Top Diaries

if he were pinochet he'd have a better chance of being given asylum.

someone's slip is showing...

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 12:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 01:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Foreign Secretary statement on Ecuadorian Government's decision to offer political asylum to Julian Assange

"We are disappointed by the statement by Ecuador's Foreign Minister today that Ecuador has offered political asylum to Julian Assange.
"Under our law, with Mr Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We must carry out that obligation and of course we fully intend to do so. The Ecuadorian Government's decision this afternoon does not change that in any way. Nor does it change the current circumstances in any way. We remain committed to a diplomatic solution that allows us to carry out our obligations as a nation under the Extradition Act.
"It is important to understand that this is not about Mr Assange's activities at Wikileaks or the attitude of the United States of America. He is wanted in Sweden to answer allegations of serious sexual offences.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 03:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Under our law, with Mr Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden.

No, Mr Hague, you are under no obligation to extradite him as long as you can't get him. And a foreign embassy is a place where you are banned from getting him. Try and stop that silly behaviour.

I note that neither the British, nor the Swedish, nor the US American governments try to refute the core of Ecuador's decision to grant Assange asylum: these countries can't guarantee a fair trial. In the contrary, and that's why Assange is entitled to asylum.

by Katrin on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 03:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As soon as he leaves the embassy, then they have that obligation,

In the British courts, he's run through the entire legal process, openly and fairly, all the extradition process, he has recieved has appeared utterly fair. The Swedish legal system falls under the same European rules to prevent extradition to states where the death penalty is in use as the UK, Why Assange supporters think that Sweden is any less safe than the UK seems to me to be odd.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 03:35:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 4)

Because the Swedish wish to ask him questions about condoms is so obviously just a sham. The US want him for his journalist work. He has uncovered their war crimes and they want his blood. Bradley Manning has been tortured for months, Assange is at risk too. He has every right to do everything in order not to fall into the US' hands.

Assange has made clear he would go to Sweden if he gets the guarantee that they don't extradite him to the US. Ecuador has asked both Sweden and the US for this guarantee before they granted asylum. They were refused. Swedish prosecutors have been known to ask their questions per video link, but they refuse to do so in this case.

Even if Sweden or the UK only extradite Assange after the US guarantee not to execute him, he would be tortured for the rest of his life. Because he published proof of the US' war crimes.

by Katrin on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 04:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, this timeline is incorrect.

Assange is suspected of crimes under Swedish law. He became a suspect in august/september of 2010, some time before the big release. However, the remand order did only spawn an European arrest warrant the week after they made the big release, as his Swedish legal team first exhausted the possibilities of appeal. Any impression that the EAW was caused by the big release is a result of wikileaks timetable and the nonsense of his lawyers.

There is no reason what so ever for the prosecutor to ask questions per video link, the prosecutor wants this fugitive back in order to remand him pending trial. The whole "they just wants to ask questions, no charges has been filed" was made up by Assanges first Brittish legal (later replaced). Note that the Swedish police has wanted to question him since the allegations were made, Assanges response was to remove himself from Sweden when temporarily the arrest warrant (the Swedish one) had been withdrawn.

Note also that Asanges fear of being extradited from Sweden to the US only emerged after he became a suspect. Before that he was in Sweden to apply for residency in order to run wikileaks from Sweden. Apparently it was then safe enough to be in Sweden.

Maybe he does fear getting extradited to the US, or maybe he just does not want to face trial, but it is obvious that Assange has no problems with his lawyers spreading lies. I understand fearing getting extradited, but that does not make the lies true.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 05:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sweden wants him for questioning, and refuses to inform him of the exact nature of the accusations because so far he has not been questioned. I've seen a press release of the prosecutor saying that there was no longer a case (but I didn't file it). Later he was told he could leave Sweden. Now Sweden can't complain that he did leave.

All that Sweden needs to do to have him come back is issuing a guarantee that he is only wanted for crimes under Swedish law, but not for extradition to the US. Why is that asked too much?

by Katrin on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 06:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and refuses to inform him of the exact nature of the accusations because so far he has not been questioned

This is false. It is all there in the court papers. His lawyer read it and commented on it to the press (see below for quote). If Assange has said that he does not know the exact nature of the accusations he either avoids understanding what his lawyer is telling him, or he is lying.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 06:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, his lawyer wasn't allowed to read all of it.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:25:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently, the extradition treaty between Sweden and theUSA is set up such that the person has no right f appealat all, which is not the case between the US and theUK.

by stevesim on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:06:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Extradition for Criminal Offences

Nope, the Swedish-US treaty says nothing on procedure because that is set by the more general Extradition for Criminal Offences Act. It includes:

If the person whose extradition is requested opposes extradition, it falls to the Supreme Court to examine whether extradition can be legally granted under the conditions laid down by law.

