Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

Post by rmc » Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 2:30 PM UTC

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #49

cmdkeen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. There is a good writeup from a British legal blogger at http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-... It's worth picking out as well that Assange faces British legal issues from breaching his bail conditions. The bail set during his very lengthy legal process which valida…

The extradition hearing took three days, which is hardly a "very lengthy process". And it didn't validate the Swedish judicial process because that isn't its function. An EAW extradition hearing in the UK is merely to establish that an extraditable offence is alleged, that the party requesting the extradition has standing, and that there are no Human Rights Act issues [1]. Persons facing extradition on an EAW don't g…

Post by rmc » Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

Bohahahaha wrote: post #79

"Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president's plane in 2013 - wrongly believed to be carrying Edward Snowden." If you think of Sweden as ABBA, think again: "In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US." "The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refug…

Post by rmc » Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 2:35 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #62

jamespo wrote: post #46

Wonderful how Assange wants everything done on his terms, if I was accused of a serious crime I'd want to be questioned from somewhere they couldn't extract me from too.

It's Ecuador demanding the terms, not Assange. What makes this whole process so strange is the fact that there's multiple countries involved. Each country has it's own idea of human rights, it's own conception of judicial process. Judicial process in one country can easily resemble a human rights violation in another. It's one of the reasons political asylum exists. Ecuador granted Assange asylum because they recogni…

Post by rmc » Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

trevelyan wrote: post #43

quonn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact is that he was questioned before, stayed in the country and left after they allowed him to leave. Later Sweden decided to change it's mind and requested an extradition - just for questioning him, which they could easily have done locally (and, by the way, other countries do this) - which is, perhaps, not very common. And _coincidently_ this happened while Wikileaks was all over the media and the US was infur…

Worth remembering also that the reason Sweden wanted to extradite for questioning is that if they charged him first they would have been required to actually make the evidence public and Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Apologists for Sweden never seem to have read the UK high court judgment or seem familiar with the actual legal reaso…

Post by PJDK » Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 2:41 PM UTC

jazzyk wrote: post #73

youngtaff wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup they do so where is your evidence he was going to be extradited from Sweden to the US?

A few years ago, I would have said it was pure paranoia/conspiracy theory to suspect Sweden would extradite Assange. However, look at what happened to Snowden, stuck at the Moscow airport, because no country in the world (bar Ecuador and Cuba, I think) was brave enough to take him (fearing US wrath). The pressure from the US was immense. At some point a plane flying from Moscow to Ecuador (via Paris) was intercepted…