Board index ‹ Off Topic ‹ The Sin Bin ‹ Assange - the story continues

Him wrote:

Why should they guarantee that when he might have committed a crime in the US?

If he has, and the US could provide a good case, then he would likely be extradited from pretty much anywhere. Why does it need to be Sweden? If, as you state, he could easily be extradited to the US from here, then why do the three 'offences' need to be linked?

I have no idea of the protocols of Swedish justice but how do we know they have no/little evidence of a case? I doubt it would be acceptable to broadcast the evidence as it would prejudice any potential trial. They've put a legal warrant together that Assange has done absolutely to try and evade, legging it to the Ecuadorian Embassy and claiming political assylum is the act of a desperate, not an innocent man, in my eyes. But even then he can go to Sweden and stand trial, if he's innocent there won't be enough evidence to convict him in Sweden.

We know their names i think it would be a strange system which allowed us to know who the accusers are but not any of their corroborating evidence at all. And when i say us, i dont mean me and you. I mean a uk court, with uk judges.

The role of the Uk court is not to decide guilt or innocence in a case of a request for someone to be sent to another EU country - its simply to assess whether there is evidence to support the possibility. It appears that in this case the courts have done exactly that.

In any event, whether from Sweden or the UK, any potential extradition to the US would end up in the European courts. That's why all this conspiracy theory stuff is nonsense - Sweden and the UK will have virtually identical extradition protocols via their membership of the EU, and in a case such as Assange's, it would end up at the European courts regardless of which country the proceedings start in.

As an aside, the one possibility that can probably be completely discounted is any death sentence on Assange in the US. Any extradition from the EU would have to include undertakings from US authorities not to pursue the death sentence. That kind of undertaking happens all the time (including extraditions from Australia to the US).

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

The role of the Uk court is not to decide guilt or innocence in a case of a request for someone to be sent to another EU country - its simply to assess whether there is evidence to support the possibility. It appears that in this case the courts have done exactly that.

In any event, whether from Sweden or the UK, any potential extradition to the US would end up in the European courts. That's why all this conspiracy theory stuff is nonsense - Sweden and the UK will have virtually identical extradition protocols via their membership of the EU, and in a case such as Assange's, it would end up at the European courts regardless of which country the proceedings start in.

As an aside, the one possibility that can probably be completely discounted is any death sentence on Assange in the US. Any extradition from the EU would have to include undertakings from US authorities not to pursue the death sentence. That kind of undertaking happens all the time (including extraditions from Australia to the US).

Isn't it easier to send him to the states than Sweden, all the Yanks have to do is ask isn't it.

I'd bet 99% of people would assume it would be easier to get an extradition to the US out of the UK than Sweden before Assange and co raised the issue. The reality is that membership of the EU will require virtually identical protocols for any extradition to a non-EU state.

I appreciate it's a long shot but 'jet pack' would be brilliant.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/julian-assange/how-will-he-leave-the-ecuadorian-embassy

At some point, the Ecuadorians are going to figure out how much this freeloader is costing them in food and board. Then he'll be out on his ear.

[Cronus]

WIZEB wrote:

I appreciate it's a long shot but 'jet pack' would be brilliant.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/julian-assange/how-will-he-leave-the-ecuadorian-embassy

Why is 'coffin' not an option.

Ah my mistake, it's a list of what might happen, not what you would like to happen.

Cronus wrote:

Why is 'coffin' not an option.

Ah my mistake, it's a list of what might happen, not what you would like to happen.

Now now.
He's been physically unwell, a little like your partner, I believe.
One shouldn't wish the worst for the afflicted.

[Mugwump]

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

Very odd behaviour if you ask me, running to a central-american embassy to seek asylum from a western European country.

Perhaps he thinks it is more likely he'll get a fairer hearing in a central american country?

I'm still not sure how Sweden has suddenly come to be seen as more of a puppet of the US than the UK, especially given that any ultimate deportation decision would end up in the European courts whether the US attempted to deport him from either Sweden or the UK.

Where were the European courts when people were being plucked off the streets of European countries (Italy being a good example) by US Special Forces and "disappeared" into Egyptian or Jordanian torture chambers? Where were the European courts when the US were flying thousands of extraordinary renditions here, there and everywhere across Europe?

And on the subject of Sweden - where were the Swedish courts when the government allowed Swedish airfields to be one of the key stop-off points in all of Europe.

If the Stratfor Leaks and Bradley Manning's lawyers are to be believed (and there is good evidence to suggest that the former certainly are the truth) then there is currently a sealed warrant signed by the US Chief Justice for the arrest of Julian Assange currently pending activation. Bear in mind that under recent legislation by the Obama administration Julian Assange is classified as much a "terrorist" as Osama bin Laden (probably MORE of a terrorist because the threat posed by Wikileaks to the US power establishment is potentially far greater).

Had Assange fled to any other country in Europe (with the exceptions of Germany and France both of whom retain sufficient political clout to deliver Obama a bloody nose) a Special Forces extraction unit would already have picked him up (as has happened with other "terrorists") across Europe - in many cases WITH the collusion of the sovereign nation.

Given Sweden's long and sordid history with US rendition my guess is he would have been snatched almost immediately after touching down (any longer and the politics threaten to become extremely messy). And the European Court will do precisely WHAT with a man who now sits in Guantanamo Bay?