Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:39 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Sorry, are you really saying that going in to a police station is not materially different from being forcibly extradited? Really?

WTF?

The analogy is if he was still in Sweden he would rightly have got his collar felt and been escorted ("forcibly") to the station for questioning. In this respect, the only material difference is how far it is to the police station, and its him who has put the extra miles between himself and it.

The difference is what he is wanted at that police station for. If it was for parking on a yellow line, he would not be extradited, but as the allegation is rape, he would.

Unless you have concealed some other point in your cryptic question, I trust that answers it?

SmokeyTA wrote:

No, it would be up to the Swedes to do that, come back with their evidence and say we want you to extradite because ........ and here is the evidence we are basing that request on. We then look at it, say, yeah that looks like you have a pretty good case, lets extradite or no, Sweden you are talking nonsense, you have no evidence we arent going to extradite.

I dont think the fact it is an emotive accusation means we should be free to forcibly extradite someone based purely on an accusation.

The whole point of an EU-wide system was based on the fact that the starting point is that EU countries can - or ought to be able to - trust each other's investigative systems to presume that the investigation is done fairly. That is the whole point of the EAW procedures. You are in effect saying that we shouldn't have passed the law, because Sweden can't be trusted, but we did. Write to your MP. I am discussing the situation as it is, although the basic premise seems very sound to me.

SmokeyTA wrote:

And as i have said, i dont disagree that the swedish authorities should investigate and if necessary rule on, i also think we (the uk) should ask for a higher standard of evidence (or even some) before we forcibly extradite someone.

Stop saying "forcibly"! When was there ever a voluntary extradition?!

SmokeyTA wrote:

as for your last question, If he had stayed in Sweden, we wouldn’t be extraditing him

Er, well, no. I must give you that one. It hadn't occurred to me that Sweden would not ask us to extradite someone who wasn't here, but there, but I agree it is unlikely they would.

SmokeyTA wrote:

and as such would have no duty to make sure we were doing it in a fair way.

The trouble with pesky things like EU-wide laws is that they have to spell out a precise legal framework for all people in all EU countries. So we reasonably do not use "in a fair way", which could mean anything or nothing, and instead we use "in accordance with the specific legal requirements agreed by all member states and set out in specific legal documents X, Y and Z". So that any person can know precisely where they stand.

That way, the question is not "is it fair"? but "is it or is it not compliant with the law".

And if it is compliant with the law, but you still think it is unfair, then you can even take that one up with the ECHR - provided the unfairness alleged is within the relevant scope.

SmokeyTA wrote:

I don’t think it would be wrong for the British government to be held responsible for consequences of extradition for the people they extradite and not for the people they don’t.

What exactly ARE the consequences of extradition for people the British government doesn't extradite? My head hurts.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:43 am  

Kosh wrote:

Ah. Your tin foil hat has come into play I see.

'I can see clearly now the rain has gone.....' Off for some dinnertime Stella. Keep up the good work.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:29 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:? WTF?

The analogy is if he was still in Sweden he would rightly have got his collar felt and been escorted ("forcibly") to the station for questioning. In this respect, the only material difference is how far it is to the police station, and its him who has put the extra miles between himself and it.

The difference is what he is wanted at that police station for. If it was for parking on a yellow line, he would not be extradited, but as the allegation is rape, he would.

Unless you have concealed some other point in your cryptic question, I trust that answers it?

I would have thought the point quite obvious, that extradition to another country has a bit more of an impact on a person we presume is innocent and is quite a bit more serious, than a trip down the road.

The whole point of an EU-wide system was based on the fact that the starting point is that EU countries can - or ought to be able to - trust each other's investigative systems to presume that the investigation is done fairly. That is the whole point of the EAW procedures. You are in effect saying that we shouldn't have passed the law, because Sweden can't be trusted, but we did. Write to your MP. I am discussing the situation as it is, although the basic premise seems very sound to me.

And I have said clearly, a number of times that is what is wrong with this situation.

Stop saying "forcibly"! When was there ever a voluntary extradition?!

Yes.

