Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[heliocentric]

Politics entangles, the law separates.

I wouldn't see it like that. To me it's clear that the law is political. How could it not be?

Lumping the Assange case together with cranky conspiracy theories is silly I think. You don't need to invoke conspiracy theories to see that there are numerous ulterior motives at work. The suspicion that the US administration is playing a crucial and aggressive role behind the scenes is hardly a crackpot idea, since (a) the current state of things is almost inexplicable without it, (b) there is so much circumstantial evidence to support it and (c) the US government is known to play such a role, when not a more overt one, whenever it sees its interests as being at stake in an international context, which is more or less always.

[Lateralthinking1]

Then it's clearly impossible that anyone who might conceivably be thought of as against the world order - me, say, with a history of political activism - could ever satisfactorily be found guilty of any crime, because of the dark forces at work, so it would be quite wrong if there's the possibility someone like that has committed some crime to charge and try them? That's interesting, though it's also bloody stupid.

The fact that the US would like to shut WikiLeaks up and get their own back on Assange does not give him total immunity. Or it shouldn't.

Perhaps then John, with the best will in the world, you underestimate the sheer magnitude of the Wikileaks initiative.

What, I might ask, would your view be if the boyfriend of a member of Pussy Riot was alleged to have raped a Russian Embassy worker and someone who claimed to be a press photographer?

Would the Foreign Office be right in expressing contentment to Putin that the trial be held in Moscow or should it argue that it should take place elsewhere?

[JohnSkelton]

Would the Foreign Office be right in expressing contentment to Putin that the trial be held in Moscow or should it argue that it should take place elsewhere?

I was under the impression the Stockholm in Sweden was in Sweden, not the USA, so I don't see the relevance.

And don't patronise me. I don't appreciate it.

[Lateralthinking1]

I was under the impression the Stockholm in Sweden was in Sweden, not the USA, so I don't see the relevance.

And don't patronise me. I don't appreciate it.

My apologies for offending you, although it was unintended. I note your latest argument and have no further comment.

[scottycelt]

I often disagree with Lat but I have to admit I do admire his preparedness to say unpopular things (on this forum) and stand alone in doing so ...

Hope that doesn't appear patronising too ... it's certainly not meant to be!

[Lateralthinking1]

I often disagree with Lat but I have to admit I do admire his preparedness to say unpopular things (on this forum) and stand alone in doing so ...

Hope that doesn't appear patronising too ... it's certainly not meant to be!

Thanks scottycelt for that good gesture. Time, I think, for a bit of music. (R3 is sounding nicely pastoral!)

[Richard Tarleton]

Thanks scottycelt for that good gesture. Time, I think, for a bit of music. (R3 is sounding nicely pastoral!)

Not for long

[heliocentric]

Not for long

Thanks for the reminder RT, that must mean it's Cage time and I've already missed ten minutes! Time to tune in.

[Frances_iom]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html

even the Aussies believe the Americans want him

[Dave2002]

I don't know whether Assange is a "nice" man or not (re Flossie's earlier post) - but it shouldn't matter. Even nasty people are entitled to fair treatment.

If there is a reasonable case to answer in Sweden the simplest solution is for him to be extradited there, but note that the case for extradition should be based on sound enough evidence. The UK has a responsibility to ensure that the evidence is strong enough to warrant that.

The concern seems to be that at a high political level no one really cares about the sex charges, and it may just be a subterfuge to get Assange into a country where he can be extradited easily to the USA.

Some have suggested that if Assange were extradited to the USA he could face the death penalty. If that is a realistic possibility, then it should be possible for him to apply to the European Court of Human Rights which might very well rule such extradition illegal whether from the UK or from Sweden. In the UK we have so far been prevented from extraditing Abu Qatada to Jordan, though the European courts have now ruled that Abu Hamza can be extradited to the USA.

If Assange has committed offences against the US and within US jurisdiction, then it would not be unreasonable that he be extradited there. However, the US often seems to think that it has universal jurisdiction, which is a very biased view of the world.

[Pabmusic]

...If there is a reasonable case to answer in Sweden the simplest solution is for him to be extradited there, but note that the case for extradition should be based on sound enough evidence. The UK has a responsibility to ensure that the evidence is strong enough to warrant that.

The concern seems to be that at a high political level no one really cares about the sex charges, and it may just be a subterfuge to get Assange into a country where he can be extradited easily to the USA...

This seems to me the nub of it, but it is accompanied by some confused thinking (I'm not thinking of you, Dave, but rather a much more generalised hypothetical critic). Assange is in a country (Britain) from which he can be easily extradited to the USA. In fact, we often complain about the one-sided special deal on extradition we have with the Americans (British courts do not examine the evidence, but American courts do). No-one at all has suggested it's even easier to extradite people from Sweden, and I doubt that's true anyway. The Americans have had plenty of time to seek his extradition from Britain, yet have not done so.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, it would contravene the ECHR to extradite anyone to a country where they might face the death penalty for the crime they are extradited for, so (if the death penalty enters into it at all - possibly a big if) neither Britain nor Sweden would be able to extradite Assange anyway.

