General / Off-Topic Julian Assange - unlawfully detained?

[beelbeebub]

So, is he being "unlawfully detained"?.
.
JA's argument seems to be that if he is sent to Sweden he will be extradited to the US to face charges over wiki leaks.
.
Can anyone explain why he's more at risk of extradition to the US on Swedish soil as opposed to on UK soil?
.
Are the extradition safe guards from Sweden looser than the UK? Wouldn't both fall under the European courts introduction anyway?
.
I would have thought the UK was at least as much of a risk from an extradition standpoint as Sweden.

 

[racer1]

It's madness.

Nuke the embassy from orbit I say.

 

[FuzzySpider]

He is stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy. Legally he is not in the UK at the moment, he is only in the UK in a geographical sense. But if he steps foot outside that embassy he is fair game for the cops.

Sweden has a really laughable extradition treaty with the USA. Bascially the USA says "give us what we want", and Sweden says "Ok", no matter what.

The UK really want to hand this guy over to the USA, but the Garry McKinnon case makes that difficult. The UK has a treaty with most EU member states which makes it very easy for the UK government to just hand over anyone to EU countries and say "Nothing we can do about this!"

Garry McKinnon was that autistic guy who hacked into the USA military network in order to look for aliens, or so he said. The UK government was all set to just throw him to the wolves until McKinnons mother stirred up such a storm that they backed down. This set legal precedent concerning extradition in regard to cyber related crimes.

 

[beelbeebub]

I thought the UK had a pretty broad extradition agreement with the US, along the lines you outlined
.
Further to that, wouldn't JA be able to use the EU courts as the final arbiter when fighting extradition regardless of where he was being extradited from.
.
I understand the theoretical risk that he may be required from Sweden but can he use that as a shield to prevent him answering questions on a      allegation. How is that different from the "I'm an important radio 1Dj who raises millions for charity with my fun runs, you can't risk all that over an uncertain allegation"?
.
Even if Sweden drops its extradition request, it is unarguable that JA has broken British law by breaking his bail conditions. .
.
Saying the UK is unlawfully detaining him seems odd, as he is confining himself to the embassy of his own free will. The fact that he will be arrested as soon as he steps into uk soil is no different from Ronnie Biggs voluntarily exiling himself to Brazil.

 

[Surfinjo]

So, is he being "unlawfully detained"?.
.
JA's argument seems to be that if he is sent to Sweden he will be extradited to the US to face charges over wiki leaks.
.
Can anyone explain why he's more at risk of extradition to the US on Swedish soil as opposed to on UK soil?
.
Are the extradition safe guards from Sweden looser than the UK? Wouldn't both fall under the European courts introduction anyway?
.
I would have thought the UK was at least as much of a risk from an extradition standpoint as Sweden.

The point was that here in the UK and other countries he was a free man.

Sweden then revived a previously dismissed complaint against him and demanded he present himself to answer a simple and rather petty point. (On the basis that he had been previously interviewed, the evidence examined and the case dismissed.) There were also suggestions that the Americans and some US women's groups in particular had put pressure on the Swedes to do this.

The suspicion is that Sweden is seeking to take him into custody to allow the Americans to seek his extradition.

The Americans have already said they want him to answer a number of charges relating to his publication of their documents. The rest of the world, including the UK have said they won't act of these US warrants because they believe the charges are political.

Anyway, what is quite incredible about this entire affair is how the press have generally turned on one of their own.

Normally the press will back fellow journalists.

But in the case of Assange, they seem to be obsessed with finding reasons and justification to stab him in the back.

It's really just a matter of time before he does end up in prison in the US.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I thought the UK had a pretty broad extradition agreement with the US, along the lines you outlined

As a matter of law the decision to not send McKinnon to the USA has had rammifications. The law has to apply to all - if people are treated differently they aren't laws at all. The McKinnon case has more or less set in stone that people here can't be extradited for cyber related laws.

Further to that, wouldn't JA be able to use the EU courts as the final arbiter when fighting extradition regardless of where he was being extradited from.

