Julian Assange, to hand himself over?

[Junai]

Assange spent his life on the run to reveal how (amongst other things) US troops mowes down innocents in war just for kicks (including Reuters reporters). And he's supposed to return to Sweden to get bogged down in some honey trap trial? Seriously?

God I love the Anglo-facists on this forum. Makes me think of that homo underground movement Clay Shaw was a part of.

 

From JFK: 

Willie O'Keefe: You're liberal, you don't know **** 'cause you never been ****ed in the a**. This ain't about justice! No, this is about order! Who rules? Fascism is coming back!

[Walsingham]

And, Junai, I love how you think a man shouldn't stand trial for a crime he's been lawfully charged with.

 

By all means, Junai, let's abandon hope in democracy, and trust to strong men.

 

And if they happen to commit  a wee bit of sexual assault along the way, well what the hell. They can always go live free in countries where they're better understood. Like Russia, or China.

[Zoraptor]

And, Junai, I love how you think a man shouldn't stand trial for a crime he's been lawfully charged with.

 

He hasn't been charged with any crime.

[Rostere]

 

And, Junai, I love how you think a man shouldn't stand trial for a crime he's been lawfully charged with.

 

He hasn't been charged with any crime.

 

No, but that's a formality, it is beside the point. He is wanted for an investigation.

 

However, the way that investigation is being handled is absolutely atrocious and totally connected to the fact that he is only wanted in Sweden for extradition. But we must separate these two matters. Thus the problem is not that he is under investigation, in which he should strive to cooperate with the authorities, but that he wouldn't want to face detention in Sweden, because that means he will be extradited. It's the extradition part which is the questionable, not the investigation.

[Valsuelm]

And, Junai, I love how you think a man shouldn't stand trial for a crime he's been lawfully charged with.

 

By all means, Junai, let's abandon hope in democracy, and trust to strong men.

 

And if they happen to commit  a wee bit of sexual assault along the way, well what the hell. They can always go live free in countries where they're better understood. Like Russia, or China.

 

Trials and democracy have as much to do with one another as trials and monarchies or trials and communism.

 

Even so. If I were in another nation, and accused erroneously of sexual assault or anything else after I left, I wouldn't give a flying floob about going back to said nation to stand trial or anything else. Nor would I begrudge anyone else who wouldn't. Especially if that nation's laws regarding what actually is a crime are dubious, and especially if that nation is really just after me to to extradite me to another nation of which I am not nor ever have been a citizen, that wants to charge me with what is technically perfectly legal there (though largely unobserved and circumvented under a government known for torturing and disappearing people accused of less in recent times).

 

You call what Sweden wants to do with Assange democracy or justice? Are you kidding me?

 

Junai was a bit closer to the mark when he used the term 'Anglo-fascist'.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Zoraptor]

No, but that's a formality, it is beside the point. He is wanted for an investigation.

 

 

Ah, but surely the interview they formally want him for is also just a formality as well? They have, after all, interviewed him previously (then let him leave the country while, yes ironically, leaking the interview) and can/ have held interviews in other countries, in other cases.

 

Given the somewhat... unusual treatment of his case I don't see why he should trust the system at all. While it is a rather roundabout way of doing so getting him to Sweden then not charging him but having a sweetheart extradition to the US would certainly be a legitimate fear, from his perspective.

[Hurlshort]

If anyone believes a US court could actually prosecute Assange, they do not have a very good understanding of the US legal system.  On the slim chance he was actually extradited and some dumb politician was able to exert enough influence to get him charged, it would be a big circus and end in a lucrative book and movie deal for Assange and his lawyers.  

Edited August 26, 2014 by Hurlshot

[BruceVC]

If anyone believes a US court could actually prosecute Assange, they do not have a very good understanding of the US legal system.  On the slim chance he was actually extradited and some dumb politician was able to exert enough influence to get him charged, it would be a big circus and end in a lucrative book and movie deal for Assange and his lawyers.  

 

Yeah, there is a real flawed view by the local conspiracy theorists on these forums that Assange will get sent  to Sweden and suddenly end up in the USA and be executed. So Assange's objections to be  extradited to Sweden is based on  the argument " he will be killed by the USA  if gets sent to Sweden"

 

And this rumour has been encouraged by Assange  to help his case, conspiracy theorists are so easily manipulated.

Edited August 26, 2014 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

No, but that's a formality, it is beside the point. He is wanted for an investigation.

 

 

Ah, but surely the interview they formally want him for is also just a formality as well? They have, after all, interviewed him previously (then let him leave the country while, yes ironically, leaking the interview) and can/ have held interviews in other countries, in other cases.

