Julian Assange: the Untold Story of an Epic Struggle for Jus

[seremtan]

yeah i know this story is old as balls and everyone's pretty much forgotten about it, but John Pilger has written a concise summary of the entire Assange fiasco, brought right up to date and well worth reading:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/31/ ... r-justice/

i think the mainstream media's coverage of this has been a good example of what Philip Mirowski called "pumping noise into the marketplace of ideas" - confusing people not so much with outright lies but rather by making misleading claims that can, if necessary, be backtracked on: bracketing together Assange and rape over and over again (similar to the way Saddam and al-Qaida were constantly bracketed by the Bush Administration in the run-up to the Iraq invasion) to the point where some useful idiots in the media will turn the story into some kind of feminist narrative about 'Assange the rapist' being 'protected' by the patriarchy (for example)

p.s.

[spoiler]keep an eye out on 20 August[/spoiler]

[Eraser]

Jus d'orange or jus de pommes?

[Eraser]

Jus d'assange I bet

[Whiskey 7]

I am still trying to work out if he is a hero or villain

[losCHUNK]

I am still trying to work out if he is a hero or villain

Well, he's wanted so he can answer to allegations made against him for rape - which he claims to be fabricated. Upon returning to his home country (Sweden) where the allegations were made he believes that he will be extradited to the US for releasing secret documents that would prolly mean a long time in prison or even worse - death. He believes this is why the claims of rape were fabricated, so the USA could arrest him for his crimes. The documents in question I believe are from the Iraq and Afghan war, do you remember the story about a helicopter crew shooting civilians during one of those wars ?, that was released on his site.

I don't understand his claims as Britain also has an extradition treaty to the US. If the US wanted him that bad they could've just phoned the Brits up without giving him prior warning, or just waited for him to return home. Also the EU has a human rights law that is meant to prevent people from being extradited to a country where h could face the death penalty.

I'm not a big fan about how he released the documents though, he was aware of the dangers he faced by including specific names of people and (supposedly) endangering their lives. The document was so large that he could'nt do it on his own so sought help in censoring the names of individuals, he had no luck so released the documents anyway.

Either way, he's a bit of a wanker but I think that's the jist of it, I havn't paid much attention to it all in a long time but I would'nt be surprised if he was telling the truth, I just find it rather odd because of what I mentioned.

[Eraser]

From what I understood, the sex he had was consensual but there was something about a torn condom or the refusal to use a condom, and apparently that's seen as rape in Sweden.

[Mat Linnett]

Psst, Chunk; his home country's Australia.
Also, read the article. It explains everything you don't understand (such as why the UK can't extradite him).
Sure, it reads a little like Cold War era Communist propaganda at points, but overall it's a good summation of the story so far.

[Eraser]

I am still trying to work out if he is a hero or villain

Well, he's wanted so he can answer to allegations made against him for rape - which he claims to be fabricated. Upon returning to his home country (Sweden) where the allegations were made he believes that he will be extradited to the US for releasing secret documents that would prolly mean a long time in prison or even worse - death. He believes this is why the claims of rape were fabricated, so the USA could arrest him for his crimes. The documents in question I believe are from the Iraq and Afghan war, do you remember the story about a helicopter crew shooting civilians during one of those wars ?, that was released on his site.

I don't understand his claims as Britain also has an extradition treaty to the US. If the US wanted him that bad they could've just phoned the Brits up without giving him prior warning, or just waited for him to return home. Also the EU has a human rights law that is meant to prevent people from being extradited to a country where h could face the death penalty.

He's not going to trial over the rape allegations because there is no justice to be had there. The allegations were made up, not by the two women but by the police/government. It's so painfully clear it's a setup that he won't bite. Read the article it outlines the situation regarding Sweden and its prosecutor.

[losCHUNK]

I did read and it's full of more wind than mainstream media.

He could've been extradited from the UK n all and it would've been easier

[seremtan]

looks like more noise was pumped into the marketplace than i thought

watch and learn, chumps. this is how propaganda works in the 21st century. outright lies are soooo last millennium

[losCHUNK]

Enlighten me ?

From my understanding the only thing blocking assanges extradition to the US from the UK (if the US were to file for extradition) is the Swedish investigation

[Mat Linnett]

And you said you read the article
It quite clearly states that he's a guest of the embassy of Ecuador, and the UK government can't extract him from there without causing an international incident.

