5 ms·

> That quote comes from before the EAW was issued. And by the original prosecutor no less! > Section 142 mostly just contains... It states extremely clearly

> That quote comes from before the EAW was issued. And by the original prosecutor no less! > Section 142 mostly just contains... It states extremely clearly that Sweden could accomplish the goals of its warrant by questioning Assange in London, and that the prosecutor is choosing not to do so out of convenience (a preference even the British court conceded was somewhat unreasonable). And since you missed the point, I cited it because it directly contradicts your claims that the extradition is being made in order for Sweden to charge Assange. Indeed, as you would know had you bothered to look at other extradition cases, the legal reality is that Sweden can charge Assange anytime it wants. As stated above, the problem with doing this is that it would require the prosecution to have actual evidence of wrongdoing and eliminate their ability to hold Assange in indefinite detention. > This is simply false and I'm kind of surprised that you'd make this claim. Again, you are factually wrong. What the court "evaluated" was the allegation in the warrant, with the description and context of the charge taken at face value from the request of the Swedish prosecutor. There was no or only an extremely limited ability for Assange to face his accusers, challenge the evidence, or request supporting evidence from the Swedish prosecution. And yet you somehow managed to conclude that (1) there is evidence supporting any of these claims, and (2) Assange would be convicted of rape on the strength of that evidence. Bullocks. > I'm not sure why you keep going off on this tangent I'll take this as evidence you can't find a single commensurate case of extradition, although that was already a foregone conclusion. So let me close by saying that you should be ashamed of having defended such an irregular abuse of the legal system, and doubly-so for now arguing with a straight face that anything legal is by definition moral. As Nietzshe would have commented, the problem with this approach is that it makes a mockery of law itself.

