I'm pretty sure he shouldn't be extradited to Sweden under UK law anyway. Not enough evidence or something... I'd have to check that though.
Remember that one cannot extradite a person whom may be running the risk of torture or the likes, same reason anyone whom risk the death penalty cannot be extradited from Denmark and indeed many other European nations. This is a man that is very afraid of his own safety and basic well being, we have seen people being tortured for less in the US and this is for a purely diplomatic reason. Ecuador surely does have other motives than just helping him, as woof82 said having the chance to tell the US to go F*** themselves is properly the main reason. But in the end I do believe that if there is indeed a risk that Sweden will hand him over to the US then he should be kept as far away from Sweden as possible, let them run their charges against him and if guilty let him serve that time somewhere else.
Assange has, as of yet, not actually been charged with an offense. There are standard EU mechanisms (such as Mutual Legal Assistance) for Julian Assange to answer any questions the Swedish government may have. Extradition seems disproportionate at this stage. Extradition law requires a "judicial authority" (e.g. a judge or other independent body) to issue an extradition warrant, in order to keep the separation between the executive and the judiciary. It is improper procedure for prosecutors or other officials who are not independent to issue such proceedings. Also keep in mind that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Assange, which can be activated (unsealed) when the US Government gives the order. Sweden is bound by different extradition agreements than the UK. It is not meant to grant onwards extradition to a third country without agreement from the extraditing country, but there is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests. And you have to ask yourself: if the UK government can balk at extraditing a grade-A extremist like Abu Qatada to Jordan for fears that he might face undue legal process there, why so eager to boot out Assange regardless of his risk of irregular extradition to the US?
There is no actual proof that julian commited any crime other than leaking out information that was being kept from the public eye that we needed to know, Its very possible he was framed to discredit him and the information he leaked. As far as I know his site is Still leaking out some things from time to time Im no expert in this so correct me if im wrong on anything
I think in Sweden you cannot be charged in absence, also the EAW was issued for purposes of procecution and not just for questioning.
But can you prosecute someone without charging him first? Just to clarify my standpoint: I think Assange should have the stones to walk into the Swedish embassy like a boss and declare himself ready to face prosecution in Sweden, because the allegations made against him do need answering. However I think people would be naive to assume that he is not at risk of immediate extradition to the US to check into the Manning motel for an indefinite period of time. I think this fear is what is driving him, not his fear to face up to and answr the allegations. He has done so once before, and while applying to stay in Sweden. EDIT: Minister of Social Affairs Goran Hagglund has fired off a furious Twitter message: "Sick. A coward who does not dare to have his case tried by the court. If the accusations against him are true, he is a scumbag." Keep in mind it's not even been decided whether he should be charged yet. Prejudicing a legal case much?
Inflaming our tenuous relationship with South America for relatively minor charge, compare and contrast with the hoops for Abu Qatada. I know Britain passed a law to allow entry to foreign embassies but that really should be reserved for situations that made the law necessary, the escalation of this will have very serious implications for UK embassies in the future. Ultimately things like the Vienna convention work on reciprocity, if the UK is no longer trusted to uphold its end of agreements the whole system falls apart.
Not just South America either, everyone was pretty pissed off at the idea that they were actually suggesting they might go into the embassy. So I just had a pretty interesting conversation with someone studying law. They were writing a paper on evidence based law, and using the allegations against Assange as an example. The result of his research was that the evidence against Assange was so flimsy that the best he could come up with was that Assange is so arrogant he broke the condom intentionally because he believes he owes the world lots of baby Assanges. Oh I should mention they want to question him on account of having (consensual) sex with a girl but the condom broke at some point. The question is whether or not he broke it intentionally.
That may be why he's refusing at this point. It's escalated and any case held against him will obviously be prejudiced from the get go.
I think something that needs to be kept in mind here is that, from a US perspective, extraditing someone from the UK is pretty easy. In terms of him being extradited to the US, it really makes no difference if he's in the UK or Sweden. If they want him, they can get him from either country. Actually, given the history of UK to US extraditions, I'd suggest it's probably easier to get someone from the UK extradited than Sweden. So what the US will or won't do it totally irrelevant to this situation. It really looks like he's trying to avoid going to court. No. Wrong. Lets remind ourselves of the charges, because there's been so much rubbish posted about it. Here's what he's accused of, according to the High Court. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html That's not some technicality, that's sexual assault and rape. The accusation has been made and he should have his day in court. If he's guilty he should be punished accordingly. The problem is that people seem to have some mental block about this topic because his involvement with Wikileaks. It's entirely possible for someone to be involved with something good (e.g. Wikileaks) and still do something else that's awful. The whole US extradition thing is a smokescreen. It's got nothing to do with this.