[losCHUNK]

Obviously I meant when they detained him the 1st time, or before Sweden and the US apparently colluded, or as soon as he stepped foot in the UK or as soon as he leaves the door.

If the US wanted him they didnt / don't need Swedens help, especially with our extradition treaty with the US. I thought I made that apparent in my 1st post.

And if the Swedish charges do disapear and he does walk free he'll claim victory when really its cos the US never attempted extradition because *reasons*

[losCHUNK]

Also the allegation isn't only about the use of a condom, it's also about shagging someone when they're asleep.

[seremtan]

again, lack of attention to the article has let you down. at no point has the US made an extradition request to the UK government - for the reason that, in spite of all their efforts, they still haven't been able to concoct a case that will stand up in a courtroom (i.e. one that can fend off such awkward questions as "why are you prosecuting this guy, but not the New York Times, the Guardian or Der Spiegel - the people who actually printed the cables?")

[losCHUNK]

When did the US request their extradition ?, no extradition request has ever been turned down by the uk at the request of the US. As I said it would be easier for us to extradite than the swedes and there are mitigating factors when compared to those but a reasonable person would summise that like those people you mentioned the US couldn't bring a credible case, wether in the UK or Sweden and fall under the same scrutiny as the European court for human rights.

[Eraser]

When did the US request their extradition ?

Reading comprehension fail?
Like seremtan said, the US never requested extradition.

Your assumption that it would be easier for the US to extradite Assange from the UK than Sweden is just that: an assumption. Since you probably have no fucking clue what you're talking about, it will never be anything more than that.

[losCHUNK]

Which is why I said *a reasonable person would summise the US can't bring a credible case*. Meaning that like the Guardian they can't do jack shit otherwise, like with the Guardian they would've done it already. As I said there's no need to use Sweden as a proxy and if they did there's no reason to fabricate a rape case.

What I do know is under our extradition that no comparisons would be made to the Guardian or Der Spiegel or NYT because no case has been brought against them, it's not upto the UK to determine their guilt, they just determine if he's potentially infringed upon the law in another country (Human Rights aside). The UK cannot / will not prosecute them because it's Americas job to do so and there's no arguing that. That's also the reason why Assange cannot claim his innocence in our country. It would only become relevant if the US did request extradition orders for them which as you and Semen pointed out - they did not.

It is a fact as clear as day that if the USA had grounds to extradite Assange all they had to do was ask for extradition from both our countries between the moment he leaked those documents and now and yes it would be easier because Sweden would still be required to ask for the UKs permission and in the UK you do not need prima facie.

And you don't know shit either, you don't know anymore about the case than I do, which is what's been touted around by media outlets MR *it's cos he never used a condom* - that very line was bandied about by Assanges defence and shot down twice in the UK courts. It's kinda funny cos even though a shit ton of evidence pointed to that Malaysian plane being shot down by the Russians people on here wanted to await the outcome of the investigation because we aren't aware of all the facts. This is similar, all we get is what's given to us by both sides of the case.

The only thing I said wrong was that no extradition has been turned down at the request of the US to UK. There's been a handful at most due to things like health or jurisdiction.

[mrd]

There's a lot of noise in this thread. It's fairly obvious that the US just wants to get their hands on this guy and throw him in a dark hole until he dies or hangs himself, or possibly just kill him themselves, most likely with some healthy amounts of torture thrown in there, because why not. Since when does the UK have a 3-year long cordon around a fucking embassy because of rape allegations? Go to hell. A short investigatory look at the US' history in aiding and abetting mass genocide in various countries, for the purpose of trifling in sovereign affairs in order to leverage power for a handful of reasons, will give ample evidence for the fact that they want this man and his sources found and routed. Don't forget folks -- the US runs the show here, whether you like it or not. Assange is revealing the dark underbelly of the US mechanism, ergo he must be wiped out.

[Eraser]

@red font guy: Correct, I'm no expert in the matter either, but I don't go spinning my own theories like some know-it-all. I only echo what I read in the article. That's the major difference here.

I'm also not sure what point you are trying to make. Do you believe that the US isn't interested on getting their hands on Assange, or that they are but can't, or that the whole Swedish rape case is bonafide and truly only about him allegedly raping women?

[losCHUNK]

@red font guy: Correct, I'm no expert in the matter either, but I don't go spinning my own theories like some know-it-all. I only echo what I read in the article. That's the major difference here.