Furthermore, even if both Sweden and the UK approve an extraction, there is the possibility to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which can apply the same argument as it did in the Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v the United Kingdom case.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:29:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

All that concerns only the death penalty, not extradition itself and the chance for a fair trial in the US

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, and? Assange should have spoken about a fair trial instead of speaking about the danger of capital punishment. And he could do so once there is an actual US extradiction request.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 08:25:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry but you are wrong.

There is the temporary surrender clause in their extradition treaty.

by stevesim on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 09:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Coud you elaborate? I think you confused the 1961 Sweden-USA treaty on extradiction (which has no such clause) with the EU-USA extradiction treaty (which does, in Article 9). Having read it, I don't see how Swedish provisions would not apply in that case (In fact a separate passage, Article 11, is the only one speaking about extradiction procedures when saying that they may be simplified only if the accused consents to the extradiction). And temporary surrender, which means that the accused is extradicted to the other state only for the duration of proceedings and then is returned to the first state, is not relevant to Assange's capital punishment fears anyway.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 03:16:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See the website justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html for an on depth discussion.

by stevesim on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry for all the typos but this Ipad is horrible.

by stevesim on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Julian Assange överklagar häktning \| Inrikes \| SvD		Julian Assange appeals against arrest \| Domestic \| Svenska Dagbladet
När SvD pratade med Hurtig hade han inte hunnit gå igenom utredningen ordentligt men kallade den för "mager" och sade att han inte tyckte det fanns skäl för häktning.		When SvD spoke to Hurtig, he had not had time to go through the investigation properly, but called it "thin" and said he did not think there were grounds for remand.

So lawyer Björn Hurtig is on the record as having received the investigation. If you continue to refute that, showing a quote from him saying that would be great.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:36:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For instance in the article Dodo linked to this morning: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-lawyer-admits-he-was-wrong-over-interview-2208622 .html

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A former Swedish public prosecutor does not agree with you.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:11:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't expect Brita Sundberg-Weitman to agree with me on anything, mostly based on her being the former president of Medborgarrättsrörelsen which is as right wing as you can be in Sweden and still be printed in the papers. Current president has written that the release of the Collateral murder video was an attempt to derail democracy in Iraq.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And this guy?

former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem "made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange's extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is `unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate,' because he could be easily questioned in the UK."

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 03:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Him, I respect, so I looked at what he actually said in the verdict

In cross-examination he said his understanding of the steps taken to interview Mr Assange comes from what he was told by Mr Hurtig, the Swedish defence lawyer, and what he has read. [In his proof Mr Alhem said that "according to the information given to me, Prosecutor Ny declined the opportunity to interview Mr Assange after she took over the case on 1st September, despite the fact he remained in Sweden until 27th September 2010 ... I understand that the prosecutor declined the offer to meet for an interview simply because the police officer at the time was sick ... it is catastrophic that so much time has passed without a very detailed interrogation having taken place."] He had not read the documentation put before the Stockholm District Court and the Court of Appeal. He had not seen the statements of Mr Hurtig or Ms Ny. The account given by Ms Ny as to the factual steps taken to interview Mr Assange were put to him. "I make no judgement between Mr Hurtig and Ms Ny." He added that he saw his role as giving a judgement on the ECHR, the legal issues and fairness. There is nothing wrong with the EAW issued for Mr Assange. If it was the case that it was not possible to hold the interrogation hearing with the suspect earlier then he too, when he was a prosecutor, would have issued the EAW. However he would have first tried to arrange the interrogation hearing in another way. He agreed that the evidential question as to the steps taken to interview Mr Assange is relevant and that he should have seen the relevant documentation before expressing his view. However even if Ms Ny's account, which he heard in court today for the first time, is correct then that does not change his view that an interrogation should have taken place in England. He made it clear that the statement of Ms Ny does not correspond with the information he had been given by Mr Hurtig. Ms Ny "is allowed to seek an EAW - there is no doubt about that". On the account given by Ms Ny it would have been a reasonable reaction to apply for an EAW. "Certainly, I would have done the same myself".

Hurtig later received a warning from Advokatsamfundet for lying (or remembering incorrectly as Hurtig claimed) about the prosecutor not seeking to interview Assange when he was in Sweden.