Er, well, no. I must give you that one. It hadn't occurred to me that Sweden would not ask us to extradite someone who wasn't here, but there, but I agree it is unlikely they would.

Had you not split the sentence up, you would have understood the point wasnt the nonsense you have put there, but the fact that the UK would have no part in the process and as such no responsibility for it. As we do have a part in it, we have a responsibility for it, " but we thought we could trust the Swedes, with their blonde hair and blue eyes" isnt a valid defence if we are complicit in a miscarriage of justice or the use of the law to harass an individual.

The trouble with pesky things like EU-wide laws is that they have to spell out a precise legal framework for all people in all EU countries. So we reasonably do not use "in a fair way", which could mean anything or nothing, and instead we use "in accordance with the specific legal requirements agreed by all member states and set out in specific legal documents X, Y and Z". So that any person can know precisely where they stand.

That way, the question is not "is it fair"? but "is it or is it not compliant with the law".

That is true, but we are still responsible for the consequences of us obeying that law. If we obey that law and it leads to a miscarriage of justice or use of the law to harass an individual then we are still responsible even though we have that law.

And if it is compliant with the law, but you still think it is unfair, then you can even take that one up with the ECHR - provided the unfairness alleged is within the relevant scope.

It isnt, but that doesnt absolve us of responsibility for ensuring someone is dealt with fairly, and that somebody within a British jurisdiction is protected by British legal protections. The EAW doesnt remove our responsibility for our actions.

:DOH:
What exactly ARE the consequences of extradition for people the British government doesn't extradite? My head hurts.

Try reading an entire sentence and not just part of it. Your head might feel better.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:52 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I would have thought the point quite obvious, that extradition to another country has a bit more of an impact on a person we presume is innocent and is quite a bit more serious, than a trip down the road.

In some circumstances, to varying degrees, hypothetically, perhaps. As however we are discussing the Assange case, no, since it was his choice to leave Sweden and not go back, and his choice to come here. He can't reasonably escape the Swedish process by leaving the country, and claim it makes it somehow unfair to be sent back 'because it's a long way'.

SmokeyTA wrote:

As we do have a part in it, we have a responsibility for it, " but we thought we could trust the Swedes, with their blonde hair and blue eyes" isnt a valid defence if we are complicit in a miscarriage of justice or the use of the law to harass an individual.

We are not, nor would we be, complicit in anything, and the bizarre quotation may indicate you are running a fever, since of course nobody suggested or even hinted at any such ludicrous thing.

If when Assange got to Sweden there was subsequently a miscarriage of justice, he could and should deal with that in accordance with Swedish and European law. It would be nothing to do with us at all. It is ludicrous to suggest that if we extradite him "there will be a miscarriage of justice". Even you must admit that. Ditto "using the law to harass an individual".

And as neither Assange nor his lawyers have argued any such thing before the Supreme Court, purely a product of some weird thought process that you have just made up.

SmokeyTA wrote:

It isnt, but that doesnt absolve us of responsibility for ensuring someone is dealt with fairly,

If you mean his Swedish problem, of course it does. When he gets back there, it is entirely up to the Swedes to ensure he is dealt with fairly. We aren't their monitor, nor, if they don't is it in any way our fault, nor in case of any such unfairness is he short of any remedy in Sweden.

SmokeyTA wrote:

and that somebody within a British jurisdiction is protected by British legal protections. The EAW doesnt remove our responsibility for our actions.

So, a route up through the English judicial system, including being represented by a QC, and having your case considered by 6 law lords in the Supreme Court (and if you want it, a route to the ECHR too) is deficient as to legal protection exactly how?

SmokeyTA wrote:

Try reading an entire sentence and not just part of it. Your head might feel better.

I re-read it. It still makes no sense to me. If you don't want to explain whatever point you intended, fair enough.

Re: Julian Assange : Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:06 pm  

George Galloway's comments were hardly a surprise to be honest. Making excuses for a possible rapist if it suits your own agenda is fairly typical behaviour for a leftie

Re: Julian Assange : Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:15 am  

Wolfieseviltwin wrote:

George Galloway's comments were hardly a surprise to be honest. Making excuses for a possible rapist if it suits your own agenda is fairly typical behaviour for a leftie

Because fortunately, no right-winger or plain, old-fashioned Tory would ever do or say anything remotely shifty, oh no sirree.

