4 ms·

> that they agree to something that they legally cannot agree I'm curious what that was.

rmc 11y ago
> “As a condition to let Assange be heard they [Ecuador] have demanded a special agreement in which Sweden recognizes asylum status for Assange. But the government cannot make such a commitment because it is the Migration Board which decides whether or not a person has the right to asylum.” From: http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-and-the-next-eight-days/ http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-... and http://www.thelocal.se/20150807/sweden-hits-out-at-illegal-ecuador-demands http://www.thelocal.se/20150807/sweden-hits-out-at-illegal-e... Basically they want the Government to interfere in another body's decision. Could you imagine if the someone asked the US government (or Obama) to agree that the Supreme Court will find a certain way?
cmdkeen 11y ago
That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. There is a good writeup from a British legal blogger at http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-and-the-next-eight-days/ http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-... It's worth picking out as well that Assange faces British legal issues from breaching his bail conditions. The bail set during his very lengthy legal process which validated the Swedish process as just. The British legal system isn't perfect but when you're a high profile individual with access to plenty of fine legal minds it's about as good as you're going to get.
- celticninja 11y ago
  actually for failing to adhere to his bail conditions his surety is forefit however there are unlikely to be any other significant effects of this action.
- andyjohnson0 11y ago
  The extradition hearing took three days, which is hardly a "very lengthy process". And it didn't validate the Swedish judicial process because that isn't its function. An EAW extradition hearing in the UK is merely to establish that an extraditable offence is alleged, that the party requesting the extradition has standing, and that there are no Human Rights Act issues [1]. Persons facing extradition on an EAW don't get to argue about the merits of the allegations they're facing: that happens when they arrive in the extraditing country. [1] https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    Except many of the claims his supporters make, including in this thread, are that what he allegedly did aren't actually crimes. The UK court system has repeatedly held that they are analogous to UK sexual offences. Others have argued that the Swedish prosecutor can't issue a warrant, again the Supreme Court decided otherwise. Given the scope of the UK Human Rights Act, along with the argued abuse of process claims, I'm not quite sure what objections to the extraditions don't come under a heading that the court would look at. The problem for Assange is that "but the Americans might try to extradite me, and the Swedish and British courts might suddenly become supine" isn't a valid reason to not be extradited.
    - pfg 11y ago
      I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to a rape charge in Sweden. That makes sense. However, there's a difference between acknowledging that and ruling on whether the allegations have merit. They specifically didn't look at anything other than the allegations made on the European Arrest Warrant. From the High Court decision: > In respect of each offence, Mr Assange contended that the court should examine the underlying material from the prosecution file... [W]hat was provided contained the principal statements of the complainants and other material which made it obvious that the conduct of which he was accused was not fairly and accurately described in the EAW. [...] > In our view, it is not apposite to take into account the material in the prosecution file. [...]
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. I wonder what recognizing that asylum would do to Sweden's ability to prosecute. If Assange (or Ecuador) is, in effect, saying "you can talk to him about it, but you can't prosecute him for it", that's a pretty cheap trick to avoid the charge. But even if it's only talking about whether it's valid for Assange to claim asylum to avoid extradition to the US, why should Sweden have to agree to that before investigating a sexual assault accusation?
Erikun 11y ago
In short two things according to the Swedish department of Justice. 1. Ecuador require the Swedish prosecutors to grant Assange refugee status, but only the Migration Agency can do that, not the department of Justice or the prosecutors office. 2. Ecuador want guarantees that Assange will not be extradited to the US in the future. In Sweden extradition requests are handled by the supreme court and the prosecutor-general and a promise in advance never to extradite someone cannot be given. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6227734 http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&art...

rmc 11y ago

> “As a condition to let Assange be heard they [Ecuador] have demanded a special agreement in which Sweden recognizes asylum status for Assange. But the government cannot make such a commitment because it is the Migration Board which decides whether or not a person has the right to asylum.” From: http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-and-the-next-eight-days/ http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-... and http://www.thelocal.se/20150807/sweden-hits-out-at-illegal-ecuador-demands http://www.thelocal.se/20150807/sweden-hits-out-at-illegal-e... Basically they want the Government to interfere in another body's decision. Could you imagine if the someone asked the US government (or Obama) to agree that the Supreme Court will find a certain way?

cmdkeen 11y ago

That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. There is a good writeup from a British legal blogger at http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-and-the-next-eight-days/ http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-... It's worth picking out as well that Assange faces British legal issues from breaching his bail conditions. The bail set during his very lengthy legal process which validated the Swedish process as just. The British legal system isn't perfect but when you're a high profile individual with access to plenty of fine legal minds it's about as good as you're going to get.

celticninja 11y ago
actually for failing to adhere to his bail conditions his surety is forefit however there are unlikely to be any other significant effects of this action.
andyjohnson0 11y ago
The extradition hearing took three days, which is hardly a "very lengthy process". And it didn't validate the Swedish judicial process because that isn't its function. An EAW extradition hearing in the UK is merely to establish that an extraditable offence is alleged, that the party requesting the extradition has standing, and that there are no Human Rights Act issues [1]. Persons facing extradition on an EAW don't get to argue about the merits of the allegations they're facing: that happens when they arrive in the extraditing country. [1] https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Except many of the claims his supporters make, including in this thread, are that what he allegedly did aren't actually crimes. The UK court system has repeatedly held that they are analogous to UK sexual offences. Others have argued that the Swedish prosecutor can't issue a warrant, again the Supreme Court decided otherwise. Given the scope of the UK Human Rights Act, along with the argued abuse of process claims, I'm not quite sure what objections to the extraditions don't come under a heading that the court would look at. The problem for Assange is that "but the Americans might try to extradite me, and the Swedish and British courts might suddenly become supine" isn't a valid reason to not be extradited.
  - pfg 11y ago
    I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to a rape charge in Sweden. That makes sense. However, there's a difference between acknowledging that and ruling on whether the allegations have merit. They specifically didn't look at anything other than the allegations made on the European Arrest Warrant. From the High Court decision: > In respect of each offence, Mr Assange contended that the court should examine the underlying material from the prosecution file... [W]hat was provided contained the principal statements of the complainants and other material which made it obvious that the conduct of which he was accused was not fairly and accurately described in the EAW. [...] > In our view, it is not apposite to take into account the material in the prosecution file. [...]
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. I wonder what recognizing that asylum would do to Sweden's ability to prosecute. If Assange (or Ecuador) is, in effect, saying "you can talk to him about it, but you can't prosecute him for it", that's a pretty cheap trick to avoid the charge. But even if it's only talking about whether it's valid for Assange to claim asylum to avoid extradition to the US, why should Sweden have to agree to that before investigating a sexual assault accusation?

Erikun 11y ago

In short two things according to the Swedish department of Justice. 1. Ecuador require the Swedish prosecutors to grant Assange refugee status, but only the Migration Agency can do that, not the department of Justice or the prosecutors office. 2. Ecuador want guarantees that Assange will not be extradited to the US in the future. In Sweden extradition requests are handled by the supreme court and the prosecutor-general and a promise in advance never to extradite someone cannot be given. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6227734 http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&art...