 

Given the somewhat... unusual treatment of his case I don't see why he should trust the system at all. While it is a rather roundabout way of doing so getting him to Sweden then not charging him but having a sweetheart extradition to the US would certainly be a legitimate fear, from his perspective.

 

 

And even if he gets sent to the USA, which I support, what do you think will happen to him there? Guantanamo Bay, ....death sentence?  What is the "legitimate fear " he is so worried about?

[Nepenthe]

 

If anyone believes a US court could actually prosecute Assange, they do not have a very good understanding of the US legal system.  On the slim chance he was actually extradited and some dumb politician was able to exert enough influence to get him charged, it would be a big circus and end in a lucrative book and movie deal for Assange and his lawyers.  

 

Yeah, there is a real flawed view by the local conspiracy theorists on these forums that Assange will get sent  to Sweden and suddenly end up in the USA and be executed. So Assange's objections to be  extradited to Sweden is based on  the argument " he will be killed by the USA  if gets sent to Sweden"

 

And this rumour has been encouraged by Assange  to help his case. conspiracy theorists are so easily manipulated.

 

 

Unlike you, right?

 

I, and several others I believe, have already gone over the oddities in this case. Basically the thing that legally sticks out like a sore thumb to me is the fact that the Swedes are insisting that Assange is extradited to Sweden when he hasn't yet been charged vs. asking for the local police in UK to hear him on their behalf, which is what I believe they'd normally do...

[BruceVC]

 

 

If anyone believes a US court could actually prosecute Assange, they do not have a very good understanding of the US legal system.  On the slim chance he was actually extradited and some dumb politician was able to exert enough influence to get him charged, it would be a big circus and end in a lucrative book and movie deal for Assange and his lawyers.  

 

Yeah, there is a real flawed view by the local conspiracy theorists on these forums that Assange will get sent  to Sweden and suddenly end up in the USA and be executed. So Assange's objections to be  extradited to Sweden is based on  the argument " he will be killed by the USA  if gets sent to Sweden"

 

And this rumour has been encouraged by Assange  to help his case. conspiracy theorists are so easily manipulated.

 

 

Unlike you, right?

 

I, and several others I believe, have already gone over the oddities in this case. Basically the thing that legally sticks out like a sore thumb to me is the fact that the Swedes are insisting that Assange is extradited to Sweden when he hasn't yet been charged vs. asking for the local police in UK to hear him on their behalf, which is what I believe they'd normally do...

 

 

Yes I am aware of that view and its not unreasonable

 

But I am not a conspiracy theorist, my view on this matter has been based on the facts and what charges  Assange should face in the USA. I just don't know if there is enough motivation for the USA  to even apply for extradition once he gets to Sweden, I am saying I hope there is.

[Valsuelm]

 

Yes I am aware of that view and its not unreasonable

 

But I am not a conspiracy theorist, my view on this matter has been based on the facts and what charges  Assange should face in the USA. I just don't know if there is enough motivation for the USA  to even apply for extradition once he gets to Sweden, I am saying I hope there is.

 

 

Using 'conspiracy theorist' as a pejorative is about as sure a sign as there is of having a closed limited thinking mind filled with stuff dictated to you by others (aka: brainwashed). If you actually use your mind to think, you'll realize how stupid it is use that phrase so.

 

As for the legal things Assange might face?

 

Hurlshot has a very simplistic and jaded view of the legal system, and is likely incorrect in regards to what would happen to Assange. What he describes is the exception, not the rule, though it is a commonly perceived misconception when it comes to criminal or other trials. Of course reinforced on the laymen by mass media such as the very talk shows he refers to.

 

What would happen would depend to a large degree on the political environment at the time, as would what would happen to Snowden if he ended up in the U.S. again. There are definitely very powerful people that would like to get their hands on both of them and 'make them pay'. And if they did they would likely not let Assange or Snowden see a fair trial in the light of day, or even the light of day itself. Both would likely be looking at a trial unlike what most U.S. citizens are used to seeing on 'Court TV' or some other such thing. The trials would likely be more akin to what Bradley Manning or Zacarias Moussaoui faced. The chances of Assange ever making the talk show circuit in the U.S. is extremely slim; probably about as good as my chances of winning the 100+ million dollar jackpot in the Mega-millions lottery this week. But really, this is something that will depend a lot on public perception and what's going on in the world at the time it happens. Though I think it's a safe bet that neither Assange nor Snowden would have a good time if they ended up in the U.S. again as things currently are. It would likely take a pardon, which our current president and the perennial likely candidates for that office are unlikely to give, for Snowden or Assange to ever enjoy themselves freely on U.S. soil. And that's not something that is going to happen as things currently are. Though there is slow growing awakening amongst the populace that it should (in large part due to the efforts of Assange, Snowden, and others like them).