I can't stand Galloway personally, but why not try to add something to the discussion, eh, instead of displaying "fairly typical behaviour for a" rightie.

Re: Julian Assange : Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:07 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

In some circumstances, to varying degrees, hypothetically, perhaps. As however we are discussing the Assange case, no, since it was his choice to leave Sweden and not go back, and his choice to come here. He can't reasonably escape the Swedish process by leaving the country, and claim it makes it somehow unfair to be sent back 'because it's a long way'.

There was no legal obligation for Assange to stay in Sweden. It is unfair to for the state to demand an innocent person travel to a different country. It is certainly unfair for the state to demand an innocent person travel to a different country without first checking that there is good evidence behing

We are not, nor would we be, complicit in anything

Yes we would. Only cowards hide behind the law.

and the bizarre quotation may indicate you are running a fever, since of course nobody suggested or even hinted at any such ludicrous thing.

That is the reason for the EAW. That we dont have to bother checking that what the Swedes are doing is right, just and lawful. Just that they did their admin right.

If when Assange got to Sweden there was subsequently a miscarriage of justice, he could and should deal with that in accordance with Swedish and European law. It would be nothing to do with us at all. It is ludicrous to suggest that if we extradite him "there will be a miscarriage of justice". Even you must admit that. Ditto "using the law to harass an individual".

We are the ones extraditing him. We are the ones who havent protected someone who is in our country from a miscarriage of justice or use of the law to harrass an individual. We would do that. Not Sweden, Not the EU. The UK. It would be administered by the UK judiciary, it would be physically done by the UK police. We would be responsible for our actions and the consequences of them

And as neither Assange nor his lawyers have argued any such thing before the Supreme Court, purely a product of some weird thought process that you have just made up.

It has been the argument of Assange and his lawyers in public for sometime. As you should know, it wasnt argued at the high court because it wasnt relevant to the case in the high court.

If you mean his Swedish problem, of course it does. When he gets back there, it is entirely up to the Swedes to ensure he is dealt with fairly. We aren't their monitor, nor, if they don't is it in any way our fault, nor in case of any such unfairness is he short of any remedy in Sweden.

The UK government would be the ones to extradite him. They are responsible for the consequences of the extradition.

So, a route up through the English judicial system, including being represented by a QC, and having your case considered by 6 law lords in the Supreme Court (and if you want it, a route to the ECHR too) is deficient as to legal protection exactly how?

That it doesnt examine the merits of the evidence. That there is provision in the law for us to extradite someone with no thought as to whether there is the evidence justify it. That we have no protection, in this country, to stop certain other countries, using their laws to harrass people who are in our country.

That if there is no evidence which the Swedish prosecutors have, if this is a political tool used by the Swedes, that if this is an effort to shut someone up or discredit someone because of political expediancy we have done nothing to stop that clear injustice. That is a deficiency in our law. The fact that whether the evidence stacks up or not is irrelevant to whether he is extradited or not, is a failure.

I re-read it. It still makes no sense to me. If you don't want to explain whatever point you intended, fair enough.

Then i feel for you. Its quite clear.

Re: Julian Assange : Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:13 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

... We are the ones who havent protected someone who is in our country from a miscarriage of justice or use of the law to harrass an individual...

WTF?

Poor little St Julian is being "harassed", is he?

And I know that we havea tradition in the UK that you're innocent until proven guilty, but clearly you've already decided that even if a court were to find him guilty, he'd be innocent anyway, as it would be a "miscarriage of justice".

Care to share the films you must have seen of what went on then?