I'm also not sure what point you are trying to make. Do you believe that the US isn't interested on getting their hands on Assange, or that they are but can't, or that the whole Swedish rape case is bonafide and truly only about him allegedly raping women?

That's all this is, article included, a theory blown up by the media with enough spin to make the dead dizzy.

I only stuck to what is obvious, in that his extradition to the US would've been simpler without involving Sweden or a case of rape if that was the intention. I made no comment on his guilt or the intentions of the US.

His extradition to Sweden has been found lawful by all levels of the UK court and it is believed that he would receive a fair trial. The Swedish courts have also upheld the decision to prosecute at all levels regardless of the inefficiencies of the prosecutions case. I would oppose any attempt to extradite Assange from anywhere to the US however as I had already pointed out, the likelihood of this happening is the same in the UK as it is in Sweden and he will also be protected from the death sentence by the EU court if this is the case. I believe the US want him so bad it burns but are stuck in their own legal nightmare, which is why no extradition has been requested.

My point is wooly but considering what I had mentioned, particularly with extradition to the US from either country being equal - I believe that Assange should answer to the allegations in Sweden. I have no strong feelings towards his innocence or guilt but a lot of people automatically presume that he is innocent. I've never known anything like this that includes common folk to politicians to mainstream media. This man has received more support, advice and legal counsel from (presumably) some of the best lawyers and failed to make any headway, this man has already received more support than any other person should he be placed in the same predicament.

and to Semen - I can't recall a case where a persons jumped bail, still managed to legally stay inside the country and have his whereabouts known to the world.

[seremtan]

His extradition to Sweden has been found lawful by all levels of the UK court...

The Assange case finally reached the UK Supreme Court in May 2012. In a judgement that upheld the EAW – whose rigid demands had left the courts almost no room for manoeuvre – the judges found that European prosecutors could issue extradition warrants in the UK without any judicial oversight, even though Parliament intended otherwise... However, the Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, made one mistake. He applied the Vienna Convention on treaty interpretation, allowing for state practice to override the letter of the law. As Assange’s barrister, Dinah Rose QC, pointed out, this did not apply to the EAW... The Supreme Court only recognised this crucial error when it dealt with another appeal against the EAW in November 2013. The Assange decision had been wrong, but it was too late to go back.

I can't recall a case where a persons jumped bail, still managed to legally stay inside the country and have his whereabouts known to the world.

well leaving aside that your point is based on what you personally can recall (which, unless you're a lawyer, probably isn't a lot), people who skip bail don't normally claim political asylum in another country's embassy

[losCHUNK]

Why doesn't the Vienna convention apply to Assange ?, 2 cases that are likely different from each other. Either way - it wouldn't affect the outcome as however it is interpreted the EAW has Judical oversight, at worst this is a case of mistaken procedure. This was in the news at the time n all (before 2013 like your article states) and Assanges barrister was given the opportunity to challenge the Vienna convention before proceedings began. The judges considered wether they should apply the Vienna convention or domestic law and decided by majority that the Vienna convention was the correct path. I can probably dig up an article from around the date of the supreme court ruling if you want ?

well leaving aside that your point is based on what you personally can recall (which, unless you're a lawyer, probably isn't a lot), people who skip bail don't normally claim political asylum in another country's embassy

Exactly.

[Eraser]

I thought the Vienna convention applies to diplomatic relations/persons?

Anyway, you're still kind of conflicting with yourself LosGunk. First you say that the US would've gotten their hands on Assange already if they wanted to (by extraditing him from the UK) yet you also say he should go to Sweden and face trial for the rape allegations because the US can't get him anyway. Which one is it?

[losCHUNK]

It does apply to rule of law also

And I can't see how that's contradicting myself. I've said that they can't extradite him from Sweden anymore than they can from the UK, that's been part of my point from post 1, so he can go back and face charges - As if the US can bring a credible case in Sweden as Assange claims then they can also bring a credible case in the UK. If I said the US could get him if they wanted him, due to my stance from post 1 I thought it would be obvious that I meant if they brought forward a credible case to Sweden and/or the UK as assuming anything else would be illegal.

.

It is a fact as clear as day that if the USA had grounds to extradite Assange all they had to do was ask for extradition from both our countries between the moment he leaked those documents and now and yes it would be easier because Sweden would still be required to ask for the UKs permission and in the UK you do not need prima facie.