Edited August 26, 2014 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

Yes I am aware of that view and its not unreasonable

 

But I am not a conspiracy theorist, my view on this matter has been based on the facts and what charges  Assange should face in the USA. I just don't know if there is enough motivation for the USA  to even apply for extradition once he gets to Sweden, I am saying I hope there is.

 

 

Using 'conspiracy theorist' as a pejorative is about as sure a sign as there is of having a closed limited thinking mind filled with stuff dictated to you by others (aka: brainwashed). If you actually use your mind to think, you'll realize how stupid it is use that phrase so.

 

As for the legal things Assange might face?

 

Hurlshot has a very simplistic and jaded view of the legal system, and is likely incorrect in regards to what would happen to Assange. What he describes is the exception, not the rule, though it is a commonly perceived misconception when it comes to criminal or other trials. Of course reinforced on the laymen by mass media such as the very talk shows he refers to.

 

What would happen would depend to a large degree on the political environment at the time, as would what would happen to Snowden if he ended up in the U.S. again. There are definitely very powerful people that would like to get their hands on both of them and 'make them pay'. And if they did they would likely not let Assange or Snowden see a fair trial in the light of day, or even the light of day itself. Both would likely be looking at a trial unlike what most U.S. citizens are used to seeing on 'Court TV' or some other such thing. The trials would likely be more akin to what Bradley Manning or Zacarias Moussaoui faced. The chances of Assange ever making the talk show circuit in the U.S. is extremely slim; probably about as good as my chances of winning the 100+ million dollar jackpot in the Mega-millions lottery this week. But really, this is something that will depend a lot on public perception and what's going on in the world at the time it happens. Though I think it's a safe bet that neither Assange nor Snowden would have a good time if they ended up in the U.S. again as things currently are. It would likely take a pardon, which our current president and the perennial likely candidates for that office are unlikely to give, for Snowden or Assange to ever enjoy themselves freely on U.S. soil. And that's not something that is going to happen as things currently are. Though there is slow growing awakening amongst the populace that it should (in large part due to the efforts of Assange, Snowden, and others like them).

 

 

You make some good points and I don't disagree with everything you are saying

 

But from my perspective Snowden should get a much worse sentence than Assange. He was an American citizen who truly betrayed his country and  the importance  of "secrecy" when he worked for the NSA

 

So if I was Snowden I would also be very worried about returning to the USA, he has good reasons.

 

Assange was never an American citizen and due to my lack of understanding of the USA legal system its unclear to me what he could be charged for?

Edited August 26, 2014 by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

Using 'conspiracy theorist' as a pejorative is about as sure a sign as there is of having a closed limited thinking mind filled with stuff dictated to you by others (aka: brainwashed).

 

The really ironic thing and best illustration given the subject matter is that if you'd talked about the things that Manning or Snowden revealed, prior to them being revealed, chances are you'd have been labelled a conspiracy theorist- despite them being correct.

[BruceVC]

 

Using 'conspiracy theorist' as a pejorative is about as sure a sign as there is of having a closed limited thinking mind filled with stuff dictated to you by others (aka: brainwashed).

 

The really ironic thing and best illustration given the subject matter is that if you'd talked about the things that Manning or Snowden revealed, prior to them being revealed, chances are you'd have been labelled a conspiracy theorist- despite them being correct.

 

 

But how does that change the fact that both men jeopardized the security of the USA?

 

How does it negate the fact that any country in the world would seek to prosecute anyone who did what Snowden and Assange did around confidential information?

[Chairchucker]

I checked Wikipedia (yes, yes, I know, but I don't see any other sources being cited so whatevs) and it reckons that actually there is a valid 'European Arrest Warrant' out for Assange. Apparently on the Swedish side of things, the reason there hasn't been a Swedish arrest warrant (but there has been a European one apparently, so I don't know what's going on there) is that they actually can't do that until after he's been questioned.

 

One account I heard of at least one of his sexual encounters is that the young lady he was with checked if he had a condom, he didn't, and she was like 'sorry, no glove no love,' and he went ahead and had sex with her anyway, which fits the legal definition of rape in a lot of countries, not just Sweden. He is of course entitled to the presumption of innocence until being proven guilty, but given that he has not seen fit to permit these two ladies their day in court so far, some people might make their own conclusions, and their conclusions might, hypothetically, be that he is a self important narcissist hiding behind the idea that Sweden would extradite him to the US (whereas the UK wouldn't apparently, because the UK are famously less close with the US than Sweden is I guess is the theory here, I'm not quite as up to date on international politics as I could be) to wait out the duration of the statute of limitations.

