If the UK and Sweden were to agree that Assange wouldn't be extradited to the US I imagine he'd be on the next flight to Stockholm. It's the extradition order that's blocking these two women getting justice, not Assange himself.
The Swedes have asked the UK to extradite him to Sweden.
The US hasn't asked either the UK nor Sweden to extradite him to the US. Is there even a court case against him in the US?
The extradition to the US seems to be Assange's own narrative. Why didn't the US reach out to get him on the streets of London?
This is the real issue. Whether or not he would likely be extradited if he were to return to Sweden.
Obviously Assange thinks he will otherwise he would have returned long ago.
If you think he would not be, then that should be the focus of your debate.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/assange-why-is-doj-wikileaks-inve...
Why would a nation give a warrant for communication data associated with a person, close down that persons bank accounts, and send investigators to interview people close to the person and request evidence? Those are the supporting evidence, and while it doesn't conclusively prove anything, some people would conclude that it is enough to warrant caution.
Our laws do also, by the way, make it impossible for us to extradite him to the US without the consent of the UK, so it seems awfully convenient that he claims that he would trust an illegal guarantee by the Swedish government but not that it would follow it's own laws. That is, unless the UK is the problem - but then why the hell did he go there in the first place, and stayed there?
If they think the demands for extradition are not fulfilled, they can say so, and that's the final word. There's nothing the US or UK can do but complain, there's no court they can apply to to overrule such a decision (because of course, the UK or US governments would certainly not allow themselves to be overruled by any independent court in a matter like this).
The national courts can overrule the government and say that an extradition is illegal, even if government wants to extradite. But the converse is not true: if the court thinks that an extradition would be permissible, the government can still stop it. They can even promise this beforehand, preempting the need for a court ruling. See sovereignty, again.
At worst this would be "impolite". The government of course loathes to do something like this, because then they have to answer for all the cases they did not intervene in with the courts and the civic service's many rulings. They would like to wash their hands of unpopular decisions. But they do in fact intervene quite a lot.
That the government claims "we must not meddle with the judiciary" as some holy principle is darkly ironic in this case. Because if you don't think it was political that Marianne Ny revived the case after it had been firmly dismissed by the previous prosecutor, how naive are you?
> You don't get to avoid prosecution for a crime because it is politically or legally inconvenient for you.
You clearly do, if the alternative for the people who want to prosecute you is to violate international norms and storm an embassy.
The UK isn't that complicit, because he's been here for a while and the UK has done fuck all.
If they really wanted him in the US they'd have spent a tenth of that and had him renditioned.
At least to me (but I'm not a lawyer), the current system violates european human rights. Either he is charged with a crime, in which case the court case should have started years ago (and ended), or he is not officially charged with a crime, in which case he should be free to go where ever he wants until he is charged. The current situation is absurd.
Why can't he be charged while he's still in the Embassy?
I understand that enforcing any judgement rendered by a court becomes a hang up because of his asylum, but that's a separate concern.
I'm really sad that his hasn't gone to the European Court of Human Right to decide against Sweden (or England, because it is actually England that is keeping him locked up).
Note that I do not have a high opinion of Assange, and it is quite possible that according to Swedish law he did rape those women. But he should have been entitled to a trial in absentia.
So he only has another 4 years to go
He refuses to go anywhere that makes him extraditable to the US. The Swedish, in turn, say roughly "our general rules are such that we can't guarantee that, and an exception isn't practically possible". Which makes sense, it's arguably better to have plain and simple rules than ones that cover every last edge case.
Personally, I think the Swedish should bend their laws. Globalisation is proceeding, and I think there'll be more country-straddling cases in the next century than there were in the past century. If that assumption is correct, writing rules to cover stances like Assange's is more reasonable than it has been.
IF there are US charges against him and IF the US tries to extradite then I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to fight it.
What is your opinion about what countries should or should not have to do based on? Your feelings about countries in general, or a specific empathy for Sweden?
> IF there are US charges against him and IF the US tries to extradite then I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to fight it.
You're absolutely sure? Why haven't you called Assange yet? I'm sure he'd be happy to know what you know.
The current rules for extradition do have their reasons. You may not want Germany to be able to enforce its strict rules about nazi speech all over the world, or Turkey to be able to imprison people who've offended Erdogan.
Haggling over extradition is not unusual. For example, the US has promised not to use capital punishment in order to extradite people from countries that forbid capital punishment.
If there would be a request, as you say yourself, Sweden doesn't necessarily have to honor it, for example if Assange faces capital punishment. Assange could probably fight extradition in court also.
In any case this is nothing here to suggest that this is anything more than a smokescreen thrown up by Assange to distract from the fact that he's a rapist fleeing prosecution.