[Bryn]

Blame the OED then, not me.

And is now used as a metaphor, since no actual cooking is involved.

Why do you find it so hard to grasp that his victims are accusing him of a physical violation not so far removed from rape?

I don't find that hard at all, as reading my initial contribution to this thread makes clear. The thing is, the alleged victims have stated that they so not consider Ansange to have raped them. I respect their autonomy in this matter. I also note that the Swedish minister who has been interviewed during the day has made a point of referring to allegations of sexual assault, rather than rape.

Oh, and Pabmusic (message #19), try reading what I actually wrote in my contributions to this thread, rather than what you think I meant to write.

[Lateralthinking1]

This seems to me the nub of it, but it is accompanied by some confused thinking (I'm not thinking of you, Dave, but rather a much more generalised hypothetical critic). Assange is in a country (Britain) from which he can be easily extradited to the USA. In fact, we often complain about the one-sided special deal on extradition we have with the Americans (British courts do not examine the evidence, but American courts do). No-one at all has suggested it's even easier to extradite people from Sweden, and I doubt that's true anyway. The Americans have had plenty of time to seek his extradition from Britain, yet have not done so.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, it would contravene the ECHR to extradite anyone to a country where they might face the death penalty for the crime they are extradited for, so (if the death penalty enters into it at all - possibly a big if) neither Britain nor Sweden would be able to extradite Assange anyway.

You don't say how easy it is to extradite people from Sweden to the US if the death penalty doesn't enter into it. You are saying that it is easy from Britain and not more easy from Sweden. That could mean it's easy or pretty easy from Sweden.

The biggest hypothetical on this thread concerns trust. Trust in lawmakers to comply with their own laws.

Some think that the very idea of lawmakers wanting to break their own laws in this instance is hypothetical. Others think that any notion of lawmakers being willing to comply with their own laws in this instance is hypothetical.

In support of the latter, I cite the precedent of the Iraq War. Talking of which, Wikileaks and Sweden aren't friends -

http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/sweden-mass-deporting-refugees-arguing.html

[scottycelt]

I don't know whether Assange is a "nice" man or not (re Flossie's earlier post) - but it shouldn't matter. Even nasty people are entitled to fair treatment..

Absolutely ... though, as you say, a lot of the hot air over Assange is about politics and not just at a high level. Look at the wording of some of the placards on the streets, What's Tony Blair and the Iraq War got to do with alleged sexual assaults in Sweden?

Assange should be treated like you and I or anybody else in the same situation ... in other words he should be extradited to Sweden and face a fair trial if there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to proceed.

Arguably, Assange could well be ultimately safer from the clutches of the USA authorities in Sweden than in Ecuador. The USA is Ecuador's largest trading partner and things could easily change especially with a different government in that country in the future.

If one is truly concerned about human rights and genuine political asylum I know which of the two countries I'd bank on!

[Pabmusic]

You don't say how easy it is to extradite people from Sweden to the US if the death penalty doesn't enter into it. You are saying that it is easy from Britain and not more easy from Sweden. That could mean it's easy or pretty easy from Sweden...

Actually, I'm saying what I wrote: "No-one at all has suggested it's even easier to extradite people from Sweden [to the USA, than it is from Britain], and I doubt that's true anyway."

Assange was in Sweden in August 2010. While he was there, he applied for residence in Sweden. The sexual allegations were made and he was interviewed by Swedish police on 31 August. His request for residence was turned down on 18 October. No reason was given, but by that time Assange was in London anyway. Swedish police issued an arrest warrant on 20 November, and Assange gave himself up on 8 December in London, since when there has been a series of extradition hearings, culminating in the granting of bail and the current situation. He now says he fears that he'll be extradited to the USA if he's sent back to Sweden.

A few things occur to me:

1. There's no need for anyone to 'break their own laws' in this case, since there's ample evidence Assange controls Wikileaks, and the UK is America's 'poodle', always prepared to extradite to the USA. Sweden might even be the same. The USA has had plenty of time to start extradition proceedings, either in Sweden in 2010, or in the UK since then, but has done nothing at all. Perhaps they're just slow.

2. Assange fears Sweden so very much now, yet less than two years ago he wanted permanent residence there. The USA knew about him then, so I guess Assange just didn't appreciate at the time just how close the USA and Sweden are. Phew! Narrow escape.

3. Having left Sweden, Assange based himself in a 'safe haven' - London. He clearly wasn't in jeopardy of extradition while he was in the UK.

4. Why didn't he return to Australia? More than that, why did he want permanent residence in Sweden in the first place?

Clearly, he enjoys living life on the edge.