The problem is that we disagree as to what is relevant.
I take the view that the rule of law in the UK has to be the key issue.
You take the view that what you would like the law to be is the key issue.
I am not avoiding the issue. I am simply saying that as far as I know the UN panel decisions have no force in UK law. I am actually pretty good at international law. I deal with cases in international law and with foreign governments (mainly Eastern European ones).
However, we have to start with what the law actually is.
I do support Habeas Corpus. In fact I took a case relating to secret imprisonment through to the court of appeal on the basis of an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus. (in 2014)
Habeas Corpus is the law that opposes arbitrary detention.
Whether the law should be changed is another issue. However, we have to start out by working what the current situation is.
This is a specific example of how there is a reality in politics that has an effect on a day to day basis. That does matter.
Assange Watch
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
Little John
So, you are presumably deeply unhappy with any number of sanctions and/or military interventions by the USA and UK of countries who were deemed to fall foul of UN rulings? Those countries' laws, after all, were not being contravened, internally, irrespective of any UN ruling. Therefore such rulings had no jurisdiction, legal or otherwise, on those countries and so no other countries (such as the UK or USA) were in any justifiable position, either legally or morally, to act in lieu of those rulings....right?
I wont hold my breath for a direct and honest response to the above....
I wont hold my breath for a direct and honest response to the above....
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
On February 5th this year, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) ruled that Julian Assange is a political prisoner, and that the governments of the UK and Sweden should both release him and compensate him for the abuse he has suffered because of their actions. The official response of British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was nothing short of extra-ordinary: “I reject the decision of this working group. It is a group made up of lay people and not lawyers. Julian Assange is a fugitive from justice. He is hiding from justice in the Ecuadorian embassy.” What was even more extra-ordinary was the way the British media, including so-called “liberal” outlets like the BBC and The Guardian, made no attempt whatsoever to inform the British public that this statement from Hammond was, in the words of former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray “a blatant, a massive, an enormous, a completely astonishing lie.”
The truth is that the Working Group consists of highly qualified and experienced legal experts (you can find their CVs here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... shing-lie/), and is the highest authority that political dissidents and whistle-blowers can appeal to, having previously ruled in favour of Myanmar dissident Aung San Suu Kyi, and Anwar Ibrahim, a Malaysian opposition leader imprisoned on politically-motivated sodomy charges. By not only refusing to accept their ruling but ridiculing this panel, the governments of the UK and Sweden are setting a deeply troubling precedent. As pointed out on February 1st by Alfred de Zayas, the UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable Order, “ “Those states who claim to be at the vanguard of human rights should give good example, even if they do not agree with the conclusions of UN experts. The international order depends on the consistent and uniform application of international law, and is undermined when states pick and choose. The concept of human dignity is holistic. An à la carte approach to human rights erodes the credibility of the entire system.” In other words, if states who are supposedly leading advocates of human rights choose to ignore the ruling of the UNWGAD when it rules against them, then they have no right to criticise any other despotic regime which chooses to ignore such rulings. This leads to a world where whistle-blowers and dissidents have no protection from persecution at the hands of those people whose crimes they expose and challenge.
There will doubtless be people reading this who still believe that Assange is a rapist hiding from Swedish justice. The first thing you should note is that regardless of the propaganda tsunami coming out of London, Stockholm and Washington, the United States is absolutely desperate to get their hands on Assange, who faces prosecution by Secret Grand Jury for his role in publishing evidence of American war crimes leaked by Chelsea Manning (details here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... e-20120228). Assange has never tried to hide from Swedish justice. On the contrary, he has repeatedly asked for the Swedish prosecutor to interview him about the rape allegations in London – a request that until very recently the Swedes refused (no reason given). He's also offered to go to Sweden provided the Swedes give an assurance he will not be extradited to the United States, and Sweden has refused this assurance. But the most compelling reason why the UNWGAD ruled in Assange's favour is the obviously trumped-up nature of the allegations (and they are nothing more than allegations – no charges have been brought at any time). Have you noticed how the British media, so keen to condemn Assange as a sex criminal, never bother to provide any details about these supposed crimes?
