Julian Assange: Last Chance.

That's essentially exposing a citizen of one country to the laws (unfair as they might be) of multiple different countries.

You don't see a problem with that?

This is a violation of civil rights, that people can be prosecuted in a country they never even stepped foot in (or weren't there when the alleged crime was committed). And prosecuted for something that's not obviously wrong and may be controversial.

In the old days, how extradition worked was if you visited a country and were accused of robbing or murdering someone while there, you could be extradited back to that country. That's common sense and how it should work.
When you try to extend the concept of extradition to other situations that are much less obvious, that's where it gets complicated.

 

I think his desire that Assange be punished and blind trust in government has blinded him to the truth here.

 

Let's see if you're okay being arrested and extradited to Russia because some prosecutor in Russia has issued charges against you.

Nevermind that you've never been to Russia.

Why should we worry? I'm sure you'll get your day in court there. [sarcasm]

 

1) He went to sweden, he availed himself of its benefits. He subjected himself to its jurisdiction thereby. His actions during that time are under criminal inquiry sufficient to bring trial on the merits. They've a right to that, under the particular treaties in question which were negotiated in good faith in negotiations by those nations. Nations PLURAL I wouldn't want you to think I supported a one world government. The SOL on this charge runs august 2020.
1a) He likewise made certain minimum contacts with the US and there is probable cause of his aiding and abetting a crime/s to issue a warrant for his arrest on numerous charges which will require a trial on the merits to adjudicate. The SOL on these don't exist (they are perpetual). To be clear, he didn't do something where he was that was illegal somewhere else and get clawed out for it. He extended his presence electronically into the US and (allegedly) convinced a US agent to steal nat def info that put human sources at risk and offered to help him crack a DOD password. That would be actions taken "in" the united states just as surely as if he was part of a terrorist conspiracy ala bin laden.
2) Sweden has a similar agreement with the US. Whether or not it contains a "nah you're going to kill/torture him" clause I am unaware of. If its not there, its a pretty cut and dried issue Sweden's soon to SOL charge taking precedence, and if the Swedish/US extradition treaty provides for him to be extradited for trial then he'll go.
That's what happens when nations make deals with each other through their duly elected governments. Nations PLURAL, again.

 

Under normal circumstances, I would agree with this.

It's not like Sweden has a corrupt court system, probably one of the most fair in the world. (Whether or not some of the actual laws may be a little wacky)

The issue is there's not adequate enough legal safeguards in Sweden to prevent him from being extradited to the US.

At this point, however, under the current political climate, extradition from the UK directly to the US is looking just as likely, if not a little more, than extradition from Sweden.

 

Except he's already subject to extradition in the UK (they've got their own treaty with the US just like sweden) and part of being subject to the jurisdiction of sweden is being subject to that nation's (possessive and implied as one of many, again I'm not a one world government fan) extradition practices.

Also, generally the one that's about to run out takes precedence. In this case that's sweden's case.

 

I know, but it shouldn't be that way. The process is not necessarily fair and does not have adequate legal safeguards.

I don't see why a person should be subject to questionable interpretations of vague laws of a country he's never been to before.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...should-accept-extradition-in-sweden-rape-case

"He has also claimed that the woman in question didn’t want to press rape charges — an assertion contradicted in a tweet last month by the woman’s lawyer, who described Assange’s arrest in London as an event she and her client had been “waiting and hoping for since 2012.”"
^ She seems to think its rape. He disagrees. Hey lets have a trial on the merits.

Couple of things: The law you cite which is currently the law (affirmative consent only) only went into effect last year. Sweden like the US does not allow ex post facto laws, so that law won't be used to judge his case. He'll be judged under the statute that was the law when he allegedly committed the offense.

Next, the duly elected governments settled this extradition treaty, and its terms, which serves only to claw the person over to a court system not considered unfair and with numerous safeguards.

Here's the US Swedish treaty for example. : https://internationalextraditionblo...en-extradition-treaty-with-the-united-states/

"
ARTICLE I

Each Contracting State undertakes to surrender to the other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, those persons found in its territory who have been charged with or convicted of any of the offenses specified in Article II of this Convention committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the other, or outside thereof under the conditions specified in Article IV of this Convention; provided that such surrender shall take place only upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the person sought shall be found, would justify his commitment for trial if the offense had been there committed.

ARTICLE II

Extradition shall be granted, subject to the provisions of this Convention, for the following offenses:

1. Murder, including infanticide; the killing of a human being, when such act is punishable in the United States as voluntary manslaughter, and in Sweden as manslaughter.

2. Malicious wounding; mayhem; willful assault resulting in grievous bodily harm.

3. Kidnapping; abduction.

4. Rape; abortion; carnal knowledge of a girl under the age specified by law in such cases in both the requesting and requested State.

