Wikileaks

[BlisteredHand]

If this guy is so hellbent on unmasking corporations and government, why can't he just man up and tell his side of the story accurately? Sounds like he just wants to run from something...

To tell someone to "man up" is gender and/or sexual discrimination and bullying. Even if it's a joke.

 

[FoolKiller]

If this guy is so hellbent on unmasking corporations and government, why can't he just man up and tell his side of the story accurately? Sounds like he just wants to run from something...

Assume, for the sake of argument, that he is telling the truth and that these are false charges for the US to be able to nab him and he isn't hiding behind a conspiracy tale. What possible benefit could he gain from going into Swedish custody with the intent of telling his side of the story?

Assange: I didn't do it.
Swedish official: We know.
Assange: But then why....
[redacted]: Hello, Mr Assange. Ah, I see wikis aren't all you leak.

If you published a bunch of classified information and the guy who gave it to you, and is given Constitutional protections, gets locked up for months without indictment, forced to endure what investigators now call cruel and unusual punishment before any trial, and has not been allowed any contact with any family, would you just hop out into public to face charges raised immediately after you released said information and say, "Here I am!"?

Let's be honest, if he believes it's a trap no one can blame him. Or he also has the perfect cover story for resisting arrest.

But like I said before, I look at how these same countries treated Roman Polanski for over 35 years and it definitely makes me wonder.

EDIT:

To tell someone to "man up" is gender and/or sexual discrimination and bullying. Even if it's a joke.

Huh? Since when? You might want to tell these guys: http://www.manupcampaign.org/

 

[Pupik]

To tell someone to "man up" is gender and/or sexual discrimination and bullying. Even if it's a joke.

I wouldn't use it in a court of law, but I think you knew that already...

 

[XoravaX]

Remember that even a helicopter can be forced to land (by Armed Forces or Police helicopters) by blocking its path etc. and even though it couldn't be entered, Assange can't stay there forever.

They just want to get him so they can send him to the US?

Do they have any evidence like DNA, other witnesses, video?

Assange himself admitted having had a consensual sexual relationship with the two Swedish women but the women claim that not all instances of intercourse had been consensual. Any other possible evidence is currently held by the Swedish Police, and per the common practice isn't going to be revealed to the common public until either the trial or the decision to not to raise charges.

A court does not need the attendance of Assange to have a trial. He could and is willing to testify via video link.

Whether it is about superpowers is not relevant to the law, and also it is not about being "above the law" America has not declared any intention of charging Assange for any reason. They are just looking into it. So he is just avoiding the potential action of America, which is justified considering he can do so if he wishes, he is not an American citizen.

But seeking asylum from an extradition for questioning makes him seem both guilty and unwilling to face the possible charges of the sexual assault.

He is holding himself above the law; he doesn't give a **** of the Swedish law and legal system, just because of fears of being extradited to the US.
It's like I could break the law and avoid the questioning and charges by claiming that I can't be guaranteed handling that is in the law and constitution. Isn't that quite standing above the law?

Sweden doesn't yet want him for the trial, only for questioning, after which is decided if there is enough evidence to bring it to the court.
The Nordic countries' court system, if Assange were to be absent from the trial itself, would automatically render him guilty because of absence, as the accused have to face the charges in person. But it's not yet decided if there is enough evidence to raise charges and go to the court.

I believe an extradition from Sweden to the US would be against the Swedish law even if he were to be charged by the US (because of the release of confidential documents) as long as the possible crime isn't committed on US soil, which it isn't. And that he isn't a US citizen, as you mentioned. Also, EU laws forbid extradition of people who could possibly face a death penalty (ie. the highest possible penalty for such a crime is death).

 

[Tornado]

To tell someone to "man up" is gender and/or sexual discrimination and bullying. Even if it's a joke.

It's a good thing we have you here to defend Assange against such a harsh and brutal attack on his character.

 

[DK]

I'm wondering, is Assange WikiLeaks' only hope? If he is arrested, surely there's someone waiting in the wings to take over?

