Yeah but they're only doing that to sucker Assange into going back to Sweden to face a kangaroo court followed by immediate extradition to Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding and execution.
Smokey's bonkers - most of his arguments are factually wrong and continually ignoring the possibility of serious sexual offences as having a bearing on what should happen to Assange is morally repugnant.
Mintball's also right - as far as I can tell the right wing is home to far more people likely to belittle the importance of sexual offences, especially where the rights of women come into conflict with their peculiar, religously-driven views.
Maybe, maybe not. it would be easy to find out by producing some evidence.
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?
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.
There is nothing disingenuous about it, it is fact. It is disingenuous to present your conclusions as fact.
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?
There is nothing wrong with them asking. There is plenty wrong with them demanding if they havent
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.
again yes.
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".
no it doesnt. Had it had to comply with British standards of evidence there would be no question of it 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).
That isnt an examination of the evidence. It is a consideration of whether the allegations constitute an offence in this country.
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.
Yet that is a test applied to the extradition of people to most other countries.
(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. 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.
We should have those concerns about every country, including our own.
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.
for the same reasons as you accept we shouldnt extradite some people, to some other nations.
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?
Except it isnt abstract, it is a real, and valid concern that even you have about some countries.
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.
If they want us to extradite him they should.
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!
Not on the basis of a simple allegation we wouldnt. There would need to be a standard of corroborating evidence. The word of one man would not be enough. And this is correct, it would be nonsense for us to NOT extradite Mr Assange simply because he accused the Swedish government of nefarious intention. I have no problem with us extraditing Mr Assange in spite of any accusation he may levy but be unable to back up with evidence. I would just apply the same principle to us extraditing Mr Assange.
(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.
What kind of naive thinking leads someone to think our laws shouldnt build in protections against possibilities 'which might be' an abuse of process?
What kind of nonsense are you arguing here? That because something hasnt happened, it can never happen and we should forget about it as a possibility? That because it hasnt been used to lead to provable cases of oppression or injustice it never ever could be?
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
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.
There is nothing disingenuous about it, it is fact. It is disingenuous to present your conclusions as fact.
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?
There is nothing wrong with them asking. There is plenty wrong with them demanding if they havent
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.
again yes.
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".
no it doesnt. Had it had to comply with British standards of evidence there would be no question of it 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).
That isnt an examination of the evidence. It is a consideration of whether the allegations constitute an offence in this country.
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.
Yet that is a test applied to the extradition of people to most other countries.
(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. 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.
We should have those concerns about every country, including our own.
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.
for the same reasons as you accept we shouldnt extradite some people, to some other nations.
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?
Except it isnt abstract, it is a real, and valid concern that even you have about some countries.
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.
If they want us to extradite him they should.
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!
Not on the basis of a simple allegation we wouldnt. There would need to be a standard of corroborating evidence. The word of one man would not be enough. And this is correct, it would be nonsense for us to NOT extradite Mr Assange simply because he accused the Swedish government of nefarious intention. I have no problem with us extraditing Mr Assange in spite of any accusation he may levy but be unable to back up with evidence. I would just apply the same principle to us extraditing Mr Assange.
(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.
What kind of naive thinking leads someone to think our laws shouldnt build in protections against possibilities 'which might be' an abuse of process?
What kind of nonsense are you arguing here? That because something hasnt happened, it can never happen and we should forget about it as a possibility? That because it hasnt been used to lead to provable cases of oppression or injustice it never ever could be?
Asked how allegedly using force to begin intercourse could not be a crime, he reportedly answered:
"A woman he was staying with? Sleeping together in the same bed? "
There you are, ladies. Once in bed, like it or lump it
Actually, I was rather surprised to see that, in one or two countries, I'd be classed as a rapist myself on the basis of 'ask before each episode of actual shagging'. It is remarkably easy to get a man 'interested' even when he is asleep. Thankfully, in the UK, apparently a woman cannot be convicted of rape.
However, this entire discussion is ridiculous since, even if one disagrees with such a definition of rape, it is not the only thing that Assange stands accused of.
Asked how allegedly using force to begin intercourse could not be a crime, he reportedly answered:
"A woman he was staying with? Sleeping together in the same bed? "
There you are, ladies. Once in bed, like it or lump it
Actually, I was rather surprised to see that, in one or two countries, I'd be classed as a rapist myself on the basis of 'ask before each episode of actual shagging'. It is remarkably easy to get a man 'interested' even when he is asleep. Thankfully, in the UK, apparently a woman cannot be convicted of rape.
However, this entire discussion is ridiculous since, even if one disagrees with such a definition of rape, it is not the only thing that Assange stands accused of.
Presumably, whoever's tweeting for Wikileaks is a bit bored, as they've tweeted a link to a two-year-old story, about something that happened, err, two years ago, but without mentioning it's a two-year-old story.