He can try, but I think he knows exactly how corrupt this system is. The EU courts will give Assange over to the Americans on a whim. All he will do is delay the inevitable.

I understand the theoretical risk that he may be required from Sweden but can he use that as a shield to prevent him answering questions on a allegation. How is that different from the "I'm an important radio 1Dj who raises millions for charity with my fun runs, you can't risk all that over an uncertain allegation"?

He has stated that he will return to Sweden to answer for those allegations if the Swedish government guarantee to not send him to the USA - they will not offer such guarantees. He has also invited Swedish prosecutors to come and interview him at the embassy four times, they won't.

Even if Sweden drops its extradition request, it is unarguable that JA has broken British law by breaking his bail conditions. .

Absolutely he has. But look at his options. Chelsea Manning has just received 35 years in prison for her part in this business (for context, rapists in the USA usually server around 7.8 years).

Saying the UK is unlawfully detaining him seems odd, as he is confining himself to the embassy of his own free will. The fact that he will be arrested as soon as he steps into uk soil is no different from Ronnie Biggs voluntarily exiling himself to Brazil.

Let me put it like this. When a gay man is wanted in Iran for crimes against God (the fact that he is a homosexual) do we extradite him back to Iran? Or do we grant him asylum? Is the man confining himself to England of his own free will? Assange has been called "a terrorist" by Biden among others, and if he goes to the USA all that will happen is he will be kept in the concentration camp at Guantanamo bay and tortured.

Manning is in prison for most of his life. Edward Snowdon has had to seek political asylum in Russia of all places (remember the good old days when the Russians crossed the iron curtain to seek freedom in the West?). Assange is stuck in a building in London, unable to leave. All three of these men/women are suffering these consequences for doing the right thing and telling the public what we really need to know, whether it be war crimes committed in our names or the wholesale spying on us by our leaders or simply the incredible corruption in our governments.

We've allowed ourselves to be sleepwalked into a terrifyingly oppressive system of rulership. People are allowed to make negative editorials and opinion pieces in tabloids and on news shows sure, but if someone actually blows the whistle and reveals government corruption in the modern world they are treated as terrorists. Had the Watergate incident happened in 2015 Woodward and Bernstein would have been arrested, their notes/photographs/recordings siezed and they themselves tried in secret out of public view.

 

[beelbeebub]

For the moment lets put aside the Assange/WikiLeaks/US extradition thing.
:
Sweden, a country considered pretty low on corruption has requested the UK arrest and extradite "Joe Bloggs" on suspicion of a crime carrying a 4 year jail sentence which would also be considered a crime in the UK.
:
The UK complies. JB is allowed to appeal to the courts (through several independent levels all the way to the supreme court) to fight the extradition and is allowed out on bail whilst the appeals are heard.
:
The UK courts satisfy themselves that none of the statutory bars to extradition exist.
:
JB is extradited to Sweden.
:
Now going back to Assange.
:
Why should he be treated any differently from JB?
.
JA may or may not be guilty of the crimes he is accused of.
:
He has admitted sleeping with the alleged victim, so it seems it rather hinges on the interpretation of consent, a notoriously difficult line to draw.
:
However, JA's argument seems to boil down to "I shouldn't face court proceedings because of who I am and my past actions".
:
Clearly this is not acceptable, justice must be applied without reference to the fame or achievements of the accused otherwise we have Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris (seriously gutted at that one), Stuart Hall, Lord Jenner etc.
:
For the record, I would back JA's fight if the US were applying for his work with WikiLeaks. But i'm uneasy in him using his (imho) valuable work with WikiLeaks as a shield against unrelated charges from another developed nation.