This is Alhems present position:

Omöjligt utlämna Assange vid risk för dödsstraff - SR International på svenska		Impossible extradite Assange at the risk of the death penalty - SR International in Swedish
Men förre överåklagaren Sven-Erik Alhem säger att det hade varit möjligt för de svenska åklagarna att genomföra förhör i Storbritannien.		But the former chief prosecutor, Sven-Erik Alhem says that it had been possible for the Swedish prosecutors to conduct interrogations in the UK.
- Åklagaren har i det läge som uppkom - att Assange inte längre befann sig i Sverige - hade att välja mellan att antingen försöka få till stånd, med de brittiska myndigheternas godkännande, ett kompletterande förhör i London, för att därefter ta ställning till frågan om åklagaren skulle begära att han skulle överlämnas enligt den europeiska arresteringsordern. Åklagaren beslöt att istället gå direkt på en begäran om överlämnande, och det är fullt korrekt, ingen invändig formellt för det, men man kan nu med utvecklingen fråga sig om det inte hade varit klokare att hålla förhöret först.		- The prosecutor has been in the position arose - that Assange was no longer in Sweden - had to choose between either trying to achieve, with the UK authorities' approval, an additional hearing in London, and then to take a position on the question of prosecutor would request that he be handed over under the European Arrest Warrant. The prosecutor decided to instead go directly to a request for surrender, and it is fully accurate, no formal objection to it, but you can now ask if it would not have been wiser to keep hearing first.

And Alhem states in the same interview that Sweden can not extradite if Assange risks death penalty and can not legally give guarantees about future extradition requests.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Aug 18th, 2012 at 07:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So he has no "formal objection", implying Ms Ny's decision wasn't unlawful in his eyes, but he doesn't think it did anything to make a successful prosecution possible. Don't you ask yourself why Ms Ny is so persistent in an unwise behaviour? If one wants to see these allegations of rape investigated, the most rewarding way would be to interview Assange wherever he happens to be, right? If he could only give unsatisfactory answers, so much the better for a following EAW. Even if you don't share my misgivings about the real aim of this EAW, I should think you ought to find the prosecution's behaviour unhelpful and wrong. By the way: same as the British behaviour of threatening to violate the embassy of Ecuador. Funny how bizarre they all behave in this case, isn't it? Rendition is so much easier if the victim has brown skin, no western passport, and doesn't make so much noise.

The Australian government used to claim that they had no information if the US were preparing an indictment of Assange. We now know that was a lie. The Swedish government claims they don't know if the US were preparing an indictment of Assange. Do you believe them?

by Katrin on Sat Aug 18th, 2012 at 09:35:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The goal of the prosecutor is to bring Assange to Sweden to face trial. As Hurtig has confirmed (though he claimed to have forgotten it until the British court proved him wrong) Ny tried to arrange an interview while Assange was still in Sweden but instead Assange removed himself from Sweden (which he was legally entitled to do). The prosecutor has the legal grounds for an EAW already, so there never was any reason from the prosecutors perspective to try to set up an interview in Britain.

In your final sentence we get to the heart of the matter. Yes, governments lie. Yes, the US might be attempting to get Assange. However, going through the Swedish government appears to make little sense. It is a weak minority government where missteps when it comes to freedom on the Internet gives votes to the Pirate party. Of course, Assange might not want to bet his life on it, so from that perspective the barrage of lies, half-truths and nonsense his various legal teams has been spewing makes sense (they also makes sense if he simply does not want to stand trial). However, understanding why somebody lies does not make what they say true.

And honestly, Assange can for all it matters to me escape to South America, I don't care about if he ever stands trial. But I don't like see lies passed for truth.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Aug 18th, 2012 at 01:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't you ask yourself why Ms Ny is so persistent in an unwise behaviour?

I would if I expected public prosecutors to be competent about handling high-profile, politically sensitive cases.

But I don't, so I don't.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Aug 19th, 2012 at 10:18:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Incidentally, taz has an article partly based on an interview with Alhem, where he repeats that giving a guarantee against extradiction to the USA would break the constitution; and that an extradiction request should be dealt with in due course, and would have to be denied due to the risk of capital punishment. He also advises Assange to travel to Sweden on his own.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Sun Aug 19th, 2012 at 02:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Such a sad sub-thread to see here.

by Marie2 on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 11:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why Assange supporters think that Sweden is any less safe than the UK seems to me to be odd.

Sweden is on the record as being willing to violate its own constitution in the service of American commercial interests.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:40:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, how is that different from the UK? If anything, the UK is worse on that account. And with regards to cooperation with the US injustice system, the UK's cooperation with the US in Gitmo and elsewhere was more extensive and active than Sweden's.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:49:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's worse because they'll have a year or two to cook up some excuse and prepare the political groundwork for his disappearance. Right now, shipping him off to an American concentration camp somewhere is obviously politically impossible, or it would have already happened. Two years from now? I don't know. I don't think it's probable, but it is possible to tell a reasonable story where it happens.

