[GeneV]

It is also up to the court in the country which tries the actual (alleged) rape case to determine who is lying. The extraditing country does not try the veracity of the witnesses, but usually just determines whether there is any evidence at all of a serious crime (prima facie case). The treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. does not even require that. The testimony of the victim is evidence--often the only evidence in a rape case.

This whole sex thing may in fact be trumped up, and a criminal trial may decide that. However, it is in fact considered a crime, based upon lack of consent in Sweden to induce sex by falsely representing you will use a condom. That could happen here. This is not some bizarre crime from the middle ages. Unless someone produces more evidence of a conspiracy or fraud than just that it seems unlikely he could force himself on a sleeping woman, it is probably improper for any country to deny his extradition to another country with a well developed legal system.

[wildweasel]

Mag I get your point, but he is not wanted on a warrant for the crime yet, the whole thing reeks of us gov't interference. Sweden has had ample opportunity to question him both when under house arrest and in the embassy. he reason they don't do it is more to do with needing to get him on Swedish soil so he can be extradited to the US. The British governments threats to the Ecuadorians are a bloody embarrassment to diplomacy. If this was a person taking refuge in an American embassy in oh say Russia and Russia said they didn't recognize the asylum and would possibly invade the US embassy American would be going ballistic and consider it an act of war if it happened. Even if he is guilty of the crime in Sweden (which is far from proved and the way the accusation arose make it an iffy thing at best). Britain cannot extradite him to the US because they have laws that won't allow it, so they are circumventing their own laws by sending him to Sweden knowing full well he will end up extradited to a face a potential death penalty.
Once he was accepted for protection by the Ecuadorians the standards of international diplomacy demand it be respected. Failure to do so threatens the whole system. It means in effect your ambassadors and staff in embassies in dangerous or "enemy" countries have no right to expect respect and safety for instance. It's a bloody embarrassment the way the British government is dealing with this

Couldn't agree more. It is extremely embarrassing that my gov't would even contemplate doing this, especially using anti-terrorism laws brought in in response to the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher from the Libyan embassy in the '80s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher He is not a terrorist, but someone who is fed up with seeing big business and gov'ts killing and invading for profit.

[ihasa]

Suppose he did do it. Seems the women involved weren't hugely concerned about what he did until a few days after the event, so may not have seen Assange's actions as rape until the Police started interrogating them. But say he did do things which, under Swedish law, could result in a jail term. A (probably relatively short) jail term in Sweden would be preferable to being holed up indefinitely at the Ecuadorian Embassy so why doesn't he go?

If he was imprisoned, that would put him in a position where the US could leisurely make their case for extraditing him, and he would not be in a position to claim asylum.

If he did contravene Swedish law, that's his own foolishness I guess, but I still support his efforts to wriggle free from a chain of events that are likely to result in political persecution by the US.

[GeneV]

If he did contravene Swedish law, that's his own foolishness I guess, but I still support his efforts to wriggle free from a chain of events that are likely to result in political persecution by the US.

Prosecution would require proof of a crime, and if there is a crime it is not "persecution." The federal court system of the United States is not known as a forum that is without rights for the accused. If anything, our courts are known as affording more rights to the accused compared to other countries. As long as he did not end up in Guantanamo, it would actually benefit all parties, and perhaps the world, to have a public trial about whether these documents are in fact secrets and to what extent it is possible to reveal them. I don't have an answer to that question. Having him run around the world dodging extradition and seeking asylum, might actually do more damage to the cause of legal disclosure than having a court say yes or no.

[boriscleto]

As long as he did not end up in Guantanamo, it would actually benefit all parties, and perhaps the world, to have a public trial about whether these documents are in fact secrets and to what extent it is possible to reveal them.

And that is exactly what is at stake here. As soon as the US has his hands on him he will be disappeared to some un-place and never heard from again.

[eddie1960]

Prosecution would require proof of a crime, and if there is a crime it is not "persecution." The federal court system of the United States is not known as a forum that is without rights for the accused. If anything, our courts are known as affording more rights to the accused compared to other countries. As long as he did not end up in Guantanamo, it would actually benefit all parties, and perhaps the world, to have a public trial about whether these documents are in fact secrets and to what extent it is possible to reveal them. I don't have an answer to that question. Having him run around the world dodging extradition and seeking asylum, might actually do more damage to the cause of legal disclosure than having a court say yes or no.

the issue is will he end up in Guantanamo, or will homeland security and the military try and circumvent the protections afforded in the justice system. unfortunately practices like rendition and the operation of Guantanamo have damage the us court systems reputation in the eyes of the world Gene. If there was no death penalty in place (a bloody barbaric practice if ever there was one) I think there would be less objection to him being extradited to face trial.
The death penalty really does sully your justice system

[wildman]

That wasn't illegal here, but the US kicked up such a stink that, as usual, the UK gov't is doing its trained-poodle impression and rolling over.

As an Yank I think this essentially goes to the heart of the matter. Many of our allies have become just a subset of the American imperium especially when it comes to foreign policy.

---

Last edited by wildman; 08-18-2012 at 03:34 AM.

[ihasa]

Prosecution would require proof of a crime, and if there is a crime it is not "persecution." The federal court system of the United States is not known as a forum that is without rights for the accused. If anything, our courts are known as affording more rights to the accused compared to other countries. As long as he did not end up in Guantanamo, it would actually benefit all parties, and perhaps the world, to have a public trial about whether these documents are in fact secrets and to what extent it is possible to reveal them. I don't have an answer to that question. Having him run around the world dodging extradition and seeking asylum, might actually do more damage to the cause of legal disclosure than having a court say yes or no.