 

[Patrick_68000]

I do not think that he is unlawfully detained. He locked himself into a legal mousetrap

 

[Surfinjo]

For the moment lets put aside the Assange/WikiLeaks/US extradition thing.
:
Sweden, a country considered pretty low on corruption has requested the UK arrest and extradite "Joe Bloggs" on suspicion of a crime carrying a 4 year jail sentence which would also be considered a crime in the UK.
:
The UK complies. JB is allowed to appeal to the courts (through several independent levels all the way to the supreme court) to fight the extradition and is allowed out on bail whilst the appeals are heard.
:
The UK courts satisfy themselves that none of the statutory bars to extradition exist.
:
JB is extradited to Sweden.
:
Now going back to Assange.
:
Why should he be treated any differently from JB?
.
JA may or may not be guilty of the crimes he is accused of.
:
He has admitted sleeping with the alleged victim, so it seems it rather hinges on the interpretation of consent, a notoriously difficult line to draw.
:
However, JA's argument seems to boil down to "I shouldn't face court proceedings because of who I am and my past actions".
:
Clearly this is not acceptable, justice must be applied without reference to the fame or achievements of the accused otherwise we have Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris (seriously gutted at that one), Stuart Hall, Lord Jenner etc.
:
For the record, I would back JA's fight if the US were applying for his work with WikiLeaks. But i'm uneasy in him using his (imho) valuable work with WikiLeaks as a shield against unrelated charges from another developed nation.

These are not the issues at all.

The case was investigated and dismissed by the Swedish police.

It was pressure from the US that cause it to be revived, but only when it was handed over to a different prosecutor.

In fact, because the extradition is to Sweden, no prima facie need be made. But the US will, apparently, be able to ask for his extradition on the secrets charges, from Sweden.

In answer to your question, if the details are the same then it should matter whether it is Joe Bloggs or Assange. Both should raise our suspicions.

I would have found myself being a lot less sympathetic if there had not been such a vociferous campaign of vilification of the guy. Even, at one point, attempting to claim he wasn't a real journalist, because he doesn't work for a recognised publication! (Wikileaks not withstanding, presumably. )

I think the outcome is obvious. He will eventually leave or be forced out of the Embassy. He will be sent to Sweden where he will be quickly cleared and immediately sent to the US. From there he will almost certainly vanish from view with a few lurid claim about his sex life until eventually he gets murdered by another inmate.

 

[X-Terminator]

I hate all forms of lies and holding back the truth is just as good as a lie IMO. No good crying over spilt milk simply because someone told the truth to the world and that has more merit than lying. If secrets can not be held so then the secret wasn't worth keeping! A whole country against 1 man - LO~L!

 

[beelbeebub]

These are not the issues at all.

The case was investigated and dismissed by the Swedish police.

It was pressure from the US that cause it to be revived, but only when it was handed over to a different prosecutor.

My understanding was one of the alleged victims lawyers appealed to the appeal court who reopened the case, of course she could have been a plant, induced or otherwise coerced as could the various public officials involved.

In fact, because the extradition is to Sweden, no prima facie need be made. But the US will, apparently, be able to ask for his extradition on the secrets charges, from Sweden.

I believe that that is part of the EAW set up, essentially we have "pre-vetted" a bunch of countries and all agreed that their police, judiciary and legal systems are such that we can rely on their decision for extradition. Sweden is generally regarded as very incorrupt, in fact many indices put it above the UK.

In answer to your question, if the details are the same then it should matter whether it is Joe Bloggs or Assange. Both should raise our suspicions.

Going to disagree with you there, for similar conditions the cases must be treated the same. If JB/JA's defence against extradition is that there is a secret plot to extradite him to the US then it should be explored in his appeals.

There is a "statutory bar" against extradition for "extraneous considerations" (whether the request for extradition is improperly motivated) which would seem to fit the bill for JA's defence. It's up to JB/JA to show that the request is improperly motivated. I would assume that is what JA's legal team tried. They failed on appeal and appeal to the supreme court, so twice.
:
We only have circumstantial evidence (some Americans, many of whom aren't even in a position to make decisions, e.g. Palin have called for his arrest), talk of secret deals and JA's assertion this is political and he'll be extradited onwards. Of course you an always spin "secret deals" with (by definition)
scant evidence. But there has been no official request for JA to either the UK or Sweden.
:
If the UK wanted to arrest and question someone in Sweden and that person demanded that the uk police travel to Sweden rather than follow usual procedure, the answer would be "tough, those are the rules".
:

I would have found myself being a lot less sympathetic if there had not been such a vociferous campaign of vilification of the guy. Even, at one point, attempting to claim he wasn't a real journalist, because he doesn't work for a recognised publication! (Wikileaks not withstanding, presumably. )

I think the outcome is obvious. He will eventually leave or be forced out of the Embassy. He will be sent to Sweden where he will be quickly cleared and immediately sent to the US. From there he will almost certainly vanish from view with a few lurid claim about his sex life until eventually he gets murdered by another inmate.

