Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Julian Assange is being 'arbritarily detained' by the UK government... Really? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    And that comparison is exactly why they set up a sting involving a sexual offence, in Sweden too where if you so much as look at a girl wrong you have raped her.
    Take your tinfoil hat off.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiBabylonista)
    Take your tinfoil hat off.
    Only when you stop worshipping state power.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Only when you stop worshipping state power.
    If you saw some scruffy guy, wasn't famous, wasn't some anti-Western demagogue and he had been accused of sex offences and was avoiding prosecution on technicality, you would naturally suspect him.


    I am the one putting my prejudices aside and being rational.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiBabylonista)
    If you saw some scruffy guy, wasn't famous, wasn't some anti-Western demagogue and he had been accused of sex offences and was avoiding prosecution on technicality, you would naturally suspect him.


    I am the one putting my prejudices aside and being rational.
    If it's not a trap for the American extradition why won't Sweden try him by video link as Assange has offered? It doesn't look like Assange is going to come out any time soon; does Sweden want justice to be done or doesn’t it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    If it's not a trap for the American extradition why won't Sweden try him by video link as Assange has offered? It doesn't look like Assange is going to come out any time soon; does Sweden want justice to be done or doesn’t it?
    Does Sweden grant that privilege to everyone accused of sexual assault or is Assange demanding exceptions be made for him? (Safe under the knowledge that they will refuse and he can pretend he is the victim of an American conspiracy, rather than some guy dodging sex offence charges)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiBabylonista)
    You can't argue that legal exceptions should be made for him by the Swedes on the basis that America might seek to extradite him.
    I think Assange is acting rather prudently in refusing to leave the Embassy unless Sweden promises not to extradite him to the US, or at least until the US reveals on what grounds they wish to have him extradited (from Sweden). It is the US and Sweden whose intentions I would question.


    The UKSC also acted very dubiously in refusing his appeal, imo (see what I said earlier about 'judicial authority' and the VCLT).

    (Original post by Josb)
    This is the key. If Sweden promise that, Assange should go out since the accusation in Sweden won't stand.

    It's not a secret that Sweden obeyed orders when they charged him of rape (for not having put a condom :rolleyes:).
    This.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiBabylonista)
    Does Sweden grant that privilege to everyone accused of sexual assault or is Assange demanding exceptions be made for him? (Safe under the knowledge that they will refuse and he can pretend he is the victim of an American conspiracy, rather than some guy dodging sex offence charges)
    Sure, it's a special exception - but then, Assange's situation is highly unusual. I reiterate: Assange isn't coming out any time soon, and it seems nobody can either force him out by law or flush him out by "siege"; so does Sweden want justice done in a timely manner or doesn't it?

    The statute of limitations on Assange's rape charge expires in 2020 (the lesser charges having expired last year), and I think he's prepared to wait it out.

    Sweden will relent:
    "My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview," Marianne Ny said in a statement.

    "Now that time is of the essence [in respect of the allegations expiring in 2015], I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    My opinion(s):


    - The sexual assault charges in Sweden are bs.


    - He was screwed over by the UKSC in a very disappointing decision (I say this as a law student with deep regard for the UK judiciary, relying on the VCLT when this wasn't even mentioned in the hearings).


    - The US will clearly seek his extradition from Sweden if he ever leaves the Embassy (to Sweden). But it is unlikely that they will succeed because the US-Sweden extradition treaty excludes any "political" offences as a ground for extradition. However, the US are not stupid. They know this, and it will not surprise me (or anyone) if they come out with some very 'creative' grounds for his extradition to side-step that limit to their extradition theory (with Sweden). In reality, however, they would not even need to do this. They could quite easily enter into an ad hoc agreement to send Assange to the US.


    - Thus Assange would be forced to face unspecified charges in the US. I disagree that he should have to (as he has committed no offence in the US, and is not a US citizen). Thus, from this POV, it makes sense for Assange to insist on a promise by Sweden not to send him to the US.


    - Even if the US revealed its charges against Assange, and it seems as though they wouldn't qualify under the US-Sweden extradition treaty, as mentioned above, the US and Sweden would be free to enter into an ad hoc agreement to side-step that obstacle. So, imo, Assange can only rely on a formal promise by Sweden not to expel him to the US, or to allow him free passage out of Sweden once he has served any potential sentence in Sweden.