 

[Dotini]

someone...

...willing to publicly assume the same powerful enemies as Assange? Perhaps the whole future* rests or falls on him alone at this time?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[FoolKiller]

It's like I could break the law and avoid the questioning and charges by claiming that I can't be guaranteed handling that is in the law and constitution. Isn't that quite standing above the law?

If someone who aided you, in the act you claim is the motivation for that mistreatment, has had their rights violated and treated in ways that violate the Geneva Condition for the last two years I would say you are justified in that claim.

Unlike Polanski who gets a pass for...making artsy films?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Alright, here's a hypothetical situation for you:

Let's say that Julian Assange is an investigative reporter, and Bradley Manning is his source. Manning gives him the name and alias of an undercover police officer working in the city. While writing a story on crime in the area, Assange publishes the officer's name, and a few days later, that officer is found dead (whether or not they were killed by criminals is unresolved). Assange washes his hands of the matter, saying that the public had a right to know about the officer - he was meeting with dangerous people in the middle of suburbia, and the people had no idea that criminals were meeting in their very street.

What would be an appropriate course of action here?

On the one hand, Assange has a highly-valid point: there were dangerous people conspiring to commit crimes in the middle of the city. Ordinary people, who would otherwise have no idea what was going on, might be the victims of those crimes, and so they should know who is living and working among them. At the same time, he has endangered the life of a police officer working undercover to stop these crimes. Is he justified in publishing what he published? And if that article led to the death of the undercover police officer, what right does he have to wash his hands of his role in the matter?

Now, I'm not saying that Julian Assange was right or wrong in publishing those documents on WikiLeaks. Whether or not he is right or wrong is open to interpretation - there were some things in those documents that the public should have known, and some things that they should not have, but Assange could not be selective in what he published and what he did not; he should have published everything or he should have published nothing.

However, I believe that Assange should be held accountable for what he did. If he published something about, say, troop movements in Afghanistan, and if the Taliban used that information to stage attacks on soldiers stationed there, then Julian Assange should be prosecuted. He cannot claim that he was acting in the public's best interest.

----------

Also, for the people claiming that Australia shoud step in and aid Assange, I suggest you read this. The Australian government approached Assange on eight separate occasions offering assistance - the last of which was two days ago - and Assange rejected their help every single time.

 

[FoolKiller]

Alright, here's a hypothetical situation for you:

Let's say that Julian Assange is an investigative reporter, and Bradley Manning is his source. Manning gives him the name and alias of an undercover police officer working in the city. While writing a story on crime in the area, Assange publishes the officer's name, and a few days later, that officer is found dead (whether or not they were killed by criminals is unresolved). Assange washes his hands of the matter, saying that the public had a right to know about the officer - he was meeting with dangerous people in the middle of suburbia, and the people had no idea that criminals were meeting in their very street.

You forgot the bits where Manning disappears for months in "protective" custody and it turns out that the officer was also involved in the mass killing of innocent civilians. But whitewash as you wish.

What would be an appropriate course of action here?

<snip>

And if that article led to the death of the undercover police officer, what right does he have to wash his hands of his role in the matter?

This right:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And in the Virginia Report of 1799 James Madison wrote:

Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of everything; and in no instance is this more true, than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the states, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect, that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression; who reflect, that to the same beneficent source, the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the rank of a free and independent nation; and which have improved their political system into a shape so auspicious to their happiness.

But then I hold a degree in Telecommunications, earned from the University of Kentucky's School of Journalism, which is housed in the same building as the Free Speech Library.

So, maybe I am a bit biased towards free speech and watchdog journalism. Just a little. But then I look at people like Edward R Murrow, Woodward & Bernstein, and so forth and wonder what if they held back for fear they might cause a possible security issue?


And NPR had a good article on Why Ecuador Granted Assange Asylum.. It seems as is Ecuador was going to let Sweden question Assamge but Sweden would not guarantee that they wouldn't extradite him to the US. Is Ecuador adding their own lies to a false conspiracy dreamed up by Assange? Or is Assange right to feel threatened?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

it turns out that the officer was also involved in the mass killing of innocent civilians. But whitewash as you wish.