If the US were really clever, they'd let JA got to Sweden, maybe he's innocent, maybe he's guilty, from the US point of view not guilty but with lots of juicy sleaze coming out is the outcome.
:
then they do nothing. Then it looks like JA's a d-bag who uses his fame to try and avoid the consequences of his acts. Reputation ruined, all his supporters let down and drift away.
:
Right now though he appears to be voluntarily detaining himself.
:
(btw I agree about the press campaign against him being rather harsh)

 

[Surfinjo]

Going to disagree with you there, for similar conditions the cases must be treated the same. If JB/JA's defence against extradition is that there is a secret plot to extradite him to the US then it should be explored in his appeals.

Is it a secret plot?

My understanding is that the Swedes have said they want to question him further about some allegations. That can legally be done anywhere in Europe.

But in any case, it is the press vilification, especially the claim he isn't a 'real journalist' and that that makes a difference that raises my suspicions.

I don't feel a lot of sympathy for Chelsea Manning frankly, nor Edward Snowden. They are both US citizens who broke trust and the law when they did what they did. For whatever reason. None of us has the right to go around choosing which laws to obey.

Assange is just a journalist who published a story. There was and is, no legal reason for him not to. That it upset the Americans is irrelevant.

We have wandered down a road where journalists are being hounded, forced into detention, even betrayed by their fellows because they upset the Americans.

Freedom is over. And I'm turely sorry you can't see that.

 

[beelbeebub]

Well, the plot to extradite JA to Sweden then on to the US is secret in that no official request has been made by the US to Sweden. JA alleges that such a specific agreement exists and the official reason fir extradition to Sweden from the UK is a screen. The very nature of secret conspiracies is that evidence for their existence is not official, but rumours and scraps.
:
With regards to where the questioning happens, my understanding is tat the Swedish process differs from ours in several respects. One is that the suspect must be arrested for official questioning to take place. The other is that charging happens much later in the process, after the arrest and questions phase. I could be that arresting and questioning on foreign soil don't fit well with Swedish law (maybe his answers could be ruled inadmissible if the correct arrest in Sweden was not carried out) but secondly, if it is normal practice for Joe Boggs to be questioned in Sweden rather than the police fly out to the UK, why should JA be any different? JA would say "because I might be extradited to the US", but that argument has been tried and rejected, twice. Just because JA says it and a government denies it does not mean JA is right.
.
On the journalistic front, the definition of "journalist" is getting much more hazy. Once upon a time it was easy, you worked for a paler or radio or TV station. In such a situation it is easy to give journalists extra protection. Now with blogs and citizen journalists, the line is harder to draw so picking who to give extra cover to is harder.
:
Also some secrets are secret for a good reason, even criminal acts can sometimes be justified in being kept secret for the greater good (I recommend Alan Moore's "watchmen" for an example of that conundrum).
:
Edward Snowden exposed the mass surveillance we were under but it's probable that the dismantling of some of that apparatus that followed will make the job of the security forces harder in some cases.
:
It's a trade we must try to balance giving up some measure of protection by the state for some measure of protection from the state. Whether the Snowden affair was a nets positive or negative is hard to judge and will probably differ depending on who you ask.
:
Ultimately JA may well have broken US laws. I would hope that, if apprehended, he'd be put on trial and judged fairly if he had broken any laws and the wider context taken into account if and when sentencing occurs. Simply disappearing him or chucking him down a Guantanamo like hole would be something I would protest about.
:
Saying you are above the law because your purpose is higher is a dangerous path. It's exactly the path those nutters who recently took over a wildlife refuge in Oregon went down.
:
Freedom is a tricky thing to define, ultimately we must all accept some limits on our behaviour in order to live in a functioning society.