foldr 12y ago
>And by the original prosecutor no less! So what? An EAW for rape was eventually issued. This is a total red herring. >It states extremely clearly that ... It doesn't say any of that. I think you must be citing the wrong section. (Or if not, it would be helpful if you'd quote the part which you think says any of this.) This is all somewhat irrelevant anyway, since even if the Swedes could question Assange while he was in the UK, it does not follow that they are obliged to do so. If they would rather question him in Sweden, and if they can legally obtain an EAW, they are perfectly within their rights to take this course of action. If I were a suspect in a crime, I would not expect to be able to dictate to the police the time, location and circumstances of my questioning. >Again, you are factually wrong. You said in your previous post that "there was no examination of whether the description seemed reasonable". This is clearly not the case, as you can see by looking at the material under "Issue 2" in the High Court judgment. Assange's lawyer claimed that certain material in the prosecution file showed that the description in the EAW was not "fair and accurate". The court examined this material and concluded that the additional material did not in fact reveal any lack of fairness or accuracy. (They also pointed out that it would not in any case be proper for them to base their decision on conclusions derived from this material. That is a technical legal issue, so I really don't know if they made the legally correct decision. However, it is largely irrelevant, since they saw nothing in the additional material which would have influenced their judgment.) > There was no or only an extremely limited ability for Assange to face his accusers, challenge the evidence, or request supporting evidence from the Swedish prosecution. None of that would make any sense in the context of an extradition hearing. Those are all things that are properly to be done in the Swedish courts. It's not the business of the English courts to second-guess the results of an eventual trial in Sweden or to attempt to decide the facts of the case. The facts of the case are to be decided in Sweden where the charges were made. This is all, needless to say, clearly explained in the High Court decision. >And yet you somehow managed to conclude that (1) there is evidence supporting any of these claims, and (2) Assange would be convicted of rape on the strength of that evidence. I didn't say (2) or anything close to it. You are playing very fast and loose with what I write. >So let me close by saying that you should be ashamed of having defended such an irregular abuse of the legal system, and doubly-so for now arguing with a straight face that anything legal is by definition moral. As Nietzshe would have commented, the problem with this approach is that it makes a mockery of law itself. You're clearly very angry with me for some reason and I think it's leading to a lack of care in what you're writing here. Of course I have not argued that anything legal is moral. Rather, I've argued that it is morally right that Assange should face the charges against him. The claim that this is an irregular abuse of the legal system is a bit far-fetched when you consider all of the failed appeals. Most of your arguments against extradition were not actually made by Assange's lawyer (most likely because they have no actual legal merit). The arguments that were put forward by Assange's lawyer are quite obviously rather tenuous -- and somewhat tasteless in their trivialization of non-consensual sex -- and it does not take a conspiracy theory to explain why they were rejected by the English courts.
- trevelyan 12y ago
  It is tiring correcting your repeated inability to read: > even if the Swedes could question Assange while he was in the UK.... There is no "even if" about it. The entire core of your current argument is baseless fiction: "It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him." > The court examined this material... No. The Swedish government did not provide any supporting materials for the allegations in its warrant, and neither Assange nor the court was given access to relevant evidence despite the defense repeatedly calling for it. If you think the burden of disproving he-said-she-said allegations based on secret evidence is reasonable and defendants have anything but an "extremely limited" ability to challenge accusations on the basis of fact, you may as well just tank the presumption of innocence and start championing military tribunals for the general public. > You're clearly very angry with me for some reason No. I pity you. What horrifies me is your inability to think, and your complete abandonment of the do-unto-others Christian and democratic principle that the legal system should be invoked in ways proportional to the accusation and bearing the public interest in mind. I'm appalled you fail to see these events as what they are: a disproportionate and punitive attack on public-interest journalism. And I am shocked at your repeated failure to understand the referenced passage in which the Swedish prosecutor flat-out admits THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY STOPPING HER from accepting Assange's offers to cooperate in whatever way would not expose him to extradition to the United States. Sweden could end this impass in a matter of hours. Your failure or refusal to realize this makes you an apologist for the abuse of power. But it doesn't matter, because at this point you have spent the last half-dozen posts arguing around the reasonability of the extradition instead of providing an example of a commensurate offense.
  - foldr 12y ago
    >There is no "even if" about it. The entire core of your current argument is baseless fiction: You just quoted the Swedish prosector explaining why Assange can't be questioned in the UK. They expect to charge Assange, and hence need him to be in Sweden so they can put him on trial. The High Court saw this clearly (see the end of this post for more detail). It's bizarre to infer from this statement that the EAW is unnecessary. It's unnecessary if you're already assuming that Assange is innocent and hence should not be put on trial. >If you think the burden of disproving he-said-she-said allegations based on secret evidence is reasonable and defendants have anything but an "extremely limited" ability to challenge accusations on the basis of fact, you may as well just tank the presumption of innocence and start championing military tribunals for the general public. Again, you're confusing the extradition hearing with a rape trial. Assange can argue that he's innocent of the charges when (if) he's put on trial for rape in Sweden. The English courts are not making any findings regarding the facts of the case; they are just enforcing the EAW. >THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY STOPPING HER from accepting Assange's offers to cooperate in whatever way would not expose him to extradition to the United States. His cooperation is besides the point at this stage in the investigation. As the court judgments explain, the presumption at this stage in the investigation is that he will be charged and eventually brought to trial. Hence, his presence in Sweden is necessary. From the High Court judgment: "In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect." Now, could the Swedish prosecutor have choosen to do nothing more than some further questioning on Assange in England? Well, sure, they can handle the case how they like. But they chose not to. I'm not sure how many times I have to point this out before it sinks in, but Assange can't expect to run the investigation himself on his own terms! Once the Swedes have decided to charge him, the English courts can't just piss all over the Swedish legal process. The clue is in the name: European Arrest Warrant. Once Sweden issues it through the proper legal process, the presumption is that England will enforce it. There is no "presumption of innocence" when considering whether or not to enforce a legally obtained arrest warrant, since the facts of the case are not being decided at all. >principle that the legal system should be invoked in ways proportional to the accusation and bearing the public interest in mind. The accusation is rape, so there is no disproportionality, and it's in the public interest for rapists to be prosecuted. >arguing around the reasonability of the extradition instead of providing an example of a commensurate offense. I've explained already that I don't see why this is relevant. If he was being extradited for a parking ticket, I'd see your point, but the charge strikes me as serious enough to merit extradition, both legally and morally.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

foldr 12y ago

>And by the original prosecutor no less! So what? An EAW for rape was eventually issued. This is a total red herring. >It states extremely clearly that ... It doesn't say any of that. I think you must be citing the wrong section. (Or if not, it would be helpful if you'd quote the part which you think says any of this.) This is all somewhat irrelevant anyway, since even if the Swedes could question Assange while he was in the UK, it does not follow that they are obliged to do so. If they would rather question him in Sweden, and if they can legally obtain an EAW, they are perfectly within their rights to take this course of action. If I were a suspect in a crime, I would not expect to be able to dictate to the police the time, location and circumstances of my questioning. >Again, you are factually wrong. You said in your previous post that "there was no examination of whether the description seemed reasonable". This is clearly not the case, as you can see by looking at the material under "Issue 2" in the High Court judgment. Assange's lawyer claimed that certain material in the prosecution file showed that the description in the EAW was not "fair and accurate". The court examined this material and concluded that the additional material did not in fact reveal any lack of fairness or accuracy. (They also pointed out that it would not in any case be proper for them to base their decision on conclusions derived from this material. That is a technical legal issue, so I really don't know if they made the legally correct decision. However, it is largely irrelevant, since they saw nothing in the additional material which would have influenced their judgment.) > There was no or only an extremely limited ability for Assange to face his accusers, challenge the evidence, or request supporting evidence from the Swedish prosecution. None of that would make any sense in the context of an extradition hearing. Those are all things that are properly to be done in the Swedish courts. It's not the business of the English courts to second-guess the results of an eventual trial in Sweden or to attempt to decide the facts of the case. The facts of the case are to be decided in Sweden where the charges were made. This is all, needless to say, clearly explained in the High Court decision. >And yet you somehow managed to conclude that (1) there is evidence supporting any of these claims, and (2) Assange would be convicted of rape on the strength of that evidence. I didn't say (2) or anything close to it. You are playing very fast and loose with what I write. >So let me close by saying that you should be ashamed of having defended such an irregular abuse of the legal system, and doubly-so for now arguing with a straight face that anything legal is by definition moral. As Nietzshe would have commented, the problem with this approach is that it makes a mockery of law itself. You're clearly very angry with me for some reason and I think it's leading to a lack of care in what you're writing here. Of course I have not argued that anything legal is moral. Rather, I've argued that it is morally right that Assange should face the charges against him. The claim that this is an irregular abuse of the legal system is a bit far-fetched when you consider all of the failed appeals. Most of your arguments against extradition were not actually made by Assange's lawyer (most likely because they have no actual legal merit). The arguments that were put forward by Assange's lawyer are quite obviously rather tenuous -- and somewhat tasteless in their trivialization of non-consensual sex -- and it does not take a conspiracy theory to explain why they were rejected by the English courts.

