Assange to Surrender

[SpontaneousOrder]

Drive-by insults are soo un-cool

What insult?

[EternalOptimist]

What insult?

do you ever attack yourself in the mirror, like a budgie ?

[NickFitz]

This (in conjunction with stuff it links to) is far and away the best guide to the legal issues, presumably because it was written by a lawyer rather than a journalist: New Statesman | Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[SpontaneousOrder]

If we're going to look at this with any kind of honesty, then we have to at least:

1) Bear in mind that no charges have actually been levelled against Assange.
2) Bear in mind that if justice, insofar as the Sweedish allegations are concerned, is really what people are interested in then this could have all been resolved years ago - it could easily be agreed that he would not be handed over to the US. The UK gov could even offer to have him serve any sentence in this country.
3) Bear in mind that Assange had volunteered to surrender himself from the outset as long as those previously mentioned assurances could be made.

Given that he's suffered all of this to blow the whistle on some really pretty horrific war crimes, and all common sense would suggest that he'll end up in the hands of the US where he'll be locked up for the rest of his life - possibly with some torture thrown in too - then to call him a coward seems a pretty low-life thing to do.

[NickFitz]

If we're going to look at this with any kind of honesty, then we have to at least:

1) Bear in mind that no charges have actually been levelled against Assange.
2) Bear in mind that if justice, insofar as the Sweedish allegations are concerned, is really what people are interested in then this could have all been resolved years ago - it could easily be agreed that he would not be handed over to the US. The UK gov could even offer to have him serve any sentence in this country.
3) Bear in mind that Assange had volunteered to surrender himself from the outset as long as those previously mentioned assurances could be made.

Given that he's suffered all of this to blow the whistle on some really pretty horrific war crimes, and all common sense would suggest that he'll end up in the hands of the US where he'll be locked up for the rest of his life - possibly with some torture thrown in too - then to call him a coward seems a pretty low-life thing to do.

Wrong in every particular: see the article I linked to above.

[TheFaQQer]

1) Bear in mind that no charges have actually been levelled against Assange.

He can't be charged until he's been arrested. He is wanted for arrest, and when he is arrested then he can be charged.

2) Bear in mind that if justice, insofar as the Sweedish allegations are concerned, is really what people are interested in then this could have all been resolved years ago - it could easily be agreed that he would not be handed over to the US. The UK gov could even offer to have him serve any sentence in this country.

Agreed by whom? The Swedish government attempting to bind any future government? The Swedish government attempting to over-rule some future Swedish independent court? The UK government attempting to over-rule the Swedish courts? The Swedish government agreeing to break the treaties they have agreed to? The UK government agreeing to break the treaties they have agreed to?

It couldn't be agreed, which is why it was a ridiculous idea.

3) Bear in mind that Assange had volunteered to surrender himself from the outset as long as those previously mentioned assurances could be made.

Saying "I'll give myself up if you agree to something that is impossible to do" isn't much of an agreement.

possibly with some torture thrown in too

If there is any chance of torture, then there is no chance of extradition. If there is any chance of evidence being used against him which has been coerced, then there is no chance of extradition. If there is any chance of the death penalty being applied, then there is no chance of extradition.

[minestrone]

He should go to Sweden face trial then after that process be sent to the states. He published massive amounts of a country's top secret information, personally I see that as a crime and one he should go to prison for.

And he is a tit.

[EternalOptimist]

I think a little bit of torture would probably do him the world of good.
give him a sense of perspective like.

maybe best to wait till he's asleep though

[SpontaneousOrder]

He can't be charged until he's been arrested. He is wanted for arrest, and when he is arrested then he can be charged.

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).

Agreed by whom? The Swedish government attempting to bind any future government? The Swedish government attempting to over-rule some future Swedish independent court? The UK government attempting to over-rule the Swedish courts? The Swedish government agreeing to break the treaties they have agreed to? The UK government agreeing to break the treaties they have agreed to?

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.

If there is any chance of torture, then there is no chance of extradition.

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.

[SpontaneousOrder]

He published massive amounts of a country's top secret information

Don't you think that in this case that's a good thing?
And did you see things like the 'collateral murder' video they leaked? (which is what sparked all of this originally)


It's worth noting too that wikileaks & the media organisations publishing the leaks offered to work with the relevant government departments in order to redact any info that might put people at risk.

If anyone got hurt because of it (not that i particularly care - but for anyone who does) then you can trace the blood back to the government's attempts to save face.