 

[FuzzySpider]

My understanding was one of the alleged victims lawyers appealed to the appeal court who reopened the case, of course she could have been a plant, induced or otherwise coerced as could the various public officials involved.

First off:

http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusi...-on-julian-assange-    -charges-in-stockholm/

Neither woman ever claimed, initially, that she was “     ” by Mr. Assange—     being våldtäkt in Swedish, but both spoke of the sex being unpleasant. They both concealed their distaste for how it had transpired—that’s usually what women do. In the case of Ms. Ardin, she kept him as a houseguest for six nights after the incident, and even threw a crayfish party for him. In the case of Ms. Wilen, she and Mr. Assange, after a night of sex, joked about the broken condom, and his promise that if she got pregnant he would move to Sweden, pay off her student loans, and they “could name the baby Afghanistan.”

I believe that that is part of the EAW set up, essentially we have "pre-vetted" a bunch of countries and all agreed that their police, judiciary and legal systems are such that we can rely on their decision for extradition. Sweden is generally regarded as very incorrupt, in fact many indices put it above the UK.

Putting it above the UK is kind of like saying that Julius Caesar wasn't so bad because, hey, he wasn't Caligula!

Going to disagree with you there, for similar conditions the cases must be treated the same. If JB/JA's defence against extradition is that there is a secret plot to extradite him to the US then it should be explored in his appeals.

This isn't a plot, and it isn't secret. If he goes to Sweden he will be on an aeroplane to the USA within a month.

If the UK wanted to arrest and question someone in Sweden and that person demanded that the uk police travel to Sweden rather than follow usual procedure, the answer would be "tough, those are the rules".

No, they would not. In the event of actual crimes police will travel to interview suspects.

If the US were really clever, they'd let JA got to Sweden, maybe he's innocent, maybe he's guilty, from the US point of view not guilty but with lots of juicy sleaze coming out is the outcome.

They aren't clever. The machinations of the US government are well known, the whole "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine and the project for the New American Century are not secrets.

 

[Surfinjo]

:
It's a trade we must try to balance giving up some measure of protection by the state for some measure of protection from the state. Whether the Snowden affair was a nets positive or negative is hard to judge and will probably differ depending on who you ask.
:
Ultimately JA may well have broken US laws. I would hope that, if apprehended, he'd be put on trial and judged fairly if he had broken any laws and the wider context taken into account if and when sentencing occurs. Simply disappearing him or chucking him down a Guantanamo like hole would be something I would protest about.
:
Saying you are above the law because your purpose is higher is a dangerous path. It's exactly the path those nutters who recently took over a wildlife refuge in Oregon went down.
:
Freedom is a tricky thing to define, ultimately we must all accept some limits on our behaviour in order to live in a functioning society.

No, absolutely not.

Snowden and Manning broke the law, for whatever reason. But those that published their documents, including news outlets all around the world, including UK news media have done nothing wrong.

It may well be that something is secret for a good reason. But to suggest that the press should submit to censorship is outrageous.

The British press seems to have done just that.

Swedish prosecutors have interviewed suspects abroad in the past, and in November 2010 Mr Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens said his client had offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or via video link.
Since Mr Assange has been in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, Mr Correa and Mr Patino have suggested that Swedish prosecutors could travel to the embassy to meet Mr Assange.

However, until now Swedish prosecutors have refused to go to London, adamant that Mr Assange should be present in Sweden for the next stage of proceedings.

The prosecutors were criticised in November 2014 by Sweden's Court of Appeal, for failing to explore "alternative avenues" to move the investigation forward.

The crimes Mr Assange is suspected of are subject to statutes of limitation - prosecutors only have until August 2015 to question him about some of the allegations against him, although they have until 2020 to investigate the most serious alleged      offence.

In March 2015, Swedish prosecutors offered to travel to London to question Mr Assange. Lead prosecutor Marianne Ny announced that a change of strategy was necessary "now that time is of the essence".