trevelyan 12y ago
It is tiring correcting your repeated inability to read: > even if the Swedes could question Assange while he was in the UK.... There is no "even if" about it. The entire core of your current argument is baseless fiction: "It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him." > The court examined this material... No. The Swedish government did not provide any supporting materials for the allegations in its warrant, and neither Assange nor the court was given access to relevant evidence despite the defense repeatedly calling for it. If you think the burden of disproving he-said-she-said allegations based on secret evidence is reasonable and defendants have anything but an "extremely limited" ability to challenge accusations on the basis of fact, you may as well just tank the presumption of innocence and start championing military tribunals for the general public. > You're clearly very angry with me for some reason No. I pity you. What horrifies me is your inability to think, and your complete abandonment of the do-unto-others Christian and democratic principle that the legal system should be invoked in ways proportional to the accusation and bearing the public interest in mind. I'm appalled you fail to see these events as what they are: a disproportionate and punitive attack on public-interest journalism. And I am shocked at your repeated failure to understand the referenced passage in which the Swedish prosecutor flat-out admits THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY STOPPING HER from accepting Assange's offers to cooperate in whatever way would not expose him to extradition to the United States. Sweden could end this impass in a matter of hours. Your failure or refusal to realize this makes you an apologist for the abuse of power. But it doesn't matter, because at this point you have spent the last half-dozen posts arguing around the reasonability of the extradition instead of providing an example of a commensurate offense.
- foldr 12y ago
  >There is no "even if" about it. The entire core of your current argument is baseless fiction: You just quoted the Swedish prosector explaining why Assange can't be questioned in the UK. They expect to charge Assange, and hence need him to be in Sweden so they can put him on trial. The High Court saw this clearly (see the end of this post for more detail). It's bizarre to infer from this statement that the EAW is unnecessary. It's unnecessary if you're already assuming that Assange is innocent and hence should not be put on trial. >If you think the burden of disproving he-said-she-said allegations based on secret evidence is reasonable and defendants have anything but an "extremely limited" ability to challenge accusations on the basis of fact, you may as well just tank the presumption of innocence and start championing military tribunals for the general public. Again, you're confusing the extradition hearing with a rape trial. Assange can argue that he's innocent of the charges when (if) he's put on trial for rape in Sweden. The English courts are not making any findings regarding the facts of the case; they are just enforcing the EAW. >THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY STOPPING HER from accepting Assange's offers to cooperate in whatever way would not expose him to extradition to the United States. His cooperation is besides the point at this stage in the investigation. As the court judgments explain, the presumption at this stage in the investigation is that he will be charged and eventually brought to trial. Hence, his presence in Sweden is necessary. From the High Court judgment: "In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect." Now, could the Swedish prosecutor have choosen to do nothing more than some further questioning on Assange in England? Well, sure, they can handle the case how they like. But they chose not to. I'm not sure how many times I have to point this out before it sinks in, but Assange can't expect to run the investigation himself on his own terms! Once the Swedes have decided to charge him, the English courts can't just piss all over the Swedish legal process. The clue is in the name: European Arrest Warrant. Once Sweden issues it through the proper legal process, the presumption is that England will enforce it. There is no "presumption of innocence" when considering whether or not to enforce a legally obtained arrest warrant, since the facts of the case are not being decided at all. >principle that the legal system should be invoked in ways proportional to the accusation and bearing the public interest in mind. The accusation is rape, so there is no disproportionality, and it's in the public interest for rapists to be prosecuted. >arguing around the reasonability of the extradition instead of providing an example of a commensurate offense. I've explained already that I don't see why this is relevant. If he was being extradited for a parking ticket, I'd see your point, but the charge strikes me as serious enough to merit extradition, both legally and morally.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]