Why don't you just take the hypothetical situation completely out of context while you're at it?

What would be an appropriate course of action here?

<snip>

And if that article led to the death of the undercover police officer, what right does he have to wash his hands of his role in the matter?

This right:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So the freedom of speech is absolute, even if exercising the right to speak freely results in death or injury to another?

Let's say that Julian Assange posted something on WikiLeaks that detailed troop movements out of Kandahar. It's nothing top secret, but it is still classified information. And, for argument's sake, the Taliban find that information on WikiLeaks and use it to stage a rocket attack on a helicopter. The helicopter crashes with no survivors. In the subsequent investigation, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the Taliban used what was posted on WikiLeaks to stage the attack, and that if it hadn't been for the post, the attack would not have happened in the first place.

Does Julian Assange bear some degree of responsibility for what happened?

If nothing else, the burden of responsibility rests with Assange because he should have realised that what he was posting on WikiLeaks could (and probably did) endanger the lives of other through no fault of their own, even if no-one was killed or injured as a result of it being posted. Was his right to express himself - and given that he was posting things that other people wrote, even the claim that he was expressing "himself" is questionable - really worth jeopardising the lives of other people?

It seems as is Ecuador was going to let Sweden question Assamge but Sweden would not guarantee that they wouldn't extradite him to the US.

Of course Sweden could not guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to America - there has been no formal request for extradition lodged. How could they say with any degree of certainty that they would not extradite him without knowing what America wanted?

A request for extradition does not automatically mean that the person in question is extradited. Whoever is requesting it has to give details of why they want to extradite someone in the first place, and that means they have to explain their case. They can't just say "We want to extradite John Smith for questioning over a murder"; they have to say "We want to extradite John Smith for questioning over a murder because we found his fingerprints at the crime scene, witnesses say he threatened to kill the victim the day before the murder and he caught the first flight out of the country after the victim died". From there, it falls to the country hosting John Smith to decide whether or not there is a case against him to fulfil the extradition request.

The Swedes would look pretty foolish if they guaranteed that Assange would not be extradited to America, only to receive the request for extradition and find that America made a compelling case against Assange. Given the political sensitivity of the case, America would have to make a very thorough case against Assange in any request for extradition. The more they want him, the more-thorough he would have to be.

Or is Assange right to feel threatened?

He posted classified information on the internet. Of course he has a right to feel threatened - he knew exactly what he was doing when he was doing it. Or did he genuinely think that nothing would happen to him if he posted it?

If he does, perhaps he should let himself be extradited, because "I posted classified military secrets and didn't think that would upset anyone" sounds like grounds for an insanity defense to me.

 

[Nessy]

Wasn't the info that was leaked about 3yrs out of date?

Anybody know?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Some of the stuff that was posted was several years out of date; other stuff was much more recent. For example, in January 2009, WikiLeaks uploaded telephone conversations between Peruvian government lobbyists and executives of a petroleum company that had been recorded in October 2008.

As far as the leaks related to the US government in 2010 were concerned, WikiLeaks staggered the release of that content. The latest document in the release was dated 28 February 2010, and the first release was on 28 November, but it is unknown exactly when WikiLeaks acquired it. Although the dates that those documents were written list its publication as a year before they were released on WikiLeaks, some of the content referred to events that were, at the time, to take place in the future.

 

[Nessy]

Cheers pm. 👍

 

[XoravaX]

If someone who aided you, in the act you claim is the motivation for that mistreatment, has had their rights violated and treated in ways that violate the Geneva Condition for the last two years I would say you are justified in that claim.

Unlike Polanski who gets a pass for...making artsy films?

What Assange is now trying to stand above is the Swedish law and legal system, which is in no way involved with Polanski. There is no proof Assange would be extradited from Sweden to the US, and as I stated above, it would be against the EU law. Of course, CIA has made such illegal actions in the past, but it surely wouldn't be the Swedish handing Assange, moreso the CIA abducting him. And that can be done in any country they can operate in.

