Assange extradition to Sweden

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/top-uk-court-backs-extradition-assange-sweden-082719464.html

I had hoped it would not come to this. The Swedish government has quite a history of allowing US extraordinary renditions once someone is on their soil. Perhaps he will be protected from that by the high media and public profile he now has.

He's been arrested in Britain, held there for a while, and is now being moved to Sweden on some very sketchy charges of rape, the most convenient of all crimes to accuse a man of. Apparently, it was reported together by two women who did not previously know each other. The evidence is very limited, and seems to rely almost completely on the 'independent' stories of two women who had reported their complaints together and have the same lawyer. It does look a lot like a way to have him sent to the United States, especially if he's found innocent in Sweden but conveniently in the country already, meaning he can be arrested again and put in the proverbial crate marked 'Washington' right after the judge's verdict.

How can you possibly know that they are sketchy?

Are you a court of competent jurisdiction? Have you heard the testimony of the witnesses? Have you heard Assange's reply to those allegations?

I firmly believe that Assange is entitled to the presumption of innocence--but that does not mean that the case his accusers are alleging against him should be prejudged by jumped-up amateurs who have no basis upon which to pronounce whether or not the case is well founded.

These women are entitled to bring their complaint, the Swedish authorities are entitled to prosecute it and Assange is entitled to defend himself and enjoy all of the procedural protections of Swedish law while he does so.

But how can anyone have a fair trial with people like you prejudging the outcome?

Much the same way rape trials are apparently sometimes settled purely by comparing different complaints (Al-Khawaja and Tahery vs. the United Kingdom, and the trial preceding Al-Khawaja's complaint, for reference). Empathy rather than determining the truth. Presuming innocence is hard even for the most experienced judge.

In this case, the complaints themselves were drawn up a while after he supposedly raped them. Here's an intriguing article on the matter.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/a ... -cia-ties/

The rape charge does seem kind of convenient.

Al-Khawaja and Tahery is of absolutely no relevance in this circumstance. This was the trial of a question of whether the Law of England and Wales as it relates to the admissibility of hearsay evidence gives rise to violation of the guarantee of a fair trial.

In the case against Mr. Assange, both of the complainants are alive, and both are available to present viva voce testimony in open court.

As for the article, it is not intriguing in the least. Even if the woman concerned did work for an organization that has ties to the CIA, does that mean that she is no longer free to complain if a man fails to respect the conditions on her consent to sexual intercourse? If there is a case to be made the events did not take place in the manner that she alleges, by all means do so. But that article demonstrates nothing of the kind, and serves only to further prejudice the opportunity for a fair and impartial trial.

Timing, mainly. He embarrasses half the world's governments and then, immediately after, two women come forward with rape allegations. One of them with ties to the CIA. Predictable. Of course there would be consequences! It was just expected something would happen, lo and behold, it did. A bullet perhaps, but that's too crude, and doesn't discredit. This was more along the lines of what one might expect. Expectations were not disappointed.

What you miss here is that everyone was waiting for something to happen, before it did. And not in any long-term way, over a period of years, but more over a period of weeks.

That being said ... the world is full of coincidence, too. So you never know. But it certainly does give the appearance of being sketchy.

Last edited by edgewaters on 31 May 2012, 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The relevance of that case is that the evidence in both cases is based on little more than accounts. Two women, two stories, but they're about rape. Something they can ask the United Kingdom to send him over for, but without the need for someone to die. They're certainly able to present the charges themselves if the system permits them to - remember, continental law isn't always too keen on that - but there can't be much evidence beyond the charges themselves. In Al-Khawaja's case, one of the things they did, if I recall correctly, was compare two complaints. That's comparing two partisan views as evidence for those same views.

I am perfectly well aware of the coincidental nature of the accusations. And I do not deny for a moment that it gives Mr. Assange as legitmate basis on which to question the authenticity of their accounts.

But that question about their honesty and the authenticity of their accounts must happen in a court of law--not the court of public opinion.



Allegations of sexual assault are almost always based on little more than the account of the victim. By its very nature, sexual assault is a crime that often takes place in the absence of third party witnesses. Can we imagine a circumstance in which a third person would have been in the room to say, "Yes, she told him to stop when the condom broke," or, "No, she told him to keep going."

And that was most assuredly not the issue before the ECHR in Al-Khawaja and Tahery. That case was about hearsay, when neither of the accusers of the two people concerned were avaialble for cross-examination. One was deceased at the time of trial (Al-Khawaja) and the ECHR upheld the use of hearsay evidence on the basis that the deponent could no longer testify. The other deponent (in the case of Tahery) could have presented viva voce evidence, and the court found that the admission of hearsay evidence in that matter could not be justified.

But the issue of hearsay is entirely irrelevant to the case being alleged against Assange.

