6 ms·

I like the way you've jumped from the absurd claim that Assange's treatment is "ordinary" to the equally absurd claim it is technically "legal" and thus somehow

I like the way you've jumped from the absurd claim that Assange's treatment is "ordinary" to the equally absurd claim it is technically "legal" and thus somehow morally justified. Did you expect no-one else to notice this rhetorical diversion? When you're ready to acknowledge that Assange's treatment is far from ordinary and is completely disproportionate, we can move on to demolish these secondary moral claims for the sophistic distractions they are. In the meantime, forgive me for restricting you to one strawman argument at a time.

foldr 12y ago
I said that the extradition order was ordinary, and indeed there is nothing abnormal about it -- it was obtained via the usual legal channels. For all your huffng and puffing, you haven't actually said anything to the contrary, so there is not much more I can say unless you'd like to explain why you think his treatment is disproportionate or somehow illegal.
- trevelyan 12y ago
  If you want to double-down on the claims this is ordinary, go ahead. I will concede the whole debate if you can cite even a single other case of extradition because of a romantic spat over a condom (or something similar). Bonus points if there are no charges and the person is only wanted for questioning. I'll be taking your failure to do so as a concession on this point, but it shouldn't be hard to prove yourself right if this is as commonplace as you claim. Good luck!
  - foldr 12y ago
    The allegation is that Assange had unprotected sex with a sleeping woman who had previously indicated that she wanted him to use a condom. That this did actually happen was admitted by Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson. Assange's actions certainly constitute rape under English law, as the High Court ruled. There are indeed other cases where European Arrest Warrants have been issued for rape. For example, the following article mentions that there are 27 cases where (alleged) rapists have been extradited back to the UK via EAWs, and 86 cases in the other direction: http://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-must-not-ditch-the-european-arrest-warrant-33914 http://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-must-not-ditch-the-eur... Now, if you think that what Assange (allegedly) did was not rape, then you are entitled to your opinion. But then your disagreement is with established English (and I think Swedish) law, and the courts naturally have to follow the law and not your opinion. Also, please don't repeat this misinformation about Assange only being wanted for questioning. It is impossible under Swedish law for Assange to be charged until he has been arrested. The Swedes don't just want to "question" him, they want to arrest him and then charge him. See the following for more explanation: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
    - trevelyan 12y ago
      Thanks for trying, but the Green article has been roundly criticized as factually incorrect. Sweden can absolutely charge and try people in absentia, and the prosecutor could question Assange abroad and move the case beyond the "preliminary investigation" stage (strange that you did not notice, but the very document Green cites explicitly disagrees with him on this point). Nor does extradition from Sweden to the United States require permission from the Swedish courts as he claims. Just practically, the problem with closing the "preliminary investigation" is that it requires the Swedish prosecution to have actual evidence of a crime and file it with the courts. And it starts the clock moving on things like getting the defendant into court once he is in detention, unhappily eliminating the possibility of indefinite detention which is otherwise possible under Swedish law. But all of this is irrelevant, because YOU HAVE NOT CITED ANY RELEVANT CASE AS REQUESTED. Tossing out aggregate extradition statistics and handwaving about how one category might apply in this case may be evidence of your creativity, but it provides zero evidence that any of these cases are in fact commensurate with the one under discussion. So you fail to support your claim that the handling of this case has been "ordinary". And while you may be used to getting a pass on this sort of thing, I'm going to hold you to your actual argument not only because it is very poor, but because if you actually bother to do the legwork, you will come up with a bunch of extradition cases involving paedophilia and/or armed assault in which the prosecution had ample evidence to convict people of very serious crimes. Despite what you imply, extradition is simply not "ordinarily" used in cases like this. But if I am mistaken, by all means correct me with an actual citation! On a final note, let us also correct your erroneous statement that the High Court determined that Assange's actions constituted rape under English law. It is highly improbable that Assange would be convicted of anything if he were tried in England. All the High Court ruled is that the warrant Sweden presented was couched in a general enough fashion to pass the dual-crime requirement to constitute a technically valid extradition warrant. There was no finding of facts or even consideration of them.
      - foldr 12y ago
        >Sweden can absolutely charge and try people in absentia Perhaps, but that is their prerogative. It's not as if Assange has a right to be charged in absentia. Trying someone in absentia is a rather unusual measure, and I'm surprised that you'd like Sweden to do this, given your concern that the case be handled in the "ordinary" fashion. >and the prosecutor could question Assange abroad and move the case beyond the "preliminary investigation" stage Could you give a source to back this up? Even if it is true, the prosecutor is perfectly entitled to decide that they do not want to question Assange in that manner. Suspects do not normally dictate the terms of their questioning. >Nor does extradition from Sweden to the United States require permission from the Swedish courts as he claims. I think you're getting a bit confused here. It has been noted by some that the Swedish government has the final authority to reject an extradition request that has been approved by the Swedish courts. There has not, however, been any suggestion that extradition can be approved without a court ruling to that effect. >On a final note, let us also correct your erroneous statement that the High Court determined that Assange's actions constituted rape under English law. The magistrates court and the high court both determined precisely what you say they didn't. Magistrates court: "...what is alleged here is that Mr Assange 'deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state'. In this country that would amount to rape." High court (109): "In our view, on this basis, what was described in the EAW was rape". The first quote is from the following blog post and the second comes direct from the High Court judgment (p. 28 of the pdf): http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat... http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf However, as you yourself correctly point out, it makes no difference whether the offense constitutes rape under English law. It need only be a crime of some sort for the EAW to be valid. It would be very difficult to maintain that non-consensual unprotected sex is not a crime under English law. >So you fail to support your claim that the handling of this case has been "ordinary". What Assange is alleged to have done amounts to rape. Rape is an extraditable offense. The EAW was obtained legally through the normal channels. I see no reason why Assange should not be expected to go to Sweden to face the charges. Perhaps the EAW would not have been issued if he had a lower profile -- it's impossible to say, as far as I can see -- but once it was issued the legal situation was perfectly clear. That is why all of his appeals failed.

