4 ms·

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 pr

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.
- trevelyan 12y ago
  > What Assange is alleged to have done amounts to rape "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." (Swedish Chief Public Prosecutor Eva Finné). > Could you give a source to back this up? Try the actual court ruling. Section 142 is relevant, as are the closing remarks. (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html) > I think you're getting a bit confused here. The person you are citing as an expert is either confused or malicious. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-sta...) > The magistrates court and the high court both determined precisely what you say they didn't... Once again, you are factually wrong. The British courts never ruled that Assange's behavior constituted rape. They ruled that the WRITTEN DESCRIPTION in the Swedish warrant might constitute an extraditable crime under British law. There was no examination of whether the description seemed reasonable, which was particularly problematic given the dissemblingly vague way the offense was described in the Swedish warrant (i.e. the warrant paints the woman as asleep and helpless and the sex itself as non-consensual when none of this actually fits what is publicly known). But why are these facts even relevant? If you want to convince me that this is an "ordinary" prosecution all you need to do is find ONE SINGLE OTHER EXTRADITION CASE that is remotely commensurate! Surely there is at least one other non-violent sex offender out there who has been extradited for allegedly not wearing a condom. Or for ANY OTHER SEX CRIME that makes this case seem anything other than a totally disproportionate abuse of power, a conclusion any thinking person must surely reach considering that not even the alleged victim intended to press charges and the Swedish police originally refused to prosecute citing a lack of evidence. So what do you have? What is the weakest extradition case you've managed to find? How does it stack up against this one?
  - foldr 12y ago
    >"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." (Swedish Chief Public Prosecutor Eva Finné). That quote comes from before the EAW was issued. If it had any legal significance Assange's lawyers would have referred to it. I'm not sure why you are referring to it, since you must know all this. >Try the actual court ruling. Section 142 is relevant, as are the closing remarks. Did you mean to refer to a different section? Section 142 mostly just contains the submission from the Swedish prosecutor explaining why Assange can't be charged until he's arrested. It certainly doesn't say anything to indicate that the investigation could move beyond the "preliminary investigation" stage without an arrest. This claim of yours remains unsourced. >The British courts never ruled that Assange's behavior constituted rape. I said they ruled that Assange's alleged actions constitute rape, as indeed they did. It is not their business to rule on whether his actual actions constituted rape, as they're determining whether or not he is to be extradited, not putting him on trial for rape. (See 71 of the High Court judgment for a very clear explanation of this.) > There was no examination of whether the description seemed reasonable This is simply false and I'm kind of surprised that you'd make this claim. Part 72: "Nonetheless...we will express our view on what difference it would have made if we had taken [the material in the prosecution file] into account in determining whether the description of the conduct was fair and accurate." Section 77: "It must therefore follow in respect of offence 1 that the challenge made fails, even if the extraneous material was taken into account." In other words, the court considered this issue and decided that (a) the description was reasonable and (b) that it didn't matter in any case whether it was or it wasn't. You may not like conclusion (b), but you should not let this obscure the fact that the court also drew conclusion (a). >The person you are citing as an expert is either confused or malicious. Again, you're getting mixed up. Greenwald pointed out that the Swedish government can veto extradition requests. He did not say that they can authorize extradition requests without the approval of the Swedish courts. In your previous post you said "...extradition from Sweden to the United States [does not] require permission from the Swedish courts". This claim false, so far as I can see, and unsourced. Neither Greenwald not the experts he cites say anything to support it. > If you want to convince me that this is an "ordinary" prosecution I'm not sure why you keep going off on this tangent. I think it's a legally and morally justified prosecution, and so "ordinary" in that sense. I don't know (and cannot know) whether Assange's public profile is part of the reason that the EAW was issued. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. Either way, the EAW remains legitimate on its own terms. > extradited for allegedly not wearing a condom You must know this is a dishonest summary of Assange's alleged conduct, so I suppose there is no point in correcting it (the High Court judgment has the details).