On the August 14th and 17th 2010 Assange has sex with two different women he met while speaking at a Swedish conference. In neither case do the women involved initially claim it was non-consensual. On August 18th Assange applies for a permit to live and work in Sweden, hoping to start a branch of wikileaks there, under Swedish law that supposedly protects whistleblowers. Just two days later an arrest warrant is issued for Assange on allegations of “rape and molestation”. The two women have had contact with each other, and now both of them are claiming that what started out as consensual sex turned into non-consensual sex. On the same day Assange's office declare on Twitter that they have been warned to expect dirty tricks. The next day – August 21st – the arrest warrant is withdrawn. "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne. Prosecutors say the investigation into the molestation allegation (which recently expired) will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant. Then, on September 1st, Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Nye says she is re-opening the case, and issues an interpol arrest warrant for the crime of “sex by surprise”, which is not a crime under UK law and carries a penalty of 5000 kronor (about £500) in Sweden. Yes, you read that correctly. The British taxpayer has paid over £10million for a round-the-clock police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy in order to apprehend a person who has not been charged for a Swedish offence carrying a penalty of £500 (more details here: http://thestandard.org.nz/marianne-ny-m ... edish-law/).
The continued de-facto detention Julian Assange, now a political prisoner confined without access to sunlight for nearly four years, is an ongoing stain on the reputation of the United Kingdom as a country which leads the way on human rights, international law and the protection of those who expose war crimes. Assange remains trapped, a fugitive not from Swedish justice but from an unfair, secret trial and probably life imprisonment in the United States for exposing war crimes committed by US armed forces. One can only hope that the Swedes, who are increasingly embarrassed to have anything to do with this sordid affair, will soon interview Assange in London, drop the outstanding allegations and wash their hands of the whole thing. That would leave the British authorities in a difficult bind: inventing a massive propaganda lie is one thing; changing that propaganda lie to a completely different one three years later is quite another.
Je suis Assange.
[for publication in the next issue of http://www.hastingsindependentpress.co.uk/)
(which is primarily a free fortnightly 10,000 copy local PRINT newspaper, not a website)
The truth is that the Working Group consists of highly qualified and experienced legal experts (you can find their CVs here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... shing-lie/), and is the highest authority that political dissidents and whistle-blowers can appeal to, having previously ruled in favour of Myanmar dissident Aung San Suu Kyi, and Anwar Ibrahim, a Malaysian opposition leader imprisoned on politically-motivated sodomy charges. By not only refusing to accept their ruling but ridiculing this panel, the governments of the UK and Sweden are setting a deeply troubling precedent. As pointed out on February 1st by Alfred de Zayas, the UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable Order, “ “Those states who claim to be at the vanguard of human rights should give good example, even if they do not agree with the conclusions of UN experts. The international order depends on the consistent and uniform application of international law, and is undermined when states pick and choose. The concept of human dignity is holistic. An à la carte approach to human rights erodes the credibility of the entire system.” In other words, if states who are supposedly leading advocates of human rights choose to ignore the ruling of the UNWGAD when it rules against them, then they have no right to criticise any other despotic regime which chooses to ignore such rulings. This leads to a world where whistle-blowers and dissidents have no protection from persecution at the hands of those people whose crimes they expose and challenge.