And that really is enough to make me inclined to say that Sweden does not qualify for handling any politically sensitive prisoners.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:11:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh. Now we are in groundless speculation territory? They had a year and a half to cook up some excuse and prepare the political groundwork for his disappearance from the UK. Or when he was free, kidnap him anywhere while travelling.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Owen Jones: There should be no immunity for Julian Assange from these allegations - Commentators - Opinion - The Independent

...Assange's supporters argue that, if he is sent to Sweden to face his allegations, he will be extradited to the US. This is particularly puzzling. As leading QC Francis FitzGibbon has pointed out, under Section 58 of Britain's Extradition Act, Sweden would have to gain the consent of the British Home Secretary first. As signatories of the ECHR, neither country can extradite a suspect to a country where they will face the death penalty or "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
In any case, why not simply extradite him from Britain? As the American Civil Liberties Union points out, our extradition treaty with the US is "lopsided", because a suspect can be deported if "probable cause" is established, which is not the case the other way round. As a result, the organisation says, UK residents are at risk of "ill-founded" extradition requests to the US. That's why Gary McKinnon, an autistic Scotsman wanted over claims of hacking, and Richard O'Dwyer, a 24-year-old wanted for alleged copyright infringement, face extradition. Christopher Tappin, a 47-year-old businessman accused of selling batteries to Iran that could be used to manufacture missiles, has already been extradited.
As legal expert David Allen Green put it to me: "The USA's best opportunity to extradite Assange is actually whilst he remains in the United Kingdom, a country very ready to grant extradition requests."

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 03:39:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, the New Statesman has a great article about how the Guardian fucked Assange

Www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/10/pilger-assange-media-guardian

by stevesim on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See my comment above

by stevesim on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:06:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I mean, Assange was given asylum, so what does melo mean with the Pinochet comparison?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 03:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Was just throwing the UK foreign officve reply onto the end of the conversation,

My own personal thoughts are that a deal has been done, and Asange will be out of the Embassy in a few days. "We've done all we can, and now we'll let you out so you can be arrested, but will get the chance to make your big political statement"

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 04:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The alternative is to stay in the embassy permanently. Two opposed precedents from Hungary after the 1956 Revolution:

Members of the revolutionary government, including Imre Nagy, fled to the Yugoslavian embassy when Soviet troops entered Hungary. After 18 days, they made an agreement with Yugoslavia and Hungary's new puppet government about a departure, but Soviet troops weren't bound by it and immediately arrested them upon leaving. (They were put on trial and executed later.)
József Mindszenty, Hungary's arch-conservative cardinal, fled to the US embassy. He spent 15 years there, until the Vatican negotiated his free travel abroad.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 04:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/06/26/julian-assange-can-he-get-out-of-this/

http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the-uk-withdraw-diplomatic-status-from-the- ecuadorian-embassy/#comments

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 04:58:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 8)

Adding, my own personal thoughts are that I don't expect an actual spectacular storming of the embassy (Ecuador is playing a game here too) and for the rest I don't really care: an anonymous leak site shouldn't be about a single person, the real heroes are the whistleblowers anyway. The real scandal is the treatment of Bradley Manning.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 05:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The treatment of both of them is a scandal. I agree that a whistleblower site shouldn't be about one person, but if this person is being persecuted for running a whistleblower platform, he deserves solidarity.

by Katrin on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 05:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is he really persecuted? I'm not even convinced of that. The one about being more in danger of being extradicted to the USA in Sweden than in Airstrip Number One was really the low point.

But, whether he is persecuted or not, if Wikileaks is affected, that's his fault for playing himself up so much. He made himself into the vulnerability of Wikileaks whereas it was supposed to create an enduring platform for whistleblowers.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 05:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 5)

No. I think it is obvious that the US would have gone after ANY platform that exposed its war crimes regardless of who was in charge.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 06:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not in question. The question is, how successful it could have been. In addition, I don't see Sweden going after Assange as the US going after Wikileaks. It's convenient for them for sure, but Assange's side did enough spin on what Swedish authorities and Assange's accusers did for me to lose all trust in the honey trap scenario.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:33:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree that a structure of wikileaks is preferrable that wouldn't have put one person so much in the centre. I am not sure that wikileaks would have got the attention it did get without that, though.

by Katrin on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 06:05:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 4)

This leads me to a more direct criticism of Assange. While he may appear too much as the creator of Wikileaks, he is certainly responsible for its media policy. And on that front, I see a naivety that defeats the purpose. When international MSM media outlets were given access to the documents, they published them with a framing. This is worst for the most important leak, the diplomatic cables: the Atlanticists of Europe like (Spiegel) and the imperialists of the USA presented the cables as if their confidentiality means that they are the truth without the spin. However, in reality, the cables often contained nothing more than a summary of the local press, or a documentation of gossip, or, worse, baseless speculation only exposing the prejudices of US diplomats. Thus, in effect, the insane confidential blather of Dubya-era diplomats was used to retroactively justify rhetoric against Iran or other countries. Wikileaks should have foreseen this.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:41:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just because he's running a Whistleblowing site, does that mean he gets a free pass on everything else? He is wanted for questioning on a Rape Charge, I find it amazing that that can be overlooked

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 05:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am not overlooking it. He said he would answer the allegations, if there was the guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, remember? I find that a fair demand.

