governments have extradition agreements with the US, and these agreements provide that extradition shall take place, if the legal requirements are met. Hence, the Government could not provide a guarantee, without potentially violating an international obligation.

I wouldn't profess to be an expert in Swedish law, but I would certainly consider the writings of Swedish legal scholars carefully. It's obviously a contentious issue (Glenn Greenwald, for example, agrees with your viewpoint) - it certainly isn't as easy as saying "oh the current government can bind all future courts and governments not to extradite Assange".

And what makes you say that? Sweden has a history of complicity with exporting prisoners to third party countries, where torture is not illegal - such as Egypt, for such purposes.

Sweden is bound (as are the UK) by EU and ECHR law which prevents such extradition. What makes you say that Assange faces "possibly with some torture thrown in too"?

I assume that you are also referring to the case of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery who were renditioned to Egypt in a case which bears no similarity to the Assange case.

If Assange genuinely fears extradition to the US, then he would be much safer going to Sweden now since any onward extradition would need to satisfy Swedish and UK courts.

[TheFaQQer]

Assange to Surrender

Clarifying Mr Assange's comments, Mr Hrafnsson said: "The plan is for him to leave as soon as the UK government decides to honour its obligations in relation to international agreements and calls off the siege outside - it's as simple as that."

OK, so no change in the situation at all, then.

[MicrosoftBob]

I must admit I suspect he may end up in the US.

He should face a fair trial for the accusations of sexual misconduct.

Despite him being a complete knob jockey, if as it's presumed the charges have been trumped up at the instigation of governments he has annoyed (rather a long list) how can he have a fair trial when it seems like the justice system itself is on trial

[centurian]

Clarifying Mr Assange's comments, Mr Hrafnsson said: "The plan is for him to leave as soon as the UK government decides to honour its obligations in relation to international agreements and calls off the siege outside - it's as simple as that."

OK, so no change in the situation at all, then.

Yes, hence why the BBC News site quickly relegated the story way down the list once they realised he was basically saying nothing new at all.

[EternalOptimist]

Despite him being a complete knob jockey, if as it's presumed the charges have been trumped up at the instigation of governments he has annoyed (rather a long list) how can he have a fair trial when it seems like the justice system itself is on trial

A fair trial ?
The thinking goes like this
1.Our country is at war. Its always at war. Sometimes its a hot war, sometimes its a far away war, sometimes its a cold war. Then we are always in an economic or an intelligence war.
2. In a hot war mostly, but in all wars, we take casualties. and so do they .
3. Anyone who aids the enemy is likely to increase our casualties and reduce theirs

therefore, the person aiding the enemy can have the priviledge of being first in line.

you cant expect too much of a fair trial when countries think they are under attack

[NickFitz]

Despite him being a complete knob jockey, if as it's presumed the charges have been trumped up at the instigation of governments he has annoyed (rather a long list) how can he have a fair trial when it seems like the justice system itself is on trial

Possibly because such a presumption is completely groundless and mistaken?

[MicrosoftBob]

Possibly because such a presumption is completely groundless and mistaken?

It's rather convenient in a Blakes 7 kind of way, the timing was impeccable if you wanted to discredit Wikileaks