Assange has been defeated over extradition

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ition.html
Assange saying he wont fight extradition if prevention of extraordinary rendition can be agreed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/no ... sfeed=true

The Guardian is having a collective psychotic episode, trying to rationalize its fault for releasing unredacted cables by smearing Assange:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... ghan-smith
Muir goes on a self-righteous bender about how Assange's roof provider must be tired on speculation
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... -refuge.do

I just want to know what's in the secret article that is his "insurance".
Everyone knows the world's governments and corporations are corrupt beyond nightmares, so what could Assange have uncovered that is SO shocking? Or is it a bluff?

http://wikileaks.org/

I have no idea whether or not there is merit in the accusations against him. But I believe to the core of my being that he and his accusers are entitled to their day in court to resolve it. If the Courts of England and Wales are satisfied that Sweden has presented evidence of a case to be answered, then Mr. Assange should not be excused from the obligation to answer that case.

Aye, a sad problem authority when it is directed by legally consistent falsehood.

You know that rape cases in Sweden aren't based on a true jury right? They use a judge and two people who were former party members. Not only does that violate the separation of powers but it wont be fair and impartial because both parties have shown partisan dislike to Assange.
Also apparently what he is being judged of is 'minor rape' because he didn't use a condom although apparently the woman did give consent to sex. Furthermore rape trials happen in secret in sweden, which is a violation of the principle of open law.

Though we can talk about legal ramifications I hope you would say that the morality of the thing is complete malarkey.

Swedish parents are rapists, then?

All sex is rape.

Check me out with my ultra-feminist credentials.

Yet more agitprop. And arrogant, ethnocentric agitprop at that. While jury trials are certainly a feature of English Common Law, they are by no means the only universal standard for fair trials. The Swedish practice of using nämndemän goes back to the middle ages, and is not unique to Sweden. Germany also makes extensive use of lay judges in their criminal justice system as do Finland, and more recently, Japan.

If Assange can demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the bench, then he is free to petition for a newly constited bench on that basis and Swedish law has more than adequate provision for protecting defendants from bias.



The failure to comply with the conditions of consent vitiate consent. A failure to wear a condom when requested would certainly support a conviction for sexual assault in Canada. Consent is revocable and can be vitiated through fraud or through misconduct.

As for the secrecy of trials, that is a matter of domestic law which each jurisdiction is free to decide as a question of public policy. Frequently trials in Canada are subject to full or partial publication bans--primarily to protect the defendant from unfair trial or trial by media.

I see absolutely nothing immoral in these procedings. Sweden has a long and respectable history of parliamentary democracy and the protection of individual liberty. Casting aspersions on Swedish justice because of sympathy for one accused is misplaced, and prejudicial.

So basically you're trying to hang on to the fact that I said jury when the real issue was an impartial court, which obviously it wont be.

I am sorry but I am not insulting the Swedish for their legal system. I am criticizing what is an obvious flaw in a certain case.
If you think that trial by impartial verdict is a principle of utmost importance in the law when not dealing with minor fines or the highest appeal court then Sweden would agree for the most part. It just thinks that technocratic credentials are more important, which I can understand However in the assange case two of the judges will be former members of parties that Assange has been openly criticized by, so there's a high probability of the court being unfair.


I know of lay judges, and I do not disagree with the practice as it is. That would absolutely shameless black and white thinking as would it be shameless black and white thinking for you to wheel out that accusation of agitprop for daring to say that two politically motivaed judges might not lead to a fair trial. Read the underlined text. I used the word jury because I am not good with the technicalities of Swedish law. No need to fudge in an anglocentricity accusation.


http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/11/0 ... 0720111102
http://thestandard.org.nz/marianne-ny-m ... edish-law/
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-b ... nal-probe/
And furthermore most EAW's are heavily favoured by the country to which the person is being extradited. It's obviously an assault.