By the way, the women in question have never accused him of rape. The Swedish prosecutors are not agreed if a crime was committed at all. Assange had been told by the prosecution he could leave Sweden, there was no longer a case against him. Suddenly there was a case again, and one that needed arrest, not just questioning. Arrest under punitive conditions at that. And no information for Assange or his lawyer what exactly the allegations are, which means no chance for a defence. Very fishy. I find it amazing that that can be overlooked. And additionally I find that if in Sweden they can issue arrest warrants without a judge they can bloody well leave the EAW (that I am not a fan of anyway).

by Katrin on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 06:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 4)

He said he would answer the allegations, if there was the guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, remember? I find that a fair demand.

What does he demand exactly, that Sweden unsigns the extradition treaty with the US or that the Swedish government guarantees the outcome of a possible future court case? While I would not mind that treaty getting unsigned, I can't say I find the demand reasonable.

By the way, the women in question have never accused him of rape.

Does not matter. The facts one of them described is interpreted as fitting the legal definition of rape.

The Swedish prosecutors are not agreed if a crime was committed at all. Assange had been told by the prosecution he could leave Sweden, there was no longer a case against him. Suddenly there was a case again, and one that needed arrest, not just questioning.

It was a legal process. Here you go:

Julian Assange överklagar häktning \| Inrikes \| SvD		Assange appeals against detention \| Domestic \| SvD
Advokat Björn Hurtig uppger att du sagt att du godkänt att Assange lämnade Sverige?		Attorney Björn Hurtig says that you said you agreed that Assange left Sweden?
- Jag har inte givit något tillstånd men jag kan bekräfta att Hurtig i mitten av september frågade om det fanns några tvångsmedel mot Julian Assange, om han var anhållen eller hade reseförbud. Det fanns det inte vid den tidpunkten.		- I have not given any permission but I can confirm that Hurtig in mid-September asked if there were no enforcement against Assange, if he were arrested or had a travel ban. There was not at that time.
I augusti beslutade jouråklagare att anhålla Assange i hans frånvaro. Misstankarna gällde då en våldtäkt i Enköpingstrakten och ett fall av sexuellt ofredande i Stockholm. Målsägare var två unga kvinnor.		In August, decided an on-call prosecutor to arrest Assange in his absence. Doubts applied when a rape in Enköping area and one case of sexual molestation in Stockholm. Plaintiffs were two young women.
Dagen efter hävde en annan åklagare anhållningsbeslutet och inledde en förundersökning om enbart ofredande.		The day after cancelled another prosecutor the arrest warrant and began a preliminary investigation of only solicitation.
Kvinnornas målsägarbiträde advokat Claes Borgström överklagade beslutet och ärendet togs över av specialåklagare i Göteborg, som nu alltså begärt Assange häktad.		Women target ownership assistant attorney Claes Borgström appeal and the matter was taken over by the special prosecutor in Gothenburg, which now requested Assange detained.

And no information for Assange or his lawyer what exactly the allegations are, which means no chance for a defence.

The lawyer had access to the investigation at the remand hearing, he critised it. These are the allegations:

Julian Assange överklagar häktning \| Inrikes \| SvD		Assange appeals against detention \| Domestic \| SvD
Han är misstänkt för olaga tvång, två fall av sexuellt ofredande i Stockholm, ett fall av samma brott i Enköping och, allvarligast, ett fall av våldtäkt i Enköping den 17 augusti i somras.		He is suspected of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation in Stockholm, one case of the same offense in Enköping and, most seriously, a case of rape in Enköping August 17 this summer.

And additionally I find that if in Sweden they can issue arrest warrants without a judge they can bloody well leave the EAW (that I am not a fan of anyway).

I am no fan of EAW either, but he was remanded by court, and only after the appeals had been lost was the EAW filed.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 06:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The facts one of them described is interpreted as fitting the legal definition of rape

That's in dispute of course! You are taking it for granted.