Though Ms Ny still believes interviewing him in London could lower the quality of the interview, she said that time limitations made it "necessary to accept such deficiencies to the investigation".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382

We must indeed and do accept restrictions on our freedoms. These restrictions are called laws/rules. That is not the issue.

It is a long established principal that information in the public domain may be published. Moreover, while these secrets are indeed classified under US law they are not classified here or elsewhere. If our governments have decided that the US may classify information outside the US then we are all finished.

 

[beelbeebub]

First off:

http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusi...-on-julian-assange- -charges-in-stockholm/

Can't seem to open it

Putting it above the UK is kind of like saying that Julius Caesar wasn't so bad because, hey, he wasn't Caligula!

The index I saw put Sweden at 3/168 the uk at 10 and the US at 16. I know we like to moan and whine about how "corrupt" the uk (or even the us) is but in the global scheme they are pretty good. If anything, letting various iffy Russians own property in the uk shows that. Imagine if Russia seized the property of various people peripherally connected with David Cameron simply because they were annoyed at him. We may suspect these people of crimes in Russia or even the uk, but until they are convicted in a UK court who orders the seizure of their assets they are free to go about their business. This is exactly what a free society is, you may annoy the government no end but annoying the government is not a crime only breaking the law is, and punishment only follows after due process which is the same for all.
.
In fact the very premise of the argument "JA is being sent to Sweden because it's easier to get him to the US from there" is based on the assumption that the UK courts might not simply follow the will of the government.

This isn't a plot, and it isn't secret. If he goes to Sweden he will be on an aeroplane to the USA within a month.

Lets put it this way, there was not enough proof to convince the high or supreme courts that this was a likely enough outcome to warrant refusing the extradition request.

No, they would not. In the event of actual crimes police will travel to interview suspects.

Fair example but those suspects weren't being extradited. the crime happened in Portugal so is in Portuguese jurisdiction, the UK's only interest is from the victims nationality. AFAIK the um police are assisting the locals as guests. Them interviewing suspects was more of a courtesy from the Portuguese. If they were suspects in a UK case I bet they would be shipped back to the uk.

They aren't clever. The machinations of the US government are well known, the whole "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine and the project for the New American Century are not secrets.

The new American Century was a neo con push with people like Rumsfeld, bush and Cheney. I'm pretty sure their doctrine, so obvious in the "with us or against us" bush era, is dead after the last 8 years of Obama. The NAC lot would never have stood for the Iran deal (indeed still don't like it). Nor Russia's Crimean adventures as that was counter to the doctrine of "USA uber alles" or as they like to put it "USA! USA! USA" (makes horns gesture, downs beer bong). Of course maybe a Trump or Cruz presidency might try to return to the glory days of American unilateralism.

 

[beelbeebub]

No, absolutely not.

Snowden and Manning broke the law, for whatever reason. But those that published their documents, including news outlets all around the world, including UK news media have done nothing wrong.

It may well be that something is secret for a good reason. But to suggest that the press should submit to censorship is outrageous.

Excellent point.
:
I'd say though. The crucial question is at what point does something become public domain (and thus free for all) and where in the process of going from the illegal taking of information (as Snowdon and manning undoubtedly did) to the info being public domain does JA fit.
:
Imagine there is secret info and a clerk takes a copy against all the rules and goes home. They as that single copy to a friend who makes a million copies and drops them over London from a plane. A journalist then picks up one of the widely distributed copies and publishes the info in the paper.
:
So the clerk is definitely guilty (while blower protections notwithstanding)
:
The journalist is innocent as the information was in the public domain when they published it.
:
What is the position of the friend who printed and released the info? Ok they weren't involved in the theft but can they claim the "public domain" protection if they are the ones putting it in the public domain? Seems a bit like pulling yourself into the air by your own bootstraps.

The British press seems to have done just that.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382

We must indeed and do accept restrictions on our freedoms. These restrictions are called laws/rules. That is not the issue.