There will doubtless be people reading this who still believe that Assange is a rapist hiding from Swedish justice. The first thing you should note is that regardless of the propaganda tsunami coming out of London, Stockholm and Washington, the United States is absolutely desperate to get their hands on Assange, who faces prosecution by Secret Grand Jury for his role in publishing evidence of American war crimes leaked by Chelsea Manning (details here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... e-20120228). Assange has never tried to hide from Swedish justice. On the contrary, he has repeatedly asked for the Swedish prosecutor to interview him about the rape allegations in London – a request that until very recently the Swedes refused (no reason given). He's also offered to go to Sweden provided the Swedes give an assurance he will not be extradited to the United States, and Sweden has refused this assurance. But the most compelling reason why the UNWGAD ruled in Assange's favour is the obviously trumped-up nature of the allegations (and they are nothing more than allegations – no charges have been brought at any time). Have you noticed how the British media, so keen to condemn Assange as a sex criminal, never bother to provide any details about these supposed crimes?
On the August 14th and 17th 2010 Assange has sex with two different women he met while speaking at a Swedish conference. In neither case do the women involved initially claim it was non-consensual. On August 18th Assange applies for a permit to live and work in Sweden, hoping to start a branch of wikileaks there, under Swedish law that supposedly protects whistleblowers. Just two days later an arrest warrant is issued for Assange on allegations of “rape and molestation”. The two women have had contact with each other, and now both of them are claiming that what started out as consensual sex turned into non-consensual sex. On the same day Assange's office declare on Twitter that they have been warned to expect dirty tricks. The next day – August 21st – the arrest warrant is withdrawn. "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne. Prosecutors say the investigation into the molestation allegation (which recently expired) will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant. Then, on September 1st, Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Nye says she is re-opening the case, and issues an interpol arrest warrant for the crime of “sex by surprise”, which is not a crime under UK law and carries a penalty of 5000 kronor (about £500) in Sweden. Yes, you read that correctly. The British taxpayer has paid over £10million for a round-the-clock police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy in order to apprehend a person who has not been charged for a Swedish offence carrying a penalty of £500 (more details here: http://thestandard.org.nz/marianne-ny-m ... edish-law/).
The continued de-facto detention Julian Assange, now a political prisoner confined without access to sunlight for nearly four years, is an ongoing stain on the reputation of the United Kingdom as a country which leads the way on human rights, international law and the protection of those who expose war crimes. Assange remains trapped, a fugitive not from Swedish justice but from an unfair, secret trial and probably life imprisonment in the United States for exposing war crimes committed by US armed forces. One can only hope that the Swedes, who are increasingly embarrassed to have anything to do with this sordid affair, will soon interview Assange in London, drop the outstanding allegations and wash their hands of the whole thing. That would leave the British authorities in a difficult bind: inventing a massive propaganda lie is one thing; changing that propaganda lie to a completely different one three years later is quite another.
Je suis Assange.
[for publication in the next issue of http://www.hastingsindependentpress.co.uk/)
(which is primarily a free fortnightly 10,000 copy local PRINT newspaper, not a website)
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
A sad, surreal farce, topped with outright lying by a British minister, backed by the BBC and the unwitting taxpayer.
I want Assange to sue the backsides off the British and Swedish governments. What's four years' false imprisonment, false accusations, deprivation of rights and defamation worth? At least a million a year, I reckon.
I want Assange to sue the backsides off the British and Swedish governments. What's four years' false imprisonment, false accusations, deprivation of rights and defamation worth? At least a million a year, I reckon.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
-
johnhemming2
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
John
It really is very simple, no matter how complicted you'd like it to be so you can continue to do the bidding of those who want Assange in American hands.
The bottom line is this: either the whole Assange affair is a stitch up (there really is a "dirty trick" conspiracy designed to get Assange to America to face retribution for publishing information about US war crimes sent to him by Chelsea Manning) OR it isn't (in which case the Swedish case really is about a sex crime, with no political motive, and Assange's fear that it is a stitch up is unfounded). In other words, what matters here is not how well qualified the members of the working group are, or whether their ruling has legal force in the UK. No. What matters is whether or not their rulling is correct - whether there is a politically-motivated conspiracy to get Assange to America or whether Assange is wrong to believe in a conspiracy.
This ruling by the UN working group tasked with ruling on such matters means that they agree with Assange and everybody else taking part in this discussion except for you. They agree it is a stitch up.