 

[Touring Mars]

Apparently a statement from outside the Ecuadorian embassy is imminent... it remains to be seen whether or not Assange himself will make the statement, and if he will actually step outside, thus putting himself at risk of immediate arrest. Perhaps he will make the statement from just inside the door? (or, as some websites are reporting, the balcony )

Either way, viewers in the UK can watch the statement live on the BBC News website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19310783

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Assange would be able to appear outside without fear of arrest depending on where the perimeter of the property runs.

 

[Touring Mars]

Assange would be able to appear outside without fear of arrest depending on where the perimeter of the property runs.

The Ecuadorian embassy is only a small part of the building that he's in... technically, he could be arrested inside the building since only a small number of rooms inside comprise the embassy itself.

It must be quite frustrating for him that he can't even pop out to the local corner shop.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It must be quite frustrating for him that he can't even pop out to the local corner shop.

He knew what he was signing up for when he ran to the embassy. If he's frustrated, I have no sympathy for him.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Why won't the Swedes come to Assange?

 

[Sphinx]

Why won't the Swedes come to Assange?

Because all their condoms have split.

Edit:
Sorry, I thought you wrote 'on'

 

[XoravaX]

If someone who aided you, in the act you claim is the motivation for that mistreatment, has had their rights violated and treated in ways that violate the Geneva Condition for the last two years I would say you are justified in that claim.

That would naturally apply to the case if the question was the extradition from the UK to the US, but it's from the UK to Sweden (that hasn't violated anything, they have nothing to do with Polanski). And it's just as possible for Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US as from any other Western country. Extraditing him from Sweden for the US would also violate EU and Swedish laws, so I see Assange's claims highly suspicious. Sweden isn't even a NATO country, and not allied with the US in any way.

It would be like that I had released confidential Russian documents (analogous to the US), then suspected of committing a crime in Croatia (Sweden) and had fled to Colombian embassy (Ecuadorian) in Czech Republic (the UK) and sought asylum because I claimed that if the Czech (the British) extradited me to Croatia (Sweden) to the questioning Croatia (Sweden) would re-extradit me to Russia (the US) (which would want to avenge the leaking of the documents). Even though it would be against Croatian laws and constitution (Swedish and EU laws) to do so.

See now why it's pretty damn dubious?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And now Assange is trying to make himself into a folk hero.

If he really believes that the United States is on a witch hunt, then perhaps he should surrender himself to them and prove it in a court of law.

One suspects he isn't so much running from the Americans as he is the Swedes.

 

[FoolKiller]

What Assange is now trying to stand above is the Swedish law and legal system, which is in no way involved with Polanski.

They allowed Polanski to travel in and out of Sweden. But I am referring to Britain, where Polanski entered Europe from the US and they allowed him passage. The same could be said for much of Europe. The countries involved in trying to capture Assange ignored Polanski, who admitted to the same crimes (drugged and raped, anally in his case) with a 13-year-old girl.

There is no proof Assange would be extradited from Sweden to the US, and as I stated above, it would be against the EU law.

If he could face the death penalty. Are you saying no individuals wanted for murder have ever been extradited to the US? Or perhaps the US merely has to not go for the death penalty at trial (whenever they get around to it). The claim is that Sweden is being complicit in aiding the US, not that Sweden is some sort of Seal Team 6 soft target.

Of course, CIA has made such illegal actions in the past, but it surely wouldn't be the Swedish handing Assange, moreso the CIA abducting him. And that can be done in any country they can operate in.

The claim is not that the US was trying to kidnap him but have him arrested on charges and the extradited based on charges brought up by the US. It is far easier to get a current prisoner extradited than ask an agency with their own criminals to hunt down to aid in your investigations as well. From how extraditions are reported it sounds as if someone is arrested for a crime in and then their name rings up an Interpol file, or whatever, notifying the agency that said criminal is wanted somewhere else. If the US wanted Assange without violating international treaties they needed him arrested for a separate crime first.