Re: Julian Assange : Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:04 am  

SmokeyTA wrote: There was no legal obligation for Assange to stay in Sweden. Disingenuous tosh, he did a runner rather than face questions, he didn't even tell his lawyer he was going. At the first hearing, his lawyer, presumably hoping nobody would find out, made a false statement that the prosecutor had made no effort to interview Assange, when in fact he had even arranged a provisional date for interview. The judge said the statement was "a deliberate attempt to mislead the court." It came over loud and clear that Assange knew he was wanted for interview, and that he knew if he prevaricated much longer, then he would be arrested, and so he fled. SmokeyTA wrote: It is unfair to for the state to demand an innocent person travel to a different country. It is certainly unfair for the state to demand an innocent person travel to a different country without first checking that there is good evidence More tosh. How can it be unfair for the Swedish state to ask a person accused of sexual offences inclusing rape to come in for questioning? Are you serious? SmokeyTA wrote: That is the reason for the EAW. That we dont have to bother checking that what the Swedes are doing is right, just and lawful. Just that they did their admin right. Your "argument" here is mainly based on your inability to accept that there should be an EAW. As Parliament however passed it into UK law, you will have to live with it, and if you want, campaign against it. Having said which, we do have to be satisified that what the Swedes are doing is right and lawful, as they and we must comply both with European law and the EAW, and we must also comply with English law in dealing with the case. If we do, then ipso facto there is no question of the result being "unjust". Anyway, before you make too big a fool of yourself, this aspect was, in fact, exhaustively gone through by the QBD at the penultimate appeal stage. The Court considered the argument about the fairness and accuracy of the description of the conduct alleged, and perhaps you ought to actually read the judgment instead of making spurious claims. The link to that particular report is:- http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html&query=assange&method=boolean ..and the relevant section starts at para.55, and goes on to para 127. (Yes, over SEVENTY PARAGRAPHS of detailed consideration of the evidential aspects). SmokeyTA wrote: We are the ones extraditing him. We are the ones who havent protected someone who is in our country from a miscarriage of justice or use of the law to harrass an individual. Increasingly concentrated tosh: (a) there has been no miscarriage of justice from the consequences of which we need to protect him. If you are saying that we shouldn't extradite him because there might somehow in the future be some unspecified miscarriage of justice in Sweden, then you must be high on something. (b) "use of the law to harass an individual"?? Look, there is only one issue - he is wanted for questioning for sexual offences including rape. Unless you can make some sort of coherent case for that being "use of the law to harass an individual" then you have to concede this is rubbish. SmokeyTA wrote: We would do that. Not Sweden, Not the EU. The UK. It would be administered by the UK judiciary, it would be physically done by the UK police. We would be responsible for our actions and the consequences of them No, and no. We would not extradite a suspect to certain regimes, as we would have reasonable grounds to suspect that they may (for example) be tortured or otherwise abused. That is sound and right. However, in general terms, we do not have any such concerns about Sweden; and in the particular case, no grounds have been advanced as to why we should believe, or even suspect, that any such would befall him there. It is completely befuddled thinking to say "well yes, there is no specific reason or ground to suspect this, but . . . well, you never know, they still just might". If they did, it would be in no way our responsibility, as we have absolutely no reason to believe they will. FA wrote: And as neither Assange nor his lawyers have argued any such thing before the Supreme Court, purely a product of some weird thought process that you have just made up. SmokeyTA wrote: It has been the argument of Assange and his lawyers in public for sometime. As you should know, it wasnt argued at the high court because it wasnt relevant to the case in the high court. Of course it would have been relevant!! Remove your blinkers! The EAW is valid if it was issued for prosecution in Sweden. If he could show that it was NOT issued for prosecution in Sweden, but for some other reason, then obviously he would get it thrown out!. It WAS ARGUED IN THE COURTS - AS PER THE LINK I HAVE GIVEN YOU ABOVE. The fact is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of any such scenario, so the reason it was "not argued" any further in the Supreme Court is because it is a non-argument! Unlike you, Assange and his lawyers know when the horse they are flogging has died. SmokeyTA wrote: That if there is no evidence which the Swedish prosecutors have, if this is a political tool used by the Swedes, that if this is an effort to shut someone up or discredit someone because of political expediancy we have done nothing to stop that clear injustice. There IS no injustice though. In abstract theory, in the unlikely event that all these hypothetical things came to pass, but surely even you can see that no law will work if it can be defeated just by writing down a list of random things that "might" happen, without having any evidence, at all, to back up why anyone should think they actually might happen? SmokeyTA wrote: That is a deficiency in our law. The fact that whether the evidence stacks up or not is irrelevant to whether he is extradited or not, is a failure. Not in the least. As stated in our courts, a domestic warrant for Assange's arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW. Therefore the question of "whether the evidence stacks up" i.e. whether he will be charged is one which will be decided once the Swedish authorities complete their investigation. Not now. It is therefore absurd to suggest that they should prove their case to us, when they have not yet decided whether he is going to be charged, and I think you surely know this. The bottom line here is that there is no material whatsoever upon which any court could rule, or even suspect, that extraditing Assange will lead to oppression or injustice, and your obvious mistrust of the EAW system does not alter the fact that no such thing has ever happened. I cite :- (1) The accused, Mr. Assange: In the February 2012 appeal in the QBD, it was recorded that Assange did not pursue the allegation made before the Senior District Judge that there had been abuse in issuing the EAW for a collateral purpose or that there had otherwise been an abuse of process. Do you note that these issues WERE relevant in the English courts? And that if he HAD maintained these issues, they would have been considered? So can you please stop your persistent false claims that even if some such chicanery was afoot, we wouldn't look at it. Of course we would! (2) the 30 September 2011 report to the Home Secretary by a Committee chaired by the Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker which actually reviewed the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements, and said that it was not aware of any cases in which EAWs issued by designated prosecuting authorities has led to oppression or injustice. Mind you, they were probably not told that, based on absolutely nothing at all, some keyboard warrior named SmokeyTA nevertheless knows better, and feared that one day it might. Such a compelling argument would surely have persuaded them to recommend scrapping the whole thing.