    - Assange cannot even rely on a promise by Sweden really. If Sweden promise not to send him to the US, then breach that promise and do so, his only course of action would be a domestic judicial review claim against the Swedish government (the promise would create no international law obligations for Sweden, which reduces the strength of any such promise).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't quite understand why so many people think he shouldn't be extradited to the US. If they have sufficient evidence to make him stand trial for a criminal offence he should be extradited, if they don't Sweden won't extradite him and even if they did he'd be found not guilty.

    Also this bs about him wanting trial by video link is nonsense. If he's tried by video link and found guilty he goes back to Sweden to serve his time anyway


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    If they have sufficient evidence to make him stand trial for a criminal offence he should be extradited
    What offence(s) do you have in mind?

    if they don't Sweden won't extradite him
    That's rather naive. The US have an extradition treaty with Sweden, and under that they don't need to prove they have a strong case against Assange, they just need to specify the charge(s) against him. Don't underestimate the influence the US has.

    and even if they did he'd be found not guilty.
    Again, very naive.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I don't quite understand why so many people think he shouldn't be extradited to the US. If they have sufficient evidence to make him stand trial for a criminal offence he should be extradited, if they don't Sweden won't extradite him and even if they did he'd be found not guilty.

    Also this bs about him wanting trial by video link is nonsense. If he's tried by video link and found guilty he goes back to Sweden to serve his time anyway


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But if he's acquitted (as he will be), the European arrest warrant is void without him needing to set foot in a country obliged to deliver him onto Swedish soil.

    The rape laws in Sweden were enough to entrap a relatively normal man engaging in a relatively normal sexual activity (even if the account of what happened is true!), such that 1. his character could be defamed, 2. it was impossible to show informally he didn't do it, 3. a credible arrest warrant applying to all countries in the EU could be taken out on him.

    If he goes to Sweden to stand trial, they will extradite him whether he is guilty of the charges or not. The Swedes know he will be acquitted. The accusation is just about getting him arrestable in all EU countries and returned to Sweden for extradition to the US. That is why the Swedes won't interview him via video link - I cannot see any more robust reasoning for this.

    The principal reason he shouldn't be extradited to the US is that he is presently in a jurisdiction which does not have an extradition treaty with the US. Even in Sweden, he shouldn't be extradited if there is a political motivation for the extradition, although, as said above, they would find a way.

    I'm not sure I agree with extradition where the subject is not a citizen or resident of the receiving country. It is up to the US to defend its interests from what people outside its borders might do to harm it. It should not be given jurisdiction via extradition over people who do not enjoy the quid pro quo of citizenship or residency.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    the amount of ignorant people here, would you think someone like him actually needs to rape someone, do you know how popular he was at some point and yes a lot of them were females, how naive some people are to think that someone who is so influential wouldn't be framed by the US like many have been before - man from the replies ive seen here i'm so disappointed by you spoon fed kids never will i come on this site again
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Satoshii)
    the amount of ignorant people here, would you think someone like him actually needs to rape someone, do you know how popular he was at some point and yes a lot of them were females, how naive some people are to think that someone who is so influential wouldn't be framed by the US like many have been before - man from the replies ive seen here i'm so disappointed by you spoon fed kids never will i come on this site again
    Do you really need the long list of celebrities who have raped people and done worse crimes?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Do you really need the long list of celebrities who have raped people and done worse crimes?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    do you want a long list of how many crimes he's exposed? naive kid, its more likely he's been framed than him actually performing the alleged crime, just be a bit logical not asking for a lot
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Satoshii)
    do you want a long list of how many crimes he's exposed? naive kid, its more likely he's been framed than him actually performing the alleged crime, just be a bit logical not asking for a lot
    And it's just as naive to assume because he has done good work means he is some sort of Saint in his personal life. Especially when your initial argument was he could have any girl he wants. We've seen this story with dozens of celebrities and politicians.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    But if he's acquitted (as he will be), the European arrest warrant is void without him needing to set foot in a country obliged to deliver him onto Swedish soil.

    The rape laws in Sweden were enough to entrap a relatively normal man engaging in a relatively normal sexual activity (even if the account of what happened is true!), such that 1. his character could be defamed, 2. it was impossible to show informally he didn't do it, 3. a credible arrest warrant applying to all countries in the EU could be taken out on him.

    If he goes to Sweden to stand trial, they will extradite him whether he is guilty of the charges or not. The Swedes know he will be acquitted. The accusation is just about getting him arrestable in all EU countries and returned to Sweden for extradition to the US. That is why the Swedes won't interview him via video link - I cannot see any more robust reasoning for this.