Nobody cares about your continual efforts to try to hide the wood by intently focusing on individual trees. And that is what you are doing, John. You are steadfastly refusing to look at what is the rather obvious bigger picture, and instead trying to throw doubt on individual bits of the puzzle.
The question remains whether you are doing this on purpose - whether you know damned well that it is a stitch up and you are intentionally trying to mislead people like Hammond et all - or whether you genuinely can't see the bigger picture yourself and genuinely believe it is not a stitch up.
I think you are doing it on purpose. I think you understand the truth, and are on the side of those dishonest and immoral powers that are peddling falsehoods.
We can see through you like you were made of glass, John.
It really is very simple, no matter how complicted you'd like it to be so you can continue to do the bidding of those who want Assange in American hands.
The bottom line is this: either the whole Assange affair is a stitch up (there really is a "dirty trick" conspiracy designed to get Assange to America to face retribution for publishing information about US war crimes sent to him by Chelsea Manning) OR it isn't (in which case the Swedish case really is about a sex crime, with no political motive, and Assange's fear that it is a stitch up is unfounded). In other words, what matters here is not how well qualified the members of the working group are, or whether their ruling has legal force in the UK. No. What matters is whether or not their rulling is correct - whether there is a politically-motivated conspiracy to get Assange to America or whether Assange is wrong to believe in a conspiracy.
This ruling by the UN working group tasked with ruling on such matters means that they agree with Assange and everybody else taking part in this discussion except for you. They agree it is a stitch up.
Nobody cares about your continual efforts to try to hide the wood by intently focusing on individual trees. And that is what you are doing, John. You are steadfastly refusing to look at what is the rather obvious bigger picture, and instead trying to throw doubt on individual bits of the puzzle.
The question remains whether you are doing this on purpose - whether you know damned well that it is a stitch up and you are intentionally trying to mislead people like Hammond et all - or whether you genuinely can't see the bigger picture yourself and genuinely believe it is not a stitch up.
I think you are doing it on purpose. I think you understand the truth, and are on the side of those dishonest and immoral powers that are peddling falsehoods.
We can see through you like you were made of glass, John.
-
johnhemming2
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
I agree with you that the question of the qualifications of the panel is a side show. It is a relevant side show rather than an irrelevant side show.
What is to me significant about the panel report is that the Swedish government have said Assange faces no risk of remoulement (ie extradition to the USA).
He should take note of that. It is, however, embarrassing if he does.
However, you should note that in your first paragraph you make reference to the issue of the qualifications of the panel. You then criticise me for commenting on that reference.
As I said it is unclear as to what the truth of the matter is as yet. I don't think the CVs give sufficient information on that. Hence Phllip Hammond may be right and also Craig Murray (who I have a lot of time for even if I don't always agree with him) may also be right.
What is to me significant about the panel report is that the Swedish government have said Assange faces no risk of remoulement (ie extradition to the USA).
He should take note of that. It is, however, embarrassing if he does.
However, you should note that in your first paragraph you make reference to the issue of the qualifications of the panel. You then criticise me for commenting on that reference.
As I said it is unclear as to what the truth of the matter is as yet. I don't think the CVs give sufficient information on that. Hence Phllip Hammond may be right and also Craig Murray (who I have a lot of time for even if I don't always agree with him) may also be right.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Are you saying the Swedes have offered Assange a guarantee he will not be extradited?johnhemming2 wrote:I agree with you that the question of the qualifications of the panel is a side show. It is a relevant side show rather than an irrelevant side show.
What is to me significant about the panel report is that the Swedish government have said Assange faces no risk of remoulement (ie extradition to the USA).
He should take note of that. It is, however, embarrassing if he does.
If so, where are you getting this information from, because it conflicts with everything I've heard about this case.
If there is any significant possibility that Craig Murray is right, then Assange would be insane to leave that embassy and go to Sweden.As I said it is unclear as to what the truth of the matter is as yet. I don't think the CVs give sufficient information on that. Hence Phllip Hammond may be right and also Craig Murray (who I have a lot of time for even if I don't always agree with him) may also be right.