What does he demand exactly, that Sweden unsigns the extradition treaty with the US or that the Swedish government guarantees the outcome of a possible future court case? While I would not mind that treaty getting unsigned, I can't say I find the demand reasonable

Because you haven't got used to the US (and their satellites) being sorted with the rogue states that have no proper judicial process. Once you accept that, you will find it reasonable to distance yourself from the US, and yes, to unsign that treaty.

We are seeing an empire being dismantled.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's in dispute of course!

Let the court deal with that dispute.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 05:58:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I haven't heard anyone opposing that wish. Why can't Sweden state that Assange will not be handed over to the US? It's the only obstacle to that trial.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:25:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, it's a spurious excuse, not a serious obstacle.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:30:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's the point? There's no legal reason for them to state this, and if they did, would Assange's supporters believe them?

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:49:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, if the Swedish government publicly declares they wouldn't hand him over, I'd assume that it would be more than embarassing for them to try later on. And probably Assange could sue.

Maybe there is no legal point for Sweden to do so. There is a political one though: the whole affair stinks. If Sweden just wants that trial as they claim, they can have it. Do we really have to debate for so long if activists and journalists can be extradited to a state that punishes political activism and free journalism?

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 08:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

so long if activists and journalists can be extradited to a state that punishes political activism and free journalism?

No, people cannot be extradicted from Sweden for political charges.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 08:30:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fine. Then Sweden should issue that statement that Assange won't be extradited to the US.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 08:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you want a blank cheque for any possible extradiction requests? Since Assange spoke about the capital punishment, this should be enough. And why did Assange discover his fear of extradiction to the USA only after considering setting up residence in Sweden (before all the ruckus), after letting his lawyers and fans smear his accusers, then letting his Swedish lawyers lie about the Swedish prosecutor, then letting his British lawyers argue that what he did doesn't constitute rape in Britain?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 03:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you want a blank cheque for any possible extradiction requests?

Because there have been threats to have Assange murdered, tortured, whatever. The administration including Obama calls him guilty of treason or espionage or whatever. And that's the guys who find they have the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere, if they want to. The political climate in the US is thoroughly poisoned because of his journalistic work. I doubt that there would be a fair trial possible for speeding. At any rate, there is a charge because of his journalistic work in preparation, not for anything else. Details of this secret grand jury are slowly emerging, which explains probably why Assange didn't raise the point before.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 03:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think that realistically he would be subject to capital punishment. Only a handful of full-on spies have suffered the death penalty. More likely a long jail term, but even that would be tough for a prosecutor to get.

As for torture, it depends on whether you consider a decade in solitary confinement as torture.

by asdf on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:06:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I would definitely define that as torture and I wasn't talking about the death penalty.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It absolutely is (n/t) (4.00 / 3)

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The administration including Obama calls him guilty of treason or espionage or whatever.

For which he cannot be extradicted. Not under the bilateral treaty.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Swedish bilateral treaty?

The Sweden in which famous not-Atlanticist Olaf Palme was assassinated?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:26:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you want a blank cheque for any possible extradiction requests?

Because the Americans run concentration camps.

Just like you don't extradite a dissident to Burma, China or North Korea, whatever the formal excuse for demanding the extradition.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because the Americans run concentration camps.

And what follows from that? What keeps them from taking him from Britain or requesting his extradiction from there? Come on, this is paranoid.

Just like you don't extradite a dissident to Burma, China or North Korea

No, if those countries make requests, the procedure is to receive and reject them, not to give a blank cheque before any request has been made.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But in this case there is no reason to not give a blank cheque, because there's literally no imaginable conditions under which an extradition to the US would not have to be rejected. And there is good reason to give such a blanket guarantee, because neither Sweden nor the US have any credibility vis-a-vis following the rules.

I'm not saying Sweden will put him on a plane to Gitmo. I'm saying that you don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to not want to risk it.

Yes, that fucks up criminal justice cases, which is a pity. But if Sweden does not like that, then maybe Sweden should be less servile toward the Americans.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:38:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Supermax

by asdf on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The facts one of them described is interpreted as fitting the legal definition of rape
That's in dispute of course! You are taking it for granted.

Fine. Is interpreted by police, prosecutor and remand court as fitting the legal definition of rape. The defense lawyer is free to argue otherwise when and if trial starts. But I guess we can now agree that wheter any of the women "has accused him of rape" is irrelevant?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But I guess we can now agree that wheter any of the women "has accused him of rape" is irrelevant?

Er, I guess we can agree that both women (the chief witnesses) didn't report rape, that some prosecutors interpret what they say in their statements as rape and other prosecutors interpret the same evidence as no evidence for any crime.

At any rate, if Sweden wants him so badly, why not issue that statement that he won't be extradited to the US? He says he will go to Sweden then. I guess we can now agree that this would be the easiest way to get him, right?