foldr 12y ago

I said that the extradition order was ordinary, and indeed there is nothing abnormal about it -- it was obtained via the usual legal channels. For all your huffng and puffing, you haven't actually said anything to the contrary, so there is not much more I can say unless you'd like to explain why you think his treatment is disproportionate or somehow illegal.

trevelyan 12y ago
If you want to double-down on the claims this is ordinary, go ahead. I will concede the whole debate if you can cite even a single other case of extradition because of a romantic spat over a condom (or something similar). Bonus points if there are no charges and the person is only wanted for questioning. I'll be taking your failure to do so as a concession on this point, but it shouldn't be hard to prove yourself right if this is as commonplace as you claim. Good luck!
- foldr 12y ago
  The allegation is that Assange had unprotected sex with a sleeping woman who had previously indicated that she wanted him to use a condom. That this did actually happen was admitted by Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson. Assange's actions certainly constitute rape under English law, as the High Court ruled. There are indeed other cases where European Arrest Warrants have been issued for rape. For example, the following article mentions that there are 27 cases where (alleged) rapists have been extradited back to the UK via EAWs, and 86 cases in the other direction: http://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-must-not-ditch-the-european-arrest-warrant-33914 http://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-must-not-ditch-the-eur... Now, if you think that what Assange (allegedly) did was not rape, then you are entitled to your opinion. But then your disagreement is with established English (and I think Swedish) law, and the courts naturally have to follow the law and not your opinion. Also, please don't repeat this misinformation about Assange only being wanted for questioning. It is impossible under Swedish law for Assange to be charged until he has been arrested. The Swedes don't just want to "question" him, they want to arrest him and then charge him. See the following for more explanation: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
  - trevelyan 12y ago
    Thanks for trying, but the Green article has been roundly criticized as factually incorrect. Sweden can absolutely charge and try people in absentia, and the prosecutor could question Assange abroad and move the case beyond the "preliminary investigation" stage (strange that you did not notice, but the very document Green cites explicitly disagrees with him on this point). Nor does extradition from Sweden to the United States require permission from the Swedish courts as he claims. Just practically, the problem with closing the "preliminary investigation" is that it requires the Swedish prosecution to have actual evidence of a crime and file it with the courts. And it starts the clock moving on things like getting the defendant into court once he is in detention, unhappily eliminating the possibility of indefinite detention which is otherwise possible under Swedish law. But all of this is irrelevant, because YOU HAVE NOT CITED ANY RELEVANT CASE AS REQUESTED. Tossing out aggregate extradition statistics and handwaving about how one category might apply in this case may be evidence of your creativity, but it provides zero evidence that any of these cases are in fact commensurate with the one under discussion. So you fail to support your claim that the handling of this case has been "ordinary". And while you may be used to getting a pass on this sort of thing, I'm going to hold you to your actual argument not only because it is very poor, but because if you actually bother to do the legwork, you will come up with a bunch of extradition cases involving paedophilia and/or armed assault in which the prosecution had ample evidence to convict people of very serious crimes. Despite what you imply, extradition is simply not "ordinarily" used in cases like this. But if I am mistaken, by all means correct me with an actual citation! On a final note, let us also correct your erroneous statement that the High Court determined that Assange's actions constituted rape under English law. It is highly improbable that Assange would be convicted of anything if he were tried in England. All the High Court ruled is that the warrant Sweden presented was couched in a general enough fashion to pass the dual-crime requirement to constitute a technically valid extradition warrant. There was no finding of facts or even consideration of them.
    - foldr 12y ago
      >Sweden can absolutely charge and try people in absentia Perhaps, but that is their prerogative. It's not as if Assange has a right to be charged in absentia. Trying someone in absentia is a rather unusual measure, and I'm surprised that you'd like Sweden to do this, given your concern that the case be handled in the "ordinary" fashion. >and the prosecutor could question Assange abroad and move the case beyond the "preliminary investigation" stage Could you give a source to back this up? Even if it is true, the prosecutor is perfectly entitled to decide that they do not want to question Assange in that manner. Suspects do not normally dictate the terms of their questioning. >Nor does extradition from Sweden to the United States require permission from the Swedish courts as he claims. I think you're getting a bit confused here. It has been noted by some that the Swedish government has the final authority to reject an extradition request that has been approved by the Swedish courts. There has not, however, been any suggestion that extradition can be approved without a court ruling to that effect. >On a final note, let us also correct your erroneous statement that the High Court determined that Assange's actions constituted rape under English law. The magistrates court and the high court both determined precisely what you say they didn't. Magistrates court: "...what is alleged here is that Mr Assange 'deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state'. In this country that would amount to rape." High court (109): "In our view, on this basis, what was described in the EAW was rape". The first quote is from the following blog post and the second comes direct from the High Court judgment (p. 28 of the pdf): http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat... http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf However, as you yourself correctly point out, it makes no difference whether the offense constitutes rape under English law. It need only be a crime of some sort for the EAW to be valid. It would be very difficult to maintain that non-consensual unprotected sex is not a crime under English law. >So you fail to support your claim that the handling of this case has been "ordinary". What Assange is alleged to have done amounts to rape. Rape is an extraditable offense. The EAW was obtained legally through the normal channels. I see no reason why Assange should not be expected to go to Sweden to face the charges. Perhaps the EAW would not have been issued if he had a lower profile -- it's impossible to say, as far as I can see -- but once it was issued the legal situation was perfectly clear. That is why all of his appeals failed.