If Assange is wrong about the risk of extradition, then he faces being embarrased.
If he's right, then he faces an unfair trial and life imprisonment.
Not exactly a risk worth taking, is it?
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Actually, this is still bullshit, John.
If there really were no dirty tricks here - if there really is no hidden agenda to deliver Assange to the Americans - then the UK and Swedish authorities could end this debacle tomorrow. All they'd have to do is give a rock solid, public, legally-binding guarantee that Assange will not be extradited for the length of time it takes to resolve the Swedish case, and allow him passage to Ecuador.
The very fact that they are refusing to do so - on top of all the other circumstantial evidence, such as the ludicrously over-the-top security outside the Ecuadorian embassy - means that the only reasonable conclusion is that Assange and Murray are correct.
You nearly had me John. Nearly. But no, you're still talking crap. There's no reason to sit on the fence on this one. It is completely obvious that Murray and Assange are right - that this is indeed a conspiracy. The alternative scenario simply isn't believable. The British government does not want Assange to get to Ecuador. It is the only rational explanation for the current situation.
If there really were no dirty tricks here - if there really is no hidden agenda to deliver Assange to the Americans - then the UK and Swedish authorities could end this debacle tomorrow. All they'd have to do is give a rock solid, public, legally-binding guarantee that Assange will not be extradited for the length of time it takes to resolve the Swedish case, and allow him passage to Ecuador.
The very fact that they are refusing to do so - on top of all the other circumstantial evidence, such as the ludicrously over-the-top security outside the Ecuadorian embassy - means that the only reasonable conclusion is that Assange and Murray are correct.
You nearly had me John. Nearly. But no, you're still talking crap. There's no reason to sit on the fence on this one. It is completely obvious that Murray and Assange are right - that this is indeed a conspiracy. The alternative scenario simply isn't believable. The British government does not want Assange to get to Ecuador. It is the only rational explanation for the current situation.
-
johnhemming2
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
UndercoverElephant wrote:Are you saying the Swedes have offered Assange a guarantee he will not be extradited?
If so, where are you getting this information from, because it conflicts with everything I've heard about this case.
I have just quoted a longer section from the UN panel report. The key part in this is "In light of the above, the Government refutes the submission made by the source that Mr. Assange faces a risk of refoulement to the United States. "from the UN panel report wrote: 26. According to the source, Sweden insisted that Mr. Assange must give up his right to political asylum and be extradited to Sweden, without any guarantee of non-refoulement to the United States. According to the source, Mr. Assange faces a well-founded risk of political persecution and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. In this respect, the Government would like to submit the following.
27. In its reply, the Government of Sweden emphasized that it is important that all countries act in accordance with international human rights standards, including their treaty obligations.
28. The Government firstly found it pertinent to clarify the difference between the procedures pertaining to an EAW and the question concerning a guarantee of non-refoulement or extradition to a third state. The surrendering of persons within the European Union is based on EU-law and the common area for justice and the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgements. The EAW applies throughout the EU and it provides improved and simplified judicial procedures designed to surrender people for the purpose of conducting inter alia a criminal prosecution. In the current case, an EAW has been issued by a Swedish prosecutor due to the fact that Mr. Assange is suspected of serious crime in Sweden and has been detained in his absence for those crimes.
29. The procedures pertaining to extradition is based on multilateral and bilateral treaties as well as on Swedish law, i.e. the Act on Extradition (1957:668). According to the Act, extradition may not be granted unless the criminal act is punishable in Sweden and corresponds to an offence for which imprisonment for one year or more is prescribed by Swedish law. If there is a risk of persecution, or, under certain conditions, if the offense is considered to be a military offense or a political offense, extradition may not be granted. Furthermore, an extradited person may not have the death penalty imposed for the offence. A decision on extradition is taken by the Government, after an investigation and opinion by the Prosecutor General’s Office and, in case the person sought does not consent to extradition, a subsequent decision by the Swedish Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court find that there are any obstacles to extradition, the Government is bound by this decision.