    The principal reason he shouldn't be extradited to the US is that he is presently in a jurisdiction which does not have an extradition treaty with the US. Even in Sweden, he shouldn't be extradited if there is a political motivation for the extradition, although, as said above, they would find a way.

    I'm not sure I agree with extradition where the subject is not a citizen or resident of the receiving country. It is up to the US to defend its interests from what people outside its borders might do to harm it. It should not be given jurisdiction via extradition over people who do not enjoy the quid pro quo of citizenship or residency.
    The department of justice via the Washington post have already made it quite plain that he wouldn't be extradited because they have nothing to charge him with. If he really hasn't committed any offence in Sweden then there should be no problem with him going back to stand trial. If there was an arrest warrant out on an ordinary person and they ran off and said they can't stand trial because they're scared of being extradited, even where there is nothing for them to be extradited for, people would assume it's bs but for some reason Saint Julien seems to be different.

    The extradition treaty between Sweden and the US makes it clear that there can be no extradition that is politically motivated.

    So if I'm suspected of murdering someone while on holiday I shouldn't be sent to stand trial? That's utter nonsense


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The department of justice via the Washington post have already made it quite plain that he wouldn't be extradited because they have nothing to charge him with. If he really hasn't committed any offence in Sweden then there should be no problem with him going back to stand trial. If there was an arrest warrant out on an ordinary person and they ran off and said they can't stand trial because they're scared of being extradited, even where there is nothing for them to be extradited for, people would assume it's bs but for some reason Saint Julien seems to be different.

    The extradition treaty between Sweden and the US makes it clear that there can be no extradition that is politically motivated.
    But you ignore that Assange has repeatedly offered to be interviewed via video link and/or in person at the embassy. He is happy to stand trial. Now the Swedes have acceded to his request in respect of the allegations expiring in 2015 they will have no excuse not to do so in respect of the rape allegation expiring in 2020.

    As for the politically motivated clause they would find some way around that. And how far is the Department of Justice's statement in the Washington Post (please link) binding?

    So if I'm suspected of murdering someone while on holiday I shouldn't be sent to stand trial? That's utter nonsense
    You were physically on that country's soil when the crime was committed so yes. I therefore widen my "residency" requirement considerably so it means "anyone in the country". The difficulty with Assange is this was all done over the Internet.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Given that he is hiding from legitimate arrest, from a legitimate warrant, does not mean someone in prison would also be able to file for arbitrarily detainment?
    He's hiding from extradition to the US where they have huge human rights violations occuring. He's said so many times he'll be happy to face the charges in Sweden if they agree not to extradite him to the US, where they have the death penalty, but they have refused this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    He's hiding from extradition to the US where they have huge human rights violations occuring. He's said so many times he'll be happy to face the charges in Sweden if they agree not to extradite him to the US, where they have the death penalty, but they have refused this.
    A post in reply to you has stated they are not seeking extradition. You are also missing another point. He is on the run from an arrest warrant. You don't negotiate your own arrest, or make demands on the country that wants you arrested. His whole position is laughable, this is a man running from a sexual assault charge, perhaps someone should consider the rights of his victims, no?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    But you ignore that Assange has repeatedly offered to be interviewed via video link and/or in person at the embassy. He is happy to stand trial. Now the Swedes have acceded to his request in respect of the allegations expiring in 2015 they will have no excuse not to do so in respect of the rape allegation expiring in 2020.
    As someone above has said, you don't negotiate the terms of your own arrest. It's funny that he's always made out he's so dedicated to doing what's right and letting the truth come out yet is hiding from the law.


    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    As for the politically motivated clause they would find some way around that
    I think this says it all to be honest. You share Assange's views of the US government so it's no wonder you support him.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    And how far is the Department of Justice's statement in the Washington Post (please link) binding?
    It obviously isn't legally binding but it's made clear there isn't anything to charge him with.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...0a9_story.html

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    You were physically on that country's soil when the crime was committed so yes. I therefore widen my "residency" requirement considerably so it means "anyone in the country". The difficulty with Assange is this was all done over the Internet.
    Okay well what if, from the comfort of my bedroom, I hacked the FAA system and caused air traffic computers to go down and a few planes crash as a result, I'm not in the US so by your 'better rule' I shouldn't be sent there face trial despite being responsible for a couple of hundred deaths




    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 9, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.