It is a long established principal that information in the public domain may be published. Moreover, while these secrets are indeed classified under US law they are not classified here or elsewhere. If our governments have decided that the US may classify information outside the US then we are all finished.

again a good point, but governments usually regard the publishing of secrets a crime regardless of where the publishing happens, after all if publishing abroad wasn't a crime then spies would be free and clear!
:
So it's logical that the US would consider the manning publishing as a crime. JA's defence would either be the whistle blower defence of overwhelming public interest or the public domain argument that the info was out.
.
I suppose that the "safe harbour" defence that he is a web admin and not responsible for the content might also be possible, but that would be weak because it relies on the content not being curated by the site (i.e. the site just uploads and presents the content) but didn't WikiLeaks claim they edited the content to remove names? Meaning they must have had an active part in the publishing process?
.
Either way there is arguably a case to answer in the US.
:
However, before I would hand him over I would want assurances on his trial and that the charges (and potential punishments) against him would be proportionate. It's those last bits that give me pause.

 

[Surfinjo]

.
I suppose that the "safe harbour" defence that he is a web admin and not responsible for the content might also be possible, but that would be weak because it relies on the content not being curated by the site (i.e. the site just uploads and presents the content) but didn't WikiLeaks claim they edited the content to remove names? Meaning they must have had an active part in the publishing process?
.
Either way there is arguably a case to answer in the US.
:
However, before I would hand him over I would want assurances on his trial and that the charges (and potential punishments) against him would be proportionate. It's those last bits that give me pause.

Assange's defence is that he is a journalist publishing something of public interest.

Safe Harbour doesn't come into it.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Can't seem to open it

The index I saw put Sweden at 3/168 the uk at 10 and the US at 16. I know we like to moan and whine about how "corrupt" the uk (or even the us) is but in the global scheme they are pretty good. If anything, letting various iffy Russians own property in the uk shows that. Imagine if Russia seized the property of various people peripherally connected with David Cameron simply because they were annoyed at him. We may suspect these people of crimes in Russia or even the uk, but until they are convicted in a UK court who orders the seizure of their assets they are free to go about their business. This is exactly what a free society is, you may annoy the government no end but annoying the government is not a crime only breaking the law is, and punishment only follows after due process which is the same for all.

You keep on bringing up this corruption index, even though you are perfectly well aware that it means nothing. I've seen your posts, you are intelligent, you understand formal logic.

1. Definitions of corruption differ, but the one used in your context is when deals are done which profit politicians in some way in return for overlooking certain laws or provide favours to certain individuals. In this instance there is absolutely no corruption of that sort. The USA have made a demand, and the Swedish government have said they will accomodate them because... NATO.

To me Guantanamo bay is a corrupt institution. Holding people, indefinitely without trail, labelling them "enemy combatants" just to avoid the Geneva convention and international law, holding them offshore to avoid giving them national law, and torturing these people for the remainder of their lives is a very special horror that really should see sanctions put in place against the USA. As it is they not only run such a camp but are unrepentantly proud of the righteousness of it.

And even if your corrpution index were perfectly applicable in this case:

2. I own 5 apples, you own 2 apples. I have more apples than you, but you still have apples. The fact that a country is less corrupt than another does not mean there is no corruption taking place.

Either way there is arguably a case to answer in the US.

Assange has NO CASE to answer in the USA. He has acquired information, from a source, which he didn't hack out of a system or steal from someone. He was in no way obliged to hide that information, he wasn't running a webserver of someone whos privacy he had promised to protect or anything like that.

Having acquired this information, he released it to the public.

He crime was to embarrass the administration. To even think of prosecuting him for this is mindblowing. By this standard the people who uncovered the Watergate scandal should be prosecuted, the people who revealed the Birmingham Six as innocent should be prosecuted, and the people who revealed the extent of the coverup of the Hillsborough disaster should be prosecuted, because they all did the exact same thing that Julian Assange has done.

 

[Siobhan]

Actually his crime, in the UK at least, is avoiding the conditions of bail, and he is 100% guilty.
In Sweden he is accused of     , or at least of sexual assault, and innocent or guilty, he has a case to answer.
I doubt he has any case to answer in the US, but since they assume their laws apply all round the world, even to those who've never visited, and that most of the world cow-tows to them, I expect they'll get him eventually whatever happens.