30. The Government of Sweden found it was important to emphasise that, to this date, no request for extradition regarding Mr. Assange has been directed to Sweden. Any discussion about an extradition of Mr. Assange to a third state is therefore strictly hypothetical. Furthermore, as has been explained above, any potential decision for extradition must be preceded by a thorough and careful examination of all the circumstances of the particular case. Such an examination cannot be made before a state has requested extradition of a specific person and specified the reasons invoked in support of the request. In addition, if a person has been surrendered to Sweden pursuant to an EAW, Sweden must obtain the consent of the surrendering state, in this case the United Kingdom, before being able to extradite the person sought to a third country. In light of the above, the Government refutes the submission made by the source that Mr. Assange faces a risk of refoulement to the United States.
31. In any case, the Government holds that the Swedish extradition and EAW procedures, contain sufficient safeguards against any potential extradition in violation of international human rights agreements.
32. In relation to the submission by the source that Sweden is obliged by applicable law and Convention obligations to recognise the diplomatic asylum granted to Mr. Assange by the authorities of the Republic of Ecuador, the Government submitted the following.
33. Regrettably, the source does not specify which law and Convention obligations Sweden is obliged to recognize. However, in the Government’s opinion, general international law does not recognize a right of diplomatic asylum as implied by the source. The International Court of Justice has confirmed this fundamental position. The Government would also like to emphasise that the Latin American Convention on Diplomatic Asylum does not constitute general international law. On the contrary, it is a regional instrument and no similar instruments or practices exist elsewhere. Accordingly, the Government does not find itself bound by the aforementioned regulations.
34. It should furthermore be noted that according to relevant international instruments, including the Latin American Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, the right to seek and enjoy asylum does not apply if an applicant as ground of asylum invokes that he or she is wanted for ordinary, non-political, crime (see e.g. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). In this respect, the Government notes that Mr. Assange is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion, all non-political crimes, and can therefore not rely on the above legal frameworks in this respect.
35. In light of the above, the Government refutes the source’s allegation that Sweden is obliged by applicable law and Convention obligations to recognise the asylum granted.
36. The source further alleges that Mr. Assange’s detention is arbitrary, and falls under Categories I, II, III and IV as classified by the Working Group. In this regard, the Government of Sweden firstly noted that the source has not explained how the situation of Mr. Assange corresponds to the above-mentioned criteria adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. For example, the Government noted that, except for the source’s mentioning of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is unclear under which other relevant international legal framework, if any, Mr. Assange is invoking his rights.
Which I have previously quoted.
It is important to understand the effect of separation of powers. Any final decision in Sweden about extradition to the USA would be made by the Swedish Courts. The Swedish Government (the executive) cannot bind the Swedish courts. It can make an assessment about this, but cannot give a guarantee.
It might be possible to get a declaration from the Swedish courts as to the position and for that to be used to give a guarantee. Assange would have to make an application to the Swedish courts.
The Swedish government has made an assessment that he faces no risk of extradition to the USA. It cannot give a guarantee as it is not within the Swedish Government's jurisdiction.
-
johnhemming2
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
-
johnhemming2
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
Interestingly the Swedish government cannot (because of separation of powers), but the UK government can give an assurance that the minister will oppose onward extradition. That actually is a good route for him to try although the assessment of risk should do.UndercoverElephant wrote: All they'd have to do is give a rock solid, public, legally-binding guarantee that Assange will not be extradited for the length of time it takes to resolve the Swedish case, and allow him passage to Ecuador.