It is easier for the US to arrange extradition from Sweden because he would be charged in Sweden, and Sweden has a special extradition arrangement with the US. He cannot be extradited from the UK because he is not charged with a crime here, and is not a UK citizen (although he could be kicked out). Assange was actually in Sweden when he was interviewed with regards these allegations. Not only did he readily cooperate, he applied for residency in Sweden at the same time. He was facing the possiblity of being charged then, yet not planning to go anywhere. This application was refused, the charges were dropped and he was told to leave. As soon as he had, the charges were raised again and an arrest warrant followed. Let's examine the allegations. AA invited Assange to stay at her flat and she concedes that sexual intercourse started consensually. He is accused of forcing himself on AA on 13-14th August while staying in her flat. On the 18th he allegedly did it again. Hang on, he molests her and four days later he is still staying at her flat to do it again? And what was Assange doing in SW's bed at the time she was asleep? They had been shagging, of course. Let's reflect on this a second. Neither AA nor SW knew this guy from Adam, but barely had he touched down in Sweden and both women had sexual relations with him (which they admitted). Celebrity shag? I think so. Add to this the fact that neither woman pressed charges until they found out about the other woman. Pressing charges of rape is a daunting, difficult thing to do so I can imagine that it feels easier when you have an ally in another victim, but these are not exactly naive, vulnerable women: they are professional career women who feel sexually confident and liberated enough to have sex with a virtual stranger. This does not exonerate Assange if the allegations are true, but it is not as clear-cut as you make out.
Regardless of what was said, they were never going to storm the embassy. They know they simply have to wait for Assange to either step foot on UK soil, be that the pavement outside or the tarmac at an airport, or die on the embassy premises, assuming Equador do not appoint him to a position of full diplomatic status - a rather unlikely outcome.
I have say Assange needs to answer to the charges, regardless of his situation. I find it odd however that Swedish authorities have declined offers to interview him in the UK. I must say I agree with Nexxo's last few posts. And to reply to the post about Sweden having a more honest legal system than the UK. Sweden back in 2001 assisted the US with the illegal rendition of 2 asylum seekers to Egypt where they were subsequently tortured. It wasn't until 5 years later when the UN reported that Sweden had acted illegally that Sweden then decided to stop helping the US make people disappear. As to the reports that a former UK Ambassador has seen evidence of the US pressuring the UK for Assanges extradition to Sweden Until this evidence is seen by more people I'd have to take it with a pinch of salt. However it does seem plausible considering the lengths the UK is going to to fulfill their obligation to extradite Assange. INTERPOL can not make any member state arrest someone who is the subject of a red notice and they even state that the subject of said notice is innocent until proven guilty. The only way a subject can be arrested is if there is an agreement between the 2 states involved (UK and Sweden in this case).From the INTERPOL article: INTERPOL cannot demand that any member country arrests the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty. And that's the main issue here. Assange has not been charged or found guilty. He has willingly offered to speak to prosecutors here in the UK (But they refused) and as Nexxo pointed out he willingly spoke to them back in Sweden before all this kicked off. Now unless there is some outside pressure on the UK and Sweden (such as Craig Murray claims) it makes you wonder why this has become such a big deal and why Swedish authorities haven't just spoken to him here in the UK.
Just for people to know, Assange's lawyer is currently speaking. You can see him on BBC / Sky News. Assange will be speaking in 30 minutes, according to his lawyer. Live link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10318089
Extraditions are offered on a first come first serve basis. There is no point in the US making an extradition request now because legally he would have to fulfil his extradition request to Sweden before be extradited to the US. So why not get him straight out of the UK to the US? Well, according to British laws you can not be extradited from the UK unless you have committed a crime on UK soil. Not that any laws really matter at this point, it's all about making this guy disappear. You're pretty naive if you don't think the US don't want to end this guy. They have a history of repeatedly doing **** like this. You don't even have to look very far, look at his accomplice, Badley Manning. 295 academics (most of them American legal scholars) signed a letter arguing that the treatment was a violation of the United States Constitution.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition according to the New Statesman Seems to counter a number of opinions posited here, is there any accuracy in their article?
