Assange Watch

[AutomaticEarth]

...on the side of corrupt power John Hemming

This story just popped up on my facebook page. It is about a Tory MP who claimed 49p in expenses for half a pint of milk, but "forgot" to mention £400,000K in undeclared earnings. So I googled the MP in question and found this article in the Torygraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ounds.html

Scroll down to the bottom of the article and look for the word "Hemming".

187,501..........that is nearly as much as the CEO in my company....

[johnhemming2]

Jazz is not that profitable, but I founded a computer company when I was 23 that currently turns over about £20M pa.

I am mystified as to why people think I have not been willing to answer the question as to whether the USA would like to get Julian Assange from somewhere. Of course they would. I don't know what legal proceedings are going on in the USA. There are two questions:

a) Were the allegations manufactured because of this. It seems clear not.

b) Which is safer for him Sweden or England. I would say Sweden.

1) Assange was perfectly happy to stay in the UK. As legal jurisdictions go, the UK is among the most willing to extradite people to the US.
2) If he was in custody in Sweden having been extradited from the UK, and a new extradition was requested by the US, both Sweden and the UK would have to agree.
3) Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard to the USA when he was accused of espionage, ruling that the charges were purely political.
4) The US authorities can't even prosecute journalists and newspapers published in the USA for publishing classified material.
5) US law has no conceivable locus in prosecuting a national of another state for actions performed in a third, also foreign, jurisdiction. Assange owed no legal duty to keep the US's secrets for it. He simply cannot have broken any US law.

[UndercoverElephant]

a) Were the allegations manufactured because of this. It seems clear not.

Well, given that they clearly are manufactured, what other possible reason is there?

You are pretending very hard that you can't see something that is very obvious. You claim it is simply a difference of opinion. That puts you in the same camp has Phillip Hammond when he claims that the UN ruling is "ridiculous". It is all part of a co-ordinated attempt to try to convince the public that whatever is going on with Julian Assange, it is NOT what he, the government of Ecuador and the UN panel on illegal detention claim it to be.

This is very nasty. You are siding with deeply evil forces, against a brave whistleblower who is in an inhumane situation he cannot get out of. You are part of the attempt to mislead public opinion about the Assange case.

You are fooling nobody, John Hemming.

1) Assange was perfectly happy to stay in the UK. As legal jurisdictions go, the UK is among the most willing to extradite people to the US.
2) If he was in custody in Sweden having been extradited from the UK, and a new extradition was requested by the US, both Sweden and the UK would have to agree.
3) Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard to the USA when he was accused of espionage, ruling that the charges were purely political.
4) The US authorities can't even prosecute journalists and newspapers published in the USA for publishing classified material.
5) US law has no conceivable locus in prosecuting a national of another state for actions performed in a third, also foreign, jurisdiction. Assange owed no legal duty to keep the US's secrets for it. He simply cannot have broken any US law.

All an attempt to make people believe that Assange is actually trying to escape justice for raping somebody, when the rape case in question is very obviously manufactured and absurd, and when everybody knows that the Americans want to get hold of him.

The United States has a vicious track record of flouting international law and mistreating prisoners. What the hell is (4) about? It is common knowledge that the US has carefully prepared to prosecute Assange. The Americans don't even deny this.

Stop insulting our intelligence. You are trying very hard to convince us that 2 + 2 adds up to 3. It isn't working.

[johnhemming2]

I have given detailed reasons as to why I disagree with you. David Boothroyd's comments (the Labour Councillors) add to those.

I am sure that the USA military establishment would like to get hold of Assange. However, I think Assange misunderstands the processes involved. He may honestly believe that he is more at risk in Sweden than England. However, I don't think he is.

I think he is partially trapped by circumstances. Having decided to seek asylum in Ecuador it is difficult for him to change strategy. It would be very embarrassing for him if he just ended up going to Sweden and the case against him was dropped.

[UndercoverElephant]

I have given detailed reasons as to why I disagree with you.

And nobody believes them, John.

I am sure that the USA military establishment would like to get hold of Assange. However, I think Assange misunderstands the processes involved.

No you don't. You are trying to mislead people.

I think he is partially trapped by circumstances. Having decided to seek asylum in Ecuador it is difficult for him to change strategy. It would be very embarrassing for him if he just ended up going to Sweden and the case against him was dropped.

You think he's trapped in a small room because he fears embarrassment?

No you don't. The picture you are trying to paint of this case/situation isn't remotely believable. It's just rhetoric designed to mislead.

[Automaton]

What happened after Sweden and Ecuador agreed that Assange could be questioned in the embassy? They signed an agreement last year, they were talking about it again in January... but it still hasn't happened?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/j ... ors-london

Surely that would have helped prevent all this embarrassment.

It's such a shame that Sweden (and the UK) can't simply give Assange an assurance that he won't be extradited to the US. If he believed them, of course

[Automaton]

On a loosely related note (for the 'safer in Sweden' argument) :

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... en-denmark

[UndercoverElephant]

What happened after Sweden and Ecuador agreed that Assange could be questioned in the embassy? They signed an agreement last year, they were talking about it again in January... but it still hasn't happened?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/j ... ors-london

Surely that would have helped prevent all this embarrassment.

It's such a shame that Sweden (and the UK) can't simply give Assange an assurance that he won't be extradited to the US. If he believed them, of course

If they provided that assurance, Assange would leave the embassy. The very fact that they will not provide it is powerful evidence that John Hemming is talking utter bollocks.

[biffvernon]

Here's a neat piece. The answer to the question posed at the end is 'Yes'. (To state the bleedin' obvious!)

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/United_Nati ... _Detention

[johnhemming2]

If they provided that assurance, Assange would leave the embassy. The very fact that they will not provide it is powerful evidence that John Hemming is talking utter bollocks.

No it isn't. Sweden and the UK both won't extradite people if they face the death penalty (I dealt with a case in respect of this).

However, no country will give an assurance that someone will not be extradited. He should know that.

In the end it is his decision (and that of the Ecuadorian government) as to whether he stays in the Embassy or goes. The Swedes might interview him in the Embassy, but to be honest they are probably laughing at him.

[johnhemming2]

30. 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.

[Automaton]

johnhemming2 said:

Sweden and the UK both won't extradite people if they face the death penalty

Denmark says the same, and yet, if you read the Guardian link I posted, they didn't stand by that when pushed by the US.

However come to think of it, such a declaration would be a good reason to state that they would not extradite Assange to the US, given what they know he would face. If they can't tell him that, it can only mean one thing.

And surely that would have been a better option that spending all that money on waiting to arrest him?

[UndercoverElephant]

The Swedes might interview him in the Embassy, but to be honest they are probably laughing at him.

You are a truly vile human being. Personally, I'd ban you from posting on this board. You're only the second person I've said that about since I joined this community in 2008. Not only are you trying to mislead people, not only is it obvious you's like to see Assange end up in captivity in the United States, but you are actually taking pleasure in the predicament of Julian Assange. You think it is an appropriate topic to be light-hearted about.

[johnhemming2]

You are a truly vile human being.

You clearly need a safe space in which your world view is not presented with facts that challenge it.

[johnhemming2]

Denmark says the same, and yet, if you read the Guardian link I posted, they didn't stand by that when pushed by the US.

I have tried re-reading the guardian link. I could not see that.

Because of separation of powers the Swedish Government cannot give any assurances directly anyway. There is an interesting question as to whether what they have said would enable the use of estoppel. It might. That, however, is a question of Swedish law. It is also a question as to whether extradition is in part an executive act (as it is in the UK) or only a judicial act.

In these situations it is always worth getting back to original sources as important subtleties can be lost in the reporting.