That would naturally apply to the case if the question was the extradition from the UK to the US, but it's from the UK to Sweden (that hasn't violated anything, they have nothing to do with Polanski).

I already explained the hypocritical actions of both countries on this statement.

And it's just as possible for Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US as from any other Western country.

Read back through my posts again. I explained this already. If the charges are trumped up then the US made their play in Sweden. They can't raise new false criminal allegations against him in every country he travels to without it being an obvious witch hunt.

Extraditing him from Sweden for the US would also violate EU and Swedish laws, so I see Assange's claims highly suspicious.

Answered above. I feel like you are getting repetitive.

Sweden isn't even a NATO country, and not allied with the US in any way.

I was unaware these were prerequisites to an extradition agreement.

It would be like that I had released confidential Russian documents (analogous to the US), then suspected of committing a crime in Croatia (Sweden) and had fled to Colombian embassy (Ecuadorian) in Czech Republic (the UK) and sought asylum because I claimed that if the Czech (the British) extradited me to Croatia (Sweden) to the questioning Croatia (Sweden) would re-extradit me to Russia (the US) (which would want to avenge the leaking of the documents). Even though it would be against Croatian laws and constitution (Swedish and EU laws) to do so.

See now why it's pretty damn dubious?

No, because extraditions have occurred for crimes whose maximum penalty would make it violate said laws. So there is an easy way around it.

Why don't you just take the hypothetical situation completely out of context while you're at it?

I thought I was adding missing context, or is the undercover officer not the military, which was revealed to be hiding massive instances of civilian deaths.

So the freedom of speech is absolute, even if exercising the right to speak freely results in death or injury to another?

Ignoring the fact that "no law" means no law and that I gave justification for this stated by one of the founding fathers highly involved in writing the Constitution, do we hold media responsible for every riot (which may include deaths, rapes, etc.) that results from them reporting the truth? At what point do you determine that reporting facts is criminal? How do you guarantee whistleblower protections when you set a precedent for reporting the truth being a criminal offense with the right argument?

Let's say that Julian Assange posted something on WikiLeaks that detailed troop movements out of Kandahar. It's nothing top secret, but it is still classified information. And, for argument's sake, the Taliban find that information on WikiLeaks and use it to stage a rocket attack on a helicopter. The helicopter crashes with no survivors. In the subsequent investigation, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the Taliban used what was posted on WikiLeaks to stage the attack, and that if it hadn't been for the post, the attack would not have happened in the first place.

It wouldn't be the first time. All three of the alphabet networks have done similar things. Again, if you can tie a specific crime to being caused by factual information shared by the media where do you draw the line between free press and criminal?

Does Julian Assange bear some degree of responsibility for what happened?

If so, multiple media outlets bear responsibility of countless deaths. Edward R Murrow, the journalist so many others strive to become that the Excellence in Journalism award is named after him, bears responsibility for extending The Cold War and creating the environment that led to the Cuban missile crises and the rest of the nuclear standoff. He also reported live from on board bombers during allied bombing raids. Any Germans with a radio could have known the bombers' position. Every journalist interested in truth and substance over all else (the goal of journalism) knows Murrow's closing quote from a German concentration camp report.

I pray you to believe what I have said about Buchenwald. I have reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it I have no words.... If I've offended you by this rather mild account of Buchenwald, I'm not in the least sorry.

Was his right to express himself - and given that he was posting things that other people wrote, even the claim that he was expressing "himself" is questionable - really worth jeopardising the lives of other people?

First, free press and free speech are separate, but connected, freedoms. His expressing himself has nothing to do with it.

To answer your question, unless he handed it specifically to the enemy with potentially damaging data highlighted, he is reporting facts and cannot be held responsible for what might happen any more than Walmart can be held responsible a wife who kills her husband with a kitchen knife she bought at their store. It is publicly available.

But we won't know for sure if it did because in the Manning case the military has denied all FOIA requests on the court records of the hearing, and that was after they tried to tell the judge their own damage assessment reports were irrelevant to the Aiding the Enemy charges.