5. Procuration, defined as the procuring or transporting of a woman or girl under age, even with her consent, for immoral purposes, or of a woman or girl over age, by fraud, threats, or compulsion, for such purposes with a view in either case to gratifying the passions of another person; profiting from the prostitution of another.

6. Bigamy.

7. Robbery; burglary, defined to be the breaking into or entering either in day or night time, a house, office, or other building of a government, corporation, or private person, with intent to commit a felony therein.

8. Arson.

9. The malicious and unlawful damaging of railways, trains, vessels, aircraft, bridges, vehicles, and other means of travel or of public or private buildings, or other structures, when the act committed shall endanger human life.

10. Piracy; mutiny on board a vessel or an aircraft for the purpose of rebelling against the authority of the Captain or Commander of such vessel or aircraft; or by fraud or violence taking possession of such vessel or aircraft.

11. Blackmail or extortion.

12. Forgery, or the utterance of forged papers; the forgery or falsification of official acts of government, of public authorities, or of courts of justice, or the utterance of the thing forged or falsified.

13. The counterfeiting, falsifying or altering of money, whether coin or paper, or of instruments of debt created by national, state, provincial, or municipal governments, or of coupons thereof, or of bank-notes, or the utterance or circulation of the same; or the counterfeiting, falsifying or altering of seals of state.

14. Embezzlement by public officers; embezzlement by persons hired or salaried, to the detriment of their employers; larceny; obtaining money, valuable securities or other property by false pretenses, or by threats of injury; receiving money, valuable securities or other property knowing the same to have been embezzled, stolen or fraudulently obtained.

15. Making use of the mails or other means of communication in connection with schemes devised or intended to deceive or defraud the public or for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretenses.

16. Fraud or breach of trust by a bailee, banker, agent, factor, trustee or other person acting in a fiduciary capacity, or director or member or officer of any company.

17. Soliciting, receiving, or offering bribes.

18. Perjury; subornation of perjury.

19. Offenses against the laws for the suppression of slavery and slave trading.

20. Offenses against the bankruptcy laws.

21. Smuggling, defined to be the act of willfully and knowingly violating the customs laws with intent to defraud the revenue by international traffic in merchandise subject to duty.

22. Offenses against the laws relating to the traffic in, use of, or production or manufacture of, narcotic drugs or cannabis.

23. Offenses against the laws relating to the illicit manufacture of or traffic in poisonous chemicals or substances injurious to health.

24. The attempt to commit any of the above offenses when such attempt is made a separate offense by the laws of the Contracting States.

25. Participation in any of the above offenses.

ARTICLE III

1. The requested State shall, subject to the provisions of this Convention, extradite a person charged with or convicted of any offense enumerated in Article II only when both of the following conditions exist:

(a) The law of the requesting State, in force when the offense was committed, provides a possible penalty of deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year; and

(b) The law in force in the requested State generally provides a possible penalty of deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year which would be applicable if the offense were committed in the territory of the requested State.

2. When the person sought has been sentenced in the requesting State, the punishment awarded must have been for a period of at least four months.

ARTICLE IV

1. Extradition need not be granted for an offense which has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the requested State, but if the offense has been committed in the requested State by an officer or employee of the requesting State, who is a national of the requesting State, the executive authority of the requested State shall, subject to its laws, have the power to surrender the person sought if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so.

2. When the offense has been committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the requesting State, the request for extradition need not be honored unless the laws of the requesting State and those of the requested State authorize prosecution of such offense under corresponding circumstances.

3. The words “territorial jurisdiction” as used in this Article and in Article I of this Convention mean: territory, including territorial waters, and the airspace thereover, belonging to or under the control of one of the Contracting States; and vessels and aircraft belonging to one of the Contracting States or to a citizen or corporation thereof when such vessel is on the high seas or such aircraft is over the high seas.

ARTICLE V

Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

1. When the person sought has already been or is at the time of the request being proceeded against in the requested State in accordance with the criminal laws of that State for the offense for which his extradition is requested.

2. When the legal proceedings or the enforcement of the penalty for the offense has become barred by limitation according to the laws of either the requesting State or the requested State.

3. When the person sought has been or will be tried in the requesting State by an extraordinary tribunal or court.

4. When the offense is purely military.

5. If the offense is regarded by the requested State as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense.

6. If in the specific case it is found to be obviously incompatible with the requirements of humane treatment, because of, for example, the youth or health of the person sought, taking into account also the nature of the offense and the interests of the requesting State.

ARTICLE VI

When the person sought is being proceeded against in accordance with the criminal laws of the requested State or is serving a sentence in that State for an offense other than that for which extradition has been requested, his surrender may be deferred until such proceedings have been terminated or he is entitled to be set at liberty.

ARTICLE VII

There is no obligation upon the requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the requested State, but the executive authority of the requested State shall, subject to the appropriate laws of that State, have the power to surrender a national of that State if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so.