SmokeyTA wrote: There was no legal obligation for Assange to stay in Sweden. Disingenuous tosh, he did a runner rather than face questions, he didn't even tell his lawyer he was going. At the first hearing, his lawyer, presumably hoping nobody would find out, made a false statement that the prosecutor had made no effort to interview Assange, when in fact he had even arranged a provisional date for interview. The judge said the statement was "a deliberate attempt to mislead the court." It came over loud and clear that Assange knew he was wanted for interview, and that he knew if he prevaricated much longer, then he would be arrested, and so he fled. SmokeyTA wrote: It is unfair to for the state to demand an innocent person travel to a different country. It is certainly unfair for the state to demand an innocent person travel to a different country without first checking that there is good evidence More tosh. How can it be unfair for the Swedish state to ask a person accused of sexual offences inclusing rape to come in for questioning? Are you serious? SmokeyTA wrote: That is the reason for the EAW. That we dont have to bother checking that what the Swedes are doing is right, just and lawful. Just that they did their admin right. Your "argument" here is mainly based on your inability to accept that there should be an EAW. As Parliament however passed it into UK law, you will have to live with it, and if you want, campaign against it. Having said which, we do have to be satisified that what the Swedes are doing is right and lawful, as they and we must comply both with European law and the EAW, and we must also comply with English law in dealing with the case. If we do, then ipso facto there is no question of the result being "unjust". Anyway, before you make too big a fool of yourself, this aspect was, in fact, exhaustively gone through by the QBD at the penultimate appeal stage. The Court considered the argument about the fairness and accuracy of the description of the conduct alleged, and perhaps you ought to actually read the judgment instead of making spurious claims. The link to that particular report is:- http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html&query=assange&method=boolean ..and the relevant section starts at para.55, and goes on to para 127. (Yes, over SEVENTY PARAGRAPHS of detailed consideration of the evidential aspects). SmokeyTA wrote: We are the ones extraditing him. We are the ones who havent protected someone who is in our country from a miscarriage of justice or use of the law to harrass an individual. Increasingly concentrated tosh: (a) there has been no miscarriage of justice from the consequences of which we need to protect him. If you are saying that we shouldn't extradite him because there might somehow in the future be some unspecified miscarriage of justice in Sweden, then you must be high on something. (b) "use of the law to harass an individual"?? Look, there is only one issue - he is wanted for questioning for sexual offences including rape. Unless you can make some sort of coherent case for that being "use of the law to harass an individual" then you have to concede this is rubbish. SmokeyTA wrote: We would do that. Not Sweden, Not the EU. The UK. It would be administered by the UK judiciary, it would be physically done by the UK police. We would be responsible for our actions and the consequences of them No, and no. We would not extradite a suspect to certain regimes, as we would have reasonable grounds to suspect that they may (for example) be tortured or otherwise abused. That is sound and right. However, in general terms, we do not have any such concerns about Sweden; and in the particular case, no grounds have been advanced as to why we should believe, or even suspect, that any such would befall him there. It is completely befuddled thinking to say "well yes, there is no specific reason or ground to suspect this, but . . . well, you never know, they still just might". If they did, it would be in no way our responsibility, as we have absolutely no reason to believe they will. FA wrote: And as neither Assange nor