A request for extradition does not automatically mean that the person in question is extradited. Whoever is requesting it has to give details of why they want to extradite someone in the first place, and that means they have to explain their case. They can't just say "We want to extradite John Smith for questioning over a murder"; they have to say "We want to extradite John Smith for questioning over a murder because we found his fingerprints at the crime scene, witnesses say he threatened to kill the victim the day before the murder and he caught the first flight out of the country after the victim died". From there, it falls to the country hosting John Smith to decide whether or not there is a case against him to fulfil the extradition request.

So if American said he is wanted for espionage, numerous counts of conspiracy, and explained it in a legalese way of saying, "Wikileaks, ever heard of it?"

The Swedes would look pretty foolish if they guaranteed that Assange would not be extradited to America, only to receive the request for extradition and find that America made a compelling case against Assange.

I would guess they could have found a way to guarantee he wouldn't be extradited for Wikileaks, but could not guarantee he wouldn't be extradited for any other crimes. Basically, they could have guaranteed that Assange's fears were false and unwarranted and all they want him for are the sexusl assault charges.

Given the political sensitivity of the case, America would have to make a very thorough case against Assange in any request for extradition. The more they want him, the more-thorough he would have to be.

The US have already detained and mistreated one person in relation to this case. Their explanation there is enough to make President Obama face political backlash during an election season to defend their actions and not intervene. But since none of the records are being made available to the public we have to wonder how strong their evidence is.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...protesters-disuprt-obama-oakland-headquarters

All a result of the White House refusing to address the We the People petition on the subject, despite meeting the requisite number of signatures.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-bradley-manning
Open government my butt.

He posted classified information on the internet. Of course he has a right to feel threatened - he knew exactly what he was doing when he was doing it. Or did he genuinely think that nothing would happen to him if he posted it?

Everything America is supposed to stand for says he shouldn't. But all you have to do is ask Mark Felt if that is actually how it works.

And now Assange is trying to make himself into a folk hero.

If he really believes that the United States is on a witch hunt, then perhaps he should surrender himself to them and prove it in a court of law.

Because he would get the same kind if appropriate treatment and fair trial as Bradley Manning? If he thinks it is a witch hunt he has every reason to run.

You seem to wish to continue ignoring that the US has treated their own citizen horribly in this case, as found by their own internal investigation, and that if Wikileaks showed us anything it is that the US has not had a positive record on the treatment of prisoners and fairness when it comes to the War on Terror. Hell, they treat their own citizens as criminals for everyday activities. And their respect for the Bill of Rights is so low that they wish to place cameras on every street corner while arresting people for using cameras to record law enforcement acting in their official capacity. And don't get me started on the FDA (non-security agency) spying and maintaining an enemies list.

Seriously, one look at Wikileaks or even just recently passed laws will tell you that anyone who is arrested for Wikileaks is royally screwed and has minimal hope for fair treatment.

 

[XoravaX]

If he could face the death penalty. Are you saying no individuals wanted for murder have ever been extradited to the US? Or perhaps the US merely has to not go for the death penalty at trial (whenever they get around to it).

No, a possibility of a death penalty already bans extradition, ie. anyone suspected of a crime that has a death penalty listed can't be extradited. The US would have to charge Assange based on laws that don't have a death penalty possibility (which the espionage laws and such he will probably be accused of breaking do). I'm not saying anyone suspected of a murder has never been extradited (also, differentiate 2nd and 1st degree murders), but the current EU law is being quite clear on this.

On the other hand, EU and the US have a legal assistance and extradition contract, which automatically forces any EU country to extradite the suspected apart from that death penalty exception (and if the charges are legal and the suspected can be guaranteed a fair trial). Assange wouldn't have to be in Sweden for that. If the US decides to raise charges against Assange that are legal in EU sense (fair trial and treatment, no death penalty possibility), Assange can never again visit either EU or the US without the fear of being brought to the trial. Or Norway or Japan either.