Damn right it should, but for starters the woman seemed to have lauded the fact that she had sex with him first and then changed her mind apparently when she found out that someone else had. Furthermore her implication is that whilst she was fine with the sex she did not seem to realize assange getting a condom on. Exactly how do you miss this?


Argumentum ad verecundiam. You try to cut off saying that it is wrong because they decide whether it happens. That is shallow thinking. If you cannot decide something morally apart from what a legal system says is the case then you are limiting your ability to think for yourself and furthermore may be hemmed in by what is basically a morally or reasonably unjustifiable idea just because it is decided by authority. That is complicitness to tyrrany.


And I think that mollycoddling the public through gagging orders is a violation of the public trust and free speech and only leads to a hysterical atmosphere. Unless someone can demonstrate that a public piece has been filled with dangerous intent the public should be able to draw its own conclusions about the facts of a case.


Argumentum ad verecundiam. Again you try and say that sweden isn't wrong because of precedent. That is a shallow conclusion.


Motivation speculation. Argumentum ad hominem. Layered response with assumptions. I don't care about assange if the case is fair. But it's obvious that the case against him, this questioning is how it is spun, would never get off the ground if it were conducted fairly would never get off the ground if it were conducted with any sort of fairness or openness, which it isn't.

That you try and play the race card, or what amounts to it, when what I am talking about are principles of fairness and openness is shameless and defensive.

If that was the real issue, then why didn't you say so? I'm not responsible for your sloppy writing.

But I do not accept your assertion that the Swedish court is not impartial, and even if it is borne out, I reject the notion that the Swedish justice system is incapable of correcting its own mistakes.



Again, I am not responsible for your sloppy writing. When you trot out a phrase like, "Not only does that violate the separation of powers," then you are making a constitutional argument that goes directly to the heart of how courts are established in Sweden. So if you do not disagree with the practice as it is, why did you suggest that it violates the separation of powers?

(Incidentally, there is absolutely no prohibition on a former member of one branch of the government serving in another branch. The doctrine of separation of powers is intended to prevent a person holding office in two branches of the government simultaneously. Ultimately, that notion is foreign to Parliamentary democracies, because the government of the day is always composed of members of the legislative branch, ensuring that the executive is accountable to the legislature).



And what are these articles intended to demonstrate? These are perfectly legitimate opinion pieces but the do not invalidate the principle that a criminal complaint is properly heard and adjudicated before a court of competent jurisdiction.

If there is an abuse of process here, then the proper way to address that is through the Swedish law relevant to abuse of process.

I do take exception to the notion, however, that the Swedish offence is a stranger to British law. A person cannot be extradited for an offence committed in one country that is not an offence (albeit under a different name) in the country from which extradition is sought. A man who has sex with a woman in circumstances that are different from those to which she consented commits a sexual assault--plain and simple. The proper response to a condom failure is to stop and tell the other person--not to keep going.



Because, unlike you, I am not prejudicing myself. I am not competent to decide whether or not the complainant is credible, because I have not heard her testimony and she has not been subjected to cross examination on that testimony.

If she is not credible in her complaint, the Assange deserves to be acquitted. That is a matter for the Swedish courts, not the court of public opinion.



Certainly there is an element of ad verecundiam in my statement, to be sure. If we were dealing with the courts of, say, Russia or China, I would be far less sanguine about this. But when we are dealing with a flourishing parliamentary democracy in which the rule of law is respected, I am far more prepared to accept limitations such as this one.



That is a perfectly fair argument. I don't happen to agree with it, but that does not mean that you are incorrect. Trials for sexual assault are fraught with public policy concerns. Victims of sexual assault have, historically, faced far more difficult experiences than other complainants. Cross examination on sexual history, media publicity and the obligation to confront their accuser in person all create difficulties that court systems have been obliged to address. Not every country addresses these issues the same way, and I don't think anyone has the system perfect. But we have to do our best with the tools at our disposal.



What better place to start?



You may believe it is obvious, but you have presented no cogent argument to support it. The only reasonable issue that you have raised is the reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of members of the particular court. But until you go the next step and inquire into how Sweden addresses matters of reasonable apprehension of bias your argument is incomplete and ill-formed.

