5 ms·

Worth remembering also that the reason Sweden wanted to extradite for questioning is that if they charged him first they would have been required to actually ma

Worth remembering also that the reason Sweden wanted to extradite for questioning is that if they charged him first they would have been required to actually make the evidence public and Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Apologists for Sweden never seem to have read the UK high court judgment or seem familiar with the actual legal reasoning behind the extradition request. To secure extradition, the Swedish prosecutor needed to insist that Assange was only wanted for questioning (else they should charge) but since questioning alone is not a sufficient basis for extradition requests they also needed to state it was extremely likely Assange would be arrested once questioned. It is of course nonsensical for the Swedes to refuse to question Assange in London if speaking to him were at all material to the case. As such, their refusal to do so speaks plainly to the obviously political nature of the persecution.

rmc 11y ago
> Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Extradition is only allowed if it's for a crime that's illegal in both countries. Assange's legal team repeatidly challenged the extradition on the grounds that it wasn't a crime in the UK. The UK legal system consistantly said that it was. Remember one of the charges/claims is that he had sex with someone who was asleep. That's a crime in the UK and Sweden.
- trevelyan 11y ago
  Assange has never been found guilty of a crime or even charged with one. The British legal ruling was not over guilt or innocence but simply over the bureaucratic definition of a crime. If the Swedish government reprinted the exact same request with your name on it, you would also face extradition without the ability to challenge the request on the grounds that its allegations are not factual. This is the key point that apologists for Sweden miss. The prosecution could have charged Assange and got an extradition warrant that way. They didn't because doing so would have required a court filing and granted Assange rights to a speedy trial and freedom from indefinite detention. Interviewing Assange in London was equally impossible -- once it was done the Swedish prosecutor would have been legally required to either charge Assange or close the case. And charging the case would have required a court filing, etc. etc..... Arguing that Assange would have been found guilty of rape also shows a lack of knowledge of the case. Despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep and has in fact made statements contradicting your claims and accusing the authorities of railroading her. I do not personally know what happened that evening, but her description is striking in showing Assange complying with every request she made. The only possible breach of consent lies in the possibility that Assange broke a condom deliberately, but this is apparently contradicted by forensic evidence which shows the breakage was due to wear and tear. Add on the woman's affectionate treatment of Assange both before and after the night in question, and the way her change in behavior followed her realization that he was sleeping with someone else, and it seems rather obvious that while Assange may have been a cad the rape allegations simply don't hold water.
  - rmc 11y ago
    > Assange has never been ... charged with one The UK legal system says he has. In the High Court judgement[1], the judge says: > 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange. > despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep Assange is/was wanted in Sweden for 4 cases, with at least 2 different women. One of which is the charge that[1]: > 3. ... deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state. Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide. [1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
    - trevelyan 11y ago
      Any readers who hit this point in the discussion are invited to read the judgment themselves. The degree to which RMC is taking the ruling out of context speaks adequately to his goals. > The UK legal system says... Section 153 is quoted out of context (it is a response to Section 129, not a finding of guilt). Sections 124 and 125 also state clearly that the only things being considered are whether the allegations may constitute parallel crimes. Objections on factual grounds (the woman was not asleep, provided consent, relationship context, etc.) "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125) > one of which is the charge that[1]: Note the sleight of hand. There have been no charges. > Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide. The Swedish courts are not involved until Assange is charged. Until he is charged he will be imprisoned and face indefinite detention. This inconvenient point is of course ignored. If RMC was honest and believed Assange should face trial he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime. Instead, his defense of prosecution either makes him corrupt (for demanding prosecution without reasonable evidence of wrongdoing), an obvious fool (for believing Assange will incriminate himself) or an apologist for what is clearly an abuse of due process, basic human rights and the welfare of the British and Swedish taxpayers.

rmc 11y ago

> Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Extradition is only allowed if it's for a crime that's illegal in both countries. Assange's legal team repeatidly challenged the extradition on the grounds that it wasn't a crime in the UK. The UK legal system consistantly said that it was. Remember one of the charges/claims is that he had sex with someone who was asleep. That's a crime in the UK and Sweden.

trevelyan 11y ago
Assange has never been found guilty of a crime or even charged with one. The British legal ruling was not over guilt or innocence but simply over the bureaucratic definition of a crime. If the Swedish government reprinted the exact same request with your name on it, you would also face extradition without the ability to challenge the request on the grounds that its allegations are not factual. This is the key point that apologists for Sweden miss. The prosecution could have charged Assange and got an extradition warrant that way. They didn't because doing so would have required a court filing and granted Assange rights to a speedy trial and freedom from indefinite detention. Interviewing Assange in London was equally impossible -- once it was done the Swedish prosecutor would have been legally required to either charge Assange or close the case. And charging the case would have required a court filing, etc. etc..... Arguing that Assange would have been found guilty of rape also shows a lack of knowledge of the case. Despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep and has in fact made statements contradicting your claims and accusing the authorities of railroading her. I do not personally know what happened that evening, but her description is striking in showing Assange complying with every request she made. The only possible breach of consent lies in the possibility that Assange broke a condom deliberately, but this is apparently contradicted by forensic evidence which shows the breakage was due to wear and tear. Add on the woman's affectionate treatment of Assange both before and after the night in question, and the way her change in behavior followed her realization that he was sleeping with someone else, and it seems rather obvious that while Assange may have been a cad the rape allegations simply don't hold water.
- rmc 11y ago
  > Assange has never been ... charged with one The UK legal system says he has. In the High Court judgement[1], the judge says: > 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange. > despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep Assange is/was wanted in Sweden for 4 cases, with at least 2 different women. One of which is the charge that[1]: > 3. ... deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state. Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide. [1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
  - trevelyan 11y ago
    Any readers who hit this point in the discussion are invited to read the judgment themselves. The degree to which RMC is taking the ruling out of context speaks adequately to his goals. > The UK legal system says... Section 153 is quoted out of context (it is a response to Section 129, not a finding of guilt). Sections 124 and 125 also state clearly that the only things being considered are whether the allegations may constitute parallel crimes. Objections on factual grounds (the woman was not asleep, provided consent, relationship context, etc.) "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125) > one of which is the charge that[1]: Note the sleight of hand. There have been no charges. > Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide. The Swedish courts are not involved until Assange is charged. Until he is charged he will be imprisoned and face indefinite detention. This inconvenient point is of course ignored. If RMC was honest and believed Assange should face trial he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime. Instead, his defense of prosecution either makes him corrupt (for demanding prosecution without reasonable evidence of wrongdoing), an obvious fool (for believing Assange will incriminate himself) or an apologist for what is clearly an abuse of due process, basic human rights and the welfare of the British and Swedish taxpayers.