Oh wait, there is. But Assange has chosen to (illegally) run away from a valid investigation.
As for armchair Occams Razor/conspiracists theorist, the published line of events goes as:
First month in Sweden. Initial questioning only, followed by conversations between lawyer and prosecutor. Assange explicit asked if he could leave the country and got "yes" back. While in UK he had a previous schedule talk in Sweden which got suddenly surrounded by a massive police force. Following this was the international arrest order.
So I ask, what secretly American agents? What elaborate ruse? A ordinary investigation suddenly jumped from "this is barely worth anyones time" to "international arrest warrant and massive police forces". Assange theory is that an external diplomatic force, ie US, meddled with the investigation. The other theory being presented is that this unprecedented chain of events is just normal procedure.
They should face those accusations by being interviewed by the persecutor, and if the prosecutor believes there is a case to answer, they should face those accusations in court.
"Last month, Ecuador’s prosecutor-general rejected a previous request from the Swedish prosecutor to question Assange in London. That office, in a letter to Swedish authorities, said it will interview Assange and asked for a list of questions the Swedish prosecutor wants the Ecuadorian prosecutor to ask the Wikileaks founder."
(http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/02/swe...)
http://johnpilger.com/articles/freeing-julian-assange-the-la...
Will you still respect what you said in the comment and return to NK to stand trial ?
Replace North Korea with Iran, Iraq, Syria or any other country known to be a corrupt or totalitarian state...
Aka at least half of all the countries in the world...
As a foreigner, you wouldn't trust the justice system in those countries and you would be right to try to avoid the trial.
So you see, the validity of what you said depends a lot on the context.
Even if the Swedish investigation and the trial is totally fair, it is not really the issue.
The issue is the extradition treaty with the US - Sweden will have to make a choice - Assange or good relations with the U.S.
And this is were the deadlock is. Go to Sweden and get unfairly convicted (low probability) or get extradited to the US and get life in prison (high probability). Or both.
Should a Swedish court rule against extraditing Assange to the US, that will have exactly no impact on the relationship between the US and Sweden. No government can reasonably expect from another to break its own laws and it is certainly not in US interest for Sweden to go down that route. Not to mention that the US also reserves the right not to extradite to Sweden in individual cases.
I feel and respect your desire for and belief in integrity on the part of the system, but it's extremely naive to believe that.
Maybe it's the fact that I've lived in many different cultures (including Sweden for a year btw!) or maybe it's my age, but what I've taken away from life so far is this:
There's the story which all people (should) believe and then there's the shit that happens.
We're being lied to since we're born - santa claus, tooth fairy, God, then justice, patriotism, news, terrorism, traitors and so on.
Wikileaks is one of the tools which shows us a glimpse of the shit that really happens.
Corruption, under-the-table deals, intimidations - including members of foreign governments, illegal detentions of foreign citizens, surveillance..
Always treat 'the System' with healthy skepticism - and that is because the information that it broadcasts is often false - due to incompetence on the part of the 'reporters' (usually) or due to hidden agendas that so many groups have.
The world is a combination of many chess games played at the same time - in some you're a pawn, in some you're a rook, in some you're the board ;).
Some countries, especially in the Civil Law area allow sentences in absentia.
And the stay at the embassy is for political reasons – and like a prison sentence (in a civilized country where prison sentences are about the loss of freedom and not the loss of living as a human being).
There was no assumption of guilt in the parents post. There's an open accusation and it's absolutely normal that people get arrested for rape accusations. Rape is a serious crime and needs to be prosecuted.
The stay at the embassy is self-inflicted. Nobody but Assange chose to violate the conditions of his bail. Assange still is master of his own destiny and could end this at any point. He also enjoys a lot of freedoms that actual prisoners often do not enjoy, among them using the internet. Equating his self-chosen recluse with a prison sentence is unfair to all actual prisoners.
As I had recalled earlier there was some damning evidence, if true, supporting the case that it is a conspiracy.
Supposedly the girls had denied rape allegations but later retracted or removed traces of the denials.
The evidence is an affidavit from Assange himself. Not many people would consider an affidavit from the accused "damming".
Its easy for armchair conspiracists to imagine this whole thing an elaborate ruse to extradite Assange to the US, but Assange was being questioned in Sweden before he fled from there and on bail in the UK prior to 'fleeing' to the Ecuadorian embassy. It seems a very roundabout way for the Americans to get at him.
Occams Razor Assange is fleeing justice and abusing the trusting conspiracists trust in promoting the whole American extradition narrative.
PS: so the downvotes roll in :(
Really, are these girls secretly American agents? And the Americans, rather than use two girl agents that had intimate access to Assange, chose to burn them by asking them to escalate to the Police when Assange wouldn't be treated for STDs?