4 ms·

Absolute rot. If the US wanted to extradite him then the UK is a far better place to get him from thanks to our extradition treaty. Why on earth would either co

by cmdkeen 14y ago

Absolute rot. If the US wanted to extradite him then the UK is a far better place to get him from thanks to our extradition treaty. Why on earth would either country state they won't extradite him when they haven't been asked to extradite him and have no idea what the grounds for any extradition might be? The secret trial process is presumably one that gives protection to the privacy of victims of sexual assault. Sweden has its own legal system, if you happen to go to Sweden you have to abide by it - if Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding sex then he shouldn't have had sex in Sweden.

chris_wot 14y ago
If Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding sex then he shouldn't have had sex in Sweden Excuse me, but that's a remarkably ignorant comment. What you are actually saying is "If Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding rape then he shouldn't have committed rape in Sweden". Because he wasn't accused of having sex in Sweden (that is not in any doubt), rather the questioning is in regards to an alleged rape. You have no proof that he committed (or did not commit) rape in Sweden.
- cmdkeen 14y ago
  Well given you can't face claims of consentless sex without having sex I'd say it is an issue. Anyway - the point is that Sweden takes the rights of alleged rape victims seriously. Hence why trials have privacy attached and interviewing someone remotely isn't up to scratch. If you don't like that Sweden has the balance of rights over sexual issues lying more on the woman's side than elsewhere in the world then perhaps you shouldn't have sex whilst you're in freedom. I have no proof he committed rape in Sweden. I have an awful lot of evidence that he isn't rushing to clear his name in Sweden...
  - timc3 14y ago
    That is complete and utter nonsense. There is plenty of well published cases that are unfair to both parties. You should open your eyes to the fact that the law system here is certainly not perfect, and that a lot of the people in people in power do not have to answer enough for there actions.
  - josscrowcroft 14y ago
    I don't follow this (semi-retarded) argument of "is accused of rape in sweden -> his fault for having sex in their country"
    - kamjam 14y ago
      I am guessing he is American, they HATE Assange with a vengeance, saying he put soldiers lives at risk by publishing the truth. Right... Given that it was Memorial Day, emotions might be running higher still.
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        Watch your sweeping statements. There are a LOT of Americans who support Julian Assange.
- sp332 14y ago
  I have no proof that he has a pet unicorn either. But since no one has claimed that he owns a unicorn, and he hasn't been charged with rape, I don't see a good reason to believe either claim.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    I'm glad we agree then!
morsch 14y ago
Do you have any details on whether Sweden or the UK are more likely to extradite to the US? Claiming that the UK has an extradition treaty isn't very meaningful, since Sweden has one, too, as do dozens of other countries for that matter. I assume it's down to the implementation details of the individual treaties.
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  The UK's extradition treaty with the US is felt by many to be skewed in favour of the US [1]. I doubt Sweden's is, but I can't find any information on it. If I felt like attributing malice to the US then I'd say it would be in their interest for Assange to remain in the UK where he would be easier to extradite. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003#Controvers...
  - tptacek 14y ago
    In fact, the opposite was true: before the revised extradition treaty, the evidentiary standard for extradition to the UK was lower than the standard for extradition to the US. The revised treaty more or less equalized the standards. The treaty was controversial in part because it did lower the evidentiary standard required to extradite to the US (in other words, it did make it easier to extradite to the US). What the controversy didn't recognize was that the former treaty had been unbalanced.
    - andyjohnson0 14y ago
      You are correct about the evidentiary standard being roughly equalised‡, and the Baker review confirmed this. A legitimate concern though is about forum and jurisdiction. The treaty currently allows the US to request extradition for acts committed in the UK that are not a crime in the UK, but there is no corresponding entitlement for the UK to make such request to the US. Many people in the UK feel this is an encroachment on UK sovereignty, and not something that the US would itself offer to another country. (‡ shame it had to be rounded down, rather than up)
- 14y ago

by cmdkeen 14y ago

chris_wot 14y ago

If Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding sex then he shouldn't have had sex in Sweden Excuse me, but that's a remarkably ignorant comment. What you are actually saying is "If Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding rape then he shouldn't have committed rape in Sweden". Because he wasn't accused of having sex in Sweden (that is not in any doubt), rather the questioning is in regards to an alleged rape. You have no proof that he committed (or did not commit) rape in Sweden.

cmdkeen 14y ago
Well given you can't face claims of consentless sex without having sex I'd say it is an issue. Anyway - the point is that Sweden takes the rights of alleged rape victims seriously. Hence why trials have privacy attached and interviewing someone remotely isn't up to scratch. If you don't like that Sweden has the balance of rights over sexual issues lying more on the woman's side than elsewhere in the world then perhaps you shouldn't have sex whilst you're in freedom. I have no proof he committed rape in Sweden. I have an awful lot of evidence that he isn't rushing to clear his name in Sweden...
- timc3 14y ago
  That is complete and utter nonsense. There is plenty of well published cases that are unfair to both parties. You should open your eyes to the fact that the law system here is certainly not perfect, and that a lot of the people in people in power do not have to answer enough for there actions.
- josscrowcroft 14y ago
  I don't follow this (semi-retarded) argument of "is accused of rape in sweden -> his fault for having sex in their country"
  - kamjam 14y ago
    I am guessing he is American, they HATE Assange with a vengeance, saying he put soldiers lives at risk by publishing the truth. Right... Given that it was Memorial Day, emotions might be running higher still.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Watch your sweeping statements. There are a LOT of Americans who support Julian Assange.
sp332 14y ago
I have no proof that he has a pet unicorn either. But since no one has claimed that he owns a unicorn, and he hasn't been charged with rape, I don't see a good reason to believe either claim.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  I'm glad we agree then!

morsch 14y ago

Do you have any details on whether Sweden or the UK are more likely to extradite to the US? Claiming that the UK has an extradition treaty isn't very meaningful, since Sweden has one, too, as do dozens of other countries for that matter. I assume it's down to the implementation details of the individual treaties.

andyjohnson0 14y ago
The UK's extradition treaty with the US is felt by many to be skewed in favour of the US [1]. I doubt Sweden's is, but I can't find any information on it. If I felt like attributing malice to the US then I'd say it would be in their interest for Assange to remain in the UK where he would be easier to extradite. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003#Controvers...
- tptacek 14y ago
  In fact, the opposite was true: before the revised extradition treaty, the evidentiary standard for extradition to the UK was lower than the standard for extradition to the US. The revised treaty more or less equalized the standards. The treaty was controversial in part because it did lower the evidentiary standard required to extradite to the US (in other words, it did make it easier to extradite to the US). What the controversy didn't recognize was that the former treaty had been unbalanced.
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    You are correct about the evidentiary standard being roughly equalised‡, and the Baker review confirmed this. A legitimate concern though is about forum and jurisdiction. The treaty currently allows the US to request extradition for acts committed in the UK that are not a crime in the UK, but there is no corresponding entitlement for the UK to make such request to the US. Many people in the UK feel this is an encroachment on UK sovereignty, and not something that the US would itself offer to another country. (‡ shame it had to be rounded down, rather than up)
14y ago