ARTICLE VIII

If the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the law of the requesting State and the law of the requested State does not permit this punishment, extradition may be refused unless the requesting State gives such assurance as the requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be carried out."

^ relevant sections to the discussion.

 

She's not happy enough that her accusations have (indirectly) ended up causing him to be stuck in that embassy for 7 years, in a small windowless room, practically solitary confinement?
That's far more time than he'd ever be sentenced to in Sweden, even if all her accusations were completely true.

If those in Sweden believe he deserves punishment for sexual acts where the issue of consent was problematic, then he's more than been punished for that.

Again, even if Assange committed real rape, he'd still have had no reason to hide in that embassy. In Sweden he'd be unlikely to be sentenced to more time than he's already spent in that embassy. (I can give links to several examples of this if you don't believe me)

That's why it's completely asinine for anyone to try to claim he was hiding in the embassy to avoid facing rape charges in Sweden.

Hypothetically, he could have been accused of a brutal rape and hitting the woman upside the head, and making her bruised and bloodied, and it would still make much much more legal sense for him to face the charges in Sweden rather be stuck in a tiny room for 7 years, if it was not for his fear of being extradited to the US.

 

See the problem there? The fate of the prisoner could rest in the hands of a single officer of the State.

Which means if they decide to have the prisoner extradited, the prisoner potentially faces all the laws of another country.

Which ends up being kind of vague and subject to interpretation in actual practice.


But I suppose you believe that since an Australian citizen voluntarily entered the UK, he should be subject to the laws of any country which the UK decides to send him, or any country which another country that the UK decides to send him to decides.​

 

Since he fled the jurisdiction and their case was never adjudicated and he's been calling her a liar the entire time?
Yeah I'm sure she's been wanting some resolution on those points in a court of law..

Well Sweden has laws, and they require adjudication in a court of law, not absconding from the jurisdiction to the private "prison" location of one's choice where one can skateboard down the halls etc. Don't pretend like his time at the embassy was anything like lock up, particularly solitary confinement in prison. You ever been locked up kaze?

Again: Immaterial to the fact that he absconded the jurisdiction so his case was never adjudicated. If you flee and go hide in an embassy until just before the SOL is up, then emerge before its up (for whatever reason) and get taken into custody and charges filed before the SOL runs, that time you spent hiding is not counted to any sentence applied to you. That's not how that works, you were under your own recognizance you were not in custody of the state.

Which again: Doesn't matter he availed himself of the jurisdiction which means he subjected himself to its laws INCLUDING extradition treaties.

 

Uh no, they still have to be adjudicated (court systems juries etc) and the decision for extradition conditions was made at the point of treaty ratification. The official just looks at a list and ensures he doesn't check the wrong box. You don't get to retrade the deal personally because you don't like it, that's not how it works.

Yes but only one which the extraditing country agrees they subjected themselves to properly, see the treaty.

Since he enters the UK he is amenable to its extradition treaties should he be in an applicable fact circumstance (like Assange) he can indeed be sent off to any treaty nation the UK agrees he subjected himself to and committed an applicable crime in accordance with the particular treaty in question.

 

Your video goes on for 15 min. Is it too much to ask that you communicate your point in written form?

 

Gosh. Thanks for a 36 min.video.

 

Already existing laws are not always fair or Constitutional, in certain situations.
Just because it's already existing law does not automatically mean there's not a problem.

You do realize that in some situations, extradition could be a virtual death sentence for an innocent person?

I don't care if that's the system everyone's already agreed to or not, it's not inherently always right.

You think this all hinges on the law but it doesn't. The law is flexible. The law can never anticipate all situations that derive from it, there are human decision-makers in the equation (not just the ones who passed the law).

 

...and the relevance of that is???????

 

If Julian Assange is accused of either the UK will (presumably) extradite him. That is your premise, isn't it?

 

No it is not. What Country would even bother to seek extradition of a person on such matters? Would Sweden?

 

Wikileaks has broken some of the biggest and most consequential news stories in recent history. Hundreds of news organizations from all over the world have reported on information that was published by Wikileaks. So if you believe real journalism consists of informing the people of the truth, then Assange's work clearly meets that definition.

I never said I get to decide. I gave my opinion, which is the point of a forum like this. And my opinion is that Assange's only "crime" was to expose the lies and hypocrisy and corruption of very powerful people.

 

It's been asserted, but never actually explained in any logical or detailed way.

Because the justice system always works perfectly, right?

 

It wouldn't be the first time a government abused its power in order to destroy an innocent person.

 

I neither like nor dislike it. I just find it comical and somewhat pathetic how naive you are.

 

But what makes those charges legitimate? The mere fact that they exist?

 

Assange's actions are protected by the first amendment and by supreme court precedent. Assange did not do anything unlawful.

 

It amounts to that.