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 03:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We don't just have the opinions of Swedish prosecutors, but Swedish and British courts, too.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 03:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does your extradition treaty with the US contain an automatism or can Sweden decide (and refuse) each case?

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:40:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

EUR-Lex - 32002F0584 - EN

Extradiction is of course not automatic. But whatever the US-Swedish agreement says, by the rules of the EAW, Sweden cannot extradite him without Britain's consent:

4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law.

Thus Assange's whole legal rhetoric is bollocks.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 05:43:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He is making a lot of noise to avoid extradition by either country. It's political rhetoric more than legal rhetoric.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:12:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He fled to Britain and is making a lot of noise to avoid extradiction to Swedish courts. And that noise discredits him.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:19:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see that he fled. He left Sweden perfectly legally and resumed his nomad life. The Swedish arrest warrant hit him while he was in Britain. And now he says he will immediately return to Sweden if only one condition is met: that he won't be extradited to the US. In what way is that descrediting him?

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:28:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Swedish arrest warrant was issued on the day he left for Germany, before he got to Britain. And that was six days after his lawier was contacted by the prosecutor with a request for an interview. And for the umteenth time, Assange's condition is ridiculous because extradiction from Sweden to the USA is under the same conditions as extradiction from the UK (especially as the UK's consent is needed for an extradiction from Sweden).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:39:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Also note how that Swedish attorney still badmouthed Assange's accusers after his admission on the timeline, but later Assange's lawyers no more contested their account, only the qualification of Assange's acts under UK law, and argument they lost.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:44:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

EUR-Lex - 22003A0719(01) - EN

What does he demand exactly, that Sweden unsigns the extradition treaty with the US or that the Swedish government guarantees the outcome of a possible future court case?

Sweden can require the USA to guarantee that capital punishment is not the outcome of a future court case, by applying Article 13 of the EU-US agreement on extradiction:

Capital punishment
Where the offence for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the requesting State and not punishable by death under the laws in the requested State, the requested State may grant extradition on the condition that the death penalty shall not be imposed on the person sought, or if for procedural reasons such condition cannot be complied with by the requesting State, on condition that the death penalty if imposed shall not be carried out. If the requesting State accepts extradition subject to conditions pursuant to this Article, it shall comply with the conditions. If the requesting State does not accept the conditions, the request for extradition may be denied.

I wonder if Sweden had similar provisions in its national law already.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:03:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DoDo:

I wonder if Sweden had similar provisions in its national law already.

If I understand correctly, all EU countries has it as it is mandatory to sign European Convention on Human Rights before entering the EU.

Article 3 prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right. This provision usually applies, apart from torture, to cases of severe police violence and poor conditions in detention.
The Court have emphasised the fundamental nature of Article 3 in holding that the prohibition is made in "absolute terms ... irrespective of a victim's conduct."^[11] The Court has also held that states cannot deport or extradite individuals who might be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in the recipient state.^[12]

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sweden rejects Assange asylum decision | SBS World News

In fact I find:

...Swedish foreign ministry spokesman Anders Joerle...
...Joerle told AFP that Stockholm had received no extradition request from Washington and even if it did would be legally prevented from sending Assange to the United States.
Swedish law and the European human rights convention ratified by both Britain and Sweden banned extradition of a defendant to a country where he could face the death penalty, he explained.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Blog That Peter Wrote: Assange

But he is wanted for Rape,

People are still saying that he is wanted for "sex without a condom" which is an offence only in Sweden. Wrong. The European Arrest Warrant issued in respect of him clearly gives four offences that he is suspected of (but not yet charged for). They are one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one of rape.

The issue of whether these were offences under English law was considered by the High Court (click for judgment). Look at paragraphs 3, 78-91 (91 in particular). It is very clear that the alleged offence is rape under English criminal law. This very clear post by David Allen Green also sets out the situation: "English courts have held - twice - that the relevant allegation would also be an allegation of the offence of rape in English law"

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 06:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This article that you keep linking to refutes some points that nobody raised.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:42:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But the last sentence certainly addresses one of your claims.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:15:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Does it?

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry, duh comment.

i guess my inference was pinochet had thatcher, while assange has no cameron.

told you it was stupid.

brain fart...