-
Little John
Bullshit. The Swedish legal system features lay judges who are appointed because of their political affiliations to adjudicate in criminal proceedings. Swedish judges, furthermore, whilst having no formal legal training, know perfectly well which side their political bread is buttered.johnhemming2 wrote:
It is important to understand the effect of separation of powers. Any final decision in Sweden about extradition to the USA would be made by the Swedish Courts. The Swedish Government (the executive) cannot bind the Swedish courts.
Everyone here can see how utterly corrupt a person you are John Hemming. Give it up.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
That is all well and good, apart from the obviously trumped-up nature of the "rape" allegations. In other words, what you've quoted here is saying the rules regarding asylum (i.e. letting Assange get to Ecuador) do not apply if a person is wanted for a non-political crime. But anyone who digs beneath the surface of these allegations will find that the supposed non-political crime is something between a complete fiction and a crime that is a lot less serious than what is normally called "rape". In other words, something here doesn't just smell fishy - it stinks.
There is nothing unusual about trying to circumvent asylum laws by accusing/charging/prosecuting dissidents and whistleblowers of/for bogus non-political crimes. The same UN working group ruled in favour of a Malaysian opposition leader who was charged with sodomy. You could just as easily argue that that charge was "non-political". Not only is there nothing unusual about this, but the fabricated non-political charges are typically of a sexual nature, and the reason for this is that it helps turn public opinion against the victim.
It's still bullshit, John. Nice try though.
There is nothing unusual about trying to circumvent asylum laws by accusing/charging/prosecuting dissidents and whistleblowers of/for bogus non-political crimes. The same UN working group ruled in favour of a Malaysian opposition leader who was charged with sodomy. You could just as easily argue that that charge was "non-political". Not only is there nothing unusual about this, but the fabricated non-political charges are typically of a sexual nature, and the reason for this is that it helps turn public opinion against the victim.
It's still bullshit, John. Nice try though.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
It is very obvious that the United States want to get hold of Assange. They want to make an example of him, in order to deter other potential whistle blowers. They've done this with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, so there is no reason to believe they'll treat Assange any differently (regardless of the fact that he's not a US citizen, did not commit any crimes on US territory and is under no legal obligation to protect US secrets, especially when those secrets are war crimes). And strangely enough, Assange finds himself effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian Embassy, due to a ludicrously complicated and completely unbelievable legal situation, whereby he's been accused of "raping" two women who initially believed they had consensual sex with him but bizarrely changed their minds the day after Assange applied for a work and residency permit in Sweden. We also know the British government has gone to quite extraordinary lengths, sending scores of policemen into the embassy lobby before being forced to back off this tactic under international pressure to respect Ecuador's territory, and then spending over £10 million mounting a 24-hour guard outside the embassy. All (supposedly) to apprehend somebody who is wanted to interviewed in Sweden regarding allegations about a relatively minor Swedish offence which is being mis-reported as "rape". Finally, the UN working group on arbitrary detention has ruled in Assange's favour, and told the UK and Swedish governments to release and compensate him.
Anybody who, when availed for the facts above, still believes that there is no conspiracy to deliver Assange to the Americans is a first class idiot. John Hemming is not an idiot, so I can only presume he is a liar.
A summary of John's position:
I know it may look like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck (a conspiracy) but I'm undecided as to whether it really is a duck. It might turn out be Junction 7 of the M25. Assange should therefore work on the principle that it might be Junction 7 of the M25, and walk out of the embassy. He doesn't want to do this, because he'll look like a prize plonker if the thing that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck turns out be Junction 7 of the M25 after all.
Anybody who, when availed for the facts above, still believes that there is no conspiracy to deliver Assange to the Americans is a first class idiot. John Hemming is not an idiot, so I can only presume he is a liar.
A summary of John's position:
I know it may look like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck (a conspiracy) but I'm undecided as to whether it really is a duck. It might turn out be Junction 7 of the M25. Assange should therefore work on the principle that it might be Junction 7 of the M25, and walk out of the embassy. He doesn't want to do this, because he'll look like a prize plonker if the thing that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck turns out be Junction 7 of the M25 after all.