What American politicians think of Assange arrest (07Dec10) - YouTube

Listen to Mitch McConnell. 'We need to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law, and if that becomes a problem, we need to change the law'.

There you have it. If they can't find Assange guilty of a crime, they'll make one up. I don't believe Assange was even on US soil when he was active with Wikileaks, but of course unlike the constitution (see Guantanemo Bay), the US justice system knows no national boundaries.

[newarts]

There is an unfortunately high probability that extraditing him to Sweden will start a sequence of events that will result with him in a coffin or its equivalent at the whim of a US Star Chamber.

I appreciate Mag's concern about his egregious behavior with the women in Sweden but would not release him to the Swedes without assurance he won't be subsequently transferred to US custody.

[GeneV]

And that is exactly what is at stake here. As soon as the US has his hands on him he will be disappeared to some un-place and never heard from again.

Really? As far as I can tell, Bradley Manning is getting a trial under the full procedures of military law for having furnished him the information, and he has not disappeared.

[johnyates]

And that is exactly what is at stake here. As soon as the US has his hands on him he will be disappeared to some un-place and never heard from again.

Just like Bradley Manning. Bradley Manning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GeneV]

What American politicians think of Assange arrest (07Dec10) - YouTube

Listen to Mitch McConnell. 'We need to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law, and if that becomes a problem, we need to change the law'.

There you have it. If they can't find Assange guilty of a crime, they'll make one up. I don't believe Assange was even on US soil when he was active with Wikileaks, but of course unlike the constitution (see Guantanemo Bay), the US justice system knows no national boundaries.

Mitch McConnell is not a federal judge, and the constitution prohibits ex post facto laws--laws passed after the conduct. If Assange is extradited, he would be tried under full protection of the law and constitution. That is a requirement. It is utter nonsense to talk about a formal extradition which results in someone disappearing. Every extradition treaty with the U.S. would disappear with it.

He is more likely to "disappear" while he is hiding out in Ecuador. If I were him and worried about disappearing, I'd rather take my chances on a public extradition hearing in Sweden and a possible public trial in the U.S. than Seal Team 6.

Assange may be guilty of nothing illegal, and there may be no law in the U.S. which applies. If that is so, it would be helpful to know that.

[les3547]

I don't understand why anyone sees Assange as deserving of hero or sanctuary status for the US documents postings (unlike some past exposures by Wikileaks). He revealed few dirty secrets, embarrassed diplomats over petty stuff, and has potentially exposed people working undercover to danger. What's so heroic about that?

People complain about past US abuses, of which many are true, but that doesn't make the work done to identify and stop terrorists any less important to all of us around the world. In this case, I read Assange as someone who started out with good intentions, but whose self-importance has become so hyper-inflated he considers himself above world citizenship. A few other opinions:

Club Troppo’s group blog, Ken Parish:

I couldn’t agree more with FOI expert Peter Timmins about the latest Wikileaks “disclosures”. I have no idea whether Assange is a rapist or not, but he’s certainly succeeded in setting the cause of public sector whistleblowing back by a decade or more. The documents so far disclosed indicate little or no public misfeasance by the US or anyone else, so there is simply no legitimate public interest in their disclosure.

Editorial from The Gleaner:

To many people, Assange is a hero and media and others are arguing that the contents of the cables are in the public interest. To others, he is regarded as a villain whose motive is exceedingly malicious. For example, they ask, does the public really need to know that a US diplomat thinks the Italian Prime Minister is vain or that Zimbabwe's Mugabe is ignorant on economic issues. Is this really an attempt to embarrass the candour of American envoys?

Katy Barnett, who blogs as Legal Eagle at Skeptical Lawyer:

I must confess that I am ambivalent about WikiLeaks, regardless of whether any proceedings are brought against Assange or not.

…One has to carefully balance freedom of information with other interests. Disclosing information is not always a good thing. And it’s natural enough that the views a government expresses in private communications differ from the views it expresses publicly (this happens with individuals too: it’s called tact).

Lorenzo at Thinking Out Loud:

The Wikileaks document dump may well pose dangers for particular individuals. Which is shameful, and an implication of the nastiness of much Middle Eastern politics. But, regardless of what one might think of Julian Assange and his actions, what he has actually revealed is a fairly sane, and fairly well informed, diplomatic world.

[jeffkrol]

Lets ask an Aussie:
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

REGARDLESS of the rights and wrongs of the Julian Assange saga, let's just imagine a similar scenario in which a US citizen was in danger of being shipped out of embassy-asylum in London to a second country that might well shop that citizen to a third nation where he could face the death penalty for treason.
Then imagine Washington adopting the Canberra hands-off approach and simply allowing due process to take its course. And Downing Street, with an American in its sights behaving with the same hairy-chestedness it is showing over Assange.
Bob Curren, Kensington Park, SA
BRITISH bullying of Equador must be resisted. Even the communist government of Hungary respected the right of the US embassy in Budapest where cardinal Joseph Mindszenty lived in political asylum for 15 years from 1956.
THE possibility of an Australian citizen being extradited to Sweden to face charges that are not considered criminal here, and then passed on to the US government for prosecution, would irreparably damage our relationship with that country.

Australians already harbour resentment because our government has sat on its hands instead of standing up for Julian Assange.
Receiving information and then passing that information on to the media must never be a crime. It would usher in a truly Orwellian world where seekers of the truth would be hounded. This issue concerns all of us if we care for a truthful world

[Parallax]

Obviously, you haven't seen the ladies in question, nor have you seen Julian Assange. The man essentially is a twig. Those ladies could have fought him off easily if they wanted.

So rape is only rape if the victim is smaller than the attacker?