[Hurlshort]

Assange is too high profile to just get quietly locked away.

 

Also Manning and Snowden are not good comparisons.  They were both working for the US military when they gathered their intelligence.  The circumstances are entirely different.  

[BruceVC]

I checked Wikipedia (yes, yes, I know, but I don't see any other sources being cited so whatevs) and it reckons that actually there is a valid 'European Arrest Warrant' out for Assange. Apparently on the Swedish side of things, the reason there hasn't been a Swedish arrest warrant (but there has been a European one apparently, so I don't know what's going on there) is that they actually can't do that until after he's been questioned.

 

One account I heard of at least one of his sexual encounters is that the young lady he was with checked if he had a condom, he didn't, and she was like 'sorry, no glove no love,' and he went ahead and had sex with her anyway, which fits the legal definition of rape in a lot of countries, not just Sweden. He is of course entitled to the presumption of innocence until being proven guilty, but given that he has not seen fit to permit these two ladies their day in court so far, some people might make their own conclusions, and their conclusions might, hypothetically, be that he is a self important narcissist hiding behind the idea that Sweden would extradite him to the US (whereas the UK wouldn't apparently, because the UK are famously less close with the US than Sweden is I guess is the theory here, I'm not quite as up to date on international politics as I could be) to wait out the duration of the statute of limitations.

 

Excellent post, I particularly like the one definition of Assange which I think is particularly relevant

 

"self important narcissist"

 

Also as you mentioned  if the USA really wanted to extradite him so badly wouldn't they just request it through the UK where they do this type of thing fairly regularly?

 

Maybe someone can explain that one

Edited August 26, 2014 by BruceVC

[kgambit]

Assange is too high profile to just get quietly locked away.

 

Also Manning and Snowden are not good comparisons.  They were both working for the US military when they gathered their intelligence.  The circumstances are entirely different.  

 

Not entirely different.  Actually at least one of the charges filed against Manning (and a similar charge filed against Snowden) could be used against Assange.

 

PFC Manning was charged under the Uniform code of military Justice and tried in an Article 32 hearing.  Here's the actual charge sheet:

 

http://fas.org/irp/news/2010/07/manning070510.pdf

 

Notice that in the charge sheet  (VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 134) against Manning the UCMJ Charge 2 specification 1 refers to a violation of 18 USC 793(e).  That's almost identical to one of the charges against Snowden who was charged under Title 18 USC 793 (d) - the only difference in those charges is that section (d) applies to people who were legally authorized to have possession of  documents and section (e) applies to those people who were not authorized to have possession of them.  The actual crime occurs when the person  in possession of the documents "willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it [documents/information]

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-complaint-unsealed-93181.html

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

 

That section of the USC is actually encompassed in the Espionage Act of 1917.  It's part of US Code and not just the UCMJ which overlaps with USC.

 

So it's a fine distinction but if you read the pertinent section, 18USC793(e) is likely to be the basis for at least one charge against Assange as well as paragraphs a and c as well.   

 

The charge under 18 USC641 related to the theft or conveyance of government property (which were applied to both Manning and Snowden) might apply to Assange. 

 

There are a myriad of other legal issues beyond this. 

 

I wish someone could explain the extradition quagmire to me.  I've read a number of articles that claim that the UK home office has final say on Assange's extradition to both the US and the UK.  It's somehow related to EU law.  And if I read the articles correctly, the situation changes if Assange is extradicted to Sweden and subsequently acquitted in a sexual assault trial.  Wish I could find that link again. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by kgambit

[kgambit]

Oops.  That should have read "final say on Assange's extradition to both the US and Sweden"

Edited August 26, 2014 by kgambit

[Nepenthe]

This is prolly relevant to some of the quirks, though I know for certain that people have been EAW'd for an investigation (though they'd been imprisoned in absentia)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant

[BruceVC]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/05/465681231/julian-assange-is-being-arbitrarily-held-un-group-says?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr

 

So the  UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention  ( who they by the way  )  has made the disappointing ruling that Assange has been " has been "arbitrarily detained" by Sweden and the U.K., a UN panel has ruled, adding that Assange should be freed and compensated for his treatment." 

 

They don't seem to carry any legal authority  to enforce this ruling but I reject this whole " arbitrarily detained " ...he chose to break the conditions of his bail and hide in the Ecudorian embassy...he can leave anytime he wants, he should..he should just go for a nice long walk