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.

trevelyan 12y ago
> What Assange is alleged to have done amounts to rape "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." (Swedish Chief Public Prosecutor Eva Finné). > Could you give a source to back this up? Try the actual court ruling. Section 142 is relevant, as are the closing remarks. (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html) > I think you're getting a bit confused here. The person you are citing as an expert is either confused or malicious. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-sta...) > The magistrates court and the high court both determined precisely what you say they didn't... Once again, you are factually wrong. The British courts never ruled that Assange's behavior constituted rape. They ruled that the WRITTEN DESCRIPTION in the Swedish warrant might constitute an extraditable crime under British law. There was no examination of whether the description seemed reasonable, which was particularly problematic given the dissemblingly vague way the offense was described in the Swedish warrant (i.e. the warrant paints the woman as asleep and helpless and the sex itself as non-consensual when none of this actually fits what is publicly known). But why are these facts even relevant? If you want to convince me that this is an "ordinary" prosecution all you need to do is find ONE SINGLE OTHER EXTRADITION CASE that is remotely commensurate! Surely there is at least one other non-violent sex offender out there who has been extradited for allegedly not wearing a condom. Or for ANY OTHER SEX CRIME that makes this case seem anything other than a totally disproportionate abuse of power, a conclusion any thinking person must surely reach considering that not even the alleged victim intended to press charges and the Swedish police originally refused to prosecute citing a lack of evidence. So what do you have? What is the weakest extradition case you've managed to find? How does it stack up against this one?
- foldr 12y ago
  >"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." (Swedish Chief Public Prosecutor Eva Finné). That quote comes from before the EAW was issued. If it had any legal significance Assange's lawyers would have referred to it. I'm not sure why you are referring to it, since you must know all this. >Try the actual court ruling. Section 142 is relevant, as are the closing remarks. Did you mean to refer to a different section? Section 142 mostly just contains the submission from the Swedish prosecutor explaining why Assange can't be charged until he's arrested. It certainly doesn't say anything to indicate that the investigation could move beyond the "preliminary investigation" stage without an arrest. This claim of yours remains unsourced. >The British courts never ruled that Assange's behavior constituted rape. I said they ruled that Assange's alleged actions constitute rape, as indeed they did. It is not their business to rule on whether his actual actions constituted rape, as they're determining whether or not he is to be extradited, not putting him on trial for rape. (See 71 of the High Court judgment for a very clear explanation of this.) > There was no examination of whether the description seemed reasonable This is simply false and I'm kind of surprised that you'd make this claim. Part 72: "Nonetheless...we will express our view on what difference it would have made if we had taken [the material in the prosecution file] into account in determining whether the description of the conduct was fair and accurate." Section 77: "It must therefore follow in respect of offence 1 that the challenge made fails, even if the extraneous material was taken into account." In other words, the court considered this issue and decided that (a) the description was reasonable and (b) that it didn't matter in any case whether it was or it wasn't. You may not like conclusion (b), but you should not let this obscure the fact that the court also drew conclusion (a). >The person you are citing as an expert is either confused or malicious. Again, you're getting mixed up. Greenwald pointed out that the Swedish government can veto extradition requests. He did not say that they can authorize extradition requests without the approval of the Swedish courts. In your previous post you said "...extradition from Sweden to the United States [does not] require permission from the Swedish courts". This claim false, so far as I can see, and unsourced. Neither Greenwald not the experts he cites say anything to support it. > If you want to convince me that this is an "ordinary" prosecution I'm not sure why you keep going off on this tangent. I think it's a legally and morally justified prosecution, and so "ordinary" in that sense. I don't know (and cannot know) whether Assange's public profile is part of the reason that the EAW was issued. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. Either way, the EAW remains legitimate on its own terms. > extradited for allegedly not wearing a condom You must know this is a dishonest summary of Assange's alleged conduct, so I suppose there is no point in correcting it (the High Court judgment has the details).