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 06:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The thin veil of "independence" of the British Courts... Apparently the German Imperial High Court in 1933 was more independent and resisted political pressure better than the British judiciary. In the Reichstag fire trial, despite the high political stakes and all the Goering speeches before the court the Bulgarian communist were found not guilty. The Assange in contrast, not charged with anything, and a victim of a massive smear campaign, spent de facto (almost) two years imprisoned.

by Ivo on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 04:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a very odd definition of imprisoned, he just had to be at a nominated address every night

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 04:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Er, imprisoned as the opposite of free. Or how do you define "free"? House arrest with a tracking contraption at your ankle?

by Katrin on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 05:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's not free, but it's not Prison,

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 05:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In any case I find it pretty amazing how much the nominally independent legal systems of the US vassal states are malleable to political pressure. I am not sure Assange will ever be prosecuted by the US, openly that is. He and the case are too high profile. The real aim, however, in my view, was to smear and discredit him, and render him ineffective. It's a classic... and they pretty much succeeded.

by Ivo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 12:22:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The real aim, however, in my view, was to smear and discredit him, and render him ineffective.

Whose aim and who was "in" on the smear campaign? As we have learnt, there was plenty of smear against one of Assange's accusers, Anna Ardin (starting with the Swedish Nazis who first leaked her name, and including the anti-Castro-hence-CIA-asset logical leap, the Christian Social Democrat hence Christian fundamentalist idiocy, and the mistake about her supposedly working at embassies).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 06:10:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The penalty for whatever he might be found guilty of is loss of freedom, not prison. I wonder how this house arrest would be taken into account.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:48:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not much of a tracking contraption if he could make it to the Ecuador embassy without them noticing.....

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 03:13:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Assange could have turned himself in way back in September 2010. The choice to run, and the choice to fight extradition all the way through the British legal system was his all along.

And for the umptenth time, the only reason the charges has not been filed, is because in Sweden a suspect has the right to be heard before that. However, based on the case at hand he has been remanded by court. And his Swedish lawyers appealed the remand and lost.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 05:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Blog That Peter Wrote: Assange

This whole page is worth reading, but here's a bit about what happened in the Swedish legal system

2) This is the Personal Vendetta of one Swedish Prosecutor

Wrong. The Stockholm District Court made an arrest order against Mr Assange, which he then challenged in the Swedish Svea Court of Appeal. They examined the case in detail and determined there was probable cause and his arrest was justified. His appeal was dismissed.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 05:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The whole case is Swedish women scorned. Themwhole thing makes Sweden the laughing stock of the world.

by stevesim on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 07:14:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some have asserted that:

The whole case is Swedish women scorned.

If it were that simple (which I tend to doubt), that simplicity ended with the publication of the complaint and name of alleged perp (in violation of Swedish law) within hours of the complaint being made.

Given all the support right here for the Swedish prosecutors actions and the ease with which many call Assange a rapist, this is questionable:

Themwhole thing makes Sweden the laughing stock of the world.

But, as in many high-profile legal cases, it's not possible to discuss rationally when passions have been inflamed to an hysterical level.

by Marie2 on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 01:20:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Publication is not illegal, leaking it is but can't be investigated thanks to extensive whistle-blower protections in Sweden. So all the leak proves is that Expressen (the paper in question) has little morals and probably bribes cops, and that at least one of the cops or someone at the prosecutors office leaks and probably accepts bribes. It is nothing new, but in general accepted as the price for all civil servants to be able to leak almost anything to the press.

It was laws like this that made Assange come to Sweden in the first place.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 02:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, Sweden has a law that is unenforceable? Or just not enforced when convenient for the authorities? And protecting cops that are bribed to violate the law is more important than protecting potentially innocent people?

However, I only mentioned that illegal disclosure as one of the many curious twists in this case because it's irrefutable as to fact and date and not because there aren't oddities in this case that predated it.

I freely admit that I struggle with how the participants went from "consensual sex" to a few days later when the women decided that some aspect of their encounters wasn't strictly consensual enough not to file a complaint even while conceding that they had not been subjected to physical force or violence. Assange reported for an interview, and a prosecutor looked at the case and dropped it. If the alleged victims were minors, force or violence figured into the claim, or there hadn't been a delay in seeking either medical or legal assistance, the initial prosecutor would have seen it differently.

It does seem strange to me that so many have concluded from at best murky allegations that Assange is a rapist. OTOH, under Swedish law, he may have committed a crime. But as you've pointed out, the Swedes aren't diligent about enforcing laws.

by Marie2 on Fri Aug 17th, 2012 at 05:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Marie2:

So, Sweden has a law that is unenforceable?

Yes, probably many.

Marie2:

Or just not enforced when convenient for the authorities?

It is often very inconvenient for the authorities not to be able to investigate leaks.

Marie2:

And protecting cops that are bribed to violate the law is more important than protecting potentially innocent people?

Protecting the right of all in civil service to leak is more important then bringing bribed cops to justice, yes.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Aug 18th, 2012 at 02:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 5)

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Aug 16th, 2012 at 06:32:02 PM EST