Right. Let me make this comparison as simple as I can.

Al-Khawaja

* Allegations of sexual misconduct;
* Two women who filed a complaint;
* Very little evidence beyond their accounts.

Assange

* Allegations of sexual misconduct;
* Two women who filed a complaint;
* Very little evidence beyond their accounts.

There is more evidence saying they were not raped than there is evidence saying they were raped. Julian Assange probably had sex with them, as proud contact between the women and their friends after the supposed crimes shows.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/whe ... -go-along/

Exactly.

To add to this, the CIA has been involved in such underhanded tactics before on a number of occasions that are suspiciously similar to this one, they are certainly not beneath paying women to do that then turn around and make rape claims. It's been done before.

Also, character assassination is always their first port of call when dealing with someone who has a high media profile.

Let's review basic law of evidence, since you are clearly have no grasp of the subject:

A person's declaration is evidence. Period. If the evidence of a person who claims to have been sexually assaulted is accepted as credible by a trier of fact (whether judge, judges or jury) then no other evidence beyond their testimony is necessary to support a conviction.

The question in Assange's case is not whether there is sufficient evidence to convict--either woman's complaint is legally sufficient. Rather, the question is whether the evidence of these women is credible. Are they telling the truth? Are they telling the whole truth? Are they telling nothing but the truth?

Now, their own emails and text messages may be powerful tools to use against them in attacking their credibility. But the decision as to whether or not their evidence is credible cannot and should not be made before the trial has started.

Now, as to your faulty use of precedent--the ECHR decision in Al-Khawaja and Tahery had nothing to do with the sufficiency of the account. It had to do with reading in statements from witnesses who were not present in court to be cross-examined. Indeed, the ECHR decision in the case of Al-Khawaja was to uphold the conviction--only Tehary's was overturned.

What court of law? Sweden judicial system is a joke. The Pirate Bay is one such example. As soon as the U.S. complained, they were sure to get problems. At first, it was clear to a judge that the site was legal (alike Google), but when the U.S. complains, legal of course becomes illegal - then again, some could argue that they "had no choice", as the U.S. was threatening with a trade embargo against Sweden, if someone wouldn't do something about The Pirate Bay issue. Furthermore, the so called 'nämndemännen', in the courts, who have the full power to convict (the judges hold a representative role), also are politically assigned, and have previously been shown to misuse their powers in political ways. And shouting rape is enough to get someone convicted, here - evidence IS NOT needed. I could give the name of a woman who does this to men, out of pure fun, if you wanted me to, but why bother as it'd just be hearsay to you, anyway. And extraordinary renditions, that were mentioned in the first post, are indeed something that Swedish governments love to assist in. Sweden is nothing more than a pawn to the U.S.; I'm sure that the whole FRA deal (recently announced to be extended, too, along with the new DLD, as well) was ordered from the U.S., as well - one of the world's top most powerful supercomputers in tiny little Sweden, to surveil the whole population - one must ask, why?

Sweden is a joke of a country, with a democracy in constant decline, since not so long back (about after famous U.S. events in 2001, really). It's horrible to see it happening and not knowing what to do about it - most in Sweden think everything is so okay, over here, but really, it's a country in democratic decline. The only chance of this being turned around is either the fall of the power that the U.S. holds over the world, or that we get some new, brave politician, like Olof Palme, who wasn't afraid to call the leaders of the U.S. "these damned murderers"/"dessa satans mördare", on live television, at a time. He also was murdered by an unknown perpetrator, later on, though. But that's what Sweden has to hope for. Unfortunately, most here are far too oblivious to what is going on, and like already is the case in the U.S., when people do notice, it will be too late. It's like the whole frog slowly cooked alive thing.

Last edited by Beauty_pact on 04 Jun 2012, 5:55 am, edited 2 times in total.

I think that nobody exept Assange, the two women and the CIA know the truth.
We can't know what happened.
I do not trust anybody.

What utter nonsense. Sweden is, and continues to be a free and democratic country in which the principle of the rule of law is applied with rigour.

Anyone who believes that Sweden is going to put Assange on an aircraft and ship him off to US custody is dreaming in technicolor (tm). If any country in Europe were likely to have done that, it would have been the United Kingdom, who are far more aligned with US interests that Sweden--and who have been just as willing participants in extraordinary renditions.

Were these events to have taken place in North Korea or Zimbabwe, then I think you would have a meaningful post about the likelihood of a fair trial. But the same cannot be said of Sweden with any real credibility.

Well, I did ask, "what court of law", and the answer is, Sweden's court of law. In my view, Sweden's court of law is not good enough, in all too many aspects. I wasn't aware that one must live in Zimbabwe or North Korea to be allowed to be bothered with many aspects of the judicial system.