If my assumption about your motivation is incorrect, then I happily withdraw it. I apologize for the mistake. But that does not invalidate my central point that you are engaging in a prejudicial exercise.

Let this matter be judged in a court of competent jurisdiction, not prejudged in public.

Somebody's getting hot under the collar. I cannot see why not being able to tell the difference between a jury and lay judges requires you to make an accusation of sloppy writing. Maybe you should be so quick to judge just because I am not as well versed in Swedish law as you are, especially when the main content of my point was something else entirely:


Later in your post you say this:
So here you go from admitting that I made a mistake on jury to saying that I was being ethnocentric again, despite the fact that my dispute was the fact that two of the law judges will very probably be biased, not that they don't use a common law jury system. And you would have needed to admit that to make some sordid comment about sloppy writing. Can you be consistent?


This is an argument from incredulity. The notion that the Swedish court system cannot be fair is something you cannot contemplate. This is not a reason for anything.


Ad infinitum since the comment adds nothing and is basically an ad hominem too.


Well since lay judges don't have to be from the two main parties in the country which have already established a partisan dislike for assange in this case I would say it is quite important and not necessary. Also argumentum ad verecundiam. You say that I cannot dare make a criticism of the Swedish law system because... because you are. Basically you see me as an unintelligent upstart. I have no time for your snobbery.
I can see why you cannot find any sort of problem with the violation of the separation of powers when your approach is blindly supporting authoritarianism.


This probably explains a few of the problems with said parliamentary democracies.


That isn't the point. The point was that it shows that the trial is a farce. But coming back to your point it is actually violating Swedish law by essentially making an arrest warrant without actually having a case built up. Furthermore it is demonstrated that Ny took up the case ven though a prosecutor higher up in swedish law opposed it.


Again you say that we cannot say something is right or wrong because we are not the relevant authority. This is rubbish. Argumentum ad verecundiam.


And apparently there is no evidence that she made such an assertion whatsoever. It was a response after the fact. Despite the condom breaking she didn't stop. She must have been able to notice whether a man should have put on a condom or not to begin with and she said that the sex itself was consented to. So either she is a liar about giving consent or she is a liar about the condom being put on.
Also no the offence is foreign to British law. For staters British law never, ever gives fines for rape. Furthermore I doubt British law would ever allow a man to be charged for rape when one of the apparent victims is so obviously contradictory.

You don't need a cross examination in court to decide whether someone is telling fibs.


Since I am voicing an opinion based on credible fact and since I think justice is more important than crooked and bent legal procedure I would disagree. It's clear from above that you put blind faith in the Swedish court system to figure itself out. Guess what, no one is perfect. You're acting like a sheep.


Excellent. I don't care about how you rationalize it. It is a logical fallacy plain and simple, and logical fallacies are a sign of shoddy writing.


Exactly, and now we are going for the argument from incredulity again.
This extract is also a plain example of Bad faith. Surely you have heard of Sartre? I am sure he would have a lot to say about your statements about willingness to criticize Russia but not Sweden just because of reputation.


Timidity is exactly what causes this problem to begin with. You again go back to the point that public policy concerns may be threatened but as I have already solved it unless you give people a free hand in looking at it then they will never develop an adult opinion that ends these problems. So we can ad argumentum ad infinitum to the list of logical fallacies.


And I am free to demonize a legal system without openness because it is a sign either corruption, or of unwarranted timidity that can only be solved through the hair of the dog.


Argumentum ad verecundiam again. I already answered this sort of rubbish and you're ignoring it:



As one can easily tell Ny has ignored court procedure in Sweden. Furthermore this isn't just about court procedure. This is about fairness. Again this comment comes in to play:



Argumentum ad verecundiam again... Sigh, I shall have to copy my statement again:

And don't try and invalidate this comment because your only response was argumentum ad infinitum as already said earlier in this post.