his lawyers have argued any such thing before the Supreme Court, purely a product of some weird thought process that you have just made up. SmokeyTA wrote: It has been the argument of Assange and his lawyers in public for sometime. As you should know, it wasnt argued at the high court because it wasnt relevant to the case in the high court. Of course it would have been relevant!! Remove your blinkers! The EAW is valid if it was issued for prosecution in Sweden. If he could show that it was NOT issued for prosecution in Sweden, but for some other reason, then obviously he would get it thrown out!. It WAS ARGUED IN THE COURTS - AS PER THE LINK I HAVE GIVEN YOU ABOVE. The fact is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of any such scenario, so the reason it was "not argued" any further in the Supreme Court is because it is a non-argument! Unlike you, Assange and his lawyers know when the horse they are flogging has died. SmokeyTA wrote: That if there is no evidence which the Swedish prosecutors have, if this is a political tool used by the Swedes, that if this is an effort to shut someone up or discredit someone because of political expediancy we have done nothing to stop that clear injustice. There IS no injustice though. In abstract theory, in the unlikely event that all these hypothetical things came to pass, but surely even you can see that no law will work if it can be defeated just by writing down a list of random things that "might" happen, without having any evidence, at all, to back up why anyone should think they actually might happen? SmokeyTA wrote: That is a deficiency in our law. The fact that whether the evidence stacks up or not is irrelevant to whether he is extradited or not, is a failure. Not in the least. As stated in our courts, a domestic warrant for Assange's arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW. Therefore the question of "whether the evidence stacks up" i.e. whether he will be charged is one which will be decided once the Swedish authorities complete their investigation. Not now. It is therefore absurd to suggest that they should prove their case to us, when they have not yet decided whether he is going to be charged, and I think you surely know this. The bottom line here is that there is no material whatsoever upon which any court could rule, or even suspect, that extraditing Assange will lead to oppression or injustice, and your obvious mistrust of the EAW system does not alter the fact that no such thing has ever happened. I cite :- (1) The accused, Mr. Assange: In the February 2012 appeal in the QBD, it was recorded that Assange did not pursue the allegation made before the Senior District Judge that there had been abuse in issuing the EAW for a collateral purpose or that there had otherwise been an abuse of process. Do you note that these issues WERE relevant in the English courts? And that if he HAD maintained these issues, they would have been considered? So can you please stop your persistent false claims that even if some such chicanery was afoot, we wouldn't look at it. Of course we would! (2) the 30 September 2011 report to the Home Secretary by a Committee chaired by the Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker which actually reviewed the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements, and said that it was not aware of any cases in which EAWs issued by designated prosecuting authorities has led to oppression or injustice. Mind you, they were probably not told that, based on absolutely nothing at all, some keyboard warrior named SmokeyTA nevertheless knows better, and feared that one day it might. Such a compelling argument would surely have persuaded them to recommend scrapping the whole thing.

Re: Julian Assange : Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:23 am  

Oh look - those nasty, scary Swedes stood up the US over rendition. Mind, who knows if you can believe it? The story came from Wikileaks, after all.

Oh look - those nasty, scary Swedes stood up the US over rendition. Mind, who knows if you can believe it? The story came from Wikileaks, after all.