They allowed Polanski to travel in and out of Sweden. But I am referring to Britain, where Polanski entered Europe from the US and they allowed him passage. The same could be said for much of Europe. The countries involved in trying to capture Assange ignored Polanski, who admitted to the same crimes (drugged and raped, anally in his case) with a 13-year-old girl.

Polanski didn't commit it in another EU country. The EU law also forces extradition to other EU countries (as no EU country has death penalty, and EU judiciary regulates the national judiciaries to some extent to keep the trials and treatment as fair as possible, within their power), which wasn't the case with Polanski, as his crime was committed in the US. If the UK didn't do anything in their power to extradite Assange, they would break the EU laws. Remember that EU is a financial and judiciary union to some extent, something which never existed between the US and UK/Sweden.

 

[FoolKiller]

No, a possibility of a death penalty already bans extradition, ie. anyone suspected of a crime that has a death penalty listed can't be extradited. The US would have to charge Assange based on laws that don't have a death penalty possibility (which the espionage laws and such he will probably be accused of breaking do). I'm not saying anyone suspected of a murder has never been extradited (also, differentiate 2nd and 1st degree murders), but the current EU law is being quite clear on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Bars_to_extradition

Death penalty &ndash; Many countries, such as Australia, Canada, Macao,[2] and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out.

So, are you telling me that the US can't assure the death penalty wouldn't be imposed? They aren't even trying for the death penalty with Manning and he has a possible treason charge.

Of course, all of this supposes that it would be an above the board public extradition. That is not Assange's claim. The claim being they are false allegations designed to get Assange in custody, where he would then be discreetly handed over to American officials, which is why it now would have to be Sweden.

Polanski didn't commit it in another EU country. The EU law also forces extradition to other EU countries (as no EU country has death penalty, and EU judiciary regulates the national judiciaries to some extent to keep the trials and treatment as fair as possible, within their power), which wasn't the case with Polanski, as his crime was committed in the US. If the UK didn't do anything in their power to extradite Assange, they would break the EU laws. Remember that EU is a financial and judiciary union to some extent, something which never existed between the US and UK/Sweden.

Wait, you see no hypocrisy in Britain threatening diplomatic relations to get at Assange but allowing a child rapist free passage through their country because the crime wasn't in the EU? Assange is not technically in Britain, so I fail to see how the EU law applies.

I have no issue with Britain arresting Assange on the street and turning him over, but being willing to violate the sanctity of an embassy and risk diplomatic tensions seems a bit drastic, especially in comparison to their past actions toward similar criminals.

I do wonder though, why is it that people who think Assange is blatantly lying choose to ignore that after speaking to all parties involved the Prime Minister of Ecuador finds he has legitimate reason to be afraid it is all an attempt to persecute him politically?

 

[NLxAROSA]

Assange is not technically in Britain, so I fail to see how the EU law applies.

Again: yes he is. An embassy remains soil of the host country at all times and thus the hosts law applies.

Which doesn't mean the whole threat thing by the British is not a major faux-pas in the diplomatic community, and one that comes with severe repercussions if they would decide to actually do it (regardless of being completely legal).

people who think Assange is blatantly lying

I don't think he's lying, but he's at least as good at being a spin doctor as his opponents.

 

[JacksHerer]

I would be outside the embassy now if I was not lazy and at work. Assange is a hero to the majority of the world.

 

[Keef]

Again: yes he is. An embassy remains soil of the host country at all times and thus the hosts law applies.

You're both wrong - while the host country does have jurisdiction over the embassy, "most" host laws are void inside the embassy according to the Wiki article. The host country isn't allowed into the embassy without permission, unless they go in with guns a'blazing and violate the Vienna Convention.

 

[jasr73]

This aired a little while ago on our only halfway reasonable free-to-air network.
"Sex, Lies and Julian Assange" by By Andrew Fowler and Wayne Harley for the Four Corners program. Worth a look from an (admittedly left leaning) Aussie investigative journo perspective if you haven't seen.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm